This is a modern-English version of The History of England, from the Accession of James II — Volume 1, originally written by Macaulay, Thomas Babington Macaulay, Baron. It has been thoroughly updated, including changes to sentence structure, words, spelling, and grammar—to ensure clarity for contemporary readers, while preserving the original spirit and nuance. If you click on a paragraph, you will see the original text that we modified, and you can toggle between the two versions.

Scroll to the bottom of this page and you will find a free ePUB download link for this book.





THE HISTORY OF ENGLAND
FROM THE ACCESSION OF JAMES II,

VOLUME 1 (of 5)



by Thomas Babington Macaulay.



Philadelphia
Porter & Coates






VOL. I.










Contents










DETAILED CONTENTS

CHAPTER I.

CHAPTER I.
Introduction
Britain under the Romans
Britain under the Saxons
Conversion of the Saxons to Christianity
Danish Invasions; The Normans
The Norman Conquest
Separation of England and Normandy
Amalgamation of Races
English Conquests on the Continent
Wars of the Roses
Extinction of Villenage
Beneficial Operation of the Roman Catholic Religion
The early English Polity often misrepresented, and why?
Nature of the Limited Monarchies of the Middle Ages
Prerogatives of the early English Kings
Limitations of the Prerogative
Resistance an ordinary Check on Tyranny in the Middle Ages
Peculiar Character of the English Aristocracy
Government of the Tudors
Limited Monarchies of the Middle Ages generally turned into Absolute Monarchies
The English Monarchy a singular Exception
The Reformation and its Effects
Origin of the Church of England
Her peculiar Character
Relation in which she stood to the Crown
The Puritans
Their Republican Spirit
No systematic parliamentary Opposition offered to the Government of Elizabeth
Question of the Monopolies
Scotland and Ireland become Parts of the same Empire with England
Diminution of the Importance of England after the Accession of James I
Doctrine of Divine Right
The Separation between the Church and the Puritans becomes wider
Accession and Character of Charles I
Tactics of the Opposition in the House of Commons
Petition of Right
Petition of Right violated; Character and Designs of Wentworth
Character of Laud
Star Chamber and High Commission
Ship-Money
Resistance to the Liturgy in Scotland
A Parliament called and dissolved
The Long Parliament
First Appearance of the Two great English Parties
The Remonstrance
Impeachment of the Five Members
Departure of Charles from London
Commencement of the Civil War
Successes of the Royalists
Rise of the Independents
Oliver Cromwell
Selfdenying Ordinance; Victory of the Parliament
Domination and Character of the Army
Rising against the Military Government suppressed
Proceedings against the King
His Execution
Subjugation of Ireland and Scotland
Expulsion of the Long Parliament
The Protectorate of Oliver Cromwell
Oliver succeeded by Richard
Fall of Richard and Revival of the Long Parliament
Second Expulsion of the Long Parliament
The Army of Scotland marches into England
Monk declares for a Free Parliament
General Election of 1660
The Restoration

CHAPTER II.

CHAPTER II.
Conduct of those who restored the House of Stuart unjustly censured
Abolition of Tenures by Knight Service; Disbandment of the Army
Disputes between the Roundheads and Cavaliers renewed
Religious Dissension
Unpopularity of the Puritans
Character of Charles II
Character of the Duke of York and Earl of Clarendon
General Election of 1661
Violence of the Cavaliers in the new Parliament
Persecution of the Puritans
Zeal of the Church for Hereditary Monarchy
Change in the Morals of the Community
Profligacy of Politicians
State of Scotland
State of Ireland
The Government become unpopular in England
War with the Dutch
Opposition in the House of Commons
Fall of Clarendon
State of European Politics, and Ascendancy of France
Character of Lewis XIV
The Triple Alliance
The Country Party
Connection between Charles II. and France
Views of Lewis with respect to England
Treaty of Dover
Nature of the English Cabinet
The Cabal
Shutting of the Exchequer
War with the United Provinces, and their extreme Danger
William, Prince of Orange
Meeting of the Parliament; Declaration of Indulgence
It is cancelled, and the Test Act passed
The Cabal dissolved
Peace with the United Provinces; Administration of Danby
Embarrassing Situation of the Country Party
Dealings of that Party with the French Embassy
Peace of Nimeguen
Violent Discontents in England
Fall of Danby; the Popish Plot
Violence of the new House of Commons
Temple's Plan of Government
Character of Halifax
Character of Sunderland
Prorogation of the Parliament; Habeas Corpus Act;
Second General Election of 1679
Popularity of Monmouth
Lawrence Hyde
Sidney Godolphin
Violence of Factions on the Subject of the Exclusion Bill
Names of Whig and Tory
Meeting of Parliament; The Exclusion Bill passes the Commons; \
Exclusion Bill rejected by the Lords
Execution of Stafford; General Election of 1681
Parliament held at Oxford, and dissolved
Tory Reaction
Persecution of the Whigs
Charter of the City confiscated; Whig Conspiracies
Detection of the Whig Conspiracies
Severity of the Government; Seizure of Charters
Influence of the Duke of York
He is opposed by Halifax
Lord Guildford
Policy of Lewis
State of Factions in the Court of Charles at the time of his Death

CHAPTER III.

CHAPTER III.
Great Change in the State of England since 1685
Population of England in 1685
Increase of Population greater in the North than in the South
Revenue in 1685
Military System
The Navy
The Ordnance
Noneffective Charge; Charge of Civil Government
Great Gains of Ministers and Courtiers
State of Agriculture
Mineral Wealth of the Country
Increase of Rent
The Country Gentlemen
The Clergy
The Yeomanry; Growth of the Towns; Bristol
Norwich
Other Country Towns
Manchester; Leeds; Sheffield
Birmingham
Liverpool
Watering-places; Cheltenham; Brighton; Buxton; Tunbridge Wells
Bath
London
The City
Fashionable Part of the Capital
Lighting of London
Police of London
Whitefriars; The Court
The Coffee Houses
Difficulty of Travelling
Badness of the Roads
Stage Coaches
Highwaymen
Inns
Post Office
Newspapers
News-letters
The Observator
Scarcity of Books in Country Places; Female Education
Literary Attainments of Gentlemen
Influence of French Literature
Immorality of the Polite Literature of England
State of Science in England
State of the Fine Arts
State of the Common People; Agricultural Wages
Wages of Manufacturers
Labour of Children in Factories
Wages of different Classes of Artisans
Number of Paupers
Benefits derived by the Common People from the Progress of
Civilisation
Delusion which leads Men to overrate the Happiness of preceding Generations

CHAPTER IV.

CHAPTER IV.
Death of Charles II
Suspicions of Poison
Speech of James II. to the Privy Council
James proclaimed
State of the Administration
New Arrangements
Sir George Jeffreys
The Revenue collected without an Act of Parliament
A Parliament called
Transactions between James and the French King
Churchill sent Ambassador to France; His History
Feelings of the Continental Governments towards England
Policy of the Court of Rome
Struggle in the Mind of James; Fluctuations in his Policy
Public Celebration of the Roman Catholic Rites in the Palace
His Coronation
Enthusiasm of the Tories; Addresses
The Elections
Proceedings against Oates
Proceedings against Dangerfield
Proceedings against Baxter
Meeting of the Parliament of Scotland
Feeling of James towards the Puritans
Cruel Treatment of the Scotch Covenanters
Feeling of James towards the Quakers
William Penn
Peculiar Favour shown to Roman Catholics and Quakers
Meeting of the English Parliament; Trevor chosen Speaker;
Character of Seymour
The King's Speech to the Parliament
Debate in the Commons; Speech of Seymour
The Revenue voted; Proceedings of the Commons concerning Religion
Additional Taxes voted; Sir Dudley North
Proceedings of the Lords
Bill for reversing the Attainder of Stafford

CHAPTER V.

Whig Refugees on the Continent
Their Correspondents in England
Characters of the leading Refugees; Ayloffe; Wade
Goodenough; Rumbold
Lord Grey
Monmouth
Ferguson
Scotch Refugees; Earl of Argyle
Sir Patrick Hume; Sir John Cochrane; Fletcher of Saltoun
Unreasonable Conduct of the Scotch Refugees
Arrangement for an Attempt on England and Scotland
John Locke
Preparations made by Government for the Defence of Scotland
Conversation of James with the Dutch Ambassadors;
Ineffectual Attempts to prevent Argyle from sailing
Departure of Argyle from Holland; He lands in Scotland
His Disputes with his Followers
Temper of the Scotch Nation
Argyle's Forces dispersed
Argyle a Prisoner
His Execution.
Execution of Rumbold
Death of Ayloffe
Devastation of Argyleshire
Ineffectual Attempts to prevent Monmouth from leaving Holland
His Arrival at Lyme
His Declaration
His Popularity in the West of England
Encounter of the Rebels with the Militia at Bridport
Encounter of the Rebels with the Militia at Axminster;
News of the Rebellion carried to London;
Loyalty of the Parliament
Reception of Monmouth at Taunton
He takes the Title of King
His Reception at Bridgewater
Preparations of the Government to oppose him
His Design on Bristol
He relinquishes that Design
Skirmish at Philip's Norton; Despondence of Monmouth
He returns to Bridgewater; The Royal Army encamps at Sedgemoor
Battle of Sedgemoor
Pursuit of the Rebels
Military Executions; Flight of Monmouth
His Capture
His Letter to the King; He is carried to London
His Interview with the King
His Execution
His Memory cherished by the Common People
Cruelties of the Soldiers in the West; Kirke
Jeffreys sets out on the Western Circuit
Trial of Alice Lisle
The Bloody Assizes
Abraham Holmes
Christopher Battiseombe; The Hewlings
Punishment of Tutchin
Rebels Transported
Confiscation and Extortion
Rapacity of the Queen and her Ladies
Grey; Cochrane; Storey
Wade, Goodenough, and Ferguson
Jeffreys made Lord Chancellor
Trial and Execution of Cornish
Trials and Executions of Fernley and Elizabeth Gaunt
Trial and Execution of Bateman
Persecution of the Protestant Dissenters






HISTORY OF ENGLAND.





CHAPTER I.

I PURPOSE to write the history of England from the accession of King James the Second down to a time which is within the memory of men still living. I shall recount the errors which, in a few months, alienated a loyal gentry and priesthood from the House of Stuart. I shall trace the course of that revolution which terminated the long struggle between our sovereigns and their parliaments, and bound up together the rights of the people and the title of the reigning dynasty. I shall relate how the new settlement was, during many troubled years, successfully defended against foreign and domestic enemies; how, under that settlement, the authority of law and the security of property were found to be compatible with a liberty of discussion and of individual action never before known; how, from the auspicious union of order and freedom, sprang a prosperity of which the annals of human affairs had furnished no example; how our country, from a state of ignominious vassalage, rapidly rose to the place of umpire among European powers; how her opulence and her martial glory grew together; how, by wise and resolute good faith, was gradually established a public credit fruitful of marvels which to the statesmen of any former age would have seemed incredible; how a gigantic commerce gave birth to a maritime power, compared with which every other maritime power, ancient or modern, sinks into insignificance; how Scotland, after ages of enmity, was at length united to England, not merely by legal bonds, but by indissoluble ties of interest and affection; how, in America, the British colonies rapidly became far mightier and wealthier than the realms which Cortes and Pizarro had added to the dominions of Charles the Fifth; how in Asia, British adventurers founded an empire not less splendid and more durable than that of Alexander.

I plan to write the history of England from the time King James the Second came to power up to a period that people still remember. I will discuss the mistakes that, in a matter of months, drove loyal gentry and clergy away from the House of Stuart. I will outline the revolution that ended the long conflict between our rulers and their parliaments, connecting the rights of the people with the legitimacy of the ruling dynasty. I will share how the new arrangement was successfully defended against both foreign and domestic threats for many difficult years; how, under this arrangement, the authority of law and the security of property coexisted with an unprecedented freedom of discussion and individual action; how, from the promising blend of order and freedom, a level of prosperity had never seen before emerged; how our nation, rising rapidly from a state of disgraceful subservience, became a decisive player among European powers; how our wealth and military prestige grew together; how, through prudent and steadfast good faith, public credit was steadily established, yielding results that would have appeared unbelievable to the statesmen of earlier times; how an immense trade led to a maritime power so dominant that it overshadowed all others, past and present; how Scotland, after centuries of hostility, was ultimately joined to England, not just by legal means but by unbreakable bonds of interest and affection; how the British colonies in America quickly became far more powerful and prosperous than the territories added by Cortes and Pizarro to Charles the Fifth’s empire; and how in Asia, British adventurers created an empire that was not only more magnificent but also more enduring than that of Alexander.

Nor will it be less my duty faithfully to record disasters mingled with triumphs, and great national crimes and follies far more humiliating than any disaster. It will be seen that even what we justly account our chief blessings were not without alloy. It will be seen that the system which effectually secured our liberties against the encroachments of kingly power gave birth to a new class of abuses from which absolute monarchies are exempt. It will be seen that, in consequence partly of unwise interference, and partly of unwise neglect, the increase of wealth and the extension of trade produced, together with immense good, some evils from which poor and rude societies are free. It will be seen how, in two important dependencies of the crown, wrong was followed by just retribution; how imprudence and obstinacy broke the ties which bound the North American colonies to the parent state; how Ireland, cursed by the domination of race over race, and of religion over religion, remained indeed a member of the empire, but a withered and distorted member, adding no strength to the body politic, and reproachfully pointed at by all who feared or envied the greatness of England.

I will also have the responsibility to accurately document disasters mixed with victories, and significant national crimes and foolishness that are far more embarrassing than any disaster. It will be clear that even what we rightfully consider our greatest blessings were not without flaws. It will show that the system that effectively protected our freedoms from the overreach of monarchy led to a new set of abuses not faced by absolute monarchies. It will become evident that, partly due to poor interference and partly due to neglect, the growth of wealth and the expansion of trade brought about some problems, alongside immense benefits, which less developed societies do not have. It will illustrate how, in two major territories of the crown, wrongdoings were met with appropriate punishment; how rashness and stubbornness severed the connections that linked the North American colonies to the mother country; and how Ireland, plagued by the oppression of one race over another and by religious conflict, remained a part of the empire, but as a weakened and distorted part, contributing no strength to the political body and looked down upon by all who felt threatened or envious of England's greatness.

Yet, unless I greatly deceive myself, the general effect of this chequered narrative will be to excite thankfulness in all religious minds, and hope in the breasts of all patriots. For the history of our country during the last hundred and sixty years is eminently the history of physical, of moral, and of intellectual improvement. Those who compare the age on which their lot has fallen with a golden age which exists only in their imagination may talk of degeneracy and decay: but no man who is correctly informed as to the past will be disposed to take a morose or desponding view of the present.

Yet, unless I’m completely mistaken, the overall impact of this varied story will inspire gratitude in all religious individuals and hope in the hearts of all patriots. The history of our country over the last one hundred sixty years is clearly a story of physical, moral, and intellectual progress. Those who compare the time they live in to a golden age that exists only in their minds might speak of decline and decay: but no one who has a clear understanding of the past will be inclined to have a gloomy or pessimistic view of the present.

I should very imperfectly execute the task which I have undertaken if I were merely to treat of battles and sieges, of the rise and fall of administrations, of intrigues in the palace, and of debates in the parliament. It will be my endeavour to relate the history of the people as well as the history of the government, to trace the progress of useful and ornamental arts, to describe the rise of religious sects and the changes of literary taste, to portray the manners of successive generations and not to pass by with neglect even the revolutions which have taken place in dress, furniture, repasts, and public amusements. I shall cheerfully bear the reproach of having descended below the dignity of history, if I can succeed in placing before the English of the nineteenth century a true picture of the life of their ancestors.

I would do a poor job of the task I’ve taken on if I only focused on battles and sieges, the rise and fall of governments, palace intrigues, and parliamentary debates. My goal is to tell the story of the people as well as the government, to track the development of useful and decorative arts, to discuss the emergence of different religious groups and shifts in literary taste, and to depict the customs of different generations. I won’t ignore the changes in clothing, furniture, food, and public entertainment. I’m willing to accept the criticism that I’m not upholding the traditional dignity of history, as long as I can present a true image of the lives of their ancestors to the English of the nineteenth century.

The events which I propose to relate form only a single act of a great and eventful drama extending through ages, and must be very imperfectly understood unless the plot of the preceding acts be well known. I shall therefore introduce my narrative by a slight sketch of the history of our country from the earliest times. I shall pass very rapidly over many centuries: but I shall dwell at some length on the vicissitudes of that contest which the administration of King James the Second brought to a decisive crisis. 1

The events I’m about to share are just one part of a long and impactful story that spans ages, and they can only be truly understood if you’re familiar with the earlier chapters. So, I’ll kick off my narrative with a brief overview of our country's history from the beginning. I’ll move quickly through many centuries but will spend some time discussing the ups and downs of the conflict that reached a turning point during King James the Second's reign. 1

Nothing in the early existence of Britain indicated the greatness which she was destined to attain. Her inhabitants when first they became known to the Tyrian mariners, were little superior to the natives of the Sandwich Islands. She was subjugated by the Roman arms; but she received only a faint tincture of Roman arts and letters. Of the western provinces which obeyed the Caesars, she was the last that was conquered, and the first that was flung away. No magnificent remains of Latin porches and aqueducts are to be found in Britain. No writer of British birth is reckoned among the masters of Latin poetry and eloquence. It is not probable that the islanders were at any time generally familiar with the tongue of their Italian rulers. From the Atlantic to the vicinity of the Rhine the Latin has, during many centuries, been predominant. It drove out the Celtic; it was not driven out by the Teutonic; and it is at this day the basis of the French, Spanish and Portuguese languages. In our island the Latin appears never to have superseded the old Gaelic speech, and could not stand its ground against the German.

Nothing in the early history of Britain suggested the greatness that she was destined to achieve. Her people, when first encountered by the Tyrian sailors, were little better than the natives of the Sandwich Islands. She was conquered by the Romans but only absorbed a slight influence of Roman arts and letters. Among the western provinces under the Caesars, she was the last to be conquered and the first to be abandoned. There are no grand remains of Roman porches and aqueducts in Britain. No British-born writer is considered among the masters of Latin poetry and eloquence. It's unlikely that the islanders were ever widely familiar with the language of their Italian rulers. From the Atlantic to near the Rhine, Latin has been dominant for many centuries. It replaced Celtic; it wasn't displaced by Germanic languages; and today it forms the basis of French, Spanish, and Portuguese. In our island, Latin never seems to have replaced the old Gaelic language and couldn't hold its own against German.

The scanty and superficial civilisation which the Britons had derived from their southern masters was effaced by the calamities of the fifth century. In the continental kingdoms into which the Roman empire was then dissolved, the conquerors learned much from the conquered race. In Britain the conquered race became as barbarous as the conquerors.

The limited and shallow civilization that the Britons got from their southern rulers was wiped out by the disasters of the fifth century. In the continental kingdoms that emerged after the fall of the Roman Empire, the conquerors learned a lot from the people they had conquered. In Britain, the conquered people became just as uncivilized as their conquerors.

All the chiefs who founded Teutonic dynasties in the continental provinces of the Roman empire, Alaric, Theodoric, Clovis, Alboin, were zealous Christians. The followers of Ida and Cerdic, on the other hand, brought to their settlements in Britain all the superstitions of the Elbe. While the German princes who reigned at Paris, Toledo, Arles, and Ravenna listened with reverence to the instructions of bishops, adored the relics of martyrs, and took part eagerly in disputes touching the Nicene theology, the rulers of Wessex and Mercia were still performing savage rites in the temples of Thor and Woden.

All the leaders who established Teutonic dynasties in the continental provinces of the Roman Empire—Alaric, Theodoric, Clovis, Alboin—were devoted Christians. In contrast, the followers of Ida and Cerdic brought all the superstitions of the Elbe with them to their settlements in Britain. While the German princes ruling in Paris, Toledo, Arles, and Ravenna listened respectfully to the teachings of bishops, honored the relics of martyrs, and actively participated in debates over Nicene theology, the rulers of Wessex and Mercia were still carrying out brutal rituals in the temples of Thor and Woden.

The continental kingdoms which had risen on the ruins of the Western Empire kept up some intercourse with those eastern provinces where the ancient civilisation, though slowly fading away under the influence of misgovernment, might still astonish and instruct barbarians, where the court still exhibited the splendour of Diocletian and Constantine, where the public buildings were still adorned with the sculptures of Polycletus and the paintings of Apelles, and where laborious pedants, themselves destitute of taste, sense, and spirit, could still read and interpret the masterpieces of Sophocles, of Demosthenes, and of Plato. From this communion Britain was cut off. Her shores were, to the polished race which dwelt by the Bosphorus, objects of a mysterious horror, such as that with which the Ionians of the age of Homer had regarded the Straits of Scylla and the city of the Laestrygonian cannibals. There was one province of our island in which, as Procopius had been told, the ground was covered with serpents, and the air was such that no man could inhale it and live. To this desolate region the spirits of the departed were ferried over from the land of the Franks at midnight. A strange race of fishermen performed the ghastly office. The speech of the dead was distinctly heard by the boatmen, their weight made the keel sink deep in the water; but their forms were invisible to mortal eye. Such were the marvels which an able historian, the contemporary of Belisarius, of Simplicius, and of Tribonian, gravely related in the rich and polite Constantinople, touching the country in which the founder of Constantinople had assumed the imperial purple. Concerning all the other provinces of the Western Empire we have continuous information. It is only in Britain that an age of fable completely separates two ages of truth. Odoacer and Totila, Euric and Thrasimund, Clovis, Fredegunda, and Brunechild, are historical men and women. But Hengist and Horsa, Vortigern and Rowena, Arthur and Mordred are mythical persons, whose very existence may be questioned, and whose adventures must be classed with those of Hercules and Romulus.

The continental kingdoms that arose from the remains of the Western Empire maintained some contact with those eastern provinces where the ancient civilization, although gradually fading due to poor governance, could still amaze and teach barbarians. This was where the court still displayed the grandeur of Diocletian and Constantine, where public buildings were still decorated with sculptures by Polycletus and paintings by Apelles, and where diligent scholars, lacking in taste, sense, and spirit, could still read and interpret the classics of Sophocles, Demosthenes, and Plato. Britain, however, was cut off from this connection. Its shores were viewed with mysterious fear by the refined people living by the Bosphorus, akin to how the Ionians in Homer's time regarded Scylla's Straits and the city of the flesh-eating Laestrygonians. There was one part of our island where, as Procopius was told, the ground was covered with snakes, and the air was so toxic that no man could breathe it and survive. In this desolate area, the spirits of the deceased were ferried over from Frankish lands at midnight. A strange group of fishermen carried out this eerie task. The words of the dead were clearly heard by the boatmen, their presence heavy enough to sink the vessel deep in the water; yet their shapes were invisible to human eyes. These were the wonders that a skilled historian, a contemporary of Belisarius, Simplicius, and Tribonian, earnestly reported in the sophisticated Constantinople, concerning the land where the founder of Constantinople donned the imperial purple. Regarding all the other provinces of the Western Empire, we have continuous information. It is only in Britain that a mythical age completely divides two ages of truth. Odoacer and Totila, Euric and Thrasimund, Clovis, Fredegunda, and Brunechild are historical figures. But Hengist and Horsa, Vortigern and Rowena, Arthur and Mordred are mythical characters, whose very existence can be doubted, and whose adventures must be placed alongside those of Hercules and Romulus.

At length the darkness begins to break; and the country which had been lost to view as Britain reappears as England. The conversion of the Saxon colonists to Christianity was the first of a long series of salutary revolutions. It is true that the Church had been deeply corrupted both by that superstition and by that philosophy against which she had long contended, and over which she had at last triumphed. She had given a too easy admission to doctrines borrowed from the ancient schools, and to rites borrowed from the ancient temples. Roman policy and Gothic ignorance, Grecian ingenuity and Syrian asceticism, had contributed to deprave her. Yet she retained enough of the sublime theology and benevolent morality of her earlier days to elevate many intellects, and to purify many hearts. Some things also which at a later period were justly regarded as among her chief blemishes were, in the seventh century, and long afterwards, among her chief merits. That the sacerdotal order should encroach on the functions of the civil magistrate would, in our time, be a great evil. But that which in an age of good government is an evil may, in an ago of grossly bad government, be a blessing. It is better that mankind should be governed by wise laws well administered, and by an enlightened public opinion, than by priestcraft: but it is better that men should be governed by priestcraft than by brute violence, by such a prelate as Dunstan than by such a warrior as Penda. A society sunk in ignorance, and ruled by mere physical force, has great reason to rejoice when a class, of which the influence is intellectual and moral, rises to ascendancy. Such a class will doubtless abuse its power: but mental power, even when abused, is still a nobler and better power than that which consists merely in corporeal strength. We read in our Saxon chronicles of tyrants, who, when at the height of greatness, were smitten with remorse, who abhorred the pleasures and dignities which they had purchased by guilt, who abdicated their crowns, and who sought to atone for their offences by cruel penances and incessant prayers. These stories have drawn forth bitter expressions of contempt from some writers who, while they boasted of liberality, were in truth as narrow-minded as any monk of the dark ages, and whose habit was to apply to all events in the history of the world the standard received in the Parisian society of the eighteenth century. Yet surely a system which, however deformed by superstition, introduced strong moral restraints into communities previously governed only by vigour of muscle and by audacity of spirit, a system which taught the fiercest and mightiest ruler that he was, like his meanest bondman, a responsible being, might have seemed to deserve a more respectful mention from philosophers and philanthropists.

Eventually, the darkness starts to fade, and the land that had been hidden reemerges as England. The conversion of the Saxon settlers to Christianity marked the beginning of a long series of positive changes. It's true that the Church had become seriously corrupted by both superstition and the philosophy it had fought against for a long time, which it ultimately overcame. It had too easily accepted teachings from ancient schools and rituals from ancient temples. Roman policies and Gothic ignorance, along with Grecian cleverness and Syrian ascetic practices, had all contributed to its decline. Still, it managed to retain enough of the profound theology and compassion from its earlier days to uplift many minds and purify many hearts. Some issues that would later be seen as significant flaws were, in the seventh century and for a long time after, actually regarded as major positives. The idea that the priesthood should intrude on the duties of civil authorities would be seen as a major problem today. However, what is a problem in an era of good governance may, in a time of terrible governance, be a blessing. It’s preferable for people to be governed by wise laws that are properly enforced and by informed public opinion rather than by religious manipulation; but it’s better to be ruled by religious leaders than by sheer brutality, by someone like Dunstan rather than a warrior like Penda. A society steeped in ignorance and ruled by brute force has good reason to celebrate when an influential class emerges that is based on intellect and morality. Such a class will undoubtedly misuse its power, but intellectual power, even when misused, is still a nobler and better force than mere physical strength. Our Saxon chronicles tell of tyrants who, at the peak of their power, were struck by guilt, who detested the pleasures and honors gained through wrongdoing, who abdicated their thrones, and who sought to make amends through severe penance and constant prayers. These tales have drawn scorn from some writers who, while claiming to be open-minded, were actually as narrow-minded as any monk from the dark ages, using the societal standards of eighteenth-century Paris to judge all historical events. Yet, surely a system that, despite being marred by superstition, introduced strong moral guidelines to communities previously governed only by physical strength and boldness—which taught even the fiercest and most powerful ruler that he was, like his lowest servant, a being with responsibilities—deserves a more respectable acknowledgment from philosophers and humanitarians.

The same observations will apply to the contempt with which, in the last century, it was fashionable to speak of the pilgrimages, the sanctuaries, the crusades, and the monastic institutions of the middle ages. In times when men were scarcely ever induced to travel by liberal curiosity, or by the pursuit of gain, it was better that the rude inhabitant of the North should visit Italy and the East as a pilgrim, than that he should never see anything but those squalid cabins and uncleared woods amidst which he was born. In times when life and when female honour were exposed to daily risk from tyrants and marauders, it was better that the precinct of a shrine should be regarded with an irrational awe, than that there should be no refuge inaccessible to cruelty and licentiousness. In times when statesmen were incapable of forming extensive political combinations, it was better that the Christian nations should be roused and united for the recovery of the Holy Sepulchre, than that they should, one by one, be overwhelmed by the Mahometan power. Whatever reproach may, at a later period, have been justly thrown on the indolence and luxury of religious orders, it was surely good that, in an age of ignorance and violence, there should be quiet cloisters and gardens, in which the arts of peace could be safely cultivated, in which gentle and contemplative natures could find an asylum, in which one brother could employ himself in transcribing the Æneid of Virgil, and another in meditating the Analytics of Aristotle, in which he who had a genius for art might illuminate a martyrology or carve a crucifix, and in which he who had a turn for natural philosophy might make experiments on the properties of plants and minerals. Had not such retreats been scattered here and there, among the huts of a miserable peasantry, and the castles of a ferocious aristocracy, European society would have consisted merely of beasts of burden and beasts of prey. The Church has many times been compared by divines to the ark of which we read in the Book of Genesis: but never was the resemblance more perfect than during that evil time when she alone rode, amidst darkness and tempest, on the deluge beneath which all the great works of ancient power and wisdom lay entombed, bearing within her that feeble germ from which a Second and more glorious civilisation was to spring.

The same observations apply to the way people in the last century looked down on pilgrimages, sanctuaries, crusades, and monastic institutions of the Middle Ages. In times when people rarely traveled out of curiosity or to seek profit, it was better for the rough inhabitants of the North to visit Italy and the East as pilgrims than to see nothing but the filthy huts and uncultivated woods where they were born. In times when life and women's honor faced daily threats from tyrants and raiders, it was preferable for a shrine's grounds to be filled with irrational awe rather than having no refuge from cruelty and debauchery. In times when politicians struggled to create broad political alliances, it was better for Christian nations to unite and rally for the recovery of the Holy Sepulchre than to be individually overwhelmed by Islamic power. Whatever criticisms might be valid later about the laziness and extravagance of religious orders, it was certainly beneficial in an era of ignorance and violence to have quiet cloisters and gardens where peaceful arts could be nurtured, where gentle and contemplative souls could find sanctuary, where one brother could focus on copying the Aeneid of Virgil and another could ponder the Analytics of Aristotle, where someone with artistic talent could illuminate a martyrology or carve a crucifix, and where someone interested in natural philosophy could experiment with the properties of plants and minerals. If such retreats hadn’t been scattered among the miserable peasants' huts and the harsh aristocracy's castles, European society would have consisted solely of beasts of burden and predators. The Church has often been compared by theologians to the ark described in the Book of Genesis: but the resemblance was never more accurate than during that dark period when it alone navigated, amid storms and darkness, the flood that buried all the great works of ancient power and wisdom, carrying within it the fragile seed from which a second and more glorious civilization would arise.

Even the spiritual supremacy arrogated by the Pope was, in the dark ages, productive of far more good than evil. Its effect was to unite the nations of Western Europe in one great commonwealth. What the Olympian chariot course and the Pythian oracle were to all the Greek cities, from Trebizond to Marseilles, Rome and her Bishop were to all Christians of the Latin communion, from Calabria to the Hebrides. Thus grew up sentiments of enlarged benevolence. Races separated from each other by seas and mountains acknowledged a fraternal tie and a common code of public law. Even in war, the cruelty of the conqueror was not seldom mitigated by the recollection that he and his vanquished enemies were all members of one great federation.

Even the spiritual authority claimed by the Pope during the dark ages led to more good than harm. It helped unite the nations of Western Europe into one large community. Just as the Olympic games and the Pythian oracle connected all the Greek cities, from Trebizond to Marseilles, Rome and her Bishop served the same purpose for all Christians of the Latin communion, from Calabria to the Hebrides. This fostered feelings of greater kindness. Races that were separated by seas and mountains recognized a brotherly bond and shared a common set of laws. Even in war, the cruelty of the conqueror was often softened by the reminder that he and his defeated foes were all part of one great federation.

Into this federation our Saxon ancestors were now admitted. A regular communication was opened between our shores and that part of Europe in which the traces of ancient power and policy were yet discernible. Many noble monuments which have since been destroyed or defaced still retained their pristine magnificence; and travellers, to whom Livy and Sallust were unintelligible, might gain from the Roman aqueducts and temples some faint notion of Roman history. The dome of Agrippa, still glittering with bronze, the mausoleum of Adrian, not yet deprived of its columns and statues, the Flavian amphitheatre, not yet degraded into a quarry, told to the rude English pilgrims some part of the story of that great civilised world which had passed away. The islanders returned, with awe deeply impressed on their half opened minds, and told the wondering inhabitants of the hovels of London and York that, near the grave of Saint Peter, a mighty race, now extinct, had piled up buildings which would never be dissolved till the judgment day. Learning followed in the train of Christianity. The poetry and eloquence of the Augustan age was assiduously studied in Mercian and Northumbrian monasteries. The names of Bede and Alcuin were justly celebrated throughout Europe. Such was the state of our country when, in the ninth century, began the last great migration of the northern barbarians.

Into this federation, our Saxon ancestors were now welcomed. A regular connection was established between our shores and that part of Europe where the remnants of ancient power and governance were still visible. Many noble monuments, which have since been destroyed or damaged, still held their original grandeur; and travelers, who found Livy and Sallust incomprehensible, could gather some vague understanding of Roman history from the Roman aqueducts and temples. The dome of Agrippa, still shining with bronze, the mausoleum of Adrian, not yet stripped of its columns and statues, and the Flavian amphitheater, not yet turned into a quarry, shared with the rough English pilgrims some part of the story of that great civilized world that had vanished. The islanders returned, with a sense of awe deeply etched in their developing minds, and told the amazed inhabitants of the huts in London and York that, near the tomb of Saint Peter, a powerful race, now gone, had constructed buildings that would last until the day of judgment. Learning followed in the wake of Christianity. The poetry and eloquence of the Augustan age were diligently studied in Mercian and Northumbrian monasteries. The names of Bede and Alcuin were rightly celebrated across Europe. Such was the state of our country when, in the ninth century, the last significant migration of northern barbarians began.

During many years Denmark and Scandinavia continued to pour forth innumerable pirates, distinguished by strength, by valour, by merciless ferocity, and by hatred of the Christian name. No country suffered so much from these invaders as England. Her coast lay near to the ports whence they sailed; nor was any shire so far distant from the sea as to be secure from attack. The same atrocities which had attended the victory of the Saxon over the Celt were now, after the lapse of ages, suffered by the Saxon at the hand of the Dane. Civilization,—just as it began to rise, was met by this blow, and sank down once more. Large colonies of adventurers from the Baltic established themselves on the eastern shores of our island, spread gradually westward, and, supported by constant reinforcements from beyond the sea, aspired to the dominion of the whole realm. The struggle between the two fierce Teutonic breeds lasted through six generations. Each was alternately paramount. Cruel massacres followed by cruel retribution, provinces wasted, convents plundered, and cities rased to the ground, make up the greater part of the history of those evil days. At length the North ceased to send forth a constant stream of fresh depredators; and from that time the mutual aversion of the races began to subside. Intermarriage became frequent. The Danes learned the religion of the Saxons; and thus one cause of deadly animosity was removed. The Danish and Saxon tongues, both dialects of one widespread language, were blended together. But the distinction between the two nations was by no means effaced, when an event took place which prostrated both, in common slavery and degradation, at the feet of a third people.

For many years, Denmark and Scandinavia kept producing countless pirates known for their strength, bravery, merciless cruelty, and hatred of Christianity. No other country suffered as much from these invaders as England. Its coastline was close to the ports they sailed from, and no county was far enough from the sea to feel safe from attacks. The same brutalities that the Saxons had imposed on the Celts were now inflicted on the Saxons by the Danes after many ages. Just as civilization began to rise, it was struck down once more. Large groups of adventurers from the Baltic settled on the eastern shores of our island, gradually moved westward, and, backed by constant reinforcements from across the sea, aimed to dominate the entire realm. The conflict between the two fierce Germanic groups went on for six generations, with each taking turns in power. Horrific massacres followed by vicious revenge, devastated provinces, looted monasteries, and cities reduced to rubble dominated the history of those dark times. Eventually, the North stopped sending a steady stream of new raiders, and from that point, the mutual hatred between the races began to fade. Intermarriage became common. The Danes adopted the Saxon religion, removing one source of intense animosity. The Danish and Saxon languages, both dialects of a wide-ranging language, were mixed together. However, the distinction between the two nations was far from erased when an event occurred that left both in common slavery and humiliation at the feet of a third people.

The Normans were then the foremost race of Christendom. Their valour and ferocity had made them conspicuous among the rovers whom Scandinavia had sent forth to ravage Western Europe. Their sails were long the terror of both coasts of the Channel. Their arms were repeatedly carried far into the heart of: the Carlovingian empire, and were victorious under the walls of Maestricht and Paris. At length one of the feeble heirs of Charlemagne ceded to the strangers a fertile province, watered by a noble river, and contiguous to the sea which was their favourite element. In that province they founded a mighty state, which gradually extended its influence over the neighbouring principalities of Britanny and Maine. Without laying aside that dauntless valour which had been the terror of every land from the Elbe to the Pyrenees, the Normans rapidly acquired all, and more than all, the knowledge and refinement which they found in the country where they settled. Their courage secured their territory against foreign invasion. They established internal order, such as had long been unknown in the Frank empire. They embraced Christianity; and with Christianity they learned a great part of what the clergy had to teach. They abandoned their native speech, and adopted the French tongue, in which the Latin was the predominant element. They speedily raised their new language to a dignity and importance which it had never before possessed. They found it a barbarous jargon; they fixed it in writing; and they employed it in legislation, in poetry, and in romance. They renounced that brutal intemperance to which all the other branches of the great German family were too much inclined. The polite luxury of the Norman presented a striking contrast to the coarse voracity and drunkenness of his Saxon and Danish neighbours. He loved to display his magnificence, not in huge piles of food and hogsheads of strong drink, but in large and stately edifices, rich armour, gallant horses, choice falcons, well ordered tournaments, banquets delicate rather than abundant, and wines remarkable rather for their exquisite flavour than for their intoxicating power. That chivalrous spirit, which has exercised so powerful an influence on the politics, morals, and manners of all the European nations, was found in the highest exaltation among the Norman nobles. Those nobles were distinguished by their graceful bearing and insinuating address. They were distinguished also by their skill in negotiation, and by a natural eloquence which they assiduously cultivated. It was the boast of one of their historians that the Norman gentlemen were orators from the cradle. But their chief fame was derived from their military exploits. Every country, from the Atlantic Ocean to the Dead Sea, witnessed the prodigies of their discipline and valour. One Norman knight, at the head of a handful of warriors, scattered the Celts of Connaught. Another founded the monarchy of the Two Sicilies, and saw the emperors both of the East and of the West fly before his arms. A third, the Ulysses of the first crusade, was invested by his fellow soldiers with the sovereignty of Antioch; and a fourth, the Tancred whose name lives in the great poem of Tasso, was celebrated through Christendom as the bravest and most generous of the deliverers of the Holy Sepulchre.

The Normans were the leading group in Christendom. Their bravery and fierce nature set them apart from the raiders that Scandinavia had sent to plunder Western Europe. Their ships long struck fear across both coasts of the Channel. They repeatedly pushed deep into the heart of the Carolingian Empire and achieved victories at the walls of Maastricht and Paris. Eventually, one of Charlemagne's weak heirs gave the Normans a fertile province, watered by a great river and next to the sea they loved. In that province, they established a powerful state that gradually extended its influence over the nearby regions of Brittany and Maine. Without losing the fearless courage that had terrified every land from the Elbe to the Pyrenees, the Normans quickly gained all the knowledge and culture they found in the land they settled in. Their bravery protected their territory from foreign attack. They established a level of internal order that had long been absent in the Frankish Empire. They embraced Christianity, learning much from the clergy in the process. They dropped their native language and adopted French, which was heavily influenced by Latin. They soon elevated their new language to a status and significance it had never had before. Finding it a crude dialect, they codified it in writing and used it in laws, poetry, and storytelling. They turned away from the brutal excess that affected other branches of the great Germanic family. The cultured luxury of the Norman stood in stark contrast to the rough greed and drunkenness of their Saxon and Danish neighbors. They preferred to show off their wealth not through large feasts and strong drinks but in grand buildings, ornate armor, fine horses, prized falcons, organized tournaments, elegant banquets rather than overindulgent ones, and wines noted more for their exquisite taste than their potency. The chivalrous spirit that influenced the politics, morals, and customs of all European nations was highly represented among the Norman nobles. These nobles were known for their graceful demeanor and charming presence. They also stood out for their negotiation skills and natural eloquence, which they diligently honed. One of their historians proudly claimed that Norman gentlemen were born orators. However, their main reputation came from their military accomplishments. Every land, from the Atlantic Ocean to the Dead Sea, witnessed their impressive discipline and bravery. One Norman knight, leading a small group of warriors, defeated the Celts of Connaught. Another established the monarchy of the Two Sicilies and witnessed both Eastern and Western emperors flee before him. A third knight, the Ulysses of the First Crusade, was granted the title of ruler of Antioch by his fellow soldiers; and a fourth, Tancred, whose name endures in Tasso's epic poem, was renowned throughout Christendom as the bravest and most generous of the saviors of the Holy Sepulchre.

The vicinity of so remarkable a people early began to produce an effect on the public mind of England. Before the Conquest, English princes received their education in Normandy. English sees and English estates were bestowed on Normans. The French of Normandy was familiarly spoken in the palace of Westminster. The court of Rouen seems to have been to the court of Edward the Confessor what the court of Versailles long afterwards was to the court of Charles the Second.

The presence of such an extraordinary people quickly started to impact the public perception in England. Before the Conquest, English royals were educated in Normandy. English bishops and lands were granted to Normans. The French spoken in Normandy was commonly used in the palace of Westminster. The court of Rouen seems to have been to Edward the Confessor's court what the court of Versailles would later be to Charles the Second's court.

The battle of Hastings, and the events which followed it, not only placed a Duke of Normandy on the English throne, but gave up the whole population of England to the tyranny of the Norman race. The subjugation of a nation by a nation has seldom, even in Asia, been more complete. The country was portioned out among the captains of the invaders. Strong military institutions, closely connected with the institution of property, enabled the foreign conquerors to oppress the children of the soil. A cruel penal code, cruelly enforced, guarded the privileges, and even the sports, of the alien tyrants. Yet the subject race, though beaten down and trodden underfoot, still made its sting felt. Some bold men, the favourite heroes of our oldest ballads, betook themselves to the woods, and there, in defiance of curfew laws and forest laws, waged a predatory war against their oppressors. Assassination was an event of daily occurrence. Many Normans suddenly disappeared leaving no trace. The corpses of many were found bearing the marks of violence. Death by torture was denounced against the murderers, and strict search was made for them, but generally in vain; for the whole nation was in a conspiracy to screen them. It was at length thought necessary to lay a heavy fine on every Hundred in which a person of French extraction should be found slain; and this regulation was followed up by another regulation, providing that every person who was found slain should be supposed to be a Frenchman, unless he was proved to be a Saxon.

The Battle of Hastings and the events that followed not only put a Duke of Normandy on the English throne but also subjected the entire population of England to the oppression of the Norman race. The subjugation of one nation by another has rarely, even in Asia, been so thorough. The land was divided among the leaders of the invaders. Strong military systems, closely linked to property rights, allowed the foreign conquerors to dominate the local people. A harsh penal code, cruelly enforced, protected the privileges and even the leisure activities of the alien oppressors. Yet the conquered people, although crushed and downtrodden, still made their resistance known. Some brave individuals, becoming the legendary heroes of our oldest ballads, took to the woods and there, in defiance of curfew laws and forest laws, launched a guerrilla war against their oppressors. Assassination was a common occurrence. Many Normans vanished without a trace. The bodies of many were found showing signs of violence. Death by torture was the punishment for the murderers, and strict searches were conducted for them, but mostly without success; the entire nation was in a conspiracy to hide them. Eventually, it was deemed necessary to impose a heavy fine on every Hundred where a person of French descent was found murdered, and this was followed by another regulation stating that any person found slain would be assumed to be French unless proven to be Saxon.

During the century and a half which followed the Conquest, there is, to speak strictly, no English history. The French Kings of England rose, indeed, to an eminence which was the wonder and dread of all neighbouring nations. They conquered Ireland. They received the homage of Scotland. By their valour, by their policy, by their fortunate matrimonial alliances, they became far more popular on the Continent than their liege lords the Kings of France. Asia, as well as Europe, was dazzled by the power and glory of our tyrants. Arabian chroniclers recorded with unwilling admiration the fall of Acre, the defence of Joppa, and the victorious march to Ascalon; and Arabian mothers long awed their infants to silence with the name of the lionhearted Plantagenet. At one time it seemed that the line of Hugh Capet was about to end as the Merovingian and Carlovingian lines had ended, and that a single great monarchy would spread from the Orkneys to the Pyrenees. So strong an association is established in most minds between the greatness of a sovereign and the greatness of the nation which he rules, that almost every historian of England has expatiated with a sentiment of exultation on the power and splendour of her foreign masters, and has lamented the decay of that power and splendour as a calamity to our country. This is, in truth, as absurd as it would be in a Haytian negro of our time to dwell with national pride on the greatness of Lewis the Fourteenth, and to speak of Blenheim and Ramilies with patriotic regret and shame. The Conqueror and his descendants to the fourth generation were not Englishmen: most of them were born in France: they spent the greater part of their lives in France: their ordinary speech was French: almost every high office in their gift was filled by a Frenchman: every acquisition which they made on the Continent estranged them more and more from the population of our island. One of the ablest among them indeed attempted to win the hearts of his English subjects by espousing an English princess. But, by many of his barons, this marriage was regarded as a marriage between a white planter and a quadroon girl would now be regarded in Virginia. In history he is known by the honourable surname of Beauclerc; but, in his own time, his own countrymen called him by a Saxon nickname, in contemptuous allusion to his Saxon connection.

During the century and a half that followed the Conquest, there is, to be precise, no English history. The French Kings of England indeed reached a height that amazed and terrified all neighboring nations. They conquered Ireland. They earned the allegiance of Scotland. Through their bravery, strategic decisions, and fortunate royal marriages, they became far more popular in Europe than their liege lords, the Kings of France. Both Asia and Europe were impressed by the power and glory of our rulers. Arab chroniclers recorded, with reluctant admiration, the fall of Acre, the defense of Joppa, and the triumphant march to Ascalon; and Arab mothers often silenced their infants with the name of the lion-hearted Plantagenet. At one point, it seemed that the line of Hugh Capet was about to end just like the Merovingian and Carolingian lines had, and that a single great monarchy would extend from the Orkneys to the Pyrenees. There is such a strong connection in most people's minds between a sovereign's greatness and the greatness of the nation they rule that nearly every historian of England has elaborated with pride on the power and splendor of her foreign rulers, lamenting the decline of that power and splendor as a tragedy for our country. This is, in truth, as ridiculous as it would be for a modern-day Haitian to take national pride in the greatness of Louis the Fourteenth, speaking of Blenheim and Ramilies with patriotic sadness and shame. The Conqueror and his descendants, up to the fourth generation, were not Englishmen: most were born in France, spent the majority of their lives in France, spoke French as their everyday language, and filled most high offices with Frenchmen. Every acquisition they made on the Continent further separated them from the people of our island. One of the most capable among them tried to win the favor of his English subjects by marrying an English princess. However, many of his barons viewed this marriage much like how a marriage between a white planter and a quadroon girl would be seen in Virginia today. In history, he is remembered by the honorable surname of Beauclerc; yet, during his time, his own countrymen referred to him by a Saxon nickname, mockingly alluding to his Saxon ties.

Had the Plantagenets, as at one time seemed likely, succeeded in uniting all France under their government, it is probable that England would never have had an independent existence. Her princes, her lords, her prelates, would have been men differing in race and language from the artisans and the tillers of the earth. The revenues of her great proprietors would have been spent in festivities and diversions on the banks of the Seine. The noble language of Milton and Burke would have remained a rustic dialect, without a literature, a fixed grammar, or a fixed orthography, and would have been contemptuously abandoned to the use of boors. No man of English extraction would have risen to eminence, except by becoming in speech and habits a Frenchman.

Had the Plantagenets, as once seemed likely, managed to unite all of France under their rule, it’s likely that England would never have existed independently. Its princes, lords, and bishops would have been people from different races and languages than the workers and farmers. The wealth of its nobles would have been spent on parties and entertainment along the banks of the Seine. The beautiful language of Milton and Burke would have remained a rural dialect, lacking literature, a defined grammar, or proper spelling, and would have been looked down upon as something for common folk. No person of English descent would have achieved prominence, except by adopting French speech and customs.

England owes her escape from such calamities to an event which her historians have generally represented as disastrous. Her interest was so directly opposed to the interests of her rulers that she had no hope but in their errors and misfortunes. The talents and even the virtues of her first six French Kings were a curse to her. The follies and vices of the seventh were her salvation. Had John inherited the great qualities of his father, of Henry Beauclerc, or of the Conqueror, nay, had he even possessed the martial courage of Stephen or of Richard, and had the King of France at the same time been as incapable as all the other successors of Hugh Capet had been, the House of Plantagenet must have risen to unrivalled ascendancy in Europe. But, just at this conjuncture, France, for the first time since the death of Charlemagne, was governed by a prince of great firmness and ability. On the other hand England, which, since the battle of Hastings, had been ruled generally by wise statesmen, always by brave soldiers, fell under the dominion of a trifler and a coward. From that moment her prospects brightened. John was driven from Normandy. The Norman nobles were compelled to make their election between the island and the continent. Shut up by the sea with the people whom they had hitherto oppressed and despised, they gradually came to regard England as their country, and the English as their countrymen. The two races, so long hostile, soon found that they had common interests and common enemies. Both were alike aggrieved by the tyranny of a bad king. Both were alike indignant at the favour shown by the court to the natives of Poitou and Aquitaine. The great grandsons of those who had fought under William and the great grandsons of those who had fought under Harold began to draw near to each other in friendship; and the first pledge of their reconciliation was the Great Charter, won by their united exertions, and framed for their common benefit.

England escaped such disasters because of an event that most historians view as a disaster. Her interests directly opposed those of her rulers, leaving her with hope only in their mistakes and misfortunes. The skills and even the virtues of her first six French kings cursed her. The mistakes and vices of the seventh king, John, saved her. If John had inherited the great qualities of his father, Henry Beauclerc, or the Conqueror, or even had the military bravery of Stephen or Richard, and if the King of France had been as incompetent as the other successors of Hugh Capet, the House of Plantagenet would have risen to unmatched power in Europe. But at that time, for the first time since Charlemagne’s death, France was ruled by a strong and capable prince. Meanwhile, England, which had been governed since the Battle of Hastings by wise statesmen and brave soldiers, fell under the rule of a lightweight and a coward. From that moment, her prospects improved. John was driven out of Normandy. The Norman nobles had to choose between staying on the island or returning to the continent. Cut off by the sea from the people they had previously oppressed and looked down on, they began to see England as their home and the English as their fellow countrymen. The two races, long hostile, soon realized they had common interests and common enemies. Both were equally aggrieved by the tyranny of a bad king. Both were just as outraged at the favoritism shown by the court to the natives of Poitou and Aquitaine. The great-grandsons of those who fought under William and the great-grandsons of those who fought under Harold began to come together as friends. The first sign of their reconciliation was the Great Charter, achieved through their united efforts and created for their mutual benefit.

Here commences the history of the English nation. The history of the preceding events is the history of wrongs inflicted and sustained by various tribes, which indeed all dwelt on English ground, but which regarded each other with aversion such as has scarcely ever existed between communities separated by physical barriers. For even the mutual animosity of countries at war with each other is languid when compared with the animosity of nations which, morally separated, are yet locally intermingled. In no country has the enmity of race been carried farther than in England. In no country has that enmity been more completely effaced. The stages of the process by which the hostile elements were melted down into one homogeneous mass are not accurately known to us. But it is certain that, when John became King, the distinction between Saxons and Normans was strongly marked, and that before the end of the reign of his grandson it had almost disappeared. In the time of Richard the First, the ordinary imprecation of a Norman gentleman was "May I become an Englishman!" His ordinary form of indignant denial was "Do you take me for an Englishman?" The descendant of such a gentleman a hundred years later was proud of the English name.

Here begins the history of the English nation. The events that led up to this point tell the story of wrongs done and endured by different tribes, all of whom lived on English soil but viewed each other with a hostility rarely seen between communities separated by physical barriers. Even the hatred between countries at war is mild compared to the animosity of nations that, though morally divided, are still physically mixed. No other country has seen racial hostility pushed to such extremes as England. Yet, no country has also managed to eradicate that hostility as completely. We don’t have a clear account of how the conflicting groups merged into one unified mass. However, it's clear that when John became King, the divide between Saxons and Normans was very pronounced, but by the end of his grandson's reign, it had nearly vanished. In the time of Richard the First, the typical curse of a Norman gentleman was, "May I become an Englishman!" His usual response of disbelief was, "Do you think I'm English?" A hundred years later, a descendant of such a gentleman was proud to identify as English.

The sources of the noblest rivers which spread fertility over continents, and bear richly laden fleets to the sea, are to be sought in wild and barren mountain tracts, incorrectly laid down in maps, and rarely explored by travellers. To such a tract the history of our country during the thirteenth century may not unaptly be compared. Sterile and obscure as is that portion of our annals, it is there that we must seek for the origin of our freedom, our prosperity, and our glory. Then it was that the great English people was formed, that the national character began to exhibit those peculiarities which it has ever since retained, and that our fathers became emphatically islanders, islanders not merely in geographical position, but in their politics, their feelings, and their manners. Then first appeared with distinctness that constitution which has ever since, through all changes, preserved its identity; that constitution of which all the other free constitutions in the world are copies, and which, in spite of some defects, deserves to be regarded as the best under which any great society has ever yet existed during many ages. Then it was that the House of Commons, the archetype of all the representative assemblies which now meet, either in the old or in the new world, held its first sittings. Then it was that the common law rose to the dignity of a science, and rapidly became a not unworthy rival of the imperial jurisprudence. Then it was that the courage of those sailors who manned the rude barks of the Cinque Ports first made the flag of England terrible on the seas. Then it was that the most ancient colleges which still exist at both the great national seats of learning were founded. Then was formed that language, less musical indeed than the languages of the south, but in force, in richness, in aptitude for all the highest purposes of the poet, the philosopher, and the orator, inferior to the tongue of Greece alone. Then too appeared the first faint dawn of that noble literature, the most splendid and the most durable of the many glories of England.

The sources of the greatest rivers that bring fertility to continents and carry heavily loaded ships to the sea can be found in wild and barren mountain areas, often misrepresented on maps and rarely explored by travelers. This part of our history during the thirteenth century can be compared to such a landscape. As barren and obscure as this section of our past is, it is where we must look to find the roots of our freedom, prosperity, and glory. It was then that the great English people were formed, and the national character began to show the distinct traits it has maintained ever since. Our ancestors became distinctly islanders—not just in geography, but in their politics, emotions, and manners. At this time, the constitution that has since preserved its identity through all changes emerged clearly; it's the constitution from which all other free constitutions around the world are modeled and, despite some flaws, it deserves to be seen as the best under which any large society has existed for many ages. It was then that the House of Commons, the model for all representative assemblies, whether in the old or new world, held its first meetings. It was also when common law rose to the level of a science and quickly became a worthy rival to imperial law. The bravery of the sailors from the Cinque Ports first made the English flag a formidable presence on the seas. It was then that the oldest colleges still in existence at both major national universities were established. It was during this period that a language took shape that, while less melodic than those of the south, was powerful, rich, and capable for all the highest purposes of poets, philosophers, and orators, second only to Greek. This era also saw the first glimmers of a noble literature, one of the shining and enduring glories of England.

Early in the fourteenth century the amalgamation of the races was all but complete; and it was soon made manifest, by signs not to be mistaken, that a people inferior to none existing in the world had been formed by the mixture of three branches of the great Teutonic family with each other, and with the aboriginal Britons. There was, indeed, scarcely anything in common between the England to which John had been chased by Philip Augustus, and the England from which the armies of Edward the Third went forth to conquer France.

Early in the fourteenth century, the blending of the races was nearly complete; and it soon became clear, through unmistakable signs, that a people no less remarkable than any in the world had emerged from the mixture of three branches of the great Teutonic family with one another, and with the native Britons. There was, in fact, almost nothing in common between the England that John had fled to escape Philip Augustus and the England from which Edward the Third's armies set out to conquer France.

A period of more than a hundred years followed, during which the chief object of the English was to establish, by force of arms, a great empire on the Continent. The claim of Edward to the inheritance occupied by the House of Valois was a claim in which it might seem that his subjects were little interested. But the passion for conquest spread fast from the prince to the people. The war differed widely from the wars which the Plantagenets of the twelfth century had waged against the descendants of Hugh Capet. For the success of Henry the Second, or of Richard the First, would have made England a province of France. The effect of the successes of Edward the Third and Henry the Fifth was to make France, for a time, a province of England. The disdain with which, in the twelfth century, the conquerors from the Continent had regarded the islanders, was now retorted by the islanders on the people of the Continent. Every yeoman from Kent to Northumberland valued himself as one of a race born for victory and dominion, and looked down with scorn on the nation before which his ancestors had trembled. Even those knights of Gascony and Guienne who had fought gallantly under the Black Prince were regarded by the English as men of an inferior breed, and were contemptuously excluded from honourable and lucrative commands. In no long time our ancestors altogether lost sight of the original ground of quarrel. They began to consider the crown of France as a mere appendage to the crown of England; and, when in violation of the ordinary law of succession, they transferred the crown of England to the House of Lancaster, they seem to have thought that the right of Richard the Second to the crown of France passed, as of course, to that house. The zeal and vigour which they displayed present a remarkable contrast to the torpor of the French, who were far more deeply interested in the event of the struggle. The most splendid victories recorded in the history of the middle ages were gained at this time, against great odds, by the English armies. Victories indeed they were of which a nation may justly be proud; for they are to be attributed to the moral superiority of the victors, a superiority which was most striking in the lowest ranks. The knights of England found worthy rivals in the knights of France. Chandos encountered an equal foe in Du Guesclin. But France had no infantry that dared to face the English bows and bills. A French King was brought prisoner to London. An English King was crowned at Paris. The banner of St. George was carried far beyond the Pyrenees and the Alps. On the south of the Ebro the English won a great battle, which for a time decided the fate of Leon and Castile; and the English Companies obtained a terrible preeminence among the bands of warriors who let out their weapons for hire to the princes and commonwealths of Italy.

A period of over a hundred years followed, during which the main goal of the English was to use military force to create a large empire on the Continent. Edward's claim to the inheritance held by the House of Valois seemed to be something his subjects weren’t very interested in. However, the desire for conquest quickly spread from the prince to the people. This war was very different from the ones the Plantagenets fought in the twelfth century against the descendants of Hugh Capet. For Henry the Second or Richard the First, winning would have made England a province of France. But the victories of Edward the Third and Henry the Fifth temporarily turned France into a province of England. The disdain that the conquerors from the Continent had for the islanders in the twelfth century was now returned by the islanders towards the people of the Continent. Every farmer from Kent to Northumberland took pride in being part of a race destined for victory and power, looking down on the nation that had once made their ancestors tremble. Even the knights from Gascony and Guienne who fought bravely under the Black Prince were seen by the English as an inferior breed and were dismissively excluded from honorable and profitable positions. In a short time, our ancestors completely lost sight of the original cause of conflict. They started to see the French crown as merely an extension of the English crown, and when, in violation of the usual succession laws, they transferred the crown of England to the House of Lancaster, they seemed to believe that Richard the Second's claim to the French crown naturally passed to that house. The enthusiasm and energy they displayed stood in stark contrast to the lethargy of the French, who were much more deeply invested in the outcome of the conflict. The most brilliant victories recorded in medieval history were achieved during this period by the English armies against significant odds. These were victories that a nation can justly be proud of, as they stemmed from the moral superiority of the victors, a superiority evident even at the lowest ranks. The knights of England found worthy opponents in the knights of France. Chandos faced an equal rival in Du Guesclin. But France had no infantry bold enough to confront the English longbows and polearms. A French king was captured and brought to London. An English king was crowned in Paris. The banner of St. George was carried far beyond the Pyrenees and the Alps. South of the Ebro, the English won a significant battle that temporarily shaped the fate of Leon and Castile; and the English Companies gained a terrifying dominance among the bands of mercenaries hired out to the princes and republics of Italy.

Nor were the arts of peace neglected by our fathers during that stirring period. While France was wasted by war, till she at length found in her own desolation a miserable defence against invaders, the English gathered in their harvests, adorned their cities, pleaded, traded, and studied in security. Many of our noblest architectural monuments belong to that age. Then rose the fair chapels of New College and of Saint George, the nave of Winchester and the choir of York, the spire of Salisbury and the majestic towers of Lincoln. A copious and forcible language, formed by an infusion of French into German, was now the common property of the aristocracy and of the people. Nor was it long before genius began to apply that admirable machine to worthy purposes. While English warriors, leaving behind them the devastated provinces of France, entered Valladolid in triumph, and spread terror to the gates of Florence, English poets depicted in vivid tints all the wide variety of human manners and fortunes, and English thinkers aspired to know, or dared to doubt, where bigots had been content to wonder and to believe. The same age which produced the Black Prince and Derby, Chandos and Hawkwood, produced also Geoffrey Chaucer and John Wycliffe.

Nor were our ancestors neglectful of the arts of peace during that tumultuous time. While France was ravaged by war, ultimately finding a desperate defense against invaders in her own destruction, the English harvested their crops, beautified their cities, engaged in diplomacy, traded, and pursued studies in safety. Many of our greatest architectural landmarks come from that era. This was when the beautiful chapels of New College and Saint George rose, along with the nave of Winchester, the choir of York, the spire of Salisbury, and the impressive towers of Lincoln. A rich and expressive language, created by blending French with German, became the shared heritage of both the aristocracy and the common people. It wasn't long before talented individuals started to use that remarkable language for worthy purposes. While English warriors, leaving behind the ravaged regions of France, entered Valladolid in triumph and instilled fear at the gates of Florence, English poets vividly portrayed the wide range of human behaviors and fortunes, while English thinkers sought to understand or dared to question what bigots were content merely to wonder about and believe in. The same era that produced the Black Prince, Derby, Chandos, and Hawkwood also brought forth Geoffrey Chaucer and John Wycliffe.

In so splendid and imperial a manner did the English people, properly so called, first take place among the nations of the world. Yet while we contemplate with pleasure the high and commanding qualities which our forefathers displayed, we cannot but admit that the end which they pursued was an end condemned both by humanity and by enlightened policy, and that the reverses which compelled them, after a long and bloody struggle, to relinquish the hope of establishing a great continental empire, were really blessings in the guise of disasters. The spirit of the French was at last aroused: they began to oppose a vigorous national resistance to the foreign conquerors; and from that time the skill of the English captains and the courage of the English soldiers were, happily for mankind, exerted in vain. After many desperate struggles, and with many bitter regrets, our ancestors gave up the contest. Since that age no British government has ever seriously and steadily pursued the design of making great conquests on the Continent. The people, indeed, continued to cherish with pride the recollection of Cressy, of Poitiers, and of Agincourt. Even after the lapse of many years it was easy to fire their blood and to draw forth their subsidies by promising them an expedition for the conquest of France. But happily the energies of our country have been directed to better objects; and she now occupies in the history of mankind a place far more glorious than if she had, as at one time seemed not improbable, acquired by the sword an ascendancy similar to that which formerly belonged to the Roman republic.

In such a grand and imposing way did the English people, as they are truly called, first establish their place among the nations of the world. Yet while we take pleasure in the great and commanding traits that our ancestors showed, we cannot ignore that the goal they chased was one condemned by both humanity and enlightened policy, and that the setbacks which forced them, after a long and bloody fight, to give up the hope of building a vast continental empire were actually blessings disguised as disasters. The spirit of the French was finally awakened: they began to mount a strong national resistance against the foreign conquerors; and from that point on, the skills of the English leaders and the bravery of the English soldiers were, thankfully for humanity, exerted in vain. After many desperate battles and with many deep regrets, our ancestors called off the fight. Since that time, no British government has seriously and consistently aimed at making significant conquests on the Continent. The people did continue to proudly remember Cressy, Poitiers, and Agincourt. Even after many years, it was easy to stir their blood and to elicit their support by promising them an expedition to conquer France. But fortunately, the energies of our country have been directed towards better goals; and today, she holds a much more glorious place in human history than if she had, as seemed likely at one time, gained dominance by the sword similar to what the Roman Republic once had.

Cooped up once more within the limits of the island, the warlike people employed in civil strife those arms which had been the terror of Europe. The means of profuse expenditure had long been drawn by the English barons from the oppressed provinces of France. That source of supply was gone: but the ostentatious and luxurious habits which prosperity had engendered still remained; and the great lords, unable to gratify their tastes by plundering the French, were eager to plunder each other. The realm to which they were now confined would not, in the phrase of Comines, the most judicious observer of that time, suffice for them all. Two aristocratical factions, headed by two branches of the royal family, engaged in a long and fierce struggle for supremacy. As the animosity of those factions did not really arise from the dispute about the succession it lasted long after all ground of dispute about the succession was removed. The party of the Red Rose survived the last prince who claimed the crown in right of Henry the Fourth. The party of the White Rose survived the marriage of Richmond and Elizabeth. Left without chiefs who had any decent show of right, the adherents of Lancaster rallied round a line of bastards, and the adherents of York set up a succession of impostors. When, at length, many aspiring nobles had perished on the field of battle or by the hands of the executioner, when many illustrious houses had disappeared forever from history, when those great families which remained had been exhausted and sobered by calamities, it was universally acknowledged that the claims of all the contending Plantagenets were united in the house of Tudor.

Trapped again on the island, the aggressive people engaged in civil conflict with the weapons that had once terrified Europe. The English barons had long relied on the oppressed regions of France for their lavish spending. That source of income was gone, but the flashy and extravagant lifestyles that prosperity had created still persisted; the powerful lords, unable to satisfy their tastes by looting the French, were eager to loot each other. The land they were now confined to, as noted by Comines, the sharpest observer of that time, couldn't support them all. Two noble factions, led by two branches of the royal family, entered into a prolonged and intense battle for dominance. Since the hatred between these factions didn't genuinely stem from the succession dispute, it continued long after any real reason over the succession was resolved. The Red Rose faction outlasted the last prince who claimed the crown by right of Henry IV. The White Rose faction continued after the marriage of Richmond and Elizabeth. Lacking leaders with any credible claim, the supporters of Lancaster rallied around a line of illegitimate heirs, while the York supporters paraded a succession of impostors. Eventually, after many ambitious nobles had died in battle or by execution, and many distinguished families had vanished from history, and when the remaining great families had been drained and sobered by disasters, it was widely accepted that all the claims of the rival Plantagenets were united in the Tudor dynasty.

Meanwhile a change was proceeding infinitely more momentous than the acquisition or loss of any province, than the rise or fall of any dynasty. Slavery and the evils by which slavery is everywhere accompanied were fast disappearing.

Meanwhile, a change was happening that was far more significant than gaining or losing any territory, or the rise or fall of any dynasty. Slavery and the problems that come with it were quickly fading away.

It is remarkable that the two greatest and most salutary social revolutions which have taken place in England, that revolution which, in the thirteenth century, put an end to the tyranny of nation over nation, and that revolution which, a few generations later, put an end to the property of man in man, were silently and imperceptibly effected. They struck contemporary observers with no surprise, and have received from historians a very scanty measure of attention. They were brought about neither by legislative regulations nor by physical force. Moral causes noiselessly effaced first the distinction between Norman and Saxon, and then the distinction between master and slave. None can venture to fix the precise moment at which either distinction ceased. Some faint traces of the old Norman feeling might perhaps have been found late in the fourteenth century. Some faint traces of the institution of villenage were detected by the curious so late as the days of the Stuarts; nor has that institution ever, to this hour, been abolished by statute.

It's striking that the two biggest and most beneficial social revolutions in England — the one in the thirteenth century that ended the tyranny of one nation over another, and the one a few generations later that abolished human enslavement — happened quietly and almost unnoticed. Contemporary observers were not shocked by these changes, and historians have given them little attention. They occurred without any legislative actions or military force. Moral reasons quietly erased the differences first between Normans and Saxons, and then between masters and slaves. No one can pinpoint the exact moment when either distinction disappeared. Some faint remnants of the old Norman sentiment might have still been around in the late fourteenth century. Some traces of the institution of villenage were noticed by the curious even in the days of the Stuarts, and that institution has never been officially abolished to this day.

It would be most unjust not to acknowledge that the chief agent in these two great deliverances was religion; and it may perhaps be doubted whether a purer religion might not have been found a less efficient agent. The benevolent spirit of the Christian morality is undoubtedly adverse to distinctions of caste. But to the Church of Rome such distinctions are peculiarly odious; for they are incompatible with other distinctions which are essential to her system. She ascribes to every priest a mysterious dignity which entitles him to the reverence of every layman; and she does not consider any man as disqualified, by reason of his nation or of his family, for the priesthood. Her doctrines respecting the sacerdotal character, however erroneous they may be, have repeatedly mitigated some of the worst evils which can afflict society. That superstition cannot be regarded as unmixedly noxious which, in regions cursed by the tyranny of race over race, creates an aristocracy altogether independent of race, inverts the relation between the oppressor and the oppressed, and compels the hereditary master to kneel before the spiritual tribunal of the hereditary bondman. To this day, in some countries where negro slavery exists, Popery appears in advantageous contrast to other forms of Christianity. It is notorious that the antipathy between the European and African races is by no means so strong at Rio Janerio as at Washington. In our own country this peculiarity of the Roman Catholic system produced, during the middle ages, many salutary effects. It is true that, shortly after the battle of Hastings, Saxon prelates and abbots were violently deposed, and that ecclesiastical adventurers from the Continent were intruded by hundreds into lucrative benefices. Yet even then pious divines of Norman blood raised their voices against such a violation of the constitution of the Church, refused to accept mitres from the hands of William, and charged him, on the peril of his soul, not to forget that the vanquished islanders were his fellow Christians. The first protector whom the English found among the dominant caste was Archbishop Anselm. At a time when the English name was a reproach, and when all the civil and military dignities of the kingdom were supposed to belong exclusively to the countrymen of the Conqueror, the despised race learned, with transports of delight, that one of themselves, Nicholas Breakspear, had been elevated to the papal throne, and had held out his foot to be kissed by ambassadors sprung from the noblest houses of Normandy. It was a national as well as a religious feeling that drew great multitudes to the shrine of Becket, whom they regarded as the enemy of their enemies. Whether he was a Norman or a Saxon may be doubted: but there is no doubt that he perished by Norman hands, and that the Saxons cherished his memory with peculiar tenderness and veneration, and, in their popular poetry, represented him as one of their own race. A successor of Becket was foremost among the refractory magnates who obtained that charter which secured the privileges both of the Norman barons and of the Saxon yeomanry. How great a part the Roman Catholic ecclesiastics subsequently had in the abolition of villenage we learn from the unexceptionable testimony of Sir Thomas Smith, one of the ablest Protestant counsellors of Elizabeth. When the dying slaveholder asked for the last sacraments, his spiritual attendants regularly adjured him, as he loved his soul, to emancipate his brethren for whom Christ had died. So successfully had the Church used her formidable machinery that, before the Reformation came, she had enfranchised almost all the bondmen in the kingdom except her own, who, to do her justice, seem to have been very tenderly treated.

It would be very unfair not to recognize that religion was the main force behind these two major changes; and it’s worth considering whether a more genuine religion might have been less effective. The compassionate spirit of Christian morality definitely opposes caste distinctions. However, the Catholic Church finds such distinctions particularly appalling because they conflict with other distinctions that are critical to its system. The Church attributes a mysterious dignity to every priest that demands the respect of every layperson; and it does not consider anyone unfit for the priesthood based on their nationality or family background. While her views on the priestly character might be misguided, they have often eased some of the worst societal ills. That kind of superstition can't be seen as entirely harmful when, in places plagued by racial tyranny, it creates an aristocracy that is completely unrelated to race, shifts the power dynamics between oppressor and oppressed, and forces hereditary masters to kneel before the spiritual authority of their former slaves. Even today, in some countries where Black slavery exists, Catholicism contrasts favorably with other forms of Christianity. It's well known that the conflict between European and African races isn't as intense in Rio de Janeiro as it is in Washington D.C. In our own country, this unique aspect of the Catholic system brought about many positive outcomes during the Middle Ages. It’s true that shortly after the Battle of Hastings, Saxon bishops and abbots were violently removed, and many ecclesiastical opportunists from the continent were installed in lucrative positions. Yet even then, devout Norman clergy protested such violations of the Church's constitution, refused to accept miters from William, and warned him, for the sake of his soul, not to forget that the defeated islanders were his fellow Christians. The first protector the English found among the dominant class was Archbishop Anselm. At a time when being English was a disgrace and when all the civil and military honors of the kingdom were thought to belong solely to the Conqueror's countrymen, the marginalized English people were ecstatic to learn that one of their own, Nicholas Breakspear, had been raised to the papacy and had allowed ambassadors from noble Norman families to kiss his foot. It was both a national and religious sentiment that drew large crowds to the shrine of Becket, whom they viewed as an enemy of their enemies. Whether he was Norman or Saxon is debatable; but what is certain is that he was killed by Normans, and the Saxons held his memory in special affection and respect, even depicting him as one of their own in their folk poetry. A successor of Becket was among the rebellious nobles who secured the charter that protected the rights of both Norman barons and Saxon farmers. We learn from the reliable account of Sir Thomas Smith, one of Elizabeth's most skilled Protestant advisors, just how significant a role Catholic clergy played in the abolition of serfdom. When the dying slave owner called for the last rites, his spiritual attendants urged him, for the sake of his soul, to free the brethren for whom Christ had died. The Church had effectively utilized its powerful influence that, by the time the Reformation arrived, it had liberated almost all of the slaves in the kingdom except for its own, who, to be fair, seemed to have been treated quite kindly.

There can be no doubt that, when these two great revolutions had been effected, our forefathers were by far the best governed people in Europe. During three hundred years the social system had been in a constant course of improvement. Under the first Plantagenets there had been barons able to bid defiance to the sovereign, and peasants degraded to the level of the swine and oxen which they tended. The exorbitant power of the baron had been gradually reduced. The condition of the peasant had been gradually elevated. Between the aristocracy and the working people had sprung up a middle class, agricultural and commercial. There was still, it may be, more inequality than is favourable to the happiness and virtue of our species: but no man was altogether above the restraints of law; and no man was altogether below its protection.

There's no doubt that after these two major revolutions, our ancestors were the best governed people in Europe. For three hundred years, the social system had been continuously improving. Under the first Plantagenets, there were barons who could openly defy the king, and peasants who were treated like the animals they tended, like pigs and oxen. The barons' excessive power had slowly diminished, while the status of the peasants had gradually risen. A middle class, made up of agricultural and commercial workers, emerged between the aristocracy and the working class. There might still have been more inequality than what promotes the happiness and virtue of our species, but no one was completely above the law, and no one was entirely without its protection.

That the political institutions of England were, at this early period, regarded by the English with pride and affection, and by the most enlightened men of neighbouring nations with admiration and envy, is proved by the clearest evidence. But touching the nature of these institutions there has been much dishonest and acrimonious controversy.

That the political institutions of England were, at this early period, seen by the English with pride and affection, and by the most enlightened people from neighboring countries with admiration and envy, is proven by clear evidence. However, there has been a lot of dishonest and bitter debate about the nature of these institutions.

The historical literature of England has indeed suffered grievously from a circumstance which has not a little contributed to her prosperity. The change, great as it is, which her polity has undergone during the last six centuries, has been the effect of gradual development, not of demolition and reconstruction. The present constitution of our country is, to the constitution under which she flourished five hundred years ago, what the tree is to the sapling, what the man is to the boy. The alteration has been great. Yet there never was a moment at which the chief part of what existed was not old. A polity thus formed must abound in anomalies. But for the evils arising from mere anomalies we have ample compensation. Other societies possess written constitutions more symmetrical. But no other society has yet succeeded in uniting revolution with prescription, progress with stability, the energy of youth with the majesty of immemorial antiquity.

The historical literature of England has really struggled because of a situation that has also helped her thrive. The significant changes in her political system over the last six centuries have been the result of gradual development, rather than destruction and rebuilding. The current constitution of our country is to the constitution that allowed her to prosper five hundred years ago what a tree is to a sapling, or what a man is to a boy. The change has been substantial. Still, there has never been a time when the main elements of what existed weren’t old. A political system formed in this way is bound to have its quirks. However, we have plenty of compensation for the issues that come from these quirks. Other societies have more neatly structured written constitutions. But no other society has successfully combined revolution with established tradition, progress with stability, and the energy of youth with the dignity of ancient heritage.

This great blessing, however, has its drawbacks: and one of those drawbacks is that every source of information as to our early history has been poisoned by party spirit. As there is no country where statesmen have been so much under the influence of the past, so there is no country where historians have been so much under the influence of the present. Between these two things, indeed, there is a natural connection. Where history is regarded merely as a picture of life and manners, or as a collection of experiments from which general maxims of civil wisdom may be drawn, a writer lies under no very pressing temptation to misrepresent transactions of ancient date. But where history is regarded as a repository of titledeeds, on which the rights of governments and nations depend, the motive to falsification becomes almost irresistible. A Frenchman is not now impelled by any strong interest either to exaggerate or to underrate the power of the Kings of the house of Valois. The privileges of the States General, of the States of Britanny, of the States of Burgundy, are to him matters of as little practical importance as the constitution of the Jewish Sanhedrim or of the Amphictyonic Council. The gulph of a great revolution completely separates the new from the old system. No such chasm divides the existence of the English nation into two distinct parts. Our laws and customs have never been lost in general and irreparable ruin. With us the precedents of the middle ages are still valid precedents, and are still cited, on the gravest occasions, by the most eminent Statesmen. For example, when King George the Third was attacked by the malady which made him incapable of performing his regal functions, and when the most distinguished lawyers and politicians differed widely as to the course which ought, in such circumstances, to be pursued, the Houses of Parliament would not proceed to discuss any plan of regency till all the precedents which were to be found in our annals, from the earliest times, had been collected and arranged. Committees were appointed to examine the ancient records of the realm. The first case reported was that of the year 1217: much importance was attached to the cases of 1326, of 1377, and of 1422: but the case which was justly considered as most in point was that of 1455. Thus in our country the dearest interests of parties have frequently been on the results of the researches of antiquaries. The inevitable consequence was that our antiquaries conducted their researches in the spirit of partisans.

This great blessing, however, has its drawbacks: and one of those drawbacks is that every source of information about our early history has been tainted by bias. There's no nation where politicians have been more influenced by the past, and there’s also no nation where historians are more influenced by the present. There’s a natural connection between these two factors. When history is seen merely as a reflection of life and customs, or as a collection of lessons from which general rules of governance can be drawn, a writer doesn’t feel a strong urge to misrepresent past events. But when history is viewed as a record of legal titles that determine the rights of governments and nations, the temptation to distort the truth becomes almost irresistible. A French person today isn't driven by a strong interest to either exaggerate or downplay the power of the Kings of the Valois dynasty. The rights of the States General, the States of Brittany, and the States of Burgundy hold as little practical significance to them as the constitution of the Jewish Sanhedrim or the Amphictyonic Council. The chasm of a major revolution completely separates the new system from the old. No such divide exists in the history of the English nation, where our laws and customs have never been lost to total destruction. In our case, precedents from the Middle Ages are still applicable and are often referenced by our leading politicians. For instance, when King George III fell ill and was unable to fulfill his royal duties, distinguished lawyers and politicians disagreed on the best course of action in such a situation. The Houses of Parliament wouldn’t discuss any regency plan until all relevant precedents from our history, dating back to the earliest times, were gathered and organized. Committees were formed to review the ancient records of the realm. The earliest case cited was from 1217, with significant emphasis placed on the cases from 1326, 1377, and 1422. However, the case most relevant to their situation was from 1455. Thus, in our country, the vital interests of political parties have often relied on the findings of historians. As a result, our historians conducted their research with a partisan spirit.

It is therefore not surprising that those who have written, concerning the limits of prerogative and liberty in the old polity of England should generally have shown the temper, not of judges, but of angry and uncandid advocates. For they were discussing, not a speculative matter, but a matter which had a direct and practical connection with the most momentous and exciting disputes of their own day. From the commencement of the long contest between the Parliament and the Stuarts down to the time when the pretensions of the Stuarts ceased to be formidable, few questions were practically more important than the question whether the administration of that family had or had not been in accordance with the ancient constitution of the kingdom. This question could be decided only by reference to the records of preceding reigns. Bracton and Fleta, the Mirror of Justice and the Rolls of Parliament, were ransacked to find pretexts for the excesses of the Star Chamber on one side, and of the High Court of Justice on the other. During a long course of years every Whig historian was anxious to prove that the old English government was all but republican, every Tory historian to prove that it was all but despotic.

It's not surprising that those who have written about the limits of authority and freedom in old England often came off as more like angry and biased advocates than judges. They were talking about something that wasn't just theoretical but was directly tied to the most crucial and heated debates of their time. From the start of the long struggle between Parliament and the Stuarts until the point when the Stuarts' claims were no longer a threat, few issues were as significant as whether the rule of that family aligned with the country's ancient constitution. This question could only be settled by looking at the records of previous reigns. Bracton and Fleta, the Mirror of Justice, and the Rolls of Parliament were thoroughly searched to find justifications for the excesses of the Star Chamber on one side and the High Court of Justice on the other. Over many years, every Whig historian was eager to show that the old English government was nearly republican, while every Tory historian aimed to prove that it was nearly despotic.

With such feelings, both parties looked into the chronicles of the middle ages. Both readily found what they sought; and both obstinately refused to see anything but what they sought. The champions of the Stuarts could easily point out instances of oppression exercised on the subject. The defenders of the Roundheads could as easily produce instances of determined and successful resistance offered to the Crown. The Tories quoted, from ancient writings, expressions almost as servile as were heard from the pulpit of Mainwaring. The Whigs discovered expressions as bold and severe as any that resounded from the judgment seat of Bradshaw. One set of writers adduced numerous instances in which Kings had extorted money without the authority of Parliament. Another set cited cases in which the Parliament had assumed to itself the power of inflicting punishment on Kings. Those who saw only one half of the evidence would have concluded that the Plantagenets were as absolute as the Sultans of Turkey: those who saw only the other half would have concluded that the Plantagenets had as little real power as the Doges of Venice; and both conclusions would have been equally remote from the truth.

With those feelings, both sides looked into the history of the Middle Ages. They both quickly found what they were looking for and stubbornly refused to acknowledge anything else. The supporters of the Stuarts could easily point out instances of oppression against the people. The defenders of the Roundheads could just as easily present examples of determined and successful resistance to the Crown. The Tories quoted from old writings, with phrases almost as servile as those heard from Mainwaring’s pulpit. The Whigs found phrases as bold and severe as any that echoed from Bradshaw’s judgment seat. One group of writers highlighted many instances where kings had taken money without Parliament's authority. Another group cited cases where Parliament had taken it upon itself to punish kings. Those who only saw one side of the evidence would have concluded that the Plantagenets were as absolute as the Sultans of Turkey; those who saw only the other side would have concluded that the Plantagenets had as little real power as the Doges of Venice; and both conclusions would have been equally far from the truth.

The old English government was one of a class of limited monarchies which sprang up in Western Europe during the middle ages, and which, notwithstanding many diversities, bore to one another a strong family likeness. That there should have been such a likeness is not strange The countries in which those monarchies arose had been provinces of the same great civilised empire, and had been overrun and conquered, about the same time, by tribes of the same rude and warlike nation. They were members of the same great coalition against Islam. They were in communion with the same superb and ambitious Church. Their polity naturally took the same form. They had institutions derived partly from imperial Rome, partly from papal Rome, partly from the old Germany. All had Kings; and in all the kingly office became by degrees strictly hereditary. All had nobles bearing titles which had originally indicated military rank. The dignity of knighthood, the rules of heraldry, were common to all. All had richly endowed ecclesiastical establishments, municipal corporations enjoying large franchises, and senates whose consent was necessary to the validity of some public acts.

The old English government was one of a type of limited monarchy that emerged in Western Europe during the Middle Ages, and despite many differences, they shared a strong family resemblance. It's not surprising that there was such a resemblance. The countries where these monarchies developed had been parts of the same large civilized empire and had been overrun and conquered around the same time by tribes from the same rough and warlike nation. They were members of the same major alliance against Islam. They were connected to the same grand and ambitious Church. Their political systems naturally took a similar shape. They had institutions that were partly based on imperial Rome, partly on papal Rome, and partly on ancient Germany. All had kings, and over time, the kingship became strictly hereditary in all cases. All had nobles with titles that originally indicated military rank. The honor of knighthood and the rules of heraldry were common to all. They all had well-funded religious institutions, municipal corporations with significant privileges, and senates whose approval was required for the validity of certain public acts.

Of these kindred constitutions the English was, from an early period, justly reputed the best. The prerogatives of the sovereign were undoubtedly extensive. The spirit of religion and the spirit of chivalry concurred to exalt his dignity. The sacred oil had been poured on his head. It was no disparagement to the bravest and noblest knights to kneel at his feet. His person was inviolable. He alone was entitled to convoke the Estates of the realm: he could at his pleasure dismiss them; and his assent was necessary to all their legislative acts. He was the chief of the executive administration, the sole organ of communication with foreign powers, the captain of the military and naval forces of the state, the fountain of justice, of mercy, and of honour. He had large powers for the regulation of trade. It was by him that money was coined, that weights and measures were fixed, that marts and havens were appointed. His ecclesiastical patronage was immense. His hereditary revenues, economically administered, sufficed to meet the ordinary charges of government. His own domains were of vast extent. He was also feudal lord paramount of the whole soil of his kingdom, and, in that capacity, possessed many lucrative and many formidable rights, which enabled him to annoy and depress those who thwarted him, and to enrich and aggrandise, without any cost to himself, those who enjoyed his favour.

Of these similar constitutions, the English one was rightly considered the best from an early period. The powers of the sovereign were undoubtedly extensive. The essence of religion and the essence of chivalry worked together to elevate his status. The sacred oil had been poured on his head. It was no shame for the bravest and noblest knights to kneel at his feet. His person was untouchable. He alone had the right to summon the Estates of the realm; he could dismiss them whenever he wanted, and his approval was necessary for all their legislative actions. He was the head of the executive branch, the sole point of contact with foreign nations, the commander of the military and naval forces of the state, and the source of justice, mercy, and honor. He had significant powers to regulate trade. He was the one who minted money, set weights and measures, and designated markets and harbors. His church patronage was immense. His hereditary revenues, managed wisely, were enough to cover the ordinary costs of government. His own lands were vast. He was also the feudal lord of all the land in his kingdom, which gave him many profitable and formidable rights, allowing him to trouble and suppress those who opposed him, while enriching and elevating those who had his favor at no cost to himself.

But his power, though ample, was limited by three great constitutional principles, so ancient that none can say when they began to exist, so potent that their natural development, continued through many generations, has produced the order of things under which we now live.

But his power, while significant, was restricted by three fundamental constitutional principles, so old that no one can pinpoint when they started, so strong that their natural evolution, carried on over many generations, has created the system we live in today.

First, the King could not legislate without the consent of his Parliament. Secondly, he could impose no tax without the consent of his Parliament. Thirdly, he was bound to conduct the executive administration according to the laws of the land, and, if he broke those laws, his advisers and his agents were responsible.

First, the King couldn’t make laws without the agreement of his Parliament. Second, he couldn’t impose any taxes without his Parliament’s approval. Third, he was required to run the executive administration according to the country’s laws, and if he broke those laws, his advisors and agents were held accountable.

No candid Tory will deny that these principles had, five hundred years ago, acquired the authority of fundamental rules. On the other hand, no candid Whig will affirm that they were, till a later period, cleared from all ambiguity, or followed out to all their consequences. A constitution of the middle ages was not, like a constitution of the eighteenth or nineteenth century, created entire by a single act, and fully set forth in a single document. It is only in a refined and speculative age that a polity is constructed on system. In rude societies the progress of government resembles the progress of language and of versification. Rude societies have language, and often copious and energetic language: but they have no scientific grammar, no definitions of nouns and verbs, no names for declensions, moods, tenses, and voices. Rude societies have versification, and often versification of great power and sweetness: but they have no metrical canons; and the minstrel whose numbers, regulated solely by his ear, are the delight of his audience, would himself be unable to say of how many dactyls and trochees each of his lines consists. As eloquence exists before syntax, and song before prosody, so government may exist in a high degree of excellence long before the limits of legislative, executive, and judicial power have been traced with precision.

No honest Tory would deny that these principles had, five hundred years ago, gained the status of fundamental rules. On the other hand, no honest Whig would claim that they were, until later on, free from any ambiguity or fully explored in all their implications. A constitution from the middle ages was not, like a constitution from the eighteenth or nineteenth century, created all at once by a single act and completely detailed in one document. Only in a more refined and thoughtful era is a political system built methodically. In less developed societies, the evolution of government resembles the evolution of language and poetry. Less developed societies have language, often rich and powerful, but they lack a scientific grammar, no definitions for nouns and verbs, and no terms for declensions, moods, tenses, and voices. Less developed societies have poetry, often filled with great power and beauty, but they have no metrical rules; the minstrel whose verses are guided solely by his ear, delighting his audience, would himself be unable to specify how many dactyls and trochees make up each of his lines. Just as eloquence exists before syntax, and song before prosody, so too can government exist at a high level of excellence long before the boundaries of legislative, executive, and judicial power have been clearly defined.

It was thus in our country. The line which bounded the royal prerogative, though in general sufficiently clear, had not everywhere been drawn with accuracy and distinctness. There was, therefore, near the border some debatable ground on which incursions and reprisals continued to take place, till, after ages of strife, plain and durable landmarks were at length set up. It may be instructive to note in what way, and to what extent, our ancient sovereigns were in the habit of violating the three great principles by which the liberties of the nation were protected.

It was like that in our country. The boundary that defined the royal authority, while generally clear, wasn’t always drawn precisely everywhere. So, there was some disputed territory near the edge where invasions and retaliations kept happening until, after centuries of conflict, clear and lasting markers were finally established. It might be helpful to see how, and to what degree, our historical kings would violate the three main principles that protected the nation’s freedoms.

No English King has ever laid claim to the general legislative power. The most violent and imperious Plantagenet never fancied himself competent to enact, without the consent of his great council, that a jury should consist of ten persons instead of twelve, that a widow's dower should be a fourth part instead of a third, that perjury should be a felony, or that the custom of gavelkind should be introduced into Yorkshire. 2 But the King had the power of pardoning offenders; and there is one point at which the power of pardoning and the power of legislating seem to fade into each other, and may easily, at least in a simple age, be confounded. A penal statute is virtually annulled if the penalties which it imposes are regularly remitted as often as they are incurred. The sovereign was undoubtedly competent to remit penalties without limit. He was therefore competent to annul virtually a penal statute. It might seem that there could be no serious objection to his doing formally what he might do virtually. Thus, with the help of subtle and courtly lawyers, grew up, on the doubtful frontier which separates executive from legislative functions, that great anomaly known as the dispensing power.

No English king has ever claimed general legislative power. The most forceful and domineering Plantagenet never believed he could decide, without his great council's consent, that a jury should consist of ten people instead of twelve, that a widow's dower should be a fourth instead of a third, that perjury should be a felony, or that the custom of gavelkind should be introduced in Yorkshire. 2 But the king had the power to pardon offenders; and there is one point where the power to pardon and the power to legislate seem to blend together and might easily, at least in simpler times, be confused. A penal statute is effectively nullified if the penalties it imposes are regularly forgiven as often as they are incurred. The sovereign was certainly capable of removing penalties with no limits. Therefore, he was able to virtually annul a penal statute. It might seem that there could be no serious objection to him formally doing what he could accomplish virtually. Thus, with the help of clever and courtly lawyers, emerged the great anomaly known as the dispensing power on the uncertain line that separates executive from legislative functions.

That the King could not impose taxes without the consent of Parliament is admitted to have been, from time immemorial, a fundamental law of England. It was among the articles which John was compelled by the Barons to sign. Edward the First ventured to break through the rule: but, able, powerful, and popular as he was, he encountered an opposition to which he found it expedient to yield. He covenanted accordingly in express terms, for himself and his heirs, that they would never again levy any aid without the assent and goodwill of the Estates of the realm. His powerful and victorious grandson attempted to violate this solemn compact: but the attempt was strenuously withstood. At length the Plantagenets gave up the point in despair: but, though they ceased to infringe the law openly, they occasionally contrived, by evading it, to procure an extraordinary supply for a temporary purpose. They were interdicted from taxing; but they claimed the right of begging and borrowing. They therefore sometimes begged in a tone not easily to be distinguished from that of command, and sometimes borrowed with small thought of repaying. But the fact that they thought it necessary to disguise their exactions under the names of benevolences and loans sufficiently proves that the authority of the great constitutional rule was universally recognised.

That the King couldn’t impose taxes without Parliament's consent has been recognized as a fundamental law of England for a long time. It was one of the agreements that John was forced to sign by the Barons. Edward the First tried to break this rule, but despite being capable, powerful, and popular, he faced opposition that made him back down. He specifically agreed, for himself and his heirs, that they would never again raise any aid without the approval and goodwill of the Estates of the realm. His strong and victorious grandson tried to violate this serious agreement, but the attempt was strongly resisted. Eventually, the Plantagenets gave up on the issue in frustration; however, even though they stopped openly breaking the law, they sometimes found ways to evade it and obtain extra funds for temporary needs. They were not allowed to tax, but they claimed the right to beg and borrow. So, at times they begged in a way that was hard to distinguish from a command, and other times they borrowed with little intention of repaying. The fact that they felt the need to disguise their demands as benevolences and loans clearly shows that the authority of this important constitutional rule was widely accepted.

The principle that the King of England was bound to conduct the administration according to law, and that, if he did anything against law, his advisers and agents were answerable, was established at a very early period, as the severe judgments pronounced and executed on many royal favourites sufficiently prove. It is, however, certain that the rights of individuals were often violated by the Plantagenets, and that the injured parties were often unable to obtain redress. According to law no Englishman could be arrested or detained in confinement merely by the mandate of the sovereign. In fact, persons obnoxious to the government were frequently imprisoned without any other authority than a royal order. According to law, torture, the disgrace of the Roman jurisprudence, could not, in any circumstances, be inflicted on an English subject. Nevertheless, during the troubles of the fifteenth century, a rack was introduced into the Tower, and was occasionally used under the plea of political necessity. But it would be a great error to infer from such irregularities that the English monarchs were, either in theory or in practice, absolute. We live in a highly civilised society, through which intelligence is so rapidly diffused by means of the press and of the post office that any gross act of oppression committed in any part of our island is, in a few hours, discussed by millions. If the sovereign were now to immure a subject in defiance of the writ of Habeas Corpus, or to put a conspirator to the torture, the whole nation would be instantly electrified by the news. In the middle ages the state of society was widely different. Rarely and with great difficulty did the wrongs of individuals come to the knowledge of the public. A man might be illegally confined during many months in the castle of Carlisle or Norwich; and no whisper of the transaction might reach London. It is highly probable that the rack had been many years in use before the great majority of the nation had the least suspicion that it was ever employed. Nor were our ancestors by any means so much alive as we are to the importance of maintaining great general rules. We have been taught by long experience that we cannot without danger suffer any breach of the constitution to pass unnoticed. It is therefore now universally held that a government which unnecessarily exceeds its powers ought to be visited with severe parliamentary censure, and that a government which, under the pressure of a great exigency, and with pure intentions, has exceeded its powers, ought without delay to apply to Parliament for an act of indemnity. But such were not the feelings of the Englishmen of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. They were little disposed to contend for a principle merely as a principle, or to cry out against an irregularity which was not also felt to be a grievance. As long as the general spirit of the administration was mild and popular, they were willing to allow some latitude to their sovereign. If, for ends generally acknowledged to be good, he exerted a vigour beyond the law, they not only forgave, but applauded him, and while they enjoyed security and prosperity under his rule, were but too ready to believe that whoever had incurred his displeasure had deserved it. But to this indulgence there was a limit; nor was that King wise who presumed far on the forbearance of the English people. They might sometimes allow him to overstep the constitutional line: but they also claimed the privilege of overstepping that line themselves, whenever his encroachments were so serious as to excite alarm. If, not content with occasionally oppressing individuals, he cared to oppress great masses, his subjects promptly appealed to the laws, and, that appeal failing, appealed as promptly to the God of battles.

The idea that the King of England had to run the government according to the law was established quite early on, as the harsh judgments passed on many royal favorites clearly show. However, it’s true that the rights of individuals were often violated by the Plantagenets, and those harmed frequently couldn’t get justice. By law, no Englishman could be arrested or held just because the king said so. In reality, people the government didn’t like were often imprisoned with nothing more than a royal order. According to the law, torture, a disgrace of Roman law, couldn’t be inflicted on any English subject under any circumstances. Yet, during the troubles of the fifteenth century, a rack was brought into the Tower and was occasionally used under the justification of political necessity. However, it would be a big mistake to think that the English monarchs were absolute rulers either in theory or practice. We live in a highly civilized society where information spreads quickly via the press and the post office, so any serious act of oppression happening anywhere in the country is discussed by millions within hours. If the sovereign were to imprison someone against the writ of Habeas Corpus or torture a conspirator today, the whole nation would be shocked by the news. Life was very different in the Middle Ages. Rarely did individuals’ injustices come to public attention. A person could be illegally held for many months in a castle in Carlisle or Norwich, and no one in London would hear about it. It’s quite likely that the rack had been used for many years before most of the country even suspected it existed. Furthermore, our ancestors weren’t as aware of the importance of upholding broad principles as we are today. Our long experience has taught us that we cannot allow any breach of the constitution to go unchecked without risking danger. Today, it’s widely accepted that a government that exceeds its powers unnecessarily should face serious parliamentary reprimand, and one that exceeds its powers under pressure with good intentions should promptly go to Parliament for an act of indemnity. But this was not how people felt in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. They were not inclined to fight for a principle just for the principle’s sake or to protest an irregularity that didn’t also feel like a wrong. As long as the government was generally mild and popular, they were willing to give their king some leeway. If he acted beyond the law for reasons they generally recognized as good, they not only forgave him but also praised him. While they enjoyed security and prosperity under his reign, they were quick to believe that anyone who fell out of his favor deserved it. However, there was a limit to this tolerance, and any king who pushed too far on the patience of the English people was not wise. They might let him cross the constitutional line at times, but they also reserved the right to cross it themselves whenever his overreach caused real concern. If he didn’t just occasionally oppress individuals but chose to oppress large groups, his subjects would quickly turn to the law, and if that failed, they would turn to the God of battles.

Our forefathers might indeed safely tolerate a king in a few excesses; for they had in reserve a check which soon brought the fiercest and proudest king to reason, the check of physical force. It is difficult for an Englishman of the nineteenth century to imagine to himself the facility and rapidity with which, four hundred years ago, this check was applied. The people have long unlearned the use of arms. The art of war has been carried to a perfection unknown to former ages; and the knowledge of that art is confined to a particular class. A hundred thousand soldiers, well disciplined and commanded, will keep down ten millions of ploughmen and artisans. A few regiments of household troops are sufficient to overawe all the discontented spirits of a large capital. In the meantime the effect of the constant progress of wealth has been to make insurrection far more terrible to thinking men than maladministration. Immense sums have been expended on works which, if a rebellion broke out, might perish in a few hours. The mass of movable wealth collected in the shops and warehouses of London alone exceeds five hundredfold that which the whole island contained in the days of the Plantagenets; and, if the government were subverted by physical force, all this movable wealth would be exposed to imminent risk of spoliation and destruction. Still greater would be the risk to public credit, on which thousands of families directly depend for subsistence, and with which the credit of the whole commercial world is inseparably connected. It is no exaggeration to say that a civil war of a week on English ground would now produce disasters which would be felt from the Hoang-ho to the Missouri, and of which the traces would be discernible at the distance of a century. In such a state of society resistance must be regarded as a cure more desperate than almost any malady which can afflict the state. In the middle ages, on the contrary, resistance was an ordinary remedy for political distempers, a remedy which was always at hand, and which, though doubtless sharp at the moment, produced no deep or lasting ill effects. If a popular chief raised his standard in a popular cause, an irregular army could be assembled in a day. Regular army there was none. Every man had a slight tincture of soldiership, and scarcely any man more than a slight tincture. The national wealth consisted chiefly in flocks and herds, in the harvest of the year, and in the simple buildings inhabited by the people. All the furniture, the stock of shops, the machinery which could be found in the realm was of less value than the property which some single parishes now contain. Manufactures were rude; credit was almost unknown. Society, therefore, recovered from the shock as soon as the actual conflict was over. The calamities of civil war were confined to the slaughter on the field of battle, and to a few subsequent executions and confiscations. In a week the peasant was driving his team and the esquire flying his hawks over the field of Towton or of Bosworth, as if no extraordinary event had interrupted the regular course of human life.

Our ancestors could tolerate a king's excesses because they had a way to keep even the most arrogant king in check: physical force. It's hard for a 19th-century Englishman to imagine how quickly this check was applied four hundred years ago. People have long forgotten how to use weapons. The art of war has been perfected to an extent unseen in earlier times, and knowledge of it is limited to a specific group. A well-trained army of a hundred thousand soldiers can control ten million farmers and laborers. A few regiments of household troops are enough to intimidate all the dissatisfied people in a major city. Meanwhile, the growing wealth has made rebellion seem far worse to thoughtful individuals than bad governance. Huge sums have been invested in infrastructures that could be destroyed within hours if a rebellion broke out. The amount of wealth stored in the shops and warehouses of London alone is more than five hundred times what the entire island had during the Plantagenet era. If the government were overthrown by force, all this wealth would face a serious threat of looting and destruction. Public credit, which thousands of families rely on for their livelihoods and which is tied to the credit of the entire commercial world, would also be at great risk. It's not an exaggeration to say that a civil war lasting a week on English soil would lead to disasters felt from the Yangtze River to the Missouri, leaving traces that would last a century. In this kind of society, resistance must be seen as a more desperate remedy than almost any illness that can plague the state. In the Middle Ages, however, resistance was a common solution for political issues, always accessible, and though it was harsh at the moment, it didn’t have deep or lasting negative effects. If a popular leader raised a banner for a cause, an irregular army could be quickly assembled. There was no regular army. Every man had some basic military training, but very few had more than that. National wealth was mostly in livestock, annual crops, and the simple homes of the people. The total value of all furniture, shop stock, and machinery in the realm was less than what some single parishes have today. Production was primitive; credit was nearly nonexistent. Therefore, society bounced back from the shock as soon as the fighting ended. The devastation of civil war was limited to the deaths on the battlefield, followed by a few executions and confiscations. Within a week, the peasant was plowing his fields, and the squire was hunting with his hawks at Towton or Bosworth as if nothing extraordinary had disrupted the regular flow of life.

More than a hundred and sixty years have now elapsed since the English people have by force subverted a government. During the hundred and sixty years which preceded the union of the Roses, nine Kings reigned in England. Six of these nine Kings were deposed. Five lost their lives as well as their crowns. It is evident, therefore, that any comparison between our ancient and our modern polity must lead to most erroneous conclusions, unless large allowance be made for the effect of that restraint which resistance and the fear of resistance constantly imposed on the Plantagenets. As our ancestors had against tyranny a most important security which we want, they might safely dispense with some securities to which we justly attach the highest importance. As we cannot, without the risk of evils from which the imagination recoils, employ physical force as a check on misgovernment, it is evidently our wisdom to keep all the constitutional checks on misgovernment in the highest state of efficiency, to watch with jealousy the first beginnings of encroachment, and never to suffer irregularities, even when harmless in themselves, to pass unchallenged, lest they acquire the force of precedents. Four hundred years ago such minute vigilance might well seem unnecessary. A nation of hardy archers and spearmen might, with small risk to its liberties, connive at some illegal acts on the part of a prince whose general administration was good, and whose throne was not defended by a single company of regular soldiers.

More than a hundred and sixty years have passed since the English people forcefully overthrew a government. In the hundred and sixty years leading up to the union of the Roses, nine kings ruled England. Six of these nine kings were deposed. Five lost their lives as well as their crowns. It's clear, then, that any comparison between our ancient and modern political systems could lead to misleading conclusions unless we take into account the limitations that resistance and the fear of resistance constantly placed on the Plantagenets. While our ancestors had a crucial safeguard against tyranny that we lack, they could afford to let go of some safeguards that we rightly consider essential. Since we cannot, without risking terrible consequences, use physical force as a check on poor governance, it makes sense for us to keep all constitutional checks on bad governance functioning at their best, to closely monitor the initial signs of encroachment, and to never let irregularities, even if harmless on their own, go unchallenged, lest they gain the force of precedent. Four hundred years ago, such careful vigilance might have seemed unnecessary. A nation of skilled archers and spearmen could, with little risk to its freedoms, overlook some illegal actions by a prince whose overall governance was good and whose throne was not supported by any regular troop.

Under this system, rude as it may appear when compared with those elaborate constitutions of which the last seventy years have been fruitful, the English long enjoyed a large measure of freedom and happiness. Though, during the feeble reign of Henry the Sixth, the state was torn, first by factions, and at length by civil war; though Edward the Fourth was a prince of dissolute and imperious character; though Richard the Third has generally been represented as a monster of depravity; though the exactions of Henry the Seventh caused great repining; it is certain that our ancestors, under those Kings, were far better governed than the Belgians under Philip, surnamed the Good, or the French under that Lewis who was styled the Father of his people. Even while the wars of the Roses were actually raging, our country appears to have been in a happier condition than the neighbouring realms during years of profound peace. Comines was one of the most enlightened statesmen of his time. He had seen all the richest and most highly civilised parts of the Continent. He had lived in the opulent towns of Flanders, the Manchesters and Liverpools of the fifteenth century. He had visited Florence, recently adorned by the magnificence of Lorenzo, and Venice, not yet bumbled by the Confederates of Cambray. This eminent man deliberately pronounced England to be the best governed country of which he had any knowledge. Her constitution he emphatically designated as a just and holy thing, which, while it protected the people, really strengthened the hands of a prince who respected it. In no other country were men so effectually secured from wrong. The calamities produced by our intestine wars seemed to him to be confined to the nobles and the fighting men, and to leave no traces such as he had been accustomed to see elsewhere, no ruined dwellings, no depopulated cities.

Under this system, which may seem rough compared to the elaborate constitutions that have emerged over the last seventy years, the English enjoyed a good amount of freedom and happiness. Despite the weak rule of Henry the Sixth, which was marked by factions and eventually civil war; Edward the Fourth being a dissolute and domineering prince; Richard the Third often depicted as a wicked monster; and the heavy taxes imposed by Henry the Seventh causing much discontent, it is clear that our ancestors were governed much better under these kings than the Belgians were under Philip the Good or the French under Louis, who was called the Father of his people. Even while the Wars of the Roses were ongoing, our country seemed to be in a better state than neighboring realms that were at peace for many years. Comines was one of the most enlightened statesmen of his time. He had traveled through the wealthiest and most civilized parts of the continent, lived in the rich towns of Flanders—the Manchesters and Liverpools of the fifteenth century—and visited Florence, recently beautified by Lorenzo's grandeur, and Venice, not yet weakened by the Confederates of Cambray. This distinguished man unequivocally declared England to be the best governed country he knew. He described its constitution as a just and holy thing that, while protecting the people, genuinely empowered a prince who honored it. In no other country were people so effectively shielded from harm. The disasters caused by our internal wars seemed limited to the nobles and military, with no signs of devastation that he had seen elsewhere—no ruined homes, no depopulated cities.

It was not only by the efficiency of the restraints imposed on the royal prerogative that England was advantageously distinguished from most of the neighbouring countries. A: peculiarity equally important, though less noticed, was the relation in which the nobility stood here to the commonalty. There was a strong hereditary aristocracy: but it was of all hereditary aristocracies the least insolent and exclusive. It had none of the invidious character of a caste. It was constantly receiving members from the people, and constantly sending down members to mingle with the people. Any gentleman might become a peer. The younger son of a peer was but a gentleman. Grandsons of peers yielded precedence to newly made knights. The dignity of knighthood was not beyond the reach of any man who could by diligence and thrift realise a good estate, or who could attract notice by his valour in a battle or a siege. It was regarded as no disparagement for the daughter of a Duke, nay of a royal Duke, to espouse a distinguished commoner. Thus, Sir John Howard married the daughter of Thomas Mowbray Duke of Norfolk. Sir Richard Pole married the Countess of Salisbury, daughter of George, Duke of Clarence. Good blood was indeed held in high respect: but between good blood and the privileges of peerage there was, most fortunately for our country, no necessary connection. Pedigrees as long, and scutcheons as old, were to be found out of the House of Lords as in it. There were new men who bore the highest titles. There were untitled men well known to be descended from knights who had broken the Saxon ranks at Hastings, and scaled the walls of Jerusalem. There were Bohuns, Mowbrays, DeVeres, nay, kinsmen of the House of Plantagenet, with no higher addition than that of Esquire, and with no civil privileges beyond those enjoyed by every farmer and shopkeeper. There was therefore here no line like that which in some other countries divided the patrician from the plebeian. The yeoman was not inclined to murmur at dignities to which his own children might rise. The grandee was not inclined to insult a class into which his own children must descend.

It wasn't just the effective limits placed on royal power that set England apart from most neighboring countries. Another important but less noticed aspect was the relationship between the nobility and the common people. There was a strong hereditary aristocracy, but it was the least arrogant and exclusive compared to other hereditary classes. It didn't have the divisive traits of a caste system. It was always welcoming new members from the populace and frequently sending members back to mix with the people. Any gentleman could become a peer. The younger son of a peer was considered just a gentleman. The grandsons of peers would take a backseat to newly created knights. The honor of knighthood was attainable for anyone who could achieve a good estate through hard work and smart saving, or who could make a name for themselves through bravery in battle or during a siege. It was not seen as a disgrace for the daughter of a Duke, even a royal Duke, to marry a prominent commoner. For example, Sir John Howard married the daughter of Thomas Mowbray, Duke of Norfolk, and Sir Richard Pole married the Countess of Salisbury, daughter of George, Duke of Clarence. Good lineage was indeed highly valued, but thankfully in our country, there was no necessary link between good lineage and the privileges of the peerage. There were pedigrees as lengthy and coats of arms as ancient found outside the House of Lords as well as inside it. New individuals held the highest titles, while untitled people were known to be descendants of knights who fought at Hastings and climbed the walls of Jerusalem. There were Bohuns, Mowbrays, DeVeres, and even relatives of the House of Plantagenet, with no title beyond Esquire and with no civil privileges beyond those enjoyed by every farmer and shopkeeper. Thus, there wasn't a clear line as seen in some other countries that separated the patricians from the plebeians. The yeoman wasn't likely to resent dignities to which his own children might rise, and the grandee wasn’t inclined to insult a class from which his own children might descend.

After the wars of York and Lancaster, the links which connected the nobility and commonalty became closer and more numerous than ever. The extent of destruction which had fallen on the old aristocracy may be inferred from a single circumstance. In the year 1451 Henry the Sixth summoned fifty-three temporal Lords to parliament. The temporal Lords summoned by Henry the Seventh to the parliament of 1485 were only twenty-nine, and of these several had recently been elevated to the peerage. During the following century the ranks of the nobility were largely recruited from among the gentry. The constitution of the House of Commons tended greatly to promote the salutary intermixture of classes. The knight of the shire was the connecting link between the baron and the shopkeeper. On the same benches on which sate the goldsmiths, drapers, and grocers, who had been returned to parliament by the commercial towns, sate also members who, in any other country, would have been called noblemen, hereditary lords of manors, entitled to hold courts and to bear coat armour, and able to trace back an honourable descent through many generations. Some of them were younger sons and brothers of lords. Others could boast of even royal blood. At length the eldest son of an Earl of Bedford, called in courtesy by the second title of his father, offered himself as candidate for a seat in the House of Commons, and his example was followed by others. Seated in that house, the heirs of the great peers naturally became as zealous for its privileges as any of the humble burgesses with whom they were mingled. Thus our democracy was, from an early period, the most aristocratic, and our aristocracy the most democratic in the world; a peculiarity which has lasted down to the present day, and which has produced many important moral and political effects.

After the Wars of the Roses, the connections between the nobility and common people became closer and more numerous than ever. The level of destruction that hit the old aristocracy can be seen in one example. In 1451, Henry the Sixth called fifty-three Lords to parliament. By the time Henry the Seventh summoned Lords to parliament in 1485, there were only twenty-nine, and many of those had recently been made peers. Over the next century, many new nobles came from the gentry. The structure of the House of Commons greatly encouraged the beneficial blending of classes. The knight of the shire served as the bridge between the baron and the shopkeeper. On the same benches where goldsmiths, drapers, and grocers—who had been elected to parliament by commercial towns—sat, there were also members who, in any other country, would be called noblemen, hereditary lords of manors, entitled to hold courts, bear coats of arms, and trace an honorable lineage through many generations. Some were younger sons and brothers of lords. Others could even boast of royal blood. Eventually, the eldest son of an Earl of Bedford, known by his father’s second title, ran for a seat in the House of Commons, setting an example for others. Seated in that house, the heirs of great peers naturally became just as passionate about its privileges as the humble burgesses they were mixed with. Thus, from an early stage, our democracy was the most aristocratic, and our aristocracy the most democratic in the world; a unique trait that continues to this day and has led to many significant moral and political consequences.

The government of Henry the Seventh, of his son, and of his grandchildren was, on the whole, more arbitrary than that of the Plantagenets. Personal character may in some degree explain the difference; for courage and force of will were common to all the men and women of the House of Tudor. They exercised their power during a period of a hundred and twenty years, always with vigour, often with violence, sometimes with cruelty. They, in imitation of the dynasty which had preceded them, occasionally invaded the rights of the subject, occasionally exacted taxes under the name of loans and gifts, and occasionally dispensed with penal statutes: nay, though they never presumed to enact any permanent law by their own authority, they occasionally took upon themselves, when Parliament was not sitting, to meet temporary exigencies by temporary edicts. It was, however, impossible for the Tudors to carry oppression beyond a certain point: for they had no armed force, and they were surrounded by an armed people. Their palace was guarded by a few domestics, whom the array of a single shire, or of a single ward of London, could with ease have overpowered. These haughty princes were therefore under a restraint stronger than any that mere law can impose, under a restraint which did not, indeed, prevent them from sometimes treating an individual in an arbitrary and even in a barbarous manner, but which effectually secured the nation against general and long continued oppression. They might safely be tyrants, within the precinct of the court: but it was necessary for them to watch with constant anxiety the temper of the country. Henry the Eighth, for example, encountered no opposition when he wished to send Buckingham and Surrey, Anne Boleyn and Lady Salisbury, to the scaffold. But when, without the consent of Parliament, he demanded of his subjects a contribution amounting to one sixth of their goods, he soon found it necessary to retract. The cry of hundreds of thousands was that they were English and not French, freemen and not slaves. In Kent the royal commissioners fled for their lives. In Suffolk four thousand men appeared in arms. The King's lieutenants in that county vainly exerted themselves to raise an army. Those who did not join in the insurrection declared that they would not fight against their brethren in such a quarrel. Henry, proud and selfwilled as he was, shrank, not without reason from a conflict with the roused spirit of the nation. He had before his eyes the fate of his predecessors who had perished at Berkeley and Pomfret. He not only cancelled his illegal commissions; he not only granted a general pardon to all the malecontents; but he publicly and solemnly apologised for his infraction of the laws.

The government of Henry the Seventh, his son, and his grandchildren was, overall, more arbitrary than that of the Plantagenets. Personal character might help explain the difference; courage and determination were traits shared by all the members of the House of Tudor. They wielded their power over a span of a hundred and twenty years, always with energy, often with violence, and sometimes with cruelty. They, following the example of the previous dynasty, occasionally violated the rights of the people, sometimes imposed taxes under the guise of loans and gifts, and occasionally disregarded penal statutes. Although they never claimed the right to create any permanent laws on their own authority, they sometimes issued temporary edicts when Parliament was not in session to address urgent needs. However, it was impossible for the Tudors to oppress the people beyond a certain limit because they had no standing army and were surrounded by an armed populace. Their palace was protected by a few servants, who could easily have been overpowered by the troops of a single county or even a single ward of London. These proud rulers were therefore under a constraint stronger than any mere law could impose, a restraint that, while it didn’t prevent them from sometimes treating individuals in an arbitrary and even brutal way, effectively protected the nation from widespread and prolonged oppression. They might have been able to act as tyrants within the court, but they had to constantly monitor the public mood. For example, Henry the Eighth faced no resistance when he planned to execute Buckingham, Surrey, Anne Boleyn, and Lady Salisbury. However, when he demanded a contribution amounting to one-sixth of their possessions from his subjects without Parliament's approval, he quickly realized he needed to backtrack. The outcry from hundreds of thousands was that they were English, not French, and free men, not slaves. In Kent, royal commissioners fled for their lives. In Suffolk, four thousand men took up arms. The King’s representatives in that county failed in their attempts to raise an army. Those who didn’t join the rebellion declared they wouldn't fight against their fellow countrymen in such a dispute. Despite being proud and headstrong, Henry wisely recoiled from a conflict with the awakened spirit of the nation. He was well aware of the fates of his predecessors who had died at Berkeley and Pomfret. He not only canceled his illegal orders; he also granted a general pardon to all discontented individuals and publicly and solemnly apologized for breaking the laws.

His conduct, on this occasion, well illustrates the whole policy of his house. The temper of the princes of that line was hot, and their spirits high, but they understood the character of the nation that they governed, and never once, like some of their predecessors, and some of their successors, carried obstinacy to a fatal point. The discretion of the Tudors was such, that their power, though it was often resisted, was never subverted. The reign of every one of them was disturbed by formidable discontents: but the government was always able either to soothe the mutineers or to conquer and punish them. Sometimes, by timely concessions, it succeeded in averting civil hostilities; but in general it stood firm, and called for help on the nation. The nation obeyed the call, rallied round the sovereign, and enabled him to quell the disaffected minority.

His actions in this situation clearly show the overall approach of his family. The princes from that line were passionate and spirited, but they understood the nature of the people they ruled and never let their stubbornness take them to a disastrous point, unlike some of their predecessors and successors. The wisdom of the Tudors was such that their authority, even when challenged, was never completely overthrown. Each of their reigns faced serious unrest, but the government was always able to either calm the rebels or defeat and punish them. Sometimes, by making timely concessions, it managed to avoid civil conflict, but generally, it remained steadfast and called on the people for support. The people responded to the call, rallied around the monarch, and helped him suppress the discontented minority.

Thus, from the age of Henry the Third to the age of Elizabeth, England grew and flourished under a polity which contained the germ of our present institutions, and which, though not very exactly defined, or very exactly observed, was yet effectually prevented from degenerating into despotism, by the awe in which the governors stood of the spirit and strength of the governed.

Thus, from the time of Henry III to the time of Elizabeth, England grew and thrived under a system that held the seeds of our current institutions. Although not clearly defined or consistently applied, this system effectively prevented itself from slipping into tyranny, due to the respect the rulers had for the will and power of the people.

But such a polity is suited only to a particular stage in the progress of society. The same causes which produce a division of labour in the peaceful arts must at length make war a distinct science and a distinct trade. A time arrives when the use of arms begins to occupy the entire attention of a separate class. It soon appears that peasants and burghers, however brave, are unable to stand their ground against veteran soldiers, whose whole life is a preparation for the day of battle, whose nerves have been braced by long familiarity with danger, and whose movements have all the precision of clockwork. It is found that the defence of nations can no longer be safely entrusted to warriors taken from the plough or the loom for a campaign of forty days. If any state forms a great regular army, the bordering states must imitate the example, or must submit to a foreign yoke. But, where a great regular army exists, limited monarchy, such as it was in the middle ages, can exist no longer. The sovereign is at once emancipated from what had been the chief restraint on his power; and he inevitably becomes absolute, unless he is subjected to checks such as would be superfluous in a society where all are soldiers occasionally, and none permanently.

But this kind of government is only suitable for a specific point in society's development. The same factors that create a division of labor in peaceful industries eventually turn warfare into a distinct science and profession. A time comes when the use of weapons fully consumes the focus of a dedicated class. It quickly becomes clear that farmers and townspeople, no matter how courageous, cannot compete against seasoned soldiers, whose entire lives prepare them for battle, whose nerves are steadied by long exposure to danger, and whose movements are as precise as clockwork. It's evident that the defense of nations can no longer be safely entrusted to fighters pulled from the fields or workshops for a 40-day campaign. If any state builds a large standing army, neighboring states must either follow suit or submit to foreign control. However, where a significant standing army exists, the limited monarchy that existed in the Middle Ages can no longer thrive. The ruler is freed from what used to be the main limitation on their power; they inevitably become absolute unless they face checks that would be unnecessary in a society where everyone is a part-time soldier and none are full-time.

With the danger came also the means of escape. In the monarchies of the middle ages the power of the sword belonged to the prince; but the power of the purse belonged to the nation; and the progress of civilisation, as it made the sword of the prince more and more formidable to the nation, made the purse of the nation more and more necessary to the prince. His hereditary revenues would no longer suffice, even for the expenses of civil government. It was utterly impossible that, without a regular and extensive system of taxation, he could keep in constant efficiency a great body of disciplined troops. The policy which the parliamentary assemblies of Europe ought to have adopted was to take their stand firmly on their constitutional right to give or withhold money, and resolutely to refuse funds for the support of armies, till ample securities had been provided against despotism.

With the danger also came the means of escape. In the monarchies of the Middle Ages, the power of the sword belonged to the king; but the power of the purse belonged to the people. As civilization advanced, making the king's sword more and more powerful against the people, the people's purse became increasingly essential to the king. His hereditary revenues could no longer cover even the costs of civil government. It was completely impossible for him to maintain a large, well-trained army without a regular and extensive system of taxation. The approach that the parliamentary assemblies of Europe should have taken was to firmly assert their constitutional right to grant or deny money and to consistently refuse funds for the support of armies until sufficient safeguards against tyranny were established.

This wise policy was followed in our country alone. In the neighbouring kingdoms great military establishments were formed; no new safeguards for public liberty were devised; and the consequence was, that the old parliamentary institutions everywhere ceased to exist. In France, where they had always been feeble, they languished, and at length died of mere weakness. In Spain, where they had been as strong as in any part of Europe, they struggled fiercely for life, but struggled too late. The mechanics of Toledo and Valladolid vainly defended the privileges of the Castilian Cortes against the veteran battalions of Charles the Fifth. As vainly, in the next generation, did the citizens of Saragossa stand up against Philip the Second, for the old constitution of Aragon. One after another, the great national councils of the continental monarchies, councils once scarcely less proud and powerful than those which sate at Westminster, sank into utter insignificance. If they met, they met merely as our Convocation now meets, to go through some venerable forms.

This wise policy was only followed in our country. In neighboring kingdoms, large military forces were created; no new protections for public freedom were introduced; and as a result, the old parliamentary systems faded away everywhere. In France, where they had always been weak, they dwindled and eventually disappeared due to their own frailty. In Spain, where they had been as strong as anywhere in Europe, they fought hard for survival, but it was too late. The workers of Toledo and Valladolid unsuccessfully defended the rights of the Castilian Cortes against the seasoned armies of Charles the Fifth. Similarly, in the next generation, the people of Saragossa fought for the old constitution of Aragon against Philip the Second, but to no avail. One by one, the major national councils of the continental monarchies—councils that were once almost as proud and powerful as those that met at Westminster—fell into complete irrelevance. If they gathered, it was only to partake in some outdated rituals, much like our Convocation does today.

In England events took a different course. This singular felicity she owed chiefly to her insular situation. Before the end of the fifteenth century great military establishments were indispensable to the dignity, and even to the safety, of the French and Castilian monarchies. If either of those two powers had disarmed, it would soon have been compelled to submit to the dictation of the other. But England, protected by the sea against invasion, and rarely engaged in warlike operations on the Continent, was not, as yet, under the necessity of employing regular troops. The sixteenth century, the seventeenth century, found her still without a standing army. At the commencement of the seventeenth century political science had made considerable progress. The fate of the Spanish Cortes and of the French States General had given solemn warning to our Parliaments; and our Parliaments, fully aware of the nature and magnitude of the danger, adopted, in good time, a system of tactics which, after a contest protracted through three generations, was at length successful.

In England, things were different. This unique advantage was mainly due to its island location. By the end of the fifteenth century, large military forces were essential for the dignity and safety of the French and Castilian monarchies. If either of those countries had disarmed, they would quickly have had to bow to the other’s demands. But England, shielded by the sea from invasion and not frequently involved in military actions on the continent, didn’t yet need to maintain regular troops. The sixteenth and seventeenth centuries saw her still without a standing army. By the early seventeenth century, political science had advanced significantly. The fate of the Spanish Cortes and the French States General served as a serious warning to our Parliaments; and our Parliaments, fully recognizing the nature and extent of the threat, timely adopted a tactical system that ultimately succeeded after a struggle lasting three generations.

Almost every writer who has treated of that contest has been desirous to show that his own party was the party which was struggling to preserve the old constitution unaltered. The truth however is that the old constitution could not be preserved unaltered. A law, beyond the control of human wisdom, had decreed that there should no longer be governments of that peculiar class which, in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, had been common throughout Europe. The question, therefore, was not whether our polity should undergo a change, but what the nature of the change should be. The introduction of a new and mighty force had disturbed the old equilibrium, and had turned one limited monarchy after another into an absolute monarchy. What had happened elsewhere would assuredly have happened here, unless the balance had been redressed by a great transfer of power from the crown to the parliament. Our princes were about to have at their command means of coercion such as no Plantagenet or Tudor had ever possessed. They must inevitably have become despots, unless they had been, at the same time, placed under restraints to which no Plantagenet or Tudor had ever been subject.

Almost every writer who has discussed that conflict has wanted to show that their own side was the one trying to keep the old constitution unchanged. The truth is, though, that the old constitution couldn’t stay the same. A law, beyond human control, had determined that governments of that specific type, which were common in Europe during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, could no longer exist. So, the real question wasn’t whether our political system would change, but what that change would look like. The introduction of a new and powerful force disrupted the old balance and turned one limited monarchy after another into an absolute monarchy. What happened elsewhere would have definitely happened here, unless there had been a significant shift of power from the crown to the parliament to restore the balance. Our rulers were about to have control over means of coercion unlike anything any Plantagenet or Tudor had ever had. They would have inevitably become tyrants, unless they were also subjected to limits that no Plantagenet or Tudor had ever faced.

It seems certain, therefore, that, had none but political causes been at work, the seventeenth century would not have passed away without a fierce conflict between our Kings and their Parliaments. But other causes of perhaps greater potency contributed to produce the same effect. While the government of the Tudors was in its highest vigour an event took place which has coloured the destinies of all Christian nations, and in an especial manner the destinies of England. Twice during the middle ages the mind of Europe had risen up against the domination of Rome. The first insurrection broke out in the south of France. The energy of Innocent the Third, the zeal of the young orders of Francis and Dominic, and the ferocity of the Crusaders whom the priesthood let loose on an unwarlike population, crushed the Albigensian churches. The second reformation had its origin in England, and spread to Bohemia. The Council of Constance, by removing some ecclesiastical disorders which had given scandal to Christendom, and the princes of Europe, by unsparingly using fire and sword against the heretics, succeeded in arresting and turning back the movement. Nor is this much to be lamented. The sympathies of a Protestant, it is true, will naturally be on the side of the Albigensians and of the Lollards. Yet an enlightened and temperate Protestant will perhaps be disposed to doubt whether the success, either of the Albigensians or of the Lollards, would, on the whole, have promoted the happiness and virtue of mankind. Corrupt as the Church of Rome was, there is reason to believe that, if that Church had been overthrown in the twelfth or even in the fourteenth century, the vacant space would have been occupied by some system more corrupt still. There was then, through the greater part of Europe, very little knowledge; and that little was confined to the clergy. Not one man in five hundred could have spelled his way through a psalm. Books were few and costly. The art of printing was unknown. Copies of the Bible, inferior in beauty and clearness to those which every cottager may now command, sold for prices which many priests could not afford to give. It was obviously impossible that the laity should search the Scriptures for themselves. It is probable therefore, that, as soon as they had put off one spiritual yoke, they would have put on another, and that the power lately exercised by the clergy of the Church of Rome would have passed to a far worse class of teachers. The sixteenth century was comparatively a time of light. Yet even in the sixteenth century a considerable number of those who quitted the old religion followed the first confident and plausible guide who offered himself, and were soon led into errors far more serious than those which they had renounced. Thus Matthias and Kniperdoling, apostles of lust, robbery, and murder, were able for a time to rule great cities. In a darker age such false prophets might have founded empires; and Christianity might have been distorted into a cruel and licentious superstition, more noxious, not only than Popery, but even than Islamism.

It seems clear, therefore, that if only political reasons had been at play, the seventeenth century wouldn't have ended without a fierce conflict between our Kings and their Parliaments. However, other possibly stronger factors also contributed to the same outcome. While the Tudor government was at its peak, an event occurred that has shaped the futures of all Christian nations, especially England. Twice during the Middle Ages, Europe rose against the control of Rome. The first uprising happened in southern France. The vigor of Innocent the Third, the enthusiasm of the young orders of Francis and Dominic, and the brutality of the Crusaders unleashed by the clergy on an unarmed population crushed the Albigensian churches. The second reformation started in England and spread to Bohemia. The Council of Constance managed to address some ecclesiastical issues that had scandalized Christendom, and the European princes, by mercilessly using fire and sword against heretics, successfully halted and reversed the movement. This isn't necessarily something to lament. True, a Protestant's sympathies will naturally lean toward the Albigensians and the Lollards. Yet a reasonable and moderate Protestant might doubt whether the success of either the Albigensians or the Lollards would have ultimately promoted the happiness and virtue of humanity. As corrupt as the Church of Rome was, it’s plausible to think that if it had been overthrown in the twelfth or even fourteenth century, a system even more corrupt could have filled the gap. At that time, throughout much of Europe, knowledge was minimal; and what little there was, belonged mainly to the clergy. Only one in five hundred people might have been able to read a psalm. Books were scarce and expensive. The printing press had not yet been invented. Copies of the Bible, which were inferior in quality and clarity to the ones that any villager can easily access now, were priced out of reach for many priests. It was clearly impossible for laypeople to read the Scriptures on their own. Therefore, it's likely that once they shed one spiritual burden, they would have taken on another, and the authority once held by the clergy of the Church of Rome would have shifted to a much worse group of leaders. The sixteenth century was relatively a time of enlightenment. Yet even then, a significant number of those who left the old religion followed the first bold and convincing guide they encountered, soon falling into errors much more serious than those they had left behind. Figures like Matthias and Kniperdoling, apostles of lust, theft, and murder, were able for a time to take control of large cities. In a darker era, such false prophets could have established empires, and Christianity might have been twisted into a cruel and immoral superstition, more harmful not only than Catholicism but even than Islam.

About a hundred years after the rising of the Council of Constance, that great change emphatically called the Reformation began. The fulness of time was now come. The clergy were no longer the sole or the chief depositories of knowledge The invention of printing had furnished the assailants of the Church with a mighty weapon which had been wanting to their predecessors. The study of the ancient writers, the rapid development of the powers of the modern languages, the unprecedented activity which was displayed in every department of literature, the political state of Europe, the vices of the Roman court, the exactions of the Roman chancery, the jealousy with which the wealth and privileges of the clergy were naturally regarded by laymen, the jealousy with which the Italian ascendency was naturally regarded by men born on our side of the Alps, all these things gave to the teachers of the new theology an advantage which they perfectly understood how to use.

About a hundred years after the Council of Constance, a significant change known as the Reformation began. The time was right for it. The clergy were no longer the only or main sources of knowledge. The invention of printing provided those challenging the Church with a powerful tool that previous critics had lacked. The study of ancient writers, the rapid growth of modern languages, the unprecedented activity across all areas of literature, the political situation in Europe, the corruption of the Roman court, the demands of the Roman chancery, the resentment laypeople felt towards the wealth and privileges of the clergy, and the resentment towards Italian dominance by people born on our side of the Alps—all of these factors gave the new theological leaders an advantage that they fully knew how to exploit.

Those who hold that the influence of the Church of Rome in the dark ages was, on the whole, beneficial to mankind, may yet with perfect consistency regard the Reformation as an inestimable blessing. The leading strings, which preserve and uphold the infant, would impede the fullgrown man. And so the very means by which the human mind is, in one stage of its progress, supported and propelled, may, in another stage, be mere hindrances. There is a season in the life both of an individual and of a society, at which submission and faith, such as at a later period would be justly called servility and credulity, are useful qualities. The child who teachably and undoubtingly listens to the instructions of his elders is likely to improve rapidly. But the man who should receive with childlike docility every assertion and dogma uttered by another man no wiser than himself would become contemptible. It is the same with communities. The childhood of the European nations was passed under the tutelage of the clergy. The ascendancy of the sacerdotal order was long the ascendancy which naturally and properly belongs to intellectual superiority. The priests, with all their faults, were by far the wisest portion of society. It was, therefore, on the whole, good that they should be respected and obeyed. The encroachments of the ecclesiastical power on the province of the civil power produced much more happiness than misery, while the ecclesiastical power was in the hands of the only class that had studied history, philosophy, and public law, and while the civil power was in the hands of savage chiefs, who could not read their own grants and edicts. But a change took place. Knowledge gradually spread among laymen. At the commencement of the sixteenth century many of them were in every intellectual attainment fully equal to the most enlightened of their spiritual pastors. Thenceforward that dominion, which, during the dark ages, had been, in spite of many abuses, a legitimate and salutary guardianship, became an unjust and noxious tyranny.

Those who believe that the influence of the Roman Catholic Church during the dark ages was mostly beneficial to humanity can still consistently view the Reformation as an invaluable blessing. The support that nurtures a child may hinder an adult. Similarly, the very tools that aid the human mind at one stage of its development can become obstacles at another. There is a time in the life of both an individual and a society when submission and faith, which might later be rightly seen as servility and gullibility, are useful traits. A child who listens eagerly and without doubt to the guidance of elders is likely to learn quickly. But an adult who accepts every statement and doctrine from someone no more knowledgeable than himself would become laughable. The same applies to societies. The early period of European nations was spent under the guidance of clergy. The power of the priesthood for a long time reflected a natural and rightful intellectual superiority. The priests, despite their flaws, were the wisest members of society. Thus, it was generally good that they were respected and obeyed. The extension of church power over civil authority created more happiness than suffering while ecclesiastical power was held by the only class educated in history, philosophy, and law, while civil power was with tribal leaders who couldn’t even read their own decrees. But then a change occurred. Knowledge gradually spread among the laypeople. By the beginning of the sixteenth century, many of them were intellectually on par with the most enlightened of their spiritual leaders. From that point on, the power that had served as a legitimate and beneficial guardianship during the dark ages transformed into an unjust and harmful tyranny.

From the time when the barbarians overran the Western Empire to the time of the revival of letters, the influence of the Church of Rome had been generally favourable to science to civilisation, and to good government. But, during the last three centuries, to stunt the growth of the human mind has been her chief object. Throughout Christendom, whatever advance has been made in knowledge, in freedom, in wealth, and in the arts of life, has been made in spite of her, and has everywhere been in inverse proportion to her power. The loveliest and most fertile provinces of Europe have, under her rule, been sunk in poverty, in political servitude, and in intellectual torpor, while Protestant countries, once proverbial for sterility and barbarism, have been turned by skill and industry into gardens, and can boast of a long list of heroes and statesmen, philosophers and poets. Whoever, knowing what Italy and Scotland naturally are, and what, four hundred years ago, they actually were, shall now compare the country round Rome with the country round Edinburgh, will be able to form some judgment as to the tendency of Papal domination. The descent of Spain, once the first among monarchies, to the lowest depths of degradation, the elevation of Holland, in spite of many natural disadvantages, to a position such as no commonwealth so small has ever reached, teach the same lesson. Whoever passes in Germany from a Roman Catholic to a Protestant principality, in Switzerland from a Roman Catholic to a Protestant canton, in Ireland from a Roman Catholic to a Protestant county, finds that he has passed from a lower to a higher grade of civilisation. On the other side of the Atlantic the same law prevails. The Protestants of the United States have left far behind them the Roman Catholics of Mexico, Peru, and Brazil. The Roman Catholics of Lower Canada remain inert, while the whole continent round them is in a ferment with Protestant activity and enterprise. The French have doubtless shown an energy and an intelligence which, even when misdirected, have justly entitled them to be called a great people. But this apparent exception, when examined, will be found to confirm the rule; for in no country that is called Roman Catholic, has the Roman Catholic Church, during several generations, possessed so little authority as in France. The literature of France is justly held in high esteem throughout the world. But if we deduct from that literature all that belongs to four parties which have been, on different grounds, in rebellion against the Papal domination, all that belongs to the Protestants, all that belongs to the assertors of the Gallican liberties, all that belongs to the Jansenists, and all that belongs to the philosophers, how much will be left?

From the time the barbarians took over the Western Empire to the revival of learning, the influence of the Roman Church was generally beneficial to science, civilization, and good governance. However, for the last three centuries, her main goal has been to stifle the development of human thought. Across Christendom, any progress made in knowledge, freedom, wealth, and the arts has occurred despite her, and has been inversely proportional to her power. The most beautiful and fertile regions of Europe have, under her control, fallen into poverty, political subjugation, and intellectual stagnation, while Protestant nations, once known for their barrenness and brutality, have been transformed by skill and hard work into flourishing lands, boasting a long list of heroes, statesmen, philosophers, and poets. Anyone who knows what Italy and Scotland truly are, and what they were four hundred years ago, will be able to compare the area around Rome with the area around Edinburgh and assess the effects of papal rule. The decline of Spain, once the leading monarchy, to the lowest depths of despair, alongside the rise of Holland, despite many natural challenges, to a level unprecedented for such a small commonwealth, teaches the same lesson. Anyone traveling in Germany from a Roman Catholic principality to a Protestant one, in Switzerland from a Roman Catholic canton to a Protestant one, or in Ireland from a Roman Catholic county to a Protestant one, will see they have moved from a lower to a higher level of civilization. The same principle applies on the other side of the Atlantic. The Protestants of the United States have far surpassed the Roman Catholics of Mexico, Peru, and Brazil. The Roman Catholics of Lower Canada remain stagnant, while the entire surrounding continent is buzzing with Protestant energy and enterprise. The French have certainly demonstrated an energy and intelligence that, even when misapplied, justifies their reputation as a great people. But this apparent exception, when scrutinized, actually supports the rule; for in no country considered Roman Catholic has the Roman Catholic Church wielded so little authority as in France over several generations. French literature is justifiably respected worldwide. But if we subtract from that literature all that comes from the four groups that have, for different reasons, rebelled against papal authority—Protestants, advocates of Gallican liberties, Jansenists, and philosophers—how much will remain?

It is difficult to say whether England owes more to the Roman Catholic religion or to the Reformation. For the amalgamation of races and for the abolition of villenage, she is chiefly indebted to the influence which the priesthood in the middle ages exercised over the laity. For political and intellectual freedom, and for all the blessings which political and intellectual freedom have brought in their train, she is chiefly indebted to the great rebellion of the laity against the priesthood.

It’s hard to determine whether England is more influenced by the Roman Catholic faith or by the Reformation. She largely owes her mix of cultures and the end of serfdom to the power that clergy held over ordinary people in the middle ages. However, for political and intellectual freedom, along with the benefits that have come with that freedom, she primarily owes it to the significant uprising of the laity against the clergy.

The struggle between the old and the new theology in our country was long, and the event sometimes seemed doubtful. There were two extreme parties, prepared to act with violence or to suffer with stubborn resolution. Between them lay, during a considerable time, a middle party, which blended, very illogically, but by no means unnaturally, lessons learned in the nursery with the sermons of the modern evangelists, and, while clinging with fondness to all observances, yet detested abuses with which those observances were closely connected. Men in such a frame of mind were willing to obey, almost with thankfulness, the dictation of an able ruler who spared them the trouble of judging for themselves, and, raising a firm and commanding voice above the uproar of controversy, told them how to worship and what to believe. It is not strange, therefore, that the Tudors should have been able to exercise a great influence on ecclesiastical affairs; nor is it strange that their influence should, for the most part, have been exercised with a view to their own interest.

The struggle between traditional and modern theology in our country was lengthy, and it often felt uncertain. There were two extreme groups, ready to act violently or endure with unwavering determination. For a significant time, there was a middle group that combined, quite irrationally yet understandably, lessons from childhood with the teachings of contemporary evangelists. They cherished all traditions but despised the abuses tied to those traditions. People in this mindset were mostly willing to gratefully follow a strong leader who relieved them of the burden of making their own judgments and who, with a powerful and commanding voice above the chaos of debate, told them how to worship and what to believe. It's not surprising, then, that the Tudors had a significant impact on church matters; nor is it surprising that their influence mostly aimed at serving their own interests.

Henry the Eighth attempted to constitute an Anglican Church differing from the Roman Catholic Church on the point of the supremacy, and on that point alone. His success in this attempt was extraordinary. The force of his character, the singularly favourable situation in which he stood with respect to foreign powers, the immense wealth which the spoliation of the abbeys placed at his disposal, and the support of that class which still halted between two Opinions, enabled him to bid defiance to both the extreme parties, to burn as heretics those who avowed the tenets of the Reformers, and to hang as traitors those who owned the authority of the Pope. But Henry's system died with him. Had his life been prolonged, he would have found it difficult to maintain a position assailed with equal fury by all who were zealous either for the new or for the old opinions. The ministers who held the royal prerogatives in trust for his infant son could not venture to persist in so hazardous a policy; nor could Elizabeth venture to return to it. It was necessary to make a choice. The government must either submit to Rome, or must obtain the aid of the Protestants. The government and the Protestants had only one thing in common, hatred of the Papal power. The English Reformers were eager to go as far as their brethren on the Continent. They unanimously condemned as Antichristian numerous dogmas and practices to which Henry had stubbornly adhered, and which Elizabeth reluctantly abandoned. Many felt a strong repugnance even to things indifferent which had formed part of the polity or ritual of the mystical Babylon. Thus Bishop Hooper, who died manfully at Gloucester for his religion, long refused to wear the episcopal vestments. Bishop Ridley, a martyr of still greater renown, pulled down the ancient altars of his diocese, and ordered the Eucharist to be administered in the middle of churches, at tables which the Papists irreverently termed oyster boards. Bishop Jewel pronounced the clerical garb to be a stage dress, a fool's coat, a relique of the Amorites, and promised that he would spare no labour to extirpate such degrading absurdities. Archbishop Grindal long hesitated about accepting a mitre from dislike of what he regarded as the mummery of consecration. Bishop Parkhurst uttered a fervent prayer that the Church of England would propose to herself the Church of Zurich as the absolute pattern of a Christian community. Bishop Ponet was of opinion that the word Bishop should be abandoned to the Papists, and that the chief officers of the purified church should be called Superintendents. When it is considered that none of these prelates belonged to the extreme section of the Protestant party, it cannot be doubted that, if the general sense of that party had been followed, the work of reform would have been carried on as unsparingly in England as in Scotland.

Henry the Eighth tried to establish an Anglican Church that was different from the Roman Catholic Church, specifically regarding the issue of authority. His success in this endeavor was remarkable. His strong character, the favorable political position he held with foreign nations, the vast wealth gained from seizing abbey properties, and the backing of a class that was still torn between two beliefs allowed him to challenge both extreme factions. He condemned those who supported the Reformation as heretics and executed those who recognized the Pope's authority as traitors. However, Henry's system died with him. Had he lived longer, he would have struggled to maintain a position that was fiercely attacked by those committed to either the new or the old beliefs. The ministers who took on royal duties for his young son could not continue such a risky policy, nor could Elizabeth return to it. A choice had to be made: the government could either submit to Rome or seek the support of the Protestants. The government and the Protestants shared only one common ground—their dislike for the Papal authority. The English Reformers were eager to align themselves with their counterparts on the Continent. They collectively denounced many doctrines and practices that Henry had stubbornly upheld and that Elizabeth reluctantly let go. Many felt a strong aversion even to seemingly neutral aspects that were part of the rituals of the mystical Babylon. For example, Bishop Hooper, who bravely died for his faith in Gloucester, long refused to wear the ceremonial vestments. Bishop Ridley, a more famous martyr, dismantled the ancient altars in his diocese and ordered that the Eucharist be served in the center of churches on tables that Papists mockingly called oyster boards. Bishop Jewel described the clerical attire as theatrical clothing, a fool's costume, a leftover from the Amorites, and vowed to do everything he could to eliminate such degrading nonsense. Archbishop Grindal hesitated for a long time about accepting a mitre due to his distaste for what he saw as the rituals of consecration. Bishop Parkhurst fervently prayed that the Church of England would look to the Church of Zurich as the ideal model for a Christian community. Bishop Ponet believed that the term Bishop should be left to the Papists, and that the chief leaders of the reformed church should be called Superintendents. Considering that none of these bishops were part of the radical wing of the Protestant movement, it’s clear that if the general sentiments of that faction had been followed, the reform efforts in England would have progressed just as decisively as they did in Scotland.

But, as the government needed the support of the protestants, so the Protestants needed the protection of the government. Much was therefore given up on both sides: an union was effected; and the fruit of that union was the Church of England.

But, just as the government needed the support of the Protestants, the Protestants needed the protection of the government. A lot was given up on both sides, leading to a union, and the result of that union was the Church of England.

To the peculiarities of this great institution, and to the strong passions which it has called forth in the minds both of friends and of enemies, are to be attributed many of the most important events which have, since the Reformation, taken place in our country; nor can the secular history of England be at all understood by us, unless we study it in constant connection with the history of her ecclesiastical polity.

To the unique features of this great institution, and to the strong emotions it has stirred in both supporters and opponents, we can attribute many of the significant events that have occurred in our country since the Reformation. The secular history of England cannot be fully understood unless we examine it in relation to the history of its church governance.

The man who took the chief part in settling the condition, of the alliance which produced the Anglican Church was Archbishop Cranmer. He was the representative of both the parties which, at that time, needed each other's assistance. He was at once a divine and a courtier. In his character of divine he was perfectly ready to go as far in the way of change as any Swiss or Scottish Reformer. In his character of courtier he was desirous to preserve that organisation which had, during many ages, admirably served the purposes of the Bishops of Rome, and might be expected now to serve equally well the purposes of the English Kings and of their ministers. His temper and his understanding, eminently fitted him to act as mediator. Saintly in his professions, unscrupulous in his dealings, zealous for nothing, bold in speculation, a coward and a timeserver in action, a placable enemy and a lukewarm friend, he was in every way qualified to arrange the terms of the coalition between the religious and the worldly enemies of Popery.

The man who played the main role in establishing the conditions for the alliance that led to the Anglican Church was Archbishop Cranmer. He represented both sides that needed each other's support at that time. He was both a religious leader and a court insider. As a religious leader, he was willing to embrace as much change as any Swiss or Scottish Reformer. As a court insider, he wanted to maintain the structure that had effectively served the interests of the Bishops of Rome for many years, and which could now be expected to serve equally well the interests of the English Kings and their advisors. His temperament and understanding made him well-suited to act as a mediator. He was pious in his beliefs, unscrupulous in his actions, uninterested in any particular cause, bold in theories, a coward when it came to action, a placable adversary, and a half-hearted friend. In every way, he was equipped to negotiate the terms of the alliance between the religious and secular opponents of Popery.

To this day the constitution, the doctrines, and the services of the Church, retain the visible marks of the compromise from which she sprang. She occupies a middle position between the Churches of Rome and Geneva. Her doctrinal confessions and discourses, composed by Protestants, set forth principles of theology in which Calvin or Knox would have found scarcely a word to disapprove. Her prayers and thanksgivings, derived from the ancient Breviaries, are very generally such that Cardinal Fisher or Cardinal Pole might have heartily joined in them. A controversialist who puts an Arminian sense on her Articles and Homilies will be pronounced by candid men to be as unreasonable as a controversialist who denies that the doctrine of baptismal regeneration can be discovered in her Liturgy.

To this day, the constitution, the doctrines, and the services of the Church still show the clear signs of the compromise from which it originated. It stands in the middle ground between the Churches of Rome and Geneva. Its doctrinal confessions and discourses, created by Protestants, outline theological principles that Calvin or Knox would hardly have found fault with. Its prayers and thanksgivings, adapted from the ancient Breviaries, are such that Cardinal Fisher or Cardinal Pole could have wholeheartedly participated in them. A controversialist who interprets her Articles and Homilies with an Arminian approach will be seen by fair-minded individuals as just as unreasonable as one who claims that the concept of baptismal regeneration isn't present in her Liturgy.

The Church of Rome held that episcopacy was of divine institution, and that certain supernatural graces of a high order had been transmitted by the imposition of hands through fifty generations, from the Eleven who received their commission on the Galilean mount, to the bishops who met at Trent. A large body of Protestants, on the other hand, regarded prelacy as positively unlawful, and persuaded themselves that they found a very different form of ecclesiastical government prescribed in Scripture. The founders of the Anglican Church took a middle course. They retained episcopacy; but they did not declare it to be an institution essential to the welfare of a Christian society, or to the efficacy of the sacraments. Cranmer, indeed, on one important occasion, plainly avowed his conviction that, in the primitive times, there was no distinction between bishops and priests, and that the laying on of hands was altogether superfluous.

The Church of Rome believed that episcopacy was established by divine authority and that certain high-level supernatural graces had been passed down through the laying on of hands for fifty generations, from the Eleven who received their mission on the Galilean mountain to the bishops who gathered at Trent. In contrast, many Protestants viewed prelacy as outright unlawful and convinced themselves that they found a completely different type of church leadership outlined in Scripture. The founders of the Anglican Church chose a middle ground. They kept episcopacy but didn’t claim it was essential for the well-being of a Christian community or for the effectiveness of the sacraments. Cranmer, in fact, on one significant occasion, clearly stated his belief that in the early church, there was no difference between bishops and priests, and that the laying on of hands was entirely unnecessary.

Among the Presbyterians the conduct of public worship is, to a great extent, left to the minister. Their prayers, therefore, are not exactly the same in any two assemblies on the same day, or on any two days in the same assembly. In one parish they are fervent, eloquent, and full of meaning. In the next parish they may be languid or absurd. The priests of the Roman Catholic Church, on the other hand, have, during many generations, daily chanted the same ancient confessions, supplications, and thanksgivings, in India and Lithuania, in Ireland and Peru. The service, being in a dead language, is intelligible only to the learned; and the great majority of the congregation may be said to assist as spectators rather than as auditors. Here, again, the Church of England took a middle course. She copied the Roman Catholic forms of prayer, but translated them into the vulgar tongue, and invited the illiterate multitude to join its voice to that of the minister.

Among Presbyterians, the way public worship is conducted is largely up to the minister. As a result, their prayers aren’t exactly the same in any two gatherings on the same day or across different days in the same congregation. In one church, the prayers might be passionate, articulate, and meaningful. In another, they could be dull or ridiculous. In contrast, Roman Catholic priests have, for many generations, recited the same ancient confessions, requests, and thanksgivings daily, whether in India or Lithuania, Ireland or Peru. Since the service is in a dead language, it’s only understandable to those who are educated, and most of the congregation acts more like spectators than participants. The Church of England, on the other hand, took a middle path. It adapted the Roman Catholic prayer forms but translated them into everyday language, inviting the uneducated masses to join their voices with that of the minister.

In every part of her system the same policy may be traced. Utterly rejecting the doctrine of transubstantiation, and condemning as idolatrous all adoration paid to the sacramental bread and wine, she yet, to the disgust of the Puritan, required her children to receive the memorials of divine love, meekly kneeling upon their knees. Discarding many rich vestments which surrounded the altars of the ancient faith, she yet retained, to the horror of weak minds, a robe of white linen, typical of the purity which belonged to her as the mystical spouse of Christ. Discarding a crowd of pantomimic gestures which, in the Roman Catholic worship, are substituted for intelligible words, she yet shocked many rigid Protestants by marking the infant just sprinkled from the font with the sign of the cross. The Roman Catholic addressed his prayers to a multitude of Saints, among whom were numbered many men of doubtful, and some of hateful, character. The Puritan refused the addition of Saint even to the apostle of the Gentiles, and to the disciple whom Jesus loved. The Church of England, though she asked for the intercession of no created being, still set apart days for the commemoration of some who had done and suffered great things for the faith. She retained confirmation and ordination as edifying rites; but she degraded them from the rank of sacraments. Shrift was no part of her system. Yet she gently invited the dying penitent to confess his sins to a divine, and empowered her ministers to soothe the departing soul by an absolution which breathes the very spirit of the old religion. In general it may be said that she appeals more to the understanding, and less to the senses and the imagination, than the Church of Rome, and that she appeals less to the understanding, and more to the senses and imagination, than the Protestant Churches of Scotland, France, and Switzerland.

In every part of her system, the same policy can be seen. Completely rejecting the idea of transubstantiation and condemning any worship directed toward the sacramental bread and wine as idolatry, she still, much to the disgust of the Puritan, required her followers to receive the symbols of divine love, humbly kneeling. Discarding many ornate garments that adorned the altars of the ancient faith, she nonetheless kept, to the horror of some, a white linen robe symbolizing the purity she held as the mystical bride of Christ. She eliminated many of the dramatic gestures found in Roman Catholic worship, which replace clear words, yet still shocked many strict Protestants by marking the infant just baptized with the sign of the cross. The Roman Catholic prayed to a multitude of saints, including many figures of questionable and some of outright negative character. The Puritan rejected the addition of a saint even for the apostle to the Gentiles and the disciple whom Jesus loved. The Church of England, while not seeking the intercession of any created being, still set aside days to commemorate those who had accomplished and suffered greatly for the faith. She maintained confirmation and ordination as meaningful rituals but lowered their status from sacraments. Confession was not part of her system. Nevertheless, she gently encouraged the dying penitent to confess sins to a priest and empowered her ministers to comfort the departing soul with an absolution that carries the essence of the old religion. In general, it can be said that she appeals more to reason and less to the senses and imagination than the Roman Catholic Church, and that she appeals less to reason and more to the senses and imagination than the Protestant churches of Scotland, France, and Switzerland.

Nothing, however, so strongly distinguished the Church of England from other Churches as the relation in which she stood to the monarchy. The King was her head. The limits of the authority which he possessed, as such, were not traced, and indeed have never yet been traced with precision. The laws which declared him supreme in ecclesiastical matters were drawn rudely and in general terms. If, for the purpose of ascertaining the sense of those laws, we examine the books and lives of those who founded the English Church, our perplexity will be increased. For the founders of the English Church wrote and acted in an age of violent intellectual fermentation, and of constant action and reaction. They therefore often contradicted each other and sometimes contradicted themselves. That the King was, under Christ, sole head of the Church was a doctrine which they all with one voice affirmed: but those words had very different significations in different mouths, and in the same mouth at different conjunctures. Sometimes an authority which would have satisfied Hildebrand was ascribed to the sovereign: then it dwindled down to an authority little more than that which had been claimed by many ancient English princes who had been in constant communion with the Church of Rome. What Henry and his favourite counsellors meant, at one time, by the supremacy, was certainly nothing less than the whole power of the keys. The King was to be the Pope of his kingdom, the vicar of God, the expositor of Catholic verity, the channel of sacramental graces. He arrogated to himself the right of deciding dogmatically what was orthodox doctrine and what was heresy, of drawing up and imposing confessions of faith, and of giving religious instruction to his people. He proclaimed that all jurisdiction, spiritual as well as temporal, was derived from him alone, and that it was in his power to confer episcopal authority, and to take it away. He actually ordered his seal to be put to commissions by which bishops were appointed, who were to exercise their functions as his deputies, and during his pleasure. According to this system, as expounded by Cranmer, the King was the spiritual as well as the temporal chief of the nation. In both capacities His Highness must have lieutenants. As he appointed civil officers to keep his seal, to collect his revenues, and to dispense justice in his name, so he appointed divines of various ranks to preach the gospel, and to administer the sacraments. It was unnecessary that there should be any imposition of hands. The King,—such was the opinion of Cranmer given in the plainest words,—might in virtue of authority derived from God, make a priest; and the priest so made needed no ordination whatever. These opinions the Archbishop, in spite of the opposition of less courtly divines, followed out to every legitimate consequence. He held that his own spiritual functions, like the secular functions of the Chancellor and Treasurer, were at once determined by a demise of the crown. When Henry died, therefore, the Primate and his suffragans took out fresh commissions, empowering them to ordain and to govern the Church till the new sovereign should think fit to order otherwise. When it was objected that a power to bind and to loose, altogether distinct from temporal power, had been given by our Lord to his apostles, some theologians of this school replied that the power to bind and to loose had descended, not to the clergy, but to the whole body of Christian men, and ought to be exercised by the chief magistrate as the representative of the society. When it was objected that Saint Paul had spoken of certain persons whom the Holy Ghost had made overseers and shepherds of the faithful, it was answered that King Henry was the very overseer, the very shepherd whom the Holy Ghost had appointed, and to whom the expressions of Saint Paul applied. 3

Nothing, however, set the Church of England apart from other churches like its relationship with the monarchy. The King was its head. The boundaries of his authority in this role weren't clearly defined and still haven't been clearly specified. The laws that declared him supreme in church matters were vaguely written and general. If we look through the writings and lives of those who established the English Church to understand these laws, it only adds to our confusion. The founders of the English Church operated in a time of intense intellectual upheaval and constant interaction. They often contradicted each other and sometimes even contradicted themselves. While they all agreed that the King was, under Christ, the sole head of the Church, those words meant very different things coming from different people and even from the same person at different times. At times, the authority attributed to the King would be enough to satisfy Hildebrand, but at other times, it would be reduced to something similar to the claims made by many ancient English rulers who had maintained contact with the Church of Rome. What Henry and his favorite advisers meant by "supremacy" at one point certainly included the entire power of the keys. The King was seen as the Pope of his kingdom, God's representative, the interpreter of Catholic truth, and the source of sacramental grace. He claimed the authority to determine what constituted orthodox doctrine and what was considered heresy, to create and enforce confessions of faith, and to provide religious guidance to his people. He declared that all jurisdiction, both spiritual and temporal, came solely from him, and that he had the power to grant and revoke episcopal authority. He even directed that his seal be affixed to commissions for appointing bishops, who would act as his deputies and remain in office at his pleasure. According to this system, as explained by Cranmer, the King was both the spiritual and temporal leader of the nation. In both roles, he needed lieutenants. Just as he appointed civil officials to keep his seal, collect his revenues, and administer justice in his name, he also appointed clergy of various ranks to preach the gospel and administer the sacraments. There was no need for the laying on of hands. The King—this was Cranmer's clear belief—had the authority from God to make a priest, and the priest created in this way required no ordination whatsoever. Despite facing opposition from less courtly theologians, the Archbishop followed these ideas to their logical conclusions. He believed that his own spiritual duties, like the secular roles of the Chancellor and Treasurer, ended with the passing of the crown. So when Henry died, the Primate and his fellow bishops obtained new commissions, giving them the power to ordain and govern the Church until the new sovereign decided otherwise. When it was pointed out that the authority to bind and loose, distinct from temporal power, was given by our Lord to his apostles, some theologians from this perspective argued that this power belonged not to the clergy but to the entire body of Christian males, and should be exercised by the chief magistrate as the representative of society. When it was argued that Saint Paul referred to certain individuals whom the Holy Spirit had made overseers and shepherds of the faithful, it was countered that King Henry was precisely the overseer and shepherd appointed by the Holy Spirit, to whom Saint Paul's expressions applied. 3

These high pretensions gave scandal to Protestants as well as to Catholics; and the scandal was greatly increased when the supremacy, which Mary had resigned back to the Pope, was again annexed to the crown, on the accession of Elizabeth. It seemed monstrous that a woman should be the chief bishop of a Church in which an apostle had forbidden her even to let her voice be heard. The Queen, therefore, found it necessary expressly to disclaim that sacerdotal character which her father had assumed, and which, according to Cranmer, had been inseparably joined, by divine ordinance, to the regal function. When the Anglican confession of faith was revised in her reign, the supremacy was explained in a manner somewhat different from that which had been fashionable at the court of Henry. Cranmer had declared, in emphatic terms, that God had immediately committed to Christian princes the whole cure of all their subjects, as well concerning the administration of God's word for the cure of souls, as concerning the administration of things political. 4 The thirty-seventh article of religion, framed under Elizabeth, declares, in terms as emphatic, that the ministering of God's word does not belong to princes. The Queen, however, still had over the Church a visitatorial power of vast and undefined extent. She was entrusted by Parliament with the office of restraining and punishing heresy and every sort of ecclesiastical abuse, and was permitted to delegate her authority to commissioners. The Bishops were little more than her ministers. Rather than grant to the civil magistrate the absolute power of nominating spiritual pastors, the Church of Rome, in the eleventh century, set all Europe on fire. Rather than grant to the civil magistrate the absolute power of nominating spiritual pastors, the ministers of the Church of Scotland, in our time, resigned their livings by hundreds. The Church of England had no such scruples. By the royal authority alone her prelates were appointed. By the royal authority alone her Convocations were summoned, regulated, prorogued, and dissolved. Without the royal sanction her canons had no force. One of the articles of her faith was that without the royal consent no ecclesiastical council could lawfully assemble. From all her judicatures an appeal lay, in the last resort, to the sovereign, even when the question was whether an opinion ought to be accounted heretical, or whether the administration of a sacrament had been valid. Nor did the Church grudge this extensive power to our princes. By them she had been called into existence, nursed through a feeble infancy, guarded from Papists on one side and from Puritans on the other, protected against Parliaments which bore her no good will, and avenged on literary assailants whom she found it hard to answer. Thus gratitude, hope, fear, common attachments, common enmities, bound her to the throne. All her traditions, all her tastes, were monarchical. Loyalty became a point of professional honour among her clergy, the peculiar badge which distinguished them at once from Calvinists and from Papists. Both the Calvinists and the Papists, widely as they differed in other respects, regarded with extreme jealousy all encroachments of the temporal power on the domain of the spiritual power. Both Calvinists and Papists maintained that subjects might justifiably draw the sword against ungodly rulers. In France Calvinists resisted Charles the Ninth: Papists resisted Henry the Fourth: both Papists and Calvinists resisted Henry the Third. In Scotland Calvinists led Mary captive. On the north of the Trent Papists took arms against the English throne. The Church of England meantime condemned both Calvinists and Papists, and loudly boasted that no duty was more constantly or earnestly inculcated by her than that of submission to princes.

These high ambitions scandalized both Protestants and Catholics; the outrage increased significantly when the authority that Mary had handed back to the Pope was again attached to the crown with Elizabeth's ascent. It seemed outrageous that a woman should be the leading bishop of a Church where an apostle had prohibited her from even raising her voice. Consequently, the Queen found it necessary to clearly reject the priestly role her father had taken on, which, according to Cranmer, was inseparably linked by divine ordinance to the royal position. When the Anglican confession of faith was revised during her reign, the supremacy was explained in a way that was somewhat different from what had been acceptable at Henry's court. Cranmer emphatically stated that God had directly entrusted Christian rulers with the complete care of all their subjects, concerning both the administration of God's word for the care of souls and the management of political matters. 4 The thirty-seventh article of religion, drafted under Elizabeth, asserts just as emphatically that the preaching of God's word does not belong to rulers. However, the Queen still held a vast and undefined supervisory power over the Church. Parliament entrusted her with the responsibility of restraining and punishing heresy and all sorts of ecclesiastical abuses, allowing her to delegate that authority to commissioners. The Bishops were little more than her representatives. Instead of giving the civil authorities absolute power to appoint spiritual leaders, the Church of Rome sparked unrest across Europe in the eleventh century. More recently, the ministers of the Church of Scotland resigned their positions by the hundreds rather than concede such power to civil authorities. The Church of England had no such reservations. Her bishops were appointed solely by royal authority. Her Convocations were summoned, regulated, prorogued, and dissolved only through royal authority. Without royal approval, her canons had no legal standing. One of her articles of faith stated that no ecclesiastical council could lawfully meet without royal consent. Ultimately, an appeal to the sovereign was available from all her courts, even when the issue was determining whether an opinion was heretical or if the administration of a sacrament was valid. The Church did not begrudge this extensive power to our rulers. It was through them that she was brought into being, supported during her vulnerable early years, defended from Papists on one side and Puritans on the other, shielded from unkind Parliaments, and retaliated against literary critics who were hard to counter. Thus, gratitude, hope, fear, shared loyalties, and common adversities tied her to the throne. All her traditions and preferences were monarchical. Loyalty became a point of professional pride among her clergy, the distinctive mark that set them apart from both Calvinists and Papists. Despite their significant differences in other areas, both Calvinists and Papists were extremely wary of any encroachment by secular power into spiritual matters. Both groups asserted that subjects could rightly take up arms against ungodly rulers. In France, Calvinists resisted Charles the Ninth; Papists opposed Henry the Fourth; both resisted Henry the Third. In Scotland, Calvinists captured Mary. North of the Trent, Papists took up arms against the English crown. Meanwhile, the Church of England condemned both Calvinists and Papists, proudly proclaiming that no responsibility was more consistently or passionately emphasized by her than that of submission to her rulers.

The advantages which the crown derived from this close alliance with the Established Church were great; but they were not without serious drawbacks. The compromise arranged by Cranmer had from the first been considered by a large body of Protestants as a scheme for serving two masters, as an attempt to unite the worship of the Lord with the worship of Baal. In the days of Edward the Sixth the scruples of this party had repeatedly thrown great difficulties in the way of the government. When Elizabeth came to the throne, those difficulties were much increased. Violence naturally engenders violence. The spirit of Protestantism was therefore far fiercer and more intolerant after the cruelties of Mary than before them. Many persons who were warmly attached to the new opinions had, during the evil days, taken refuge in Switzerland and Germany. They had been hospitably received by their brethren in the faith, had sate at the feet of the great doctors of Strasburg, Zurich, and Geneva, and had been, during some years, accustomed to a more simple worship, and to a more democratical form of church government, than England had yet seen. These men returned to their country convinced that the reform which had been effected under King Edward had been far less searching and extensive than the interests of pure religion required. But it was in vain that they attempted to obtain any concession from Elizabeth. Indeed her system, wherever it differed from her brother's, seemed to them to differ for the worse. They were little disposed to submit, in matters of faith, to any human authority. They had recently, in reliance on their own interpretation of Scripture, risen up against a Church strong in immemorial antiquity and catholic consent. It was by no common exertion of intellectual energy that they had thrown off the yoke of that gorgeous and imperial superstition; and it was vain to expect that, immediately after such an emancipation, they would patiently submit to a new spiritual tyranny. Long accustomed, when the priest lifted up the host, to bow down with their faces to the earth, as before a present God, they had learned to treat the mass as an idolatrous mummery. Long accustomed to regard the Pope as the successor of the chief of the apostles, as the bearer of the keys of earth and heaven, they had learned to regard him as the Beast, the Antichrist, the Man of Sin. It was not to be expected that they would immediately transfer to an upstart authority the homage which they had withdrawn from the Vatican; that they would submit their private judgment to the authority of a Church founded on private judgment alone; that they would be afraid to dissent from teachers who themselves dissented from what had lately been the universal faith of western Christendom. It is easy to conceive the indignation which must have been felt by bold and inquisitive spirits, glorying in newly acquired freedom, when an institution younger by many years than themselves, an institution which had, under their own eyes, gradually received its form from the passions and interest of a court, began to mimic the lofty style of Rome.

The benefits the crown gained from its close alliance with the Established Church were significant, but they came with serious downsides. The compromise made by Cranmer had always been viewed by many Protestants as a way of trying to serve two masters, attempting to blend the worship of God with that of Baal. During Edward the Sixth’s reign, this group's concerns regularly created major challenges for the government. When Elizabeth ascended the throne, these challenges intensified. Violence often leads to more violence. The spirit of Protestantism, therefore, became much stronger and more intolerant after the brutalities of Mary than it had been before. Many people who were passionate about the new beliefs had sought refuge in Switzerland and Germany during those dark times. They were warmly welcomed by fellow believers, learned from the great scholars of Strasbourg, Zurich, and Geneva, and had become accustomed to a more straightforward worship style and a more democratic church governance than England had seen. These individuals returned home believing that the reforms made under King Edward were far less thorough and extensive than true religion demanded. However, their attempts to get any concessions from Elizabeth were in vain. In fact, her system, wherever it differed from her brother's, seemed to them to be worse. They were not inclined to submit to any human authority regarding matters of faith. Recently, based on their own interpretations of Scripture, they had risen up against a Church that was strong in its ancient traditions and widespread agreement. It took considerable intellectual effort for them to throw off the burden of that elaborate and imperial superstition, and it was unrealistic to expect that right after such liberation, they would willingly submit to a new spiritual oppression. After being used to bowing down with their faces to the ground before the priest when he lifted up the host, they had learned to view the mass as a mere idolatrous display. Having once seen the Pope as the successor of the chief apostle, holding the keys to heaven and earth, they now viewed him as the Beast, the Antichrist, the Man of Sin. It was expected that they wouldn't readily transfer their loyalty to a new authority, one that was newer than themselves, nor would they submit their personal beliefs to a Church based solely on individual judgment. They would not be afraid to dissent from teachers who had themselves turned away from what had recently been the common faith of western Christianity. It’s easy to imagine the outrage that bold and curious individuals must have felt, reveling in their newfound freedom, when an institution younger than they—one that had gradually shaped itself by the interests of the court—began to emulate the grand style of Rome.

Since these men could not be convinced, it was determined that they should be persecuted. Persecution produced its natural effect on them. It found them a sect: it made them a faction. To their hatred of the Church was now added hatred of the Crown. The two sentiments were intermingled; and each embittered the other. The opinions of the Puritan concerning the relation of ruler and subject were widely different from those which were inculcated in the Homilies. His favourite divines had, both by precept and by example, encouraged resistance to tyrants and persecutors. His fellow Calvinists in France, in Holland, and in Scotland, were in arms against idolatrous and cruel princes. His notions, too, respecting, the government of the state took a tinge from his notions respecting the government of the Church. Some of the sarcasms which were popularly thrown on episcopacy might, without much difficulty, be turned against royalty; and many of the arguments which were used to prove that spiritual power was best lodged in a synod seemed to lead to the conclusion that temporal power was best lodged in a parliament.

Since these men couldn’t be convinced, it was decided that they should be persecuted. Persecution had its natural effect on them. It formed them into a sect; it made them a faction. Their hatred of the Church was now mixed with hatred of the Crown. The two feelings intertwined, and each intensified the other. The Puritan’s views on the relationship between ruler and subject were very different from those taught in the Homilies. His favorite theologians had, both through teaching and by example, encouraged resistance to tyrants and persecutors. His fellow Calvinists in France, Holland, and Scotland were fighting against idolatrous and cruel rulers. His ideas about state governance were influenced by his ideas about Church governance. Some of the criticisms commonly directed at episcopacy could easily be redirected at royalty; and many of the arguments made for placing spiritual power in a synod seemed to suggest that temporal power was best placed in a parliament.

Thus, as the priest of the Established Church was, from interest, from principle, and from passion, zealous for the royal prerogatives, the Puritan was, from interest, from principle, and from passion, hostile to them. The power of the discontented sectaries was great. They were found in every rank; but they were strongest among the mercantile classes in the towns, and among the small proprietors in the country. Early in the reign of Elizabeth they began to return a majority of the House of Commons. And doubtless had our ancestors been then at liberty to fix their attention entirely on domestic questions, the strife between the Crown and the Parliament would instantly have commenced. But that was no season for internal dissensions. It might, indeed, well be doubted whether the firmest union among all the orders of the state could avert the common danger by which all were threatened. Roman Catholic Europe and reformed Europe were struggling for death or life. France divided against herself, had, for a time, ceased to be of any account in Christendom. The English Government was at the head of the Protestant interest, and, while persecuting Presbyterians at home, extended a powerful protection to Presbyterian Churches abroad. At the head of the opposite party was the mightiest prince of the age, a prince who ruled Spain, Portugal, Italy, the East and the West Indies, whose armies repeatedly marched to Paris, and whose fleets kept the coasts of Devonshire and Sussex in alarm. It long seemed probable that Englishmen would have to fight desperately on English ground for their religion and independence. Nor were they ever for a moment free from apprehensions of some great treason at home. For in that age it had become a point of conscience and of honour with many men of generous natures to sacrifice their country to their religion. A succession of dark plots, formed by Roman Catholics against the life of the Queen and the existence of the nation, kept society in constant alarm. Whatever might be the faults of Elizabeth, it was plain that, to speak humanly, the fate of the realm and of all reformed Churches was staked on the security of her person and on the success of her administration. To strengthen her hands was, therefore, the first duty of a patriot and a Protestant; and that duty was well performed. The Puritans, even in the depths of the prisons to which she had sent them, prayed, and with no simulated fervour, that she might be kept from the dagger of the assassin, that rebellion might be put down under her feet, and that her arms might be victorious by sea and land. One of the most stubborn of the stubborn sect, immediately after his hand had been lopped off for an offence into which he had been hurried by his intemperate zeal, waved his hat with the hand which was still left him, and shouted "God save the Queen!" The sentiment with which these men regarded her has descended to their posterity. The Nonconformists, rigorously as she treated them, have, as a body, always venerated her memory. 5

Thus, while the priest of the Established Church was, out of interest, principle, and passion, eager to support the royal authority, the Puritan was, out of interest, principle, and passion, opposed to it. The power of the dissatisfied sects was significant. They existed in every social class; however, they were strongest among the merchant class in towns and among small landowners in the countryside. Early in Queen Elizabeth's reign, they began to dominate the House of Commons. Undoubtedly, if our ancestors had been free to focus entirely on domestic issues, the conflict between the Crown and Parliament would have started right away. But this was not a time for internal conflicts. In fact, it was questionable whether even a strong unity among all branches of the state could prevent the common threat facing everyone. Catholic Europe and reformed Europe were fighting for their very survival. Divided France had, for a time, lost its significance in Christendom. The English Government led the Protestant cause and, while persecuting Presbyterians at home, offered substantial protection to Presbyterian Churches abroad. Leading the opposing side was the most powerful ruler of the age, a king who governed Spain, Portugal, Italy, the East and West Indies, whose armies frequently marched on Paris and whose fleets kept the shores of Devonshire and Sussex in fear. For a long time, it seemed likely that the English would need to fiercely defend their religion and independence on their own soil. They were also constantly on edge about a potential betrayal at home. In that era, many noble-minded individuals felt it was a matter of conscience and honor to put their religion above their country. A series of sinister plots by Roman Catholics against the Queen's life and the nation's existence kept society in a state of constant anxiety. Whatever Elizabeth's faults may have been, it was clear that, from a human perspective, the fate of the realm and all reformed Churches depended on her safety and the success of her rule. Thus, supporting her was the primary duty of any patriot and Protestant; and they carried out that duty well. The Puritans, even in the depths of the prisons she had sent them to, prayed earnestly that she would be protected from an assassin's dagger, that rebellion would be crushed, and that her forces would triumph at sea and on land. One of the most defiant sect members, shortly after losing a hand for an offense driven by his excessive zeal, waved his remaining hand and shouted, "God save the Queen!" The respect these men had for her has been passed down to their descendants. Despite her harsh treatment of them, the Nonconformists as a group have always held her memory in high regard. 5

During the greater part of her reign, therefore, the Puritans in the House of Commons, though sometimes mutinous, felt no disposition to array themselves in systematic opposition to the government. But, when the defeat of the Armada, the successful resistance of the United Provinces to the Spanish power, the firm establishment of Henry the Fourth on the throne of France, and the death of Philip the Second, had secured the State and the Church against all danger from abroad, an obstinate struggle, destined to last during several generations, instantly began at home.

For most of her reign, the Puritans in the House of Commons, although occasionally rebellious, didn’t feel inclined to openly challenge the government. However, after the defeat of the Armada, the successful fight of the United Provinces against Spanish power, Henry the Fourth's solid establishment on the throne of France, and the death of Philip the Second, which secured the State and the Church from foreign threats, a stubborn conflict began at home that would last for several generations.

It was in the Parliament of 1601 that the opposition which had, during forty years, been silently gathering and husbanding strength, fought its first great battle and won its first victory. The ground was well chosen. The English Sovereigns had always been entrusted with the supreme direction of commercial police. It was their undoubted prerogative to regulate coin, weights, and measures, and to appoint fairs, markets, and ports. The line which bounded their authority over trade had, as usual, been but loosely drawn. They therefore, as usual, encroached on the province which rightfully belonged to the legislature. The encroachment was, as usual, patiently borne, till it became serious. But at length the Queen took upon herself to grant patents of monopoly by scores. There was scarcely a family in the realm which did not feel itself aggrieved by the oppression and extortion which this abuse naturally caused. Iron, oil, vinegar, coal, saltpetre, lead, starch, yarn, skins, leather, glass, could be bought only at exorbitant prices. The House of Commons met in an angry and determined mood. It was in vain that a courtly minority blamed the Speaker for suffering the acts of the Queen's Highness to be called in question. The language of the discontented party was high and menacing, and was echoed by the voice of the whole nation. The coach of the chief minister of the crown was surrounded by an indignant populace, who cursed the monopolies, and exclaimed that the prerogative should not be suffered to touch the old liberties of England. There seemed for a moment to be some danger that the long and glorious reign of Elizabeth would have a shameful and disastrous end. She, however, with admirable judgment and temper, declined the contest, put herself at the head of the reforming party, redressed the grievance, thanked the Commons, in touching and dignified language, for their tender care of the general weal, brought back to herself the hearts of the people, and left to her successors a memorable example of the way in which it behoves a ruler to deal with public movements which he has not the means of resisting.

It was in the Parliament of 1601 that the opposition, which had been quietly building strength for forty years, fought its first major battle and won its first victory. The ground was well chosen. English Sovereigns had always been given the ultimate authority over commercial matters. It was their undeniable right to regulate currency, weights, and measures, and to designate fairs, markets, and ports. The boundaries of their authority over trade had, as usual, been drawn very loosely. Therefore, they typically overstepped their limits into areas that rightfully belonged to the legislature. This overreach was usually tolerated until it became serious. But eventually, the Queen took it upon herself to grant numerous monopoly patents. There was hardly a family in the kingdom that didn’t feel the burden of the oppression and extortion this caused. Iron, oil, vinegar, coal, saltpetre, lead, starch, yarn, skins, leather, and glass could only be bought at outrageous prices. The House of Commons gathered in an angry and determined mood. It was futile for a polite minority to criticize the Speaker for allowing the Queen's actions to be questioned. The discontented party spoke in a high and threatening tone, which resonated with the voice of the entire nation. The carriage of the chief minister was surrounded by an outraged crowd, who cursed the monopolies and insisted that the royal prerogative should not infringe on the old liberties of England. For a moment, it seemed there might be a risk that Elizabeth's long and glorious reign would end in shame and disaster. However, with admirable judgment and composure, she chose not to fight back, aligned herself with the reformist faction, addressed the grievances, expressed her gratitude to the Commons in heartfelt and dignified terms for their care of the common good, won back the hearts of the people, and left her successors a lasting example of how a ruler should engage with public movements that they cannot oppose.

In the year 1603 the great Queen died. That year is, on many accounts, one of the most important epochs in our history. It was then that both Scotland and Ireland became parts of the same empire with England. Both Scotland and Ireland, indeed, had been subjugated by the Plantagenets; but neither country had been patient under the yoke. Scotland had, with heroic energy, vindicated her independence, had, from the time of Robert Bruce, been a separate kingdom, and was now joined to the southern part of the island in a manner which rather gratified than wounded her national pride. Ireland had never, since the days of Henry the Second, been able to expel the foreign invaders; but she had struggled against them long and fiercely. During the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries the English power in that island was constantly declining, and in the days of Henry the Seventh, sank to the lowest point. The Irish dominions of that prince consisted only of the counties of Dublin and Louth, of some parts of Meath and Kildare, and of a few seaports scattered along the coast. A large portion even of Leinster was not yet divided into counties. Munster, Ulster, and Connaught were ruled by petty sovereigns, partly Celts, and partly degenerate Normans, who had forgotten their origin and had adopted the Celtic language and manners. But during the sixteenth century, the English power had made great progress. The half savage chieftains who reigned beyond the pale had submitted one after another to the lieutenants of the Tudors. At length, a few weeks before the death of Elizabeth, the conquest, which had been begun more than four hundred years before by Strongbow, was completed by Mountjoy. Scarcely had James the First mounted the English throne when the last O'Donnel and O'Neil who have held the rank of independent princes kissed his hand at Whitehall. Thenceforward his writs ran and his judges held assizes in every part of Ireland; and the English law superseded the customs which had prevailed among the aboriginal tribes.

In 1603, the great Queen passed away. That year is, for many reasons, one of the most significant turning points in our history. It was then that Scotland and Ireland both became part of the same empire as England. Scotland and Ireland had been subjected by the Plantagenets, but neither country had accepted this oppression quietly. Scotland had bravely fought for its independence and, since the time of Robert Bruce, had been a separate kingdom. Now, it joined the southern part of the island in a way that pleased rather than offended its national pride. Ireland, since the days of Henry the Second, had never been able to drive out the foreign invaders, but had fought against them fiercely. Throughout the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, English power in that island was steadily weakening, and by the time of Henry the Seventh, it had reached its lowest point. The Irish territories under that prince included only the counties of Dublin and Louth, parts of Meath and Kildare, and a few coastal seaports. A significant portion of Leinster was still not organized into counties. Munster, Ulster, and Connaught were governed by minor kings, some of whom were Celtic and others were Normans who had lost their roots and adopted the Celtic language and customs. However, during the sixteenth century, English power made significant gains. The mostly savage chieftains who ruled beyond the pale gradually surrendered to the lieutenants of the Tudors. Finally, just weeks before Elizabeth's death, the conquest that began over four hundred years earlier with Strongbow was completed by Mountjoy. As soon as James the First ascended the English throne, the last O'Donnell and O'Neil who held the title of independent princes kissed his hand at Whitehall. From then on, his commands were enforced, and his judges held court in every part of Ireland; English law replaced the customs that had been established among the native tribes.

In extent Scotland and Ireland were nearly equal to each other, and were together nearly equal to England, but were much less thickly peopled than England, and were very far behind England in wealth and civilisation. Scotland had been kept back by the sterility of her soil; and, in the midst of light, the thick darkness of the middle ages still rested on Ireland.

Scotland and Ireland were nearly equal in size and together almost matched England, but they were much less populated than England and lagged far behind in wealth and civilization. Scotland was held back by the poor quality of its soil, and even in the light of progress, Ireland was still overshadowed by the darkness of the Middle Ages.

The population of Scotland, with the exception of the Celtic tribes which were thinly scattered over the Hebrides and over the mountainous parts of the northern shires, was of the same blood with the population of England, and spoke a tongue which did not differ from the purest English more than the dialects of Somersetshire and Lancashire differed from each other. In Ireland, on the contrary, the population, with the exception of the small English colony near the coast, was Celtic, and still kept the Celtic speech and manners.

The population of Scotland, apart from the Celtic tribes who were sparsely spread across the Hebrides and the rugged areas of the northern counties, shared the same ancestry as the population of England and spoke a language that was only slightly different from standard English, similar to how the dialects of Somersetshire and Lancashire differ. In Ireland, however, the population, except for the small English community along the coast, was Celtic and retained their Celtic language and customs.

In natural courage and intelligence both the nations which now became connected with England ranked high. In perseverance, in selfcommand, in forethought, in all the virtues which conduce to success in life, the Scots have never been surpassed. The Irish, on the other hand, were distinguished by qualities which tend to make men interesting rather than prosperous. They were an ardent and impetuous race, easily moved to tears or to laughter, to fury or to love. Alone among the nations of northern Europe they had the susceptibility, the vivacity, the natural turn for acting and rhetoric, which are indigenous on the shores of the Mediterranean Sea. In mental cultivation Scotland had an indisputable superiority. Though that kingdom was then the poorest in Christendom, it already vied in every branch of learning with the most favoured countries. Scotsmen, whose dwellings and whose food were as wretched as those of the Icelanders of our time, wrote Latin verse with more than the delicacy of Vida, and made discoveries in science which would have added to the renown of Galileo. Ireland could boast of no Buchanan or Napier. The genius, with which her aboriginal inhabitants were largely endowed' showed itself as yet only in ballads which wild and rugged as they were, seemed to the judging eye of Spenser to contain a portion of the pure gold of poetry.

In terms of natural courage and intelligence, both nations that became connected with England ranked high. In perseverance, self-control, foresight, and all the virtues that lead to success in life, the Scots have never been surpassed. The Irish, on the other hand, were known for qualities that make people interesting rather than prosperous. They were an passionate and impulsive people, easily moved to tears or laughter, fury or love. Uniquely among the northern European nations, they had the sensitivity, liveliness, and natural flair for performance and rhetoric that are characteristic of the Mediterranean region. In terms of intellectual development, Scotland had an undeniable advantage. Although that kingdom was then the poorest in Christendom, it was already competing in every branch of learning with the most favored countries. Scots, whose homes and food were as miserable as those of modern Icelanders, wrote Latin poetry with greater finesse than Vida and made scientific discoveries that would have enhanced Galileo's renown. Ireland could not claim a Buchanan or Napier. The talent with which its indigenous people were largely endowed showed itself primarily in ballads that, wild and rugged as they were, still seemed to hold a touch of genuine poetic gold in the discerning eyes of Spenser.

Scotland, in becoming part of the British monarchy, preserved her dignity. Having, during many generations, courageously withstood the English arms, she was now joined to her stronger neighbour on the most honourable terms. She gave a King instead of receiving one. She retained her own constitution and laws. Her tribunals and parliaments remained entirely independent of the tribunals and parliaments which sate at Westminster. The administration of Scotland was in Scottish hands; for no Englishman had any motive to emigrate northward, and to contend with the shrewdest and most pertinacious of all races for what was to be scraped together in the poorest of all treasuries. Nevertheless Scotland by no means escaped the fate ordained for every country which is connected, but not incorporated, with another country of greater resources. Though in name an independent kingdom, she was, during more than a century, really treated, in many respects, as a subject province.

Scotland, by joining the British monarchy, maintained her dignity. After bravely resisting the English for many generations, she was now united with her stronger neighbor on the most honorable terms. She provided a King instead of just receiving one. She kept her own constitution and laws. Her courts and parliaments remained completely independent from those in Westminster. Scotland's administration was in Scottish hands; no Englishman had any reason to move north and compete with the most clever and determined of all races for what little could be gathered in the poorest of all treasuries. However, Scotland did not escape the fate that awaits every country that is linked, but not fully integrated, with a richer nation. Although it was officially an independent kingdom, for over a century it was largely treated as a subject province.

Ireland was undisguisedly governed as a dependency won by the sword. Her rude national institutions had perished. The English colonists submitted to the dictation of the mother country, without whose support they could not exist, and indemnified themselves by trampling on the people among whom they had settled. The parliaments which met at Dublin could pass no law which had not been previously approved by the English Privy Council. The authority of the English legislature extended over Ireland. The executive administration was entrusted to men taken either from England or from the English pale, and, in either case, regarded as foreigners, and even as enemies, by the Celtic population.

Ireland was clearly ruled as a territory conquered by force. Her basic national institutions had disappeared. The English settlers followed the orders of the home country, and without its support, they couldn’t survive, so they compensated themselves by oppressing the local people. The parliaments that convened in Dublin couldn’t pass any laws without prior approval from the English Privy Council. The English legislature's authority extended over Ireland. The executive administration was assigned to men brought in from England or from the English enclave, and in both cases, they were seen as outsiders and even as enemies by the Celtic population.

But the circumstance which, more than any other, has made Ireland to differ from Scotland remains to be noticed. Scotland was Protestant. In no part of Europe had the movement of the popular mind against the Roman Catholic Church been so rapid and violent. The Reformers had vanquished, deposed, and imprisoned their idolatrous sovereign. They would not endure even such a compromise as had been effected in England. They had established the Calvinistic doctrine, discipline, and worship; and they made little distinction between Popery and Prelacy, between the Mass and the Book of Common Prayer. Unfortunately for Scotland, the prince whom she sent to govern a fairer inheritance had been so much annoyed by the pertinacity with which her theologians had asserted against him the privileges of the synod and the pulpit that he hated the ecclesiastical polity to which she was fondly attached as much as it was in his effeminate nature to hate anything, and had no sooner mounted the English throne than he began to show an intolerant zeal for the government and ritual of the English Church.

But the thing that really sets Ireland apart from Scotland is worth mentioning. Scotland was Protestant. No other part of Europe saw such a quick and intense backlash against the Roman Catholic Church. The Reformers had defeated, deposed, and imprisoned their idolatrous king. They wouldn't accept even the compromise that had been made in England. They established Calvinistic beliefs, practices, and worship, and they saw little difference between Catholicism and Episcopacy, or between the Mass and the Book of Common Prayer. Unfortunately for Scotland, the king they sent to rule over a better future was so frustrated by the stubbornness of her theologians, who insisted on the rights of the synod and the pulpit, that he despised the church system she cherished as much as his weak nature could allow. As soon as he took the English throne, he started to show an intolerant enthusiasm for the governance and rituals of the English Church.

The Irish were the only people of northern Europe who had remained true to the old religion. This is to be partly ascribed to the circumstance that they were some centuries behind their neighbours in knowledge. But other causes had cooperated. The Reformation had been a national as well as a moral revolt. It had been, not only an insurrection of the laity against the clergy, but also an insurrection of all the branches of the great German race against an alien domination. It is a most significant circumstance that no large society of which the tongue is not Teutonic has ever turned Protestant, and that, wherever a language derived from that of ancient Rome is spoken, the religion of modern Rome to this day prevails. The patriotism of the Irish had taken a peculiar direction. The object of their animosity was not Rome, but England; and they had especial reason to abhor those English sovereigns who had been the chiefs of the great schism, Henry the Eighth and Elizabeth. During the vain struggle which two generations of Milesian princes maintained against the Tudors, religious enthusiasm and national enthusiasm became inseparably blended in the minds of the vanquished race. The new feud of Protestant and Papist inflamed the old feud of Saxon and Celt. The English conquerors meanwhile, neglected all legitimate means of conversion. No care was taken to provide the vanquished nation with instructors capable of making themselves understood. No translation of the Bible was put forth in the Irish language. The government contented itself with setting up a vast hierarchy of Protestant archbishops, bishops, and rectors, who did nothing, and who, for doing nothing, were paid out of the spoils of a Church loved and revered by the great body of the people.

The Irish were the only group in Northern Europe who had stayed true to the old religion. This can partly be attributed to the fact that they were a few centuries behind their neighbors in knowledge. However, other factors played a role as well. The Reformation was both a national and a moral uprising. It was not just a rebellion of regular people against the clergy, but also a revolt of all branches of the great German race against foreign rule. It's quite significant that no large community whose language isn't Teutonic has ever become Protestant, and that wherever a language derived from ancient Roman is spoken, modern Rome's religion still prevails today. The Irish patriotism took on a unique shape. Their anger was directed not at Rome, but at England; they had specific reasons to detest the English monarchs who were the leaders of the great schism, Henry the Eighth and Elizabeth. During the futile struggle that two generations of Milesian princes faced against the Tudors, religious fervor and national pride became deeply intertwined in the minds of the defeated people. The new conflict between Protestant and Catholic intensified the old rivalry between Saxon and Celt. Meanwhile, the English conquerors ignored all legitimate means of conversion. No effort was made to provide the defeated nation with teachers who could effectively communicate. There was no translation of the Bible made available in the Irish language. The government was satisfied with establishing a vast hierarchy of Protestant archbishops, bishops, and rectors, who accomplished nothing and were paid from the wealth of a Church that was dearly loved and respected by the majority of the people.

There was much in the state both of Scotland and of Ireland which might well excite the painful apprehensions of a farsighted statesman. As yet, however, there was the appearance of tranquillity. For the first time all the British isles were peaceably united under one sceptre.

There was a lot in the situation of both Scotland and Ireland that could easily raise the serious concerns of a forward-thinking leader. However, for now, things seemed calm. For the first time, all the British Isles were peacefully united under a single rule.

It should seem that the weight of England among European nations ought, from this epoch, to have greatly increased. The territory which her new King governed was, in extent, nearly double that which Elizabeth had inherited. His empire was the most complete within itself and the most secure from attack that was to be found in the world. The Plantagenets and Tudors had been repeatedly under the necessity of defending themselves against Scotland while they were engaged in continental war. The long conflict in Ireland had been a severe and perpetual drain on their resources. Yet even under such disadvantages those sovereigns had been highly considered throughout Christendom. It might, therefore, not unreasonably be expected that England, Scotland, and Ireland combined would form a state second to none that then existed.

It should seem that England's influence among European nations should have greatly increased from this point onward. The territory that her new King ruled was nearly twice the size of what Elizabeth had inherited. His empire was the most complete and secure from attack found anywhere in the world. The Plantagenets and Tudors often had to defend themselves against Scotland while involved in wars on the continent. The prolonged conflict in Ireland had severely drained their resources. Yet, despite these challenges, those monarchs were highly regarded across Christendom. Therefore, it would not be unreasonable to expect that England, Scotland, and Ireland together would create a state unmatched by any other at that time.

All such expectations were strangely disappointed. On the day of the accession of James the First, England descended from the rank which she had hitherto held, and began to be regarded as a power hardly of the second order. During many years the great British monarchy, under four successive princes of the House of Stuart, was scarcely a more important member of the European system than the little kingdom of Scotland had previously been. This, however, is little to be regretted. Of James the First, as of John, it may be said that, if his administration had been able and splendid, it would probably have been fatal to our country, and that we owe more to his weakness and meanness than to the wisdom and courage of much better sovereigns. He came to the throne at a critical moment. The time was fast approaching when either the King must become absolute, or the parliament must control the whole executive administration. Had James been, like Henry the Fourth, like Maurice of Nassau, or like Gustavus Adolphus, a valiant, active, and politic ruler, had he put himself at the head of the Protestants of Europe, had he gained great victories over Tilly and Spinola, had he adorned Westminster with the spoils of Bavarian monasteries and Flemish cathedrals, had he hung Austrian and Castilian banners in Saint Paul's, and had he found himself, after great achievements, at the head of fifty thousand troops, brave, well disciplined, and devotedly attached to his person, the English Parliament would soon have been nothing more than a name. Happily he was not a man to play such a part. He began his administration by putting an end to the war which had raged during many years between England and Spain; and from that time he shunned hostilities with a caution which was proof against the insults of his neighbours and the clamours of his subjects. Not till the last year of his life could the influence of his son, his favourite, his Parliament, and his people combined, induce him to strike one feeble blow in defence of his family and of his religion. It was well for those whom he governed that he in this matter disregarded their wishes. The effect of his pacific policy was that, in his time, no regular troops were needed, and that, while France, Spain, Italy, Belgium, and Germany swarmed with mercenary soldiers, the defence of our island was still confided to the militia.

All those expectations were oddly let down. On the day James the First took the throne, England fell from the status it had held until then and began to be seen as barely a second-rate power. For many years, the grand British monarchy, under four consecutive Stuart monarchs, was hardly a more significant part of the European landscape than the tiny kingdom of Scotland had been before. However, that’s not really something to lament. Of James the First, as with John, it can be said that if his rule had been competent and impressive, it would likely have been disastrous for our country, and we owe more to his weakness and mediocrity than to the wisdom and bravery of far better rulers. He ascended to the throne at a pivotal moment. The time was rapidly arriving when either the King had to become absolute, or Parliament had to control the entire executive function. If James had been, like Henry the Fourth, Maurice of Nassau, or Gustavus Adolphus, a brave, active, and shrewd leader; if he had taken the lead of the Protestants in Europe; if he had achieved major victories over Tilly and Spinola; if he had adorned Westminster with the spoils from Bavarian monasteries and Flemish cathedrals; if he had hung Austrian and Castilian banners in Saint Paul's; and if he had found himself, after great accomplishments, at the head of fifty thousand loyal, well-trained troops, the English Parliament would soon have been reduced to nothing more than a name. Fortunately, he wasn’t the type to play such a role. He began his reign by ending the war that had persisted for many years between England and Spain; and from that point on, he avoided conflict with a caution that stood firm against the insults of his neighbors and the demands of his subjects. Not until the last year of his life could the combined influence of his son, his favorite, his Parliament, and his people persuade him to make one weak attempt to defend his family and his faith. It was for the best for those he governed that he ignored their desires in this regard. The outcome of his peace-oriented policy was that, during his reign, no standing army was necessary, and while France, Spain, Italy, Belgium, and Germany were overflowing with mercenary soldiers, the defense of our island was still left to the militia.

As the King had no standing army, and did not even attempt to form one, it would have been wise in him to avoid any conflict with his people. But such was his indiscretion that, while he altogether neglected the means which alone could make him really absolute, he constantly put forward, in the most offensive form, claims of which none of his predecessors had ever dreamed. It was at this time that those strange theories which Filmer afterwards formed into a system and which became the badge of the most violent class of Tories and high churchmen, first emerged into notice. It was gravely maintained that the Supreme Being regarded hereditary monarchy, as opposed to other forms of government, with peculiar favour; that the rule of succession in order of primogeniture was a divine institution, anterior to the Christian, and even to the Mosaic dispensation; that no human power, not even that of the whole legislature, no length of adverse possession, though it extended to ten centuries, could deprive a legitimate prince of his rights, that the authority of such a prince was necessarily always despotic; that the laws, by which, in England and in other countries, the prerogative was limited, were to be regarded merely as concessions which the sovereign had freely made and might at his pleasure resume; and that any treaty which a king might conclude with his people was merely a declaration of his present intentions, and not a contract of which the performance could be demanded. It is evident that this theory, though intended to strengthen the foundations of government, altogether unsettles them. Does the divine and immutable law of primogeniture admit females, or exclude them? On either supposition half the sovereigns of Europe must be usurpers, reigning in defiance of the law of God, and liable to be dispossessed by the rightful heirs. The doctrine that kingly government is peculiarly favoured by Heaven receives no countenance from the Old Testament; for in the Old Testament we read that the chosen people were blamed and punished for desiring a king, and that they were afterwards commanded to withdraw their allegiance from him. Their whole history, far from countenancing the notion that succession in order of primogeniture is of divine institution, would rather seem to indicate that younger brothers are under the especial protection of heaven. Isaac was not the eldest son of Abraham, nor Jacob of Isaac, nor Judah of Jacob, nor David of Jesse nor Solomon of David Nor does the system of Filmer receive any countenance from those passages of the New Testament which describe government as an ordinance of God: for the government under which the writers of the New Testament lived was not a hereditary monarchy. The Roman Emperors were republican magistrates, named by the senate. None of them pretended to rule by right of birth; and, in fact, both Tiberius, to whom Christ commanded that tribute should be given, and Nero, whom Paul directed the Romans to obey, were, according to the patriarchal theory of government, usurpers. In the middle ages the doctrine of indefeasible hereditary right would have been regarded as heretical: for it was altogether incompatible with the high pretensions of the Church of Rome. It was a doctrine unknown to the founders of the Church of England. The Homily on Wilful Rebellion had strongly, and indeed too strongly, inculcated submission to constituted authority, but had made no distinction between hereditary end elective monarchies, or between monarchies and republics. Indeed most of the predecessors of James would, from personal motives, have regarded the patriarchal theory of government with aversion. William Rufus, Henry the First, Stephen, John, Henry the Fourth, Henry the Fifth, Henry the Sixth, Richard the Third, and Henry the Seventh, had all reigned in defiance of the strict rule of descent. A grave doubt hung over the legitimacy both of Mary and of Elizabeth. It was impossible that both Catharine of Aragon and Anne Boleyn could have been lawfully married to Henry the Eighth; and the highest authority in the realm had pronounced that neither was so. The Tudors, far from considering the law of succession as a divine and unchangeable institution, were constantly tampering with it. Henry the Eighth obtained an act of parliament, giving him power to leave the crown by will, and actually made a will to the prejudice of the royal family of Scotland. Edward the Sixth, unauthorised by Parliament, assumed a similar power, with the full approbation of the most eminent Reformers. Elizabeth, conscious that her own title was open to grave objection, and unwilling to admit even a reversionary right in her rival and enemy the Queen of Scots, induced the Parliament to pass a law, enacting that whoever should deny the competency of the reigning sovereign, with the assent of the Estates of the realm, to alter the succession, should suffer death as a traitor: But the situation of James was widely different from that of Elizabeth. Far inferior to her in abilities and in popularity, regarded by the English as an alien, and excluded from the throne by the testament of Henry the Eighth, the King of Scots was yet the undoubted heir of William the Conqueror and of Egbert. He had, therefore, an obvious interest in inculcating the superstitions notion that birth confers rights anterior to law, and unalterable by law. It was a notion, moreover, well suited to his intellect and temper. It soon found many advocates among those who aspired to his favour, and made rapid progress among the clergy of the Established Church.

As the King had no standing army and didn't even try to create one, it would have been smart for him to avoid any conflicts with his people. However, his foolishness led him to neglect the means that could truly make him absolute, while he continually pushed forward, in the most offensive way, claims that none of his predecessors had ever imagined. It was during this time that those strange theories, which Filmer later turned into a system and that became the hallmark of the most extreme Tories and high churchmen, first gained attention. It was seriously argued that the Supreme Being favored hereditary monarchy, unlike other forms of government; that the rule of primogeniture was a divine institution, existing before Christianity and even before the Mosaic law; that no human authority, not even that of the entire legislature, and no duration of adverse possession, no matter how long, could take away a legitimate prince's rights; that such a prince's authority was always inherently despotic; that the laws governing rights in England and elsewhere were merely concessions made freely by the sovereign and could be revoked at will; and that any agreement a king might make with his people was just a statement of his current intentions, not a contract that could be enforced. It's clear that this theory, even though it aimed to bolster the foundations of government, actually undermines them. Is the divine and unchanging law of primogeniture inclusive of females, or does it exclude them? Under either assumption, half the monarchs of Europe would be considered usurpers, ruling against God's law and at risk of being dispossessed by rightful heirs. The idea that monarchy is especially favored by Heaven has no support from the Old Testament; it indicates that the chosen people were criticized and punished for wanting a king and were later instructed to withdraw their loyalty from him. Their entire history, rather than supporting the idea that succession by primogeniture is divinely instituted, suggests that younger brothers are particularly protected by heaven. Isaac was not Abraham's oldest son, nor was Jacob Isaac’s oldest, nor was Judah Jacob's, nor David Jesse's, nor Solomon David's. Filmer's system also lacks support from New Testament passages that describe government as an ordinance of God: the government under which the New Testament writers lived was not a hereditary monarchy. The Roman Emperors were elected officials, appointed by the senate. None claimed to rule by birthright; in fact, both Tiberius, whom Christ instructed to pay taxes, and Nero, whom Paul directed the Romans to obey, would, according to patriarchal governance theory, be considered usurpers. In the Middle Ages, the idea of an unchallengeable hereditary right would have been seen as heretical: it was completely incompatible with the bold claims of the Roman Church. This doctrine was unknown to the founders of the Church of England. The Homily on Wilful Rebellion strongly, perhaps excessively, advocated submission to established authority but did not differentiate between hereditary and elected monarchies or between monarchies and republics. In fact, most of James' predecessors would have personally rejected the patriarchal governance theory. William Rufus, Henry I, Stephen, John, Henry IV, Henry V, Henry VI, Richard III, and Henry VII all ruled against strict rules of descent. There was serious doubt about the legitimacy of both Mary and Elizabeth. It was impossible for both Katharine of Aragon and Anne Boleyn to have been lawfully married to Henry VIII, and the highest authorities in the realm declared that neither was legitimate. The Tudors, rather than viewing the succession law as a divine and unchanging institution, constantly interfered with it. Henry VIII obtained a parliamentary act allowing him to leave the crown to someone by will, and he actually made a will that disadvantaged the Scottish royal family. Edward VI, without Parliament's approval, took similar power, which was fully backed by the most prominent Reformers. Elizabeth, aware that her claim was highly disputable and unwilling to recognize even a potential claim from her rival and enemy, the Queen of Scots, pushed Parliament to pass a law stating that anyone who claimed the reigning monarch, with the Estates' consent, lacked authority to change the succession would be executed for treason. However, James' situation was very different from Elizabeth's. Much less skilled and popular than she was, viewed by the English as a foreigner, and excluded from the throne by Henry VIII's will, the King of Scots was nonetheless the rightful heir of William the Conqueror and Egbert. Thus, he had a clear interest in promoting the superstitious idea that birth gives rights prior to and unchangeable by law. This idea was also well-suited to his intellect and temperament. It quickly gained many supporters among those seeking his favor and spread rapidly among the clergy of the Established Church.

Thus, at the very moment at which a republican spirit began to manifest itself strongly in the Parliament and in the country, the claims of the monarch took a monstrous form which would have disgusted the proudest and most arbitrary of those who had preceded him on the throne.

So, right when a republican spirit started to show up strongly in Parliament and the country, the monarch's claims became so outrageous that it would have repulsed even the proudest and most tyrannical of his predecessors on the throne.

James was always boasting of his skill in what he called kingcraft; and yet it is hardly possible even to imagine a course more directly opposed to all the rules of kingcraft, than that which he followed. The policy of wise rulers has always been to disguise strong acts under popular forms. It was thus that Augustus and Napoleon established absolute monarchies, while the public regarded them merely as eminent citizens invested with temporary magistracies. The policy of James was the direct reverse of theirs. He enraged and alarmed his Parliament by constantly telling them that they held their privileges merely during his pleasure and that they had no more business to inquire what he might lawfully do than what the Deity might lawfully do. Yet he quailed before them, abandoned minister after minister to their vengeance, and suffered them to tease him into acts directly opposed to his strongest inclinations. Thus the indignation excited by his claims and the scorn excited by his concessions went on growing together. By his fondness for worthless minions, and by the sanction which he gave to their tyranny and rapacity, he kept discontent constantly alive. His cowardice, his childishness, his pedantry, his ungainly person, his provincial accent, made him an object of derision. Even in his virtues and accomplishments there was something eminently unkingly. Throughout the whole course of his reign, all the venerable associations by which the throng had long been fenced were gradually losing their strength. During two hundred years all the sovereigns who had ruled England, with the exception of Henry the Sixth, had been strongminded, highspirited, courageous, and of princely bearing. Almost all had possessed abilities above the ordinary level. It was no light thing that on the very eve of the decisive struggle between our Kings and their Parliaments, royalty should be exhibited to the world stammering, slobbering, shedding unmanly tears, trembling at a drawn sword, and talking in the style alternately of a buffoon and of a pedagogue.

James was always bragging about his skill in what he called kingcraft; yet it's hard to imagine a path more opposed to all the rules of kingcraft than the one he chose. Wise rulers have always hidden their strong actions behind popular appearances. That’s how Augustus and Napoleon created absolute monarchies, while the public saw them merely as prominent citizens holding temporary positions. James, however, did the complete opposite. He angered and alarmed his Parliament by constantly reminding them that their privileges existed only at his pleasure and that they had no more right to question his authority than to question the laws of God. Yet he would shrink in fear before them, abandoning minister after minister to their wrath and allowing them to push him into actions that went against his strongest desires. This led to a growing mix of indignation over his claims and scorn for his concessions. His fondness for worthless favorites, along with the approval he gave to their tyranny and greed, kept discontent simmering. His cowardice, childishness, pedantry, awkward appearance, and regional accent made him a target for ridicule. Even his virtues and skills had an unkingly air to them. Throughout his reign, the esteemed traditions that had long been upheld were slowly losing their power. For two hundred years, all the rulers of England, except for Henry the Sixth, had been strong-minded, spirited, brave, and royal in their presence. Almost all had abilities above average. It was no small thing that just before the critical clash between our Kings and their Parliaments, royalty was presented to the world stammering, drooling, shedding unmanly tears, trembling at a drawn sword, and speaking like a clown and a schoolteacher.

In the meantime the religious dissensions, by which, from the days of Edward the Sixth, the Protestant body had been distracted, had become more formidable than ever. The interval which had separated the first generation of Puritans from Cranmer and Jewel was small indeed when compared with the interval which separated the third generation of Puritans from Laud and Hammond. While the recollection of Mary's cruelties was still fresh, while the powers of the Roman Catholic party still inspired apprehension, while Spain still retained ascendency and aspired to universal dominion, all the reformed sects knew that they had a strong common interest and a deadly common enemy. The animosity which they felt towards each other was languid when compared with the animosity which they all felt towards Rome. Conformists and Nonconformists had heartily joined in enacting penal laws of extreme severity against the Papists. But when more than half a century of undisturbed possession had given confidence to the Established Church, when nine tenths of the nation had become heartily Protestant, when England was at peace with all the world, when there was no danger that Popery would be forced by foreign arms on the nation, when the last confessors who had stood before Bonner had passed away, a change took place in the feeling of the Anglican clergy. Their hostility to the Roman Catholic doctrine and discipline was considerably mitigated. Their dislike of the Puritans, on the other hand, increased daily. The controversies which had from the beginning divided the Protestant party took such a form as made reconciliation hopeless; and new controversies of still greater importance were added to the old subjects of dispute.

In the meantime, the religious conflicts that had been troubling the Protestant community since the days of Edward VI had become more intense than ever. The gap between the first generation of Puritans and figures like Cranmer and Jewel was minor compared to the divide between the third generation of Puritans and leaders like Laud and Hammond. The memories of Queen Mary’s cruelty were still vivid, the power of the Roman Catholic faction still caused fear, and Spain still had dominance and ambitions for world rule. All the reformed groups understood they had a strong common interest and a serious common enemy. The animosity they held towards each other was weak in comparison to the strong hostility they all felt toward Rome. Both Conformists and Nonconformists had come together in passing harsh laws against Catholics. However, after more than fifty years of stable dominance by the Established Church, with nine-tenths of the population becoming devoutly Protestant, and with England at peace with the world—with no threat of Catholicism being imposed by foreign powers, and with the last people who had faced Bonner gone—a shift happened in the attitudes of the Anglican clergy. Their opposition to Roman Catholic beliefs and practices softened significantly. Conversely, their dislike of the Puritans grew daily. The debates that had long split the Protestant camp evolved into issues that made reconciliation impossible, and even bigger controversies emerged on top of the original disagreements.

The founders of the Anglican Church had retained episcopacy as an ancient, a decent, and a convenient ecclesiastical polity, but had not declared that form of church government to be of divine institution. We have already seen how low an estimate Cranmer had formed of the office of a Bishop. In the reign of Elizabeth, Jewel, Cooper, Whitgift, and other eminent doctors defended prelacy, as innocent, as useful, as what the state might lawfully establish, as what, when established by the state, was entitled to the respect of every citizen. But they never denied that a Christian community without a Bishop might be a pure Church. 6 On the contrary, they regarded the Protestants of the Continent as of the same household of faith with themselves. Englishmen in England were indeed bound to acknowledge the authority of the Bishop, as they were bound to acknowledge the authority of the Sheriff and of the Coroner: but the obligation was purely local. An English churchman, nay even an English prelate, if he went to Holland, conformed without scruple to the established religion of Holland. Abroad the ambassadors of Elizabeth and James went in state to the very worship which Elizabeth and James persecuted at home, and carefully abstained from decorating their private chapels after the Anglican fashion, lest scandal should be given to weaker brethren. An instrument is still extant by which the Primate of all England, in the year 1582, authorised a Scotch minister, ordained, according to the laudable forms of the Scotch Church, by the Synod of East Lothian, to preach and administer the sacraments in any part of the province of Canterbury. 7 In the year 1603, the Convocation solemnly recognised the Church of Scotland, a Church in which episcopal control and episcopal ordination were then unknown, as a branch of the Holy Catholic Church of Christ. 8 It was even held that Presbyterian ministers were entitled to place and voice in oecumenical councils. When the States General of the United Provinces convoked at Dort a synod of doctors not episcopally ordained, an English Bishop and an English Dean, commissioned by the head of the English Church, sate with those doctors, preached to them, and voted with them on the gravest questions of theology. 9 Nay, many English benefices were held by divines who had been admitted to the ministry in the Calvinistic form used on the Continent; nor was reordination by a Bishop in such cases then thought necessary, or even lawful. 10

The founders of the Anglican Church kept bishops as an ancient, respectable, and practical form of church governance, but they didn't claim that this system was divinely established. We’ve already noted how little value Cranmer placed on the position of a Bishop. During Elizabeth's reign, Jewel, Cooper, Whitgift, and other prominent clergy defended the role of bishops, arguing it was innocent, useful, and something the state could legally enforce, and that once established by the state, it deserved the respect of every citizen. However, they never denied that a Christian community without a Bishop could be a true Church. 6 Instead, they saw the Protestants on the Continent as sharing the same faith as them. English people were definitely obligated to recognize the authority of the Bishop, just as they were to recognize the authority of the Sheriff and the Coroner: but this obligation was strictly local. An English church member—even an English bishop—would conform without hesitation to the established religion in Holland if they went there. Abroad, ambassadors of Elizabeth and James participated in the very worship that Elizabeth and James persecuted at home and were careful not to decorate their private chapels in the Anglican style to avoid causing scandal for weaker believers. An existing document shows that the Archbishop of Canterbury, in 1582, authorized a Scottish minister, ordained according to the respected practices of the Scottish Church by the Synod of East Lothian, to preach and administer the sacraments anywhere in the province of Canterbury. 7 In 1603, the Convocation officially recognized the Church of Scotland—a church that did not have episcopal control or ordination at the time—as a branch of the Holy Catholic Church of Christ. 8 It was even believed that Presbyterian ministers should have a voice and a role in ecumenical councils. When the States General of the United Provinces organized a synod of theologians not ordained by bishops in Dort, an English Bishop and an English Dean, sent by the head of the English Church, sat with those theologians, preached to them, and voted with them on major theological issues. 9 In fact, many English benefices were held by ministers who had been admitted to the ministry in the Calvinistic manner used on the Continent, and reordination by a Bishop in these cases was not considered necessary, or even lawful. 10

But a new race of divines was already rising in the Church of England. In their view the episcopal office was essential to the welfare of a Christian society and to the efficacy of the most solemn ordinances of religion. To that office belonged certain high and sacred privileges, which no human power could give or take away. A church might as well be without the doctrine of the Trinity, or the doctrine of the Incarnation, as without the apostolical orders; and the Church of Rome, which, in the midst of all her corruptions, had retained the apostolical orders, was nearer to primitive purity than those reformed societies which had rashly set up, in opposition to the divine model, a system invented by men.

But a new kind of leaders was already emerging in the Church of England. They believed that the role of bishops was crucial for the well-being of a Christian community and for the effectiveness of the most important religious practices. This role came with certain high and sacred privileges that no human authority could grant or revoke. A church might as well lack the doctrine of the Trinity or the doctrine of the Incarnation as to be without the apostolic orders; and the Church of Rome, which, despite all its corruptions, had kept the apostolic orders, was closer to the original purity than those reformed groups that had recklessly created a system invented by humans in opposition to the divine model.

In the days of Edward the Sixth and of Elizabeth, the defenders of the Anglican ritual had generally contented themselves with saying that it might be used without sin, and that, therefore, none but a perverse and undutiful subject would refuse to use it when enjoined to do so by the magistrate. Now, however, that rising party which claimed for the polity of the Church a celestial origin began to ascribe to her services a new dignity and importance. It was hinted that, if the established worship had any fault, that fault was extreme simplicity, and that the Reformers had, in the heat of their quarrel with Rome, abolished many ancient ceremonies which might with advantage have been retained. Days and places were again held in mysterious veneration. Some practices which had long been disused, and which were commonly regarded as superstitious mummeries, were revived. Paintings and carvings, which had escaped the fury of the first generation of Protestants, became the objects of a respect such as to many seemed idolatrous.

In the times of Edward the Sixth and Elizabeth, supporters of the Anglican rituals mostly argued that they could be practiced without sin, and thus only a rebellious and ungrateful subject would refuse to follow them when instructed by the authorities. However, a rising faction that believed the Church’s governance had a divine origin started to ascribe new dignity and significance to its services. It was suggested that if the established worship had any shortcomings, it was its excessive simplicity, and that the Reformers, in their intense conflict with Rome, had eliminated many ancient rituals that could have been beneficial to keep. Certain days and places were once again treated with mysterious reverence. Some long-discontinued practices, which were often viewed as superstitious nonsense, were brought back. Artworks and sculptures that had survived the initial wave of Protestant destruction began to be viewed with a level of respect that many considered to be idolatrous.

No part of the system of the old Church had been more detested by the Reformers than the honour paid to celibacy. They held that the doctrine of Rome on this subject had been prophetically condemned by the apostle Paul, as a doctrine of devils; and they dwelt much on the crimes and scandals which seemed to prove the justice of this awful denunciation. Luther had evinced his own opinion in the clearest manner, by espousing a nun. Some of the most illustrious bishops and priests who had died by fire during the reign of Mary had left wives and children. Now, however, it began to be rumoured that the old monastic spirit had reappeared in the Church of England; that there was in high quarters a prejudice against married priests; that even laymen, who called themselves Protestants, had made resolutions of celibacy which almost amounted to vows; nay, that a minister of the established religion had set up a nunnery, in which the psalms were chaunted at midnight, by a company of virgins dedicated to God. 11

No part of the old Church's system was more hated by the Reformers than the honor given to celibacy. They believed that Rome's teachings on this matter had been prophetically condemned by the apostle Paul as doctrines from devils; they often pointed out the crimes and scandals that seemed to support this serious accusation. Luther had clearly shown his stance by marrying a nun. Some of the most prominent bishops and priests who were executed during Mary’s reign had left behind wives and children. Now, though, rumors started to circulate that the old monastic spirit was making a comeback in the Church of England; there were reports of prejudice against married priests in high places, and even laypeople who called themselves Protestants had made commitments to celibacy that nearly resembled vows; furthermore, a minister of the established Church had established a nunnery where psalms were sung at midnight by a group of women dedicated to God. 11

Nor was this all. A class of questions, as to which the founders of the Anglican Church and the first generation of Puritans had differed little or not at all, began to furnish matter for fierce disputes. The controversies which had divided the Protestant body in its infancy had related almost exclusively to Church government and to ceremonies. There had been no serious quarrel between the contending parties on points of metaphysical theology. The doctrines held by the chiefs of the hierarchy touching original sin, faith, grace, predestination, and election, were those which are popularly called Calvinistic. Towards the close of Elizabeth's reign her favourite prelate, Archbishop Whitgift, drew up, in concert with the Bishop of London and other theologians, the celebrated instrument known by the name of the Lambeth Articles. In that instrument the most startling of the Calvinistic doctrines are affirmed with a distinctness which would shock many who, in our age, are reputed Calvinists. One clergyman, who took the opposite side, and spoke harshly of Calvin, was arraigned for his presumption by the University of Cambridge, and escaped punishment only by expressing his firm belief in the tenets of reprobation and final perseverance, and his sorrow for the offence which he had given to pious men by reflecting on the great French reformer. The school of divinity of which Hooker was the chief occupies a middle place between the school of Cranmer and the school of Laud; and Hooker has, in modern times, been claimed by the Arminians as an ally. Yet Hooker pronounced Calvin to have been a man superior in wisdom to any other divine that France had produced, a man to whom thousands were indebted for the knowledge of divine truth, but who was himself indebted to God alone. When the Arminian controversy arose in Holland, the English government and the English Church lent strong support to the Calvinistic party; nor is the English name altogether free from the stain which has been left on that party by the imprisonment of Grocius and the judicial murder of Barneveldt.

This wasn’t all. A set of questions, over which the founders of the Anglican Church and the first generation of Puritans had hardly disagreed, began to spark intense debates. The controversies that had split the Protestant community in its early days were mostly about church governance and rituals. There hadn’t been any serious conflict between the opposing sides on issues of metaphysical theology. The beliefs held by the leaders of the hierarchy regarding original sin, faith, grace, predestination, and election were commonly referred to as Calvinistic. Towards the end of Elizabeth's reign, her favored bishop, Archbishop Whitgift, along with the Bishop of London and other theologians, created the well-known document called the Lambeth Articles. In this document, the most shocking of the Calvinistic beliefs are asserted with a clarity that would surprise many who are considered Calvinists today. One clergyman, who disagreed and spoke critically of Calvin, faced consequences from the University of Cambridge, escaping punishment only by affirming his strong belief in the doctrines of reprobation and final perseverance, and expressing regret for offending devout individuals by criticizing the great French reformer. The theological perspective of which Hooker was the leader sits between Cranmer’s and Laud’s schools; and in modern times, Hooker has been claimed by Arminians as an ally. Yet, Hooker declared Calvin to be a man wiser than any other theologian that France had produced, someone to whom thousands were indebted for understanding divine truth, but who owed everything to God alone. When the Arminian debate emerged in Holland, the English government and the Church of England strongly supported the Calvinistic faction; nor is the English name completely free from the blemish left on that faction due to the imprisonment of Grocius and the unjust execution of Barneveldt.

But, even before the meeting of the Dutch synod, that part of the Anglican clergy which was peculiarly hostile to the Calvinistic Church government and to the Calvinistic worship had begun to regard with dislike the Calvinistic metaphysics; and this feeling was very naturally strengthened by the gross injustice, insolence, and cruelty of the party which was prevalent at Dort. The Arminian doctrine, a doctrine less austerely logical than that of the early Reformers, but more agreeable to the popular notions of the divine justice and benevolence, spread fast and wide. The infection soon reached the court. Opinions which at the time of the accession of James, no clergyman could have avowed without imminent risk of being stripped of his gown, were now the best title to preferment. A divine of that age, who was asked by a simple country gentleman what the Arminians held, answered, with as much truth as wit, that they held all the best bishoprics and deaneries in England.

But even before the meeting of the Dutch synod, the part of the Anglican clergy that was especially opposed to the Calvinistic Church government and worship had started to look unfavorably at Calvinistic metaphysics; this sentiment was naturally intensified by the blatant injustice, arrogance, and cruelty of the dominant faction at Dort. The Arminian doctrine, which was less rigidly logical than that of the early Reformers but more in line with popular ideas about divine justice and compassion, spread quickly. The influence soon reached the royal court. Opinions that no clergyman would have dared express during the early days of James's reign, for fear of losing his position, had now become the best credentials for promotion. A theologian of that time, when asked by a simple country gentleman what the Arminians believed, replied, with both truth and humor, that they held all the best bishoprics and deaneries in England.

While the majority of the Anglican clergy quitted, in one direction, the position which they had originally occupied, the majority of the Puritan body departed, in a direction diametrically opposite, from the principles and practices of their fathers. The persecution which the separatists had undergone had been severe enough to irritate, but not severe enough to destroy. They had been, not tamed into submission, but baited into savageness and stubborness. After the fashion of oppressed sects, they mistook their own vindictive feelings for emotions of piety, encouraged in themselves by reading and meditation, a disposition to brood over their wrongs, and, when they had worked themselves up into hating their enemies, imagined that they were only hating the enemies of heaven. In the New Testament there was little indeed which, even when perverted by the most disingenuous exposition, could seem to countenance the indulgence of malevolent passions. But the Old Testament contained the history of a race selected by God to be witnesses of his unity and ministers of his vengeance, and specially commanded by him to do many things which, if done without his special command, would have been atrocious crimes. In such a history it was not difficult for fierce and gloomy spirits to find much that might be distorted to suit their wishes. The extreme Puritans therefore began to feel for the Old Testament a preference, which, perhaps, they did not distinctly avow even to themselves; but which showed itself in all their sentiments and habits. They paid to the Hebrew language a respect which they refused to that tongue in which the discourses of Jesus and the epistles of Paul have come down to us. They baptized their children by the names, not of Christian saints, but of Hebrew patriarchs and warriors. In defiance of the express and reiterated declarations of Luther and Calvin, they turned the weekly festival by which the Church had, from the primitive times, commemorated the resurrection of her Lord, into a Jewish Sabbath. They sought for principles of jurisprudence in the Mosaic law, and for precedents to guide their ordinary conduct in the books of Judges and Kings. Their thoughts and discourse ran much on acts which were assuredly not recorded as examples for our imitation. The prophet who hewed in pieces a captive king, the rebel general who gave the blood of a queen to the dogs, the matron who, in defiance of plighted faith, and of the laws of eastern hospitality, drove the nail into the brain of the fugitive ally who had just fed at her board, and who was sleeping under the shadow of her tent, were proposed as models to Christians suffering under the tyranny of princes and prelates. Morals and manners were subjected to a code resembling that of the synagogue, when the synagogue was in its worst state. The dress, the deportment, the language, the studies, the amusements of the rigid sect were regulated on principles not unlike those of the Pharisees who, proud of their washed hands and broad phylacteries, taunted the Redeemer as a sabbath-breaker and a winebibber. It was a sin to hang garlands on a Maypole, to drink a friend's health, to fly a hawk, to hunt a stag, to play at chess, to wear love-locks, to put starch into a ruff, to touch the virginals, to read the Fairy Queen. Rules such as these, rules which would have appeared insupportable to the free and joyous spirit of Luther, and contemptible to the serene and philosophical intellect of Zwingle, threw over all life a more than monastic gloom. The learning and eloquence by which the great Reformers had been eminently distinguished, and to which they had been, in no small measure, indebted for their success, were regarded by the new school of Protestants with suspicion, if not with aversion. Some precisians had scruples about teaching the Latin grammar, because the names of Mars, Bacchus, and Apollo occurred in it. The fine arts were all but proscribed. The solemn peal of the organ was superstitious. The light music of Ben Jonson's masques was dissolute. Half the fine paintings in England were idolatrous, and the other half indecent. The extreme Puritan was at once known from other men by his gait, his garb, his lank hair, the sour solemnity of his face, the upturned white of his eyes, the nasal twang with which he spoke, and above all, by his peculiar dialect. He employed, on every occasion, the imagery and style of Scripture. Hebraisms violently introduced into the English language, and metaphors borrowed from the boldest lyric poetry of a remote age and country, and applied to the common concerns of English life, were the most striking peculiarities of this cant, which moved, not without cause, the derision both of Prelatists and libertines.

While most of the Anglican clergy moved away from their original positions, the majority of the Puritans went in the exact opposite direction from the beliefs and practices of their ancestors. The persecution that the separatists faced was hard enough to provoke them but not severe enough to break them. They weren't tamed into submission; instead, they became more rebellious and stubborn. Like other oppressed groups, they confused their feelings of anger with genuine piety, nurtured by reflection and reading, which made them dwell on their grievances. When they built up resentment against their enemies, they convinced themselves they were merely opposing the enemies of heaven. The New Testament, even when twisted by dishonest interpretations, offered little support for the embrace of hateful feelings. However, the Old Testament told the story of a people chosen by God to witness his unity and to carry out his vengeance, tasked with many actions that would be considered horrific if done without his specific command. In this narrative, it was easy for intense and gloomy spirits to find plenty to misconstrue to match their desires. Consequently, the radical Puritans started to develop a preference for the Old Testament that they might not have even acknowledged to themselves; this became evident in their views and behaviors. They showed more respect for the Hebrew language than for the language in which the teachings of Jesus and the letters of Paul were recorded. They named their children after Hebrew patriarchs and warriors instead of Christian saints. Ignoring the clear and repeated teachings of Luther and Calvin, they transformed the weekly celebration of Christ's resurrection, which the Church had observed since its beginnings, into a Jewish Sabbath. They looked for legal principles in Mosaic law and examples for their daily conduct in the Books of Judges and Kings. Their thoughts and discussions often revolved around actions that were explicitly not intended as examples for us to follow. The prophet who executed a captive king, the rebel general who fed a queen's blood to dogs, and the woman who betrayed a guest by driving a nail into his skull while he slept in her tent were presented as role models to Christians oppressed by rulers and clergy. Morality and behavior were governed by a code that resembled the synagogue’s practices at its most rigid. The clothing, demeanor, language, studies, and pastimes of the strict sect were regulated by principles akin to those of the Pharisees, who, proud of their cleanliness and external displays, mocked the Redeemer as a lawbreaker and a drinker. It was considered sinful to adorn a Maypole, toast a friend, fly a hawk, hunt a stag, play chess, wear long curls, starch a collar, touch the virginals, or read the Fairy Queen. Such rules, which would have been unbearable to Luther's free and joyous spirit and laughable to Zwingle's calm and philosophical mind, cast a gloom over life that was more oppressive than monasticism. The learning and eloquence that distinguished the great Reformers and contributed to their success were viewed with suspicion, if not outright disdain, by this new group of Protestants. Some strict followers even had reservations about teaching Latin grammar because it included the names of Mars, Bacchus, and Apollo. The fine arts were nearly banned. The solemn sound of the organ was seen as superstitious, and the lively music of Ben Jonson's masques was considered immoral. Half of the exquisite paintings in England were deemed idolatrous, while the other half were classified as indecent. The extreme Puritan could be easily recognized by his walk, clothing, thin hair, grim expression, wide-eyed stare, nasal speech, and, most notably, his unique dialect. He consistently used biblical imagery and style, forcefully inserting Hebraisms into the English language and borrowing metaphors from the most daring ancient poetry, applying them to everyday English life. This style often drew derision from both Prelatists and libertines.

Thus the political and religious schism which had originated in the sixteenth century was, during the first quarter of the seventeenth century, constantly widening. Theories tending to Turkish despotism were in fashion at Whitehall. Theories tending to republicanism were in favour with a large portion of the House of Commons. The violent Prelatists who were, to a man, zealous for prerogative, and the violent Puritans who were, to a man, zealous for the privileges of Parliament, regarded each other with animosity more intense than that which, in the preceding generation, had existed between Catholics and Protestants.

So, the political and religious divide that started in the sixteenth century was, during the first quarter of the seventeenth century, continually growing. Ideas supporting Turkish despotism were popular at Whitehall. Ideas favoring republicanism had strong support from a big part of the House of Commons. The extreme Prelatists, who were all for royal authority, and the extreme Puritans, who were all for Parliament's rights, viewed each other with a hatred that was even stronger than what had existed between Catholics and Protestants in the previous generation.

While the minds of men were in this state, the country, after a peace of many years, at length engaged in a war which required strenuous exertions. This war hastened the approach of the great constitutional crisis. It was necessary that the King should have a large military force. He could not have such a force without money. He could not legally raise money without the consent of Parliament. It followed, therefore, that he either must administer the government in conformity with the sense of the House of Commons, or must venture on such a violation of the fundamental laws of the land as had been unknown during several centuries. The Plantagenets and the Tudors had, it is true, occasionally supplied a deficiency in their revenue by a benevolence or a forced loan: but these expedients were always of a temporary nature. To meet the regular charge of a long war by regular taxation, imposed without the consent of the Estates of the realm, was a course which Henry the Eighth himself would not have dared to take. It seemed, therefore, that the decisive hour was approaching, and that the English Parliament would soon either share the fate of the senates of the Continent, or obtain supreme ascendency in the state.

While people's minds were in this state, the country, after enjoying peace for many years, eventually entered into a war that demanded significant effort. This conflict accelerated the arrival of a major constitutional crisis. The King needed a large military force but couldn’t have that without money. He could only raise funds legally with Parliament's approval. Therefore, he had to either govern in agreement with the House of Commons or risk violating the fundamental laws of the land, something that hadn't happened for centuries. The Plantagenets and the Tudors had occasionally covered budget shortfalls with voluntary contributions or forced loans, but these solutions were always temporary. Henry the Eighth himself wouldn't have dared to impose regular taxes for a long war without the consent of the realm's Estates. It seemed that a decisive moment was approaching, and the English Parliament would soon either face a fate like the senates of the Continent or gain ultimate power in the state.

Just at this conjuncture James died. Charles the First succeeded to the throne. He had received from nature a far better understanding, a far stronger will, and a far keener and firmer temper than his father's. He had inherited his father's political theories, and was much more disposed than his father to carry them into practice. He was, like his father, a zealous Episcopalian. He was, moreover, what his father had never been, a zealous Arminian, and, though no Papist, liked a Papist much better than a Puritan. It would be unjust to deny that Charles had some of the qualities of a good, and even of a great prince. He wrote and spoke, not, like his father, with the exactness of a professor, but after the fashion of intelligent and well educated gentlemen. His taste in literature and art was excellent, his manner dignified, though not gracious, his domestic life without blemish. Faithlessness was the chief cause of his disasters, and is the chief stain on his memory. He was, in truth, impelled by an incurable propensity to dark and crooked ways. It may seem strange that his conscience, which, on occasions of little moment, was sufficiently sensitive, should never have reproached him with this great vice. But there is reason to believe that he was perfidious, not only from constitution and from habit, but also on principle. He seems to have learned from the theologians whom he most esteemed that between him and his subjects there could be nothing of the nature of mutual contract; that he could not, even if he would, divest himself of his despotic authority; and that, in every promise which he made, there was an implied reservation that such promise might be broken in case of necessity, and that of the necessity he was the sole judge.

Just then, James died. Charles the First became king. He was naturally more intelligent, had a stronger will, and a sharper, more resolute temperament than his father. He inherited his father's political beliefs and was much more willing to put them into action. Like his father, he was a devoted Episcopalian. However, he was also a dedicated Arminian, which his father had never been, and even though he wasn’t a Catholic, he preferred Catholics over Puritans. It would be unfair to deny that Charles had some qualities of a good, and even great, ruler. He wrote and spoke, not with the precision of a professor like his father, but like an intelligent, well-educated gentleman. His taste in literature and art was superb, his demeanor dignified, though not particularly warm, and his home life was unimpeachable. His main downfall was his dishonesty, which stains his legacy. He was driven by an unshakable tendency toward deceitful and shady behaviors. It might seem odd that his conscience, which was often sensitive about trivial matters, never chastised him for this major flaw. Yet, it seems he was treacherous not only by nature and habit but also by belief. He appears to have learned from the theologians he respected that there was no mutual understanding between him and his subjects; he couldn’t renounce his absolute power, and that every promise he made came with an implied condition that it could be broken if necessary, with him being the only one to decide what constituted necessity.

And now began that hazardous game on which were staked the destinies of the English people. It was played on the side of the House of Commons with keenness, but with admirable dexterity, coolness, and perseverance. Great statesmen who looked far behind them and far before them were at the head of that assembly. They were resolved to place the King in such a situation that he must either conduct the administration in conformity with the wishes of his Parliament, or make outrageous attacks on the most sacred principles of the constitution. They accordingly doled out supplies to him very sparingly. He found that he must govern either in harmony with the House of Commons or in defiance of all law. His choice was soon made. He dissolved his first Parliament, and levied taxes by his own authority. He convoked a second Parliament, and found it more intractable than the first. He again resorted to the expedient of dissolution, raised fresh taxes without any show of legal right, and threw the chiefs of the opposition into prison At the same time a new grievance, which the peculiar feelings and habits of the English nation made insupportably painful, and which seemed to all discerning men to be of fearful augury, excited general discontent and alarm. Companies of soldiers were billeted on the people; and martial law was, in some places, substituted for the ancient jurisprudence of the realm.

And now began that risky game that would determine the fates of the English people. It was played in the House of Commons with enthusiasm, but with impressive skill, calmness, and determination. Great statesmen who had a long-term vision led that assembly. They were set on putting the King in a position where he had to either run the government according to the Parliament's wishes or make drastic assaults on the most fundamental principles of the constitution. They therefore provided him with funds very cautiously. He realized he had to govern in either cooperation with the House of Commons or in defiance of all law. His choice was quickly made. He disbanded his first Parliament and imposed taxes on his own authority. He called together a second Parliament and found it even more unyielding than the first. He once again chose to dissolve it, raised new taxes without any legal justification, and imprisoned the leaders of the opposition. At the same time, a new issue, which the unique feelings and customs of the English people made unbearably painful and which many perceptive individuals saw as a terrible sign, sparked widespread dissatisfaction and fear. Groups of soldiers were stationed among the people, and in some areas, martial law replaced the traditional legal system of the realm.

The King called a third Parliament, and soon perceived that the opposition was stronger and fiercer than ever. He now determined on a change of tactics. Instead of opposing an inflexible resistance to the demands of the Commons, he, after much altercation and many evasions, agreed to a compromise which, if he had faithfully adhered to it, would have averted a long series of calamities. The Parliament granted an ample supply. The King ratified, in the most solemn manner, that celebrated law, which is known by the name of the Petition of Right, and which is the second Great Charter of the liberties of England. By ratifying that law he bound himself never again to raise money without the consent of the Houses, never again to imprison any person, except in due course of law, and never again to subject his people to the jurisdiction of courts martial.

The King called a third Parliament and quickly realized that the opposition was stronger and more intense than ever. He decided to change his approach. Instead of firmly resisting the Commons' demands, he eventually agreed to a compromise after much debate and many delays. If he had stuck to this agreement, it could have prevented a long series of disasters. The Parliament approved a generous grant. The King formally ratified the well-known law called the Petition of Right, which is the second Great Charter of England's liberties. By ratifying this law, he committed himself never to raise funds without the consent of the Houses, never to imprison anyone without legal due process, and never to subject his people to military courts.

The day on which the royal sanction was, after many delays, solemnly given to this great Act, was a day of joy and hope. The Commons, who crowded the bar of the House of Lords, broke forth into loud acclamations as soon as the clerk had pronounced the ancient form of words by which our princes have, during many ages, signified their assent to the wishes of the Estates of the realm. Those acclamations were reechoed by the voice of the capital and of the nation; but within three weeks it became manifest that Charles had no intention of observing the compact into which he had entered. The supply given by the representatives of the nation was collected. The promise by which that supply had been obtained was broken. A violent contest followed. The Parliament was dissolved with every mark of royal displeasure. Some of the most distinguished members were imprisoned; and one of them, Sir John Eliot, after years of suffering, died in confinement.

The day the royal approval was finally given to this significant Act, after numerous delays, was a day filled with joy and hope. The Commons, gathered at the bar of the House of Lords, erupted into loud cheers as soon as the clerk announced the traditional wording through which our kings have, for centuries, shown their agreement with the desires of the Estates of the realm. Those cheers echoed through the capital and the nation; however, within three weeks, it became clear that Charles had no intention of honoring the agreement he had made. The funding approved by the representatives of the nation was collected. The promise that had secured that funding was broken. A fierce struggle ensued. The Parliament was dissolved with clear signs of royal disapproval. Some of the most prominent members were imprisoned; and one of them, Sir John Eliot, after years of suffering, died in confinement.

Charles, however, could not venture to raise, by his own authority, taxes sufficient for carrying on war. He accordingly hastened to make peace with his neighbours, and thenceforth gave his whole mind to British politics.

Charles, however, couldn't confidently impose taxes on his own authority to fund a war. So, he quickly sought peace with his neighbors and then focused all his attention on British politics.

Now commenced a new era. Many English Kings had occasionally committed unconstitutional acts: but none had ever systematically attempted to make himself a despot, and to reduce the Parliament to a nullity. Such was the end which Charles distinctly proposed to himself. From March 1629 to April 1640, the Houses were not convoked. Never in our history had there been an interval of eleven years between Parliament and Parliament. Only once had there been an interval of even half that length. This fact alone is sufficient to refute those who represent Charles as having merely trodden in the footsteps of the Plantagenets and Tudors.

Now began a new era. Many English kings had occasionally acted unconstitutionally, but none had ever systematically tried to make himself a dictator and render Parliament powerless. This was the goal that Charles clearly set for himself. From March 1629 to April 1640, the Houses were not convened. Never in our history had there been an eleven-year gap between Parliaments. Only once had there been a break of even half that length. This fact alone is enough to disprove those who claim that Charles merely followed in the footsteps of the Plantagenets and Tudors.

It is proved, by the testimony of the King's most strenuous supporters, that, during this part of his reign, the provisions of the Petition of Right were violated by him, not occasionally, but constantly, and on system; that a large part of the revenue was raised without any legal authority; and that persons obnoxious to the government languished for years in prison, without being ever called upon to plead before any tribunal.

It is proven, by the testimony of the King's most dedicated supporters, that during this time of his reign, he consistently and systematically violated the provisions of the Petition of Right; that a significant portion of the revenue was collected without any legal authority; and that individuals who opposed the government suffered for years in prison without ever being brought before any court.

For these things history must hold the King himself chiefly responsible. From the time of his third Parliament he was his own prime minister. Several persons, however, whose temper and talents were suited to his purposes, were at the head of different departments of the administration.

For these issues, history must primarily hold the King accountable. From the time of his third Parliament, he became his own prime minister. However, several people whose personalities and skills matched his objectives were in charge of different government departments.

Thomas Wentworth, successively created Lord Wentworth and Earl of Strafford, a man of great abilities, eloquence, and courage, but of a cruel and imperious nature, was the counsellor most trusted in political and military affairs. He had been one of the most distinguished members of the opposition, and felt towards those whom he had deserted that peculiar malignity which has, in all ages, been characteristic of apostates. He perfectly understood the feelings, the resources, and the policy of the party to which he had lately belonged, and had formed a vast and deeply meditated scheme which very nearly confounded even the able tactics of the statesmen by whom the House of Commons had been directed. To this scheme, in his confidential correspondence, he gave the expressive name of Thorough. His object was to do in England all, and more than all, that Richelieu was doing in France; to make Charles a monarch as absolute as any on the Continent; to put the estates and the personal liberty of the whole people at the disposal of the crown; to deprive the courts of law of all independent authority, even in ordinary questions of civil right between man and man; and to punish with merciless rigour all who murmured at the acts of the government, or who applied, even in the most decent and regular manner, to any tribunal for relief against those acts. 12

Thomas Wentworth, who was made Lord Wentworth and then Earl of Strafford, was a man of great skill, speaking ability, and bravery, but he had a cruel and domineering personality. He was the most trusted advisor in political and military matters. He had been a prominent member of the opposition and harbored a specific bitterness towards those he had abandoned, which is often seen in traitors throughout history. He fully understood the emotions, resources, and strategies of the party he had recently left and had developed a large, carefully thought-out plan that nearly outsmarted even the skilled tactics of the politicians leading the House of Commons. In his private communications, he referred to this plan as Thorough. His goal was to do in England everything, and even more than, what Richelieu was doing in France; to make Charles as absolute a monarch as any in Europe; to place the rights and personal freedoms of everyone under the control of the crown; to strip the courts of law of any independent authority, even in everyday civil matters between individuals; and to harshly punish anyone who complained about the government's actions or sought relief in any formal and respectful way against those actions. 12

This was his end; and he distinctly saw in what manner alone this end could be attained. There was, in truth, about all his notions a clearness, a coherence, a precision, which, if he had not been pursuing an object pernicious to his country and to his kind, would have justly entitled him to high admiration. He saw that there was one instrument, and only one, by which his vast and daring projects could be carried into execution. That instrument was a standing army. To the forming of such an army, therefore, he directed all the energy of his strong mind. In Ireland, where he was viceroy, he actually succeeded in establishing a military despotism, not only over the aboriginal population, but also over the English colonists, and was able to boast that, in that island, the King was as absolute as any prince in the whole world could be. 13

This was his end; and he clearly saw how he could achieve it. There was, in fact, a clarity, coherence, and precision to all his ideas that, if he hadn’t been pursuing something harmful to his country and humanity, would have earned him great admiration. He recognized that there was only one means to execute his ambitious and risky plans. That means was a standing army. Therefore, he focused all the energy of his strong mind on creating such an army. In Ireland, where he was viceroy, he actually managed to establish a military dictatorship, not only over the native population but also over the English colonists, and he was able to claim that, in that island, the King was as absolute as any prince in the entire world could be. 13

The ecclesiastical administration was, in the meantime, principally directed by William Laud, Archbishop of Canterbury. Of all the prelates of the Anglican Church, Laud had departed farthest from the principles of the Reformation, and had drawn nearest to Rome. His theology was more remote than even that of the Dutch Arminians from the theology of the Calvinists. His passion for ceremonies, his reverence for holidays, vigils, and sacred places, his ill concealed dislike of the marriage of ecclesiastics, the ardent and not altogether disinterested zeal with which he asserted the claims of the clergy to the reverence of the laity, would have made him an object of aversion to the Puritans, even if he had used only legal and gentle means for the attainment of his ends. But his understanding was narrow; and his commerce with the world had been small. He was by nature rash, irritable, quick to feel for his own dignity, slow to sympathise with the sufferings of others, and prone to the error, common in superstitious men, of mistaking his own peevish and malignant moods for emotions of pious zeal. Under his direction every corner of the realm was subjected to a constant and minute inspection. Every little congregation of separatists was tracked out and broken up. Even the devotions of private families could not escape the vigilance of his spies. Such fear did his rigour inspire that the deadly hatred of the Church, which festered in innumerable bosoms, was generally disguised under an outward show of conformity. On the very eve of troubles, fatal to himself and to his order, the Bishops of several extensive dioceses were able to report to him that not a single dissenter was to be found within their jurisdiction. 14

The church administration was mainly led by William Laud, the Archbishop of Canterbury. Of all the leaders in the Anglican Church, Laud strayed the farthest from Reformation principles and moved closest to Roman Catholicism. His theology was even more distant from Calvinist beliefs than that of the Dutch Arminians. His obsession with rituals, strong admiration for holidays, vigils, and sacred sites, his barely hidden disdain for clerical marriages, and his intense, somewhat self-serving passion for asserting the clergy's authority over the laity made him deeply unpopular with the Puritans, even if he had only used legal and gentle methods to achieve his goals. However, his understanding was limited, and he had little experience with the wider world. By nature, he was reckless, irritable, quick to protect his own dignity, slow to empathize with others’ suffering, and often mistook his own petty and spiteful feelings for true religious fervor. Under his leadership, every part of the kingdom underwent constant and detailed scrutiny. Every small group of dissenters was identified and dismantled. Even the private worship of families wasn’t safe from his spies’ watchful eyes. His harsh enforcement sparked such fear that the deep-seated animosity towards the Church, which simmered within countless hearts, was typically masked by a façade of conformity. On the brink of trouble, which would prove disastrous for him and his church, the Bishops of several large dioceses reported to him that there was not a single dissenter within their territory. 14

The tribunals afforded no protection to the subject against the civil and ecclesiastical tyranny of that period. The judges of the common law, holding their situations during the pleasure of the King, were scandalously obsequious. Yet, obsequious as they were, they were less ready and less efficient instruments of arbitrary power than a class of courts, the memory of which is still, after the lapse of more than two centuries, held in deep abhorrence by the nation. Foremost among these courts in power and in infamy were the Star Chamber and the High Commission, the former a political, the latter a religious inquisition. Neither was a part of the old constitution of England. The Star Chamber had been remodelled, and the High Commission created, by the Tudors. The power which these boards had possessed before the accession of Charles had been extensive and formidable, but had been small indeed when compared with that which they now usurped. Guided chiefly by the violent spirit of the primate, and free from the control of Parliament, they displayed a rapacity, a violence, a malignant energy, which had been unknown to any former age. The government was able through their instrumentality, to fine, imprison, pillory, and mutilate without restraint. A separate council which sate at York, under the presidency of Wentworth, was armed, in defiance of law, by a pure act of prerogative, with almost boundless power over the northern counties. All these tribunals insulted and defied the authority of Westminster Hall, and daily committed excesses which the most distinguished Royalists have warmly condemned. We are informed by Clarendon that there was hardly a man of note in the realm who had not personal experience of the harshness and greediness of the Star Chamber, that the High Commission had so conducted itself that it had scarce a friend left in the kingdom, and that the tyranny of the Council of York had made the Great Charter a dead letter on the north of the Trent.

The courts offered no protection to people against the civil and church tyranny of that time. The common law judges, serving at the King’s pleasure, were shockingly submissive. However, as subservient as they were, they were less effective and less willing tools of arbitrary power than a group of courts that the country still deeply despises more than two centuries later. Leading these courts in both power and infamy were the Star Chamber and the High Commission, the former being a political inquisition and the latter a religious one. Neither was part of England's traditional constitution. The Star Chamber had been restructured, and the High Commission created, by the Tudors. The power these organizations had before Charles came to the throne was extensive and formidable, but minor compared to what they later took for themselves. Mainly driven by the aggressive spirit of the archbishop and free from Parliamentary oversight, they exhibited a greed, violence, and malicious energy that had never been seen before. The government was able, through their actions, to fine, imprison, publicly shame, and mutilate without any limits. A separate council that met in York, led by Wentworth, was granted almost limitless power over the northern counties, defying the law through sheer executive privilege. All these courts insulted and disregarded the authority of Westminster Hall and committed daily abuses that even the most prominent Royalists vehemently condemned. Clarendon tells us that there was hardly a notable person in the realm who hadn't suffered from the harshness and greed of the Star Chamber. He noted that the High Commission had acted in ways that left it with almost no allies in the kingdom, and the tyranny of the Council of York had turned the Great Charter into a dead letter in the north of the Trent.

The government of England was now, in all points but one, as despotic as that of France. But that one point was all important. There was still no standing army. There was therefore, no security that the whole fabric of tyranny might not be subverted in a single day; and, if taxes were imposed by the royal authority for the support of an army, it was probable that there would be an immediate and irresistible explosion. This was the difficulty which more than any other perplexed Wentworth. The Lord Keeper Finch, in concert with other lawyers who were employed by the government, recommended an expedient which was eagerly adopted. The ancient princes of England, as they called on the inhabitants of the counties near Scotland to arm and array themselves for the defence of the border, had sometimes called on the maritime counties to furnish ships for the defence of the coast. In the room of ships money had sometimes been accepted. This old practice it was now determined, after a long interval, not only to revive but to extend. Former princes had raised shipmoney only in time of war: it was now exacted in a time of profound peace. Former princes, even in the most perilous wars, had raised shipmoney only along the coasts: it was now exacted from the inland shires. Former princes had raised shipmoney only for the maritime defence of the country: It was now exacted, by the admission of the Royalists themselves. With the object, not of maintaining a navy, but of furnishing the King with supplies which might be increased at his discretion to any amount, and expended at his discretion for any purpose.

The government of England was now, in every way except one, as oppressive as that of France. But that one difference was crucial. There was still no standing army. This meant there was no guarantee that the entire system of oppression couldn't be dismantled in a single day; and if taxes were imposed by the royal authority to support an army, it was likely that there would be an immediate and unstoppable backlash. This was the issue that troubled Wentworth more than any other. The Lord Keeper Finch, along with other lawyers working for the government, suggested a solution that was quickly embraced. The ancient kings of England used to call on the local people near Scotland to arm themselves for the defense of the border and would sometimes ask coastal counties to provide ships for coastal defense. Instead of ships, money had occasionally been accepted. It was now decided, after a long break, not only to revive this old practice but also to expand it. Previous monarchs had only raised ship money during wartime; it was now being demanded in a time of complete peace. Previous rulers had only collected ship money from coastal areas during the most dangerous wars; it was now being demanded from inland counties. Previous rulers had only collected ship money for the country's maritime defense; it was now being demanded, as acknowledged even by the Royalists themselves. The goal was not to maintain a navy, but to provide the King with funds that could be increased at his discretion to any amount, and spent by him for any purpose.

The whole nation was alarmed and incensed. John Hampden, an opulent and well born gentleman of Buckinghamshire, highly considered in his own neighbourhood, but as yet little known to the kingdom generally, had the courage to step forward, to confront the whole power of the government, and take on himself the cost and the risk of disputing the prerogative to which the King laid claim. The case was argued before the judges in the Exchequer Chamber. So strong were the arguments against the pretensions of the crown that, dependent and servile as the judges were, the majority against Hampden was the smallest possible. Still there was a majority. The interpreters of the law had pronounced that one great and productive tax might be imposed by the royal authority. Wentworth justly observed that it was impossible to vindicate their judgment except by reasons directly leading to a conclusion which they had not ventured to draw. If money might legally be raised without the consent of Parliament for the support of a fleet, it was not easy to deny that money might, without consent of Parliament, be legally raised for the support of an army.

The whole nation was alarmed and outraged. John Hampden, a wealthy and well-bred gentleman from Buckinghamshire, respected in his local community but still relatively unknown across the country, had the bravery to step up, challenge the full power of the government, and take on the costs and risks of disputing the King's claimed authority. The case was presented before the judges in the Exchequer Chamber. The arguments against the crown's claims were so compelling that, despite the judges being dependent and submissive, the majority decision against Hampden was the narrowest possible. Yet, there was still a majority. The law interpreters had declared that a significant and productive tax could be imposed by royal authority. Wentworth rightly pointed out that it was impossible to justify their ruling unless they used reasons that led to a conclusion they had not dared to reach. If money could legally be raised without Parliament's consent for maintaining a fleet, it was hard to argue that money couldn't, without Parliament's consent, also be legally raised for an army.

The decision of the judges increased the irritation of the people. A century earlier, irritation less serious would have produced a general rising. But discontent did not now so readily as in an earlier age take the form of rebellion. The nation had been long steadily advancing in wealth and in civilisation. Since the great northern Earls took up arms against Elizabeth seventy years had elapsed; and during those seventy years there had been no civil war. Never, during the whole existence of the English nation, had so long a period passed without intestine hostilities. Men had become accustomed to the pursuits of peaceful industry, and, exasperated as they were, hesitated long before they drew the sword.

The judges' decision irritated the people even more. A century earlier, this kind of irritation would have sparked a widespread uprising. But now, discontent didn't easily turn into rebellion like it did in the past. The nation had been steadily improving in wealth and civilization. It had been seventy years since the great northern Earls rose up against Elizabeth, and in that time, there had been no civil war. Never before in the history of England had such a long time gone by without internal conflict. People had gotten used to focusing on peaceful industry, and even though they were frustrated, they hesitated for a long time before taking up arms.

This was the conjuncture at which the liberties of the nation were in the greatest peril. The opponents of the government began to despair of the destiny of their country; and many looked to the American wilderness as the only asylum in which they could enjoy civil and spiritual freedom. There a few resolute Puritans, who, in the cause of their religion, feared neither the rage of the ocean nor the hardships of uncivilised life, neither the fangs of savage beasts nor the tomahawks of more savage men, had built, amidst the primeval forests, villages which are now great and opulent cities, but which have, through every change, retained some trace of the character derived from their founders. The government regarded these infant colonies with aversion, and attempted violently to stop the stream of emigration, but could not prevent the population of New England from being largely recruited by stouthearted and Godfearing men from every part of the old England. And now Wentworth exulted in the near prospect of Thorough. A few years might probably suffice for the execution of his great design. If strict economy were observed, if all collision with foreign powers were carefully avoided, the debts of the crown would be cleared off: there would be funds available for the support of a large military force; and that force would soon break the refractory spirit of the nation.

This was the moment when the freedoms of the nation were at their highest risk. The government's opponents started to lose hope for their country's future, with many looking to the American wilderness as the only place where they could find civil and spiritual freedom. There, a few determined Puritans, who feared neither the fury of the ocean nor the struggles of untamed life, and who were unafraid of wild animals or the weapons of even wilder men, established villages in the ancient forests that are now thriving cities. Yet, through all their changes, these places have kept some of the character inherited from their founders. The government viewed these emerging colonies with disdain and tried to violently stop the flow of emigration, but they couldn’t stop the population of New England from growing significantly due to brave and faith-driven individuals from all over old England. And now Wentworth was thrilled about the upcoming realization of Thorough. A few years might be enough to execute his grand plan. If they practiced strict budgeting and avoided any conflicts with foreign powers, the crown's debts would be cleared, leaving resources available to support a large military force that would soon crush the rebellious spirit of the nation.

At this crisis an act of insane bigotry suddenly changed the whole face of public affairs. Had the King been wise, he would have pursued a cautious and soothing policy towards Scotland till he was master in the South. For Scotland was of all his kingdoms that in which there was the greatest risk that a spark might produce a flame, and that a flame might become a conflagration. Constitutional opposition, indeed, such as he had encountered at Westminster, he had not to apprehend at Edinburgh. The Parliament of his northern kingdom was a very different body from that which bore the same name in England. It was ill constituted: it was little considered; and it had never imposed any serious restraint on any of his predecessors. The three Estates sate in one house. The commissioners of the burghs were considered merely as retainers of the great nobles. No act could be introduced till it had been approved by the Lords of Articles, a committee which was really, though not in form, nominated by the crown. But, though the Scottish Parliament was obsequious, the Scottish people had always been singularly turbulent and ungovernable. They had butchered their first James in his bedchamber: they had repeatedly arrayed themselves in arms against James the Second; they had slain James the Third on the field of battle: their disobedience had broken the heart of James the Fifth: they had deposed and imprisoned Mary: they had led her son captive; and their temper was still as intractable as ever. Their habits were rude and martial. All along the southern border, and all along the line between the highlands and the lowlands, raged an incessant predatory war. In every part of the country men were accustomed to redress their wrongs by the strong hand. Whatever loyalty the nation had anciently felt to the Stuarts had cooled during their long absence. The supreme influence over the public mind was divided between two classes of malecontents, the lords of the soil and the preachers; lords animated by the same spirit which had often impelled the old Douglasses to withstand the royal house, and preachers who had inherited the republican opinions and the unconquerable spirit of Knox. Both the national and religious feelings of the population had been wounded. All orders of men complained that their country, that country which had, with so much glory, defended her independence against the ablest and bravest Plantagenets, had, through the instrumentality of her native princes, become in effect, though not in name, a province of England. In no part of Europe had the Calvinistic doctrine and discipline taken so strong a hold on the public mind. The Church of Rome was regarded by the great body of the people with a hatred which might justly be called ferocious; and the Church of England, which seemed to be every day becoming more and more like the Church of Rome, was an object of scarcely less aversion.

At this moment, an act of extreme bigotry suddenly changed everything in public affairs. If the King had been smart, he would have taken a careful and friendly approach towards Scotland until he had control in the South. Scotland was the kingdom where there was the greatest chance that a small problem could ignite a larger conflict, which could then escalate into a major crisis. Unlike the constitutional opposition he faced at Westminster, there was none to fear in Edinburgh. The Parliament in Scotland was very different from its English counterpart. It was poorly structured, not taken seriously, and had never seriously challenged any of his predecessors. The three Estates met in one assembly, and the commissioners of the burghs were seen merely as followers of the great nobles. No legislation could be introduced without approval from the Lords of Articles, a committee that was essentially appointed by the crown, even if not formally. Despite the Scottish Parliament being submissive, the Scottish people had always been notably tumultuous and unruly. They had assassinated their first James in his bedroom, repeatedly revolted against James the Second, killed James the Third in battle, and their disobedience had devastated James the Fifth; they had deposed and imprisoned Mary, and taken her son captive, with their rebellious spirit remaining as stubborn as ever. Their ways were rough and military. Across the southern border and along the divide between the highlands and lowlands, there was constant raiding and warfare. In every part of the country, men were used to settling their disputes through force. Any loyalty the nation once had towards the Stuarts had diminished during their long absence. The dominant influence over public opinion was split between two groups of discontented individuals: the landowners and the preachers; the landowners driven by the same spirit that had often led the old Douglasses to resist the royal family, and preachers who had inherited the republican views and resilient spirit of Knox. Both national pride and religious sentiments of the people had been hurt. All classes felt that their country, which had valiantly defended its independence against the cleverest and bravest Plantagenets, had effectively, if not in name, become a province of England, thanks to their own princes. No other part of Europe had seen Calvinistic beliefs and practices take such a strong hold on public consciousness. The Church of Rome was met with a level of hatred among the people that could justifiably be called fierce, and the Church of England, which seemed to be increasingly resembling the Church of Rome, was nearly as disliked.

The government had long wished to extend the Anglican system over the whole island, and had already, with this view, made several changes highly distasteful to every Presbyterian. One innovation, however, the most hazardous of all, because it was directly cognisable by the senses of the common people, had not yet been attempted. The public worship of God was still conducted in the manner acceptable to the nation. Now, however, Charles and Laud determined to force on the Scots the English liturgy, or rather a liturgy which, wherever it differed from that of England, differed, in the judgment of all rigid Protestants, for the worse.

The government had long wanted to impose the Anglican system across the entire island and had already made several changes that were deeply unpopular with Presbyterians. However, one change, the most risky of all since it was something everyone could see and experience, had not yet been attempted. Public worship was still carried out in a way that was acceptable to the people. Now, though, Charles and Laud decided to push the Scots to adopt the English liturgy, or more accurately, a liturgy that, in the eyes of strict Protestants, was a downgrade from the one used in England.

To this step, taken in the mere wantonness of tyranny, and in criminal ignorance or more criminal contempt of public feeling, our country owes her freedom. The first performance of the foreign ceremonies produced a riot. The riot rapidly became a revolution. Ambition, patriotism, fanaticism, were mingled in one headlong torrent. The whole nation was in arms. The power of England was indeed, as appeared some years later, sufficient to coerce Scotland: but a large part of the English people sympathised with the religious feelings of the insurgents; and many Englishmen who had no scruple about antiphonies and genuflexions, altars and surplices, saw with pleasure the progress of a rebellion which seemed likely to confound the arbitrary projects of the court, and to make the calling of a Parliament necessary.

Because of this step, taken out of mere tyranny and either criminal ignorance or even more criminal disregard for public sentiment, our country owes its freedom. The first instance of foreign ceremonies sparked a riot. That riot quickly turned into a revolution. Ambition, patriotism, and fanaticism all combined in one overwhelming surge. The entire nation was armed. England's power was indeed, as was shown a few years later, strong enough to control Scotland: however, many English people felt sympathy for the religious beliefs of the rebels; and numerous Englishmen who had no issues with chants and gestures, altars, and ceremonial robes, were pleased to see the progress of a rebellion that seemed likely to thwart the court's arbitrary plans and make the calling of a Parliament necessary.

For the senseless freak which had produced these effects Wentworth is not responsible. 15 It had, in fact, thrown all his plans into confusion. To counsel submission, however, was not in his nature. An attempt was made to put down the insurrection by the sword: but the King's military means and military talents were unequal to the task. To impose fresh taxes on England in defiance of law, would, at this conjuncture, have been madness. No resource was left but a Parliament; and in the spring of 1640 a Parliament was convoked.

For the senseless freak that caused these effects, Wentworth is not responsible. 15 It had, in fact, thrown all his plans into chaos. However, advising surrender was not in his nature. An attempt was made to suppress the uprising by force, but the King's military resources and skills were not up to the task. Imposing new taxes on England in defiance of the law would have been madness at this point. The only option left was a Parliament; and in the spring of 1640, a Parliament was called.

The nation had been put into good humour by the prospect of seeing constitutional government restored, and grievances redressed. The new House of Commons was more temperate and more respectful to the throne than any which had sate since the death of Elizabeth. The moderation of this assembly has been highly extolled by the most distinguished Royalists and seems to have caused no small vexation and disappointment to the chiefs of the opposition: but it was the uniform practice of Charles, a practice equally impolitic and ungenerous, to refuse all compliance with the desires of his people, till those desires were expressed in a menacing tone. As soon as the Commons showed a disposition to take into consideration the grievances under which the country had suffered during eleven years, the King dissolved the Parliament with every mark of displeasure.

The country was feeling optimistic about the possibility of restoring constitutional government and addressing grievances. The new House of Commons was more moderate and respectful toward the throne than any that had existed since Elizabeth's death. The restraint of this assembly has been praised by many prominent Royalists and seems to have caused considerable frustration and disappointment among the opposition leaders. However, it was a consistent practice of Charles—not only unwise but also unfair—to ignore the wishes of his people until those wishes were voiced in a threatening manner. As soon as the Commons indicated they wanted to discuss the grievances the country had endured for eleven years, the King dissolved Parliament, showing clear signs of anger.

Between the dissolution of this shortlived assembly and the meeting of that ever memorable body known by the name of the Long Parliament, intervened a few months, during which the yoke was pressed down more severely than ever on the nation, while the spirit of the nation rose up more angrily than ever against the yoke. Members of the House of Commons were questioned by the Privy Council touching their parliamentary conduct, and thrown into prison for refusing to reply. Shipmoney was levied with increased rigour. The Lord Mayor and the Sheriffs of London were threatened with imprisonment for remissness in collecting the payments. Soldiers were enlisted by force. Money for their support was exacted from their counties. Torture, which had always been illegal, and which had recently been declared illegal even by the servile judges of that age, was inflicted for the last time in England in the month of May, 1610.

Between the end of this short-lived assembly and the gathering of the memorable group known as the Long Parliament, a few months passed during which the weight on the nation became heavier than ever, while the people's anger rose against that weight like never before. Members of the House of Commons were questioned by the Privy Council about their parliamentary actions and thrown in prison for refusing to answer. Ship money was collected with even more intensity. The Lord Mayor and the Sheriffs of London faced threats of imprisonment for not being diligent in collecting payments. Soldiers were forcefully recruited. Money for their upkeep was demanded from their counties. Torture, which had always been illegal and had recently been deemed illegal even by the compliant judges of that time, was used for the last time in England in May 1610.

Everything now depended on the event of the King's military operations against the Scots. Among his troops there was little of that feeling which separates professional soldiers from the mass of a nation, and attaches them to their leaders. His army, composed for the most part of recruits, who regretted the plough from which they had been violently taken, and who were imbued with the religious and political sentiments then prevalent throughout the country, was more formidable to himself than to the enemy. The Scots, encouraged by the heads of the English opposition, and feebly resisted by the English forces, marched across the Tweed and the Tyne, and encamped on the borders of Yorkshire. And now the murmurs of discontent swelled into an uproar by which all spirits save one were overawed.

Everything now depended on the King’s military operations against the Scots. Among his troops, there was little of that bond that typically separates professional soldiers from the general population and ties them to their leaders. His army, mostly made up of recruits who longed for the farms they had been forcibly taken from and who were influenced by the prevailing religious and political beliefs of the time, posed more of a threat to him than to the enemy. The Scots, encouraged by leaders of the English opposition and only weakly resisted by the English forces, crossed the Tweed and the Tyne, setting up camp on the borders of Yorkshire. Now, the whispers of discontent grew into an uproar that intimidated everyone except for one person.

But the voice of Strafford was still for Thorough; and he even, in this extremity, showed a nature so cruel and despotic, that his own pikemen were ready to tear him in pieces.

But Strafford's stance was still one of Thorough; and even in this dire situation, he revealed a nature so ruthless and authoritarian that his own soldiers were ready to rip him apart.

There was yet one last expedient which, as the King flattered himself, might save him from the misery of facing another House of Commons. To the House of Lords he was less averse. The Bishops were devoted to him; and though the temporal peers were generally dissatisfied with his administration, they were, as a class, so deeply interested in the maintenance of order, and in the stability of ancient institutions, that they were not likely to call for extensive reforms. Departing from the uninterrupted practice of centuries, he called a Great Council consisting of Lords alone. But the Lords were too prudent to assume the unconstitutional functions with which he wished to invest them. Without money, without credit, without authority even in his own camp, he yielded to the pressure of necessity. The Houses were convoked; and the elections proved that, since the spring, the distrust and hatred with which the government was regarded had made fearful progress.

There was one last option that the King hoped might spare him from the misery of facing another House of Commons. He was less opposed to the House of Lords. The Bishops were loyal to him; and although the secular peers were generally unhappy with his administration, they were, as a group, so invested in maintaining order and protecting traditional institutions that they were unlikely to push for major reforms. Breaking with a long-standing tradition, he called a Great Council made up only of Lords. However, the Lords were too wise to take on the unconstitutional roles he wanted them to assume. Lacking money, support, and even authority within his own ranks, he caved to the pressure of necessity. The Houses were summoned; and the elections showed that, since the spring, the distrust and animosity toward the government had grown alarmingly.

In November, 1640, met that renowned Parliament which, in spite of many errors and disasters, is justly entitled to the reverence and gratitude of all who, in any part of the world enjoy the blessings of constitutional government.

In November 1640, the famous Parliament met, which, despite many mistakes and setbacks, truly deserves the respect and gratitude of everyone who, anywhere in the world, enjoys the benefits of constitutional government.

During the year which followed, no very important division of opinion appeared in the Houses. The civil and ecclesiastical administration had, through a period of nearly twelve years, been so oppressive and so unconstitutional that even those classes of which the inclinations are generally on the side of order and authority were eager to promote popular reforms and to bring the instruments of tyranny to justice. It was enacted that no interval of more than three years should ever elapse between Parliament and Parliament, and that, if writs under the Great Seal were not issued at the proper time, the returning officers should, without such writs, call the constituent bodies together for the choice of representatives. The Star Chamber, the High Commission, the Council of York were swept away. Men who, after suffering cruel mutilations, had been confined in remote dungeons, regained their liberty. On the chief ministers of the crown the vengeance of the nation was unsparingly wreaked. The Lord Keeper, the Primate, the Lord Lieutenant were impeached. Finch saved himself by flight. Laud was flung into the Tower. Strafford was put to death by act of attainder. On the day on which this act passed, the King gave his assent to a law by which he bound himself not to adjourn, prorogue, or dissolve the existing Parliament without its own consent.

During the following year, there wasn't a significant difference of opinion in the Houses. The civil and church authorities had, for nearly twelve years, been so oppressive and unconstitutional that even those typically inclined toward order and authority were eager to support popular reforms and hold the instruments of tyranny accountable. It was established that no more than three years should ever pass between Parliaments, and that if writs under the Great Seal weren’t issued on time, the returning officers should gather the representatives from the constituent bodies without such writs. The Star Chamber, the High Commission, and the Council of York were abolished. Individuals who had endured brutal mutilations and been held in distant dungeons regained their freedom. The nation's wrath was harshly directed at the chief ministers of the crown. The Lord Keeper, the Primate, and the Lord Lieutenant faced impeachment. Finch escaped by fleeing. Laud was imprisoned in the Tower. Strafford was executed through an act of attainder. On the same day this act was passed, the King agreed to a law that bound him not to adjourn, prorogue, or dissolve the current Parliament without its consent.

After ten months of assiduous toil, the Houses, in September 1641, adjourned for a short vacation; and the King visited Scotland. He with difficulty pacified that kingdom by consenting, not only to relinquish his plans of ecclesiastical reform, but even to pass, with a very bad grace, an act declaring that episcopacy was contrary to the word of God.

After ten months of hard work, the Houses took a short break in September 1641, and the King traveled to Scotland. He struggled to calm that kingdom by agreeing not only to give up his plans for church reform but also to reluctantly pass a law stating that episcopacy was against the word of God.

The recess of the English Parliament lasted six weeks. The day on which the Houses met again is one of the most remarkable epochs in our history. From that day dates the corporate existence of the two great parties which have ever since alternately governed the country. In one sense, indeed, the distinction which then became obvious had always existed, and always must exist. For it has its origin in diversities of temper, of understanding, and of interest, which are found in all societies, and which will be found till the human mind ceases to be drawn in opposite directions by the charm of habit and by the charm of novelty. Not only in politics but in literature, in art, in science, in surgery and mechanics, in navigation and agriculture, nay, even in mathematics, we find this distinction. Everywhere there is a class of men who cling with fondness to whatever is ancient, and who, even when convinced by overpowering reasons that innovation would be beneficial, consent to it with many misgivings and forebodings. We find also everywhere another class of men, sanguine in hope, bold in speculation, always pressing forward, quick to discern the imperfections of whatever exists, disposed to think lightly of the risks and inconveniences which attend improvements and disposed to give every change credit for being an improvement. In the sentiments of both classes there is something to approve. But of both the best specimens will be found not far from the common frontier. The extreme section of one class consists of bigoted dotards: the extreme section of the other consists of shallow and reckless empirics.

The English Parliament's break lasted six weeks. The day the Houses reconvened marks a significant time in our history. From that day, we can trace the corporate existence of the two major parties that have since alternately governed the country. In a sense, the differences that became clear then have always existed and will always exist. They stem from variations in temperament, understanding, and interests found in all societies, which will remain as long as the human mind is pulled in opposite directions by the comfort of tradition and the excitement of new things. This distinction appears not only in politics but also in literature, art, science, surgery, mechanics, navigation, and agriculture—even in mathematics. Everywhere, there’s a group of people who hold on tightly to what is old and, even when faced with strong reasons that change could be beneficial, approach it with hesitation and concerns. There’s also another group, optimistic and bold, always looking ahead, quick to spot the flaws in what exists, tending to underestimate the risks and downsides of improvements while readily believing that any change is for the better. Both groups have valid points. However, the best examples of each are often found near the common boundary. The extreme end of one group is made up of narrow-minded old-timers, while the extreme of the other consists of superficial and reckless experimenters.

There can be no doubt that in our very first Parliaments might have been discerned a body of members anxious to preserve, and a body eager to reform. But, while the sessions of the legislature were short, these bodies did not take definite and permanent forms, array themselves under recognised leaders, or assume distinguishing names, badges, and war cries. During the first months of the Long Parliament, the indignation excited by many years of lawless oppression was so strong and general that the House of Commons acted as one man. Abuse after abuse disappeared without a struggle. If a small minority of the representative body wished to retain the Star Chamber and the High Commission, that minority, overawed by the enthusiasm and by the numerical superiority of the reformers, contented itself with secretly regretting institutions which could not, with any hope of success, be openly defended. At a later period the Royalists found it convenient to antedate the separation between themselves and their opponents, and to attribute the Act which restrained the King from dissolving or proroguing the Parliament, the Triennial Act, the impeachment of the ministers, and the attainder of Strafford, to the faction which afterwards made war on the King. But no artifice could be more disingenuous. Every one of those strong measures was actively promoted by the men who were afterward foremost among the Cavaliers. No republican spoke of the long misgovernment of Charles more severely than Colepepper. The most remarkable speech in favour of the Triennial Bill was made by Digby. The impeachment of the Lord Keeper was moved by Falkland. The demand that the Lord Lieutenant should be kept close prisoner was made at the bar of the Lords by Hyde. Not till the law attainting Strafford was proposed did the signs of serious disunion become visible. Even against that law, a law which nothing but extreme necessity could justify, only about sixty members of the House of Commons voted. It is certain that Hyde was not in the minority, and that Falkland not only voted with the majority, but spoke strongly for the bill. Even the few who entertained a scruple about inflicting death by a retrospective enactment thought it necessary to express the utmost abhorrence of Strafford's character and administration.

There’s no doubt that in our earliest Parliaments, you could see a group of members wanting to preserve the current system and another group eager for reform. However, since the legislature sessions were brief, these groups didn’t form permanent factions, identify themselves with recognized leaders, or adopt specific names, symbols, and rallying cries. During the early months of the Long Parliament, the outrage from years of lawless oppression was so overwhelming and widespread that the House of Commons acted as a united front. Abuse after abuse was eliminated without resistance. If a small minority of representatives wanted to keep the Star Chamber and the High Commission, that group, intimidated by the enthusiasm and numbers of the reformers, could only secretly wish for the continuation of institutions they couldn’t defend openly. Later on, the Royalists found it convenient to reinvent the timeline of their separation from their opponents and claimed that the Act which prevented the King from dissolving or proroguing Parliament, the Triennial Act, the impeachment of ministers, and the attainder of Strafford were all the work of the faction that later went to war against the King. However, no tactic could be more deceitful. Each of those significant measures was actively championed by those who later became leaders among the Cavaliers. No republican criticized Charles’s long misrule more harshly than Colepepper. The most notable speech in support of the Triennial Bill was delivered by Digby. The impeachment of the Lord Keeper was initiated by Falkland. The request for the Lord Lieutenant to be held as a close prisoner was presented at the bar of the Lords by Hyde. It wasn’t until the law targeting Strafford was proposed that signs of serious division started to show. Even against that law, which could only be justified by extreme necessity, only about sixty members of the House of Commons voted against it. It’s clear that Hyde was not in the minority, and that Falkland not only voted with the majority but also strongly supported the bill. Even the few who hesitated to support a death sentence through retroactive legislation felt it necessary to express their deep disgust for Strafford's character and administration.

But under this apparent concord a great schism was latent; and when, in October, 1641, the Parliament reassembled after a short recess, two hostile parties, essentially the same with those which, under different names, have ever since contended, and are still contending, for the direction of public affairs, appeared confronting each other. During some years they were designated as Cavaliers and Roundheads. They were subsequently called Tories and Whigs; nor does it seem that these appellations are likely soon to become obsolete.

But beneath this apparent agreement, a significant divide was hidden; and when, in October 1641, Parliament reconvened after a brief break, two opposing groups, essentially the same as those that have fought under different names ever since, appeared facing each other. For a number of years, they were known as Cavaliers and Roundheads. They were later called Tories and Whigs; and it doesn't seem likely that these labels will become outdated anytime soon.

It would not be difficult to compose a lampoon or panegyric on either of these renowned factions. For no man not utterly destitute of judgment and candor will deny that there are many deep stains on the fame of the party to which he belongs, or that the party to which he is opposed may justly boast of many illustrious names, of many heroic actions, and of many great services rendered to the state. The truth is that, though both parties have often seriously erred, England could have spared neither. If, in her institutions, freedom and order, the advantages arising from innovation and the advantages arising from prescription, have been combined to an extent elsewhere unknown, we may attribute this happy peculiarity to the strenuous conflicts and alternate victories of two rival confederacies of statesmen, a confederacy zealous for authority and antiquity, and a confederacy zealous for liberty and progress.

It wouldn't be hard to write a satire or praise about either of these famous groups. No one who's not completely lacking in judgment and honesty can deny that there are many serious flaws in the reputation of the party they belong to, or that the opposing party can rightly claim many notable figures, heroic deeds, and significant contributions to the nation. The truth is, even though both parties have made serious mistakes, England couldn't have done without either. If, in her institutions, freedom and order have managed to combine the benefits of change and the benefits of tradition in a way that's rare elsewhere, we can credit this unique situation to the intense struggles and repeated victories of two rival coalitions of politicians: one focused on authority and tradition, and the other focused on liberty and progress.

It ought to be remembered that the difference between the two great sections of English politicians has always been a difference rather of degree than of principle. There were certain limits on the right and on the left, which were very rarely overstepped. A few enthusiasts on one side were ready to lay all our laws and franchises at the feet of our Kings. A few enthusiasts on the other side were bent on pursuing, through endless civil troubles, their darling phantom of a republic. But the great majority of those who fought for the crown were averse to despotism; and the great majority of the champions of popular rights were averse to anarchy. Twice, in the course of the seventeenth century, the two parties suspended their dissensions, and united their strength in a common cause. Their first coalition restored hereditary monarchy. Their second coalition rescued constitutional freedom.

It should be noted that the difference between the two main groups of English politicians has always been more about degree than principle. There were certain boundaries on both the right and the left that were rarely crossed. A few extremists on one side were eager to hand over all our laws and rights to the Kings. A few extremists on the other side were determined to chase their beloved dream of a republic through endless civil unrest. But the vast majority of those who fought for the crown were opposed to tyranny, and the vast majority of those championing popular rights were against chaos. Twice during the seventeenth century, the two parties set aside their disagreements and joined forces for a common cause. Their first alliance restored hereditary monarchy. Their second alliance safeguarded constitutional freedom.

It is also to be noted that these two parties have never been the whole nation, nay, that they have never, taken together, made up a majority of the nation. Between them has always been a great mass, which has not steadfastly adhered to either, which has sometimes remained inertly neutral, and which has sometimes oscillated to and fro. That mass has more than once passed in a few years from one extreme to the other, and back again. Sometimes it has changed sides, merely because it was tired of supporting the same men, sometimes because it was dismayed by its own excesses, sometimes because it had expected impossibilities, and had been disappointed. But whenever it has leaned with its whole weight in either direction, that weight has, for the time, been irresistible.

It's important to note that these two parties have never represented the entire nation; in fact, together they have never formed a majority. There's always been a large group in between that hasn't firmly aligned with either side. Sometimes this group has remained passively neutral, and other times it has swung back and forth. This group has often shifted dramatically from one extreme to the other and then back again within a few years. At times, it has changed sides simply because it got tired of supporting the same leaders, other times because it was put off by its own excesses, or because it had unrealistic expectations and ended up disappointed. But whenever this group has fully committed to one side or the other, its influence has been, for that period, undeniable.

When the rival parties first appeared in a distinct form, they seemed to be not unequally matched. On the side of the government was a large majority of the nobles, and of those opulent and well descended gentlemen to whom nothing was wanting of nobility but the name. These, with the dependents whose support they could command, were no small power in the state. On the same side were the great body of the clergy, both the Universities, and all those laymen who were strongly attached to episcopal government and to the Anglican ritual. These respectable classes found themselves in the company of some allies much less decorous than themselves. The Puritan austerity drove to the king's faction all who made pleasure their business, who affected gallantry, splendour of dress, or taste in the higher arts. With these went all who live by amusing the leisure of others, from the painter and the comic poet, down to the ropedancer and the Merry Andrew. For these artists well knew that they might thrive under a superb and luxurious despotism, but must starve under the rigid rule of the precisians. In the same interest were the Roman Catholics to a man. The Queen, a daughter of France, was of their own faith. Her husband was known to be strongly attached to her, and not a little in awe of her. Though undoubtedly a Protestant on conviction, he regarded the professors of the old religion with no ill-will, and would gladly have granted them a much larger toleration than he was disposed to concede to the Presbyterians. If the opposition obtained the mastery, it was probable that the sanguinary laws enacted against Papists in the reign of Elizabeth, would be severely enforced. The Roman Catholics were therefore induced by the strongest motives to espouse the cause of the court. They in general acted with a caution which brought on them the reproach of cowardice and lukewarmness; but it is probable that, in maintaining great reserve, they consulted the King's interest as well as their own. It was not for his service that they should be conspicuous among his friends.

When the rival parties first showed up in a more defined way, they seemed to be pretty evenly matched. On the side of the government was a large majority of nobles, along with those wealthy and well-bred gentlemen who were just missing the title. These, along with the dependents they could rally, were a significant power in the state. Also on this side were most of the clergy, both the Universities, and all those laypeople who were strongly devoted to the episcopal government and the Anglican ritual. These respectable groups found themselves allied with some less dignified partners. The Puritan seriousness pushed everyone who prioritized pleasure—those who enjoyed courtly behavior, flashy dressing, or had a taste for the fine arts—to the king's side. This included all who entertained others, from painters and comic poets to jugglers and clowns. These entertainers knew they would thrive under a lavish and extravagant rule but would struggle under the strict governance of the Puritans. All Roman Catholics were in the same boat. The Queen, a French princess, shared their faith. Her husband was known to be very fond of her and a bit intimidated by her. Although he was surely a Protestant at heart, he didn’t harbor ill feelings towards the practitioners of the old religion and would have happily granted them much more freedom than he was willing to give to the Presbyterians. If the opposition took control, it was likely that the brutal laws against Catholics from Elizabeth's reign would be strictly enforced. Thus, the Roman Catholics had strong reasons to support the court's cause. They generally acted with caution, which earned them criticism for being cowardly and indifferent; however, it's likely that, by keeping a low profile, they were considering both the King's interests and their own. It wouldn’t serve his interests for them to stand out among his supporters.

The main strength of the opposition lay among the small freeholders in the country, and among the merchants and shopkeepers of the towns. But these were headed by a formidable minority of the aristocracy, a minority which included the rich and powerful Earls of Northumberland, Bedford, Warwick, Stamford, and Essex, and several other Lords of great wealth and influence. In the same ranks was found the whole body of Protestant Nonconformists, and most of those members of the Established Church who still adhered to the Calvinistic opinions which, forty years before, had been generally held by the prelates and clergy. The municipal corporations took, with few exceptions, the same side. In the House of Commons the opposition preponderated, but not very decidedly.

The main strength of the opposition came from small landowners in the countryside and from merchants and shopkeepers in the towns. However, they were led by a significant minority from the aristocracy, including the wealthy and influential Earls of Northumberland, Bedford, Warwick, Stamford, and Essex, along with several other rich Lords. Also in this group were all the Protestant Nonconformists and most members of the Established Church who still held on to the Calvinistic views that had been widely accepted by bishops and clergy forty years earlier. The municipal corporations mostly supported the same side, with few exceptions. In the House of Commons, the opposition held a majority, but it wasn't very decisive.

Neither party wanted strong arguments for the course which it was disposed to take. The reasonings of the most enlightened Royalists may be summed up thus:—"It is true that great abuses have existed; but they have been redressed. It is true that precious rights have been invaded; but they have been vindicated and surrounded with new securities. The sittings of the Estates of the realm have been, in defiance of all precedent and of the spirit of the constitution, intermitted during eleven years; but it has now been provided that henceforth three years shall never elapse without a Parliament. The Star Chamber the High Commission, the Council of York, oppressed end plundered us; but those hateful courts have now ceased to exist. The Lord Lieutenant aimed at establishing military despotism; but he has answered for his treason with his head. The Primate tainted our worship with Popish rites and punished our scruples with Popish cruelty; but he is awaiting in the Tower the judgment of his peers. The Lord Keeper sanctioned a plan by which the property of every man in England was placed at the mercy of the Crown; but he has been disgraced, ruined, and compelled to take refuge in a foreign land. The ministers of tyranny have expiated their crimes. The victims of tyranny have been compensated for their sufferings. It would therefore be most unwise to persevere further in that course which was justifiable and necessary when we first met, after a long interval, and found the whole administration one mass of abuses. It is time to take heed that we do not so pursue our victory over despotism as to run into anarchy. It was not in our power to overturn the bad institutions which lately afflicted our country, without shocks which have loosened the foundations of government. Now that those institutions have fallen, we must hasten to prop the edifice which it was lately our duty to batter. Henceforth it will be our wisdom to look with jealousy on schemes of innovation, and to guard from encroachment all the prerogatives with which the law has, for the public good, armed the sovereign."

Neither side wanted strong justifications for the direction they were inclined to take. The arguments of the most enlightened Royalists can be summarized like this: "Yes, there have been major abuses; but they have been corrected. Yes, important rights have been violated; but they have been reclaimed and protected with new guarantees. The sessions of the Estates of the realm have been suspended for eleven years, going against all precedent and the spirit of the constitution; but it has now been established that no more than three years can pass without a Parliament. The Star Chamber, the High Commission, and the Council of York oppressed and robbed us; but those hated courts no longer exist. The Lord Lieutenant sought to create a military dictatorship; but he has paid for his treason with his life. The Primate corrupted our worship with Catholic rituals and punished our concerns with Catholic cruelty; but he is now awaiting judgment in the Tower. The Lord Keeper supported a scheme that put everyone's property in England at the mercy of the Crown; but he has been disgraced, ruined, and forced to seek refuge abroad. The enforcers of tyranny have paid for their crimes. The victims of tyranny have been compensated for their pain. Therefore, it would be very unwise to continue down the path that was justifiable and necessary when we first gathered after a long break, only to find the entire administration filled with abuses. We must be careful not to chase our victory over tyranny in such a way that we descend into chaos. We could not dismantle the bad institutions that recently troubled our country without causing shocks that have weakened the foundations of government. Now that those institutions have fallen, we must quickly stabilize the structure that it was once our duty to attack. From now on, we should be wary of schemes for innovation and protect from encroachment all the rights that the law has, for the public good, granted to the sovereign."

Such were the views of those men of whom the excellent Falkland may be regarded as the leader. It was contended on the other side with not less force, by men of not less ability and virtue, that the safety which the liberties of the English people enjoyed was rather apparent than real, and that the arbitrary projects of the court would be resumed as soon as the vigilance of the Commons was relaxed. True it was,—such was the reasoning of Pym, of Hollis, and of Hampden—that many good laws had been passed: but, if good laws had been sufficient to restrain the King, his subjects would have had little reason ever to complain of his administration. The recent statutes were surely not of more authority than the Great Charter or the Petition of Right. Yet neither the Great Charter, hallowed by the veneration of four centuries, nor the Petition of Right, sanctioned, after mature reflection, and for valuable consideration, by Charles himself, had been found effectual for the protection of the people. If once the check of fear were withdrawn, if once the spirit of opposition were suffered to slumber, all the securities for English freedom resolved themselves into a single one, the royal word; and it had been proved by a long and severe experience that the royal word could not be trusted.

The views of those men, with the great Falkland as their leader, were clear. On the other hand, it was argued just as strongly, and by equally qualified and virtuous individuals, that the safety enjoyed by the liberties of the English people was more of an illusion than a reality. They believed that the arbitrary plans of the court would resume as soon as the Commons let their guard down. Pym, Hollis, and Hampden reasoned that while many good laws had been enacted, good laws alone hadn’t been enough to restrain the King; otherwise, his subjects would have had little cause to complain about his rule. Recent statutes certainly held no more authority than the Great Charter or the Petition of Right. Yet, neither the Great Charter, revered for four centuries, nor the Petition of Right, which was carefully considered and sanctioned by Charles himself, had proven effective in protecting the people. If the fear that held the King in check was ever lifted, and if the spirit of resistance was allowed to fade, all protections for English freedom would boil down to one: the King’s word. History has shown through harsh experience that the royal word cannot be trusted.

The two parties were still regarding each other with cautious hostility, and had not yet measured their strength, when news arrived which inflamed the passions and confirmed the opinions of both. The great chieftains of Ulster, who, at the time of the accession of James, had, after a long struggle, submitted to the royal authority, had not long brooked the humiliation of dependence. They had conspired against the English government, and had been attainted of treason. Their immense domains had been forfeited to the crown, and had soon been peopled by thousands of English and Scotch emigrants. The new settlers were, in civilisation and intelligence, far superior to the native population, and sometimes abused their superiority. The animosity produced by difference of race was increased by difference of religion. Under the iron rule of Wentworth, scarcely a murmur was heard: but, when that strong pressure was withdrawn, when Scotland had set the example of successful resistance, when England was distracted by internal quarrels, the smothered rage of the Irish broke forth into acts of fearful violence. On a sudden, the aboriginal population rose on the colonists. A war, to which national and theological hatred gave a character of peculiar ferocity, desolated Ulster, and spread to the neighbouring provinces. The castle of Dublin was scarcely thought secure. Every post brought to London exaggerated accounts of outrages which, without any exaggeration were sufficient to move pity end horror. These evil tidings roused to the height the zeal of both the great parties which were marshalled against each other at Westminster. The Royalists maintained that it was the first duty of every good Englishman and Protestant, at such a crisis, to strengthen the hands of the sovereign. To the opposition it seemed that there were now stronger reasons than ever for thwarting and restraining him. That the commonwealth was in danger was undoubtedly a good reason for giving large powers to a trustworthy magistrate: but it was a good reason for taking away powers from a magistrate who was at heart a public enemy. To raise a great army had always been the King's first object. A great army must now be raised. It was to be feared that, unless some new securities were devised, the forces levied for the reduction of Ireland would be employed against the liberties of England. Nor was this all. A horrible suspicion, unjust indeed, but not altogether unnatural, had arisen in many minds. The Queen was an avowed Roman Catholic: the King was not regarded by the Puritans, whom he had mercilessly persecuted, as a sincere Protestant; and so notorious was his duplicity, that there was no treachery of which his subjects might not, with some show of reason, believe him capable. It was soon whispered that the rebellion of the Roman Catholics of Ulster was part of a vast work of darkness which had been planned at Whitehall.

The two sides were still looking at each other with wary hostility and hadn't yet tested their strength when news came in that ignited their passions and confirmed their beliefs. The powerful leaders of Ulster, who had, at the time James took the throne, submitted to royal authority after a long struggle, were no longer willing to endure their humiliation. They had plotted against the English government and had been charged with treason. Their vast lands were taken by the crown and quickly populated by thousands of English and Scottish immigrants. The new settlers were much more advanced in civilization and education than the local population, and they sometimes misused their advantage. The hostility arising from racial differences was compounded by religious differences. Under Wentworth's strict rule, there was hardly a complaint; however, when that strong pressure was removed, when Scotland led the way in successful resistance, and with England distracted by internal conflicts, the suppressed anger of the Irish erupted into shocking violence. Suddenly, the native population rose up against the colonists. A war fueled by national and religious hatred devastated Ulster and spread to neighboring areas. The castle in Dublin was nearly thought to be in danger. Every message delivered to London carried exaggerated reports of atrocities that, without any embellishment, were enough to evoke pity and horror. These troubling reports heightened the fervor of both major parties clashing in Westminster. The Royalists argued that it was every good Englishman and Protestant’s primary duty, in such a crisis, to support the king. The opposition, however, felt there were now even stronger reasons to resist and limit his power. While the threat to the commonwealth justified granting significant powers to a trustworthy ruler, it also justified curtailing the powers of a ruler seen as a public enemy. Raising a large army had always been the King’s main goal. Now, a large army needed to be raised. There were concerns that, unless new safeguards were created, the forces gathered to subdue Ireland would be used against the freedoms of England. Additionally, a dreadful suspicion—unjust but not entirely unreasonable—had emerged in many minds. The Queen was an open Roman Catholic; the King was not considered a genuine Protestant by the Puritans, whom he had harshly persecuted; and his reputation for deceit was so well-known that there was nothing his subjects might not reasonably suspect him of. Rumors soon spread that the rebellion of the Roman Catholics in Ulster was part of a larger scheme orchestrated in Whitehall.

After some weeks of prelude, the first great parliamentary conflict between the parties, which have ever since contended, and are still contending, for the government of the nation, took place on the twenty-second of November, 1641. It was moved by the opposition, that the House of Commons should present to the King a remonstrance, enumerating the faults of his administration from the time of his accession, and expressing the distrust with which his policy was still regarded by his people. That assembly, which a few months before had been unanimous in calling for the reform of abuses, was now divided into two fierce and eager factions of nearly equal strength. After a hot debate of many hours, the remonstrance was carried by only eleven votes.

After a few weeks of buildup, the first major conflict in Parliament between the parties that have been fighting for control of the nation took place on November 22, 1641. The opposition proposed that the House of Commons present the King with a statement listing the faults of his administration since he took office, and expressing the distrust his policies still faced from the people. That assembly, which had only months earlier been united in calling for reforms, was now split into two fierce and eager factions of nearly equal power. After a heated debate lasting many hours, the statement was passed by just eleven votes.

The result of this struggle was highly favourable to the conservative party. It could not be doubted that only some great indiscretion could prevent them from shortly obtaining the predominance in the Lower House. The Upper House was already their own. Nothing was wanting to ensure their success, but that the King should, in all his conduct, show respect for the laws and scrupulous good faith towards his subjects.

The outcome of this struggle was very favorable for the conservative party. It was clear that only a major mistake could stop them from soon gaining control of the Lower House. The Upper House was already theirs. All they needed to ensure their success was for the King to show respect for the laws and act with integrity towards his subjects in all his actions.

His first measures promised well. He had, it seemed, at last discovered that an entire change of system was necessary, and had wisely made up his mind to what could no longer be avoided. He declared his determination to govern in harmony with the Commons, and, for that end, to call to his councils men in whose talents and character the Commons might place confidence. Nor was the selection ill made. Falkland, Hyde, and Colepepper, all three distinguished by the part which they had taken in reforming abuses and in punishing evil ministers, were invited to become the confidential advisers of the Crown, and were solemnly assured by Charles that he would take no step in any way affecting the Lower House of Parliament without their privity.

His initial actions seemed promising. It appeared that he had finally realized that a complete system overhaul was necessary, and he had wisely decided on what could no longer be avoided. He announced his commitment to govern in partnership with the Commons and, to that end, to bring in advisors whom the Commons could trust for their skills and character. The choices were not bad. Falkland, Hyde, and Colepepper, all of whom were known for their roles in reforming abuses and holding bad ministers accountable, were invited to be the Crown's trusted advisors, and Charles assured them that he would not take any actions affecting the House of Commons without their knowledge.

Had he kept this promise, it cannot be doubted that the reaction which was already in progress would very soon have become quite as strong as the most respectable Royalists would have desired. Already the violent members of the opposition had begun to despair of the fortunes of their party, to tremble for their own safety, and to talk of selling their estates and emigrating to America. That the fair prospects which had begun to open before the King were suddenly overcast, that his life was darkened by adversity, and at length shortened by violence, is to be attributed to his own faithlessness and contempt of law.

If he had kept his promise, there’s no doubt that the ongoing reaction would have quickly grown as strong as the most respectable Royalists wanted. The more radical members of the opposition were already starting to lose hope for their party, fear for their own safety, and consider selling their lands and moving to America. The bright future that was starting to look promising for the King was suddenly clouded over; his life was overshadowed by hardship and eventually cut short by violence, which can be blamed on his own betrayal and disregard for the law.

The truth seems to be that he detested both the parties into which the House of Commons was divided: nor is this strange; for in both those parties the love of liberty and the love of order were mingled, though in different proportions. The advisers whom necessity had compelled him to call round him were by no means after his own heart. They had joined in condemning his tyranny, in abridging his power, and in punishing his instruments. They were now indeed prepared to defend in a strictly legal way his strictly legal prerogative; but they would have recoiled with horror from the thought of reviving Wentworth's projects of Thorough. They were, therefore, in the King's opinion, traitors, who differed only in the degree of their seditious malignity from Pym and Hampden.

The truth is that he hated both sides of the House of Commons. It's not surprising, since both parties mixed a love for freedom with a love for order, just in different amounts. The advisors he had to gather around him were definitely not his first choice. They had all condemned his tyranny, limited his power, and punished his supporters. They were now ready to defend his legal rights in a strictly lawful manner, but they would have been horrified at the thought of reviving Wentworth's plans for thorough control. So, in the King's view, they were traitors, differing only in how much their rebellious nature matched that of Pym and Hampden.

He accordingly, a few days after he had promised the chiefs of the constitutional Royalists that no step of importance should be taken without their knowledge, formed a resolution the most momentous of his whole life, carefully concealed that resolution from them, and executed it in a manner which overwhelmed them with shame and dismay. He sent the Attorney General to impeach Pym, Hollis, Hampden, and other members of the House of Commons of high treason at the bar of the House of Lords. Not content with this flagrant violation of the Great Charter and of the uninterrupted practice of centuries, he went in person, accompanied by armed men, to seize the leaders of the opposition within the walls of Parliament.

A few days after he assured the leaders of the constitutional Royalists that he wouldn’t make any important decisions without their input, he made the biggest decision of his life, kept it hidden from them, and carried it out in a way that shocked them with shame and fear. He sent the Attorney General to accuse Pym, Hollis, Hampden, and other members of the House of Commons of high treason in front of the House of Lords. Not satisfied with this blatant disregard for the Great Charter and centuries of established practice, he personally went, accompanied by armed men, to arrest the opposition leaders inside Parliament.

The attempt failed. The accused members had left the House a short time before Charles entered it. A sudden and violent revulsion of feeling, both in the Parliament and in the country, followed. The most favourable view that has ever been taken of the King's conduct on this occasion by his most partial advocates is that he had weakly suffered himself to be hurried into a gross indiscretion by the evil counsels of his wife and of his courtiers. But the general voice loudly charged him with far deeper guilt. At the very moment at which his subjects, after a long estrangement produced by his maladministration, were returning to him with feelings of confidence and affection, he had aimed a deadly blow at all their dearest rights, at the privileges of Parliament, at the very principle of trial by jury. He had shown that he considered opposition to his arbitrary designs as a crime to be expiated only by blood. He had broken faith, not only with his Great Council and with his people, but with his own adherents. He had done what, but for an unforeseen accident, would probably have produced a bloody conflict round the Speaker's chair. Those who had the chief sway in the Lower House now felt that not only their power and popularity, but their lands and their necks, were staked on the event of the struggle in which they were engaged. The flagging zeal of the party opposed to the court revived in an instant. During the night which followed the outrage the whole city of London was in arms. In a few hours the roads leading to the capital were covered with multitudes of yeomen spurring hard to Westminster with the badges of the parliamentary cause in their hats. In the House of Commons the opposition became at once irresistible, and carried, by more than two votes to one, resolutions of unprecedented violence. Strong bodies of the trainbands, regularly relieved, mounted guard round Westminster Hall. The gates of the King's palace were daily besieged by a furious multitude whose taunts and execrations were heard even in the presence chamber, and who could scarcely be kept out of the royal apartments by the gentlemen of the household. Had Charles remained much longer in his stormy capital, it is probable that the Commons would have found a plea for making him, under outward forms of respect, a state prisoner.

The attempt failed. The accused members had left the House shortly before Charles entered. A sudden and intense backlash occurred both in Parliament and across the country. The most favorable interpretation of the King's actions by his most loyal supporters is that he had weakly let himself be pushed into a serious mistake by the bad advice of his wife and courtiers. However, the general public loudly accused him of much more serious wrongdoing. Just when his subjects, after a long estrangement caused by his poor governance, were returning to him with trust and affection, he struck a severe blow against all their cherished rights, the privileges of Parliament, and the very principle of trial by jury. He made it clear that he viewed opposition to his arbitrary plans as a crime that could only be atoned for with blood. He betrayed not just his Great Council and his people, but even his own supporters. He had done what, but for an unforeseen accident, would likely have led to a bloody conflict around the Speaker's chair. Those in charge of the Lower House now realized that not only their power and popularity but also their lands and lives were at stake in the struggle they were engaged in. The waning enthusiasm of the party opposed to the court suddenly reignited. During the night following the outrage, the entire city of London was on alert. In a few hours, the roads leading to the capital were filled with crowds of yeomen urgently heading to Westminster with the parliamentary cause displayed on their hats. In the House of Commons, the opposition quickly became unstoppable, passing resolutions with unprecedented intensity by more than a two-to-one margin. Large groups of local militia, regularly rotated, stood guard around Westminster Hall. The gates of the King's palace were daily surrounded by an angry mob whose taunts and curses could even be heard in the presence chamber, and who could barely be kept out of the royal quarters by the members of the royal household. If Charles had stayed in his tumultuous capital much longer, it is likely that the Commons would have found a way to make him a state prisoner, under the guise of respect.

He quitted London, never to return till the day of a terrible and memorable reckoning had arrived. A negotiation began which occupied many months. Accusations and recriminations passed backward and forward between the contending parties. All accommodation had become impossible. The sure punishment which waits on habitual perfidy had at length overtaken the King. It was to no purpose that he now pawned his royal word, and invoked heaven to witness the sincerity of his professions. The distrust with which his adversaries regarded him was not to be removed by oaths or treaties. They were convinced that they could be safe only when he was utterly helpless. Their demand, therefore, was, that he should surrender, not only those prerogatives which he had usurped in violation of ancient laws and of his own recent promises, but also other prerogatives which the English Kings had always possessed, and continue to possess at the present day. No minister must be appointed, no peer created, without the consent of the Houses. Above all, the sovereign must resign that supreme military authority which, from time beyond all memory, had appertained to the regal office.

He left London and never returned until a day of terrible and memorable reckoning arrived. A negotiation started that took many months. Accusations and blame were exchanged between the conflicting parties. Any chance for accommodation was gone. The inevitable punishment for his habitual deceit finally caught up with the King. It was pointless for him to now offer his royal word and call on heaven as a witness to the authenticity of his claims. The distrust his opponents had for him couldn't be alleviated by promises or agreements. They believed their safety could only be guaranteed when he was completely powerless. Therefore, they demanded that he should give up not only the powers he had taken in violation of ancient laws and his own recent promises, but also other powers that English Kings had always held and still hold today. No minister could be appointed, no peer created, without the consent of the Houses. Above all, the sovereign must surrender the supreme military authority that had belonged to the royal office for as long as anyone could remember.

That Charles would comply with such demands while he had any means of resistance, was not to be expected. Yet it will be difficult to show that the Houses could safely have exacted less. They were truly in a most embarrassing position. The great majority of the nation was firmly attached to hereditary monarchy. Those who held republican opinions were as yet few, and did not venture to speak out. It was therefore impossible to abolish kingly government. Yet it was plain that no confidence could be placed in the King. It would have been absurd in those who knew, by recent proof, that he was bent on destroying them, to content themselves with presenting to him another Petition of Right, and receiving from him fresh promises similar to those which he had repeatedly made and broken. Nothing but the want of an army had prevented him from entirely subverting the old constitution of the realm. It was now necessary to levy a great regular army for the conquest of Ireland; and it would therefore have been mere insanity to leave him in possession of that plenitude of military authority which his ancestors had enjoyed.

That Charles would follow such demands while he had any means of resisting was not realistic. But it would be hard to prove that the Houses could have demanded less safely. They were genuinely in a tricky situation. The vast majority of the nation was strongly supportive of hereditary monarchy. Those who had republican views were still few and didn’t dare to speak up. So, it was impossible to get rid of the monarchy. Yet, it was clear that no trust could be placed in the King. It would have been foolish for those who knew, from recent experience, that he was determined to undermine them, to simply present him with another Petition of Right and receive more empty promises like those he had broken many times before. The only thing stopping him from completely overthrowing the old constitution was the lack of an army. Now, it was necessary to raise a large regular army to conquer Ireland; therefore, it would have been sheer madness to allow him to keep the full military authority that his ancestors had held.

When a country is in the situation in which England then was, when the kingly office is regarded with love and veneration, but the person who fills that office is hated and distrusted, it should seem that the course which ought to be taken is obvious. The dignity of the office should be preserved: the person should be discarded. Thus our ancestors acted in 1399 and in 1689. Had there been, in 1642, any man occupying a position similar to that which Henry of Lancaster occupied at the time of the deposition of Richard the Second, and which William of Orange occupied at the time of the deposition of James the Second, it is probable that the Houses would have changed the dynasty, and would have made no formal change in the constitution. The new King, called to the throne by their choice, and dependent on their support, would have been under the necessity of governing in conformity with their wishes and opinions. But there was no prince of the blood royal in the parliamentary party; and, though that party contained many men of high rank and many men of eminent ability, there was none who towered so conspicuously above the rest that he could be proposed as a candidate for the crown. As there was to be a King, and as no new King could be found, it was necessary to leave the regal title to Charles. Only one course, therefore, was left: and that was to disjoin the regal title from the regal prerogatives.

When a country is in the situation that England was in at the time, where the monarchy is loved and respected, but the person sitting on the throne is hated and mistrusted, it seems clear what should be done. The dignity of the office should be maintained, but the person should be removed. That’s what our ancestors did in 1399 and 1689. If, in 1642, there had been someone with a position similar to what Henry of Lancaster had during the deposition of Richard the Second, or what William of Orange had during the deposition of James the Second, it’s likely that Parliament would have changed the monarchy without making any formal changes to the constitution. The new King, chosen by them and reliant on their support, would have had to govern according to their wishes and opinions. But there was no member of the royal family in the parliamentary side; and although that side had many high-ranking individuals and talented people, none stood out enough to be proposed as a candidate for the throne. Since there needed to be a King and no new King could be found, it was necessary to allow Charles to keep the royal title. Thus, only one option remained: to separate the title of King from the powers of the monarchy.

The change which the Houses proposed to make in our institutions, though it seems exorbitant, when distinctly set forth and digested into articles of capitulation, really amounts to little more than the change which, in the next generation, was effected by the Revolution. It is true that, at the Revolution, the sovereign was not deprived by law of the power of naming his ministers: but it is equally true that, since the Revolution, no minister has been able to retain office six months in opposition to the sense of the House of Commons. It is true that the sovereign still possesses the power of creating peers, and the more important power of the sword: but it is equally true that in the exercise of these powers the sovereign has, ever since the Revolution, been guided by advisers who possess the confidence of the representatives of the nation. In fact, the leaders of the Roundhead party in 1642, and the statesmen who, about half a century later, effected the Revolution, had exactly the same object in view. That object was to terminate the contest between the Crown and the Parliament, by giving to the Parliament a supreme control over the executive administration. The statesmen of the Revolution effected this indirectly by changing the dynasty. The Roundheads of 1642, being unable to change the dynasty, were compelled to take a direct course towards their end.

The changes that the Houses wanted to make in our institutions may seem extreme, but when clearly outlined and broken down into specific points, they amount to little more than what the Revolution achieved in the next generation. It's true that, during the Revolution, the sovereign wasn't legally stripped of the power to appoint ministers; however, it’s also true that since the Revolution, no minister has managed to stay in office for more than six months against the wishes of the House of Commons. While the sovereign still has the power to create peers and the significant power of the sword, it’s also true that in exercising these powers, the sovereign has been guided by advisors who are trusted by the nation’s representatives since the Revolution. In fact, the leaders of the Roundhead party in 1642 and the statesmen who caused the Revolution roughly half a century later had the same goal in mind. Their aim was to end the struggle between the Crown and Parliament by giving Parliament ultimate control over the executive branch. The Revolution's statesmen achieved this indirectly by changing the monarchy, while the Roundheads of 1642, unable to change the monarchy, had to take a more direct path to reach their goal.

We cannot, however, wonder that the demands of the opposition, importing as they did a complete and formal transfer to the Parliament of powers which had always belonged to the Crown, should have shocked that great party of which the characteristics are respect for constitutional authority and dread of violent innovation. That party had recently been in hopes of obtaining by peaceable means the ascendency in the House of Commons; but every such hope had been blighted. The duplicity of Charles had made his old enemies irreconcileable, had driven back into the ranks of the disaffected a crowd of moderate men who were in the very act of coming over to his side, and had so cruelly mortified his best friends that they had for a time stood aloof in silent shame and resentment. Now, however, the constitutional Royalists were forced to make their choice between two dangers; and they thought it their duty rather to rally round a prince whose past conduct they condemned, and whose word inspired them with little confidence, than to suffer the regal office to be degraded, and the polity of the realm to be entirely remodelled. With such feelings, many men whose virtues and abilities would have done honour to any cause, ranged themselves on the side of the King.

We can’t be surprised that the opposition’s demands, which involved a complete and formal transfer of powers that had always belonged to the Crown to Parliament, would upset that major party, whose traits include respect for constitutional authority and fear of radical change. That party had recently hoped to gain influence in the House of Commons through peaceful means, but each hope had been dashed. Charles’s deceit had made his old enemies irreconcilable and pushed many moderate individuals, who were about to support him, back into the ranks of the disaffected. It had also deeply embarrassed his best friends, causing them to temporarily distance themselves in silent shame and resentment. Now, however, the constitutional Royalists were forced to choose between two risks; they felt it was their duty to support a prince whose past actions they disapproved of and whose promises gave them little assurance, rather than see the monarchy disrespected and the government drastically restructured. With such feelings, many individuals whose virtues and talents would have honored any cause aligned themselves with the King.

In August 1642 the sword was at length drawn; and soon, in almost every shire of the kingdom, two hostile factions appeared in arms against each other. It is not easy to say which of the contending parties was at first the more formidable. The Houses commanded London and the counties round London, the fleet, the navigation of the Thames, and most of the large towns and seaports. They had at their disposal almost all the military stores of the kingdom, and were able to raise duties, both on goods imported from foreign countries, and on some important products of domestic industry. The King was ill provided with artillery and ammunition. The taxes which he laid on the rural districts occupied by his troops produced, it is probable, a sum far less than that which the Parliament drew from the city of London alone. He relied, indeed, chiefly, for pecuniary aid, on the munificence of his opulent adherents. Many of these mortgaged their land, pawned their jewels, and broke up their silver chargers and christening bowls, in order to assist him. But experience has fully proved that the voluntary liberality of individuals, even in times of the greatest excitement, is a poor financial resource when compared with severe and methodical taxation, which presses on the willing and unwilling alike.

In August 1642, the conflict finally erupted, and soon, in almost every county of the kingdom, two opposing factions took up arms against each other. It's hard to determine which side was initially more powerful. The Houses controlled London and the surrounding counties, the navy, the Thames, and most of the major towns and ports. They had access to almost all the military supplies in the kingdom and could impose taxes on imported goods and some key products from domestic industries. The King was poorly equipped with artillery and ammunition. The taxes he collected from the rural areas where his troops were stationed likely generated much less revenue than what Parliament collected from London alone. He primarily depended on the generosity of his wealthy supporters for financial help. Many of them mortgaged their land, sold their jewelry, and broke up their silver plates and baptismal bowls to support him. However, experience has shown that the voluntary generosity of individuals, even in the most intense times, is a weak financial resource compared to strict and organized taxation, which impacts both the willing and the unwilling equally.

Charles, however, had one advantage, which, if he had used it well, would have more than compensated for the want of stores and money, and which, notwithstanding his mismanagement, gave him, during some months, a superiority in the war. His troops at first fought much better than those of the Parliament. Both armies, it is true, were almost entirely composed of men who had never seen a field of battle. Nevertheless, the difference was great. The Parliamentary ranks were filled with hirelings whom want and idleness had induced to enlist. Hampden's regiment was regarded as one of the best; and even Hampden's regiment was described by Cromwell as a mere rabble of tapsters and serving men out of place. The royal army, on the other hand, consisted in great part of gentlemen, high spirited, ardent, accustomed to consider dishonour as more terrible than death, accustomed to fencing, to the use of fire arms, to bold riding, and to manly and perilous sport, which has been well called the image of war. Such gentlemen, mounted on their favourite horses, and commanding little bands composed of their younger brothers, grooms, gamekeepers, and huntsmen, were, from the very first day on which they took the field, qualified to play their part with credit in a skirmish. The steadiness, the prompt obedience, the mechanical precision of movement, which are characteristic of the regular soldier, these gallant volunteers never attained. But they were at first opposed to enemies as undisciplined as themselves, and far less active, athletic, and daring. For a time, therefore, the Cavaliers were successful in almost every encounter.

Charles, however, had one advantage that, if he had used it wisely, would have more than made up for the lack of supplies and money, and which, despite his poor management, gave him an edge in the war for several months. His troops initially fought much better than those of the Parliament. It's true that both armies were mainly made up of men who had never been in battle before. Still, the difference was significant. The Parliamentary ranks were filled with mercenaries who were driven to enlist by desperation and idleness. Hampden's regiment was seen as one of the best, but even Cromwell described it as just a disorganized group of bartenders and out-of-work servants. On the other hand, the royal army consisted mostly of gentlemen—spirited, passionate, and used to seeing dishonor as worse than death. They were experienced in fencing, using firearms, bold riding, and adventurous sports that are often seen as a reflection of war. These gentlemen, riding their favorite horses and leading small groups made up of their younger brothers, grooms, gamekeepers, and huntsmen, were ready to display their skills in skirmishes from the very first day they took the field. They never reached the steadiness, prompt obedience, and precise movements typical of regular soldiers, but they were initially up against enemies who were just as undisciplined as they were and far less active, fit, and daring. For a time, therefore, the Cavaliers won almost every battle.

The Houses had also been unfortunate in the choice of a general. The rank and wealth of the Earl of Essex made him one of the most important members of the parliamentary party. He had borne arms on the Continent with credit, and, when the war began, had as high a military reputation as any man in the country. But it soon appeared that he was unfit for the post of Commander in Chief. He had little energy and no originality. The methodical tactics which he had learned in the war of the Palatinate did not save him from the disgrace of being surprised and baffled by such a Captain as Rupert, who could claim no higher fame than that of an enterprising partisan.

The Houses had also been unfortunate in choosing a general. The rank and wealth of the Earl of Essex made him one of the most significant members of the parliamentary party. He had fought in battles on the Continent with distinction, and when the war began, he had one of the highest military reputations in the country. However, it quickly became clear that he was not fit for the role of Commander in Chief. He lacked energy and originality. The methodical tactics he had learned during the war in the Palatinate didn’t protect him from the shame of being caught off guard and outsmarted by a captain like Rupert, who had no more claim to fame than being a daring partisan.

Nor were the officers who held the chief commissions under Essex qualified to supply what was wanting in him. For this, indeed, the Houses are scarcely to be blamed. In a country which had not, within the memory of the oldest person living, made war on a great scale by land, generals of tried skill and valour were not to be found. It was necessary, therefore, in the first instance, to trust untried men; and the preference was naturally given to men distinguished either by their station, or by the abilities which they had displayed in Parliament. In scarcely a single instance, however, was the selection fortunate. Neither the grandees nor the orators proved good soldiers. The Earl of Stamford, one of the greatest nobles of England, was routed by the Royalists at Stratton. Nathaniel Fiennes, inferior to none of his contemporaries in talents for civil business, disgraced himself by the pusillanimous surrender of Bristol. Indeed, of all the statesmen who at this juncture accepted high military commands, Hampden alone appears to have carried into the camp the capacity and strength of mind which had made him eminent in politics.

The officers who held key positions under Essex were not equipped to fill the gaps in his leadership. The Houses can hardly be blamed for this. In a country that hadn't engaged in large-scale warfare in living memory, there simply weren't many experienced and skilled generals available. It was necessary to rely on untried individuals, and naturally, preference went to those who were either high-ranking or had shown their abilities in Parliament. However, almost every selection was unfortunate. The nobles and orators didn’t turn out to be effective soldiers. The Earl of Stamford, one of England's top nobles, was defeated by the Royalists at Stratton. Nathaniel Fiennes, who had exceptional talents for political affairs, brought shame upon himself with the cowardly surrender of Bristol. In fact, among all the statesmen who took on high military roles at this time, only Hampden seems to have brought the same ability and mental strength to the battlefield that had made him well-known in politics.

When the war had lasted a year, the advantage was decidedly with the Royalists. They were victorious, both in the western and in the northern counties. They had wrested Bristol, the second city in the kingdom, from the Parliament. They had won several battles, and had not sustained a single serious or ignominious defeat. Among the Roundheads adversity had begun to produce dissension and discontent. The Parliament was kept in alarm, sometimes by plots, and sometimes by riots. It was thought necessary to fortify London against the royal army, and to hang some disaffected citizens at their own doors. Several of the most distinguished peers who had hitherto remained at Westminster fled to the court at Oxford; nor can it be doubted that, if the operations of the Cavaliers had, at this season, been directed by a sagacious and powerful mind, Charles would soon have marched in triumph to Whitehall.

After a year of war, the Royalists clearly had the upper hand. They were winning in both the western and northern counties. They had taken Bristol, the second-largest city in the kingdom, from Parliament. They had achieved several victories and had not suffered a single major or embarrassing defeat. Among the Roundheads, challenges were starting to create division and dissatisfaction. Parliament was kept on edge, sometimes due to conspiracies and at other times because of riots. It was deemed necessary to strengthen London against the royal army and to execute some discontented citizens right at their homes. Several prominent peers who had previously stayed at Westminster fled to the court in Oxford; it is undeniable that if the Cavaliers' operations had been guided by a clever and strong leader at this time, Charles would likely have marched victoriously into Whitehall soon.

But the King suffered the auspicious moment to pass away; and it never returned. In August 1643 he sate down before the city of Gloucester. That city was defended by the inhabitants and by the garrison, with a determination such as had not, since the commencement of the war, been shown by the adherents of the Parliament. The emulation of London was excited. The trainbands of the City volunteered to march wherever their services might be required. A great force was speedily collected, and began to move westward. The siege of Gloucester was raised: the Royalists in every part of the kingdom were disheartened: the spirit of the parliamentary party revived: and the apostate Lords, who had lately fled from Westminster to Oxford, hastened back from Oxford to Westminster.

But the King let the lucky moment slip by, and it never came back. In August 1643, he sat down outside the city of Gloucester. The people living there and the soldiers defended it with a determination that hadn't been seen since the war began from those loyal to Parliament. The competition with London was stirred up. The city's militia volunteered to march wherever they were needed. A large force was quickly gathered and started heading west. The siege of Gloucester was lifted: the Royalists across the country were demoralized: the morale of the parliamentary side picked up: and the turncoat Lords, who had recently fled from Westminster to Oxford, hurried back from Oxford to Westminster.

And now a new and alarming class of symptoms began to appear in the distempered body politic. There had been, from the first, in the parliamentary party, some men whose minds were set on objects from which the majority of that party would have shrunk with horror. These men were, in religion, Independents. They conceived that every Christian congregation had, under Christ, supreme jurisdiction in things spiritual; that appeals to provincial and national synods were scarcely less unscriptural than appeals to the Court of Arches, or to the Vatican; and that Popery, Prelacy, and Presbyterianism were merely three forms of one great apostasy. In politics, the Independents were, to use the phrase of their time, root and branch men, or, to use the kindred phrase of our own time, radicals. Not content with limiting the power of the monarch, they were desirous to erect a commonwealth on the ruins of the old English polity. At first they had been inconsiderable, both in numbers and in weight; but before the war had lasted two years they became, not indeed the largest, but the most powerful faction in the country. Some of the old parliamentary leaders had been removed by death; and others had forfeited the public confidence. Pym had been borne, with princely honours, to a grave among the Plantagenets. Hampden had fallen, as became him, while vainly endeavouring, by his heroic example, to inspire his followers with courage to face the fiery cavalry of Rupert. Bedford had been untrue to the cause. Northumberland was known to be lukewarm. Essex and his lieutenants had shown little vigour and ability in the conduct of military operations. At such a conjuncture it was that the Independent party, ardent, resolute, and uncompromising, began to raise its head, both in the camp and in the House of Commons.

And now a new and concerning set of symptoms began to show up in the troubled political landscape. From the start, there had been a few members in the parliamentary party whose ideas were focused on goals that the majority of that party would have found shocking. These men were, in terms of religion, Independents. They believed that every Christian congregation had, under Christ, ultimate authority over spiritual matters; that appeals to regional and national synods were almost as unbiblical as appeals to the Court of Arches or the Vatican; and that Catholicism, Anglicanism, and Presbyterianism were simply three forms of the same significant departure from true faith. Politically, the Independents were, to use the terminology of their time, root and branch men, or, in the equivalent phrase of our time, radicals. Not satisfied with just limiting the monarch's power, they aimed to build a commonwealth on the ruins of the old English system. Initially, they were small in both number and influence; however, within two years of the war, they became, not the largest, but the most powerful faction in the country. Some of the old parliamentary leaders had died, and others had lost public trust. Pym had been laid to rest, honored like royalty, among the Plantagenets. Hampden had fallen, as he should have, while desperately trying to inspire his followers to face Rupert's fierce cavalry with his heroic example. Bedford had betrayed the cause. Northumberland was known to be indifferent. Essex and his commanders had shown little energy and skill in military operations. It was at this moment that the Independent party, passionate, determined, and unyielding, began to gain influence both in the camp and in the House of Commons.

The soul of that party was Oliver Cromwell. Bred to peaceful occupations, he had, at more than forty years of age, accepted a commission in the parliamentary army. No sooner had he become a soldier than he discerned, with the keen glance of genius, what Essex, and men like Essex, with all their experience, were unable to perceive. He saw precisely where the strength of the Royalists lay, and by what means alone that strength could be overpowered. He saw that it was necessary to reconstruct the army of the Parliament. He saw also that there were abundant and excellent materials for the purpose, materials less showy, indeed, but more solid, than those of which the gallant squadrons of the King were composed. It was necessary to look for recruits who were not mere mercenaries, for recruits of decent station and grave character, fearing God and zealous for public liberty. With such men he filled his own regiment, and, while he subjected them to a discipline more rigid than had ever before been known in England, he administered to their intellectual and moral nature stimulants of fearful potency.

The heart of that party was Oliver Cromwell. Raised for peaceful work, he took a position in the parliamentary army at over forty years old. As soon as he became a soldier, he noticed, with the sharp insight of genius, what Essex and others like him, despite all their experience, could not see. He understood exactly where the Royalists' strength was and how it could be defeated. He recognized the need to rebuild the Parliament's army. He also saw that there were plenty of excellent recruits available, less flashy but more reliable than those in the King's impressive cavalry. It was essential to find soldiers who weren't just mercenaries, but people of good standing and serious character, who feared God and cared about public freedom. With such individuals, he filled his own regiment, and while he enforced a discipline stronger than had ever been seen in England, he also provided them with intellectual and moral motivations that were incredibly powerful.

The events of the year 1644 fully proved the superiority of his abilities. In the south, where Essex held the command, the parliamentary forces underwent a succession of shameful disasters; but in the north the victory of Marston Moor fully compensated for all that had been lost elsewhere. That victory was not a more serious blow to the Royalists than to the party which had hitherto been dominant at Westminster, for it was notorious that the day, disgracefully lost by the Presbyterians, had been retrieved by the energy of Cromwell, and by the steady valour of the warriors whom he had trained.

The events of 1644 clearly showed how skilled he was. In the south, where Essex was in charge, the parliamentary forces faced a series of embarrassing defeats; however, in the north, the victory at Marston Moor made up for all the losses elsewhere. That victory was not just a significant setback for the Royalists but also for the party that had been in control at Westminster, as it was widely known that the day, disgracefully lost by the Presbyterians, was saved by Cromwell's energy and the unwavering courage of the soldiers he had trained.

These events produced the Selfdenying Ordinance and the new model of the army. Under decorous pretexts, and with every mark of respect, Essex and most of those who had held high posts under him were removed; and the conduct of the war was intrusted to very different hands. Fairfax, a brave soldier, but of mean understanding and irresolute temper, was the nominal Lord General of the forces; but Cromwell was their real head.

These events led to the Self-denying Ordinance and the new model of the army. Under polite pretenses and with all due respect, Essex and most of those who had held high positions under him were removed; the management of the war was handed over to very different people. Fairfax, a brave soldier but of limited intelligence and unsure temperament, was the official Lord General of the forces; however, Cromwell was their true leader.

Cromwell made haste to organise the whole army on the same principles on which he had organised his own regiment. As soon as this process was complete, the event of the war was decided. The Cavaliers had now to encounter natural courage equal to their own, enthusiasm stronger than their own, and discipline such as was utterly wanting to them. It soon became a proverb that the soldiers of Fairfax and Cromwell were men of a different breed from the soldiers of Essex. At Naseby took place the first great encounter between the Royalists and the remodelled army of the Houses. The victory of the Roundheads was complete and decisive. It was followed by other triumphs in rapid succession. In a few months the authority of the Parliament was fully established over the whole kingdom. Charles fled to the Scots, and was by them, in a manner which did not much exalt their national character, delivered up to his English subjects.

Cromwell quickly set out to organize the entire army based on the same principles he had used for his own regiment. Once this was done, the outcome of the war was sealed. The Cavaliers now had to face natural courage that matched their own, enthusiasm that was even greater, and discipline that they completely lacked. It soon became a saying that the soldiers of Fairfax and Cromwell were a different kind of men than those of Essex. At Naseby, the first major battle took place between the Royalists and the restructured army of the Houses. The victory for the Roundheads was total and decisive. This was followed by a series of quick triumphs. Within a few months, the Parliament's authority was firmly established across the entire kingdom. Charles fled to the Scots, who, in a way that didn't really enhance their reputation, handed him over to his English subjects.

While the event of the war was still doubtful, the Houses had put the Primate to death, had interdicted, within the sphere of their authority, the use of the Liturgy, and had required all men to subscribe that renowned instrument known by the name of the Solemn League and Covenant. Covenanting work, as it was called, went on fast. Hundreds of thousands affixed their names to the rolls, and, with hands lifted up towards heaven, swore to endeavour, without respect of persons, the extirpation of Popery and Prelacy, heresy and schism, and to bring to public trial and condign punishment all who should hinder the reformation of religion. When the struggle was over, the work of innovation and revenge was pushed on with increased ardour. The ecclesiastical polity of the kingdom was remodelled. Most of the old clergy were ejected from their benefices. Fines, often of ruinous amount, were laid on the Royalists, already impoverished by large aids furnished to the King. Many estates were confiscated. Many proscribed Cavaliers found it expedient to purchase, at an enormous cost, the protection of eminent members of the victorious party. Large domains, belonging to the crown, to the bishops, and to the chapters, were seized, and either granted away or put up to auction. In consequence of these spoliations, a great part of the soil of England was at once offered for sale. As money was scarce, as the market was glutted, as the title was insecure and as the awe inspired by powerful bidders prevented free competition, the prices were often merely nominal. Thus many old and honourable families disappeared and were heard of no more; and many new men rose rapidly to affluence.

While the outcome of the war was still uncertain, the Houses executed the Primate, prohibited the use of the Liturgy within their authority, and required everyone to sign the well-known document called the Solemn League and Covenant. The Covenanting movement, as it was called, progressed quickly. Hundreds of thousands signed their names, and with their hands raised to heaven, vowed to work, without favoritism, towards the elimination of Popery and Prelacy, heresy and schism, and to bring to public trial and appropriate punishment anyone who impeded the reformation of religion. Once the struggle was over, the push for innovation and retribution intensified. The church governance of the kingdom was restructured. Most of the old clergy were removed from their positions. Heavy fines, often crippling, were imposed on the Royalists, who were already struggling due to substantial contributions made to the King. Numerous estates were confiscated. Many banned Cavaliers found it necessary to buy, at a great expense, the protection of prominent members of the winning party. Large properties belonging to the crown, bishops, and chapters were seized and either given away or auctioned off. As a result of these confiscations, a significant portion of England's land was suddenly up for sale. With money being scarce, the market flooded, titles insecure, and the intimidation from powerful bidders stifling competition, prices were often only nominal. Consequently, many old and noble families vanished and were never heard from again, while many newcomers quickly rose to wealth.

But, while the Houses were employing their authority thus, it suddenly passed out of their hands. It had been obtained by calling into existence a power which could not be controlled. In the summer of 1647, about twelve months after the last fortress of the Cavaliers had submitted to the Parliament, the Parliament was compelled to submit to its own soldiers.

But while the Houses were exercising their authority like this, it suddenly slipped out of their control. They had created a power that couldn't be managed. In the summer of 1647, about a year after the last stronghold of the Cavaliers had surrendered to Parliament, Parliament found itself having to answer to its own soldiers.

Thirteen years followed, during which England was, under various names and forms, really governed by the sword. Never before that time, or since that time, was the civil power in our country subjected to military dictation.

Thirteen years went by, during which England was, under different names and forms, effectively ruled by the military. Never before that time, or since, has the civil authority in our country been under military control.

The army which now became supreme in the state was an army very different from any that has since been seen among us. At present the pay of the common soldier is not such as can seduce any but the humblest class of English labourers from their calling. A barrier almost impassable separates him from the commissioned officer. The great majority of those who rise high in the service rise by purchase. So numerous and extensive are the remote dependencies of England, that every man who enlists in the line must expect to pass many years in exile, and some years in climates unfavourable to the health and vigour of the European race. The army of the Long Parliament was raised for home service. The pay of the private soldier was much above the wages earned by the great body of the people; and, if he distinguished himself by intelligence and courage, he might hope to attain high commands. The ranks were accordingly composed of persons superior in station and education to the multitude. These persons, sober, moral, diligent, and accustomed to reflect, had been induced to take up arms, not by the pressure of want, not by the love of novelty and license, not by the arts of recruiting officers, but by religious and political zeal, mingled with the desire of distinction and promotion. The boast of the soldiers, as we find it recorded in their solemn resolutions, was that they had not been forced into the service, nor had enlisted chiefly for the sake of lucre. That they were no janissaries, but freeborn Englishmen, who had, of their own accord, put their lives in jeopardy for the liberties and religion of England, and whose right and duty it was to watch over the welfare of the nation which they had saved.

The army that became dominant in the state was very different from any we've seen since. Today, the salary of a regular soldier isn’t enough to lure anyone but the lowest class of English workers away from their jobs. There’s a huge gap between regular soldiers and commissioned officers. Most people who climb the ranks do so by paying for their positions. England has so many distant territories that anyone who joins the army should expect to spend many years away, often in climates that aren't good for the health and stamina of Europeans. The army of the Long Parliament was formed for domestic service. The pay for a private soldier was significantly higher than what most people earned; if he showed intelligence and bravery, he could hope to rise to high ranks. As a result, the ranks were filled with individuals who were better educated and of higher social standing than the average person. These individuals, responsible, moral, hardworking, and thoughtful, joined the military not out of desperation, a desire for adventure, or the tactics of recruiters, but driven by a passion for their beliefs and politics, along with a wish for recognition and advancement. The soldiers proudly claimed, as noted in their official resolutions, that they had not been forced into service, nor had they signed up primarily for money. They asserted that they were not mercenaries, but freeborn Englishmen who willingly risked their lives for the liberties and religion of England, and it was their right and duty to look after the welfare of the nation they had saved.

A force thus composed might, without injury to its efficiency, be indulged in some liberties which, if allowed to any other troops, would have proved subversive of all discipline. In general, soldiers who should form themselves into political clubs, elect delegates, and pass resolutions on high questions of state, would soon break loose from all control, would cease to form an army, and would become the worst and most dangerous of mobs. Nor would it be safe, in our time, to tolerate in any regiment religious meetings, at which a corporal versed in Scripture should lead the devotions of his less gifted colonel, and admonish a backsliding major. But such was the intelligence, the gravity, and the selfcommand of the warriors whom Cromwell had trained, that in their camp a political organisation and a religious organisation could exist without destroying military organisation. The same men, who, off duty, were noted as demagogues and field preachers, were distinguished by steadiness, by the spirit of order, and by prompt obedience on watch, on drill, and on the field of battle.

A force made up this way could, without hurting its effectiveness, enjoy some freedoms that would have been disruptive to discipline if given to any other troops. Generally, if soldiers formed political clubs, elected representatives, and passed resolutions on serious state issues, they would quickly lose all control, stop acting like an army, and turn into a dangerous mob. It wouldn't be safe today to allow any regiment to have religious meetings, where a corporal knowledgeable in the Bible led prayers for his less knowledgeable colonel and advised a wayward major. However, the warriors Cromwell trained were so intelligent, serious, and self-disciplined that both political and religious organizations could thrive in their camp without undermining military structure. Those same men, who were known as demagogues and field preachers off duty, were recognized for their steadiness, orderly spirit, and ready obedience during watch, drills, and battles.

In war this strange force was irresistible. The stubborn courage characteristic of the English people was, by the system of Cromwell, at once regulated and stimulated. Other leaders have maintained orders as strict. Other leaders have inspired their followers with zeal as ardent. But in his camp alone the most rigid discipline was found in company with the fiercest enthusiasm. His troops moved to victory with the precision of machines, while burning with the wildest fanaticism of Crusaders. From the time when the army was remodelled to the time when it was disbanded, it never found, either in the British islands or on the Continent, an enemy who could stand its onset. In England, Scotland, Ireland, Flanders, the Puritan warriors, often surrounded by difficulties, sometimes contending against threefold odds, not only never failed to conquer, but never failed to destroy and break in pieces whatever force was opposed to them. They at length came to regard the day of battle as a day of certain triumph, and marched against the most renowned battalions of Europe with disdainful confidence. Turenne was startled by the shout of stern exultation with which his English allies advanced to the combat, and expressed the delight of a true soldier, when he learned that it was ever the fashion of Cromwell's pikemen to rejoice greatly when they beheld the enemy; and the banished Cavaliers felt an emotion of national pride, when they saw a brigade of their countrymen, outnumbered by foes and abandoned by friends, drive before it in headlong rout the finest infantry of Spain, and force a passage into a counterscarp which had just been pronounced impregnable by the ablest of the Marshals of France.

In war, this unusual force was unstoppable. The determined courage typical of the English people was both organized and fueled by Cromwell's system. Other leaders have kept strict orders. Other leaders have ignited an intense passion in their followers. But only in his camp was the toughest discipline combined with the fiercest enthusiasm. His troops advanced to victory with the precision of machines while burning with the wildest zeal of Crusaders. From the time the army was reorganized until it was disbanded, they never faced, either in the British Isles or on the Continent, an enemy that could withstand their charge. In England, Scotland, Ireland, and Flanders, the Puritan warriors, often facing challenges and sometimes fighting against three times their number, not only always conquered but also always shattered and defeated whatever force opposed them. They eventually came to see the day of battle as a day of sure victory and faced the most famous battalions of Europe with confident disdain. Turenne was taken aback by the shout of fierce joy with which his English allies charged into battle, expressing the delight of a true soldier when he learned that it was a common practice for Cromwell's pikemen to rejoice loudly when they spotted the enemy. The exiled Cavaliers felt a surge of national pride when they saw a brigade of their fellow countrymen, outnumbered by enemies and abandoned by friends, drive before them in a chaotic rout the finest infantry of Spain and force their way into a counterscarp that had just been deemed impregnable by the most skilled Marshals of France.

But that which chiefly distinguished the army of Cromwell from other armies was the austere morality and the fear of God which pervaded all ranks. It is acknowledged by the most zealous Royalists that, in that singular camp, no oath was heard, no drunkenness or gambling was seen, and that, during the long dominion of the soldiery, the property of the peaceable citizen and the honour of woman were held sacred. If outrages were committed, they were outrages of a very different kind from those of which a victorious army is generally guilty. No servant girl complained of the rough gallantry of the redcoats. Not an ounce of plate was taken from the shops of the goldsmiths. But a Pelagian sermon, or a window on which the Virgin and Child were painted, produced in the Puritan ranks an excitement which it required the utmost exertions of the officers to quell. One of Cromwell's chief difficulties was to restrain his musketeers and dragoons from invading by main force the pulpits of ministers whose discourses, to use the language of that time, were not savoury; and too many of our cathedrals still bear the marks of the hatred with which those stern spirits regarded every vestige of Popery.

But what really set Cromwell's army apart from others was the strict morality and strong sense of God that everyone shared. Even the most passionate Royalists admit that, in that unique camp, no one swore oaths, there was no drunkenness or gambling, and throughout the soldiers' long rule, the property of peaceful citizens and the dignity of women were respected. If any wrongs were committed, they were very different from the typical misdeeds of a victorious army. No maid complained about the inappropriate behavior of the redcoats. Not a single piece of silver was taken from the goldsmiths' shops. However, a Pelagian sermon or a window featuring the Virgin and Child sparked a level of agitation among the Puritans that required a lot of effort from the officers to calm. One of Cromwell's main challenges was keeping his musketeers and dragoons from forcefully taking over the pulpits of ministers whose sermons, in the language of the time, were not acceptable; and many of our cathedrals still show the scars of the disdain those strict individuals felt towards anything resembling Catholicism.

To keep down the English people was no light task even for that army. No sooner was the first pressure of military tyranny felt, than the nation, unbroken to such servitude, began to struggle fiercely. Insurrections broke out even in those counties which, during the recent war, had been the most submissive to the Parliament. Indeed, the Parliament itself abhorred its old defenders more than its old enemies, and was desirous to come to terms of accommodation with Charles at the expense of the troops. In Scotland at the same time, a coalition was formed between the Royalists and a large body of Presbyterians who regarded the doctrines of the Independents with detestation. At length the storm burst. There were risings in Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex, Kent, Wales. The fleet in the Thames suddenly hoisted the royal colours, stood out to sea, and menaced the southern coast. A great Scottish force crossed the frontier and advanced into Lancashire. It might well be suspected that these movements were contemplated with secret complacency by a majority both of the Lords and of the Commons.

Keeping the English people in check was no easy task, even for that army. As soon as the first signs of military oppression were felt, the nation, unaccustomed to such subjugation, began to fight back fiercely. Rebellions erupted even in those counties that had been most obedient to Parliament during the recent war. In fact, Parliament despised its former supporters even more than its old enemies and wanted to negotiate with Charles at the cost of the troops. Meanwhile, in Scotland, a coalition formed between the Royalists and a large group of Presbyterians who strongly opposed the beliefs of the Independents. Finally, the storm broke. There were uprisings in Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex, Kent, and Wales. The fleet in the Thames suddenly raised the royal colors, sailed out to sea, and threatened the southern coast. A large Scottish force crossed the border and moved into Lancashire. It could be suspected that these actions were secretly welcomed by a majority of both the Lords and the Commons.

But the yoke of the army was not to be so shaken off. While Fairfax suppressed the risings in the neighbourhood of the capital, Oliver routed the Welsh insurgents, and, leaving their castles in ruins, marched against the Scots. His troops were few, when compared with the invaders; but he was little in the habit of counting his enemies. The Scottish army was utterly destroyed. A change in the Scottish government followed. An administration, hostile to the King, was formed at Edinburgh; and Cromwell, more than ever the darling of his soldiers, returned in triumph to London.

But the grip of the army couldn’t be easily broken. While Fairfax dealt with the uprisings near the capital, Oliver defeated the Welsh rebels, leaving their castles in ruins, and then marched against the Scots. His troops were small compared to the invaders, but he rarely worried about the size of his enemies. The Scottish army was completely destroyed. This led to a shift in the Scottish government. A new administration, opposed to the King, was established in Edinburgh; and Cromwell, even more beloved by his soldiers, returned triumphantly to London.

And now a design, to which, at the commencement of the civil war, no man would have dared to allude, and which was not less inconsistent with the Solemn League and Covenant than with the old law of England, began to take a distinct form. The austere warriors who ruled the nation had, during some months, meditated a fearful vengeance on the captive King. When and how the scheme originated; whether it spread from the general to the ranks, or from the ranks to the general; whether it is to be ascribed to policy using fanaticism as a tool, or to fanaticism bearing down policy with headlong impulse, are questions which, even at this day, cannot be answered with perfect confidence. It seems, however, on the whole, probable that he who seemed to lead was really forced to follow, and that, on this occasion, as on another great occasion a few years later, he sacrificed his own judgment and his own inclinations to the wishes of the army. For the power which he had called into existence was a power which even he could not always control; and, that he might ordinarily command, it was necessary that he should sometimes obey. He publicly protested that he was no mover in the matter, that the first steps had been taken without his privity, that he could not advise the Parliament to strike the blow, but that he submitted his own feelings to the force of circumstances which seemed to him to indicate the purposes of Providence. It has been the fashion to consider these professions as instances of the hypocrisy which is vulgarly imputed to him. But even those who pronounce him a hypocrite will scarcely venture to call him a fool. They are therefore bound to show that he had some purpose to serve by secretly stimulating the army to take that course which he did not venture openly to recommend. It would be absurd to suppose that he who was never by his respectable enemies represented as wantonly cruel or implacably vindictive, would have taken the most important step of his life under the influence of mere malevolence. He was far too wise a man not to know, when he consented to shed that august blood, that he was doing a deed which was inexpiable, and which would move the grief and horror, not only of the Royalists, but of nine tenths of those who had stood by the Parliament. Whatever visions may have deluded others, he was assuredly dreaming neither of a republic on the antique pattern, nor of the millennial reign of the Saints. If he already aspired to be himself the founder of a new dynasty, it was plain that Charles the First was a less formidable competitor than Charles the Second would be. At the moment of the death of Charles the First the loyalty of every Cavalier would be transferred, unimpaired, to Charles the Second. Charles the First was a captive: Charles the Second would be at liberty. Charles the First was an object of suspicion and dislike to a large proportion of those who yet shuddered at the thought of slaying him: Charles the Second would excite all the interest which belongs to distressed youth and innocence. It is impossible to believe that considerations so obvious, and so important, escaped the most profound politician of that age. The truth is that Cromwell had, at one time, meant to mediate between the throne and the Parliament, and to reorganise the distracted State by the power of the sword, under the sanction of the royal name. In this design he persisted till he was compelled to abandon it by the refractory temper of the soldiers, and by the incurable duplicity of the King. A party in the camp began to clamour for the head of the traitor, who was for treating with Agag. Conspiracies were formed. Threats of impeachment were loudly uttered. A mutiny broke out, which all the vigour and resolution of Oliver could hardly quell. And though, by a judicious mixture of severity and kindness, he succeeded in restoring order, he saw that it would be in the highest degree difficult and perilous to contend against the rage of warriors, who regarded the fallen tyrant as their foe, and as the foe of their God. At the same time it became more evident than ever that the King could not be trusted. The vices of Charles had grown upon him. They were, indeed, vices which difficulties and perplexities generally bring out in the strongest light. Cunning is the natural defence of the weak. A prince, therefore, who is habitually a deceiver when at the height of power, is not likely to learn frankness in the midst of embarrassments and distresses. Charles was not only a most unscrupulous but a most unlucky dissembler. There never was a politician to whom so many frauds and falsehoods were brought home by undeniable evidence. He publicly recognised the Houses at Westminster as a legal Parliament, and, at the same time, made a private minute in council declaring the recognition null. He publicly disclaimed all thought of calling in foreign aid against his people: he privately solicited aid from France, from Denmark, and from Lorraine. He publicly denied that he employed Papists: at the same time he privately sent to his generals directions to employ every Papist that would serve. He publicly took the sacrament at Oxford, as a pledge that he never would even connive at Popery. He privately assured his wife, that he intended to tolerate Popery in England; and he authorised Lord Glamorgan to promise that Popery should be established in Ireland. Then he attempted to clear himself at his agent's expense. Glamorgan received, in the Royal handwriting, reprimands intended to be read by others, and eulogies which were to be seen only by himself. To such an extent, indeed, had insincerity now tainted the King's whole nature, that his most devoted friends could not refrain from complaining to each other, with bitter grief and shame, of his crooked politics. His defeats, they said, gave them less pain than his intrigues. Since he had been a prisoner, there was no section of the victorious party which had not been the object both of his flatteries and of his machinations; but never was he more unfortunate than when he attempted at once to cajole and to undermine Cromwell.

And now a plan, which at the start of the civil war no one would have dared to mention, and which was just as inconsistent with the Solemn League and Covenant as with the old laws of England, started to take shape. The stern warriors in charge of the nation had, for several months, been contemplating a terrible revenge on the captured King. When and how the idea began; whether it spread from the leaders to the ranks or vice versa; whether to blame was policy using fanaticism or fanaticism overpowering policy, are questions that even today can’t be answered with complete certainty. However, it seems likely that the one who appeared to lead was actually forced to follow, and that in this instance, just like in another significant moment a few years later, he sacrificed his own judgment and desires to the demands of the army. The power he had brought into existence was one he could not always control; and to usually command it, he sometimes had to obey. He publicly claimed he wasn’t behind the plan, that the initial steps were taken without his knowledge, that he couldn’t advise Parliament to act, but that he surrendered his own feelings to circumstances that he believed indicated the will of Providence. It has become common to view these statements as examples of the hypocrisy often attributed to him. But even those who call him a hypocrite would hardly dare to label him a fool. Therefore, they must show that he had some goal in mind by secretly encouraging the army to take a path he didn’t openly endorse. It would be ridiculous to think that someone who was never described by his respectable enemies as unnecessarily cruel or relentlessly vindictive would take the most significant step of his life out of sheer malice. He was far too wise not to realize that when he agreed to spill that noble blood, he was committing an act that was unredeemable, which would invoke grief and horror not only from the Royalists but from the vast majority of those who had supported Parliament. Despite what illusions others may have harbored, he certainly did not imagine either an old-fashioned republic or a utopian reign of the Saints. If he hoped to become the founder of a new dynasty, it was clear that Charles the First was a less daunting opponent than Charles the Second would be. At the moment Charles the First died, the loyalty of every Cavalier would shift, intact, to Charles the Second. Charles the First was a prisoner; Charles the Second would be free. Charles the First was a figure of suspicion and dislike to many who still recoiled at the thought of killing him; Charles the Second would evoke all the sympathy that comes with distressed youth and innocence. It’s hard to believe that such obvious and crucial considerations escaped the most astute politician of that time. The truth is that Cromwell once intended to mediate between the throne and Parliament and to reorganize the chaotic State using force, endorsed by the royal name. He held on to this plan until he had to abandon it due to the stubbornness of the soldiers and the King’s undeniable duplicity. A faction in the camp started demanding the head of the traitor who was negotiating with Agag. Conspiracies were formed. Threats of impeachment were openly declared. A mutiny erupted that even Oliver’s strength and determination could barely control. And although, through a wise balance of toughness and kindness, he managed to restore order, he realized it would be extremely difficult and dangerous to fight against the fury of warriors who viewed the fallen tyrant as their enemy—and the enemy of their God. At the same time, it became more evident than ever that the King was not to be trusted. Charles’ flaws had become more prominent. They were flaws that challenges and complexities usually highlight the most. Cunning is the natural defense of the weak. A prince who is usually a deceiver when in power is not likely to learn honesty when faced with difficulties and crises. Charles was not only a very unscrupulous but also a rather unlucky schemer. No other politician had so many frauds and lies proven against him by undeniable evidence. He publicly acknowledged the Houses at Westminster as a lawful Parliament while privately keeping a note in council declaring that acknowledgment void. He publicly denied any intention of seeking foreign aid against his people but secretly asked for help from France, Denmark, and Lorraine. He publicly claimed that he didn’t employ Catholics, yet privately instructed his generals to use every Catholic who was willing to serve. He publicly took communion at Oxford, pledging never to condone Catholicism. He privately assured his wife that he planned to accept Catholicism in England and allowed Lord Glamorgan to promise that it would be established in Ireland. Then he tried to absolve himself of blame at his agent's expense. Glamorgan received reprimands intended for others in the Royal handwriting, alongside praises meant only for him. In fact, insincerity had so deeply infected the King’s entire character that even his most loyal friends couldn't help but sadly complain to one another about his twisted politics. They said his defeats caused them less pain than his intrigues. Since he had become a prisoner, there wasn't a part of the victorious faction that hadn’t been an object of his flattery and schemes; however, he was never more unfortunate than when he tried to both deceive and undermine Cromwell.

Cromwell had to determine whether he would put to hazard the attachment of his party, the attachment of his army, his own greatness, nay his own life, in an attempt which would probably have been vain, to save a prince whom no engagement could bind. With many struggles and misgivings, and probably not without many prayers, the decision was made. Charles was left to his fate. The military saints resolved that, in defiance of the old laws of the realm, and of the almost universal sentiment of the nation, the King should expiate his crimes with his blood. He for a time expected a death like that of his unhappy predecessors, Edward the Second and Richard the Second. But he was in no danger of such treason. Those who had him in their gripe were not midnight stabbers. What they did they did in order that it might be a spectacle to heaven and earth, and that it might be held in everlasting remembrance. They enjoyed keenly the very scandal which they gave. That the ancient constitution and the public opinion of England were directly opposed to regicide made regicide seem strangely fascinating to a party bent on effecting a complete political and social revolution. In order to accomplish their purpose, it was necessary that they should first break in pieces every part of the machinery of the government; and this necessity was rather agreeable than painful to them. The Commons passed a vote tending to accommodation with the King. The soldiers excluded the majority by force. The Lords unanimously rejected the proposition that the King should be brought to trial. Their house was instantly closed. No court, known to the law, would take on itself the office of judging the fountain of justice. A revolutionary tribunal was created. That tribunal pronounced Charles a tyrant, a traitor, a murderer, and a public enemy; and his head was severed from his shoulders, before thousands of spectators, in front of the banqueting hall of his own palace.

Cromwell had to decide whether he would risk the loyalty of his party, the loyalty of his army, his own power, and even his own life, in a possibly futile attempt to save a prince who couldn’t be trusted. After much struggle, doubt, and probably a lot of prayer, he made his choice. Charles was left to face his fate. The military leaders decided that, despite the old laws of the land and the almost unanimous opinion of the nation, the King should pay for his crimes with his life. For a time, he anticipated a death like that of his unfortunate predecessors, Edward the Second and Richard the Second. But he was not in danger of such treachery. Those who had him in their grasp were not assassins lurking in the dark. What they did was meant to be a spectacle for heaven and earth, intended to be remembered forever. They reveled in the very scandal they created. The fact that the long-standing constitution and the public sentiment in England were clearly against killing a king made the idea of it strangely appealing to a faction intent on a total political and social transformation. To achieve their goal, they needed to dismantle every part of the government machinery; this necessity was more satisfying than distressing to them. The Commons voted for a compromise with the King. The soldiers forcibly excluded the majority. The Lords unanimously rejected the idea of putting the King on trial. Their assembly was immediately disbanded. No legal court would take on the role of judging the source of justice. A revolutionary tribunal was established. That tribunal declared Charles a tyrant, a traitor, a murderer, and a public enemy; and his head was chopped off in front of thousands of onlookers, right outside the banquet hall of his own palace.

In no long time it became manifest that those political and religious zealots, to whom this deed is to be ascribed, had committed, not only a crime, but an error. They had given to a prince, hitherto known to his people chiefly by his faults, an opportunity of displaying, on a great theatre, before the eyes of all nations and all ages, some qualities which irresistibly call forth the admiration and love of mankind, the high spirit of a gallant gentleman, the patience and meekness of a penitent Christian. Nay, they had so contrived their revenge that the very man whose life had been a series of attacks on the liberties of England now seemed to die a martyr in the cause of those liberties. No demagogue ever produced such an impression on the public mind as the captive King, who, retaining in that extremity all his regal dignity, and confronting death with dauntless courage, gave utterance to the feelings of his oppressed people, manfully refused to plead before a court unknown to the law, appealed from military violence to the principles of the constitution, asked by what right the House of Commons had been purged of its most respectable members and the House of Lords deprived of its legislative functions, and told his weeping hearers that he was defending, not only his own cause, but theirs. His long misgovernment, his innumerable perfidies, were forgotten. His memory was, in the minds of the great majority of his subjects, associated with those free institutions which he had, during many years, laboured to destroy: for those free institutions had perished with him, and, amidst the mournful silence of a community kept down by arms, had been defended by his voice alone. From that day began a reaction in favour of monarchy and of the exiled house, reaction which never ceased till the throne had again been set up in all its old dignity.

Before long, it became clear that the political and religious fanatics responsible for this act had not only committed a crime but also made a mistake. They had given a prince, who had mostly been known for his flaws, a chance to show, on a grand stage and in front of all nations and eras, qualities that naturally inspire admiration and affection—like the noble spirit of a brave gentleman and the patience and humility of a repentant Christian. In fact, they had engineered their revenge in such a way that the very man whose life was marked by attacks on England's freedoms now appeared to die as a martyr for those freedoms. No demagogue ever made such a strong impact on public opinion as the imprisoned King, who, even in that dire situation, maintained his royal dignity and faced death with fearless courage. He voiced the sentiments of his oppressed people, boldly refused to plead before a court that had no legal standing, appealed from military oppression to the principles of the constitution, questioned the justification for purging the House of Commons of its most respected members and stripping the House of Lords of its legislative powers, and informed his tearful audience that he was fighting not just for himself but for them as well. His long history of poor governance and countless betrayals were forgotten. In the minds of most of his subjects, his memory became linked with the very free institutions he had tried for years to dismantle: for those institutions had vanished with him, and amid the sorrowful silence of a community subdued by force, they were defended only by his words. From that day forward, a movement in favor of monarchy and the exiled royal family began, a movement that continued until the throne was restored to its former glory.

At first, however, the slayers of the King seemed to have derived new energy from that sacrament of blood by which they had bound themselves closely together, and separated themselves for ever from the great body of their countrymen. England was declared a commonwealth. The House of Commons, reduced to a small number of members, was nominally the supreme power in the state. In fact, the army and its great chief governed everything. Oliver had made his choice. He had kept the hearts of his soldiers, and had broken with almost every other class of his fellow citizens. Beyond the limits of his camps and fortresses he could scarcely be said to have a party. Those elements of force which, when the civil war broke out, had appeared arrayed against each other, were combined against him; all the Cavaliers, the great majority of the Roundheads, the Anglican Church, the Presbyterian Church, the Roman Catholic Church, England, Scotland, Ireland. Yet such, was his genius and resolution that he was able to overpower and crush everything that crossed his path, to make himself more absolute master of his country than any of her legitimate Kings had been, and to make his country more dreaded and respected than she had been during many generations under the rule of her legitimate Kings.

At first, however, the slayers of the King seemed to draw new energy from the sacrament of blood that bound them closely together and separated them forever from the vast majority of their fellow citizens. England was declared a commonwealth. The House of Commons, reduced to a small number of members, was nominally the highest authority in the state. In reality, the army and its powerful leader controlled everything. Oliver had made his choice. He had won the loyalty of his soldiers and had turned away from almost every other group of his fellow citizens. Outside the confines of his camps and fortresses, he could hardly be said to have a support base. The forces that had appeared to oppose each other when the civil war began were now united against him; all the Cavaliers, most of the Roundheads, the Anglican Church, the Presbyterian Church, the Roman Catholic Church, England, Scotland, Ireland. Yet, such was his skill and determination that he managed to overpower and crush everything in his way, becoming more of an absolute ruler of his country than any of its legitimate Kings had been, and making his country more feared and respected than it had been for many generations under the rule of its legitimate Kings.

England had already ceased to struggle. But the two other kingdoms which had been governed by the Stuarts were hostile to the new republic. The Independent party was equally odious to the Roman Catholics of Ireland and to the Presbyterians of Scotland. Both those countries, lately in rebellion against Charles the First, now acknowledged the authority of Charles the Second.

England had already stopped fighting. But the two other kingdoms that had been ruled by the Stuarts were opposed to the new republic. The Independent party was equally disliked by the Roman Catholics in Ireland and the Presbyterians in Scotland. Both of those countries, which had recently rebelled against Charles the First, now recognized the authority of Charles the Second.

But everything yielded to the vigour and ability of Cromwell. In a few months he subjugated Ireland, as Ireland had never been subjugated during the five centuries of slaughter which had elapsed since the landing of the first Norman settlers. He resolved to put an end to that conflict of races and religions which had so long distracted the island, by making the English and Protestant population decidedly predominant. For this end he gave the rein to the fierce enthusiasm of his followers, waged war resembling that which Israel waged on the Canaanites, smote the idolaters with the edge of the sword, so that great cities were left without inhabitants, drove many thousands to the Continent, shipped off many thousands to the West Indies, and supplied the void thus made by pouring in numerous colonists, of Saxon blood, and of Calvinistic faith. Strange to say, under that iron rule, the conquered country began to wear an outward face of prosperity. Districts, which had recently been as wild as those where the first white settlers of Connecticut were contending with the red men, were in a few years transformed into the likeness of Kent and Norfolk. New buildings, roads, and plantations were everywhere seen. The rent of estates rose fast; and soon the English landowners began to complain that they were met in every market by the products of Ireland, and to clamour for protecting laws.

But everything gave way to Cromwell's energy and skills. In just a few months, he conquered Ireland like it had never been conquered in the five centuries of violence since the first Norman settlers arrived. He decided to end the long-standing conflict between races and religions on the island by making the English and Protestant population clearly dominant. To achieve this, he unleashed the fierce passion of his followers, waged a war similar to what Israel did against the Canaanites, and struck down the idolaters with the sword, leaving great cities uninhabited. He forced thousands to flee to the Continent, shipped many thousands off to the West Indies, and filled the resulting emptiness by bringing in numerous settlers of Saxon heritage and Calvinistic faith. Strangely enough, under that harsh rule, the conquered land started to look prosperous. Regions that had recently been as wild as the areas where the first white settlers of Connecticut battled with Native Americans were transformed in just a few years to resemble Kent and Norfolk. New buildings, roads, and farms appeared everywhere. The rents for estates rapidly increased, and soon, English landowners began to complain that they were faced in every market with Irish products and started to demand protective laws.

From Ireland the victorious chief, who was now in name, as he had long been in reality, Lord General of the armies of the Commonwealth, turned to Scotland. The Young King was there. He had consented to profess himself a Presbyterian, and to subscribe the Covenant; and, in return for these concessions, the austere Puritans who bore sway at Edinburgh had permitted him to assume the crown, and to hold, under their inspection and control, a solemn and melancholy court. This mock royalty was of short duration. In two great battles Cromwell annihilated the military force of Scotland. Charles fled for his life, and, with extreme difficulty, escaped the fate of his father. The ancient kingdom of the Stuarts was reduced, for the first time, to profound submission. Of that independence, so manfully defended against the mightiest and ablest of the Plantagenets, no vestige was left. The English Parliament made laws for Scotland. English judges held assizes in Scotland. Even that stubborn Church, which has held its own against so many governments, scarce dared to utter an audible murmur.

From Ireland, the victorious leader, who was now officially the Lord General of the armies of the Commonwealth as he had long been in practice, turned to Scotland. The Young King was there. He had agreed to declare himself a Presbyterian and to sign the Covenant; in return for these concessions, the strict Puritans in charge at Edinburgh allowed him to take the crown and to hold, under their supervision and control, a solemn and gloomy court. This false royalty didn't last long. In two major battles, Cromwell completely destroyed the military power of Scotland. Charles fled for his life and barely escaped the same fate as his father. The ancient kingdom of the Stuarts was, for the first time, brought to total submission. There was no trace left of the independence they had valiantly defended against the strongest and most capable of the Plantagenets. The English Parliament made laws for Scotland. English judges held trials in Scotland. Even the stubborn Church, which had resisted so many governments, hardly dared to make any audible protest.

Thus far there had been at least the semblance of harmony between the warriors who had subjugated Ireland and Scotland and the politicians who sate at Westminster: but the alliance which had been cemented by danger was dissolved by victory. The Parliament forgot that it was but the creature of the army. The army was less disposed than ever to submit to the dictation of the Parliament. Indeed the few members who made up what was contemptuously called the Rump of the House of Commons had no more claim than the military chiefs to be esteemed the representatives of the nation. The dispute was soon brought to a decisive issue. Cromwell filled the House with armed men. The Speaker was pulled out of his chair, the mace taken from the table, the room cleared, and the door locked. The nation, which loved neither of the contending parties, but which was forced, in its own despite, to respect the capacity and resolution of the General, looked on with patience, if not with complacency.

So far, there had at least been an appearance of harmony between the warriors who had conquered Ireland and Scotland and the politicians sitting in Westminster: but the alliance that had been formed in times of danger broke apart with victory. Parliament forgot that it was just a creation of the army. The army was less willing than ever to follow what Parliament dictated. In fact, the few members that made up what was scornfully called the Rump of the House of Commons had no more right than the military leaders to be seen as representatives of the nation. The conflict was quickly resolved in a decisive way. Cromwell filled the House with armed soldiers. The Speaker was yanked from his chair, the mace was removed from the table, the room was cleared, and the door was locked. The nation, which had no love for either of the opposing sides but was unwillingly compelled to respect the skill and determination of the General, watched patiently, if not approvingly.

King, Lords, and Commons, had now in turn been vanquished and destroyed; and Cromwell seemed to be left the sole heir of the powers of all three. Yet were certain limitations still imposed on him by the very army to which he owed his immense authority. That singular body of men was, for the most part, composed of zealous republicans. In the act of enslaving their country, they had deceived themselves into the belief that they were emancipating her. The book which they venerated furnished them with a precedent which was frequently in their mouths. It was true that the ignorant and ungrateful nation murmured against its deliverers. Even so had another chosen nation murmured against the leader who brought it, by painful and dreary paths, from the house of bondage to the land flowing with milk and honey. Yet had that leader rescued his brethren in spite of themselves; nor had he shrunk from making terrible examples of those who contemned the proffered freedom, and pined for the fleshpots, the taskmasters, and the idolatries of Egypt. The object of the warlike saints who surrounded Cromwell was the settlement of a free and pious commonwealth. For that end they were ready to employ, without scruple, any means, however violent and lawless. It was not impossible, therefore, to establish by their aid a dictatorship such as no King had ever exercised: but it was probable that their aid would be at once withdrawn from a ruler who, even under strict constitutional restraints, should venture to assume the kingly name and dignity.

The King, Lords, and Commons had now all been defeated and eliminated; and Cromwell appeared to be the only one left with the power of all three. Yet, there were still certain limits set on him by the very army that had granted him his immense authority. That unique group of men was mostly made up of passionate republicans. As they were enslaving their country, they had fooled themselves into believing they were setting it free. The book they revered provided them with a precedent that was often quoted. It was true that the ungrateful and ignorant nation grumbled against its liberators. Just like another chosen nation had grumbled against the leader who, through difficult and painful trials, led them from slavery to a land of abundance. Yet that leader rescued his people despite their own desires; he didn't hesitate to make harsh examples of those who rejected the offered freedom and longed for the comforts and false idols of Egypt. The goal of the militant saints surrounding Cromwell was to establish a free and religious commonwealth. To achieve this, they were willing to use any means, no matter how violent or unlawful. Therefore, it wasn’t unlikely that they could support a dictatorship unlike any a King had ever wielded; however, it was likely that their support would be quickly withdrawn from a ruler who dared to assume the title and authority of a king, even under strict constitutional limits.

The sentiments of Cromwell were widely different. He was not what he had been; nor would it be just to consider the change which his views had undergone as the effect merely of selfish ambition. He had, when he came up to the Long Parliament, brought with him from his rural retreat little knowledge of books, no experience of great affairs, and a temper galled by the long tyranny of the government and of the hierarchy. He had, during the thirteen years which followed, gone through a political education of no common kind. He had been a chief actor in a succession of revolutions. He had been long the soul, and at last the head, of a party. He had commanded armies, won battles, negotiated treaties, subdued, pacified, and regulated kingdoms. It would have been strange indeed if his notions had been still the same as in the days when his mind was principally occupied by his fields and his religion, and when the greatest events which diversified the course of his life were a cattle fair or a prayer meeting at Huntingdon. He saw that some schemes of innovation for which he had once been zealous, whether good or bad in themselves, were opposed to the general feeling of the country, and that, if he persevered in those schemes, he had nothing before him but constant troubles, which must be suppressed by the constant use of the sword. He therefore wished to restore, in all essentials, that ancient constitution which the majority of the people had always loved, and for which they now pined. The course afterwards taken by Monk was not open to Cromwell. The memory of one terrible day separated the great regicide for ever from the House of Stuart. What remained was that he should mount the ancient English throne, and reign according to the ancient English polity. If he could effect this, he might hope that the wounds of the lacerated State would heal fast. Great numbers of honest and quiet men would speedily rally round him. Those Royalists whose attachment was rather to institutions than to persons, to the kingly office than to King Charles the First or King Charles the Second, would soon kiss the hand of King Oliver. The peers, who now remained sullenly at their country houses, and refused to take any part in public affairs, would, when summoned to their House by the writ of a King in possession, gladly resume their ancient functions. Northumberland and Bedford, Manchester and Pembroke, would be proud to bear the crown and the spurs, the sceptre and the globe, before the restorer of aristocracy. A sentiment of loyalty would gradually bind the people to the new dynasty; and, on the decease of the founder of that dynasty, the royal dignity might descend with general acquiescence to his posterity.

Cromwell's feelings were quite different. He was no longer the person he had once been, and it wouldn't be fair to see his changed views as just a result of selfish ambition. When he first arrived at the Long Parliament, he had little knowledge of books, no experience in major affairs, and a temperament worn down by the long oppression of the government and the church. Over the thirteen years that followed, he underwent an extraordinary political education. He had played a leading role in a series of revolutions. He had been the driving force, and eventually the leader, of a political party. He commanded armies, won battles, negotiated treaties, subdued, pacified, and organized kingdoms. It would have been quite strange if his thoughts were still the same as when he was mainly focused on his fields and his faith, when the biggest events in his life were a cattle fair or a prayer meeting in Huntingdon. He realized that some innovative ideas he had once passionately supported, whether good or bad, conflicted with the general sentiment of the country and that continuing to pursue those ideas would only lead to ongoing troubles, which could only be resolved through constant warfare. Therefore, he aimed to restore, in all essential aspects, the old constitution that the majority of the people had always valued and longed for. The path that Monk later took was not available to Cromwell. The memory of one terrible day forever separated the great regicide from the House of Stuart. What remained was for him to ascend the ancient English throne and rule according to traditional English governance. If he could achieve this, he might hope for the healing of a wounded state. Many sincere and peaceful individuals would quickly rally around him. Those Royalists whose loyalty was more to institutions than individuals, to the monarchy itself rather than to King Charles I or King Charles II, would soon show their respect to King Oliver. The nobles, who were now sulking in their country homes and avoiding public affairs, would gladly return to their roles when called back by a reigning king. Northumberland and Bedford, Manchester and Pembroke, would be eager to bear the crown and spurs, the scepter and globe, before the restorer of the aristocracy. A sense of loyalty would gradually connect the people to the new dynasty, and upon the death of its founder, the royal power could likely pass smoothly to his descendants.

The ablest Royalists were of opinion that these views were correct, and that, if Cromwell had been permitted to follow his own judgment, the exiled line would never have been restored. But his plan was directly opposed to the feelings of the only class which he dared not offend. The name of King was hateful to the soldiers. Some of them were indeed unwilling to see the administration in the hands of any single person. The great majority, however, were disposed to support their general, as elective first magistrate of a commonwealth, against all factions which might resist his authority: but they would not consent that he should assume the regal title, or that the dignity, which was the just reward of his personal merit, should be declared hereditary in his family. All that was left to him was to give to the new republic a constitution as like the constitution of the old monarchy as the army would bear. That his elevation to power might not seem to be merely his own act, he convoked a council, composed partly of persons on whose support he could depend, and partly of persons whose opposition he might safely defy. This assembly, which he called a Parliament, and which the populace nicknamed, from one of the most conspicuous members, Barebonesa's Parliament, after exposing itself during a short time to the public contempt, surrendered back to the General the powers which it had received from him, and left him at liberty to frame a plan of government.

The smartest Royalists believed these ideas were spot on, and that if Cromwell had been allowed to follow his own instincts, the exiled line would have never returned. But his plan went against the feelings of the only group he couldn't afford to upset. The idea of a King was repulsive to the soldiers. Some of them didn’t want any one person in charge. However, most were willing to back their general as the elected leader of a commonwealth against any factions that might challenge his authority, but they wouldn’t agree to him taking the royal title or that his personal achievements should lead to hereditary power for his family. All he could do was give the new republic a constitution similar to the old monarchy, as much as the army would allow. To ensure his rise to power didn’t seem like just his decision, he called a council made up of people he could trust as well as people he could afford to ignore. This gathering, which he named a Parliament and the people mockingly dubbed Barebones' Parliament after one of its most noticeable members, quickly subjected itself to public ridicule and then handed back the powers it received from him, leaving him free to design a plan for governance.

His plan bore, from the first, a considerable resemblance to the old English constitution: but, in a few years, he thought it safe to proceed further, and to restore almost every part of the ancient system under hew names and forms. The title of King was not revived; but the kingly prerogatives were intrusted to a Lord High Protector. The sovereign was called not His Majesty, but His Highness. He was not crowned and anointed in Westminster Abbey, but was solemnly enthroned, girt with a sword of state, clad in a robe of purple, and presented with a rich Bible, in Westminster Hall. His office was not declared hereditary: but he was permitted to name his successor; and none could doubt that he would name his Son.

His plan, from the start, looked a lot like the old English constitution. However, after a few years, he felt it was safe to go further and restore almost every part of the ancient system under new names and forms. The title of King wasn't brought back, but the king's powers were given to a Lord High Protector. The sovereign was referred to as His Highness instead of His Majesty. He wasn't crowned and anointed in Westminster Abbey; instead, he was formally enthroned, wearing a ceremonial sword, dressed in a purple robe, and given a fancy Bible in Westminster Hall. His position wasn't declared hereditary, but he was allowed to name his successor, and no one doubted that he would choose his Son.

A House of Commons was a necessary part of the new polity. In constituting this body, the Protector showed a wisdom and a public spirit which were not duly appreciated by his contemporaries. The vices of the old representative system, though by no means so serious as they afterwards became, had already been remarked by farsighted men. Cromwell reformed that system on the same principles on which Mr. Pitt, a hundred and thirty years later, attempted to reform it, and on which it was at length reformed in our own times. Small boroughs were disfranchised even more unsparingly than in 1832; and the number of county members was greatly increased. Very few unrepresented towns had yet grown into importance. Of those towns the most considerable were Manchester, Leeds, and Halifax. Representatives were given to all three. An addition was made to the number of the members for the capital. The elective franchise was placed on such a footing that every man of substance, whether possessed of freehold estates in land or not, had a vote for the county in which he resided. A few Scotchmen and a few of the English colonists settled in Ireland were summoned to the assembly which was to legislate, at Westminster, for every part of the British isles.

A House of Commons was an essential part of the new government. In creating this body, the Protector demonstrated wisdom and a sense of public duty that his contemporaries did not fully appreciate. The flaws of the old representative system, although not as severe as they would later become, had already been noted by visionary individuals. Cromwell reformed that system based on the same principles that Mr. Pitt, a hundred and thirty years later, would try to apply in his own reforms, and which were eventually realized in our own time. Small boroughs were stripped of their representation even more thoroughly than in 1832, and the number of county members was significantly increased. Very few unrepresented towns had gained prominence by this time. Among those towns, the most notable were Manchester, Leeds, and Halifax. Representatives were assigned to all three. The number of members for the capital was also increased. The right to vote was structured so that every substantial man, whether he owned land or not, had a vote in the county where he lived. A few Scots and some English settlers in Ireland were invited to the assembly that would legislate, in Westminster, for all parts of the British Isles.

To create a House of Lords was a less easy task. Democracy does not require the support of prescription. Monarchy has often stood without that support. But a patrician order is the work of time. Oliver found already existing a nobility, opulent, highly considered, and as popular with the commonalty as any nobility has ever been. Had he, as King of England, commanded the peers to meet him in Parliament according to the old usage of the realm, many of them would undoubtedly have obeyed the call. This he could not do; and it was to no purpose that he offered to the chiefs of illustrious families seats in his new senate. They conceived that they could not accept a nomination to an upstart assembly without renouncing their birthright and betraying their order. The Protector was, therefore, under the necessity of filling his Upper House with new men who, during the late stirring times, had made themselves conspicuous. This was the least happy of his contrivances, and displeased all parties. The Levellers were angry with him for instituting a privileged class. The multitude, which felt respect and fondness for the great historical names of the land, laughed without restraint at a House of Lords, in which lucky draymen and shoemakers were seated, to which few of the old nobles were invited, and from which almost all those old nobles who were invited turned disdainfully away.

Creating a House of Lords was a much tougher challenge. Democracy doesn't rely on tradition. Monarchy has often existed without that backing. But a patrician class takes time to develop. Oliver found a nobility that was already established—wealthy, well-respected, and as popular with the common people as any nobility could be. If he, as King of England, had commanded the peers to join him in Parliament like in the old days, many would have likely responded to the call. He couldn't do that; and it was pointless to offer seats in his new senate to the leaders of notable families. They believed that accepting a position in a new assembly would mean giving up their heritage and betraying their class. Therefore, the Protector had to fill his Upper House with new people who had made a name for themselves during the recent upheavals. This was the least successful of his plans and upset everyone. The Levellers were frustrated with him for creating a privileged class. The general public, who held respect and affection for the great historical figures of the country, laughed openly at a House of Lords where lucky draymen and shoemakers were seated, few of the old nobles were invited, and almost all those old nobles who were invited turned away in disdain.

How Oliver's Parliaments were constituted, however, was practically of little moment: for he possessed the means of conducting the administration without their support, and in defiance of their opposition. His wish seems to have been to govern constitutionally, and to substitute the empire of the laws for that of the sword. But he soon found that, hated as he was, both by Royalists and Presbyterians, he could be safe only by being absolute. The first House of Commons which the people elected by his command, questioned his authority, and was dissolved without having passed a single act. His second House of Commons, though it recognised him as Protector, and would gladly have made him King, obstinately refused to acknowledge his new Lords. He had no course left but to dissolve the Parliament. "God," he exclaimed, at parting, "be judge between you and me!"

How Oliver's Parliaments were formed didn't really matter, since he had the means to run the government without their help and in spite of their resistance. It seems he wanted to govern according to the constitution and replace the rule of force with the rule of law. However, he quickly realized that, despite being hated by both Royalists and Presbyterians, he could only be secure by being authoritarian. The first House of Commons that the people elected at his command challenged his authority and was dissolved without passing a single law. His second House of Commons, while acknowledging him as Protector and willing to make him King, stubbornly refused to accept his new Lords. He had no choice but to dissolve Parliament. "God," he said as he left, "be judge between you and me!"

Yet was the energy of the Protector's administration in nowise relaxed by these dissensions. Those soldiers who would not suffer him to assume the kingly title stood by him when he ventured on acts of power, as high as any English King has ever attempted. The government, therefore, though in form a republic, was in truth a despotism, moderated only by the wisdom, the sobriety, and the magnanimity of the despot. The country was divided into military districts. Those districts were placed under the command of Major Generals. Every insurrectionary movement was promptly put down and punished. The fear inspired by the power of the sword, in so strong, steady, and expert a hand, quelled the spirit both of Cavaliers and Levellers. The loyal gentry declared that they were still as ready as ever to risk their lives for the old government and the old dynasty, if there were the slightest hope of success: but to rush, at the head of their serving men and tenants, on the pikes of brigades victorious in a hundred battles and sieges, would be a frantic waste of innocent and honourable blood. Both Royalists and Republicans, having no hope in open resistance, began to revolve dark schemes of assassination: but the Protector's intelligence was good: his vigilance was unremitting; and, whenever he moved beyond the walls of his palace, the drawn swords and cuirasses of his trusty bodyguards encompassed him thick on every side.

Yet the energy of the Protector's administration was in no way diminished by these conflicts. Those soldiers who wouldn't let him take the title of king supported him when he took actions of power, as bold as any English King has ever attempted. So, while the government was technically a republic, it was actually a form of despotism, tempered only by the wisdom, restraint, and generosity of the despot. The country was divided into military districts, each overseen by Major Generals. Any rebellious movement was quickly suppressed and punished. The fear generated by the strength of the sword in such a capable and steady hand stifled the spirit of both Cavaliers and Levellers. The loyal gentry claimed they were still as ready as ever to risk their lives for the old government and the old dynasty, if there were any hope of success: but charging, at the head of their servants and tenants, into the ranks of brigades victorious in a hundred battles and sieges would be a reckless waste of innocent and honorable lives. Both Royalists and Republicans, seeing no hope in open resistance, began to devise dark plans for assassination: but the Protector's intelligence was sharp, his vigilance relentless; and whenever he stepped outside the walls of his palace, the drawn swords and armor of his loyal bodyguards surrounded him closely on all sides.

Had he been a cruel, licentious, and rapacious prince, the nation might have found courage in despair, and might have made a convulsive effort to free itself from military domination. But the grievances which the country suffered, though such as excited serious discontent, were by no means such as impel great masses of men to stake their lives, their fortunes, and the welfare of their families against fearful odds. The taxation, though heavier than it had been under the Stuarts, was not heavy when compared with that of the neighbouring states and with the resources of England. Property was secure. Even the Cavalier, who refrained from giving disturbance to the new settlement, enjoyed in peace whatever the civil troubles had left hem. The laws were violated only in cases where the safety of the Protector's person and government was concerned. Justice was administered between man and man with an exactness and purity not before known. Under no English government since the Reformation, had there been so little religious persecution. The unfortunate Roman Catholics, indeed, were held to be scarcely within the pale of Christian charity. But the clergy of the fallen Anglican Church were suffered to celebrate their worship on condition that they would abstain from preaching about politics. Even the Jews, whose public worship had, ever since the thirteenth century, been interdicted, were, in spite of the strong opposition of jealous traders and fanatical theologians, permitted to build a synagogue in London.

If he had been a cruel, indulgent, and greedy prince, the nation might have found the courage to rise up in desperation and made a desperate attempt to free itself from military rule. But the issues the country faced, while certainly causing serious discontent, were not enough to drive large groups of people to risk their lives, fortunes, and the well-being of their families against overwhelming odds. The taxes, although heavier than they had been under the Stuarts, were not burdensome compared to those in neighboring states and in relation to England's resources. Property was secure. Even the Royalists, who refrained from disrupting the new order, were able to enjoy in peace whatever the civil conflicts had left them. Laws were only broken in situations where the safety of the Protector and his government was at risk. Justice was carried out between individuals with a level of precision and fairness that hadn’t been seen before. Since the Reformation, no English government had persecuted so little for religious reasons. The unfortunate Roman Catholics were indeed considered to be barely part of the Christian community. However, clergy from the fallen Anglican Church were allowed to hold their services as long as they refrained from discussing politics. Even the Jews, whose public worship had been banned since the thirteenth century, were allowed to build a synagogue in London, despite strong objections from jealous merchants and fanatical theologians.

The Protector's foreign policy at the same time extorted the ungracious approbation of those who most detested him. The Cavaliers could scarcely refrain from wishing that one who had done so much to raise the fame of the nation had been a legitimate King; and the Republicans were forced to own that the tyrant suffered none but himself to wrong his country, and that, if he had robbed her of liberty, he had at least given her glory in exchange. After half a century during which England had been of scarcely more weight in European politics than Venice or Saxony, she at once became the most formidable power in the world, dictated terms of peace to the United Provinces, avenged the common injuries of Christendom on the pirates of Barbary, vanquished the Spaniards by land and sea, seized one of the finest West Indian islands, and acquired on the Flemish coast a fortress which consoled the national pride for the loss of Calais. She was supreme on the ocean. She was the head of the Protestant interest. All the reformed Churches scattered over Roman Catholic kingdoms acknowledged Cromwell as their guardian. The Huguenots of Languedoc, the shepherds who, in the hamlets of the Alps professed a Protestantism older than that of Augsburg, were secured from oppression by the mere terror of his great name The Pope himself was forced to preach humanity and moderation to Popish princes. For a voice which seldom threatened in vain had declared that, unless favour were shown to the people of God, the English guns should be heard in the Castle of Saint Angelo. In truth, there was nothing which Cromwell had, for his own sake and that of his family, so much reason to desire as a general religious war in Europe. In such a war he must have been the captain of the Protestant armies. The heart of England would have been with him. His victories would have been hailed with an unanimous enthusiasm unknown in the country since the rout of the Armada, and would have effaced the stain which one act, condemned by the general voice of the nation, has left on his splendid fame. Unhappily for him he had no opportunity of displaying his admirable military talents, except against the inhabitants of the British isles.

The Protector's foreign policy simultaneously earned the grudging approval of those who hated him the most. The Cavaliers could hardly help but wish that someone who had done so much to elevate the nation’s reputation had been a legitimate King; and the Republicans had to admit that the tyrant allowed no one but himself to harm his country, and that although he had taken away its liberty, he had at least exchanged it for glory. After fifty years during which England had barely mattered in European politics, she suddenly became the most powerful nation in the world, dictated peace terms to the United Provinces, avenged the shared grievances of Christendom against the Barbary pirates, defeated the Spaniards both on land and at sea, captured one of the finest West Indian islands, and acquired a fortress on the Flemish coast that restored national pride after the loss of Calais. She was dominant at sea. She was at the forefront of the Protestant cause. All the reformed Churches spread across Roman Catholic territories recognized Cromwell as their protector. The Huguenots of Languedoc, along with the shepherds in the villages of the Alps who practiced a version of Protestantism older than that of Augsburg, were shielded from persecution simply by the fear of his powerful name. The Pope himself had to preach compassion and moderation to Catholic princes. For a voice that rarely threatened without consequence had declared that, unless the people of God were shown favor, English cannons would be heard at the Castle of Saint Angelo. In truth, there was nothing that Cromwell had more reason to wish for, both for himself and his family, than a widespread religious war in Europe. In such a conflict, he would have been the leader of the Protestant armies. The heart of England would have been with him. His victories would have been celebrated with a unanimous enthusiasm not felt in the country since the defeat of the Armada, and would have erased the stain left on his glorious reputation by one act condemned by the general consensus of the nation. Unfortunately for him, he had no chance to showcase his remarkable military skills, except against the people of the British Isles.

While he lived his power stood firm, an object of mingled aversion, admiration, and dread to his subjects. Few indeed loved his government; but those who hated it most hated it less than they feared it. Had it been a worse government, it might perhaps have been overthrown in spite of all its strength. Had it been a weaker government, it would certainly have been overthrown in spite of all its merits. But it had moderation enough to abstain from those oppressions which drive men mad; and it had a force and energy which none but men driven mad by oppression would venture to encounter.

While he was in power, his rule was a mix of dislike, admiration, and fear for his people. Very few actually loved his government; however, those

It has often been affirmed, but with little reason, that Oliver died at a time fortunate for his renown, and that, if his life had been prolonged, it would probably have closed amidst disgraces and disasters. It is certain that he was, to the last, honoured by his soldiers, obeyed by the whole population of the British islands, and dreaded by all foreign powers, that he was laid among the ancient sovereigns of England with funeral pomp such as London had never before seen, and that he was succeeded by his son Richard as quietly as any King had ever been succeeded by any Prince of Wales.

It has often been said, though with little justification, that Oliver died at a moment that was good for his reputation, and that if he had lived longer, he likely would have faced disgrace and disaster. It's clear that he was honored by his soldiers until the end, obeyed by the entire population of the British islands, and feared by all foreign powers. He was buried among the ancient kings of England with a level of funeral grandeur that London had never witnessed before, and he was succeeded by his son Richard as smoothly as any king had ever been succeeded by a Prince of Wales.

During five months, the administration of Richard Cromwell went on so tranquilly and regularly that all Europe believed him to be firmly established on the chair of state. In truth his situation was in some respects much more advantageous than that of his father. The young man had made no enemy. His hands were unstained by civil blood. The Cavaliers themselves allowed him to be an honest, good-natured gentleman. The Presbyterian party, powerful both in numbers and in wealth, had been at deadly feud with the late Protector, but was disposed to regard the present Protector with favour. That party had always been desirous to see the old civil polity of the realm restored with some clearer definitions and some stronger safeguards for public liberty, but had many reasons for dreading the restoration of the old family. Richard was the very man for politicians of this description. His humanity, ingenuousness, and modesty, the mediocrity of his abilities, and the docility with which he submitted to the guidance of persons wiser than himself, admirably qualified him to be the head of a limited monarchy.

For five months, Richard Cromwell's administration ran so smoothly and consistently that all of Europe thought he was firmly established in power. In reality, his position was, in some ways, more favorable than his father's. The young man had made no enemies. His hands were clean from civil blood. Even the Cavaliers considered him an honest, good-natured gentleman. The Presbyterian party, strong in both numbers and wealth, had been in a bitter conflict with the late Protector but was inclined to view the current Protector positively. This party had always wanted to see the old political system of the realm restored with clearer definitions and stronger protections for public liberty, but they had many reasons to fear the return of the old monarchy. Richard was exactly the kind of leader that these politicians were looking for. His kindness, sincerity, and modesty, along with his average abilities and willingness to follow the guidance of those more knowledgeable than himself, made him well-suited to lead a limited monarchy.

For a time it seemed highly probable that he would, under the direction of able advisers, effect what his father had attempted in vain. A Parliament was called, and the writs were directed after the old fashion. The small boroughs which had recently been disfranchised regained their lost privilege: Manchester, Leeds, and Halifax ceased to return members; and the county of York was again limited to two knights. It may seem strange to a generation which has been excited almost to madness by the question of parliamentary reform that great shires and towns should have submitted with patience and even with complacency, to this change: but though speculative men might, even in that age, discern the vices of the old representative system, and predict that those vices would, sooner or later, produce serious practical evil, the practical evil had not yet been felt. Oliver's representative system, on the other hand, though constructed on sound principles, was not popular. Both the events in which it originated, and the effects which it had produced, prejudiced men against it. It had sprung from military violence. It had been fruitful of nothing but disputes. The whole nation was sick of government by the sword, and pined for government by the law. The restoration, therefore, even of anomalies and abuses, which were in strict conformity with the law, and which had been destroyed by the sword, gave general satisfaction.

For a while, it looked likely that he would, with the help of capable advisors, achieve what his father had tried and failed to do. A Parliament was summoned, and the writs were issued in the traditional way. The small boroughs that had recently lost their voting rights regained them: Manchester, Leeds, and Halifax stopped sending members; and the county of York was once again restricted to two knights. It might seem odd to a generation that has been stirred almost to frenzy over the issue of parliamentary reform that large counties and towns accepted this change patiently and even with a sense of satisfaction. However, while forward-thinking people might have recognized the flaws of the old representative system and predicted that these flaws would eventually lead to serious problems, those issues hadn't yet been experienced. Oliver's representative system, although based on sound principles, was not well-received by the public. Both the circumstances that led to its creation and the outcomes it had generated turned people against it. It had emerged from military force and had resulted in nothing but conflict. The entire nation was tired of rule by the sword and longed for rule by law. Therefore, the return, even of anomalies and abuses that were strictly legal and had been eliminated by violence, was generally welcomed.

Among the Commons there was a strong opposition, consisting partly of avowed Republicans, and partly of concealed Royalists: but a large and steady majority appeared to be favourable to the plan of reviving the old civil constitution under a new dynasty. Richard was solemnly recognised as first magistrate. The Commons not only consented to transact business with Oliver's Lords, but passed a vote acknowledging the right of those nobles who had, in the late troubles, taken the side of public liberty, to sit in the Upper House of Parliament without any new creation.

Among the Commons, there was significant opposition, comprising both open Republicans and hidden Royalists; however, a large and consistent majority seemed supportive of the idea of reinstating the old civil constitution under a new dynasty. Richard was formally recognized as the chief magistrate. The Commons not only agreed to conduct business with Oliver's Lords but also voted to acknowledge the right of those nobles who had sided with public liberty during the recent troubles to sit in the Upper House of Parliament without any new appointments.

Thus far the statesmen by whose advice Richard acted had been successful. Almost all the parts of the government were now constituted as they had been constituted at the commencement of the civil war. Had the Protector and the Parliament been suffered to proceed undisturbed, there can be little doubt that an order of things similar to that which was afterwards established under the House of Hanover would have been established under the House of Cromwell. But there was in the state a power more than sufficient to deal with Protector and Parliament together. Over the soldiers Richard had no authority except that which he derived from the great name which he had inherited. He had never led them to victory. He had never even borne arms. All his tastes and habits were pacific. Nor were his opinions and feelings on religious subjects approved by the military saints. That he was a good man he evinced by proofs more satisfactory than deep groans or long sermons, by humility and suavity when he was at the height of human greatness, and by cheerful resignation under cruel wrongs and misfortunes: but the cant then common in every guardroom gave him a disgust which he had not always the prudence to conceal. The officers who had the principal influence among the troops stationed near London were not his friends. They were men distinguished by valour and conduct in the field, but destitute of the wisdom and civil courage which had been conspicuous in their deceased leader. Some of them were honest, but fanatical, Independents and Republicans. Of this class Fleetwood was the representative. Others were impatient to be what Oliver had been. His rapid elevation, his prosperity and glory, his inauguration in the Hall, and his gorgeous obsequies in the Abbey, had inflamed their imagination. They were as well born as he, and as well educated: they could not understand why they were not as worthy to wear the purple robe, and to wield the sword of state; and they pursued the objects of their wild ambition, not, like him, with patience, vigilance, sagacity, and determination, but with the restlessness and irresolution characteristic of aspiring mediocrity. Among these feeble copies of a great original the most conspicuous was Lambert.

So far, the politicians advising Richard had been successful. Almost all parts of the government were now set up like they were at the start of the civil war. If the Protector and the Parliament had been allowed to continue without interference, it’s very likely that a system similar to what was later established under the House of Hanover would have been created under the House of Cromwell. However, there was a force in the state strong enough to handle both the Protector and Parliament at the same time. Richard had no real power over the soldiers except what came from the prestigious name he inherited. He had never led them to victory and had never even fought in battle. His preferences and habits were peaceful. Additionally, his beliefs and feelings about religion weren't accepted by the military leaders. He showed he was a good person through actions more convincing than loud sighs or lengthy sermons, displaying humility and kindness at the peak of his power, and by staying positive during tough times and unfair treatment. However, the pretentiousness common in every barrack bothered him, and he didn’t always hide his distaste. The officers with the most influence among the troops near London were not his allies. They were distinguished for their bravery and skill in battle, but lacked the wisdom and courage that had been evident in their late leader. Some were honest but fanatical Independents and Republicans, with Fleetwood being the main representative of this group. Others were eager to take on the role that Oliver had held. His swift rise to power, success, and accolades, his ceremony in the Hall, and his extravagant funeral in the Abbey had ignited their imaginations. They were just as well-born and well-educated as he was but couldn’t understand why they weren’t considered worthy of the purple robe and the sword of state. They pursued their lofty ambitions not with the patience, vigilance, insight, and determination of Oliver, but with the restlessness and indecisiveness typical of those striving for greatness without the capability. Among these poor imitators of a great original, the most notable was Lambert.

On the very day of Richard's accession the officers began to conspire against their new master. The good understanding which existed between him and his Parliament hastened the crisis. Alarm and resentment spread through the camp. Both the religious and the professional feelings of the army were deeply wounded. It seemed that the Independents were to be subjected to the Presbyterians, and that the men of the sword were to be subjected to the men of the gown. A coalition was formed between the military malecontents and the republican minority of the House of Commons. It may well be doubted whether Richard could have triumphed over that coalition, even if he had inherited his father's clear judgment and iron courage. It is certain that simplicity and meekness like his were not the qualities which the conjuncture required. He fell ingloriously, and without a struggle. He was used by the army as an instrument for the purpose of dissolving the Parliament, and was then contemptuously thrown aside. The officers gratified their republican allies by declaring that the expulsion of the Rump had been illegal, and by inviting that assembly to resume its functions. The old Speaker and a quorum of the old members came together, and were proclaimed, amidst the scarcely stifled derision and execration of the whole nation, the supreme power in the commonwealth. It was at the same time expressly declared that there should be no first magistrate, and no House of Lords.

On the very day Richard took the throne, the officers started to plot against their new leader. The good relationship he had with his Parliament accelerated the crisis. Fear and anger spread through the camp. Both the religious and professional feelings of the army were seriously hurt. It looked like the Independents were going to be dominated by the Presbyterians, and that the soldiers would be controlled by the lawyers. A coalition formed between the disgruntled military and the republican minority in the House of Commons. It’s doubtful that Richard could have defeated that coalition, even if he had inherited his father's keen judgment and strong will. It's clear that his simplicity and humility were the wrong traits for such a situation. He fell from power without glory and without a fight. The army used him as a tool to dissolve Parliament and then discarded him with contempt. The officers pleased their republican allies by claiming that the expulsion of the Rump was illegal and by inviting that assembly to return to action. The old Speaker and a quorum of previous members gathered and were announced, amid the barely contained mockery and scorn of the entire nation, as the supreme authority in the commonwealth. It was also explicitly stated that there would be no chief magistrate and no House of Lords.

But this state of things could not last. On the day on which the long Parliament revived, revived also its old quarrel with the army. Again the Rump forgot that it owed its existence to the pleasure of the soldiers, and began to treat them as subjects. Again the doors of the House of Commons were closed by military violence; and a provisional government, named by the officers, assumed the direction of affairs.

But this situation couldn't continue. On the day the long Parliament reconvened, its old conflict with the army reignited. Once more, the Rump forgot that it existed because of the soldiers' goodwill and started treating them as subjects. The doors of the House of Commons were once again shut by military force, and a temporary government appointed by the officers took control of the situation.

Meanwhile the sense of great evils, and the strong apprehension of still greater evils close at hand, had at length produced an alliance between the Cavaliers and the Presbyterians. Some Presbyterians had, indeed, been disposed to such an alliance even before the death of Charles the First: but it was not till after the fall of Richard Cromwell that the whole party became eager for the restoration of the royal house. There was no longer any reasonable hope that the old constitution could be reestablished under a new dynasty. One choice only was left, the Stuarts or the army. The banished family had committed great faults; but it had dearly expiated those faults, and had undergone a long, and, it might be hoped, a salutary training in the school of adversity. It was probable that Charles the Second would take warning by the fate of Charles the First. But, be this as it might, the dangers which threatened the country were such that, in order to avert them, some opinions might well be compromised, and some risks might well be incurred. It seemed but too likely that England would fall under the most odious and degrading of all kinds of government, under a government uniting all the evils of despotism to all the evils of anarchy. Anything was preferable to the yoke of a succession of incapable and inglorious tyrants, raised to power, like the Deys of Barbary, by military revolutions recurring at short intervals. Lambert seemed likely to be the first of these rulers; but within a year Lambert might give place to Desborough, and Desborough to Harrison. As often as the truncheon was transferred from one feeble hand to another, the nation would be pillaged for the purpose of bestowing a fresh donative on the troops. If the Presbyterians obstinately stood aloof from the Royalists, the state was lost; and men might well doubt whether, by the combined exertions of Presbyterians and Royalists, it could be saved. For the dread of that invincible army was on all the inhabitants of the island; and the Cavaliers, taught by a hundred disastrous fields how little numbers can effect against discipline, were even more completely cowed than the Roundheads.

Meanwhile, the awareness of serious problems and the strong fear of even worse problems looming nearby finally led to an alliance between the Cavaliers and the Presbyterians. Some Presbyterians had actually been open to such an alliance even before the death of Charles the First, but it wasn't until after Richard Cromwell's fall that the entire group became eager for the return of the royal family. There was no longer any realistic hope that the old system could be restored under a new dynasty. The only option left was either the Stuarts or the army. The exiled family had made significant mistakes, but they had paid for those mistakes dearly and had undergone a long, and hopefully, beneficial period of hardship. It was likely that Charles the Second would learn from the fate of Charles the First. However, regardless of that, the threats facing the country were such that, to prevent them, some beliefs might need to be compromised, and some risks might have to be taken. It seemed all too likely that England could fall under the most shameful and humiliating type of government, one that combined the worst aspects of dictatorship with the chaos of anarchy. Anything was better than being ruled by a series of incompetent and dishonorable tyrants, who came to power like the Deys of Barbary, through military revolutions happening frequently. Lambert seemed poised to be the first of these leaders, but within a year, Lambert might be replaced by Desborough, and Desborough by Harrison. Each time the power was passed from one weak hand to another, the nation would be robbed to provide another reward for the troops. If the Presbyterians stubbornly kept their distance from the Royalists, the state was doomed; and it was reasonable to doubt whether the combined efforts of Presbyterians and Royalists could actually save it. The fear of that unbeatable army was felt by everyone on the island, and the Cavaliers, having learned through countless disastrous battles how little size matters against discipline, were even more intimidated than the Roundheads.

While the soldiers remained united, all the plots and risings of the malecontents were ineffectual. But a few days after the second expulsion of the Rump, came tidings which gladdened the hearts of all who were attached either to monarchy or to liberty: That mighty force which had, during many years, acted as one man, and which, while so acting, had been found irresistible, was at length divided against itself. The army of Scotland had done good service to the Commonwealth, and was in the highest state of efficiency. It had borne no part in the late revolutions, and had seen them with indignation resembling the indignation which the Roman legions posted on the Danube and the Euphrates felt, when they learned that the empire had been put up to sale by the Praetorian Guards. It was intolerable that certain regiments should, merely because they happened to be quartered near Westminster, take on themselves to make and unmake several governments in the course of half a year. If it were fit that the state should be regulated by the soldiers, those soldiers who upheld the English ascendency on the north of the Tweed were as well entitled to a voice as those who garrisoned the Tower of London. There appears to have been less fanaticism among the troops stationed in Scotland than in any other part of the army; and their general, George Monk, was himself the very opposite of a zealot. He had at the commencement of the civil war, borne arms for the King, had been made prisoner by the Roundheads, had then accepted a commission from the Parliament, and, with very slender pretensions to saintship, had raised himself to high commands by his courage and professional skill. He had been an useful servant to both the Protectors, and had quietly acquiesced when the officers at Westminster had pulled down Richard and restored the Long Parliament, and would perhaps have acquiesced as quietly in the second expulsion of the Long Parliament, if the provisional government had abstained from giving him cause of offence and apprehension. For his nature was cautious and somewhat sluggish; nor was he at all disposed to hazard sure and moderate advantages for the chalice of obtaining even the most splendid success. He seems to have been impelled to attack the new rulers of the Commonwealth less by the hope that, if he overthrew them, he should become great, than by the fear that, if he submitted to them, he should not even be secure. Whatever were his motives, he declared himself the champion of the oppressed civil power, refused to acknowledge the usurped authority of the provisional government, and, at the head of seven thousand veterans, marched into England.

As long as the soldiers stayed united, all the schemes and uprisings of the discontented were pointless. But just a few days after the second removal of the Rump, news came that thrilled the hearts of everyone loyal to either the monarchy or liberty: That powerful force which had, for many years, acted as one unified group, and had proven irresistible in doing so, was finally divided against itself. The army in Scotland had done great service to the Commonwealth and was in top shape. It had not participated in the recent revolutions and had watched them with the same anger that the Roman legions stationed by the Danube and Euphrates felt upon learning that the empire had been sold off by the Praetorian Guards. It was unacceptable that certain regiments, just because they were based near Westminster, pretended they could create and dismiss several governments within half a year. If it were appropriate for the soldiers to regulate the state, those soldiers who supported English control north of the Tweed deserved just as much say as those guarding the Tower of London. The soldiers stationed in Scotland seemed to have less fanaticism than any other part of the army; and their general, George Monk, was the complete opposite of a zealot. At the start of the civil war, he had fought for the King, was captured by the Roundheads, and then took a commission from the Parliament, rising to high ranks through his bravery and military skill rather than any claims to saintliness. He had served both Protectors well and had quietly accepted when the officers at Westminster removed Richard and restored the Long Parliament, and would probably have accepted just as quietly the second removal of the Long Parliament if the provisional government hadn't given him cause for concern. His nature was cautious and somewhat slow to act; he wasn't the type to risk steady and modest gains for a chance at even the grandest success. He seemed to be driven to confront the new rulers of the Commonwealth less by the hope of personal glory if he overthrew them, and more by the fear that submitting to them would leave him insecure. Whatever his reasons, he declared himself the defender of the oppressed civil authority, refused to recognize the usurped power of the provisional government, and, at the head of seven thousand seasoned soldiers, marched into England.

This step was the signal for a general explosion. The people everywhere refused to pay taxes. The apprentices of the City assembled by thousands and clamoured for a free Parliament. The fleet sailed up the Thames, and declared against the tyranny of the soldiers. The soldiers, no longer under the control of one commanding mind, separated into factions. Every regiment, afraid lest it should be left alone a mark for the vengeance of the oppressed nation, hastened to make a separate peace. Lambert, who had hastened northward to encounter the army of Scotland, was abandoned by his troops, and became a prisoner. During thirteen years the civil power had, in every conflict, been compelled to yield to the military power. The military power now humbled itself before the civil power. The Rump, generally hated and despised, but still the only body in the country which had any show of legal authority, returned again to the house from which it had been twice ignominiously expelled.

This step triggered a widespread uprising. People everywhere refused to pay taxes. Thousands of apprentices in the City gathered and demanded a free Parliament. The fleet sailed up the Thames, opposing the soldiers' tyranny. The soldiers, no longer united under one leader, split into factions. Each regiment, fearing they would be singled out for the anger of the oppressed nation, rushed to negotiate their own peace. Lambert, who had gone north to confront the Scottish army, was abandoned by his troops and taken prisoner. For thirteen years, civil power had been forced to submit to military power in every conflict. Now, military power humbly submitted to civil power. The Rump, widely disliked and looked down upon, but still the only group in the country that had any semblance of legal authority, returned to the house from which it had been expelled twice in disgrace.

In the mean time Monk was advancing towards London. Wherever he came, the gentry flocked round him, imploring him to use his power for the purpose of restoring peace and liberty to the distracted nation. The General, coldblooded, taciturn, zealous for no polity and for no religion, maintained an impenetrable reserve. What were at this time his plans, and whether he had any plan, may well be doubted. His great object, apparently, was to keep himself, as long as possible, free to choose between several lines of action. Such, indeed, is commonly the policy of men who are, like him, distinguished rather by wariness than by farsightedness. It was probably not till he had been some days in the capital that he had made up his mind. The cry of the whole people was for a free Parliament; and there could be no doubt that a Parliament really free would instantly restore the exiled family. The Rump and the soldiers were still hostile to the House of Stuart. But the Rump was universally detested and despised. The power of the soldiers was indeed still formidable, but had been greatly diminished by discord. They had no head. They had recently been, in many parts of the country, arrayed against each other. On the very day before Monk reached London, there was a fight in the Strand between the cavalry and the infantry. An united army had long kept down a divided nation; but the nation was now united, and the army was divided.

Meanwhile, Monk was making his way to London. Wherever he went, the local gentry surrounded him, begging him to use his influence to restore peace and freedom to the troubled nation. The General, cold and quiet, showing no strong loyalty to any political party or religion, kept his thoughts to himself. It’s uncertain what his plans were at that time, or if he even had any. His main aim seemed to be staying flexible, allowing himself to choose from several options for action as long as he could. This is often the strategy of those like him, who are known more for being cautious than for having clear foresight. It probably wasn’t until he spent a few days in the capital that he made a decision. The entire population was calling for a free Parliament, and it was clear that a truly free Parliament would quickly bring back the exiled royal family. The Rump and the soldiers were still opposed to the House of Stuart, but the Rump was widely hated and looked down upon. The soldiers still wielded considerable power, but it had been weakened significantly by infighting. They had no clear leader, and they had recently been fighting among themselves in many regions of the country. The day before Monk arrived in London, there was a skirmish in the Strand between the cavalry and the infantry. A united army had long kept a divided nation in check, but now the nation was united, while the army was split.

During a short time the dissimulation or irresolution of Monk kept all parties in a state of painful suspense. At length he broke silence, and declared for a free Parliament.

For a brief period, Monk's duplicity and indecision left everyone in a state of uncomfortable uncertainty. Eventually, he spoke up and announced his support for a free Parliament.

As soon as his declaration was known, the whole nation was wild with delight. Wherever he appeared thousands thronged round him, shouting and blessing his name. The bells of all England rang joyously: the gutters ran with ale; and, night after night, the sky five miles round London was reddened by innumerable bonfires. Those Presbyterian members of the House of Commons who had many years before been expelled by the army, returned to their seats, and were hailed with acclamations by great multitudes, which filled Westminster Hall and Palace Yard. The Independent leaders no longer dared to show their faces in the streets, and were scarcely safe within their own dwellings. Temporary provision was made for the government: writs were issued for a general election; and then that memorable Parliament, which had, in the course of twenty eventful years, experienced every variety of fortune, which had triumphed over its sovereign, which had been enslaved and degraded by its servants, which had been twice ejected and twice restored, solemnly decreed its own dissolution.

As soon as his announcement was made public, the entire nation went wild with excitement. Wherever he went, thousands gathered around him, cheering and praising his name. The bells across England rang joyfully; ale flowed in the streets, and night after night, the sky five miles around London lit up with countless bonfires. The Presbyterian members of the House of Commons, who had been ousted by the army many years earlier, returned to their seats and were welcomed with cheers by huge crowds that filled Westminster Hall and Palace Yard. The Independent leaders no longer dared to show themselves in public and were hardly safe in their own homes. Temporary measures were taken for the government: writs were issued for a general election; and then that historic Parliament, which had over twenty tumultuous years faced every kind of fortune, triumphed over its sovereign, was enslaved and degraded by its servants, and had been kicked out twice and restored twice, solemnly declared its own dissolution.

The result of the elections was such as might have been expected from the temper of the nation. The new House of Commons consisted, with few exceptions, of persons friendly to the royal family. The Presbyterians formed the majority.

The outcome of the elections was what you would expect given the mood of the country. The new House of Commons was mostly made up of people who supported the royal family, with the Presbyterians making up the majority.

That there would be a restoration now seemed almost certain; but whether there would be a peaceable restoration was matter of painful doubt. The soldiers were in a gloomy and savage mood. They hated the title of King. They hated the name of Stuart. They hated Presbyterianism much, and Prelacy more. They saw with bitter indignation that the close of their long domination was approaching, and that a life of inglorious toil and penury was before them. They attributed their ill fortune to the weakness of some generals, and to the treason of others. One hour of their beloved Oliver might even now restore the glory which had departed. Betrayed, disunited, and left without any chief in whom they could confide, they were yet to be dreaded. It was no light thing to encounter the rage and despair of fifty thousand fighting men, whose backs no enemy had ever seen. Monk, and those with whom he acted, were well aware that the crisis was most perilous. They employed every art to soothe and to divide the discontented warriors. At the same time vigorous preparation was made for a conflict. The army of Scotland, now quartered in London, was kept in good humour by bribes, praises, and promises. The wealthy citizens grudged nothing to a redcoat, and were indeed so liberal of their best wine, that warlike saints were sometimes seen in a condition not very honourable either to their religious or to their military character. Some refractory regiments Monk ventured to disband. In the mean time the greatest exertions were made by the provisional government, with the strenuous aid of the whole body of the gentry and magistracy, to organise the militia. In every county the trainbands were held ready to march; and this force cannot be estimated at less than a hundred and twenty thousand men. In Hyde Park twenty thousand citizens, well armed and accoutred, passed in review, and showed a spirit which justified the hope that, in case of need, they would fight manfully for their shops and firesides. The fleet was heartily with the nation. It was a stirring time, a time of anxiety, yet of hope. The prevailing opinion was that England would be delivered, but not without a desperate and bloody struggle, and that the class which had so long ruled by the sword would perish by the sword.

It now seemed almost certain that there would be a restoration; however, whether it would be peaceful was a painful uncertainty. The soldiers were in a dark and aggressive mood. They despised the title of King. They resented the name of Stuart. They disliked Presbyterianism a lot, and they hated Prelacy even more. They bitterly realized that the end of their long dominance was approaching, and that a life of unrecognized effort and hardship lay ahead of them. They blamed their misfortunes on the weakness of some generals, and the betrayal of others. Just one hour with their beloved Oliver could restore the glory that had faded away. Betrayed, divided, and left without any leader they could trust, they were still a force to be reckoned with. It was no small matter to face the anger and despair of fifty thousand battle-ready men, whose backs no enemy had ever seen. Monk and those aligned with him recognized that the situation was extremely dangerous. They used every tactic to calm and separate the disgruntled soldiers. At the same time, they made vigorous preparations for a fight. The Scottish army, now stationed in London, was kept in good spirits with bribes, praise, and promises. Wealthy citizens were generous to the soldiers, even providing so much of their best wine that the once warlike men were sometimes seen in states not very respectable for their religious or military standing. Monk took the risk of disbanding some rebellious regiments. Meanwhile, the provisional government made significant efforts, with strong support from the gentry and local officials, to organize the militia. In every county, the local militia was kept ready to march; this force was estimated to be at least one hundred and twenty thousand men. In Hyde Park, twenty thousand citizens, well-armed and equipped, marched in review, demonstrating a spirit that gave hope that they would fight bravely for their homes if needed. The navy was fully behind the nation. It was a tumultuous time, filled with both anxiety and hope. The general belief was that England would be liberated, but not without a desperate and bloody fight, and that the class that had ruled by force for so long would ultimately fall by the sword.

Happily the dangers of a conflict were averted. There was indeed one moment of extreme peril. Lambert escaped from his confinement, and called his comrades to arms. The flame of civil war was actually rekindled; but by prompt and vigorous exertion it was trodden out before it had time to spread. The luckless imitator of Cromwell was again a prisoner. The failure of his enterprise damped the spirit of the soldiers; and they sullenly resigned themselves to their fate.

Happily, the dangers of a conflict were avoided. There was indeed one moment of extreme risk. Lambert broke free from his confinement and rallied his comrades to arms. The spark of civil war was actually reignited; but with quick and strong action, it was snuffed out before it could spread. The unfortunate imitator of Cromwell was once again a prisoner. The failure of his plan dampened the soldiers' spirits, and they reluctantly accepted their fate.

The new Parliament, which, having been called without the royal writ, is more accurately described as a Convention, met at Westminster. The Lords repaired to the hall, from which they had, during more than eleven years, been excluded by force. Both Houses instantly invited the King to return to his country. He was proclaimed with pomp never before known. A gallant fleet convoyed him from Holland to the coast of Kent. When he landed, the cliffs of Dover were covered by thousands of gazers, among whom scarcely one could be found who was not weeping with delight. The journey to London was a continued triumph. The whole road from Rochester was bordered by booths and tents, and looked like an interminable fair. Everywhere flags were flying, bells and music sounding, wine and ale flowing in rivers to the health of him whose return was the return of peace, of law, and of freedom. But in the midst of the general joy, one spot presented a dark and threatening aspect. On Blackheath the army was drawn up to welcome the sovereign. He smiled, bowed, and extended his hand graciously to the lips of the colonels and majors. But all his courtesy was vain. The countenances of the soldiers were sad and lowering; and had they given way to their feelings, the festive pageant of which they reluctantly made a part would have had a mournful and bloody end. But there was no concert among them. Discord and defection had left them no confidence in their chiefs or in each other. The whole array of the City of London was under arms. Numerous companies of militia had assembled from various parts of the realm, under the command of loyal noblemen and gentlemen, to welcome the King. That great day closed in peace; and the restored wanderer reposed safe in the palace of his ancestors.

The new Parliament, which was called without the royal writ, is more accurately called a Convention, met at Westminster. The Lords went to the hall, from which they had been forcefully excluded for over eleven years. Both Houses immediately invited the King to return to his country. He was welcomed with unprecedented pomp. A grand fleet escorted him from Holland to the coast of Kent. When he landed, the cliffs of Dover were filled with thousands of onlookers, nearly all of whom were crying tears of joy. The journey to London was a constant celebration. The entire road from Rochester was lined with booths and tents, resembling an endless fair. Everywhere, flags were flying, bells were ringing, and music was playing, with wine and ale flowing freely in celebration of the man whose return signified the return of peace, law, and freedom. But amid all the happiness, one area looked dark and foreboding. On Blackheath, the army was assembled to welcome their sovereign. He smiled, bowed, and graciously extended his hand to the lips of the colonels and majors. But all his kindness was wasted. The soldiers' faces were grim and serious; had they shown their true feelings, the festive occasion, which they reluctantly participated in, could have ended in sorrow and bloodshed. However, there was no unity among them. Discord and disloyalty had eroded their trust in their leaders and in one another. The entire City of London was armed and ready. Numerous militia companies had gathered from various parts of the realm, led by loyal nobles and gentlemen, to greet the King. That great day ended peacefully, and the returning wanderer rested safely in the palace of his ancestors.





CHAPTER II.

THE history of England, during the seventeenth century, is the history of the transformation of a limited monarchy, constituted after the fashion of the middle ages, into a limited monarchy suited to that more advanced state of society in which the public charges can no longer be borne by the estates of the crown, and in which the public defence can no longer be entrusted to a feudal militia. We have seen that the politicians who were at the head of the Long Parliament made, in 1642, a great effort to accomplish this change by transferring, directly and formally, to the estates of the realm the choice of ministers, the command of the army, and the superintendence of the whole executive administration. This scheme was, perhaps, the best that could then be contrived: but it was completely disconcerted by the course which the civil war took. The Houses triumphed, it is true; but not till after such a struggle as made it necessary for them to call into existence a power which they could not control, and which soon began to domineer over all orders and all parties: During a few years, the evils inseparable from military government were, in some degree, mitigated by the wisdom and magnanimity of the great man who held the supreme command. But, when the sword, which he had wielded, with energy indeed, but with energy always guided by good sense and generally tempered by good nature, had passed to captains who possessed neither his abilities nor his virtues. It seemed too probable that order and liberty would perish in one ignominious ruin.

The history of England in the seventeenth century is all about the shift from a limited monarchy, set up like the ones in the Middle Ages, to a limited monarchy that matched the more advanced society where the costs of governance could no longer be shouldered by the crown's estates, and where public defense could no longer rely on a feudal military. We saw how the leaders of the Long Parliament made a significant effort in 1642 to bring about this change by formally transferring the power to choose ministers, command the army, and oversee the entire executive administration to the realm's estates. This plan was probably the best that could be put together at the time, but it was completely thrown off course by the events of the civil war. The Houses did prevail, but only after a struggle that forced them to create a power they couldn’t control, which soon started to dominate all groups and factions. For a few years, the problems that come with military rule were somewhat eased by the wisdom and generosity of the great leader in command. However, once the sword he wielded—although with great energy, always guided by common sense and mostly tempered by kindness—fell into the hands of leaders lacking his skills and virtues, it seemed likely that both order and liberty would meet a shameful end.

That ruin was happily averted. It has been too much the practice of writers zealous for freedom to represent the Restoration as a disastrous event, and to condemn the folly or baseness of that Convention, which recalled the royal family without exacting new securities against maladministration. Those who hold this language do not comprehend the real nature of the crisis which followed the deposition of Richard Cromwell. England was in imminent danger of falling under the tyranny of a succession of small men raised up and pulled down by military caprice. To deliver the country from the domination of the soldiers was the first object of every enlightened patriot: but it was an object which, while the soldiers were united, the most sanguine could scarcely expect to attain. On a sudden a gleam of hope appeared. General was opposed to general, army to army. On the use which might be made of one auspicious moment depended the future destiny of the nation. Our ancestors used that moment well. They forgot old injuries, waved petty scruples, adjourned to a more convenient season all dispute about the reforms which our institutions needed, and stood together, Cavaliers and Roundheads, Episcopalians and Presbyterians, in firm union, for the old laws of the land against military despotism. The exact partition of power among King, Lords, and Commons might well be postponed till it had been decided whether England should be governed by King, Lords, and Commons, or by cuirassiers and pikemen. Had the statesmen of the Convention taken a different course, had they held long debates on the principles of government, had they drawn up a new constitution and sent it to Charles, had conferences been opened, had couriers been passing and repassing during some weeks between Westminster and the Netherlands, with projects and counterprojects, replies by Hyde and rejoinders by Prynne, the coalition on which the public safety depended would have been dissolved: the Presbyterians and Royalists would certainly have quarrelled: the military factions might possibly have been reconciled; and the misjudging friends of liberty might long have regretted, under a rule worse than that of the worst Stuart, the golden opportunity which had been suffered to escape.

That disaster was thankfully avoided. Many writers passionate about freedom tend to portray the Restoration as a terrible event and criticize the foolishness or dishonesty of the Convention that brought back the royal family without demanding new safeguards against mismanagement. Those who express these sentiments do not understand the actual nature of the crisis that followed Richard Cromwell's removal. England was at serious risk of falling under the control of a series of weak leaders who were raised and toppled by military whims. The primary goal of every enlightened patriot was to free the country from military rule, but achieving this while the soldiers were united seemed unlikely, even to the most optimistic. Then, suddenly, a flicker of hope appeared. One general opposed another, one army clashed with another. The fate of the nation relied on how one pivotal moment was used. Our ancestors seized that moment wisely. They put aside past grievances, overlooked minor issues, postponed discussions about needed reforms, and united—Cavaliers and Roundheads, Episcopalians and Presbyterians—against military tyranny, standing together for the old laws of the land. The precise division of power among the King, Lords, and Commons could be delayed until it was determined whether England would be governed by them or by soldiers in armor and pike-men. If the statesmen of the Convention had taken a different approach, if they had engaged in long discussions about government principles, if they had created a new constitution to present to Charles, if there had been weeks of back-and-forth between Westminster and the Netherlands with proposals and counterproposals, responses from Hyde and replies from Prynne, the coalition necessary for public safety would have broken apart: the Presbyterians and Royalists would likely have fought, the military factions might have found common ground, and the misguided friends of liberty could have long regretted, under a rule worse than the worst Stuart, the golden opportunity that had slipped away.

The old civil polity was, therefore, by the general consent of both the great parties, reestablished. It was again exactly what it had been when Charles the First, eighteen years before, withdrew from his capital. All those acts of the Long Parliament which had received the royal assent were admitted to be still in full force. One fresh concession, a concession in which the Cavaliers were even more deeply interested than the Roundheads, was easily obtained from the restored King. The military tenure of land had been originally created as a means of national defence. But in the course of ages whatever was useful in the institution had disappeared; and nothing was left but ceremonies and grievances. A landed proprietor who held an estate under the crown by knight service,—and it was thus that most of the soil of England was held,—had to pay a large fine on coming to his property. He could not alienate one acre without purchasing a license. When he died, if his domains descended to an infant, the sovereign was guardian, and was not only entitled to great part of the rents during the minority, but could require the ward, under heavy penalties, to marry any person of suitable rank. The chief bait which attracted a needy sycophant to the court was the hope of obtaining as the reward of servility and flattery, a royal letter to an heiress. These abuses had perished with the monarchy. That they should not revive with it was the wish of every landed gentleman in the kingdom. They were, therefore, solemnly abolished by statute; and no relic of the ancient tenures in chivalry was allowed to remain except those honorary services which are still, at a coronation, rendered to the person of the sovereign by some lords of manors.

The old civil government was, therefore, reestablished by the agreement of both major parties. It was once again exactly what it was when Charles the First left his capital eighteen years earlier. All the acts of the Long Parliament that had royal approval were recognized as still valid. One new concession, which the Cavaliers cared about even more than the Roundheads, was easily granted by the restored King. The military tenure of land was originally created for national defense. However, over time, what was useful about it had faded away, leaving only rituals and complaints. A landowner who held property under the crown through knight service—which was how most of England's land was held—had to pay a hefty fine to inherit it. He couldn't sell even one acre without getting permission. When he died and his land went to a minor, the king acted as guardian, entitled to a significant portion of the rents during the child's minority. He could also require the ward, under severe penalties, to marry someone of appropriate status. The main temptation that drew desperate outsiders to the court was the chance of receiving a royal letter to propose to a rich heiress as a reward for their flattery and servitude. These issues had disappeared with the monarchy. Ensuring they wouldn’t come back was important to every landowner in the kingdom. They were thus officially abolished by law, and no remnants of the ancient chivalric tenures were left, except for the honorary services still rendered to the sovereign by some lords at a coronation.

The troops were now to be disbanded. Fifty thousand men, accustomed to the profession of arms, were at once thrown on the world: and experience seemed to warrant the belief that this change would produce much misery and crime, that the discharged veterans would be seen begging in every street, or that they would be driven by hunger to pillage. But no such result followed. In a few months there remained not a trace indicating that the most formidable army in the world had just been absorbed into the mass of the community. The Royalists themselves confessed that, in every department of honest industry the discarded warriors prospered beyond other men, that none was charged with any theft or robbery, that none was heard to ask an alms, and that, if a baker, a mason, or a waggoner attracted notice by his diligence and sobriety, he was in all probability one of Oliver's old soldiers.

The troops were now being disbanded. Fifty thousand men, used to military life, were suddenly released into the world: and experience suggested that this change would lead to a lot of suffering and crime, that the discharged veterans would be seen begging on every street, or that they would be pushed by hunger to steal. But no such outcome occurred. Within a few months, there was no sign that the strongest army in the world had just become part of the community. The Royalists themselves admitted that, in every honest job, the former soldiers thrived more than others, that none were accused of theft or robbery, that none were heard asking for handouts, and that if a baker, a mason, or a wagon driver stood out for his hard work and sobriety, he was likely one of Oliver’s former soldiers.

The military tyranny had passed away; but it had left deep and enduring traces in the public mind. The name of standing army was long held in abhorrence: and it is remarkable that this feeling was even stronger among the Cavaliers than among the Roundheads. It ought to be considered as a most fortunate circumstance that, when our country was, for the first and last time, ruled by the sword, the sword was in the hands, not of legitimate princes, but of those rebels who slew the King and demolished the Church. Had a prince with a title as good as that of Charles, commanded an army as good as that of Cromwell, there would have been little hope indeed for the liberties of England. Happily that instrument by which alone the monarchy could be made absolute became an object of peculiar horror and disgust to the monarchical party, and long continued to be inseparably associated in the imagination of Royalists and Prelatists with regicide and field preaching. A century after the death of Cromwell, the Tories still continued to clamour against every augmentation of the regular soldiery, and to sound the praise of a national militia. So late as the year 1786, a minister who enjoyed no common measure of their confidence found it impossible to overcome their aversion to his scheme of fortifying the coast: nor did they ever look with entire complacency on the standing army, till the French Revolution gave a new direction to their apprehensions.

The military tyranny had ended, but it left deep and lasting marks on the public consciousness. The very idea of a standing army was long detested, and interestingly, this sentiment was even stronger among the Cavaliers than the Roundheads. It should be seen as a fortunate situation that, when our country was ruled, for the first and last time, by force, that force was not in the hands of legitimate rulers but rather of the rebels who executed the King and dismantled the Church. If a prince with a title as respectable as Charles had commanded an army as formidable as Cromwell's, there would have been little hope for the freedoms of England. Fortunately, the very tool that could have made monarchy absolute became something the monarchy supporters viewed with horror and disgust, and it remained firmly linked in the minds of Royalists and Prelatists with regicide and field preaching. A century after Cromwell's death, the Tories still protested against any increase in the regular army and praised the idea of a national militia. As late as 1786, a minister who had their considerable confidence found it impossible to overcome their dislike for his plan to fortify the coast; they never fully accepted the standing army until the French Revolution shifted their concerns.

The coalition which had restored the King terminated with the danger from which it had sprung; and two hostile parties again appeared ready for conflict. Both, indeed, were agreed as to the propriety of inflicting punishment on some unhappy men who were, at that moment, objects of almost universal hatred. Cromwell was no more; and those who had fled before him were forced to content themselves with the miserable satisfaction of digging up, hanging, quartering, and burning the remains of the greatest prince that has ever ruled England.

The alliance that had brought back the King ended with the threat that had caused it to form; and two opposing groups were once again poised for battle. They both agreed on the need to punish some unfortunate individuals who were, at that time, universally despised. Cromwell was gone, and those who had escaped from him had to settle for the grim satisfaction of exhuming, hanging, dismembering, and burning the remains of the greatest monarch to ever rule England.

Other objects of vengeance, few indeed, yet too many, were found among the republican chiefs. Soon, however, the conquerors, glutted with the blood of the regicides, turned against each other. The Roundheads, while admitting the virtues of the late King, and while condemning the sentence passed upon him by an illegal tribunal, yet maintained that his administration had been, in many things, unconstitutional, and that the Houses had taken arms against him from good motives and on strong grounds. The monarchy, these politicians conceived, had no worse enemy than the flatterer who exalted prerogative above the law, who condemned all opposition to regal encroachments, and who reviled, not only Cromwell and Harrison, but Pym and Hampden, as traitors. If the King wished for a quiet and prosperous reign, he must confide in those who, though they had drawn the sword in defence of the invaded privileges of Parliament, had yet exposed themselves to the rage of the soldiers in order to save his father, and had taken the chief part in bringing back the royal family.

Other targets of revenge, though few, were discovered among the republican leaders. Soon, though, the victors, overwhelmed by the blood of the regicides, turned on each other. The Roundheads, while acknowledging the virtues of the late King and condemning the sentence handed down by an illegal court, still argued that his rule had been unconstitutional in many respects, and that the Houses had taken up arms against him for good reasons and with just cause. These politicians believed that the monarchy had no worse enemy than the flatterer who put royal power above the law, who condemned any resistance to royal overreach, and who denounced not only Cromwell and Harrison but also Pym and Hampden as traitors. If the King wanted a peaceful and successful reign, he needed to trust those who, although they had taken up arms to defend the encroached privileges of Parliament, had also put themselves at risk from the soldiers to save his father, and had played a key role in restoring the royal family.

The feeling of the Cavaliers was widely different. During eighteen years they had, through all vicissitudes, been faithful to the Crown. Having shared the distress of their prince, were they not to share his triumph? Was no distinction to be made between them and the disloyal subject who had fought against his rightful sovereign, who had adhered to Richard Cromwell, and who had never concurred in the restoration of the Stuarts, till it appeared that nothing else could save the nation from the tyranny of the army? Grant that such a man had, by his recent services, fairly earned his pardon. Yet were his services, rendered at the eleventh hour, to be put in comparison with the toils and sufferings of those who had borne the burden and heat of the day? Was he to be ranked with men who had no need of the royal clemency, with men who had, in every part of their lives, merited the royal gratitude? Above all, was he to be suffered to retain a fortune raised out of the substance of the ruined defenders of the throne? Was it not enough that his head and his patrimonial estate, a hundred times forfeited to justice, were secure, and that he shared, with the rest of the nation, in the blessings of that mild government of which he had long been the foe? Was it necessary that he should be rewarded for his treason at the expense of men whose only crime was the fidelity with which they had observed their oath of allegiance. And what interest had the King in gorging his old enemies with prey torn from his old friends? What confidence could be placed in men who had opposed their sovereign, made war on him, imprisoned him, and who, even now, instead of hanging down their heads in shame and contrition, vindicated all that they had done, and seemed to think that they had given an illustrious proof of loyalty by just stopping short of regicide? It was true they had lately assisted to set up the throne: but it was not less true that they had previously pulled it down, and that they still avowed principles which might impel them to pull it down again. Undoubtedly it might be fit that marks of royal approbation should be bestowed on some converts who had been eminently useful: but policy, as well as justice and gratitude, enjoined the King to give the highest place in his regard to those who, from first to last, through good and evil, had stood by his house. On these grounds the Cavaliers very naturally demanded indemnity for all that they had suffered, and preference in the distribution of the favours of the Crown. Some violent members of the party went further, and clamoured for large categories of proscription.

The Cavaliers had a completely different perspective. For eighteen years, they had remained loyal to the Crown through all kinds of challenges. Having shared their prince's struggles, shouldn’t they also share in his victories? Was there really no distinction between them and the disloyal subjects who fought against their rightful sovereign, who supported Richard Cromwell, and who only backed the restoration of the Stuarts when it seemed like the only way to save the nation from the army's tyranny? Sure, that kind of person might have earned forgiveness through their recent actions. But could those last-minute services be compared to the efforts and sacrifices of those who had endured the toughest times? Should they be placed on the same level as those who had never needed royal mercy, who had deserved the King’s gratitude their entire lives? Above all, could it be allowed for him to keep a fortune built from the resources of the ruined supporters of the throne? Wasn’t it enough that his life and his family estate, which had been forfeited a hundred times over, were safe and that he enjoyed the benefits of the gentle government he had long opposed? Did he really need to be rewarded for his betrayal at the expense of people whose only crime was their loyalty to their oath of allegiance? What interest did the King have in enriching his old enemies with spoils taken from his loyal friends? How could he trust men who had opposed him, waged war against him, and imprisoned him, and who, even now, instead of hanging their heads in shame and remorse, justified their actions and thought they proved their loyalty by stopping just short of murder? It was true they recently helped restore the throne, but it was equally true that they had previously brought it down and still supported ideas that could lead them to do it again. Certainly, it might be appropriate to reward some converts who had been particularly helpful, but out of both policy and a sense of justice and gratitude, the King should prioritize those who had stood by him through thick and thin. Based on these reasons, the Cavaliers understandably demanded compensation for their suffering and preference in the distribution of the Crown's favors. Some more extreme members of the party even called for broad lists of exclusions.

The political feud was, as usual, exasperated by a religious feud. The King found the Church in a singular state. A short time before the commencement of the civil war, his father had given a reluctant assent to a bill, strongly supported by Falkland, which deprived the Bishops of their seats in the House of Lords: but Episcopacy and the Liturgy had never been abolished by law. The Long Parliament, however, had passed ordinances which had made a complete revolution in Church government and in public worship. The new system was, in principle, scarcely less Erastian than that which it displaced. The Houses, guided chiefly by the counsels of the accomplished Selden, had determined to keep the spiritual power strictly subordinate to the temporal power. They had refused to declare that any form of ecclesiastical polity was of divine origin; and they had provided that, from all the Church courts, an appeal should lie in the last resort to Parliament. With this highly important reservation, it had been resolved to set up in England a hierarchy closely resembling that which now exists in Scotland. The authority of councils, rising one above another in regular gradation, was substituted for the authority of Bishops and Archbishops. The Liturgy gave place to the Presbyterian Directory. But scarcely had the new regulations been framed, when the Independents rose to supreme influence in the state. The Independents had no disposition to enforce the ordinances touching classical, provincial, and national synods. Those ordinances, therefore, were never carried into full execution. The Presbyterian system was fully established nowhere but in Middlesex and Lancashire. In the other fifty counties almost every parish seems to have been unconnected with the neighbouring parishes. In some districts, indeed, the ministers formed themselves into voluntary associations, for the purpose of mutual help and counsel; but these associations had no coercive power. The patrons of livings, being now checked by neither Bishop nor Presbytery, would have been at liberty to confide the cure of souls to the most scandalous of mankind, but for the arbitrary intervention of Oliver. He established, by his own authority, a board of commissioners, called Triers. Most of these persons were Independent divines; but a few Presbyterian ministers and a few laymen had seats. The certificate of the Triers stood in the place both of institution and of induction; and without such a certificate no person could hold a benefice. This was undoubtedly one of the most despotic acts ever done by any English ruler. Yet, as it was generally felt that, without some such precaution, the country would be overrun by ignorant and drunken reprobates, bearing the name and receiving the pay of ministers, some highly respectable persons, who were not in general friendly to Cromwell, allowed that, on this occasion, he had been a public benefactor. The presentees whom the Triers had approved took possession of the rectories, cultivated the glebe lands, collected the tithes, prayed without book or surplice, and administered the Eucharist to communicants seated at long tables.

The political conflict was, as always, aggravated by a religious conflict. The King found the Church in a unique predicament. Just before the civil war began, his father had reluctantly agreed to a bill, strongly backed by Falkland, which removed the Bishops from their seats in the House of Lords; however, Episcopacy and the Liturgy had never been legally abolished. The Long Parliament, on the other hand, had passed ordinances that completely changed Church governance and public worship. The new system was, in principle, hardly less Erastian than the one it replaced. The Houses, mainly influenced by the skilled Selden, decided to keep spiritual authority strictly under temporal authority. They refused to state that any form of church governance was divinely ordained, and they established that all Church court appeals should ultimately go to Parliament. With this crucial exception, it was decided to create a hierarchy in England that closely resembled the current one in Scotland. The authority of councils, ranked in a regular hierarchy, replaced the authority of Bishops and Archbishops. The Liturgy was replaced by the Presbyterian Directory. But as soon as the new regulations were created, the Independents gained the upper hand in the government. The Independents were not inclined to enforce the rules regarding classical, provincial, and national synods. Therefore, these rules were never fully implemented. The Presbyterian system was only fully established in Middlesex and Lancashire. In the other fifty counties, almost every parish seemed to be disconnected from the neighboring parishes. In some areas, ministers formed voluntary associations for mutual support and advice; however, these associations had no enforcement power. The patrons of positions, now unrestrained by any Bishop or Presbytery, would have been free to entrust the care of souls to the most disgraceful people, were it not for the arbitrary intervention of Oliver. He established, on his own authority, a board of commissioners called Triers. Most of these individuals were Independent clergymen, but a few Presbyterian ministers and laypeople were also included. The Triers' certificate served as both institution and induction; without it, no one could hold a benefice. This was undoubtedly one of the most tyrannical acts any English ruler had ever committed. Yet, since it was widely recognized that, without such measures, the country would be inundated with ignorant and drunken misfits, posing as ministers while collecting salaries, some highly respectable individuals, who generally opposed Cromwell, conceded that, in this instance, he had acted as a public benefactor. The appointees approved by the Triers took over the parishes, cultivated the land, collected tithes, prayed without prayer books or special robes, and administered the Eucharist to communicants seated at long tables.

Thus the ecclesiastical polity of the realm was in inextricable confusion. Episcopacy was the form of government prescribed by the old law which was still unrepealed. The form of government prescribed by parliamentary ordinance was Presbyterian. But neither the old law nor the parliamentary ordinance was practically in force. The Church actually established may be described as an irregular body made up of a few Presbyteries and many Independent congregations, which were all held down and held together by the authority of the government.

Thus, the church organization of the realm was in complete disarray. Episcopacy was the type of governance outlined by the old law, which had not been repealed. The type of governance set by parliamentary ordinance was Presbyterian. However, neither the old law nor the parliamentary ordinance was actually enforced. The Church that was in practice could be described as an irregular assembly consisting of a few Presbyteries and many Independent congregations, all controlled and unified by the authority of the government.

Of those who had been active in bringing back the King, many were zealous for Synods and for the Directory, and many were desirous to terminate by a compromise the religious dissensions which had long agitated England. Between the bigoted followers of Laud and the bigoted followers of Knox there could be neither peace nor truce: but it did not seem impossible to effect an accommodation between the moderate Episcopalians of the school of Usher and the moderate Presbyterians of the school of Baxter. The moderate Episcopalians would admit that a Bishop might lawfully be assisted by a council. The moderate Presbyterians would not deny that each provincial assembly might lawfully have a permanent president, and that this president might lawfully be called a Bishop. There might be a revised Liturgy which should not exclude extemporaneous prayer, a baptismal service in which the sign of the cross might be used or omitted at discretion, a communion service at which the faithful might sit if their conscience forbade them to kneel. But to no such plan could the great bodies of the Cavaliers listen with patience. The religious members of that party were conscientiously attached to the whole system of their Church. She had been dear to their murdered King. She had consoled them in defeat and penury. Her service, so often whispered in an inner chamber during the season of trial, had such a charm for them that they were unwilling to part with a single response. Other Royalists, who made little presence to piety, yet loved the episcopal church because she was the foe of their foes. They valued a prayer or a ceremony, not on account of the comfort which it conveyed to themselves, but on account of the vexation which it gave to the Roundheads, and were so far from being disposed to purchase union by concession that they objected to concession chiefly because it tended to produce union.

Of those who had worked to restore the King, many were passionate about Synods and the Directory, while others wanted to resolve the long-standing religious conflicts in England through compromise. There could be no peace or truce between the staunch followers of Laud and those of Knox; however, it didn’t seem impossible to find common ground between the moderate Episcopalians, influenced by Usher, and the moderate Presbyterians, influenced by Baxter. The moderate Episcopalians would agree that a Bishop could be supported by a council. The moderate Presbyterians wouldn’t deny that each provincial assembly could have a permanent president, and that this president could be called a Bishop. There could be a revised Liturgy that would allow for spontaneous prayer, a baptismal service that could include or skip the sign of the cross at discretion, and a communion service where the faithful could sit if they felt uncomfortable kneeling. But the larger groups of Cavaliers would not patiently entertain any such plan. The religious members of that party were deeply committed to their Church’s entire system. It had been precious to their slain King. It had comforted them in defeat and hardship. Its services, often whispered in a private chamber during tough times, held such allure for them that they were unwilling to let go of a single response. Other Royalists, who were not particularly pious, still cherished the episcopal Church simply because it stood against their enemies. They valued prayers and ceremonies, not for the comfort they brought to themselves, but for the annoyance they caused the Roundheads, and they were far from willing to consider unity through compromise, opposing any concession mainly because it might lead to that unity.

Such feelings, though blamable, were natural, and not wholly inexcusable. The Puritans had undoubtedly, in the day of their power, given cruel provocation. They ought to have learned, if from nothing else, yet from their own discontents, from their own struggles, from their own victory, from the fall of that proud hierarchy by which they had been so heavily oppressed, that, in England, and in the seventeenth century, it was not in the power of the civil magistrate to drill the minds of men into conformity with his own system of theology. They proved, however, as intolerant and as meddling as ever Laud had been. They interdicted under heavy penalties the use of the Book of Common Prayer, not only in churches, but even in private houses. It was a crime in a child to read by the bedside of a sick parent one of those beautiful collects which had soothed the griefs of forty generations of Christians. Severe punishments were denounced against such as should presume to blame the Calvinistic mode of worship. Clergymen of respectable character were not only ejected from their benefices by thousands, but were frequently exposed to the outrages of a fanatical rabble. Churches and sepulchres, fine works of art and curious remains of antiquity, were brutally defaced. The Parliament resolved that all pictures in the royal collection which contained representations of Jesus or of the Virgin Mother should be burned. Sculpture fared as ill as painting. Nymphs and Graces, the work of Ionian chisels, were delivered over to Puritan stonemasons to be made decent. Against the lighter vices the ruling faction waged war with a zeal little tempered by humanity or by common sense. Sharp laws were passed against betting. It was enacted that adultery should be punished with death. The illicit intercourse of the sexes, even where neither violence nor seduction was imputed, where no public scandal was given, where no conjugal right was violated, was made a misdemeanour. Public amusements, from the masques which were exhibited at the mansions of the great down to the wrestling matches and grinning matches on village greens, were vigorously attacked. One ordinance directed that all the Maypoles in England should forthwith be hewn down. Another proscribed all theatrical diversions. The playhouses were to be dismantled, the spectators fined, the actors whipped at the cart's tail. Rope-dancing, puppet-shows, bowls, horse-racing, were regarded with no friendly eye. But bearbaiting, then a favourite diversion of high and low, was the abomination which most strongly stirred the wrath of the austere sectaries. It is to be remarked that their antipathy to this sport had nothing in common with the feeling which has, in our own time, induced the legislature to interfere for the purpose of protecting beasts against the wanton cruelty of men. The Puritan hated bearbaiting, not because it gave pain to the bear, but because it gave pleasure to the spectators. Indeed, he generally contrived to enjoy the double pleasure of tormenting both spectators and bear. 16

Such feelings, while blameworthy, were natural and not entirely unreasonable. The Puritans had undeniably provoked others during their time in power. They should have realized, if from nothing else, then from their own complaints, struggles, victories, and the downfall of the oppressive hierarchy, that in seventeenth-century England, the civil authorities couldn’t force people to conform to their theological beliefs. However, they ended up being just as intolerant and intrusive as Laud had been. They imposed heavy penalties for using the Book of Common Prayer, prohibiting it not only in churches but also in private homes. It was a crime for a child to read one of those beautiful prayers to a sick parent, prayers that had comforted forty generations of Christians. Harsh punishments were enforced against anyone who dared to criticize the Calvinistic way of worship. Thousands of respectable clergymen were not only removed from their positions but also frequently subjected to violence from a fanatical mob. Churches and graves, masterpieces of art, and ancient relics were ruthlessly vandalized. Parliament decided to burn all paintings in the royal collection that depicted Jesus or the Virgin Mother. Sculpture suffered just as much as painting. Statues of nymphs and Graces, crafted by skilled artisans, were handed over to Puritan stoneworkers to be made more modest. The ruling faction aggressively targeted minor vices with little regard for humanity or common sense. Strict laws were established against gambling. Adultery was punishable by death. Consensual relations, even when there was no violence, coercion, public scandal, or marital rights violated, were deemed a misdemeanor. Public entertainment, from grand masques at noble estates to wrestling matches and contests in village greens, faced vigorous opposition. One ordinance mandated the immediate destruction of all Maypoles in England. Another banned all theatrical performances. Theaters were to be dismantled, audience members fined, and actors beaten as punishment. Rope dancing, puppet shows, bowling, and horse racing were all viewed unfavorably. However, bear baiting, a popular pastime for both the upper and lower classes, drew the most intense condemnation from the strict sects. It's worth noting that their aversion to this sport was not related to a desire to protect animals from cruelty, as is often the case today. The Puritan despised bear baiting, not because it caused suffering to the bear, but because it entertained the spectators. In fact, they often found enjoyment in tormenting both the audience and the bear. 16

Perhaps no single circumstance more strongly illustrates the temper of the precisians than their conduct respecting Christmas day. Christmas had been, from time immemorial, the season of joy and domestic affection, the season when families assembled, when children came home from school, when quarrels were made up, when carols were heard in every street, when every house was decorated with evergreens, and every table was loaded with good cheer. At that season all hearts not utterly destitute of kindness were enlarged and softened. At that season the poor were admitted to partake largely of the overflowings of the wealth of the rich, whose bounty was peculiarly acceptable on account of the shortness of the days and of the severity of the weather. At that season, the interval between landlord and tenant, master and servant, was less marked than through the rest of the year. Where there is much enjoyment there will be some excess: yet, on the whole, the spirit in which the holiday was kept was not unworthy of a Christian festival. The long Parliament gave orders, in 1644, that the twenty-fifth of December should be strictly observed as a fast, and that all men should pass it in humbly bemoaning the great national sin which they and their fathers had so often committed on that day by romping under the mistletoe, eating boar's head, and drinking ale flavored with roasted apples. No public act of that time seems to have irritated the common people more. On the next anniversary of the festival formidable riots broke out in many places. The constables were resisted, the magistrates insulted, the houses of noted zealots attacked, and the prescribed service of the day openly read in the churches.

Perhaps no single situation illustrates the mindset of the puritans better than their attitude toward Christmas Day. Christmas had long been a time of joy and family togetherness, a season when families gathered, children returned home from school, conflicts were resolved, carols filled the streets, homes were adorned with evergreens, and tables overflowed with delicious food. During this time, all hearts that weren’t completely devoid of kindness were warmed and softened. It was when the less fortunate were welcomed to share in the generosity of the wealthy, whose kindness was especially appreciated given the short days and harsh weather. During this time, the divide between landlord and tenant, master and servant, was less pronounced than at any other time of the year. Where there is much joy, there can be some excess; however, overall, the way the holiday was celebrated was fitting for a Christian festival. In 1644, the Long Parliament ordered that December 25th should be strictly observed as a day of fasting, and that everyone should spend it lamenting the great national sin that they and their ancestors had often committed on that day by celebrating under the mistletoe, feasting on boar’s head, and drinking ale spiced with roasted apples. No public action during that time seems to have angered the common people more. At the next year’s celebration, serious riots broke out in many areas. Constables were resisted, magistrates were insulted, the homes of well-known zealots were attacked, and the mandated service of the day was openly read in the churches.

Such was the spirit of the extreme Puritans, both Presbyterian and Independent. Oliver, indeed, was little disposed to be either a persecutor or a meddler. But Oliver, the head of a party, and consequently, to a great extent, the slave of a party, could not govern altogether according to his own inclinations. Even under his administration many magistrates, within their own jurisdiction, made themselves as odious as Sir Hudibras, interfered with all the pleasures of the neighbourhood, dispersed festive meetings, and put fiddlers in the stocks. Still more formidable was the zeal of the soldiers. In every village where they appeared there was an end of dancing, bellringing, and hockey. In London they several times interrupted theatrical performances at which the Protector had the judgment and good nature to connive.

That was the mindset of the extreme Puritans, both Presbyterian and Independent. Oliver wasn't really inclined to be a persecutor or a meddler. However, as the leader of a political faction, he was largely bound by the party's demands and couldn't govern solely based on his own preferences. Even during his rule, many local officials became as disliked as Sir Hudibras, interfering with the community's enjoyment, shutting down festive gatherings, and punishing musicians. The enthusiasm of the soldiers was even more daunting. In every village where they showed up, dancing, bell ringing, and hockey came to a halt. In London, they disrupted theatrical performances on several occasions, which the Protector managed to overlook with his usual judgment and good nature.

With the fear and hatred inspired by such a tyranny contempt was largely mingled. The peculiarities of the Puritan, his look, his dress, his dialect, his strange scruples, had been, ever since the time of Elizabeth, favourite subjects with mockers. But these peculiarities appeared far more grotesque in a faction which ruled a great empire than in obscure and persecuted congregations. The cant, which had moved laughter when it was heard on the stage from Tribulation Wholesome and Zeal-of-the-Land Busy, was still more laughable when it proceeded from the lips of Generals and Councillors of State. It is also to be noticed that during the civil troubles several sects had sprung into existence, whose eccentricities surpassed anything that had before been seen in England. A mad tailor, named Lodowick Muggleton, wandered from pothouse to pothouse, tippling ale, and denouncing eternal torments against those who refused to believe, on his testimony, that the Supreme Being was only six feet high, and that the sun was just four miles from the earth. 17 George Fox had raised a tempest of derision by proclaiming that it was a violation of Christian sincerity to designate a single person by a plural pronoun, and that it was an idolatrous homage to Janus and Woden to talk about January and Wednesday. His doctrine, a few years later, was embraced by some eminent men, and rose greatly in the public estimation. But at the time of the Restoration the Quakers were popularly regarded as the most despicable of fanatics. By the Puritans they were treated with severity here, and were persecuted to the death in New England. Nevertheless the public, which seldom makes nice distinctions, often confounded the Puritan with the Quaker. Both were schismatics. Both hated episcopacy and the Liturgy. Both had what seemed extravagant whimsies about dress, diversions and postures. Widely as the two differed in opinion, they were popularly classed together as canting schismatics; and whatever was ridiculous or odious in either increased the scorn and aversion which the multitude felt for both.

With the fear and hatred brought on by such a tyranny, there was a lot of contempt mixed in. The quirks of the Puritans—their appearance, their clothing, their way of speaking, their strange beliefs—had been, since the time of Elizabeth, favorite targets for mockery. But these quirks seemed even more ridiculous in a faction that ruled a vast empire than in obscure and persecuted communities. The nonsense that made people laugh when it came from characters like Tribulation Wholesome and Zeal-of-the-Land Busy was even more amusing when it came from Generals and State Councillors. It's also worth noting that during the civil strife, several sects emerged, whose oddities surpassed anything previously seen in England. A crazy tailor named Lodowick Muggleton wandered from bar to bar, sipping ale and cursing eternal damnation on anyone who didn't believe, based on his word, that the Supreme Being was only six feet tall and that the sun was just four miles from the earth. 17 George Fox stirred up a storm of ridicule by claiming it was a lack of Christian sincerity to refer to a single person with a plural pronoun, and that talking about January and Wednesday was idolatrous worship of Janus and Woden. His beliefs, a few years later, were accepted by some prominent figures and gained significant public favor. However, at the time of the Restoration, Quakers were commonly viewed as the most despised of fanatics. The Puritans treated them harshly here and persecuted them to death in New England. Still, the public, which rarely makes fine distinctions, often confused the Puritan with the Quaker. Both were seen as schismatics. Both despised episcopacy and the Liturgy. Both had what seemed like bizarre obsessions with clothing, entertainment, and body positions. Although they differed greatly in opinion, they were generally categorized together as sanctimonious schismatics; and anything ridiculous or unpleasant in either only intensified the scorn and dislike that the masses felt for both.

Before the civil wars, even those who most disliked the opinions and manners of the Puritan were forced to admit that his moral conduct was generally, in essentials, blameless; but this praise was now no longer bestowed, and, unfortunately, was no longer deserved. The general fate of sects is to obtain a high reputation for sanctity while they are oppressed, and to lose it as soon as they become powerful: and the reason is obvious. It is seldom that a man enrolls himself in a proscribed body from any but conscientious motives. Such a body, therefore, is composed, with scarcely an exception, of sincere persons. The most rigid discipline that can be enforced within a religious society is a very feeble instrument of purification, when compared with a little sharp persecution from without. We may be certain that very few persons, not seriously impressed by religious convictions, applied for baptism while Diocletian was vexing the Church, or joined themselves to Protestant congregations at the risk of being burned by Bonner. But, when a sect becomes powerful, when its favour is the road to riches and dignities, worldly and ambitious men crowd into it, talk its language, conform strictly to its ritual, mimic its peculiarities, and frequently go beyond its honest members in all the outward indications of zeal. No discernment, no watchfulness, on the part of ecclesiastical rulers, can prevent the intrusion of such false brethren. The tares and wheat must grow together. Soon the world begins to find out that the godly are not better than other men, and argues, with some justice, that, if not better, they must be much worse. In no long time all those signs which were formerly regarded as characteristic of a saint are regarded as characteristic of a knave.

Before the civil wars, even those who strongly disliked the views and behaviors of the Puritans had to admit that their moral conduct was generally, in essential ways, blameless; but this praise is no longer given, and sadly, it’s no longer warranted. The usual fate of religious groups is to gain a strong reputation for holiness while they are persecuted, and to lose it once they gain power: the reason for this is clear. Rarely does someone join a marginalized group for anything other than sincere beliefs. Consequently, such a group is usually made up, with few exceptions, of genuine individuals. The strictest discipline that can be imposed within a religious organization is a weak tool for purification compared to a bit of harsh persecution from the outside. We can be sure that very few people, not seriously moved by religious beliefs, sought baptism while Diocletian was harassing the Church, or joined Protestant congregations at the risk of being burned by Bonner. However, when a sect gains power, when its approval leads to wealth and status, ambitious and worldly individuals flood into it, speak its language, strictly follow its rituals, imitate its distinct behaviors, and often show even more outward signs of zeal than its sincere members. No amount of discernment or vigilance by church leaders can stop the entry of such false members. The weeds and wheat must grow together. Soon the world starts to realize that the righteous are not any better than other people, and argues, with some justification, that if they aren’t better, they must be much worse. Before long, all the indicators that were once seen as signs of a saint are viewed as traits of a fraud.

Thus it was with the English Nonconformists. They had been oppressed; and oppression had kept them a pure body. They then became supreme in the state. No man could hope to rise to eminence and command but by their favour. Their favour was to be gained only by exchanging with them the signs and passwords of spiritual fraternity. One of the first resolutions adopted by Barebone's Parliament, the most intensely Puritanical of all our political assemblies, was that no person should be admitted into the public service till the House should be satisfied of his real godliness. What were then considered as the signs of real godliness, the sadcoloured dress, the sour look, the straight hair, the nasal whine, the speech interspersed with quaint texts, the Sunday, gloomy as a Pharisaical Sabbath, were easily imitated by men to whom all religions were the same. The sincere Puritans soon found themselves lost in a multitude, not merely of men of the world, but of the very worst sort of men of the world. For the most notorious libertine who had fought under the royal standard might justly be thought virtuous when compared with some of those who, while they talked about sweet experiences and comfortable scriptures, lived in the constant practice of fraud, rapacity, and secret debauchery. The people, with a rashness which we may justly lament, but at which we cannot wonder, formed their estimate of the whole body from these hypocrites. The theology, the manners, the dialect of the Puritan were thus associated in the public mind with the darkest and meanest vices. As soon as the Restoration had made it safe to avow enmity to the party which had so long been predominant, a general outcry against Puritanism rose from every corner of the kingdom, and was often swollen by the voices of those very dissemblers whose villany had brought disgrace on the Puritan name.

So it was with the English Nonconformists. They had faced oppression, and that oppression kept them a pure group. They then became dominant in the state. No one could hope to gain prominence and power without their support. Their support could only be earned by exchanging signs and passwords of spiritual brotherhood with them. One of the first resolutions passed by Barebone's Parliament, the most extreme Puritanical of all our political gatherings, was that no one should be allowed into public service until the House was satisfied with their true godliness. What were considered the signs of true godliness at the time—the drab clothing, the sour expression, the straight hair, the nasal tone, the speech punctuated with odd scriptures, and a Sunday as gloomy as a Pharisaical Sabbath— were easily mimicked by people for whom all religions were the same. The sincere Puritans soon found themselves lost in a crowd not only of worldly people but of the very worst kind of worldly people. The most notorious libertine who had fought under the royal standard could be seen as virtuous compared to some of those who, while discussing sweet experiences and comforting scriptures, were constantly engaged in fraud, greed, and hidden debauchery. The people, with a rashness that we may lament justly but cannot be surprised by, judged the entire group based on these hypocrites. Thus, the theology, manners, and speech of the Puritans became associated in the public eye with the darkest and most contemptible vices. As soon as the Restoration made it safe to openly oppose the party that had been in power for so long, a loud outcry against Puritanism rose from every corner of the kingdom, often fueled by the voices of those very deceivers whose wickedness had tarnished the Puritan name.

Thus the two great parties, which, after a long contest, had for a moment concurred in restoring monarchy, were, both in politics and in religion, again opposed to each other. The great body of the nation leaned to the Royalists. The crimes of Strafford and Laud, the excesses of the Star Chamber and of the High Commission, the great services which the Long Parliament had, during the first year of its existence, rendered to the state, had faded from the minds of men. The execution of Charles the First, the sullen tyranny of the Rump, the violence of the army, were remembered with loathing; and the multitude was inclined to hold all who had withstood the late King responsible for his death and for the subsequent disasters.

So the two major political parties, which had briefly united to restore the monarchy after a long struggle, found themselves, both in politics and religion, once again at odds. Most of the country leaned towards the Royalists. The misdeeds of Strafford and Laud, the overreach of the Star Chamber and the High Commission, and the significant contributions of the Long Parliament during its first year had faded from people's memories. The execution of Charles the First, the grim rule of the Rump, and the aggressive actions of the army were recalled with disgust; the public was inclined to blame anyone who had opposed the late King for his death and the ensuing turmoil.

The House of Commons, having been elected while the Presbyterians were dominant, by no means represented the general sense of the people. Most of the members, while execrating Cromwell and Bradshaw, reverenced the memory of Essex and of Pym. One sturdy Cavalier, who ventured to declare that all who had drawn the sword against Charles the First were as much traitors as those who kind cut off his head, was called to order, placed at the bar, and reprimanded by the Speaker. The general wish of the House undoubtedly was to settle the ecclesiastical disputes in a manner satisfactory to the moderate Puritans. But to such a settlement both the court and the nation were averse.

The House of Commons, elected when the Presbyterians were in charge, didn’t really represent what the people thought. Most of the members, while condemning Cromwell and Bradshaw, honored the memory of Essex and Pym. One bold Cavalier who dared to say that anyone who took up arms against Charles the First was just as much a traitor as those who actually beheaded him was called to order, brought to the front, and reprimanded by the Speaker. The general wish of the House was definitely to resolve the church disputes in a way that would please moderate Puritans. However, neither the court nor the nation supported such a resolution.

The restored King was at this time more loved by the people than any of his predecessors had ever been. The calamities of his house, the heroic death of his father, his own long sufferings and romantic adventures, made him an object of tender interest. His return had delivered the country from an intolerable bondage. Recalled by the voice of both the contending factions, he was in a position which enabled him to arbitrate between them; and in some respects he was well qualified for the task. He had received from nature excellent parts and a happy temper. His education had been such as might have been expected to develope his understanding, and to form him to the practice of every public and private virtue. He had passed through all varieties of fortune, and had seen both sides of human nature. He had, while very young, been driven forth from a palace to a life of exile. penury, and danger. He had, at the age when the mind and body are in their highest perfection, and when the first effervescence of boyish passions should have subsided, been recalled from his wanderings to wear a crown. He had been taught by bitter experience how much baseness, perfidy, and ingratitude may lie hid under the obsequious demeanor of courtiers. He had found, on the other hand, in the huts of the poorest, true nobility of soul. When wealth was offered to any who would betray him, when death was denounced against all who should shelter him, cottagers and serving men had kept his secret truly, and had kissed his hand under his mean disguises with as much reverence as if he had been seated on his ancestral throne. From such a school it might have been expected that a young man who wanted neither abilities nor amiable qualities would have come forth a great and good King. Charles came forth from that school with social habits, with polite and engaging manners, and with some talent for lively conversation, addicted beyond measure to sensual indulgence, fond of sauntering and of frivolous amusements, incapable of selfdenial and of exertion, without faith in human virtue or in human attachment without desire of renown, and without sensibility to reproach. According to him, every person was to be bought: but some people haggled more about their price than others; and when this haggling was very obstinate and very skilful it was called by some fine name. The chief trick by which clever men kept up the price of their abilities was called integrity. The chief trick by which handsome women kept up the price of their beauty was called modesty. The love of God, the love of country, the love of family, the love of friends, were phrases of the same sort, delicate and convenient synonymes for the love of self. Thinking thus of mankind, Charles naturally cared very little what they thought of him. Honour and shame were scarcely more to him than light and darkness to the blind. His contempt of flattery has been highly commended, but seems, when viewed in connection with the rest of his character, to deserve no commendation. It is possible to be below flattery as well as above it. One who trusts nobody will not trust sycophants. One who does not value real glory will not value its counterfeit.

The restored King was now more loved by the people than any of his predecessors had ever been. The tragedies of his family, the heroic death of his father, his own long sufferings and adventurous experiences made him a figure of deep interest. His return had freed the country from unbearable oppression. Called back by both warring factions, he was in a position to mediate between them; and in some ways, he was well-suited for this role. He had natural talent and a good temperament. His education was designed to develop his understanding and cultivate every public and private virtue. He had experienced all types of fortune and seen both sides of human nature. He had been driven from a palace to a life of exile, poverty, and danger while still very young. At the age when the mind and body are at their peak, and when the raw intensity of youthful passions should have settled down, he was called back from his wandering to wear a crown. Bitter experience had taught him how much dishonor, betrayal, and ingratitude can hide behind the flattering behavior of courtiers. Conversely, he discovered true nobility of spirit in the homes of the poorest people. When wealth was offered to anyone who would betray him, and death threatened anyone who sheltered him, common folk had kept his secret faithfully, greeting him with the same respect as if he were on his royal throne, despite his disguise. From such experiences, one might have expected a young man with both abilities and admirable qualities to emerge as a great and good King. However, Charles emerged from those experiences with social habits, polite and charming manners, and a talent for lively conversation, but deeply indulgent in sensual pleasures, fond of wandering and trivial amusements, incapable of self-restraint or effort, lacking faith in human virtue or loyalty, without desire for fame, and insensitive to criticism. To him, everyone had a price, but some were more stubborn about theirs than others; and when this haggling was particularly tough and skillful, it received some refined label. The main trick clever individuals used to maintain the value of their abilities was called integrity. The main trick beautiful women used to maintain the value of their beauty was called modesty. Love for God, love for country, love for family, and love for friends were phrases like these—delicate and convenient synonyms for self-love. Thinking this way about humanity, Charles naturally cared very little about what they thought of him. Honor and shame meant little to him, much like light and darkness mean nothing to the blind. His disdain for flattery has been praised, but when viewed in the context of his overall character, it seems not to deserve such praise. It’s possible to be beneath flattery as much as it is to be above it. Someone who trusts no one will also distrust sycophants. Someone who doesn’t value true glory will not care for its imitation.

It is creditable to Charles's temper that, ill as he thought of his species, he never became a misanthrope. He saw little in men but what was hateful. Yet he did not hate them. Nay, he was so far humane that it was highly disagreeable to him to see their sufferings or to hear their complaints. This, however, is a sort of humanity which, though amiable and laudable in a private man whose power to help or hurt is bounded by a narrow circle, has in princes often been rather a vice than a virtue. More than one well disposed ruler has given up whole provinces to rapine and oppression, merely from a wish to see none but happy faces round his own board and in his own walks. No man is fit to govern great societies who hesitates about disobliging the few who have access to him, for the sake of the many whom he will never see. The facility of Charles was such as has perhaps never been found in any man of equal sense. He was a slave without being a dupe. Worthless men and women, to the very bottom of whose hearts he saw, and whom he knew to be destitute of affection for him and undeserving of his confidence, could easily wheedle him out of titles, places, domains, state secrets and pardons. He bestowed much; yet he neither enjoyed the pleasure nor acquired the fame of beneficence. He never gave spontaneously; but it was painful to him to refuse. The consequence was that his bounty generally went, not to those who deserved it best, nor even to those whom he liked best, but to the most shameless and importunate suitor who could obtain an audience.

It’s commendable that Charles, despite his low opinion of his fellow humans, never became a misanthrope. He saw little in people except what he found distasteful. Yet he didn’t hate them. In fact, he was so compassionate that it bothered him greatly to witness their suffering or to hear their grievances. However, this kind of compassion, though admirable in a private individual with limited power to help or harm, often becomes more of a flaw than a virtue in rulers. More than one well-meaning leader has sacrificed entire regions to greed and cruelty simply because they wanted to see happy faces around them. No one is fit to govern large societies if they hesitate to offend the few who have access to them for the sake of the many they will never meet. Charles’s willingness was such that it may never have been matched by anyone of equal intelligence. He was submissive without being naïve. Unworthy men and women, whose true nature he could see and who he knew lacked any love for him and didn’t deserve his trust, could easily manipulate him into granting titles, positions, lands, government secrets, and pardons. He was generous; yet he didn’t enjoy the satisfaction or gain the reputation of a philanthropist. He never gave willingly; rather, it was distressing for him to say no. As a result, his generosity generally went not to those who deserved it the most, or even to those he liked best, but to the most brazen and persistent applicant who could manage to get an audience.

The motives which governed the political conduct of Charles the Second differed widely from those by which his predecessor and his successor were actuated. He was not a man to be imposed upon by the patriarchal theory of government and the doctrine of divine right. He was utterly without ambition. He detested business, and would sooner have abdicated his crown than have undergone the trouble of really directing the administration. Such was his aversion to toil, and such his ignorance of affairs, that the very clerks who attended him when he sate in council could not refrain from sneering at his frivolous remarks, and at his childish impatience. Neither gratitude nor revenge had any share in determining his course; for never was there a mind on which both services and injuries left such faint and transitory impressions. He wished merely to be a King such as Lewis the Fifteenth of France afterwards was; a King who could draw without limit on the treasury for the gratification of his private tastes, who could hire with wealth and honours persons capable of assisting him to kill the time, and who, even when the state was brought by maladministration to the depths of humiliation and to the brink of ruin, could still exclude unwelcome truth from the purlieus of his own seraglio, and refuse to see and hear whatever might disturb his luxurious repose. For these ends, and for these ends alone, he wished to obtain arbitrary power, if it could be obtained without risk or trouble. In the religious disputes which divided his Protestant subjects his conscience was not at all interested. For his opinions oscillated in contented suspense between infidelity and Popery. But, though his conscience was neutral in the quarrel between the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians, his taste was by no means so. His favourite vices were precisely those to which the Puritans were least indulgent. He could not get through one day without the help of diversions which the Puritans regarded as sinful. As a man eminently well bred, and keenly sensible of the ridiculous, he was moved to contemptuous mirth by the Puritan oddities. He had indeed some reason to dislike the rigid sect. He had, at the age when the passions are most impetuous and when levity is most pardonable, spent some months in Scotland, a King in name, but in fact a state prisoner in the hands of austere Presbyterians. Not content with requiring him to conform to their worship and to subscribe their Covenant, they had watched all his motions, and lectured him on all his youthful follies. He had been compelled to give reluctant attendance at endless prayers and sermons, and might think himself fortunate when he was not insolently reminded from the pulpit of his own frailties, of his father's tyranny, and of his mother's idolatry. Indeed he had been so miserable during this part of his life that the defeat which made him again a wanderer might be regarded as a deliverance rather than as a calamity. Under the influence of such feelings as these Charles was desirous to depress the party which had resisted his father.

The motivations behind Charles the Second's political actions were completely different from those of his predecessor and successor. He wasn’t someone who could be swayed by the patriarchal view of government or the idea of divine right. He lacked ambition entirely. He hated getting involved in business and would have rather given up his crown than deal with the hassle of truly running the government. His strong dislike for work and his ignorance about political matters meant that even the clerks who sat with him in meetings couldn’t help but laugh at his silly comments and his childish impatience. Neither gratitude nor revenge influenced his decisions; he seemed to forget services and grievances almost immediately. He simply wanted to be a King like Louis the Fifteenth of France, a ruler who could spend endlessly from the treasury to enjoy his personal pleasures, hire people with money and titles to entertain him, and even when the nation faced humiliation and near ruin due to poor leadership, he could still shut out uncomfortable truths from his own inner circle and ignore anything that might disturb his comfortable life. For this reason, and this reason alone, he wanted to gain absolute power, as long as it didn’t come with too much risk or effort. He was completely indifferent to the religious disputes among his Protestant subjects; his beliefs fluctuated between indifference and Catholicism. While he didn’t have strong opinions in the conflict between the Episcopalians and Presbyterians, he definitely had a preference for the vices the Puritans despised the most. He couldn’t get through a day without the diversions they considered sinful. Being well-mannered and with a keen sense of humor, he looked down on the absurdities of the Puritans with contemptuous amusement. He had good reason to dislike the strict sect; during a time in his life when emotions ran high and light-heartedness was more acceptable, he spent months in Scotland, a King in title but essentially a state prisoner held by stern Presbyterians. Not only did they force him to conform to their worship and sign their Covenant, but they also scrutinized every move he made and criticized his youthful indiscretions. He had to reluctantly attend countless prayers and sermons, feeling lucky when he wasn’t insultingly reminded from the pulpit of his flaws, his father’s tyranny, and his mother’s idolatry. He was so unhappy during this time that the defeat that made him a fugitive again could be seen as a release rather than a disaster. Under these feelings, Charles wanted to weaken the group that had opposed his father.

The King's brother, James Duke of York, took the same side. Though a libertine, James was diligent, methodical, and fond of authority and business. His understanding was singularly slow and narrow, and his temper obstinate, harsh, and unforgiving. That such a prince should have looked with no good will on the free institutions of England, and on the party which was peculiarly zealous for those institutions, can excite no surprise. As yet the Duke professed himself a member of the Anglican Church but he had already shown inclinations which had seriously alarmed good Protestants.

The King's brother, James, Duke of York, took the same side. Although he was a libertine, James was hardworking, organized, and liked having control and handling business. His understanding was notably slow and limited, and he had an obstinate, harsh, and unforgiving temper. It’s not surprising that such a prince looked unfavorably on England's free institutions and on the party that was especially passionate about those institutions. At that time, the Duke claimed to be a member of the Anglican Church, but he had already displayed tendencies that seriously worried good Protestants.

The person on whom devolved at this time the greatest part of the labour of governing was Edward Hyde, Chancellor of the realm, who was soon created Earl of Clarendon. The respect which we justly feel for Clarendon as a writer must not blind us to the faults which he committed as a statesman. Some of those faults, however, are explained and excused by the unfortunate position in which he stood. He had, during the first year of the Long Parliament, been honourably distinguished among the senators who laboured to redress the grievances of the nation. One of the most odious of those grievances, the Council of York, had been removed in consequence chiefly of his exertions. When the great schism took place, when the reforming party and the conservative party first appeared marshalled against each other, he, with many wise and good men, took the conservative side. He thenceforward followed the fortunes of the court, enjoyed as large a share of the confidence of Charles the First as the reserved nature and tortuous policy of that prince allowed to any minister, and subsequently shared the exile and directed the political conduct of Charles the Second. At the Restoration Hyde became chief minister. In a few months it was announced that he was closely related by affinity to the royal house. His daughter had become, by a secret marriage, Duchess of York. His grandchildren might perhaps wear the crown. He was raised by this illustrious connection over the heads of the old nobility of the land, and was for a time supposed to be allpowerful. In some respects he was well fitted for his great place. No man wrote abler state papers. No man spoke with more weight and dignity in Council and in Parliament. No man was better acquainted with general maxims of statecraft. No man observed the varieties of character with a more discriminating eye. It must be added that he had a strong sense of moral and religious obligation, a sincere reverence for the laws of his country, and a conscientious regard for the honour and interest of the Crown. But his temper was sour, arrogant, and impatient of opposition. Above all, he had been long an exile; and this circumstance alone would have completely disqualified him for the supreme direction of affairs. It is scarcely possible that a politician, who has been compelled by civil troubles to go into banishment, and to pass many of the best years of his life abroad, can be fit, on the day on which he returns to his native land, to be at the head of the government. Clarendon was no exception to this rule. He had left England with a mind heated by a fierce conflict which had ended in the downfall of his party and of his own fortunes. From 1646 to 1660 he had lived beyond sea, looking on all that passed at home from a great distance, and through a false medium. His notions of public affairs were necessarily derived from the reports of plotters, many of whom were ruined and desperate men. Events naturally seemed to him auspicious, not in proportion as they increased the prosperity and glory of the nation, but in proportion as they tended to hasten the hour of his own return. His wish, a wish which he has not disguised, was that, till his countrymen brought back the old line, they might never enjoy quiet or freedom. At length he returned; and, without having a single week to look about him, to mix with society, to note the changes which fourteen eventful years had produced in the national character and feelings, he was at once set to rule the state. In such circumstances, a minister of the greatest tact and docility would probably have fallen into serious errors. But tact and docility made no part of the character of Clarendon. To him England was still the England of his youth; and he sternly frowned down every theory and every practice which had sprung up during his own exile. Though he was far from meditating any attack on the ancient and undoubted power of the House of Commons, he saw with extreme uneasiness the growth of that power. The royal prerogative, for which he had long suffered, and by which he had at length been raised to wealth and dignity, was sacred in his eyes. The Roundheads he regarded both with political and with personal aversion. To the Anglican Church he had always been strongly attached, and had repeatedly, where her interests were concerned, separated himself with regret from his dearest friends. His zeal for Episcopacy and for the Book of Common Prayer was now more ardent than ever, and was mingled with a vindictive hatred of the Puritans, which did him little honour either as a statesman or as a Christian.

The person who took on the majority of the responsibilities of governing at this time was Edward Hyde, Chancellor of the realm, who was soon made Earl of Clarendon. While we respect Clarendon as a writer, we must not overlook the mistakes he made as a statesman. Some of these mistakes are understandable given the unfortunate situation he was in. During the first year of the Long Parliament, he distinguished himself among the senators working to address the nation’s grievances. One of the worst grievances, the Council of York, was removed mainly due to his efforts. When the major split occurred, with the reforming and conservative parties facing off against each other for the first time, he, along with many wise and good people, sided with the conservatives. From that point on, he followed the court’s fortunes, enjoyed as much confidence from Charles the First as that reserved and cunning king allowed any minister, and later shared in the exile and guided the political affairs of Charles the Second. At the Restoration, Hyde became the chief minister. A few months later, it was revealed that he was closely related to the royal family. His daughter had secretly married and become the Duchess of York. His grandchildren might even wear the crown. This prestigious connection elevated him above the old nobility and, for a time, he was thought to be all-powerful. In some respects, he was well-suited for his prominent position. No one wrote better state papers. No one spoke with more authority and dignity in Council and Parliament. No one was more knowledgeable about general principles of statecraft. No one observed character variations with a more discerning eye. However, he also had a sour temper, was arrogant, and couldn’t tolerate opposition. Above all, he had been an exile for a long time; this condition alone would have completely disqualified him from leading the government. It’s nearly impossible for a politician, forced into exile by civil strife and spending many of their best years abroad, to be fit to lead the government the day they return to their homeland. Clarendon was no exception to this rule. He left England with a mind heated by a fierce conflict that ended in the defeat of his party and his own downfall. From 1646 to 1660, he lived overseas, observing events at home from a distance and through a distorted lens. His understanding of public affairs was shaped by reports from plotters, many of whom were ruined and desperate. To him, events seemed favorable not by how much they advanced the nation’s prosperity and glory, but by how quickly they brought his return. His desire, which he openly expressed, was that until his countrymen restored the old monarchy, they should never experience peace or freedom. Eventually, he returned; and without a single week to familiarize himself with his surroundings, engage with society, or notice the changes that fourteen eventful years had made in the national character and feelings, he was immediately placed in charge of the state. Given these circumstances, even a minister of the greatest tact and adaptability would likely have made serious mistakes. But tact and adaptability were not part of Clarendon’s character. To him, England was still the England of his youth, and he sternly rejected every idea and practice that had emerged during his exile. Although he had no intention of attacking the ancient and unquestioned power of the House of Commons, he viewed its growth with great discomfort. The royal prerogative, for which he had long suffered and which had ultimately brought him wealth and honor, was sacred to him. He viewed the Roundheads with both political and personal disdain. He had always been strongly attached to the Anglican Church and had repeatedly distanced himself, with regret, from his closest friends when her interests were at stake. His zeal for Episcopacy and the Book of Common Prayer was now stronger than ever, mixed with a spiteful hatred of the Puritans, which reflected poorly on him both as a statesman and as a Christian.

While the House of Commons which had recalled the royal family was sitting, it was impossible to effect the re-establishment of the old ecclesiastical system. Not only were the intentions of the court strictly concealed, but assurances which quieted the minds of the moderate Presbyterians were given by the King in the most solemn manner. He had promised, before his restoration, that he would grant liberty of conscience to his subjects. He now repeated that promise, and added a promise to use his best endeavours for the purpose of effecting a compromise between the contending sects. He wished, he said, to see the spiritual jurisdiction divided between bishops and synods. The Liturgy should be revised by a body of learned divines, one-half of whom should be Presbyterians. The questions respecting the surplice, the posture at the Eucharist, and the sign of the cross in baptism, should be settled in a way which would set tender consciences at ease. When the King had thus laid asleep the vigilance of those whom he most feared, he dissolved the Parliament. He had already given his assent to an act by which an amnesty was granted, with few exceptions, to all who, during the late troubles, had been guilty of political offences. He had also obtained from the Commons a grant for life of taxes, the annual product of which was estimated at twelve hundred thousand pounds. The actual income, indeed, during some years, amounted to little more than a million: but this sum, together with the hereditary revenue of the crown, was then sufficient to defray the expenses of the government in time of peace. Nothing was allowed for a standing army. The nation was sick of the very name; and the least mention of such a force would have incensed and alarmed all parties.

While the House of Commons, which had called back the royal family, was in session, it was impossible to restore the old church system. Not only were the court's intentions kept under wraps, but the King also gave assurances to calm the moderate Presbyterians in the most serious way. He had promised, before his return, that he would allow his subjects freedom of conscience. He repeated that promise now and added that he would do his best to find a compromise between the conflicting sects. He wanted to see the spiritual authority shared between bishops and synods. The Liturgy should be revised by a group of learned theologians, half of whom would be Presbyterians. Questions about the surplice, the posture during Communion, and the sign of the cross in baptism should be resolved in a way that would reassure sensitive consciences. Once the King had lulled the vigilance of those he feared most, he dissolved Parliament. He had already agreed to a law that granted amnesty, with few exceptions, to all who had committed political offenses during the recent conflicts. He also secured from the Commons a lifelong tax grant, with an annual yield estimated at one million two hundred thousand pounds. The actual income, however, during some years, was only a bit more than a million: but this amount, combined with the crown’s hereditary revenue, was enough to cover government expenses during peacetime. No funding was allocated for a standing army. The nation was tired of even hearing that term; even a hint of such a force would have angered and alarmed everyone.

Early in 1661 took place a general election. The people were mad with loyal enthusiasm. The capital was excited by preparations for the most splendid coronation that had ever been known. The result was that a body of representatives was returned, such as England had never yet seen. A large proportion of the successful candidates were men who had fought for the Crown and the Church, and whose minds had been exasperated by many injuries and insults suffered at the hands of the Roundheads. When the members met, the passions which animated each individually acquired new strength from sympathy. The House of Commons was, during some years, more zealous for royalty than the King, more zealous for episcopacy than the Bishops. Charles and Clarendon were almost terrified at the completeness of their own success. They found themselves in a situation not unlike that in which Lewis the Eighteenth and the Duke of Richelieu were placed while the Chamber of 1815 was sitting. Even if the King had been desirous to fulfill the promises which he had made to the Presbyterians, it would have been out of his power to do so. It was indeed only by the strong exertion of his influence that he could prevent the victorious Cavaliers from rescinding the act of indemnity, and retaliating without mercy all that they had suffered.

In early 1661, there was a general election. The people were filled with loyal enthusiasm. The capital buzzed with preparations for the most extravagant coronation ever seen. As a result, a group of representatives was elected like nothing England had ever experienced. Many of the successful candidates were individuals who had fought for the Crown and the Church, and their feelings had been intensified by the many injuries and insults they endured from the Roundheads. When the members gathered, the passions that drove each of them gained even more strength from their shared experiences. For several years, the House of Commons showed more eagerness for royal authority than the King did, and more support for the bishops than the bishops themselves. Charles and Clarendon were almost overwhelmed by the extent of their own success. They found themselves in a situation similar to that faced by Louis XVIII and the Duke of Richelieu during the 1815 Chamber's session. Even if the King wanted to keep the promises he made to the Presbyterians, he wouldn't have been able to. It was only through a strong exercise of his influence that he could prevent the victorious Cavaliers from overturning the act of indemnity and retaliating mercilessly for everything they had suffered.

The Commons began by resolving that every member should, on pain of expulsion, take the sacrament according to the form prescribed by the old Liturgy, and that the Covenant should be burned by the hangman in Palace Yard. An act was passed, which not only acknowledged the power of the sword to be solely in the King, but declared that in no extremity whatever could the two Houses be justified in withstanding him by force. Another act was passed which required every officer of a corporation to receive the Eucharist according to the rites of the Church of England, and to swear that he held resistance to the King's authority to be in all cases unlawful. A few hotheaded men wished to bring in a bill, which should at once annul all the statutes passed by the Long Parliament, and should restore the Star Chamber and the High Commission; but the reaction, violent as it was, did not proceed quite to this length. It still continued to be the law that a Parliament should be held every three years: but the stringent clauses which directed the returning officers to proceed to election at the proper time, even without the royal writ, were repealed. The Bishops were restored to their seats in the Upper House. The old ecclesiastical polity and the old Liturgy were revived without any modification which had any tendency to conciliate even the most reasonable Presbyterians. Episcopal ordination was now, for the first time, made an indispensable qualification for church preferment. About two thousand ministers of religion, whose conscience did not suffer them to conform, were driven from their benefices in one day. The dominant party exultingly reminded the sufferers that the Long Parliament, when at the height of power, had turned out a still greater number of Royalist divines. The reproach was but too well founded: but the Long Parliament had at least allowed to the divines whom it ejected a provision sufficient to keep them from starving; and this example the Cavaliers, intoxicated with animosity, had not the justice and humanity to follow.

The Commons started by deciding that every member should, under the threat of expulsion, take the sacrament according to the old Liturgy, and that the Covenant should be burned by the hangman in Palace Yard. An act was passed that not only recognized the King's sole power with the sword but also declared that under no circumstances could the two Houses justify resisting him by force. Another act required every corporate officer to receive the Eucharist according to the Church of England's rites and to swear that they believed resistance to the King's authority was always unlawful. Some hotheaded individuals wanted to introduce a bill to annul all statutes passed by the Long Parliament and restore the Star Chamber and the High Commission; however, the reaction, while strong, did not go that far. It still remained the law that a Parliament should meet every three years, but the strict rules directing returning officers to hold elections on time, even without the royal writ, were repealed. The Bishops were restored to their seats in the Upper House. The old church structure and the old Liturgy were reinstated without any changes that might have pleased even the most reasonable Presbyterians. For the first time, episcopal ordination became a necessary qualification for church positions. About two thousand ministers, whose conscience did not allow them to conform, were removed from their positions in a single day. The ruling party gleefully reminded those affected that the Long Parliament, at the peak of its power, had expelled an even greater number of Royalist clergy. The criticism was unfortunately valid; however, the Long Parliament had at least provided enough support for the ejected clergy to prevent them from starving, a courtesy that the Cavaliers, fueled by hostility, failed to show.

Then came penal statutes against Nonconformists, statutes for which precedents might too easily be found in the Puritan legislation, but to which the King could not give his assent without a breach of promises publicly made, in the most important crisis of his life, to those on whom his fate depended. The Presbyterians, in extreme distress and terror, fled to the foot of the throne, and pleaded their recent services and the royal faith solemnly and repeatedly plighted. The King wavered. He could not deny his own hand and seal. He could not but be conscious that he owed much to the petitioners. He was little in the habit of resisting importunate solicitation. His temper was not that of a persecutor. He disliked the Puritans indeed; but in him dislike was a languid feeling, very little resembling the energetic hatred which had burned in the heart of Laud. He was, moreover, partial to the Roman Catholic religion; and he knew that it would be impossible to grant liberty of worship to the professors of that religion without extending the same indulgence to Protestant dissenters. He therefore made a feeble attempt to restrain the intolerant zeal of the House of Commons; but that House was under the influence of far deeper convictions and far stronger passions than his own. After a faint struggle he yielded, and passed, with the show of alacrity, a series of odious acts against the separatists. It was made a crime to attend a dissenting place of worship. A single justice of the peace might convict without a jury, and might, for the third offence, pass sentence of transportation beyond sea for seven years. With refined cruelty it was provided that the offender should not be transported to New England, where he was likely to find sympathising friends. If he returned to his own country before the expiration of his term of exile, he was liable to capital punishment. A new and most unreasonable test was imposed on divines who had been deprived of their benefices for nonconformity; and all who refused to take that test were prohibited from coming within five miles of any town which was governed by a corporation, of any town which was represented in Parliament, or of any town where they had themselves resided as ministers. The magistrates, by whom these rigorous statutes were to be enforced, were in general men inflamed by party spirit and by the remembrance of wrongs suffered in the time of the commonwealth. The gaols were therefore soon crowded with dissenters, and, among the sufferers, were some of whose genius and virtue any Christian society might well be proud.

Then came laws against Nonconformists, which were too reminiscent of Puritan legislation. However, the King couldn't agree to them without breaking his promises made publicly during a critical moment in his life to those on whom his fate relied. The Presbyterians, filled with fear and desperation, came to the throne, pleading their recent services and the King’s previously promised support. The King hesitated. He couldn't deny his own signature. He was aware that he owed a lot to the petitioners. He wasn't used to resisting persistent requests. His nature wasn't that of a persecutor. Although he disliked the Puritans, his dislike was a faint feeling, unlike the intense hatred that had burned in Laud's heart. Furthermore, he had a preference for the Roman Catholic faith and realized it would be impossible to grant freedom of worship to Catholics without also extending that same allowance to Protestant dissenters. He made a weak attempt to hold back the harsh enthusiasm of the House of Commons, but that House was driven by much deeper beliefs and stronger emotions than his own. After a brief struggle, he gave in and quickly approved a series of oppressive laws against the separatists. It became illegal to attend a dissenting place of worship. A single justice of the peace could convict without a jury and could sentence someone to seven years of banishment for a third offense. With cold cruelty, it was stated that offenders couldn’t be sent to New England, where they might find sympathetic friends. If they returned to their homeland before their exile was over, they could face the death penalty. A new and unreasonable test was imposed on ministers who had lost their positions for nonconformity; anyone refusing this test was barred from coming within five miles of any town governed by a corporation, any town represented in Parliament, or any town where they had previously served as ministers. The magistrates enforcing these harsh laws were mostly people fueled by party spirit and memories of past grievances from the commonwealth. Consequently, the jails quickly filled with dissenters, including some individuals whose talent and character any Christian community would be proud of.

The Church of England was not ungrateful for the protection which she received from the government. From the first day of her existence, she had been attached to monarchy. But, during the quarter of a century which followed the Restoration, her zeal for royal authority and hereditary right passed all bounds. She had suffered with the House of Stuart. She had been restored with that House. She was connected with it by common interests, friendships, and enmities. It seemed impossible that a day could ever come when the ties which bound her to the children of her august martyr would be sundered, and when the loyalty in which she gloried would cease to be a pleasing and profitable duty. She accordingly magnified in fulsome phrase that prerogative which was constantly employed to defend and to aggrandise her, and reprobated, much at her ease, the depravity of those whom oppression, from which she was exempt, had goaded to rebellion. Her favourite theme was the doctrine of non-resistance. That doctrine she taught without any qualification, and followed out to all its extreme consequences. Her disciples were never weary of repeating that in no conceivable case, not even if England were cursed with a King resembling Busiris or Phalaris, with a King who, in defiance of law, and without the presence of justice, should daily doom hundreds of innocent victims to torture and death, would all the Estates of the realm united be justified in withstanding his tyranny by physical force. Happily the principles of human nature afford abundant security that such theories will never be more than theories. The day of trial came; and the very men who had most loudly and most sincerely professed this extravagant loyalty were, in every county of England arrayed in arms against the throne.

The Church of England was not ungrateful for the government’s protection. From the very beginning, she had been connected to the monarchy. However, during the twenty-five years after the Restoration, her support for royal authority and the divine right of kings reached extreme levels. She had suffered alongside the House of Stuart and had been restored with that House. She was tied to it through shared interests, friendships, and rivalries. It seemed impossible that there would ever come a day when her connections to the children of her noble martyr would be severed and when the loyalty she took pride in would no longer feel like a rewarding duty. Therefore, she excessively praised the powers that continuously defended and elevated her while comfortably condemning those who, oppressed in ways she was not, were driven to rebellion. Her favorite topic was the doctrine of non-resistance. She taught that doctrine without any reservations and pushed it to its most extreme implications. Her followers never tired of asserting that in no situation— not even if England were ruled by a king like Busiris or Phalaris, a king who, in defiance of law and without any sense of justice, tortured and executed hundreds of innocent people every day—would all the Estates of the realm be justified in resisting his tyranny with physical force. Fortunately, the principles of human nature provide strong assurance that such theories will remain just that—merely theories. When the test came, the very people who had most fervently claimed this outrageous loyalty found themselves armed against the throne in every county of England.

Property all over the kingdom was now again changing hands. The national sales, not having been confirmed by Act of Parliament, were regarded by the tribunals as nullities. The bishops, the deans, the chapters, the Royalist nobility and gentry, reentered on their confiscated estates, and ejected even purchasers who had given fair prices. The losses which the Cavaliers had sustained during the ascendency of their opponents were thus in part repaired; but in part only. All actions for mesne profits were effectually barred by the general amnesty; and the numerous Royalists, who, in order to discharge fines imposed by the Long Parliament, or in order to purchase the favour of powerful Roundheads, had sold lands for much less than the real value, were not relieved from the legal consequences of their own acts.

Property all over the kingdom was changing hands again. The national sales, not approved by Act of Parliament, were seen by the courts as invalid. The bishops, deans, chapters, and Royalist nobility and gentry reclaimed their confiscated estates, even ejecting buyers who had paid fair prices. The losses that the Cavaliers faced during their opponents' rule were partially compensated, but only in part. All claims for back profits were effectively blocked by the general amnesty, and many Royalists who had sold land for much less than its true value to pay fines imposed by the Long Parliament or to win favor with powerful Roundheads were not exempt from the legal consequences of their own actions.

While these changes were in progress, a change still more important took place in the morals and manners of the community. Those passions and tastes which, under the rule of the Puritans, had been sternly repressed, and, if gratified at all, had been gratified by stealth, broke forth with ungovernable violence as soon as the check was withdrawn. Men flew to frivolous amusements and to criminal pleasures with the greediness which long and enforced abstinence naturally produces. Little restraint was imposed by public opinion. For the nation, nauseated with cant, suspicious of all pretensions to sanctity and still smarting from the recent tyranny of rulers austere in life and powerful in prayer, looked for a time with complacency on the softer and gayer vices. Still less restraint was imposed by the government. Indeed there was no excess which was not encouraged by the ostentatious profligacy of the King and of his favourite courtiers. A few counsellors of Charles the First, who were now no longer young, retained the decorous gravity which had been thirty years before in fashion at Whitehall. Such were Clarendon himself, and his friends, Thomas Wriothesley, Earl of Southampton, Lord Treasurer, and James Butler, Duke of Ormond, who, having through many vicissitudes struggled gallantly for the royal cause in Ireland, now governed that kingdom as Lord Lieutenant. But neither the memory of the services of these men, nor their great power in the state, could protect them from the sarcasms which modish vice loves to dart at obsolete virtue. The praise of politeness and vivacity could now scarcely be obtained except by some violation of decorum. Talents great and various assisted to spread the contagion. Ethical philosophy had recently taken a form well suited to please a generation equally devoted to monarchy and to vice. Thomas Hobbes had, in language more precise and luminous than has ever been employed by any other metaphysical writer, maintained that the will of the prince was the standard of right and wrong, and that every subject ought to be ready to profess Popery, Mahometanism, or Paganism, at the royal command. Thousands who were incompetent to appreciate what was really valuable in his speculations, eagerly welcomed a theory which, while it exalted the kingly office, relaxed the obligations of morality, and degraded religion into a mere affair of state. Hobbism soon became an almost essential part of the character of the fine gentleman. All the lighter kinds of literature were deeply tainted by the prevailing licentiousness. Poetry stooped to be the pandar of every low desire. Ridicule, instead of putting guilt and error to the blush, turned her formidable shafts against innocence and truth. The restored Church contended indeed against the prevailing immorality, but contended feebly, and with half a heart. It was necessary to the decorum of her character that she should admonish her erring children: but her admonitions were given in a somewhat perfunctory manner. Her attention was elsewhere engaged. Her whole soul was in the work of crushing the Puritans, and of teaching her disciples to give unto Caesar the things which were Caesar's. She had been pillaged and oppressed by the party which preached an austere morality. She had been restored to opulence and honour by libertines. Little as the men of mirth and fashion were disposed to shape their lives according to her precepts, they were yet ready to fight knee deep in blood for her cathedrals and places, for every line of her rubric and every thread of her vestments. If the debauched Cavalier haunted brothels and gambling houses, he at least avoided conventicles. If he never spoke without uttering ribaldry and blasphemy, he made some amends by his eagerness to send Baxter and Howe to gaol for preaching and praying. Thus the clergy, for a time, made war on schism with so much vigour that they had little leisure to make war on vice. The ribaldry of Etherege and Wycherley was, in the presence and under the special sanction of the head of the Church, publicly recited by female lips in female ears, while the author of the Pilgrim's Progress languished in a dungeon for the crime of proclaiming the gospel to the poor. It is an unquestionable and a most instructive fact that the years during which the political power of the Anglican hierarchy was in the zenith were precisely the years during which national virtue was at the lowest point.

While these changes were happening, an even more significant shift occurred in the values and behavior of the community. The passions and interests that had been strictly suppressed under Puritan rule, and were only indulged in secrecy, erupted with uncontrollable force as soon as the restrictions were lifted. People rushed into trivial pastimes and immoral pleasures with the eagerness that comes from long-enforced abstinence. Public opinion imposed little restraint. The nation, tired of pretentiousness, wary of any claims to holiness, and still reeling from the recent oppression of strict rulers who were devout in both life and prayer, momentarily accepted softer and more indulgent vices. Government imposed even less restraint. In fact, there was no excess that wasn't encouraged by the flashy debauchery of the King and his favorite courtiers. A few of Charles the First's advisors, who were now older, maintained the decorous seriousness that had been in vogue thirty years earlier at Whitehall. This included Clarendon himself, and his friends, Thomas Wriothesley, Earl of Southampton, Lord Treasurer, and James Butler, Duke of Ormond, who, after enduring many ups and downs as loyal supporters of the royal cause in Ireland, now governed the kingdom as Lord Lieutenant. Yet, neither their past services nor their significant power in the state could shield them from the sarcastic jabs that fashionable vice aimed at outdated virtue. Compliments for politeness and liveliness could now hardly be obtained without some breach of decorum. Great and varied talents contributed to spreading this moral decay. Ethical philosophy had recently evolved into a form that suited a generation equally devoted to monarchy and vice. Thomas Hobbes, in clearer and more precise language than any other metaphysical writer has ever used, argued that the will of the prince was the standard for right and wrong, and that every subject should be ready to profess Popery, Mahometanism, or Paganism at royal command. Thousands who couldn't grasp the real value of his ideas eagerly embraced a theory that elevated the kingly position while loosening moral responsibilities and reducing religion to a mere state affair. Hobbism soon became an almost essential characteristic of the fashionable gentleman. Lighter forms of literature were heavily tainted by the dominant licentiousness. Poetry became the promoter of every low desire. Instead of shaming guilt and error, ridicule directed its fierce arrows at innocence and truth. The restored Church indeed fought against the prevailing immorality, but it did so with little energy and half-heartedness. It was essential for its decorum to advise its wayward children: however, those admonitions were given somewhat perfunctorily. Its focus was elsewhere. Its entire energy was dedicated to defeating the Puritans and teaching its followers to give to Caesar what belonged to Caesar. It had been looted and oppressed by the party advocating strict morality. It was reinstated to wealth and honor by libertines. Although the people of mirth and fashion were not inclined to shape their lives according to its precepts, they were still willing to fight fiercely for its cathedrals and positions, for every line in its liturgy and every thread of its vestments. If the debauched Cavalier frequented brothels and gambling houses, he still avoided conventicles. Though he never spoke without resorting to ribaldry and blasphemy, he made some amends by eagerly sending Baxter and Howe to jail for preaching and praying. Thus, the clergy, for a time, vigorously waged war on schism, leaving them little time to combat vice. The ribald works of Etherege and Wycherley were publicly recited by women with the explicit approval of the head of the Church, while the author of the Pilgrim's Progress languished in a dungeon for the crime of sharing the gospel with the poor. It's an undeniable and very instructive fact that the years when the political power of the Anglican hierarchy reached its peak were precisely the years when national virtue hit its lowest trough.

Scarcely any rank or profession escaped the infection of the prevailing immorality; but those persons who made politics their business were perhaps the most corrupt part of the corrupt society. For they were exposed, not only to the same noxious influences which affected the nation generally, but also to a taint of a peculiar and of a most malignant kind. Their character had been formed amidst frequent and violent revolutions and counterrevolutions. In the course of a few years they had seen the ecclesiastical and civil polity of their country repeatedly changed. They had seen an Episcopal Church persecuting Puritans, a Puritan Church persecuting Episcopalians, and an Episcopal Church persecuting Puritans again. They had seen hereditary monarchy abolished and restored. They had seen the Long Parliament thrice supreme in the state, and thrice dissolved amidst the curses and laughter of millions. They had seen a new dynasty rapidly rising to the height of power and glory, and then on a sudden hurled down from the chair of state without a struggle. They had seen a new representative system devised, tried and abandoned. They had seen a new House of Lords created and scattered. They had seen great masses of property violently transferred from Cavaliers to Roundheads, and from Roundheads back to Cavaliers. During these events no man could be a stirring and thriving politician who was not prepared to change with every change of fortune. It was only in retirement that any person could long keep the character either of a steady Royalist or of a steady Republican. One who, in such an age, is determined to attain civil greatness must renounce all thoughts of consistency. Instead of affecting immutability in the midst of endless mutation, he must be always on the watch for the indications of a coming reaction. He must seize the exact moment for deserting a falling cause. Having gone all lengths with a faction while it was uppermost, he must suddenly extricate himself from it when its difficulties begin, must assail it, must persecute it, must enter on a new career of power and prosperity in company with new associates. His situation naturally developes in him to the highest degree a peculiar class of abilities and a peculiar class of vices. He becomes quick of observation and fertile of resource. He catches without effort the tone of any sect or party with which he chances to mingle. He discerns the signs of the times with a sagacity which to the multitude appears miraculous, with a sagacity resembling that with which a veteran police officer pursues the faintest indications of crime, or with which a Mohawk warrior follows a track through the woods. But we shell seldom find, in a statesman so trained, integrity, constancy, any of the virtues of the noble family of Truth. He has no faith in any doctrine, no zeal for any cause. He has seen so many old institutions swept away, that he has no reverence for prescription. He has seen so many new institutions, from which much had been expected, produce mere disappointment, that he has no hope of improvement. He sneers alike at those who are anxious to preserve and at those who are eager to reform. There is nothing in the state which he could not, without a scruple or a blush, join in defending or in destroying. Fidelity to opinions and to friends seems to him mere dulness and wrongheadedness. Politics he regards, not as a science of which the object is the happiness of mankind, but as an exciting game of mixed chance and skill, at which a dexterous and lucky player may win an estate, a coronet, perhaps a crown, and at which one rash move may lead to the loss of fortune and of life. Ambition, which, in good times, and in good minds, is half a virtue, now, disjoined from every elevated and philanthropic sentiment, becomes a selfish cupidity scarcely less ignoble than avarice. Among those politicians who, from the Restoration to the accession of the House of Hanover, were at the head of the great parties in the state, very few can be named whose reputation is not stained by what, in our age, would be called gross perfidy and corruption. It is scarcely an exaggeration to say that the most unprincipled public men who have taken part in affairs within our memory would, if tried by the standard which was in fashion during the latter part of the seventeenth century, deserve to be regarded as scrupulous and disinterested.

Almost every social rank or job was affected by the widespread immorality of the time; however, those who made politics their career were perhaps the most corrupt segment of an already corrupt society. They faced not only the same toxic influences that affected the nation as a whole, but also a specific kind of harmful corruption. Their character was shaped by frequent and intense revolutions and counter-revolutions. In just a few years, they witnessed their country’s religious and civil systems change repeatedly. They observed an Episcopal Church persecuting Puritans, a Puritan Church persecuting Episcopalians, and then once again an Episcopal Church persecuting Puritans. They watched hereditary monarchy be abolished and then restored. They saw the Long Parliament rise to power three times and be dissolved three times amidst the curses and laughter of millions. They witnessed a new dynasty quickly rise to great power and glory only to be suddenly overthrown without a struggle. They experienced a new representative system being created, tested, and then abandoned. A new House of Lords was established and then dissolved. They saw large amounts of property violently transferred from Cavaliers to Roundheads and then back from Roundheads to Cavaliers. During these events, no one could be an active and successful politician without being ready to adapt to every change in fortune. Only in retirement could someone maintain the character of a consistent Royalist or Republican. Anyone determined to achieve political greatness during such a time had to abandon any thoughts of consistency. Instead of trying to stay the same amidst constant change, they needed to always be alert for signs of an upcoming shift. They must take advantage of the perfect moment to abandon a failing cause. After fully supporting a faction while it was in power, they had to quickly distance themselves when difficulties arose, attack it, and abandon it to pursue a new career of power and wealth with new allies. This situation naturally develops a specific set of skills and vices. They become highly observant and resourceful. They effortlessly adopt the tone of any group they interact with. They spot the signs of the times with an insight that seems amazing to the general public, similar to how a seasoned police officer tracks the slightest clues of crime or how a Mohawk warrior follows a path through the woods. However, we rarely find in such a trained statesman any integrity, loyalty, or the virtues associated with Truth. They lack faith in any doctrine and have no passion for any cause. They have witnessed so many old institutions being dismantled that they hold no respect for tradition. They've seen numerous new institutions, expected to bring progress, result only in disappointment, leaving them without hope for improvement. They mock both those who want to preserve the past and those eager to reform. There is nothing in the state that they could not, without hesitation or shame, defend or destroy. Loyalty to opinions and friends seems to them like mere dullness and stubbornness. They view politics not as a science aimed at human happiness but as an exhilarating game of chance and skill, where a clever and fortunate player might win wealth, a title, or even a crown, but a single reckless move could lead to losing everything, including their life. Ambition, which in stable times and good minds is partly a virtue, becomes a selfish desire in this context, not much better than greed. Among the politicians who were at the forefront of major political parties from the Restoration to the rise of the House of Hanover, very few are mentioned whose reputation isn’t tainted by what we would now call blatant betrayal and corruption. It’s hardly an exaggeration to say that the most unscrupulous public figures from our recent past would, by the standards popular during the late seventeenth century, be seen as principled and altruistic.

While these political, religious, and moral changes were taking place in England, the Royal authority had been without difficulty reestablished in every other part of the British islands. In Scotland the restoration of the Stuarts had been hailed with delight; for it was regarded as the restoration of national independence. And true it was that the yoke which Cromwell had imposed was, in appearance, taken away, that the Scottish Estates again met in their old hall at Edinburgh, and that the Senators of the College of Justice again administered the Scottish law according to the old forms. Yet was the independence of the little kingdom necessarily rather nominal than real; for, as long as the King had England on his side, he had nothing to apprehend from disaffection in his other dominions. He was now in such a situation that he could renew the attempt which had proved destructive to his father without any danger of his father's fate. Charles the First had tried to force his own religion by his regal power on the Scots at a moment when both his religion and his regal power were unpopular in England; and he had not only failed, but had raised troubles which had ultimately cost him his crown and his head. Times had now changed: England was zealous for monarchy and prelacy; and therefore the scheme which had formerly been in the highest degree imprudent might be resumed with little risk to the throne. The government resolved to set up a prelatical church in Scotland. The design was disapproved by every Scotchman whose judgment was entitled to respect. Some Scottish statesmen who were zealous for the King's prerogative had been bred Presbyterians. Though little troubled with scruples, they retained a preference for the religion of their childhood; and they well knew how strong a hold that religion had on the hearts of their countrymen. They remonstrated strongly: but, when they found that they remonstrated in vain, they had not virtue enough to persist in an opposition which would have given offence to their master; and several of them stooped to the wickedness and baseness of persecuting what in their consciences they believed to be the purest form of Christianity. The Scottish Parliament was so constituted that it had scarcely ever offered any serious opposition even to Kings much weaker than Charles then was. Episcopacy, therefore, was established by law. As to the form of worship, a large discretion was left to the clergy. In some churches the English Liturgy was used. In others, the ministers selected from that Liturgy such prayers and thanksgivings as were likely to be least offensive to the people. But in general the doxology was sung at the close of public worship; and the Apostles' Creed was recited when baptism was administered. By the great body of the Scottish nation the new Church was detested both as superstitious and as foreign; as tainted with the corruptions of Rome, and as a mark of the predominance of England. There was, however, no general insurrection. The country was not what it had been twenty-two years before. Disastrous war and alien domination had tamed the spirit of the people. The aristocracy, which was held in great honour by the middle class and by the populace, had put itself at the head of the movement against Charles the First, but proved obsequious to Charles the Second. From the English Puritans no aid was now to be expected. They were a feeble party, proscribed both by law and by public opinion. The bulk of the Scottish nation, therefore, sullenly submitted, and, with many misgivings of conscience, attended the ministrations of the Episcopal clergy, or of Presbyterian divines who had consented to accept from the government a half toleration, known by the name of the Indulgence. But there were, particularly in the western lowlands, many fierce and resolute men who held that the obligation to observe the Covenant was paramount to the obligation to obey the magistrate. These people, in defiance of the law, persisted in meeting to worship God after their own fashion. The Indulgence they regarded, not as a partial reparation of the wrongs inflicted by the State on the Church, but as a new wrong, the more odious because it was disguised under the appearance of a benefit. Persecution, they said, could only kill the body; but the black Indulgence was deadly to the soul. Driven from the towns, they assembled on heaths and mountains. Attacked by the civil power, they without scruple repelled force by force. At every conventicle they mustered in arms. They repeatedly broke out into open rebellion. They were easily defeated, and mercilessly punished: but neither defeat nor punishment could subdue their spirit. Hunted down like wild beasts, tortured till their bones were beaten flat, imprisoned by hundreds, hanged by scores, exposed at one time to the license of soldiers from England, abandoned at another time to the mercy of troops of marauders from the Highlands, they still stood at bay in a mood so savage that the boldest and mightiest oppressor could not but dread the audacity of their despair.

While these political, religious, and moral changes were happening in England, royal authority was easily reestablished in the rest of the British Isles. In Scotland, the return of the Stuarts was welcomed with joy, as it was seen as a return to national independence. It was true that the burden Cromwell had imposed seemed to have been lifted, that the Scottish Estates were meeting again in their old hall in Edinburgh, and that the Senators of the College of Justice were once more administering Scottish law in the traditional way. However, the independence of the small kingdom was more nominal than real; as long as the King had England on his side, he had little to fear from discontent in his other territories. He was in a position to attempt what had led to his father's downfall without the same risk of suffering his father's fate. Charles the First had tried to impose his religion on the Scots using his royal power at a time when both his religion and his power were unpopular in England, and he had not only failed but sparked troubles that ultimately cost him his crown and his life. Times had changed: England was now eager for monarchy and bishops, so a plan that would have been very unwise before could be pursued with minimal risk to the throne. The government decided to establish an episcopal church in Scotland. This plan was opposed by every respected Scot. Some Scottish politicians who supported the King's rights had been raised as Presbyterians. Though they had few scruples, they preferred the religion of their youth and understood how deeply rooted that religion was among their fellow countrymen. They protested strongly, but when they realized their protests were futile, they lacked the courage to continue opposing an action that would anger their master; several of them resorted to the shameful act of persecuting what they believed in their hearts to be the purest form of Christianity. The Scottish Parliament was structured in such a way that it rarely offered serious opposition, even to kings who were much weaker than Charles was then. Thus, Episcopacy was established by law. Regarding worship, the clergy were given a fair amount of freedom. In some churches, the English Liturgy was used, while in others, ministers chose prayers and thanksgivings from that Liturgy that would be least offensive to the people. However, generally, the doxology was sung at the end of public worship, and the Apostles' Creed was recited during baptisms. The majority of the Scottish nation detested the new Church for being both superstitious and foreign, tainted by the corruptions of Rome, and a sign of England's dominance. Yet, there was no widespread uprising. The country was not what it had been twenty-two years earlier. The devastating war and foreign rule had subdued the people's spirit. The aristocracy, which was highly regarded by the middle class and the masses, had led the opposition against Charles the First but proved submissive to Charles the Second. No support could now be expected from the English Puritans; they were a weak group, outlawed by law and public opinion. Thus, the bulk of the Scottish nation reluctantly submitted and, with many doubts of conscience, attended the services of the Episcopal clergy or Presbyterian ministers who had agreed to accept a conditional tolerance from the government, known as the Indulgence. However, particularly in the western lowlands, there were many fierce and determined individuals who believed that observing the Covenant was more important than obeying the government. These people continued to meet in defiance of the law to worship God in their own way. They viewed the Indulgence not as a small remedy for the wrongs the State inflicted on the Church, but as a new injustice, even more objectionable because it was disguised as a benefit. They argued that persecution could only kill the body; but the cruel Indulgence was harmful to the soul. Driven from towns, they gathered on moors and mountains. When attacked by government forces, they unapologetically fought back with force. At every gathering, they armed themselves. They repeatedly rebelled openly. They were easily defeated and mercilessly punished, but neither defeat nor punishment could break their spirit. Hunted down like wild animals, tortured until their bones were flattened, imprisoned by the hundreds, and hanged by the dozens, exposed at one moment to the brutality of English soldiers, and abandoned at another moment to marauding troops from the Highlands, they still stood their ground in a state so fierce that even the boldest and most powerful oppressor could not help but fear the desperation of their resistance.

Such was, during the reign of Charles the Second, the state of Scotland. Ireland was not less distracted. In that island existed feuds, compared with which the hottest animosities of English politicians were lukewarm. The enmity between the Irish Cavaliers and the Irish Roundheads was almost forgotten in the fiercer enmity which raged between the English and the Celtic races. The interval between the Episcopalian and the Presbyterian seemed to vanish, when compared with the interval which separated both from the Papist. During the late civil troubles the greater part of the Irish soil had been transferred from the vanquished nation to the victors. To the favour of the Crown few either of the old or of the new occupants had any pretensions. The despoilers and the despoiled had, for the most part, been rebels alike. The government was soon perplexed and wearied by the conflicting claims and mutual accusations of the two incensed factions. Those colonists among whom Cromwell had portioned out the conquered territory, and whose descendants are still called Cromwellians, asserted that the aboriginal inhabitants were deadly enemies of the English nation under every dynasty, and of the Protestant religion in every form. They described and exaggerated the atrocities which had disgraced the insurrection of Ulster: they urged the King to follow up with resolution the policy of the Protector; and they were not ashamed to hint that there would never be peace in Ireland till the old Irish race should be extirpated. The Roman Catholics extenuated their offense as they best might, and expatiated in piteous language on the severity of their punishment, which, in truth, had not been lenient. They implored Charles not to confound the innocent with the guilty, and reminded him that many of the guilty had atoned for their fault by returning to their allegiance, and by defending his rights against the murderers of his father. The court, sick of the importunities of two parties, neither of which it had any reason to love, at length relieved itself from trouble by dictating a compromise. That system, cruel, but most complete and energetic, by which Oliver had proposed to make the island thoroughly English, was abandoned. The Cromwellians were induced to relinquish a third part of their acquisitions. The land thus surrendered was capriciously divided among claimants whom the government chose to favour. But great numbers who protested that they were innocent of all disloyalty, and some persons who boasted that their loyalty had been signally displayed, obtained neither restitution nor compensation, and filled France and Spain with outcries against the injustice and ingratitude of the House of Stuart.

During the reign of Charles II, Scotland was in turmoil. Ireland was equally chaotic. In that country, feuds existed that made even the fiercest rivalries among English politicians seem mild. The hostility between the Irish Cavaliers and the Irish Roundheads was nearly forgotten compared to the stronger hatred between the English and the Celtic peoples. The divide between the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians seemed minor when placed alongside the gap between both and the Catholics. During the recent civil strife, most of the land in Ireland had been taken from the defeated nation and given to the victors. Neither the old nor the new landowners had much claim to the King's favor. Both the dispossessors and the dispossessed had mostly been rebels. The government soon grew confused and exhausted by the clashing claims and mutual accusations from the two angry factions. The colonists to whom Cromwell had assigned the conquered land, who are still known today as Cromwellians, argued that the native inhabitants had always been fierce enemies of the English nation under every dynasty and of Protestantism in any form. They described and exaggerated the brutalities that characterized the Ulster uprising; they urged the King to decisively continue the Protector's policies; and they suggested, without shame, that there would never be peace in Ireland until the old Irish race was eliminated. The Catholics tried to downplay their wrongdoing as best they could, lamenting the harshness of their punishment, which was indeed severe. They begged Charles not to mix the innocent with the guilty and reminded him that many of the guilty had made amends by returning to their allegiance and defending his rights against his father's murderers. Tired of the demands from both sides, neither of which it had any reason to favor, the court finally resolved its issues by enforcing a compromise. The harsh yet thorough plan that Oliver had devised to make the island completely English was scrapped. The Cromwellians were persuaded to give up a third of their lands. The land given up was randomly distributed among those the government chose to support. However, many who claimed to be completely innocent of disloyalty, including some who proudly asserted their loyalty, received neither restitution nor compensation, and they filled France and Spain with cries against the injustice and ingratitude of the House of Stuart.

Meantime the government had, even in England, ceased to be popular. The Royalists had begun to quarrel with the court and with each other; and the party which had been vanquished, trampled down, and, as it seemed, annihilated, but which had still retained a strong principle of life, again raised its head, and renewed the interminable war.

Meanwhile, the government had stopped being popular, even in England. The Royalists had started to argue with the court and among themselves; and the party that had been defeated, oppressed, and seemingly wiped out, but still held a strong sense of purpose, raised its head again and reignited the endless conflict.

Had the administration been faultless, the enthusiasm with which the return of the King and the termination of the military tyranny had been hailed could not have been permanent. For it is the law of our nature that such fits of excitement shall always be followed by remissions. The manner in which the court abused its victory made the remission speedy and complete. Every moderate man was shocked by the insolence, cruelty, and perfidy with which the Nonconformists were treated. The penal laws had effectually purged the oppressed party of those insincere members whose vices had disgraced it, and had made it again an honest and pious body of men. The Puritan, a conqueror, a ruler, a persecutor, a sequestrator, had been detested. The Puritan, betrayed and evil entreated, deserted by all the timeservers who, in his prosperity, had claimed brotherhood with him, hunted from his home, forbidden under severe penalties to pray or receive the sacrament according to his conscience, yet still firm in his resolution to obey God rather than man, was, in spite of some unpleasing recollections, an object of pity and respect to well constituted minds. These feelings became stronger when it was noised abroad that the court was not disposed to treat Papists with the same rigour which had been shown to Presbyterians. A vague suspicion that the King and the Duke were not sincere Protestants sprang up and gathered strength. Many persons too who had been disgusted by the austerity and hypocrisy of the Saints of the Commonwealth began to be still more disgusted by the open profligacy of the court and of the Cavaliers, and were disposed to doubt whether the sullen preciseness of Praise God Barebone might not be preferable to the outrageous profaneness and licentiousness of the Buckinghams and Sedleys. Even immoral men, who were not utterly destitute of sense and public spirit, complained that the government treated the most serious matters as trifles, and made trifles its serious business. A King might be pardoned for amusing his leisure with wine, wit, and beauty. But it was intolerable that he should sink into a mere lounger and voluptuary, that the gravest affairs of state should be neglected, and that the public service should be starved and the finances deranged in order that harlots and parasites might grow rich.

If the administration had been flawless, the excitement surrounding the return of the King and the end of military rule wouldn't have lasted. It's natural for moments of high enthusiasm to be followed by a letdown. The way the court misused its victory made this letdown quick and complete. Every reasonable person was appalled by the arrogance, cruelty, and deceitful treatment of the Nonconformists. The harsh laws had effectively rid the oppressed group of those insincere members whose wrongdoings had shamed it, restoring it to a genuine and devout group of people. The Puritan, once a conqueror, a ruler, a persecutor, and a confiscator, had become despised. The Puritan, betrayed and mistreated, abandoned by all the opportunists who had claimed to be his allies during his success, driven from his home, forbidden under heavy penalties to pray or take communion according to his beliefs, yet still determined to obey God rather than man, was, despite some unpleasant memories, an object of compassion and respect to those with sound judgment. These sentiments intensified when it became known that the court wasn't going to treat Catholics with the same severity shown to Presbyterians. A vague suspicion emerged that the King and the Duke weren't truly sincere Protestants, gaining momentum. Many who had been put off by the rigidness and hypocrisy of the Saints of the Commonwealth began to feel even more disgusted by the blatant immorality of the court and the Cavaliers, and started to wonder if the gloomy exactness of Praise God Barebone might not be better than the outrageous irreverence and debauchery of the Buckinghams and Sedleys. Even immoral individuals, not entirely lacking in common sense and public spirit, complained that the government treated serious matters as trivial while making trivial matters its main focus. A King might be excused for enjoying wine, wit, and beauty in his downtime. But it was unacceptable for him to become merely a lounger and hedonist, neglecting the most critical state affairs, allowing public service to suffer, and throwing finances into chaos just so that prostitutes and flatterers could become wealthy.

A large body of Royalists joined in these complaints, and added many sharp reflections on the King's ingratitude. His whole revenue, indeed, would not have sufficed to reward them all in proportion to their own consciousness of desert. For to every distressed gentleman who had fought under Rupert or Derby his own services seemed eminently meritorious, and his own sufferings eminently severe. Every one had flattered himself that, whatever became of the rest, he should be largely recompensed for all that he had lost during the civil troubles, and that the restoration of the monarchy would be followed by the restoration of his own dilapidated fortunes. None of these expectants could restrain his indignation, when he found that he was as poor under the King as he had been under the Rump or the Protector. The negligence and extravagance of the court excited the bitter indignation of these loyal veterans. They justly said that one half of what His Majesty squandered on concubines and buffoons would gladden the hearts of hundreds of old Cavaliers who, after cutting down their oaks and melting their plate to help his father, now wandered about in threadbare suits, and did not know where to turn for a meal.

A large group of Royalists joined in these complaints and added many sharp criticisms about the King's ingratitude. His entire income, in fact, wouldn't have been enough to reward them all according to how much they felt they deserved. For every struggling gentleman who had fought under Rupert or Derby, his own contributions seemed extremely deserving, and his own hardships felt particularly harsh. Everyone had convinced themselves that, no matter what happened to the others, they would be generously compensated for everything they lost during the civil conflicts, and that the return of the monarchy would also mean a return to their own ruined fortunes. None of these hopefuls could hold back their anger when they found they were just as broke under the King as they had been under the Rump or the Protector. The carelessness and extravagance of the court provoked the deep anger of these loyal veterans. They rightly pointed out that half of what His Majesty wasted on mistresses and jesters could bring joy to hundreds of old Cavaliers who, after cutting down their trees and melting their silver to help his father, now wandered around in worn-out clothes and had no idea where to find their next meal.

At the same time a sudden fall of rents took place. The income of every landed proprietor was diminished by five shillings in the pound. The cry of agricultural distress rose from every shire in the kingdom; and for that distress the government was, as usual, held accountable. The gentry, compelled to retrench their expenses for a period, saw with indignation the increasing splendour and profusion of Whitehall, and were immovably fixed in the belief that the money which ought to have supported their households had, by some inexplicable process, gone to the favourites of the King.

At the same time, there was a sudden drop in rents. The income of every landowner decreased by five shillings per pound. The shout of agricultural hardship came from every county in the kingdom, and as usual, the government was held responsible for it. The gentry, forced to cut back on their expenses for a while, watched with anger as Whitehall continued to flaunt its wealth and luxury, and they firmly believed that the money that should have supported their families had somehow ended up with the king's favorites.

The minds of men were now in such a temper that every public act excited discontent. Charles had taken to wife Catharine Princess of Portugal. The marriage was generally disliked; and the murmurs became loud when it appeared that the King was not likely to have any legitimate posterity. Dunkirk, won by Oliver from Spain, was sold to Lewis the Fourteenth, King of France. This bargain excited general indignation. Englishmen were already beginning to observe with uneasiness the progress of the French power, and to regard the House of Bourbon with the same feeling with which their grandfathers had regarded the House of Austria. Was it wise, men asked, at such a time, to make any addition to the strength of a monarchy already too formidable? Dunkirk was, moreover, prized by the people, not merely as a place of arms, and as a key to the Low Countries, but also as a trophy of English valour. It was to the subjects of Charles what Calais had been to an earlier generation, and what the rock of Gibraltar, so manfully defended, through disastrous and perilous years, against the fleets and armies of a mighty coalition, is to ourselves. The plea of economy might have had some weight, if it had been urged by an economical government. But it was notorious that the charges of Dunkirk fell far short of the sums which were wasted at court in vice and folly. It seemed insupportable that a sovereign, profuse beyond example in all that regarded his own pleasures, should be niggardly in all that regarded the safety and honour of the state.

The public mood was such that every action taken by the King stirred up discontent. Charles had married Catharine, the Princess of Portugal, and people largely disapproved of the marriage. The grumbling grew louder when it became clear that the King was unlikely to have any legitimate heirs. Dunkirk, which Oliver had captured from Spain, was sold to Louis XIV, King of France. This deal sparked widespread outrage. The English were starting to feel uneasy about the rise of French power and viewed the House of Bourbon with the same suspicion that their grandfathers had felt towards the House of Austria. People questioned whether it was wise to strengthen a monarchy that was already too powerful at such a time. Dunkirk was valued not just as a military location and a gateway to the Low Countries, but also as a symbol of English bravery. For Charles's subjects, it held the same significance that Calais did for an earlier generation, and what the rock of Gibraltar represents today, having been fiercely defended through trying years against formidable fleets and armies. The argument of saving money might have carried some weight if it had come from a government that actually practiced frugality. However, it was well-known that the costs of maintaining Dunkirk were far less than what was squandered at court on indulgence and foolishness. It seemed unbearable that a king who spent extravagantly on his own pleasures could be so stingy when it came to the safety and honor of the state.

The public discontent was heightened, when it was found that, while Dunkirk was abandoned on the plea of economy, the fortress of Tangier, which was part of the dower of Queen Catharine, was repaired and kept up at an enormous charge. That place was associated with no recollections gratifying to the national pride: it could in no way promote the national interests: it involved us in inglorious, unprofitable, and interminable wars with tribes of half savage Mussulmans and it was situated in a climate singularly unfavourable to the health and vigour of the English race.

Public discontent grew when it was discovered that, while Dunkirk was abandoned for the sake of saving money, the fortress of Tangier, part of Queen Catharine's dowry, was repaired and maintained at a huge expense. That place was tied to no memories that would boost national pride; it didn't help national interests at all; instead, it dragged us into disgraceful, unprofitable, and endless wars with half-savage Muslim tribes, and it was located in a climate particularly harmful to the health and strength of the English people.

But the murmurs excited by these errors were faint, when compared with the clamours which soon broke forth. The government engaged in war with the United Provinces. The House of Commons readily voted sums unexampled in our history, sums exceeding those which had supported the fleets and armies of Cromwell at the time when his power was the terror of all the world. But such was the extravagance, dishonesty, and incapacity of those who had succeeded to his authority, that this liberality proved worse than useless. The sycophants of the court, ill qualified to contend against the great men who then directed the arms of Holland, against such a statesman as De Witt, and such a commander as De Ruyter, made fortunes rapidly, while the sailors mutinied from very hunger, while the dockyards were unguarded, while the ships were leaky and without rigging. It was at length determined to abandon all schemes of offensive war; and it soon appeared that even a defensive war was a task too hard for that administration. The Dutch fleet sailed up the Thames, and burned the ships of war which lay at Chatham. It was said that, on the very day of that great humiliation, the King feasted with the ladies of his seraglio, and amused himself with hunting a moth about the supper room. Then, at length, tardy justice was done to the memory of Oliver. Everywhere men magnified his valour, genius, and patriotism. Everywhere it was remembered how, when he ruled, all foreign powers had trembled at the name of England, how the States General, now so haughty, had crouched at his feet, and how, when it was known that he was no more, Amsterdam was lighted up as for a great deliverance, and children ran along the canals, shouting for joy that the Devil was dead. Even Royalists exclaimed that the state could be saved only by calling the old soldiers of the Commonwealth to arms. Soon the capital began to feel the miseries of a blockade. Fuel was scarcely to be procured. Tilbury Fort, the place where Elizabeth had, with manly spirit, hurled foul scorn at Parma and Spain, was insulted by the invaders. The roar of foreign guns was heard, for the first time, by the citizens of London. In the Council it was seriously proposed that, if the enemy advanced, the Tower should be abandoned. Great multitudes of people assembled in the streets crying out that England was bought and sold. The houses and carriages of the ministers were attacked by the populace; and it seemed likely that the government would have to deal at once with an invasion and with an insurrection. The extreme danger, it is true, soon passed by. A treaty was concluded, very different from the treaties which Oliver had been in the habit of signing; and the nation was once more at peace, but was in a mood scarcely less fierce and sullen than in the days of shipmoney.

But the whispers caused by these mistakes were quiet compared to the uproar that soon erupted. The government went to war with the United Provinces. The House of Commons quickly approved unprecedented amounts of money, far exceeding what had supported Cromwell's fleets and armies when his power terrified the world. However, the extravagance, dishonesty, and incompetence of those who took over his authority turned this generosity into a disaster. The court’s sycophants, ill-equipped to face the great leaders commanding the Dutch forces, like De Witt and the commander De Ruyter, rapidly made fortunes while sailors mutinied from hunger, dockyards were unguarded, and ships were leaking and poorly rigged. Eventually, it was decided to abandon all plans for offensive war, and it soon became clear that even a defensive war was too challenging for that administration. The Dutch fleet sailed up the Thames and burned the warships at Chatham. It was reported that on the very day of that major humiliation, the King was dining with women of his court and amusing himself by chasing a moth around the dining room. Then, at last, delayed justice was served to Oliver’s memory. Everywhere, people praised his bravery, intelligence, and patriotism. It was widely recalled how, during his rule, all foreign powers feared the name of England, how the now arrogant States General once bowed before him, and how upon his death, Amsterdam lit up as if celebrating a great liberation, with children running along the canals, gleefully shouting that the Devil was dead. Even Royalists claimed that the state's salvation could only come from calling the old soldiers of the Commonwealth back into action. Soon, the capital began to experience the hardships of a blockade. Fuel was nearly impossible to find. Tilbury Fort, where Elizabeth had bravely mocked Parma and Spain, was taunted by the invaders. The citizens of London heard the thunder of foreign cannons for the first time. In the Council, it was seriously suggested that if the enemy advanced, they should abandon the Tower. Large crowds gathered in the streets, shouting that England was being sold. The homes and carriages of the ministers were attacked by the people, and it seemed likely that the government would have to simultaneously face an invasion and a rebellion. The immediate danger, it is true, soon passed. A treaty was signed, very different from the treaties Oliver used to sign, and the nation was once again at peace, but in a mood no less fierce and sullen than during the days of ship money.

The discontent engendered by maladministration was heightened by calamities which the best administration could not have averted. While the ignominious war with Holland was raging, London suffered two great disasters, such as never, in so short a space of time, befel one city. A pestilence, surpassing in horror any that during three centuries had visited the island, swept away, in six mouths, more than a hundred thousand human beings. And scarcely had the dead cart ceased to go its rounds, when a fire, such as had not been known in Europe since the conflagration of Rome under Nero, laid in ruins the whole city, from the Tower to the Temple, and from the river to the purlieus of Smithfield.

The discontent caused by poor administration was worsened by disasters that no good government could have prevented. While the shameful war with Holland was underway, London faced two major calamities that no other city had experienced in such a short time. A plague, more terrifying than any that had struck the island in the last three centuries, took the lives of over a hundred thousand people in just six months. And barely had the dead cart stopped making its rounds when a fire, unprecedented in Europe since the burning of Rome under Nero, devastated the entire city, from the Tower to the Temple and from the river to the outskirts of Smithfield.

Had there been a general election while the nation was smarting under so many disgraces and misfortunes, it is probable that the Roundheads would have regained ascendency in the state. But the Parliament was still the Cavalier Parliament, chosen in the transport of loyalty which had followed the Restoration. Nevertheless it soon became evident that no English legislature, however loyal, would now consent to be merely what the legislature had been under the Tudors. From the death of Elizabeth to the eve of the civil war, the Puritans, who predominated in the representative body, had been constantly, by a dexterous use of the power of the purse, encroaching on the province of the executive government. The gentlemen who, after the Restoration, filled the Lower House, though they abhorred the Puritan name, were well pleased to inherit the fruit of the Puritan policy. They were indeed most willing to employ the power which they possessed in the state for the purpose of making their King mighty and honoured, both at home and abroad: but with the power itself they were resolved not to part. The great English revolution of the seventeenth century, that is to say, the transfer of the supreme control of the executive administration from the crown to the House of Commons, was, through the whole long existence of this Parliament, proceeding noiselessly, but rapidly and steadily. Charles, kept poor by his follies and vices, wanted money. The Commons alone could legally grant him money. They could not be prevented from putting their own price on their grants. The price which they put on their grants was this, that they should be allowed to interfere with every one of the King's prerogatives, to wring from him his consent to laws which he disliked, to break up cabinets, to dictate the course of foreign policy, and even to direct the administration of war. To the royal office, and the royal person, they loudly and sincerely professed the strongest attachment. But to Clarendon they owed no allegiance; and they fell on him as furiously as their predecessors had fallen on Strafford. The minister's virtues and vices alike contributed to his ruin. He was the ostensible head of the administration, and was therefore held responsible even for those acts which he had strongly, but vainly, opposed in Council. He was regarded by the Puritans, and by all who pitied them, as an implacable bigot, a second Laud, with much more than Laud's understanding. He had on all occasions maintained that the Act of indemnity ought to be strictly observed; and this part of his conduct, though highly honourable to him, made him hateful to all those Royalists who wished to repair their ruined fortunes by suing the Roundheads for damages and mesne profits. The Presbyterians of Scotland attributed to him the downfall of their Church. The Papists of Ireland attributed to him the loss of their lands. As father of the Duchess of York, he had an obvious motive for wishing that there might be a barren Queen; and he was therefore suspected of having purposely recommended one. The sale of Dunkirk was justly imputed to him. For the war with Holland, he was, with less justice, held accountable. His hot temper, his arrogant deportment, the indelicate eagerness with which he grasped at riches, the ostentation with which he squandered them, his picture gallery, filled with masterpieces of Vandyke which had once been the property of ruined Cavaliers, his palace, which reared its long and stately front right opposite to the humbler residence of our Kings, drew on him much deserved, and some undeserved, censure. When the Dutch fleet was in the Thames, it was against the Chancellor that the rage of the populace was chiefly directed. His windows were broken; the trees of his garden were cut down; and a gibbet was set up before his door. But nowhere was he more detested than in the House of Commons. He was unable to perceive that the time was fast approaching when that House, if it continued to exist at all, must be supreme in the state, when the management of that House would be the most important department of politics, and when, without the help of men possessing the ear of that House, it would be impossible to carry on the government. He obstinately persisted in considering the Parliament as a body in no respect differing from the Parliament which had been sitting when, forty years before, he first began to study law at the Temple. He did not wish to deprive the legislature of those powers which were inherent in it by the old constitution of the realm: but the new development of those powers, though a development natural, inevitable, and to be prevented only by utterly destroying the powers themselves, disgusted and alarmed him. Nothing would have induced him to put the great seal to a writ for raising shipmoney, or to give his voice in Council for committing a member of Parliament to the Tower, on account of words spoken in debate: but, when the Commons began to inquire in what manner the money voted for the war had been wasted, and to examine into the maladministration of the navy, he flamed with indignation. Such inquiry, according to him, was out of their province. He admitted that the House was a most loyal assembly, that it had done good service to the crown, and that its intentions were excellent. But, both in public and in the closet, he, on every occasion, expressed his concern that gentlemen so sincerely attached to monarchy should unadvisedly encroach on the prerogative of the monarch. Widely as they differed in spirit from the members of the Long Parliament, they yet, he said, imitated that Parliament in meddling with matters which lay beyond the sphere of the Estates of the realm, and which were subject to the authority of the crown alone. The country, he maintained, would never be well governed till the knights of shires and the burgesses were content to be what their predecessors had been in the days of Elizabeth. All the plans which men more observant than himself of the signs of that time proposed, for the purpose of maintaining a good understanding between the Court and the Commons, he disdainfully rejected as crude projects, inconsistent with the old polity of England. Towards the young orators, who were rising to distinction and authority in the Lower House, his deportment was ungracious: and he succeeded in making them, with scarcely an exception, his deadly enemies. Indeed one of his most serious faults was an inordinate contempt for youth: and this contempt was the more unjustifiable, because his own experience in English politics was by no means proportioned to his age. For so great a part of his life had been passed abroad that he knew less of that world in which he found himself on his return than many who might have been his sons.

If there had been a general election while the country was suffering from so many humiliations and disasters, it’s likely that the Roundheads would have regained power. However, Parliament was still the Cavalier Parliament, selected in the wave of loyalty that followed the Restoration. It quickly became clear that no English legislature, no matter how loyal, would agree to be simply what the legislature had been under the Tudors. From the death of Elizabeth to the onset of the civil war, the Puritans dominated the representative body and continually, through clever use of financial power, encroached upon the authority of the executive government. The gentlemen who filled the Lower House after the Restoration, although they despised the Puritan name, were quite content to benefit from the results of Puritan policy. They were eager to use their power to make their King strong and respected, both domestically and internationally; however, they were determined not to relinquish that power. The significant English revolution of the seventeenth century, which entailed moving the highest control of executive administration from the crown to the House of Commons, proceeded quietly but quickly and steadily throughout the Parliament's existence. Charles, made financially poor by his mistakes and flaws, needed money. Only the Commons could legally provide him with funds. They could not be stopped from putting their own conditions on their grants. The conditions they imposed were that they should be allowed to interfere with all of the King’s prerogatives, force him to agree to laws he disliked, dismantle cabinets, dictate foreign policy, and even manage war efforts. They professed profound loyalty to the royal office and the King himself. However, they owed no loyalty to Clarendon and attacked him just as fiercely as their predecessors had attacked Strafford. His virtues and vices both contributed to his downfall. As the visible head of the administration, he was held responsible for acts he had strongly and unsuccessfully opposed in Council. The Puritans and their sympathizers viewed him as an unyielding bigot, a second Laud, but with even more intelligence than Laud. He had consistently insisted that the Act of Indemnity should be strictly enforced; although this was commendable, it made him detested by Royalists eager to recover their fortunes by suing the Roundheads for damages and profits. The Presbyterians in Scotland blamed him for the downfall of their Church. The Papists in Ireland held him responsible for the loss of their lands. As the father of the Duchess of York, he had a clear incentive to wish for a barren Queen, leading to suspicions that he had purposely suggested one. The sale of Dunkirk was rightly attributed to him, while he was, with less justification, blamed for the war with Holland. His temper, his arrogance, his greedy nature, the way he lavishly wasted his wealth, his art gallery filled with masterpieces from Vandyke that had once belonged to ruined Cavaliers, his grand palace directly opposing the more modest home of the Kings, drew both justified and some unjustified criticism. When the Dutch fleet was in the Thames, the public’s anger was primarily directed at the Chancellor. His windows were smashed, the trees in his garden were chopped down, and a gallows was erected outside his door. But nowhere was he more despised than in the House of Commons. He failed to see that the time was quickly approaching when, if the House continued to exist, it must be the dominant body in government, when managing that House would become the most important part of politics, and when it would be impossible to run the government without support from people who had the attention of that House. He stubbornly continued to view Parliament as an entity no different from the Parliament that had been in session when, forty years earlier, he first began studying law at the Temple. He did not intend to strip the legislature of the powers that were inherently part of it according to the old constitution of the realm; however, the new development of those powers, though natural and inevitable, and only preventable by completely destroying the powers themselves, repelled and alarmed him. Nothing would have persuaded him to put the great seal on a writ for raising ship money or to support a motion in Council to imprison a member of Parliament for words spoken in debate. But, when the Commons started questioning how the money allocated for the war had been misused and looked into the mismanagement of the navy, he burst out in outrage. Such inquiries, in his view, were outside their jurisdiction. He admitted that the House was a loyal assembly that had served the crown well, and that its intentions were commendable. But he frequently expressed his concern, both publicly and privately, that gentlemen so committed to monarchy should unwisely encroach on the monarch's prerogative. Although they differed greatly in spirit from the members of the Long Parliament, he claimed they imitated that Parliament by interfering in matters that fell outside the realm’s Estates and were only under the crown’s authority. He argued that the country would never be well governed until the knights of the shires and the burgesses accepted their roles as those of their predecessors in Elizabeth’s time. He disdainfully dismissed all plans proposed by those more attuned to the signs of the times that aimed to foster a good relationship between the Court and the Commons as crude ideas inconsistent with England's old political structure. His attitude towards the young orators rising to prominence in the Lower House was unkind, and he managed to make nearly all of them his sworn enemies. In fact, one of his biggest faults was his excessive contempt for youth, which was especially unjustifiable because his own experience in English politics did not correspond to his age. Having spent so much of his life abroad, he had less understanding of the world he returned to than many who could have been his sons.

For these reasons he was disliked by the Commons. For very different reasons he was equally disliked by the Court. His morals as well as his polities were those of an earlier generation. Even when he was a young law student, living much with men of wit and pleasure, his natural gravity and his religious principles had to a great extent preserved him from the contagion of fashionable debauchery; and he was by no means likely, in advanced years and in declining health, to turn libertine. On the vices of the young and gay he looked with an aversion almost as bitter and contemptuous as that which he felt for the theological errors of the sectaries. He missed no opportunity of showing his scorn of the mimics, revellers, and courtesans who crowded the palace; and the admonitions which he addressed to the King himself were very sharp, and, what Charles disliked still more, very long. Scarcely any voice was raised in favour of a minister loaded with the double odium of faults which roused the fury of the people, and of virtues which annoyed and importuned the sovereign. Southampton was no more. Ormond performed the duties of friendship manfully and faithfully, but in vain. The Chancellor fell with a great ruin. The seal was taken from him: the Commons impeached him: his head was not safe: he fled from the country: an act was passed which doomed him to perpetual exile; and those who had assailed and undermined him began to struggle for the fragments of his power.

For these reasons, he was disliked by the Commons. For very different reasons, he was also disliked by the Court. His morals and politics were from an earlier generation. Even as a young law student, spending time with witty and pleasure-seeking men, his natural seriousness and religious principles largely kept him safe from the influence of trendy excess; and he was unlikely, in his later years and poor health, to become a libertine. He viewed the vices of the young and carefree with an aversion almost as bitter and contemptuous as his feelings toward the theological errors of the sectarians. He seized every opportunity to express his disdain for the actors, party-goers, and escorts who filled the palace; and the warnings he gave to the King himself were sharp, and, what Charles disliked even more, quite lengthy. Hardly anyone spoke up in support of a minister burdened with the dual disapproval stemming from faults that enraged the people and virtues that irritated and bothered the sovereign. Southampton was gone. Ormond bravely and loyally fulfilled his duties as a friend, but to no avail. The Chancellor fell in a great downfall. The seal was taken from him; the Commons impeached him; his life was in danger; he fled the country; a law was enacted that condemned him to eternal exile; and those who had attacked and undermined him began to fight over the remnants of his power.

The sacrifice of Clarendon in some degree took off the edge of the public appetite for revenge. Yet was the anger excited by the profusion and negligence of the government, and by the miscarriages of the late war, by no means extinguished. The counsellors of Charles, with the fate of the Chancellor before their eyes, were anxious for their own safety. They accordingly advised their master to soothe the irritation which prevailed both in the Parliament and throughout the country, and for that end, to take a step which has no parallel in the history of the House of Stuart, and which was worthy of the prudence and magnanimity of Oliver.

The sacrifice of Clarendon somewhat lessened the public's desire for revenge. However, the anger stirred up by the government’s excess and negligence, as well as the failures of the recent war, was far from gone. Charles's advisers, keeping the Chancellor's fate in mind, were concerned about their own safety. They therefore advised him to calm the widespread irritation in both Parliament and the country. To do this, they suggested a move that has no equivalent in the history of the House of Stuart, one that reflected the wisdom and generosity of Oliver.

We have now reached a point at which the history of the great English revolution begins to be complicated with the history of foreign politics. The power of Spain had, during many years, been declining. She still, it is true held in Europe the Milanese and the two Sicilies, Belgium, and Franche Comte. In America her dominions still spread, on both sides of the equator, far beyond the limits of the torrid zone. But this great body had been smitten with palsy, and was not only incapable of giving molestation to other states, but could not, without assistance, repel aggression. France was now, beyond all doubt, the greatest power in Europe. Her resources have, since those days, absolutely increased, but have not increased so fast as the resources of England. It must also be remembered that, a hundred and eighty years ago, the empire of Russia, now a monarchy of the first class, was as entirely out of the system of European politics as Abyssinia or Siam, that the House of Brandenburg was then hardly more powerful than the House of Saxony, and that the republic of the United States had not then begun to exist. The weight of France, therefore, though still very considerable, has relatively diminished. Her territory was not in the days of Lewis the Fourteenth quite so extensive as at present: but it was large, compact, fertile, well placed both for attack and for defence, situated in a happy climate, and inhabited by a brave, active, and ingenious people. The state implicitly obeyed the direction of a single mind. The great fiefs which, three hundred years before, had been, in all but name, independent principalities, had been annexed to the crown. Only a few old men could remember the last meeting of the States General. The resistance which the Huguenots, the nobles, and the parliaments had offered to the kingly power, had been put down by the two great Cardinals who had ruled the nation during forty years. The government was now a despotism, but, at least in its dealings with the upper classes, a mild and generous despotism, tempered by courteous manners and chivalrous sentiments. The means at the disposal of the sovereign were, for that age, truly formidable. His revenue, raised, it is true, by a severe and unequal taxation which pressed heavily on the cultivators of the soil, far exceeded that of any other potentate. His army, excellently disciplined, and commanded by the greatest generals then living, already consisted of more than a hundred and twenty thousand men. Such an array of regular troops had not been seen in Europe since the downfall of the Roman empire. Of maritime powers France was not the first. But, though she had rivals on the sea, she had not yet a superior. Such was her strength during the last forty years of the seventeenth century, that no enemy could singly withstand her, and that two great coalitions, in which half Christendom was united against her, failed of success.

We have now reached a point where the history of the great English revolution starts to intertwine with the history of foreign politics. The power of Spain had been declining for many years. It's true that she still controlled the Milanese, the two Sicilies, Belgium, and Franche Comte in Europe. In America, her territories stretched on both sides of the equator, far beyond the tropics. But this vast empire had been struck by paralysis, and was not only unable to threaten other states but also could not defend itself against aggression without help. France was undoubtedly the greatest power in Europe at that time. Her resources have increased since then, but not as quickly as those of England. It’s also important to note that, a hundred eighty years ago, Russia, now a top-ranking monarchy, was as completely out of the European political scene as Abyssinia or Siam, that the House of Brandenburg was hardly more powerful than the House of Saxony, and that the republic of the United States didn’t even exist yet. Therefore, while France’s influence was still considerable, it had relatively decreased. During the time of Louis XIV, her territory wasn’t as extensive as it is today; however, it was large, compact, fertile, well-positioned for both attack and defense, situated in a favorable climate, and inhabited by a brave, energetic, and ingenious people. The state followed the direction of a single mind. The major fiefs that had, three hundred years earlier, been almost independent principalities had been annexed to the crown. Only a handful of old men could remember the last meeting of the States General. The resistance that the Huguenots, the nobles, and the parliaments had posed against royal power had been suppressed by the two great Cardinals who had governed the nation for forty years. The government had become a despotism, but at least in its dealings with the upper classes, it was a mild and generous despotism, tempered by courteous manners and chivalrous ideals. The resources available to the sovereign were, for that time, truly formidable. His revenue, raised by heavy and unequal taxation that hit the farmers hard, far exceeded that of any other ruler. His army, excellently disciplined and led by the greatest generals of the day, already had over one hundred twenty thousand men. Such a large force of regular troops had not been seen in Europe since the fall of the Roman Empire. France was not the top maritime power. But although she had rivals at sea, she had not yet encountered a superior. During the last forty years of the seventeenth century, her strength was such that no single enemy could withstand her, and two major coalitions, in which half of Christendom united against her, ended in failure.

The personal qualities of the French King added to the respect inspired by the power and importance of his kingdom. No sovereign has ever represented the majesty of a great state with more dignity and grace. He was his own prime minister, and performed the duties of a prime minister with an ability and industry which could not be reasonably expected from one who had in infancy succeeded to a crown, and who had been surrounded by flatterers before he could speak. He had shown, in an eminent degree, two talents invaluable to a prince, the talent of choosing his servants well, and the talent of appropriating to himself the chief part of the credit of their acts. In his dealings with foreign powers he had some generosity, but no justice. To unhappy allies who threw themselves at his feet, and had no hope but in his compassion, he extended his protection with a romantic disinterestedness, which seemed better suited to a knight errant than to a statesman. But he broke through the most sacred ties of public faith without scruple or shame, whenever they interfered with his interest, or with what he called his glory. His perfidy and violence, however, excited less enmity than the insolence with which he constantly reminded his neighbours of his own greatness and of their littleness. He did not at this time profess the austere devotion which, at a later period, gave to his court the aspect of a monastery. On the contrary, he was as licentious, though by no means as frivolous and indolent, as his brother of England. But he was a sincere Roman Catholic; and both his conscience and his vanity impelled him to use his power for the defence and propagation of the true faith, after the example of his renowned predecessors, Clovis, Charlemagne, and Saint Lewis.

The personal qualities of the French King added to the respect generated by the power and significance of his kingdom. No ruler has ever represented the majesty of a great state with more dignity and grace. He was his own prime minister and handled the responsibilities of that role with a skill and dedication that seemed unlikely for someone who had ascended to the throne as a child and had been surrounded by flatterers before he could even talk. He demonstrated, in a remarkable way, two vital skills for a prince: the ability to choose his staff wisely and the knack for taking most of the credit for their achievements. In his interactions with foreign powers, he showed some generosity but lacked justice. To unfortunate allies who came to him in desperation, with no hope but his compassion, he offered his protection in a chivalrous way that felt more fitting for a knight than for a statesman. However, he violated the most sacred bonds of public trust without any scruples or shame whenever it conflicted with his interests or what he considered his glory. His treachery and aggression, however, stirred up less hatred than the arrogance with which he constantly reminded his neighbors of his own greatness and their insignificance. At this time, he did not claim the strict devotion that, later on, gave his court a monastic feel. Instead, he was as immoral, though not as trivial or lazy, as his brother in England. But he was a genuine Roman Catholic, and both his conscience and his pride drove him to use his power to defend and spread the true faith, following the example of his legendary predecessors, Clovis, Charlemagne, and Saint Louis.

Our ancestors naturally looked with serious alarm on the growing power of France. This feeling, in itself perfectly reasonable, was mingled with other feelings less praiseworthy. France was our old enemy. It was against France that the most glorious battles recorded in our annals had been fought. The conquest of France had been twice effected by the Plantagenets. The loss of France had been long remembered as a great national disaster. The title of King of France was still borne by our sovereigns. The lilies of France still appeared, mingled with our own lions, on the shield of the House of Stuart. In the sixteenth century the dread inspired by Spain had suspended the animosity of which France had anciently been the object. But the dread inspired by Spain had given place to contemptuous compassion; and France was again regarded as our national foe. The sale of Dunkirk to France had been the most generally unpopular act of the restored King. Attachment to France had been prominent among the crimes imputed by the Commons to CIarendon. Even in trifles the public feeling showed itself. When a brawl took place in the streets of Westminster between the retinues of the French and Spanish embassies, the populace, though forcibly prevented from interfering, had given unequivocal proofs that the old antipathy to France was not extinct.

Our ancestors naturally felt serious alarm at the increasing power of France. This sentiment, while entirely reasonable, was mixed with less admirable feelings. France was our old enemy. It was against France that some of the most glorious battles in our history were fought. The Plantagenets had conquered France twice. The loss of France was long remembered as a significant national disaster. Our kings still held the title of King of France. The lilies of France still appeared alongside our own lions on the coat of arms of the House of Stuart. In the sixteenth century, the fear of Spain had temporarily dampened the longstanding animosity toward France. But the fear of Spain shifted to contemptuous concern, and France was once again seen as our national rival. The sale of Dunkirk to France was one of the most unpopular actions taken by the restored King. The attachment to France was a major accusation against Clarendon by the Commons. Even in small matters, public sentiment was evident. When a fight broke out in the streets of Westminster between the entourages of the French and Spanish embassies, the crowd, though forcibly held back from intervening, clearly demonstrated that the old hostility toward France was very much alive.

France and Spain were now engaged in a more serious contest. One of the chief objects of the policy of Lewis throughout his life was to extend his dominions towards the Rhine. For this end he had engaged in war with Spain, and he was now in the full career of conquest. The United Provinces saw with anxiety the progress of his arms. That renowned federation had reached the height of power, prosperity, and glory. The Batavian territory, conquered from the waves and defended against them by human art, was in extent little superior to the principality of Wales. But all that narrow space was a busy and populous hive, in which new wealth was every day created, and in which vast masses of old wealth were hoarded. The aspect of Holland, the rich cultivation, the innumerable canals, the ever whirling mills, the endless fleets of barges, the quick succession of great towns, the ports bristling with thousands of masts, the large and stately mansions, the trim villas, the richly furnished apartments, the picture galleries, the summer rouses, the tulip beds, produced on English travellers in that age an effect similar to the effect which the first sight of England now produces on a Norwegian or a Canadian. The States General had been compelled to humble themselves before Cromwell. But after the Restoration they had taken their revenge, had waged war with success against Charles, and had concluded peace on honourable terms. Rich, however, as the Republic was, and highly considered in Europe, she was no match for the power of Lewis. She apprehended, not without good cause, that his kingdom might soon be extended to her frontiers; and she might well dread the immediate vicinity of a monarch so great, so ambitious, and so unscrupulous. Yet it was not easy to devise any expedient which might avert the danger. The Dutch alone could not turn the scale against France. On the side of the Rhine no help was to be expected. Several German princes had been gained by Lewis; and the Emperor himself was embarrassed by the discontents of Hungary. England was separated from the United Provinces by the recollection of cruel injuries recently inflicted and endured; and her policy had, since the restoration, been so devoid of wisdom and spirit, that it was scarcely possible to expect from her any valuable assistance

France and Spain were now in a more serious struggle. One of Lewis's main goals throughout his life was to expand his territories toward the Rhine. To achieve this, he had gone to war with Spain, and he was now fully engaged in conquest. The United Provinces watched nervously as his military advances continued. That famous federation had reached the peak of power, prosperity, and glory. The Batavian land, reclaimed from the sea and protected by human effort, was only slightly larger than the principality of Wales. However, that small area was a bustling and crowded hub, where new wealth was created every day, and large amounts of old wealth were stored. The landscape of Holland—with its rich agriculture, countless canals, ever-turning mills, endless fleets of barges, rapidly successive great towns, ports filled with thousands of masts, large and impressive mansions, neat villas, well-furnished apartments, art galleries, summer retreats, and tulip gardens—left English travelers at that time feeling much like Norwegians or Canadians do upon first seeing England. The States General had been forced to submit to Cromwell. But after the Restoration, they found their footing, successfully waged war against Charles, and achieved peace on favorable terms. Yet, despite the Republic's wealth and high standing in Europe, it was no match for Lewis's power. They had good reason to fear that his kingdom might soon reach their borders, and they justifiably dreaded the immediate presence of such a great, ambitious, and ruthless monarch. Still, coming up with any solution to avert this danger was not easy. The Dutch alone could not tip the balance against France. No help was to be expected from the Rhine side. Several German princes had aligned with Lewis, and even the Emperor was troubled by unrest in Hungary. England remained distant from the United Provinces due to painful recent conflicts, and her policy had been so lacking in wisdom and vigor since the Restoration that it was hardly realistic to expect any meaningful support from her.

But the fate of Clarendon and the growing ill humour of the Parliament determined the advisers of Charles to adopt on a sudden a policy which amazed and delighted the nation.

But the fate of Clarendon and the increasing annoyance of Parliament led Charles' advisors to suddenly adopt a policy that surprised and thrilled the nation.

The English resident at Brussels, Sir William Temple, one of the most expert diplomatists and most pleasing writers of that age, had already represented to this court that it was both desirable and practicable to enter into engagements with the States General for the purpose of checking the progress of France. For a time his suggestions had been slighted; but it was now thought expedient to act on them. He was commissioned to negotiate with the States General. He proceeded to the Hague, and soon came to an understanding with John De Witt, then the chief minister of Holland. Sweden, small as her resources were, had, forty years before, been raised by the genius of Gustavus Adolphus to a high rank among European powers, and had not yet descended to her natural position. She was induced to join on this occasion with England and the States. Thus was formed that coalition known as the Triple Alliance. Lewis showed signs of vexation and resentment, but did not think it politic to draw on himself the hostility of such a confederacy in addition to that of Spain. He consented, therefore, to relinquish a large part of the territory which his armies had occupied. Peace was restored to Europe; and the English government, lately an object of general contempt, was, during a few months, regarded by foreign powers with respect scarcely less than that which the Protector had inspired.

The English resident in Brussels, Sir William Temple, one of the most skilled diplomats and enjoyable writers of that time, had already pointed out to this court that it was both desirable and feasible to make agreements with the States General to curb France's expansion. For a while, his ideas were ignored, but it was now considered wise to act on them. He was given the task of negotiating with the States General. He went to The Hague and quickly reached an agreement with John De Witt, who was then the chief minister of Holland. Sweden, despite its limited resources, had been elevated by the brilliance of Gustavus Adolphus to a significant position among European powers forty years earlier and had not yet returned to its natural standing. It was persuaded to join forces with England and the States on this occasion. This resulted in the coalition known as the Triple Alliance. Lewis displayed signs of annoyance and anger but didn’t think it wise to bring upon himself the hostility of such a coalition in addition to Spain's. Therefore, he agreed to give up a large portion of the territory his armies had occupied. Peace was restored to Europe, and the English government, which had recently been scorned, was, for a few months, regarded by foreign powers with a respect nearly equal to that which the Protector had commanded.

At home the Triple Alliance was popular in the highest degree. It gratified alike national animosity and national pride. It put a limit to the encroachments of a powerful and ambitious neighbour. It bound the leading Protestant states together in close union. Cavaliers and Roundheads rejoiced in common: but the joy of the Roundhead was even greater than that of the Cavalier. For England had now allied herself strictly with a country republican in government and Presbyterian in religion, against a country ruled by an arbitrary prince and attached to the Roman Catholic Church. The House of Commons loudly applauded the treaty; and some uncourtly grumblers described it as the only good thing that had been done since the King came in.

At home, the Triple Alliance was incredibly popular. It satisfied both national resentment and national pride. It limited the advances of a powerful and ambitious neighbor. It united the leading Protestant states in a strong alliance. Cavaliers and Roundheads celebrated together, but the Roundheads were even more enthusiastic than the Cavaliers. England had now closely aligned itself with a country that was republican in government and Presbyterian in faith, against a nation governed by an absolute monarch and loyal to the Roman Catholic Church. The House of Commons loudly supported the treaty, and some blunt critics called it the only good thing accomplished since the King came to power.

The King, however, cared little for the approbation of his Parliament or of his people. The Triple Alliance he regarded merely as a temporary expedient for quieting discontents which had seemed likely to become serious. The independence, the safety, the dignity of the nation over which he presided were nothing to him. He had begun to find constitutional restraints galling. Already had been formed in the Parliament a strong connection known by the name of the Country Party. That party included all the public men who leaned towards Puritanism and Republicanism, and many who, though attached to the Church and to hereditary monarchy, had been driven into opposition by dread of Popery, by dread of France, and by disgust at the extravagance, dissoluteness, and faithlessness of the court. The power of this band of politicians was constantly growing. Every year some of those members who had been returned to Parliament during the loyal excitement of 1661 had dropped off; and the vacant seats had generally been filled by persons less tractable. Charles did not think himself a King while an assembly of subjects could call for his accounts before paying his debts, and could insist on knowing which of his mistresses or boon companions had intercepted the money destined for the equipping and manning of the fleet. Though not very studious of fame, he was galled by the taunts which were sometimes uttered in the discussions of the Commons, and on one occasion attempted to restrain the freedom of speech by disgraceful means. Sir John Coventry, a country gentleman, had, in debate, sneered at the profligacy of the court. In any former reign he would probably have been called before the Privy Council and committed to the Tower. A different course was now taken. A gang of bullies was secretly sent to slit the nose of the offender. This ignoble revenge, instead of quelling the spirit of opposition, raised such a tempest that the King was compelled to submit to the cruel humiliation of passing an act which attainted the instruments of his revenge, and which took from him the power of pardoning them.

The King, however, didn't care much about the approval of his Parliament or his people. He saw the Triple Alliance as just a temporary solution to calm unrest that had started to seem serious. The independence, safety, and dignity of the nation he ruled meant nothing to him. He was beginning to find constitutional limits constraining. A strong group known as the Country Party had already formed in Parliament. This party included all the public figures who leaned towards Puritanism and Republicanism, as well as many who were loyal to the Church and hereditary monarchy but had turned against the King out of fear of Catholicism, fear of France, and disgust at the extravagance and dishonesty of the court. The influence of this group of politicians was steadily increasing. Every year, some of those members who had been elected during the patriotic fervor of 1661 had left, and the empty positions were mostly filled by less compliant individuals. Charles didn’t feel like a King as long as a group of subjects could demand accountability from him before settling his debts and insist on knowing which of his mistresses or friends had taken the money meant for fitting out and crewing the fleet. Although he wasn’t particularly focused on his reputation, he was irritated by the jabs that were sometimes made during debates in the Commons, and on one occasion, he tried to silence criticism through disgraceful means. Sir John Coventry, a country gentleman, had mocked the court’s decadence during a debate. In any previous reign, he would have likely been summoned before the Privy Council and imprisoned in the Tower. This time, a different approach was taken. A group of thugs was secretly sent to mutilate the offender’s nose. This shameful retaliation didn’t suppress the spirit of opposition; instead, it sparked such a backlash that the King was forced to endure the humiliating experience of passing a law against those who carried out his revenge, which stripped him of the ability to pardon them.

But, impatient as he was of constitutional restraints, how was he to emancipate himself from them? He could make himself despotic only by the help of a great standing army; and such an army was not in existence. His revenues did indeed enable him to keep up some regular troops: but those troops, though numerous enough to excite great jealousy and apprehension in the House of Commons and in the country, were scarcely numerous enough to protect Whitehall and the Tower against a rising of the mob of London. Such risings were, indeed to be dreaded; for it was calculated that in the capital and its suburbs dwelt not less than twenty thousand of Oliver's old soldiers.

But, as impatient as he was with constitutional limits, how could he free himself from them? He could only become a tyrant with the support of a large standing army; however, such an army did not exist. His finances did allow him to maintain some regular troops: yet those troops, although enough to cause significant jealousy and concern in the House of Commons and the nation, were hardly sufficient to defend Whitehall and the Tower against a mob uprising in London. Such uprisings were indeed to be feared; it was estimated that at least twenty thousand of Oliver's former soldiers lived in the capital and its suburbs.

Since the King was bent on emancipating himself from the control of Parliament, and since, in such an enterprise, he could not hope for effectual aid at home, it followed that he must look for aid abroad. The power and wealth of the King of France might be equal to the arduous task of establishing absolute monarchy in England. Such an ally would undoubtedly expect substantial proofs of gratitude for such a service. Charles must descend to the rank of a great vassal, and must make peace and war according to the directions of the government which protected him. His relation to Lewis would closely resemble that in which the Rajah of Nagpore and the King of Oude now stand to the British Government. Those princes are bound to aid the East India Company in all hostilities, defensive and offensive, and to have no diplomatic relations but such as the East India Company shall sanction. The Company in return guarantees them against insurrection. As long as they faithfully discharge their obligations to the paramount power, they are permitted to dispose of large revenues, to fill their palaces with beautiful women, to besot themselves in the company of their favourite revellers, and to oppress with impunity any subject who may incur their displeasure. 18 Such a life would be insupportable to a man of high spirit and of powerful understanding. But to Charles, sensual, indolent, unequal to any strong intellectual exertion, and destitute alike of all patriotism and of all sense of personal dignity, the prospect had nothing unpleasing.

Since the King was determined to free himself from Parliament's control, and since he couldn't expect effective support at home for this effort, he had to look for help from abroad. The power and wealth of the King of France might be equal to the challenging task of establishing an absolute monarchy in England. Such an ally would definitely expect significant signs of gratitude for providing this service. Charles would have to lower himself to the status of a major vassal and would need to engage in peace and war based on the directions of the government that protected him. His relationship with Louis would be similar to that of the Rajah of Nagpore and the King of Oude with the British Government. Those princes are required to support the East India Company in all military actions, both defensive and offensive, and can have no diplomatic relations except those approved by the East India Company. In return, the Company guarantees them protection against uprisings. As long as they fulfill their obligations to the supreme power, they can manage large revenues, fill their palaces with beautiful women, indulge themselves with their favorite companions, and oppress any subject who displeases them without consequence. 18 A life like that would be unbearable for a person with high spirit and strong intellect. But for Charles, who was sensual, lazy, incapable of any significant intellectual effort, and lacking both patriotism and personal dignity, the prospect was quite appealing.

That the Duke of York should have concurred in the design of degrading that crown which it was probable that he would himself one day wear may seem more extraordinary. For his nature was haughty and imperious; and, indeed, he continued to the very last to show, by occasional starts and struggles, his impatience of the French yoke. But he was almost as much debased by superstition as his brother by indolence and vice. James was now a Roman Catholic. Religious bigotry had become the dominant sentiment of his narrow and stubborn mind, and had so mingled itself with his love of rule, that the two passions could hardly be distinguished from each other. It seemed highly improbable that, without foreign aid, he would be able to obtain ascendency, or even toleration, for his own faith: and he was in a temper to see nothing humiliating in any step which might promote the interests of the true Church.

It might seem more surprising that the Duke of York agreed to the plan of undermining the very crown he was likely to wear one day. His personality was proud and commanding; in fact, he showed even until the end, through occasional outbursts and struggles, his frustration with the French control. However, he was nearly as affected by superstition as his brother was by laziness and vice. James had now become a Roman Catholic. Religious intolerance had taken over his narrow and stubborn mindset and had blended so closely with his desire for power that the two motivations were almost indistinguishable. It seemed highly unlikely that, without outside support, he could gain dominance or even acceptance for his own faith: and he was in a mindset that found nothing degrading in any action that could advance the interests of the true Church.

A negotiation was opened which lasted during several months. The chief agent between the English and French courts was the beautiful, graceful, and intelligent Henrietta, Duchess of Orleans, sister of Charles, sister in law of Lewis, and a favourite with both. The King of England offered to declare himself a Roman Catholic, to dissolve the Triple Alliance, and to join with France against Holland, if France would engage to lend him such military and pecuniary aid as might make him independent of his parliament. Lewis at first affected to receive these propositions coolly, and at length agreed to them with the air of a man who is conferring a great favour: but in truth, the course which he had resolved to take was one by which he might gain and could not lose.

A negotiation started that lasted several months. The main negotiator between the English and French courts was the beautiful, graceful, and intelligent Henrietta, Duchess of Orleans, sister of Charles, sister-in-law of Lewis, and a favorite with both. The King of England offered to declare himself a Roman Catholic, dissolve the Triple Alliance, and team up with France against Holland, if France would promise to provide him with the military and financial support that would make him independent of his parliament. Lewis initially pretended to receive these proposals casually, but eventually agreed with the demeanor of someone granting a significant favor: however, in reality, the path he chose was one that would enable him to gain without any risk of loss.

It seems certain that he never seriously thought of establishing despotism and Popery in England by force of arms. He must have been aware that such an enterprise would be in the highest degree arduous and hazardous, that it would task to the utmost all the energies of France during many years, and that it would be altogether incompatible with more promising schemes of aggrandisement, which were dear to his heart. He would indeed willingly have acquired the merit and the glory of doing a great service on reasonable terms to the Church of which he was a member. But he was little disposed to imitate his ancestors who, in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, had led the flower of French chivalry to die in Syria and Egypt: and he well knew that a crusade against Protestantism in Great Britain would not be less perilous than the expeditions in which the armies of Lewis the Seventh and of Lewis the Ninth had perished. He had no motive for wishing the Stuarts to be absolute. He did not regard the English constitution with feelings at all resembling those which have in later times induced princes to make war on the free institutions of neighbouring nations. At present a great party zealous for popular government has ramifications in every civilised country. And important advantage gained anywhere by that party is almost certain to be the signal for general commotion. It is not wonderful that governments threatened by a common danger should combine for the purpose of mutual insurance. But in the seventeenth century no such danger existed. Between the public mind of England and the public mind of France, there was a great gulph. Our institutions and our factions were as little understood at Paris as at Constantinople. It may be doubted whether any one of the forty members of the French Academy had an English volume in his library, or knew Shakespeare, Jonson, or Spenser, even by name. A few Huguenots, who had inherited the mutinous spirit of their ancestors, might perhaps have a fellow feeling with their brethren in the faith, the English Roundheads: but the Huguenots had ceased to be formidable. The French, as a people, attached to the Church of Rome, and proud of the greatness of their King and of their own loyalty, looked on our struggles against Popery and arbitrary power, not only without admiration or sympathy, but with strong disapprobation and disgust. It would therefore be a great error to ascribe the conduct of Lewis to apprehensions at all resembling those which, in our age, induced the Holy Alliance to interfere in the internal troubles of Naples and Spain.

It’s clear that he never seriously considered using military force to establish despotism and Catholicism in England. He must have known that such an endeavor would be extremely difficult and risky, that it would strain all of France’s resources for many years, and that it would completely clash with more promising plans for expansion that he valued. He would have been eager to gain the credit and glory of doing a significant service for the Church of which he was a member, but he was not inclined to follow in the footsteps of his ancestors who had led the best of French knights to die in Syria and Egypt during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. He understood that a crusade against Protestantism in Great Britain would be just as dangerous as the campaigns in which the armies of Louis the Seventh and Louis the Ninth had perished. He had no reason to want the Stuarts to be absolute rulers. He did not view the English constitution with the same feelings that later led princes to wage war on the free institutions of neighboring countries. At that time, there was a large party committed to popular government with connections in every civilized nation, and any significant gain for that party anywhere was likely to spark widespread upheaval. It’s not surprising that governments facing a common threat would seek to protect one another. However, in the seventeenth century, no such danger existed. There was a vast divide between the public sentiments of England and those of France. Our institutions and factions were understood as little in Paris as in Constantinople. It’s questionable whether any of the forty members of the French Academy owned an English book or knew Shakespeare, Jonson, or Spenser, even by name. A few Huguenots, who had inherited the rebellious spirit of their ancestors, might have felt some connection with their English Roundhead counterparts, but the Huguenots were no longer a significant threat. The French people, loyal to the Church of Rome and proud of their great King, viewed our struggles against Catholicism and absolute power not with admiration or sympathy, but with strong disapproval and revulsion. Therefore, it would be a major mistake to attribute Louis’s actions to fears similar to those that, in our time, prompted the Holy Alliance to intervene in the internal conflicts of Naples and Spain.

Nevertheless, the propositions made by the court of Whitehall were most welcome to him. He already meditated gigantic designs, which were destined to keep Europe in constant fermentation during more than forty years. He wished to humble the United Provinces, and to annex Belgium, Franche Comte, and Loraine to his dominions. Nor was this all. The King of Spain was a sickly child. It was likely that he would die without issue. His eldest sister was Queen of France. A day would almost certainly come, and might come very soon, when the House of Bourbon might lay claim to that vast empire on which the sun never set. The union of two great monarchies under one head would doubtless be opposed by a continental coalition. But for any continental coalition France singlehanded was a match. England could turn the scale. On the course which, in such a crisis, England might pursue, the destinies of the world would depend; and it was notorious that the English Parliament and nation were strongly attached to the policy which had dictated the Triple Alliance. Nothing, therefore, could be more gratifying to Lewis than to learn that the princes of the House of Stuart needed his help, and were willing to purchase that help by unbounded subserviency. He determined to profit by the opportunity, and laid down for himself a plan to which, without deviation, he adhered, till the Revolution of 1688 disconcerted all his politics. He professed himself desirous to promote the designs of the English court. He promised large aid. He from time to time doled out such aid as might serve to keep hope alive, and as he could without risk or inconvenience spare. In this way, at an expense very much less than that which he incurred in building and decorating Versailles or Marli, he succeeded in making England, during nearly twenty years, almost as insignificant a member of the political system of Europe as the republic of San Marino.

Nevertheless, the proposals put forward by the court of Whitehall were very welcome to him. He was already contemplating grand plans that would keep Europe in a state of turmoil for over forty years. He aimed to weaken the United Provinces and to annex Belgium, Franche-Comté, and Lorraine to his territories. But that wasn't all. The King of Spain was a sickly child and was likely to die without heirs. His oldest sister was the Queen of France. It was almost certain that a day would come—possibly very soon—when the House of Bourbon could claim that vast empire where the sun never set. The union of two powerful monarchies under one ruler would certainly face opposition from a continental coalition. However, France could match that coalition alone. England could tip the balance. The direction England would take in such a crisis would determine the future of the world; and it was well-known that the English Parliament and people were strongly supportive of the policy that had led to the Triple Alliance. Therefore, nothing could have pleased Louis more than to learn that the princes of the House of Stuart needed his assistance and were willing to offer unconditional submission in return. He decided to take advantage of this opportunity and established a plan that he adhered to without deviation until the Revolution of 1688 disrupted all his strategies. He presented himself as eager to support the goals of the English court. He promised significant aid, and occasionally provided just enough support to keep hope alive, as much as he could spare without risk or hassle. In this way, at a cost significantly lower than what he spent on building and decorating Versailles or Marly, he managed to render England, for nearly twenty years, almost as insignificant a player in the political landscape of Europe as the republic of San Marino.

His object was not to destroy our constitution, but to keep the various elements of which it was composed in a perpetual state of conflict, and to set irreconcilable enmity between those who had the power of the purse and those who had the power of the sword. With this view he bribed and stimulated both parties in turn, pensioned at once the ministers of the crown and the chiefs of the opposition, encouraged the court to withstand the seditious encroachments of the Parliament, and conveyed to the Parliament intimations of the arbitrary designs of the court.

His goal wasn't to destroy our constitution, but to keep the different elements it was made of in a constant state of conflict and to create deep hostility between those who controlled the money and those who held the military power. To achieve this, he bribed and fueled both sides alternately, rewarded the ministers of the crown and the leaders of the opposition, urged the court to resist the rebellious advances of Parliament, and informed Parliament about the court's arbitrary plans.

One of the devices to which he resorted for the purpose of obtaining an ascendency in the English counsels deserves especial notice. Charles, though incapable of love in the highest sense of the word, was the slave of any woman whose person excited his desires, and whose airs and prattle amused his leisure. Indeed a husband would be justly derided who should bear from a wife of exalted rank and spotless virtue half the insolence which the King of England bore from concubines who, while they owed everything to his bounty, caressed his courtiers almost before his face. He had patiently endured the termagant passions of Barbara Palmer and the pert vivacity of Eleanor Gwynn. Lewis thought that the most useful envoy who could be sent to London, would be a handsome, licentious, and crafty Frenchwoman. Such a woman was Louisa, a lady of the House of Querouaille, whom our rude ancestors called Madam Carwell. She was soon triumphant over all her rivals, was created Duchess of Portsmouth, was loaded with wealth, and obtained a dominion which ended only with the life of Charles.

One of the strategies he used to gain influence in English politics deserves special attention. Charles, although unable to love in the deepest sense, was completely enchanted by any woman who sparked his desires and whose chatter entertained him. In fact, a husband would rightly be mocked if he tolerated even half the arrogance from a wife of high status and impeccable virtue that the King of England accepted from mistresses who, despite relying on his generosity, flirted with his courtiers right in front of him. He endured the fiery temper of Barbara Palmer and the playful charm of Eleanor Gwynn. Lewis believed that the most effective envoy to send to London would be a beautiful, flirtatious, and clever Frenchwoman. That woman was Louisa, a member of the House of Querouaille, who our unsophisticated ancestors called Madam Carwell. She quickly outshone all her rivals, became the Duchess of Portsmouth, was showered with wealth, and held influence that lasted until Charles's death.

The most important conditions of the alliance between the crowns were digested into a secret treaty which was signed at Dover in May, 1670, just ten years after the day on which Charles had landed at that very port amidst the acclamations and joyful tears of a too confiding people.

The key terms of the alliance between the crowns were laid out in a secret treaty that was signed in Dover in May 1670, exactly ten years after Charles had arrived at that same port, welcomed by the cheers and happy tears of a overly trusting crowd.

By this treaty Charles bound himself to make public profession of the Roman Catholic religion, to join his arms to those of Lewis for the purpose of destroying the power of the United Provinces, and to employ the whole strength of England, by land and sea, in support of the rights of the House of Bourbon to the vast monarchy of Spain. Lewis, on the other hand, engaged to pay a large subsidy, and promised that, if any insurrection should break out in England, he would send an army at his own charge to support his ally.

By this treaty, Charles committed to publicly profess the Roman Catholic faith, to ally his forces with Lewis to eliminate the power of the United Provinces, and to use all of England's strength, both on land and at sea, to support the Bourbon family's claim to the vast Spanish monarchy. In return, Lewis agreed to pay a substantial subsidy and promised that if any uprising occurred in England, he would send an army at his own expense to support his ally.

This compact was made with gloomy auspices. Six weeks after it had been signed and sealed, the charming princess, whose influence over her brother and brother in law had been so pernicious to her country, was no more. Her death gave rise to horrible suspicions which, for a moment, seemed likely to interrupt the newly formed friendship between the Houses of Stuart and Bourbon: but in a short time fresh assurances of undiminished good will were exchanged between the confederates.

This agreement was made under dark circumstances. Six weeks after it was signed and sealed, the lovely princess, whose influence over her brother and brother-in-law had been so harmful to her country, was gone. Her death sparked terrible suspicions that briefly threatened to disrupt the newly formed friendship between the Houses of Stuart and Bourbon, but soon after, new assurances of unwavering goodwill were exchanged between the allies.

The Duke of York, too dull to apprehend danger, or too fanatical to care about it, was impatient to see the article touching the Roman Catholic religion carried into immediate execution: but Lewis had the wisdom to perceive that, if this course were taken, there would be such an explosion in England as would probably frustrate those parts of the plan which he had most at heart. It was therefore determined that Charles should still call himself a Protestant, and should still, at high festivals, receive the sacrament according to the ritual of the Church of England. His more scrupulous brother ceased to appear in the royal chapel.

The Duke of York, either too oblivious to realize the danger or too fanatical to care, was eager to see the measures regarding the Roman Catholic religion put into immediate action. However, Lewis had the foresight to understand that if this path was followed, it would likely lead to such a backlash in England that it could derail the parts of the plan he valued most. Therefore, it was decided that Charles would continue to call himself a Protestant and would still take the sacrament according to the Church of England's rituals during major festivals. His more cautious brother stopped attending the royal chapel.

About this time died the Duchess of York, daughter of the banished Earl of Clarendon. She had been, during some years, a concealed Roman Catholic. She left two daughters, Mary and Anne, afterwards successively Queens of Great Britain. They were bred Protestants by the positive command of the King, who knew that it would be vain for him to profess himself a member of the Church of England, if children who seemed likely to inherit his throne were, by his permission, brought up as members of the Church of Rome.

At this time, the Duchess of York, daughter of the exiled Earl of Clarendon, passed away. For several years, she had been a secret Roman Catholic. She left behind two daughters, Mary and Anne, who later became Queens of Great Britain. The King insisted that they be raised as Protestants, knowing it would be pointless for him to claim to be a member of the Church of England if his children, who were likely to inherit his throne, were allowed to be brought up as members of the Church of Rome.

The principal servants of the crown at this time were men whose names have justly acquired an unenviable notoriety. We must take heed, however, that we do not load their memory with infamy which of right belongs to their master. For the treaty of Dover the King himself is chiefly answerable. He held conferences on it with the French agents: he wrote many letters concerning it with his own hand: he was the person who first suggested the most disgraceful articles which it contained; and he carefully concealed some of those articles from the majority of his Cabinet.

The main servants of the crown at this time were men whose names have rightfully gained a bad reputation. However, we need to be careful not to blame them for the shame that should rightly go to their master. The King himself is primarily responsible for the treaty of Dover. He held meetings about it with the French representatives, wrote many letters about it himself, was the one who first proposed the most disgraceful terms it included, and he kept some of those terms hidden from most of his Cabinet.

Few things in our history are more curious than the origin and growth of the power now possessed by the Cabinet. From an early period the Kings of England had been assisted by a Privy Council to which the law assigned many important functions and duties. During several centuries this body deliberated on the gravest and most delicate affairs. But by degrees its character changed. It became too large for despatch and secrecy. The rank of Privy Councillor was often bestowed as an honorary distinction on persons to whom nothing was confided, and whose opinion was never asked. The sovereign, on the most important occasions, resorted for advice to a small knot of leading ministers. The advantages and disadvantages of this course were early pointed out by Bacon, with his usual judgment and sagacity: but it was not till after the Restoration that the interior council began to attract general notice. During many years old fashioned politicians continued to regard the Cabinet as an unconstitutional and dangerous board. Nevertheless, it constantly became more and more important. It at length drew to itself the chief executive power, and has now been regarded, during several generations as an essential part of our polity. Yet, strange to say, it still continues to be altogether unknown to the law: the names of the noblemen and gentlemen who compose it are never officially announced to the public: no record is kept of its meetings and resolutions; nor has its existence ever been recognised by any Act of Parliament.

Few things in our history are more curious than the origin and growth of the power that the Cabinet holds today. From early on, the Kings of England were supported by a Privy Council, which the law gave many significant functions and responsibilities. For several centuries, this group discussed the most serious and sensitive issues. However, over time, its character shifted. It became too large for efficiency and confidentiality. The title of Privy Councillor was often given as an honorary distinction to individuals who were not entrusted with important matters, and whose opinions were rarely sought. The monarch, in the most critical situations, turned to a small group of leading ministers for advice. The pros and cons of this approach were highlighted early on by Bacon, with his usual insight and wisdom; but it wasn't until after the Restoration that the inner council began to gain attention. For many years, traditional politicians continued to view the Cabinet as an unconstitutional and risky group. Nevertheless, it steadily became more significant. Eventually, it absorbed the chief executive power, and has been seen, for several generations, as a vital part of our political system. Yet, strangely enough, it remains completely unknown to the law: the names of the noblemen and gentlemen who make it up are never officially announced to the public, no records are kept of its meetings and decisions, and its existence has never been acknowledged by any Act of Parliament.

During some years the word Cabal was popularly used as synonymous with Cabinet. But it happened by a whimsical coincidence that, in 1671, the Cabinet consisted of five persons the initial letters of whose names made up the word Cabal; Clifford, Arlington, Buckingham, Ashley, and Lauderdale. These ministers were therefore emphatically called the Cabal; and they soon made that appellation so infamous that it has never since their time been used except as a term of reproach.

During some years, the word Cabal was commonly used to mean Cabinet. But by a strange coincidence, in 1671, the Cabinet had five members whose initials spelled out the word Cabal: Clifford, Arlington, Buckingham, Ashley, and Lauderdale. These ministers were thus famously referred to as the Cabal; and they quickly made that name so notorious that it has only been used as an insult since their time.

Sir Thomas Clifford was a Commissioner of the Treasury, and had greatly distinguished himself in the House of Commons. Of the members of the Cabal he was the most respectable. For, with a fiery and imperious temper, he had a strong though a lamentably perverted sense of duty and honour.

Sir Thomas Clifford was a Treasury Commissioner and had made a significant reputation for himself in the House of Commons. Among the members of the Cabal, he was the most respectable. Though he had a fiery and commanding temperament, he possessed a strong, albeit sadly misguided, sense of duty and honor.

Henry Bennet, Lord Arlington, then Secretary of State, had since he came to manhood, resided principally on the Continent, and had learned that cosmopolitan indifference to constitutions and religions which is often observable in persons whose life has been passed in vagrant diplomacy. If there was any form of government which he liked it was that of France. If there was any Church for which he felt a preference, it was that of Rome. He had some talent for conversation, and some talent also for transacting the ordinary business of office. He had learned, during a life passed in travelling and negotiating, the art of accommodating his language and deportment to the society in which he found himself. His vivacity in the closet amused the King: his gravity in debates and conferences imposed on the public; and he had succeeded in attaching to himself, partly by services and partly by hopes, a considerable number of personal retainers.

Henry Bennet, Lord Arlington, who was the Secretary of State, had spent most of his adult life living mainly in Europe, and had picked up a certain distance towards governments and religions that is often seen in people whose lives revolve around diplomatic work. If there was any type of government he favored, it was that of France. If there was any Church he preferred, it was the Catholic Church. He was somewhat skilled in conversation and also adept at handling the regular tasks of his office. Through his travels and dealings, he learned to tailor his speech and behavior to the company he was in. His lively personality amused the King in private, while his seriousness in discussions earned respect from the public; he managed to gather a significant number of personal followers, thanks in part to his services and partly to the promises he made.

Buckingham, Ashley, and Lauderdale were men in whom the immorality which was epidemic among the politicians of that age appeared in its most malignant type, but variously modified by greet diversities of temper and understanding. Buckingham was a sated man of pleasure, who had turned to ambition as to a pastime. As he had tried to amuse himself with architecture and music, with writing farces and with seeking for the philosopher's stone, so he now tried to amuse himself with a secret negotiation and a Dutch war. He had already, rather from fickleness and love of novelty than from any deep design, been faithless to every party. At one time he had ranked among the Cavaliers. At another time warrants had been out against him for maintaining a treasonable correspondence with the remains of the Republican party in the city. He was now again a courtier, and was eager to win the favour of the King by services from which the most illustrious of those who had fought and suffered for the royal house would have recoiled with horror.

Buckingham, Ashley, and Lauderdale were men who embodied the rampant immorality common among politicians of their time, though each displayed their own unique temperaments and perspectives. Buckingham was a jaded hedonist who pursued ambition as a form of entertainment. Just as he had previously entertained himself with architecture, music, writing comedies, and searching for the philosopher's stone, he now sought distraction through secret negotiations and a war with the Dutch. He had already betrayed every faction he had aligned with, driven more by fickleness and a desire for novelty than any serious agenda. At one point, he had been associated with the Cavaliers, and at another, there were warrants out for him due to his treasonous ties with the remnants of the Republican party in the city. Now, he was once again a courtier, eager to curry favor with the King through acts that would have horrified the most esteemed figures who fought and suffered for the royal cause.

Ashley, with a far stronger head, and with a far fiercer and more earnest ambition, had been equally versatile. But Ashley's versatility was the effect, not of levity, but of deliberate selfishness. He had served and betrayed a succession of governments. But he had timed all his treacheries so well that through all revolutions, his fortunes had constantly been rising. The multitude, struck with admiration by a prosperity which, while everything else was constantly changing, remained unchangeable, attributed to him a prescience almost miraculous, and likened him to the Hebrew statesman of whom it is written that his counsel was as if a man had inquired of the oracle of God.

Ashley, with a much stronger mindset and a much fiercer and more serious ambition, had been just as adaptable. But Ashley's adaptability came not from being careless, but from careful self-interest. He had served and betrayed a series of governments. However, he had timed all his betrayals so perfectly that through all the upheavals, his fortunes were always on the rise. The public, impressed by a success that remained constant while everything else was in flux, attributed to him an almost miraculous foresight and compared him to the Hebrew statesman of whom it is said that his advice was like consulting the oracle of God.

Lauderdale, loud and coarse both in mirth and anger, was, perhaps, under the outward show of boisterous frankness, the most dishonest man in the whole Cabal. He had made himself conspicuous among the Scotch insurgents of 1638 by his zeal for the Covenant. He was accused of having been deeply concerned in the sale of Charles the First to the English Parliament, and was therefore, in the estimation of good Cavaliers, a traitor, if possible, of a worse description than those who had sate in the High Court of Justice. He often talked with a noisy jocularity of the days when he was a canter and a rebel. He was now the chief instrument employed by the court in the work of forcing episcopacy on his reluctant countrymen; nor did he in that cause shrink from the unsparing use of the sword, the halter, and the boot. Yet those who knew him knew that thirty years had made no change in his real sentiments, that he still hated the memory of Charles the First, and that he still preferred the Presbyterian form of church government to every other.

Lauderdale, loud and rough both in laughter and anger, was probably, beneath his boisterous honesty, the most deceitful man in the entire Cabal. He had made a name for himself among the Scottish insurgents of 1638 through his enthusiasm for the Covenant. He was accused of being heavily involved in the sale of Charles the First to the English Parliament, which led good Cavaliers to consider him a traitor, perhaps worse than those who had served in the High Court of Justice. He often joked loudly about the days when he was a rebel and a dissenter. Now, he was the main tool used by the court to impose episcopacy on his unwilling fellow countrymen; he didn't hesitate to use the sword, the noose, and torture to achieve that aim. Yet, those who knew him were aware that thirty years had not changed his true beliefs, that he still despised the memory of Charles the First, and that he preferred the Presbyterian system of church governance above all others.

Unscrupulous as Buckingham, Ashley, and Lauderdale were, it was not thought safe to intrust to them the King's intention of declaring himself a Roman Catholic. A false treaty, in which the article concerning religion was omitted, was shown to them. The names and seals of Clifford and Arlington are affixed to the genuine treaty. Both these statesmen had a partiality for the old Church, a partiality which the brave and vehement Clifford in no long time manfully avowed, but which the colder and meaner Arlington concealed, till the near approach of death scared him into sincerity. The three other cabinet ministers, however, were not men to be kept easily in the dark, and probably suspected more than was distinctly avowed to them. They were certainly privy to all the political engagements contracted with France, and were not ashamed to receive large gratifications from Lewis.

As unscrupulous as Buckingham, Ashley, and Lauderdale were, it wasn't considered safe to let them know about the King's plan to declare himself a Roman Catholic. A fake treaty, with the section about religion left out, was presented to them. The genuine treaty had the names and seals of Clifford and Arlington attached. Both of these statesmen had a fondness for the old Church; Clifford, brave and passionate, openly expressed his views soon enough, while Arlington, more reserved and petty, kept his feelings hidden until he was close to death, which pushed him to be honest. However, the other three cabinet ministers were not easily kept in the dark and probably suspected more than they were explicitly told. They were definitely aware of all the political agreements made with France and had no qualms about accepting substantial payments from Lewis.

The first object of Charles was to obtain from the Commons supplies which might be employed in executing the secret treaty. The Cabal, holding power at a time when our government was in a state of transition, united in itself two different kinds of vices belonging to two different ages and to two different systems. As those five evil counsellors were among the last English statesmen who seriously thought of destroying the Parliament, so they were the first English statesmen who attempted extensively to corrupt it. We find in their policy at once the latest trace of the Thorough of Strafford, and the earliest trace of that methodical bribery which was afterwards practiced by Walpole. They soon perceived, however, that, though the House of Commons was chiefly composed of Cavaliers, and though places and French gold had been lavished on the members, there was no chance that even the least odious parts of the scheme arranged at Dover would be supported by a majority. It was necessary to have recourse to fraud. The King professed great zeal for the principles of the Triple Alliance, and pretended that, in order to hold the ambition of France in check, it would be necessary to augment the fleet. The Commons fell into the snare, and voted a grant of eight hundred thousand pounds. The Parliament was instantly prorogued; and the court, thus emancipated from control, proceeded to the execution of the great design.

The first goal of Charles was to get funds from the Commons that could be used to carry out the secret treaty. The Cabal, in power during a time of significant change in our government, represented a mix of two different kinds of corruption from two different eras and systems. These five corrupt advisers were among the last English politicians who seriously considered dismantling Parliament, and they were also the first to try extensively to corrupt it. Their strategy reflected both the harsh rule of Strafford and the early signs of the organized bribery that would later be seen with Walpole. However, they quickly realized that even though the House of Commons was mostly made up of Cavaliers and cash and French gold had been poured into the pockets of its members, there was no way that even the least unpopular parts of the plan set up at Dover would get majority support. They had to resort to deceit. The King openly expressed a strong commitment to the principles of the Triple Alliance and pretended that to keep France's ambitions in check, it would be necessary to increase the fleet. The Commons fell for the trap and voted to grant eight hundred thousand pounds. The Parliament was immediately prorogued, and the court, now free from oversight, moved forward with the grand plan.

The financial difficulties however were serious. A war with Holland could be carried on only at enormous cost. The ordinary revenue was not more than sufficient to support the government in time of peace. The eight hundred thousand pounds out of which the Commons had just been tricked would not defray the naval and military charge of a single year of hostilities. After the terrible lesson given by the Long Parliament, even the Cabal did not venture to recommend benevolences or shipmoney. In this perplexity Ashley and Clifford proposed a flagitious breach of public faith. The goldsmiths of London were then not only dealers in the precious metals, but also bankers, and were in the habit of advancing large sums of money to the government. In return for these advances they received assignments on the revenue, and were repaid with interest as the taxes came in. About thirteen hundred thousand pounds had been in this way intrusted to the honour of the state. On a sudden it was announced that it was not convenient to pay the principal, and that the lenders must content themselves with interest. They were consequently unable to meet their own engagements. The Exchange was in an uproar: several great mercantile houses broke; and dismay and distress spread through all society. Meanwhile rapid strides were made towards despotism. Proclamations, dispensing with Acts of Parliament, or enjoining what only Parliament could lawfully enjoin, appeared in rapid succession. Of these edicts the most important was the Declaration of Indulgence. By this instrument the penal laws against Roman Catholics were set aside; and, that the real object of the measure might not be perceived, the laws against Protestant Nonconformists were also suspended.

The financial troubles were serious. Fighting a war with Holland could only be done at a huge cost. The regular income was barely enough to keep the government running in peacetime. The eight hundred thousand pounds that the Commons had just been tricked into giving wouldn’t cover the naval and military expenses for even one year of conflict. After the harsh lesson from the Long Parliament, even the Cabal didn’t dare to suggest voluntary taxes or ship money. In this confusion, Ashley and Clifford proposed a scandalous breach of public trust. At that time, the goldsmiths of London were not just dealing in precious metals, but also acting as bankers, and they usually lent large amounts of money to the government. For these loans, they received claims on the revenue and were repaid with interest as taxes came in. About thirteen hundred thousand pounds had been entrusted to the state’s honor in this way. Suddenly, it was announced that it wasn’t convenient to repay the principal, and the lenders would have to settle for interest. As a result, they couldn’t meet their own commitments. The Exchange was in chaos; several major trading houses collapsed; and panic and distress spread throughout society. Meanwhile, there was a rapid shift toward despotism. Proclamations that disregarded Acts of Parliament or imposed what only Parliament could lawfully impose were issued in quick succession. Among these decrees, the most significant was the Declaration of Indulgence. This order set aside the penal laws against Roman Catholics, and to mask its true purpose, it also suspended the laws against Protestant Nonconformists.

A few days after the appearance of the Declaration of Indulgence, war was proclaimed against the United Provinces. By sea the Dutch maintained the struggle with honour; but on land they were at first borne down by irresistible force. A great French army passed the Rhine. Fortress after fortress opened its gates. Three of the seven provinces of the federation were occupied by the invaders. The fires of the hostile camp were seen from the top of the Stadthouse of Amsterdam. The Republic, thus fiercely assailed from without, was torn at the same time by internal dissensions. The government was in the hands of a close oligarchy of powerful burghers. There were numerous selfelected Town Councils, each of which exercised within its own sphere, many of the rights of sovereignty. These councils sent delegates to the Provincial States, and the Provincial States again sent delegates to the States General. A hereditary first magistrate was no essential part of this polity. Nevertheless one family, singularly fertile of great men, had gradually obtained a large and somewhat indefinite authority. William, first of the name, Prince of Orange Nassau, and Stadtholder of Holland, had headed the memorable insurrection against Spain. His son Maurice had been Captain General and first minister of the States, had, by eminent abilities and public services, and by some treacherous and cruel actions, raised himself to almost kingly power, and had bequeathed a great part of that power to his family. The influence of the Stadtholders was an object of extreme jealousy to the municipal oligarchy. But the army, and that great body of citizens which was excluded from all share in the government, looked on the Burgomasters and Deputies with a dislike resembling the dislike with which the legions and the common people of Rome regarded the Senate, and were as zealous for the House of Orange as the legions and the common people of Rome for the House of Caesar. The Stadtholder commanded the forces of the commonwealth, disposed of all military commands, had a large share of the civil patronage, and was surrounded by pomp almost regal.

A few days after the Declaration of Indulgence was issued, war was declared against the United Provinces. The Dutch fought valiantly at sea, but on land, they were initially overwhelmed by an unstoppable force. A massive French army crossed the Rhine. One fortress after another surrendered. Three of the seven provinces in the federation were occupied by the invaders. The fires from the enemy camp were visible from the top of the Amsterdam City Hall. The Republic, fiercely attacked from outside, was also experiencing internal conflicts. The government was controlled by a tight-knit group of powerful citizens. There were many self-appointed Town Councils, each exercising various sovereign rights within their own jurisdictions. These councils sent delegates to the Provincial States, which in turn sent delegates to the States General. A hereditary leader was not a necessary part of this system. However, one family, uniquely rich in prominent figures, had gradually gained substantial and somewhat vague authority. William, the first of his name, Prince of Orange Nassau and Stadtholder of Holland, led the famous uprising against Spain. His son Maurice had served as Captain General and the primary minister of the States, and through remarkable skills and public service, alongside some deceitful and brutal actions, he had risen to nearly kingly power, passing a significant portion of that power to his family. The Stadtholder’s influence was met with intense jealousy from the local oligarchy. However, the military and the large group of citizens excluded from governance viewed the Burgomasters and Deputies with a disdain similar to how the Roman legions and common people regarded the Senate, and they were just as passionate about the House of Orange as the Romans were about the House of Caesar. The Stadtholder commanded the commonwealth's forces, controlled all military appointments, held a substantial portion of civil patronage, and was surrounded by almost regal splendor.

Prince William the Second had been strongly opposed by the oligarchical party. His life had terminated in the year 1650, amidst great civil troubles. He died childless: the adherents of his house were left for a short time without a head; and the powers which he had exercised were divided among the Town Councils, the Provincial States, and the States General.

Prince William II had faced strong opposition from the oligarchic party. His life ended in 1650, during significant civil unrest. He died without children, leaving his supporters temporarily without a leader, and the powers he held were split among the Town Councils, the Provincial States, and the States General.

But, a few days after William's death, his widow, Mary, daughter of Charles the first, King of Great Britain, gave birth to a son, destined to raise the glory and authority of the House of Nassau to the highest point, to save the United Provinces from slavery, to curb the power of France, and to establish the English constitution on a lasting foundation.

But a few days after William's death, his widow, Mary, the daughter of Charles the First, King of Great Britain, gave birth to a son who was destined to elevate the glory and authority of the House of Nassau to its highest point, to free the United Provinces from oppression, to limit France's power, and to establish a lasting foundation for the English constitution.

This Prince, named William Henry, was from his birth an object of serious apprehension to the party now supreme in Holland, and of loyal attachment to the old friends of his line. He enjoyed high consideration as the possessor of a splendid fortune, as the chief of one of the most illustrious houses in Europe, as a Magnate of the German empire, as a prince of the blood royal of England, and, above all, as the descendant of the founders of Batavian liberty. But the high office which had once been considered as hereditary in his family remained in abeyance; and the intention of the aristocratical party was that there should never be another Stadtholder. The want of a first magistrate was, to a great extent, supplied by the Grand Pensionary of the Province of Holland, John De Witt, whose abilities, firmness, and integrity had raised him to unrivalled authority in the councils of the municipal oligarchy.

This prince, named William Henry, was a source of serious concern for the ruling party in Holland since his birth, and he was cherished by the loyal supporters of his lineage. He was held in high regard due to his impressive wealth, his status as the head of one of the most distinguished families in Europe, his role as a Magnate of the German Empire, his position as a prince of the royal family of England, and, most importantly, his lineage from the founders of Batavian liberty. However, the high office that had once been seen as hereditary in his family was currently in limbo; the aristocratic faction aimed to ensure there would never be another Stadtholder. The absence of a leading magistrate was largely compensated for by the Grand Pensionary of the Province of Holland, John De Witt, whose skills, determination, and integrity had earned him unmatched authority in the councils of the local oligarchy.

The French invasion produced a complete change. The suffering and terrified people raged fiercely against the government. In their madness they attacked the bravest captains and the ablest statesmen of the distressed commonwealth. De Ruyter was insulted by the rabble. De Witt was torn in pieces before the gate of the palace of the States General at the Hague. The Prince of Orange, who had no share in the guilt of the murder, but who, on this occasion, as on another lamentable occasion twenty years later, extended to crimes perpetrated in his cause an indulgence which has left a stain on his glory, became chief of the government without a rival. Young as he was, his ardent and unconquerable spirit, though disguised by a cold and sullen manner, soon roused the courage of his dismayed countrymen. It was in vain that both his uncle and the French King attempted by splendid offers to seduce him from the cause of the Republic. To the States General he spoke a high and inspiriting language. He even ventured to suggest a scheme which has an aspect of antique heroism, and which, if it had been accomplished, would have been the noblest subject for epic song that is to be found in the whole compass of modern history. He told the deputies that, even if their natal soil and the marvels with which human industry had covered it were buried under the ocean, all was not lost. The Hollanders might survive Holland. Liberty and pure religion, driven by tyrants and bigots from Europe, might take refuge in the farthest isles of Asia. The shipping in the ports of the republic would suffice to carry two hundred thousand emigrants to the Indian Archipelago. There the Dutch commonwealth might commence a new and more glorious existence, and might rear, under the Southern Cross, amidst the sugar canes and nutmeg trees, the Exchange of a wealthier Amsterdam, and the schools of a more learned Leyden. The national spirit swelled and rose high. The terms offered by the allies were firmly rejected. The dykes were opened. The whole country was turned into one great lake from which the cities, with their ramparts and steeples, rose like islands. The invaders were forced to save themselves from destruction by a precipitate retreat. Lewis, who, though he sometimes thought it necessary to appear at the head of his troops, greatly preferred a palace to a camp, had already returned to enjoy the adulation of poets and the smiles of ladies in the newly planted alleys of Versailles.

The French invasion caused a total upheaval. The suffering, terrified population furiously lashed out at the government. In their frenzy, they attacked the bravest leaders and the most capable politicians of the struggling nation. De Ruyter was insulted by the mob. De Witt was brutally killed before the gate of the States General palace in The Hague. The Prince of Orange, who had no part in the violence, but who, on this occasion and again twenty years later, turned a blind eye to crimes committed in his name, became the uncontested leader of the government. Though young, his passionate and unstoppable spirit, hidden behind a cold and gloomy demeanor, quickly inspired his demoralized countrymen. Both his uncle and the French King made lavish offers to try to win him over to their side, but it was all in vain. He spoke to the States General with high, uplifting words. He even suggested a bold plan that had a hint of ancient heroism, which, if accomplished, would have been the most glorious story to sing about in modern history. He told the delegates that even if their homeland and all its man-made wonders were submerged beneath the ocean, not everything would be lost. The Dutch could survive without Holland. Liberty and true religion, cast out by tyrants and bigots from Europe, might find refuge in the distant islands of Asia. The ships in the republic's ports could easily carry two hundred thousand emigrants to the Indonesian Archipelago. There, the Dutch nation could start anew and more gloriously, and create, under the Southern Cross, among the sugar canes and nutmeg trees, the bustling marketplace of a richer Amsterdam and the learning institutions of a more enlightened Leyden. The national spirit soared high. The terms offered by the allies were firmly turned down. The dikes were opened. The entire country became one vast lake, with cities, their fortifications and steeples, rising like islands. The invaders had no choice but to retreat in haste to save themselves from disaster. Louis, who sometimes felt the need to lead his troops, markedly preferred the luxury of a palace over a military camp, had already returned to bask in the flattery of poets and the smiles of ladies in the newly landscaped avenues of Versailles.

And now the tide turned fast. The event of the maritime war had been doubtful; by land the United Provinces had obtained a respite; and a respite, though short, was of infinite importance. Alarmed by the vast designs of Lewis, both the branches of the great House of Austria sprang to arms. Spain and Holland, divided by the memory of ancient wrongs and humiliations, were reconciled by the nearness of the common danger. From every part of Germany troops poured towards the Rhine. The English government had already expended all the funds which had been obtained by pillaging the public creditor. No loan could be expected from the City. An attempt to raise taxes by the royal authority would have at once produced a rebellion; and Lewis, who had now to maintain a contest against half Europe, was in no condition to furnish the means of coercing the people of England. It was necessary to convoke the Parliament.

And now the tide turned quickly. The outcome of the maritime war had been uncertain; on land, the United Provinces had gained a temporary pause, and even a brief break was incredibly important. Concerned by Louis's grand plans, both branches of the powerful House of Austria took up arms. Spain and Holland, historically divided by old grievances and humiliations, came together because of the shared threat. Troops from all over Germany streamed toward the Rhine. The English government had already spent all the money it had gotten from taxing the public creditor. No loans could be expected from the City. Trying to raise taxes by royal decree would instantly lead to a rebellion; and Louis, who now had to fight against half of Europe, was not in a position to provide the means to control the people of England. Calling Parliament together was essential.

In the spring of 1673, therefore, the Houses reassembled after a recess of near two years. Clifford, now a peer and Lord Treasurer, and Ashley, now Earl of Shaftesbury and Lord Chancellor, were the persons on whom the King principally relied as Parliamentary managers. The Country Party instantly began to attack the policy of the Cabal. The attack was made, not in the way of storm, but by slow and scientific approaches. The Commons at first held out hopes that they would give support to the king's foreign policy, but insisted that he should purchase that support by abandoning his whole system of domestic policy. Their chief object was to obtain the revocation of the Declaration of Indulgence. Of all the many unpopular steps taken by the government the most unpopular was the publishing of this Declaration. The most opposite sentiments had been shocked by an act so liberal, done in a manner so despotic. All the enemies of religious freedom, and all the friends of civil freedom, found themselves on the same side; and these two classes made up nineteen twentieths of the nation. The zealous churchman exclaimed against the favour which had been shown both to the Papist and to the Puritan. The Puritan, though he might rejoice in the suspension of the persecution by which he had been harassed, felt little gratitude for a toleration which he was to share with Antichrist. And all Englishmen who valued liberty and law, saw with uneasiness the deep inroad which the prerogative had made into the province of the legislature.

In the spring of 1673, the Houses met again after being on break for nearly two years. Clifford, now a peer and Lord Treasurer, and Ashley, now the Earl of Shaftesbury and Lord Chancellor, were the key figures the King relied on to manage Parliament. The Country Party quickly began to challenge the policies of the Cabal. This challenge was not aggressive but approached slowly and strategically. The Commons initially suggested that they would support the king’s foreign policy, but insisted that he should win that support by abandoning his entire domestic policy. Their main goal was to revoke the Declaration of Indulgence. Out of all the unpopular actions taken by the government, publishing this Declaration was the most disliked. It shocked many differing opinions with such a generous act carried out in such an authoritarian way. All opponents of religious freedom and all advocates of civil freedom found themselves united, making up nearly all of the nation. The passionate churchman protested against the favors shown to both Catholics and Puritans. The Puritan, although glad the persecution he faced was suspended, felt little gratitude for toleration that he had to share with those he opposed. And all Englishmen who valued liberty and law were alarmed by how much the royal authority had intruded into the legislative branch.

It must in candour be admitted that the constitutional question was then not quite free from obscurity. Our ancient Kings had undoubtedly claimed and exercised the right of suspending the operation of penal laws. The tribunals had recognised that right. Parliaments had suffered it to pass unchallenged. That some such right was inherent in the crown, few even of the Country Party ventured, in the face of precedent and authority, to deny. Yet it was clear that, if this prerogative were without limit, the English government could scarcely be distinguished from a pure despotism. That there was a limit was fully admitted by the King and his ministers. Whether the Declaration of Indulgence lay within or without the limit was the question; and neither party could succeed in tracing any line which would bear examination. Some opponents of the government complained that the Declaration suspended not less than forty statutes. But why not forty as well as one? There was an orator who gave it as his opinion that the King might constitutionally dispense with bad laws, but not with good laws. The absurdity of such a distinction it is needless to expose. The doctrine which seems to have been generally received in the House of Commons was, that the dispensing power was confined to secular matters, and did not extend to laws enacted for the security of the established religion. Yet, as the King was supreme head of the Church, it should seem that, if he possessed the dispensing power at all, he might well possess that power where the Church was concerned. When the courtiers on the other side attempted to point out the bounds of this prerogative, they were not more successful than the opposition had been.

It must honestly be acknowledged that the constitutional issue was not entirely clear at that time. Our ancient Kings had certainly claimed and exercised the right to suspend the enforcement of penal laws. The courts had recognized that right. Parliaments had allowed it to go unchallenged. Few, even among the Country Party, dared to deny that some such right was inherent to the crown, given the established precedents and authorities. Yet it was obvious that if this prerogative had no limits, the English government could hardly be seen as anything but a pure despotism. The King and his ministers fully accepted that there were limits. The key question was whether the Declaration of Indulgence was within or beyond those limits, and neither side was able to establish a clear line that could hold up to scrutiny. Some critics of the government argued that the Declaration suspended at least forty statutes. But why not suspend forty as well as one? An orator expressed that the King could constitutionally set aside bad laws, but not good ones. It's unnecessary to point out the absurdity of such a distinction. The general belief in the House of Commons seemed to be that the dispensing power was limited to secular matters and did not apply to laws made for the protection of the established religion. However, since the King was the supreme head of the Church, it would seem that if he held the dispensing power at all, he could well exercise that power concerning the Church. When the courtiers on the opposing side tried to define the limits of this prerogative, they were no more successful than the opposition had been.

The truth is that the dispensing power was a great anomaly in politics. It was utterly inconsistent in theory with the principles of mixed government: but it had grown up in times when people troubled themselves little about theories. 19 It had not been very grossly abused in practice. It had therefore been tolerated, and had gradually acquired a kind of prescription. At length it was employed, after a long interval, in an enlightened age, and at an important conjuncture, to an extent never before known, and for a purpose generally abhorred. It was instantly subjected to a severe scrutiny. Men did not, indeed, at first, venture to pronounce it altogether unconstitutional. But they began to perceive that it was at direct variance with the spirit of the constitution, and would, if left unchecked, turn the English government from a limited into an absolute monarchy.

The truth is that the power to dispense was a major oddity in politics. It contradicted the principles of mixed government in theory, but it developed in times when people didn’t pay much attention to theories. 19 It hadn’t been significantly abused in practice. Because of this, it was tolerated and gradually gained a sort of acceptance. Eventually, it was used, after a long break, in a more enlightened era and at a crucial moment, to an extent never seen before, and for a purpose that was generally despised. It was quickly put under intense scrutiny. At first, people didn’t dare to call it completely unconstitutional. However, they started to realize that it directly opposed the spirit of the constitution and, if left unchecked, would transform the English government from a limited monarchy into an absolute one.

Under the influence of such apprehensions, the Commons denied the King's right to dispense, not indeed with all penal statutes, but with penal statutes in matters ecclesiastical, and gave him plainly to understand that, unless he renounced that right, they would grant no supply for the Dutch war. He, for a moment, showed some inclination to put everything to hazard; but he was strongly advised by Lewis to submit to necessity, and to wait for better times, when the French armies, now employed in an arduous struggle on the Continent, might be available for the purpose of suppressing discontent in England. In the Cabal itself the signs of disunion and treachery began to appear. Shaftesbury, with his proverbial sagacity, saw that a violent reaction was at hand, and that all things were tending towards a crisis resembling that of 1640. He was determined that such a crisis should not find him in the situation of Strafford. He therefore turned suddenly round, and acknowledged, in the House of Lords, that the Declaration was illegal. The King, thus deserted by his ally and by his Chancellor, yielded, cancelled the Declaration, and solemnly promised that it should never be drawn into precedent.

Under the weight of those fears, the Commons refused to allow the King to ignore, not all penal laws, but penal laws related to church matters. They made it clear that if he didn't give up that right, they wouldn’t provide any funds for the Dutch war. For a moment, he considered risking everything, but Lewis strongly advised him to accept the situation and wait for better times, when the French armies, currently engaged in a tough battle on the Continent, could help him handle discontent in England. Within the Cabal, signs of division and betrayal started to surface. Shaftesbury, known for his sharp insight, realized that a strong backlash was coming and that everything was heading towards a crisis like the one in 1640. He was determined not to be caught in the same position as Strafford. So, he abruptly changed his stance and admitted in the House of Lords that the Declaration was illegal. With his ally and Chancellor abandoning him, the King gave in, revoked the Declaration, and solemnly promised that it would never serve as a precedent.

Even this concession was insufficient. The Commons, not content with having forced their sovereign to annul the Indulgence, next extorted his unwilling assent to a celebrated law, which continued in force down to the reign of George the Fourth. This law, known as the Test Act, provided that all persons holding any office, civil or military, should take the oath of supremacy, should subscribe a declaration against transubstantiation, and should publicly receive the sacrament according to the rites of the Church of England. The preamble expressed hostility only to the Papists: but the enacting clauses were scarcely more unfavourable to the Papists than to the rigid Puritans. The Puritans, however, terrified at the evident leaning of the court towards Popery, and encouraged by some churchmen to hope that, as soon as the Roman Catholics should have been effectually disarmed, relief would be extended to Protestant Nonconformists, made little opposition; nor could the King, who was in extreme want of money, venture to withhold his sanction. The act was passed; and the Duke of York was consequently under the necessity of resigning the great place of Lord High Admiral.

Even this concession wasn’t enough. The Commons, not satisfied with forcing their sovereign to cancel the Indulgence, next extracted his reluctant agreement to a well-known law, which stayed in effect until the reign of George IV. This law, called the Test Act, stated that anyone holding any civil or military office had to take the oath of supremacy, sign a declaration against transubstantiation, and publicly receive the sacrament according to the rites of the Church of England. The preamble expressed hostility only towards Catholics, but the enforcement sections were hardly more unfavorable to Catholics than to strict Puritans. The Puritans, however, frightened by the obvious bias of the court towards Catholicism and encouraged by some church leaders with the hope that once the Catholics were effectively disarmed, relief would be given to Protestant Nonconformists, offered little resistance; nor could the King, who was desperately in need of money, afford to withhold his approval. The act was passed; as a result, the Duke of York was forced to give up his position as Lord High Admiral.

Hitherto the Commons had not declared against the Dutch war. But, when the King had, in return for money cautiously doled out, relinquished his whole plan of domestic policy, they fell impetuously on his foreign policy. They requested him to dismiss Buckingham and Lauderdale from his councils forever, and appointed a committee to consider the propriety of impeaching Arlington. In a short time the Cabal was no more. Clifford, who, alone of the five, had any claim to be regarded as an honest man, refused to take the new test, laid down his white staff, and retired to his country seat. Arlington quitted the post of Secretary of State for a quiet and dignified employment in the Royal household. Shaftesbury and Buckingham made their peace with the opposition, and appeared at the head of the stormy democracy of the city. Lauderdale, however, still continued to be minister for Scotch affairs, with which the English Parliament could not interfere.

Until now, the Commons hadn’t opposed the Dutch war. But when the King, in exchange for money given carefully, gave up his entire domestic policy plan, they quickly attacked his foreign policy. They asked him to remove Buckingham and Lauderdale from his advisory council permanently and set up a committee to consider whether to impeach Arlington. Soon, the Cabal was dissolved. Clifford, who was the only one of the five who could be seen as honest, refused to accept the new test, gave up his white staff, and went back to his country home. Arlington left his job as Secretary of State for a quieter, more dignified role in the Royal household. Shaftesbury and Buckingham made amends with the opposition and positioned themselves at the forefront of the city's tumultuous democracy. Lauderdale, however, continued to serve as the minister for Scotch affairs, which the English Parliament couldn’t touch.

And now the Commons urged the King to make peace with Holland, and expressly declared that no more supplies should be granted for the war, unless it should appear that the enemy obstinately refused to consent to reasonable terms. Charles found it necessary to postpone to a more convenient season all thought of executing the treaty of Dover, and to cajole the nation by pretending to return to the policy of the Triple Alliance. Temple, who, during the ascendency of the Cabal, had lived in seclusion among his books and flower beds, was called forth from his hermitage. By his instrumentality a separate peace was concluded with the United Provinces; and he again became ambassador at the Hague, where his presence was regarded as a sure pledge for the sincerity of his court.

And now the Commons urged the King to make peace with Holland and clearly stated that no more funds would be provided for the war unless it was evident that the enemy stubbornly refused to agree to reasonable terms. Charles found it necessary to delay any plans to execute the treaty of Dover and to win over the nation by pretending to return to the policy of the Triple Alliance. Temple, who had been living in seclusion among his books and gardens during the influence of the Cabal, was called out of his retreat. Through his efforts, a separate peace was reached with the United Provinces, and he became ambassador at the Hague again, where his presence was seen as a strong sign of his court's sincerity.

The chief direction of affairs was now intrusted to Sir Thomas Osborne, a Yorkshire baronet, who had, in the House of Commons, shown eminent talents for business and debate. Osborne became Lord Treasurer, and was soon created Earl of Danby. He was not a man whose character, if tried by any high standard of morality, would appear to merit approbation. He was greedy of wealth and honours, corrupt himself, and a corrupter of others. The Cabal had bequeathed to him the art of bribing Parliaments, an art still rude, and giving little promise of the rare perfection to which it was brought in the following century. He improved greatly on the plan of the first inventors. They had merely purchased orators: but every man who had a vote, might sell himself to Danby. Yet the new minister must not be confounded with the negotiators of Dover. He was not without the feelings of an Englishman and a Protestant; nor did he, in his solicitude for his own interests, ever wholly forget the interests of his country and of his religion. He was desirous, indeed, to exalt the prerogative: but the means by which he proposed to exalt it were widely different from those which had been contemplated by Arlington and Clifford. The thought of establishing arbitrary power, by calling in the aid of foreign arms, and by reducing the kingdom to the rank of a dependent principality, never entered into his mind. His plan was to rally round the monarchy those classes which had been the firm allies of the monarchy during the troubles of the preceding generation, and which had been disgusted by the recent crimes and errors of the court. With the help of the old Cavalier interest, of the nobles, of the country gentlemen, of the clergy, and of the Universities, it might, he conceived, be possible to make Charles, not indeed an absolute sovereign, but a sovereign scarcely less powerful than Elizabeth had been.

The main responsibility for running affairs was now given to Sir Thomas Osborne, a baronet from Yorkshire, who had demonstrated notable skills in business and debate in the House of Commons. Osborne became Lord Treasurer and was quickly made Earl of Danby. He wasn't a man whose character would earn approval if judged by any high moral standard. He was greedy for wealth and titles, corrupt himself, and also corrupting others. The Cabal had passed on to him the method of bribing Parliaments, a method that was still crude and showed little promise of the refinement it would achieve in the next century. He greatly improved upon what the first creators had started. They had only bought orators, but anyone with a vote could sell himself to Danby. However, the new minister should not be confused with the negotiators of Dover. He was not without the feelings of an Englishman and a Protestant, nor did he forget his country's and religion's interests, even while focused on his own. He did want to strengthen the monarchy's power, but the way he planned to do it was very different from what Arlington and Clifford had in mind. The idea of establishing absolute power through foreign support and turning the country into a dependent state never crossed his mind. His plan was to gather around the monarchy those groups that had been loyal allies during the previous generation's troubles and that were disillusioned by the recent crimes and mistakes of the court. With the support of the old Cavalier faction, the nobles, country gentlemen, clergy, and Universities, he believed it might be possible to make Charles not an absolute ruler but a leader almost as powerful as Elizabeth had been.

Prompted by these feelings, Danby formed the design of securing to the Cavalier party the exclusive possession of all political power both executive and legislative. In the year 1675, accordingly, a bill was offered to the Lords which provided that no person should hold any office, or should sit in either House of Parliament, without first declaring on oath that he considered resistance to the kingly power as in all cases criminal, and that he would never endeavour to alter the government either in Church or State. During several weeks the debates, divisions, and protests caused by this proposition kept the country in a state of excitement. The opposition in the House of Lords, headed by two members of the Cabal who were desirous to make their peace with the nation, Buckingham and Shaftesbury, was beyond all precedent vehement and pertinacious, and at length proved successful. The bill was not indeed rejected, but was retarded, mutilated, and at length suffered to drop.

Driven by these feelings, Danby came up with the idea of ensuring that the Cavalier party had exclusive control over all political power, both executive and legislative. In 1675, a bill was proposed to the Lords that stated no one could hold any office or sit in either House of Parliament without first declaring under oath that they considered resistance to the king's power as always criminal and that they would never attempt to change the government in either Church or State. For several weeks, the debates, divisions, and protests sparked by this proposal kept the country in a frenzy. The opposition in the House of Lords, led by two members of the Cabal who wanted to reconcile with the nation, Buckingham and Shaftesbury, was incredibly intense and persistent, ultimately proving successful. The bill wasn’t outright rejected but ended up being delayed, altered, and eventually allowed to fade away.

So arbitrary and so exclusive was Danby's scheme of domestic policy. His opinions touching foreign policy did him more honour. They were in truth directly opposed to those of the Cabal and differed little from those of the Country Party. He bitterly lamented the degraded situation to which England was reduced, and declared, with more energy than politeness, that his dearest wish was to cudgel the French into a proper respect for her. So little did he disguise his feelings that, at a great banquet where the most illustrious dignitaries of the State and of the Church were assembled, he not very decorously filled his glass to the confusion of all who were against a war with France. He would indeed most gladly have seen his country united with the powers which were then combined against Lewis, and was for that end bent on placing Temple, the author of the Triple Alliance, at the head of the department which directed foreign affairs. But the power of the prime minister was limited. In his most confidential letters he complained that the infatuation of his master prevented England from taking her proper place among European nations. Charles was insatiably greedy of French gold: he had by no means relinquished the hope that he might, at some future day, be able to establish absolute monarchy by the help of the French arms; and for both reasons he wished to maintain a good understanding with the court of Versailles.

Danby's domestic policy was extremely arbitrary and exclusive. His views on foreign policy were much more respectable. In fact, they were directly opposed to those of the Cabal and were quite similar to those of the Country Party. He lamented the low state England had fallen to and bluntly stated that his greatest desire was to beat the French into respecting her. He didn't hide his feelings at all; at a big banquet where the most important officials from the State and the Church were present, he unceremoniously raised his glass to the embarrassment of anyone against a war with France. He would have loved to see his country allied with the powers that were united against Louis, and to that end, he was determined to place Temple, the creator of the Triple Alliance, in charge of foreign affairs. However, the prime minister's power was limited. In his most private letters, he expressed frustration that his master’s foolishness kept England from taking its rightful place among European nations. Charles was endlessly greedy for French gold and had not given up the hope that, one day, he could establish absolute monarchy with help from French forces; for both reasons, he wanted to keep a good relationship with the court of Versailles.

Thus the sovereign leaned towards one system of foreign politics, and the minister towards a system diametrically opposite. Neither the sovereign nor the minister, indeed, was of a temper to pursue any object with undeviating constancy. Each occasionally yielded to the importunity of the other; and their jarring inclinations and mutual concessions gave to the whole administration a strangely capricious character. Charles sometimes, from levity and indolence, suffered Danby to take steps which Lewis resented as mortal injuries. Danby, on the other hand, rather than relinquish his great place, sometimes stooped to compliances which caused him bitter pain and shame. The King was brought to consent to a marriage between the Lady Mary, eldest daughter and presumptive heiress of the Duke of York and William of Orange, the deadly enemy of France and the hereditary champion of the Reformation. Nay, the brave Earl of Ossory, son of Ormond, was sent to assist the Dutch with some British troops, who, on the most bloody day of the whole war, signally vindicated the national reputation for stubborn courage. The Treasurer, on the other hand, was induced not only to connive at some scandalous pecuniary transactions which took place between his master and the court of Versailles, but to become, unwillingly indeed and ungraciously, an agent in those transactions.

So, the king favored one approach to foreign policy, while the minister leaned toward a completely opposite one. Neither the king nor the minister was really the type to stick to any goal with unwavering determination. They each occasionally gave in to the other's insistence, and their conflicting preferences and mutual compromises made the entire administration feel oddly unpredictable. At times, Charles, out of carelessness and laziness, allowed Danby to take actions that Lewis saw as serious betrayals. On the flip side, Danby sometimes compromised his dignity and felt deep pain and shame just to hold onto his important position. The King eventually agreed to a marriage between Lady Mary, the Duke of York's eldest daughter and expected heir, and William of Orange, the king's arch-enemy and the traditional defender of the Reformation. Moreover, the courageous Earl of Ossory, son of Ormond, was dispatched to support the Dutch with some British troops, who, on the bloodiest day of the entire war, greatly upheld the nation's reputation for fierce bravery. Meanwhile, the Treasurer found himself not only turning a blind eye to some scandalous financial dealings between his master and the Versailles court but also, albeit reluctantly and begrudgingly, becoming involved in those dealings.

Meanwhile the Country Party was driven by two strong feelings in two opposite directions. The popular leaders were afraid of the greatness of Lewis, who was not only making head against the whole strength of the continental alliance, but was even gaining ground. Yet they were afraid to entrust their own King with the means of curbing France, lest those means should be used to destroy the liberties of England. The conflict between these apprehensions, both of which were perfectly legitimate, made the policy of the Opposition seem as eccentric and fickle as that of the Court. The Commons called for a war with France, till the King, pressed by Danby to comply with their wish, seemed disposed to yield, and began to raise an army. But, as soon as they saw that the recruiting had commenced, their dread of Lewis gave place to a nearer dread. They began to fear that the new levies might be employed on a service in which Charles took much more interest than in the defence of Flanders. They therefore refused supplies, and clamoured for disbanding as loudly as they had just before clamoured for arming. Those historians who have severely reprehended this inconsistency do not appear to have made sufficient allowance for the embarrassing situation of subjects who have reason to believe that their prince is conspiring with a foreign and hostile power against their liberties. To refuse him military resources is to leave the state defenceless. Yet to give him military resources may be only to arm him against the state. In such circumstances vacillation cannot be considered as a proof of dishonesty or even of weakness.

Meanwhile, the Country Party was pulled in two opposing directions by strong feelings. The popular leaders feared Lewis's growing influence, as he was successfully standing up to the entire continental alliance. However, they also hesitated to trust their own King with the power to counter France, worried that he might use that power to undermine England's freedoms. The clash between these valid concerns made the Opposition’s stance seem just as erratic and unpredictable as the Court's. The Commons demanded a war with France, and when the King, pressured by Danby to meet their demands, seemed willing to agree and started raising an army, their anxiety about Lewis was quickly replaced by a more immediate fear. They began to worry that the new troops might be used for purposes that Charles cared more about than defending Flanders. Consequently, they refused to provide funds and shouted for disbanding the army just as loudly as they had previously called for arming it. Historians who criticize this inconsistency don’t seem to take into account the difficult situation of subjects who suspect their ruler may be plotting with a foreign enemy against their liberties. Refusing him military support leaves the state vulnerable, but giving him military resources might just arm him against the state. In such a scenario, their indecision cannot be seen as a sign of dishonesty or even weakness.

These jealousies were studiously fomented by the French King. He had long kept England passive by promising to support the throne against the Parliament. He now, alarmed at finding that the patriotic counsels of Danby seemed likely to prevail in the closet, began to inflame the Parliament against the throne. Between Lewis and the Country Party there was one thing, and one only in common, profound distrust of Charles. Could the Country Party have been certain that their sovereign meant only to make war on France, they would have been eager to support him. Could Lewis have been certain that the new levies were intended only to make war on the constitution of England, he would have made no attempt to stop them. But the unsteadiness and faithlessness of Charles were such that the French Government and the English opposition, agreeing in nothing else, agreed in disbelieving his protestations, and were equally desirous to keep him poor and without an army. Communications were opened between Barillon, the Ambassador of Lewis, and those English politicians who had always professed, and who indeed sincerely felt, the greatest dread and dislike of the French ascendency. The most upright of the Country Party, William Lord Russell, son of the Earl of Bedford, did not scruple to concert with a foreign mission schemes for embarrassing his own sovereign. This was the whole extent of Russell's offence. His principles and his fortune alike raised him above all temptations of a sordid kind: but there is too much reason to believe that some of his associates were less scrupulous. It would be unjust to impute to them the extreme wickedness of taking bribes to injure their country. On the contrary, they meant to serve her: but it is impossible to deny that they were mean and indelicate enough to let a foreign prince pay them for serving her. Among those who cannot be acquitted of this degrading charge was one man who is popularly considered as the personification of public spirit, and who, in spite of some great moral and intellectual faults, has a just claim to be called a hero, a philosopher, and a patriot. It is impossible to see without pain such a name in the list of the pensioners of France. Yet it is some consolation to reflect that, in our time, a public man would be thought lost to all sense of duty and of shame, who should not spurn from him a temptation which conquered the virtue and the pride of Algernon Sydney.

These jealousies were carefully stirred up by the French King. He had long kept England inactive by promising to back the throne against Parliament. Now, worried that the patriotic advice of Danby seemed likely to win in the palace, he started to provoke Parliament against the throne. Between Louis and the Country Party, there was only one thing in common: a deep distrust of Charles. If the Country Party had been sure that their king only intended to wage war on France, they would have eagerly supported him. If Louis had been sure that the new military forces were aimed solely at undermining England's constitution, he wouldn’t have tried to stop them. But Charles's inconsistency and unreliability were so severe that both the French Government and the English opposition, agreeing on nothing else, were united in doubting his claims and equally wanted to keep him broke and without an army. Conversations were opened between Barillon, Louis's Ambassador, and those English politicians who had always expressed, and genuinely felt, a strong fear and dislike of French dominance. The most honorable member of the Country Party, William Lord Russell, son of the Earl of Bedford, had no qualms about collaborating with a foreign mission to hamper his own king. This was the full extent of Russell's offense. His principles and his wealth set him above any sordid temptations: however, there’s good reason to believe that some of his associates were less scrupulous. It would be unfair to attribute to them the extreme immorality of accepting bribes to harm their country. On the contrary, they intended to serve her: but it’s undeniable that they were petty and unrefined enough to let a foreign prince pay them for doing so. Among those who cannot be cleared of this shameful charge was a man who is typically viewed as the embodiment of public spirit, and who, despite some serious moral and intellectual flaws, rightly deserves to be called a hero, a philosopher, and a patriot. It’s painful to see such a name on the list of France's pensioners. Yet it’s somewhat reassuring to think that, in our time, a public figure would be seen as utterly lacking in duty and shame if they didn’t reject a temptation that overcame the virtue and pride of Algernon Sydney.

The effect of these intrigues was that England, though she occasionally took a menacing attitude, remained inactive till the continental war, having lasted near seven years, was terminated by the treaty of Nimeguen. The United Provinces, which in 1672 had seemed to be on the verge of utter ruin, obtained honourable and advantageous terms. This narrow escape was generally ascribed to the ability and courage of the young Stadtholder. His fame was great throughout Europe, and especially among the English, who regarded him as one of their own princes, and rejoiced to see him the husband of their future Queen. France retained many important towns in the Low Countries and the great province of Franche Comte. Almost the whole loss was borne by the decaying monarchy of Spain.

The result of these scheming actions was that England, although it sometimes took a threatening stance, stayed inactive until the continental war, which lasted nearly seven years, ended with the Treaty of Nijmegen. The United Provinces, which in 1672 appeared to be on the brink of complete destruction, secured honorable and beneficial terms. This narrow escape was widely credited to the skill and bravery of the young Stadtholder. He was well-known throughout Europe, especially among the English, who saw him as one of their own princes and were pleased to have him married to their future Queen. France kept several key towns in the Low Countries and the large region of Franche-Comté. The bulk of the losses fell on the declining monarchy of Spain.

A few months after the termination of hostilities on the Continent came a great crisis in English politics. Towards such a crisis things had been tending during eighteen years. The whole stock of popularity, great as it was, with which the King had commenced his administration, had long been expended. To loyal enthusiasm had succeeded profound disaffection. The public mind had now measured back again the space over which it had passed between 1640 and 1660, and was once more in the state in which it had been when the Long Parliament met.

A few months after the end of the fighting on the Continent, a major crisis hit English politics. This crisis had been building for eighteen years. The King had used up all the popularity he started his reign with, which had once been substantial. Loyal excitement was replaced by deep dissatisfaction. The public was now reflecting on the period between 1640 and 1660 and found itself in a similar mindset to when the Long Parliament first convened.

The prevailing discontent was compounded of many feelings. One of these was wounded national pride. That generation had seen England, during a few years, allied on equal terms with France, victorious over Holland and Spain, the mistress of the sea, the terror of Rome, the head of the Protestant interest. Her resources had not diminished; and it might have been expected that she would have been at least as highly considered in Europe under a legitimate King, strong in the affection and willing obedience of his subjects, as she had been under an usurper whose utmost vigilance and energy were required to keep down a mutinous people. Yet she had, in consequence of the imbecility and meanness of her rulers, sunk so low that any German or Italian principality which brought five thousand men into the field was a more important member of the commonwealth of nations.

The widespread dissatisfaction stemmed from various emotions. One of these was a bruised sense of national pride. That generation had witnessed England, for a time, allied on equal footing with France, triumphant over Holland and Spain, reigning over the seas, feared by Rome, and leading the Protestant cause. Her resources hadn't diminished; it seemed reasonable to expect that she would be at least as respected in Europe under a legitimate King, beloved and supported by his subjects, as she had been under a usurper who needed constant vigilance and effort to control a rebellious population. Yet, due to the incompetence and pettiness of her leaders, she had fallen so low that any German or Italian principality capable of fielding five thousand troops was considered a more significant player in the global community.

With the sense of national humiliation was mingled anxiety for civil liberty. Rumours, indistinct indeed, but perhaps the more alarming by reason of their indistinctness, imputed to the court a deliberate design against all the constitutional rights of Englishmen. It had even been whispered that this design was to be carried into effect by the intervention of foreign arms. The thought of Such intervention made the blood, even of the Cavaliers, boil in their veins. Some who had always professed the doctrine of non-resistance in its full extent were now heard to mutter that there was one limitation to that doctrine. If a foreign force were brought over to coerce the nation, they would not answer for their own patience.

With a sense of national humiliation came anxiety for civil liberties. Rumors, vague but perhaps more alarming because of their vagueness, suggested that the court had a deliberate plan against all the constitutional rights of English citizens. It was even whispered that this plan would involve foreign military intervention. The thought of such intervention made even the Cavaliers' blood boil. Some who had always embraced non-resistance in its entirety were now heard to say that there was one limitation to that belief. If a foreign force was brought in to force the nation into submission, they couldn’t guarantee their own patience.

But neither national pride nor anxiety for public liberty had so great an influence on the popular mind as hatred of the Roman Catholic religion. That hatred had become one of the ruling passions of the community, and was as strong in the ignorant and profane as in those who were Protestants from conviction. The cruelties of Mary's reign, cruelties which even in the most accurate and sober narrative excite just detestation, and which were neither accurately nor soberly related in the popular martyrologies, the conspiracies against Elizabeth, and above all the Gunpowder Plot, had left in the minds of the vulgar a deep and bitter feeling which was kept up by annual commemorations, prayers, bonfires, and processions. It should be added that those classes which were peculiarly distinguished by attachment to the throne, the clergy and the landed gentry, had peculiar reasons for regarding the Church of Rome with aversion. The clergy trembled for their benefices; the landed gentry for their abbeys and great tithes. While the memory of the reign of the Saints was still recent, hatred of Popery had in some degree given place to hatred of Puritanism; but, during the eighteen years which had elapsed since the Restoration, the hatred of Puritanism had abated, and the hatred of Popery had increased. The stipulations of the treaty of Dover were accurately known to very few; but some hints had got abroad. The general impression was that a great blow was about to be aimed at the Protestant religion. The King was suspected by many of a leaning towards Rome. His brother and heir presumptive was known to be a bigoted Roman Catholic. The first Duchess of York had died a Roman Catholic. James had then, in defiance of the remonstrances of the House of Commons, taken to wife the Princess Mary of Modena, another Roman Catholic. If there should be sons by this marriage, there was reason to fear that they might be bred Roman Catholics, and that a long succession of princes, hostile to the established faith, might sit on the English throne. The constitution had recently been violated for the purpose of protecting the Roman Catholics from the penal laws. The ally by whom the policy of England had, during many years, been chiefly governed, was not only a Roman Catholic, but a persecutor of the reformed Churches. Under such circumstances it is not strange that the common people should have been inclined to apprehend a return of the times of her whom they called Bloody Mary.

But neither national pride nor concern for public freedom had as much influence on the popular mindset as hatred of the Roman Catholic religion. That hatred had become one of the dominant emotions in society and was just as strong among the ignorant and irreverent as among those Protestants who believed in their faith. The brutalities of Mary’s reign, which even in the most accurate and straightforward accounts provoke genuine disgust, and which were portrayed neither accurately nor responsibly in popular martyr stories, the conspiracies against Elizabeth, and especially the Gunpowder Plot, left the common people with a deep and bitter resentment that was sustained by yearly commemorations, prayers, bonfires, and parades. It should also be noted that those groups particularly loyal to the monarchy, namely the clergy and the landed gentry, had specific reasons to view the Church of Rome with hostility. The clergy feared for their income; the gentry worried about their estates and large tithes. While the memory of the reign of the Saints was still fresh, animosity towards Catholicism had somewhat shifted to animosity towards Puritanism; however, during the eighteen years since the Restoration, the dislike of Puritanism had diminished, and the disdain for Catholicism had grown. The details of the treaty of Dover were known to very few, but some hints had circulated. The general sentiment was that a significant threat against Protestantism was imminent. Many suspected the King of having a tendency towards Catholicism. His brother and heir apparent was known to be a devout Roman Catholic. The first Duchess of York had passed away as a Roman Catholic. James, disregarding the objections of the House of Commons, had then married Princess Mary of Modena, another Roman Catholic. If they were to have sons, there were concerns they might be raised as Roman Catholics, and that a long line of princes hostile to the established faith could end up on the English throne. The constitution had recently been violated to protect Roman Catholics from the penal laws. The ally who had chiefly influenced England’s policy for many years was not only a Roman Catholic but also a persecutor of reformed Churches. Given these circumstances, it is not surprising that the common people were inclined to fear a return to the days of the woman they called Bloody Mary.

Thus the nation was in such a temper that the smallest spark might raise a flame. At this conjuncture fire was set in two places at once to the vast mass of combustible matter; and in a moment the whole was in a blaze.

Thus the country was in such a mood that even the tiniest spark could ignite a fire. At this moment, flames were started in two locations simultaneously, and in an instant, everything was on fire.

The French court, which knew Danby to be its mortal enemy, artfully contrived to ruin him by making him pass for its friend. Lewis, by the instrumentality of Ralph Montague, a faithless and shameless man who had resided in France as minister from England, laid before the House of Commons proofs that the Treasurer had been concerned in an application made by the Court of Whitehall to the Court of Versailles for a sum of money. This discovery produced its natural effect. The Treasurer was, in truth, exposed to the vengeance of Parliament, not on account of his delinquencies, but on account of his merits; not because he had been an accomplice in a criminal transaction, but because he had been a most unwilling and unserviceable accomplice. But of the circumstances, which have, in the judgment of posterity, greatly extenuated his fault, his contemporaries were ignorant. In their view he was the broker who had sold England to France. It seemed clear that his greatness was at an end, and doubtful whether his head could be saved.

The French court, which saw Danby as its sworn enemy, cleverly set him up to destroy his reputation by pretending to be his ally. Lewis, with the help of Ralph Montague, a deceitful and shameless individual who had served as England’s minister in France, presented evidence to the House of Commons showing that the Treasurer had been involved in a request from the Court of Whitehall to the Court of Versailles for money. This revelation had the expected consequences. The Treasurer was actually facing Parliament's wrath, not because of his wrongdoings, but because of his accomplishments; not because he had partaken in a criminal act, but because he had been an extremely reluctant and ineffective accomplice. However, his contemporaries were unaware of the factors that, according to history, significantly mitigated his wrongdoing. To them, he was merely the trader who had sold England to France. It seemed obvious that his position was finished, and it was uncertain whether he could even save his own life.

Yet was the ferment excited by this discovery slight, when compared with the commotion which arose when it was noised abroad that a great Popish plot had been detected. One Titus Oates, a clergyman of the Church of England, had, by his disorderly life and heterodox doctrine, drawn on himself the censure of his spiritual superiors, had been compelled to quit his benefice, and had ever since led an infamous and vagrant life. He had once professed himself a Roman Catholic, and had passed some time on the Continent in English colleges of the order of Jesus. In those seminaries he had heard much wild talk about the best means of bringing England back to the true Church. From hints thus furnished he constructed a hideous romance, resembling rather the dream of a sick man than any transaction which ever took place in the real world. The Pope, he said, had entrusted the government of England to the Jesuits. The Jesuits had, by commissions under the seal of their society, appointed Roman Catholic clergymen, noblemen, and gentlemen, to all the highest offices in Church and State. The Papists had burned down London once. They had tried to burn it down again. They were at that moment planning a scheme for setting fire to all the shipping in the Thames. They were to rise at a signal and massacre all their Protestant neighbours. A French army was at the same time to land in Ireland. All the leading statesmen and divines of England were to be murdered. Three or four schemes had been formed for assassinating the King. He was to be stabbed. He was to be poisoned in his medicine He was to be shot with silver bullets. The public mind was so sore and excitable that these lies readily found credit with the vulgar; and two events which speedily took place led even some reflecting men to suspect that the tale, though evidently distorted and exaggerated, might have some foundation.

However, the excitement sparked by this discovery was minimal compared to the uproar that ensued when news spread that a major Catholic conspiracy had been uncovered. A clergyman of the Church of England named Titus Oates, living an immoral life and promoting unconventional beliefs, had attracted the disapproval of his superiors, been forced to leave his position, and had since led a notorious and wandering life. He had previously identified as a Roman Catholic and spent time studying at Jesuit colleges in Europe. While there, he had heard a lot of outrageous discussions about the best ways to bring England back to the true Church. From these hints, he created a horrifying tale more like the fantasy of a sick person than any actual events. He claimed that the Pope had given the Jesuits control over the government of England. The Jesuits, with official commissions from their society, had appointed Roman Catholic priests, nobles, and gentry to all the highest positions in both Church and State. He alleged that Catholics had previously burned down London and attempted to do it again. He claimed they were currently plotting to set all the ships in the Thames on fire. A signal would trigger them to rise up and massacre all their Protestant neighbors. At the same time, a French army was supposedly set to land in Ireland. All of England's leading politicians and religious figures were to be killed. Several plots had been devised to assassinate the King: he was to be stabbed, poisoned in his medicine, or shot with silver bullets. The public was so agitated and sensitive that these lies quickly gained traction among the masses; and two events that happened shortly after led even some thoughtful individuals to wonder if there might be some truth to the story, despite its clear distortions and exaggerations.

Edward Coleman, a very busy, and not very honest, Roman Catholic intriguer, had been among the persons accused. Search was made for his papers. It was found that he had just destroyed the greater part of them. But a few which had escaped contained some passages such as, to minds strongly prepossessed, might seem to confirm the evidence of Oates. Those passages indeed, when candidly construed, appear to express little more than the hopes which the posture of affairs, the predilections of Charles, the still stronger predilections of James, and the relations existing between the French and English courts, might naturally excite in the mind of a Roman Catholic strongly attached to the interests of his Church. But the country was not then inclined to construe the letters of Papists candidly; and it was urged, with some show of reason, that, if papers which had been passed over as unimportant were filled with matter so suspicious, some great mystery of iniquity must have been contained in those documents which had been carefully committed to the flames.

Edward Coleman, a very busy and not very honest Roman Catholic schemer, was among those accused. A search was conducted for his papers. It turned out he had just destroyed most of them. However, a few that were overlooked contained passages that, to those who were already biased, might seem to support Oates' claims. Those passages, when interpreted fairly, express little more than the hopes that the current situation, Charles' preferences, James' even stronger preferences, and the relationship between the French and English courts might naturally inspire in a Roman Catholic deeply committed to the interests of his Church. But at that time, the country was not willing to interpret the letters of Catholics fairly; it was argued, with some justification, that if papers previously dismissed as unimportant contained such suspicious material, there must have been some significant hidden wrongdoing in the documents that had been carefully burned.

A few days later it was known that Sir Edmondsbury Godfrey, an eminent justice of the peace who had taken the depositions of Oates against Coleman, had disappeared. Search was made; and Godfrey's corpse was found in a field near London. It was clear that he had died by violence. It was equally clear that he had not been set upon by robbers. His fate is to this day a secret. Some think that he perished by his own hand; some, that he was slain by a private enemy. The most improbable supposition is that he was murdered by the party hostile to the court, in order to give colour to the story of the plot. The most probable supposition seems, on the whole, to be that some hotheaded Roman Catholic, driven to frenzy by the lies of Oates and by the insults of the multitude, and not nicely distinguishing between the perjured accuser and the innocent magistrate, had taken a revenge of which the history of persecuted sects furnishes but too many examples. If this were so, the assassin must have afterwards bitterly execrated his own wickedness and folly. The capital and the whole nation went mad with hatred and fear. The penal laws, which had begun to lose something of their edge, were sharpened anew. Everywhere justices were busied in searching houses and seizing papers. All the gaols were filled with Papists. London had the aspect of a city in a state of siege. The trainbands were under arms all night. Preparations were made for barricading the great thoroughfares. Patrols marched up and down the streets. Cannon were planted round Whitehall. No citizen thought himself safe unless he carried under his coat a small flail loaded with lead to brain the Popish assassins. The corpse of the murdered magistrate was exhibited during several days to the gaze of great multitudes, and was then committed to the grave with strange and terrible ceremonies, which indicated rather fear and the thirst of vengeance shall sorrow or religious hope. The Houses insisted that a guard should be placed in the vaults over which they sate, in order to secure them against a second Gunpowder Plot. All their proceedings were of a piece with this demand. Ever since the reign of Elizabeth the oath of supremacy had been exacted from members of the House of Commons. Some Roman Catholics, however, had contrived so to interpret this oath that they could take it without scruple. A more stringent test was now added: every member of Parliament was required to make the Declaration against Transubstantiation; and thus the Roman Catholic Lords were for the first time excluded from their seats. Strong resolutions were adopted against the Queen. The Commons threw one of the Secretaries of State into prison for having countersigned commissions directed to gentlemen who were not good Protestants. They impeached the Lord Treasurer of high treason. Nay, they so far forgot the doctrine which, while the memory of the civil war was still recent, they had loudly professed, that they even attempted to wrest the command of the militia out of the King's hands. To such a temper had eighteen years of misgovernment brought the most loyal Parliament that had ever met in England.

A few days later, it became known that Sir Edmondsbury Godfrey, a prominent justice of the peace who had taken the statements of Oates against Coleman, had disappeared. A search was conducted, and Godfrey's body was found in a field near London. It was evident that he had died violently, and it was also clear that he wasn't attacked by robbers. To this day, his fate remains a mystery. Some believe he took his own life; others think he was killed by a personal enemy. The least likely theory is that he was murdered by those opposed to the court to support the plot narrative. The most plausible explanation seems to be that some heated Catholic, driven to madness by Oates' lies and the insults of the public, mistook the perjured accuser for the innocent magistrate and sought revenge, a theme sadly common in the histories of persecuted groups. If this was the case, the killer must have later regretted their wickedness and foolishness. The capital and the entire nation were engulfed in hatred and fear. The penal laws, which had started to lose some of their severity, were intensified. Justices were busy searching homes and seizing documents everywhere. All the jails were filled with Catholics. London resembled a city under siege. The military was on alert all night, preparing to barricade the major roads. Patrols marched through the streets, and cannons were positioned around Whitehall. No citizen felt safe unless they carried a small flail loaded with lead to defend against Catholic assassins. The body of the murdered magistrate was displayed for several days for the public to see, then buried with strange and frightening ceremonies that reflected more fear and a desire for vengeance than sorrow or hope. The Houses demanded that a guard be placed in the vaults beneath them to protect against a second Gunpowder Plot. All their actions matched this demand. Since the reign of Elizabeth, the oath of supremacy had been required from members of the House of Commons. However, some Catholics had found a way to interpret this oath so they could take it without any guilt. Now, a stricter requirement was introduced: every member of Parliament had to make the Declaration against Transubstantiation, effectively excluding Catholic Lords from their seats for the first time. Strong resolutions were passed against the Queen. The Commons imprisoned one of the Secretaries of State for endorsing commissions for individuals who were not good Protestants. They also impeached the Lord Treasurer for high treason. They even went so far as to forget the doctrines they had loudly professed during the recent civil war, attempting to strip the King of control over the militia. This is how far eighteen years of misgovernment pushed the most loyal Parliament that had ever assembled in England.

Yet it may seem strange that, even in that extremity, the King should have ventured to appeal to the people; for the people were more excited than their representatives. The Lower House, discontented as it was, contained a larger number of Cavaliers than were likely to find seats again. But it was thought that a dissolution would put a stop to the prosecution of the Lord Treasurer, a prosecution which might probably bring to light all the guilty mysteries of the French alliance, and might thus cause extreme personal annoyance and embarrassment to Charles. Accordingly, in January, 1679, the Parliament, which had been in existence ever since the beginning of the year 1661, was dissolved; and writs were issued for a general election.

Yet it might seem odd that, even in that situation, the King decided to reach out to the people; because the people were even more agitated than their representatives. The Lower House, though unhappy, included a larger number of Cavaliers than were likely to get elected again. However, it was believed that a dissolution would put an end to the prosecution of the Lord Treasurer, a prosecution that could potentially expose all the shady dealings of the French alliance, which would cause Charles significant personal discomfort and embarrassment. As a result, in January 1679, the Parliament, which had been functioning since the beginning of 1661, was dissolved; and writs were issued for a general election.

During some weeks the contention over the whole country was fierce and obstinate beyond example. Unprecedented sums were expended. New tactics were employed. It was remarked by the pamphleteers of that time as something extraordinary that horses were hired at a great charge for the conveyance of electors. The practice of splitting freeholds for the purpose of multiplying votes dates from this memorable struggle. Dissenting preachers, who had long hidden themselves in quiet nooks from persecution, now emerged from their retreats, and rode from village to village, for the purpose of rekindling the zeal of the scattered people of God. The tide ran strong against the government. Most of the new members came up to Westminster in a mood little differing from that of their predecessors who had sent Strafford and Laud to the Tower.

For several weeks, the fight over the whole country was intense and stubborn like never before. Unheard-of amounts of money were spent. New strategies were used. It was noted by the pamphleteers of that time as remarkable that horses were rented at a high cost to transport voters. The practice of dividing land to increase the number of votes started during this significant struggle. Dissenting preachers, who had long been hiding away from persecution, now came out of hiding and traveled from village to village to reignite the passion of the scattered followers of God. The sentiment was strongly against the government. Most of the new members arrived in Westminster with a mindset little different from that of their predecessors who had sent Strafford and Laud to the Tower.

Meanwhile the courts of justice, which ought to be, in the midst of political commotions, sure places of refuge for the innocent of every party, were disgraced by wilder passions and fouler corruptions than were to be found even on the hustings. The tale of Oates, though it had sufficed to convulse the whole realm, would not, unless confirmed by other evidence, suffice to destroy the humblest of those whom he had accused. For, by the old law of England, two witnesses are necessary to establish a charge of treason. But the success of the first impostor produced its natural consequences. In a few weeks he had been raised from penury and obscurity to opulence, to power which made him the dread of princes and nobles, and to notoriety such as has for low and bad minds all the attractions of glory. He was not long without coadjutors and rivals. A wretch named Carstairs, who had earned a livelihood in Scotland by going disguised to conventicles and then informing against the preachers, led the way. Bedloe, a noted swindler, followed; and soon from all the brothels, gambling houses, and spunging houses of London, false witnesses poured forth to swear away the lives of Roman Catholics. One came with a story about an army of thirty thousand men who were to muster in the disguise of pilgrims at Corunna, and to sail thence to Wales. Another had been promised canonisation and five hundred pounds to murder the King. A third had stepped into an eating house in Covent Garden, and had there heard a great Roman Catholic banker vow, in the hearing of all the guests and drawers, to kill the heretical tyrant. Oates, that he might not be eclipsed by his imitators, soon added a large supplement to his original narrative. He had the portentous impudence to affirm, among other things, that he had once stood behind a door which was ajar, and had there overheard the Queen declare that she had resolved to give her consent to the assassination of her husband. The vulgar believed, and the highest magistrates pretended to believe, even such fictions as these. The chief judges of the realm were corrupt, cruel, and timid. The leaders of the Country Party encouraged the prevailing delusion. The most respectable among them, indeed, were themselves so far deluded as to believe the greater part of the evidence of the plot to be true. Such men as Shaftesbury and Buckingham doubtless perceived that the whole was a romance. But it was a romance which served their turn; and to their seared consciences the death of an innocent man gave no more uneasiness than the death of a partridge. The juries partook of the feelings then common throughout the nation, and were encouraged by the bench to indulge those feelings without restraint. The multitude applauded Oates and his confederates, hooted and pelted the witnesses who appeared on behalf of the accused, and shouted with joy when the verdict of Guilty was pronounced. It was in vain that the sufferers appealed to the respectability of their past lives: for the public mind was possessed with a belief that the more conscientious a Papist was, the more likely he must be to plot against a Protestant government. It was in vain that, just before the cart passed from under their feet, they resolutely affirmed their innocence: for the general opinion was that a good Papist considered all lies which were serviceable to his Church as not only excusable but meritorious.

Meanwhile, the courts, which should have been safe havens for the innocent amidst political chaos, were tainted by greater passions and deeper corruption than even on the campaign trail. The story of Oates, while it had shaken the entire country, would not destroy the reputation of even the least of those he accused unless supported by other evidence. By old English law, two witnesses were needed to establish a charge of treason. However, the success of the first fraudster brought about its inevitable consequences. Within weeks, he had risen from poverty and obscurity to wealth, wielding power that instilled fear in princes and nobles, and gaining notoriety that appealed to low and corrupt minds as if it were glory. It wasn't long before he attracted accomplices and competitors. A scoundrel named Carstairs, who made a living in Scotland by disguising himself to attend unconventional gatherings and then informing on the preachers, led the charge. Bedloe, a well-known con artist, followed, and soon, false witnesses flooded in from the city's brothels, gambling dens, and various shady establishments, ready to testify against Roman Catholics. One claimed to have heard about an army of thirty thousand men planning to disguise themselves as pilgrims at Corunna and sail to Wales. Another alleged he had been promised sainthood and £500 to kill the King. A third claimed to have overheard a prominent Roman Catholic banker in a Covent Garden eatery declare, in front of other patrons and staff, his intent to murder the heretical tyrant. To avoid being overshadowed by his imitators, Oates quickly expanded his original story. He had the outrageous audacity to assert, among other things, that he had once stood behind a slightly open door and heard the Queen say she planned to consent to her husband's assassination. The public believed, and even the highest magistrates pretended to believe, such fabrications. The leading judges of the realm were corrupt, cruel, and cowardly. Leaders of the Country Party supported the widespread delusion. Indeed, even the most respectable among them were so deceived that they believed the majority of the plot's evidence to be true. People like Shaftesbury and Buckingham certainly realized the whole thing was a fabrication. But it was a fabrication that served their interests; to their hardened consciences, the death of an innocent person meant no more than the death of a partridge. The juries shared the prevailing sentiment across the nation and were encouraged by the judges to express those sentiments freely. The crowd cheered Oates and his accomplices, jeered and pelted the witnesses advocating for the accused, and erupted in joy when the verdict of Guilty was announced. It was useless for the victims to appeal to their respectable pasts: public opinion was consumed with the belief that the more devout a Catholic was, the more likely he was to conspire against a Protestant government. It was futile for them to assert their innocence right before the cart carried them away, for the general consensus was that a good Catholic viewed any lies that served his Church as not only excusable but commendable.

While innocent blood was shedding under the forms of justice, the new Parliament met; and such was the violence of the predominant party that even men whose youth had been passed amidst revolutions men who remembered the attainder of Strafford, the attempt on the five members, the abolition of the House of Lords, the execution of the King, stood aghast at the aspect of public affairs. The impeachment of Danby was resumed. He pleaded the royal pardon. But the Commons treated the plea with contempt, and insisted that the trial should proceed. Danby, however, was not their chief object. They were convinced that the only effectual way of securing the liberties and religion of the nation was to exclude the Duke of York from the throne.

While innocent lives were being lost in the name of justice, the new Parliament convened; and the intensity of the ruling party was so extreme that even those who had spent their youth amid revolutions—people who remembered the punishment of Strafford, the attempt on the five members, the abolition of the House of Lords, and the execution of the King—were shocked by the state of public affairs. The impeachment of Danby was brought back to the forefront. He claimed he had the king's pardon. But the Commons dismissed his claim and insisted that the trial must go on. However, Danby wasn't their main target. They believed that the only effective way to protect the nation's freedoms and religion was to prevent the Duke of York from ascending the throne.

The King was in great perplexity. He had insisted that his brother, the sight of whom inflamed the populace to madness, should retire for a time to Brussels: but this concession did not seem to have produced any favourable effect. The Roundhead party was now decidedly preponderant. Towards that party leaned millions who had, at the time of the Restoration, leaned towards the side of prerogative. Of the old Cavaliers many participated in the prevailing fear of Popery, and many, bitterly resenting the ingratitude of the prince for whom they had sacrificed so much, looked on his distress as carelessly as he had looked on theirs. Even the Anglican clergy, mortified and alarmed by the apostasy of the Duke of York, so far countenanced the opposition as to join cordially in the outcry against the Roman Catholics.

The King was very confused. He had insisted that his brother, whose presence drove the people into a frenzy, should take a break in Brussels, but this concession didn’t seem to make any positive difference. The Roundhead party was clearly gaining the upper hand. Millions who had supported the monarchy during the Restoration were now siding with that party. Among the old Cavaliers, many shared the growing fear of Catholicism, and many, feeling bitter about the prince's ingratitude for their sacrifices, regarded his troubles as indifferently as he had regarded theirs. Even the Anglican clergy, embarrassed and worried by the Duke of York's defection, supported the opposition enough to join enthusiastically in the outcry against the Roman Catholics.

The King in this extremity had recourse to Sir William Temple. Of all the official men of that age Temple had preserved the fairest character. The Triple Alliance had been his work. He had refused to take any part in the politics of the Cabal, and had, while that administration directed affairs, lived in strict privacy. He had quitted his retreat at the call of Danby, had made peace between England and Holland, and had borne a chief part in bringing about the marriage of the Lady Mary to her cousin the Prince of Orange. Thus he had the credit of every one of the few good things which had been done by the government since the Restoration. Of the numerous crimes and blunders of the last eighteen years none could be imputed to him. His private life, though not austere, was decorous: his manners were popular; and he was not to be corrupted either by titles or by money. Something, however, was wanting to the character of this respectable statesman. The temperature of his patriotism was lukewarm. He prized his ease and his personal dignity too much, and shrank from responsibility with a pusillanimous fear. Nor indeed had his habits fitted him to bear a part in the conflicts of our domestic factions. He had reached his fiftieth year without having sate in the English Parliament; and his official experience had been almost entirely acquired at foreign courts. He was justly esteemed one of the first diplomatists in Europe: but the talents and accomplishments of a diplomatist are widely different from those which qualify a politician to lead the House of Commons in agitated times.

The King, in this difficult situation, turned to Sir William Temple. Among the officials of that time, Temple maintained the best reputation. He was behind the Triple Alliance. He had refused to get involved in the politics of the Cabal and, while that administration was in charge, led a life of strict privacy. He left his retreat at the request of Danby, helped make peace between England and Holland, and played a key role in arranging the marriage of Lady Mary to her cousin, the Prince of Orange. Because of this, he received credit for most of the few good things accomplished by the government since the Restoration. None of the many crimes and mistakes of the last eighteen years could be blamed on him. His private life, while not strict, was respectable; his manners were well-liked, and he could not be swayed by titles or money. However, something was lacking in this respectable statesman's character. His sense of patriotism was lukewarm. He valued his comfort and personal dignity too much and avoided responsibility out of timid fear. Moreover, his habits hadn’t prepared him to take part in the struggles of our domestic factions. He reached the age of fifty without ever sitting in the English Parliament, and most of his official experience came from foreign courts. He was rightly regarded as one of the top diplomats in Europe, but the skills and abilities of a diplomat are very different from those needed to lead the House of Commons during turbulent times.

The scheme which he proposed showed considerable ingenuity. Though not a profound philosopher, he had thought more than most busy men of the world on the general principles of government; and his mind had been enlarged by historical studies and foreign travel. He seems to have discerned more clearly than most of his contemporaries one cause of the difficulties by which the government was beset. The character of the English polity was gradually changing. The Parliament was slowly, but constantly, gaining ground on the prerogative. The line between the legislative and executive powers was in theory as strongly marked as ever, but in practice was daily becoming fainter and fainter. The theory of the constitution was that the King might name his own ministers. But the House of Commons had driven Clarendon, the Cabal, and Danby successively from the direction of affairs. The theory of the constitution was that the King alone had the power of making peace and war. But the House of Commons had forced him to make peace with Holland, and had all but forced him to make war with France. The theory of the constitution was that the King was the sole judge of the cases in which it might be proper to pardon offenders. Yet he was so much in dread of the House of Commons that, at that moment, he could not venture to rescue from the gallows men whom he well knew to be the innocent victims of perjury.

The proposal he put forward showed a lot of creativity. While he wasn't a deep thinker, he had thought more than many busy people about the basic principles of government; and his mind had been broadened by studying history and traveling abroad. He seemed to have understood more clearly than most of his peers one reason for the challenges the government was facing. The nature of English politics was gradually changing. Parliament was slowly but steadily gaining power over the monarchy. The distinction between legislative and executive powers was still clearly defined in theory, but in practice, it was becoming less clear every day. According to the constitution, the King could appoint his own ministers. However, the House of Commons had successfully pushed Clarendon, the Cabal, and Danby out of power. The constitution stated that the King had sole authority over making peace and war. But the House of Commons had compelled him to negotiate peace with Holland and nearly forced him into war with France. The constitution also said that the King was the only one who could decide when it was right to pardon offenders. Yet he was so afraid of the House of Commons that, at that moment, he couldn't even risk saving innocent men from the gallows whom he knew had been wrongly accused.

Temple, it should seem, was desirous to secure to the legislature its undoubted constitutional powers, and yet to prevent it, if possible, from encroaching further on the province of the executive administration. With this view he determined to interpose between the sovereign and the Parliament a body which might break the shock of their collision. There was a body ancient, highly honourable, and recognised by the law, which, he thought, might be so remodelled as to serve this purpose. He determined to give to the Privy Council a new character and office in the government. The number of Councillors he fixed at thirty. Fifteen of them were to be the chief ministers of state, of law, and of religion. The other fifteen were to be unplaced noblemen and gentlemen of ample fortune and high character. There was to be no interior cabinet. All the thirty were to be entrusted with every political secret, and summoned to every meeting; and the King was to declare that he would, on every occasion, be guided by their advice.

Temple wanted to ensure that the legislature retained its clear constitutional powers while also preventing it from overstepping into the domain of the executive branch. To achieve this, he decided to create an intermediary body between the sovereign and Parliament that could help minimize conflict between them. He identified an ancient and respected body recognized by law that he thought could be restructured for this purpose. He planned to redefine the role of the Privy Council within the government, setting the number of Councillors at thirty. Fifteen would be the chief ministers of state, law, and religion, while the other fifteen would consist of noblemen and gentlemen of significant wealth and reputable character. There was to be no inner cabinet; all thirty members would have access to every political secret and be called to every meeting, with the King committing to be guided by their advice on all occasions.

Temple seems to have thought that, by this contrivance, he could at once secure the nation against the tyranny of the Crown, and the Crown against the encroachments of the Parliament. It was, on one hand, highly improbable that schemes such as had been formed by the Cabal would be even propounded for discussion in an assembly consisting of thirty eminent men, fifteen of whom were bound by no tie of interest to the court. On the other hand, it might be hoped that the Commons, content with the guarantee against misgovernment which such a Privy Council furnished, would confine themselves more than they had of late done to their strictly legislative functions, and would no longer think it necessary to pry into every part of the executive administration.

Temple thought that, with this plan, he could simultaneously protect the nation from the tyranny of the Crown and the Crown from the overreach of Parliament. On one hand, it was very unlikely that the types of schemes proposed by the Cabal would even be brought up for discussion in a gathering of thirty distinguished individuals, fifteen of whom had no personal connection to the court. On the other hand, it was reasonable to hope that the Commons, satisfied with the protection against misrule that such a Privy Council offered, would limit themselves more than they had recently to their specific legislative roles, and would no longer feel the need to investigate every aspect of the executive branch.

This plan, though in some respects not unworthy of the abilities of its author, was in principle vicious. The new board was half a cabinet and half a Parliament, and, like almost every other contrivance, whether mechanical or political, which is meant to serve two purposes altogether different, failed of accomplishing either. It was too large and too divided to be a good administrative body. It was too closely connected with the Crown to be a good checking body. It contained just enough of popular ingredients to make it a bad council of state, unfit for the keeping of secrets, for the conducting of delicate negotiations, and for the administration of war. Yet were these popular ingredients by no means sufficient to secure the nation against misgovernment. The plan, therefore, even if it had been fairly tried, could scarcely have succeeded; and it was not fairly tried. The King was fickle and perfidious: the Parliament was excited and unreasonable; and the materials out of which the new Council was made, though perhaps the best which that age afforded, were still bad.

This plan, while not lacking in some aspects of its author's abilities, was fundamentally flawed. The new board was part cabinet and part Parliament, and like almost any other system, whether mechanical or political, designed to serve two completely different purposes, it failed to fulfill either. It was too large and too fragmented to function well as an administrative body. It was too closely tied to the Crown to act as an effective check. It included just enough popular elements to make it a poor council of state, unfit for keeping secrets, conducting sensitive negotiations, and managing war. However, these popular elements were far from enough to protect the nation from bad governance. Thus, even if the plan had been genuinely tested, it would have had little chance of success; and it was never genuinely tested. The King was unpredictable and treacherous; the Parliament was agitated and irrational; and the components that formed the new Council, although perhaps the best available at the time, were still inadequate.

The commencement of the new system was, however, hailed with general delight; for the people were in a temper to think any change an improvement. They were also pleased by some of the new nominations. Shaftesbury, now their favourite, was appointed Lord President. Russell and some other distinguished members of the Country Party were sworn of the Council. But a few days later all was again in confusion. The inconveniences of having so numerous a cabinet were such that Temple himself consented to infringe one of the fundamental rules which he had laid down, and to become one of a small knot which really directed everything. With him were joined three other ministers, Arthur Capel, Earl of Essex, George Savile, Viscount Halifax, and Robert Spencer, Earl of Sunderland.

The start of the new system was welcomed with widespread excitement because people were ready to see any change as an improvement. They were also happy about some of the new appointments. Shaftesbury, who was now their favorite, was named Lord President. Russell and a few other prominent members of the Country Party were added to the Council. But just a few days later, everything was chaotic again. The problems of having such a large cabinet were so significant that Temple himself agreed to break one of the fundamental rules he had established and to become part of a small group that truly made all the decisions. Along with him were three other ministers: Arthur Capel, Earl of Essex, George Savile, Viscount Halifax, and Robert Spencer, Earl of Sunderland.

Of the Earl of Essex, then First Commissioner of the Treasury, it is sufficient to say that he was a man of solid, though not brilliant parts, and of grave and melancholy character, that he had been connected with the Country Party, and that he was at this time honestly desirous to effect, on terms beneficial to the state, a reconciliation between that party and the throne.

Of the Earl of Essex, who was the First Commissioner of the Treasury at the time, it’s enough to say he was a decent man, though not exceptionally talented, and had a serious and somber demeanor. He had ties to the Country Party and was genuinely interested in achieving a reconciliation between that party and the monarchy, as long as it benefited the state.

Among the statesmen of those times Halifax was, in genius, the first. His intellect was fertile, subtle, and capacious. His polished, luminous, and animated eloquence, set off by the silver tones of his voice, was the delight of the House of Lords. His conversation overflowed with thought, fancy, and wit. His political tracts well deserve to be studied for their literary merit, and fully entitle him to a place among English classics. To the weight derived from talents so great and various he united all the influence which belongs to rank and ample possessions. Yet he was less successful in politics than many who enjoyed smaller advantages. Indeed, those intellectual peculiarities which make his writings valuable frequently impeded him in the contests of active life. For he always saw passing events, not in the point of view in which they commonly appear to one who bears a part in them, but in the point of view in which, after the lapse of many years, they appear to the philosophic historian. With such a turn of mind he could not long continue to act cordially with any body of men. All the prejudices, all the exaggerations, of both the great parties in the state moved his scorn. He despised the mean arts and unreasonable clamours of demagogues. He despised still more the doctrines of divine right and passive obedience. He sneered impartially at the bigotry of the Churchman and at the bigotry of the Puritan. He was equally unable to comprehend how any man should object to Saints' days and surplices, and how any man should persecute any other man for objecting to them. In temper he was what, in our time, is called a Conservative: in theory he was a Republican. Even when his dread of anarchy and his disdain for vulgar delusions led him to side for a time with the defenders of arbitrary power, his intellect was always with Locke and Milton. Indeed, his jests upon hereditary monarchy were sometimes such as would have better become a member of the Calf's Head Club than a Privy Councillor of the Stuarts. In religion he was so far from being a zealot that he was called by the uncharitable an atheist: but this imputation he vehemently repelled; and in truth, though he sometimes gave scandal by the way in which he exerted his rare powers both of reasoning and of ridicule on serious subjects, he seems to have been by no means unsusceptible of religious impressions.

Among the politicians of that time, Halifax was the most talented. His mind was creative, subtle, and expansive. His smooth, bright, and lively speech, enhanced by the beautiful sound of his voice, captivated the House of Lords. His conversations were filled with ideas, imagination, and humor. His political writings deserve to be studied for their literary value and rightfully earn him a spot among English classics. Along with his impressive talents, he held considerable influence due to his rank and wealth. However, he was less successful in politics than many who had fewer advantages. In fact, the unique qualities that made his writings valuable often hindered him in active political life. He tended to view current events not from the perspective of someone involved, but rather from the viewpoint of how they would appear to a historian years later. With this mindset, he couldn't remain aligned with any group for long. The biases and exaggerations of both major political parties disgusted him. He looked down on the petty tricks and unreasonable outcry of demagogues, and even more so on the ideas of divine right and blind obedience. He mocked the narrow-mindedness of both the Church and the Puritan factions. He found it hard to understand how anyone could object to Saints' days and clerical robes, or how anyone could persecute someone else for opposing them. By nature, he would be considered a Conservative today, yet in theory, he was a Republican. Even when his fear of chaos and disdain for popular misconceptions led him to temporarily align with supporters of absolute power, his intellect always leaned toward Locke and Milton. His jokes about hereditary monarchy sometimes sounded more fitting for a member of the Calf's Head Club than a Privy Councillor to the Stuarts. In terms of religion, he was far from a zealot, earning him the uncharitable label of atheist, which he strongly denied; although he occasionally caused outrage with how he employed his impressive reasoning and satire on serious subjects, he appeared to be quite responsive to religious sentiments.

He was the chief of those politicians whom the two great parties contemptuously called Trimmers. Instead of quarrelling with this nickname, he assumed it as a title of honour, and vindicated, with great vivacity, the dignity of the appellation. Everything good, he said, trims between extremes. The temperate zone trims between the climate in which men are roasted and the climate in which they are frozen. The English Church trims between the Anabaptist madness and the Papist lethargy. The English constitution trims between Turkish despotism and Polish anarchy. Virtue is nothing but a just temper between propensities any one of which, if indulged to excess, becomes vice. Nay, the perfection of the Supreme Being himself consists in the exact equilibrium of attributes, none of which could preponderate without disturbing the whole moral and physical order of the world. 20 Thus Halifax was a Trimmer on principle. He was also a Trimmer by the constitution both of his head and of his heart. His understanding was keen, sceptical, inexhaustibly fertile in distinctions and objections; his taste refined; his sense of the ludicrous exquisite; his temper placid and forgiving, but fastidious, and by no means prone either to malevolence or to enthusiastic admiration. Such a man could not long be constant to any band of political allies. He must not, however, be confounded with the vulgar crowd of renegades. For though, like them, he passed from side to side, his transition was always in the direction opposite to theirs. He had nothing in common with those who fly from extreme to extreme, and who regard the party which they have deserted with all animosity far exceeding that of consistent enemies. His place was on the debatable ground between the hostile divisions of the community, and he never wandered far beyond the frontier of either. The party to which he at any moment belonged was the party which, at that moment, he liked least, because it was the party of which at that moment he had the nearest view. He was therefore always severe upon his violent associates, and was always in friendly relations with his moderate opponents. Every faction in the day of its insolent and vindictive triumph incurred his censure; and every faction, when vanquished and persecuted, found in him a protector. To his lasting honour it must be mentioned that he attempted to save those victims whose fate has left the deepest stain both on the Whig and on the Tory name.

He was the leader of those politicians whom the two major parties dismissively called Trimmers. Instead of arguing about this nickname, he embraced it as a badge of honor and passionately defended the dignity of the term. He argued that everything good lies in moderation. The temperate zone is the space between where people are scorched and where they are frozen. The English Church finds a middle ground between the extreme beliefs of the Anabaptists and the lethargy of the Papists. The English constitution balances between Turkish tyranny and Polish chaos. Virtue is just the right balance between tendencies, each of which, if taken too far, turns into vice. In fact, the perfection of the Supreme Being is about the precise balance of attributes, none of which can outweigh the others without upsetting the entire moral and physical order of the universe. 20 Thus, Halifax was a Trimmer by principle. He was also a Trimmer by the nature of his mind and heart. His intelligence was sharp, skeptical, endlessly creative with distinctions and arguments; his taste was refined; his sense of humor was keen; his demeanor was calm and forgiving, but exacting, and he was not inclined to either malice or excessive admiration. A person like that wouldn't stay loyal to any group of political allies for long. However, he shouldn't be confused with the typical crowd of turncoats. Because, like them, he moved between sides, but his shifts were always in the opposite direction. He had nothing in common with those who jump from one extreme to another, treating the side they've left with a hostility that surpasses that of consistent enemies. His place was on the contested ground between the warring factions of society, and he never strayed far from the borders of either. The party he belonged to at any given time was the one he liked the least because it was the one he could see most clearly at that moment. He was therefore always critical of his more extreme allies and maintained friendly relations with his moderate adversaries. Every faction, during its arrogant and vengeful rise, faced his criticism; and every faction, when defeated and oppressed, found him to be a supporter. To his lasting credit, it should be noted that he tried to save those victims whose fates have left a deep stain on both the Whig and Tory names.

He had greatly distinguished himself in opposition, and had thus drawn on himself the royal displeasure, which was indeed so strong that he was not admitted into the Council of Thirty without much difficulty and long altercation. As soon, however, as he had obtained a footing at court, the charms of his manner and of his conversation made him a favourite. He was seriously alarmed by the violence of the public discontent. He thought that liberty was for the present safe, and that order and legitimate authority were in danger. He therefore, as was his fashion, joined himself to the weaker side. Perhaps his conversion was not wholly disinterested. For study and reflection, though they had emancipated him from many vulgar prejudices, had left him a slave to vulgar desires. Money he did not want; and there is no evidence that he ever obtained it by any means which, in that age, even severe censors considered as dishonourable; but rank and power had strong attractions for him. He pretended, indeed, that he considered titles and great offices as baits which could allure none but fools, that he hated business, pomp, and pageantry, and that his dearest wish was to escape from the bustle and glitter of Whitehall to the quiet woods which surrounded his ancient mansion in Nottinghamshire; but his conduct was not a little at variance with his professions. In truth he wished to command the respect at once of courtiers and of philosophers, to be admired for attaining high dignities, and to be at the same time admired for despising them.

He had really stood out in opposition, which earned him the king's disapproval, so much so that he had to fight hard to get a spot in the Council of Thirty. However, once he established himself at court, his charm and conversation made him popular. He was seriously worried about the growing public unrest. He believed that freedom was currently safe, but order and legitimate authority were at risk. So, as was his habit, he aligned himself with the weaker side. Maybe his change of heart wasn't completely selfless. While studying and reflecting had freed him from many common prejudices, they had also left him vulnerable to basic desires. He didn't lack money, and there's no proof he ever got it through means that were considered dishonorable, even by strict standards of that time, but he was definitely attracted to rank and power. He claimed that he saw titles and high offices as bait meant only for fools, that he disliked business, showiness, and ceremony, and that his deepest wish was to escape the hustle and bustle of Whitehall for the peaceful woods around his old estate in Nottinghamshire. However, his actions often contradicted his words. In reality, he wanted to earn the respect of both courtiers and philosophers, to be admired for achieving high positions, yet also respected for looking down on them.

Sunderland was Secretary of State. In this man the political immorality of his age was personified in the most lively manner. Nature had given him a keen understanding, a restless and mischievous temper, a cold heart, and an abject spirit. His mind had undergone a training by which all his vices had been nursed up to the rankest maturity. At his entrance into public life, he had passed several years in diplomatic posts abroad, and had been, during some time, minister in France. Every calling has its peculiar temptations. There is no injustice in saying that diplomatists, as a class, have always been more distinguished by their address, by the art with which they win the confidence of those with whom they have to deal, and by the ease with which they catch the tone of every society into which they are admitted, than by generous enthusiasm or austere rectitude; and the relations between Charles and Lewis were such that no English nobleman could long reside in France as envoy, and retain any patriotic or honourable sentiment. Sunderland came forth from the bad school in which he had been brought up, cunning, supple, shameless, free from all prejudices, and destitute of all principles. He was, by hereditary connection, a Cavalier: but with the Cavaliers he had nothing in common. They were zealous for monarchy, and condemned in theory all resistance. Yet they had sturdy English hearts which would never have endured real despotism. He, on the contrary, had a languid speculative liking for republican institutions which was compatible with perfect readiness to be in practice the most servile instrument of arbitrary power. Like many other accomplished flatterers and negotiators, he was far more skilful in the art of reading the characters and practising on the weaknesses of individuals, than in the art of discerning the feelings of great masses, and of foreseeing the approach of great revolutions. He was adroit in intrigue; and it was difficult even for shrewd and experienced men who had been amply forewarned of his perfidy to withstand the fascination of his manner, and to refuse credit to his professions of attachment. But he was so intent on observing and courting particular persons, that he often forgot to study the temper of the nation. He therefore miscalculated grossly with respect to some of the most momentous events of his time. More than one important movement and rebound of the public mind took him by surprise; and the world, unable to understand how so clever a man could be blind to what was clearly discerned by the politicians of the coffee houses, sometimes attributed to deep design what were in truth mere blunders.

Sunderland was the Secretary of State. In this man, the political immorality of his time was vividly personified. Nature had given him a sharp intellect, a restless and mischievous temperament, a cold heart, and a subservient spirit. His mind had been shaped in such a way that all his vices had grown to their fullest extent. When he began his public career, he had spent several years in diplomatic roles abroad and had served as minister in France for a period. Every profession has its own unique temptations. It’s fair to say that diplomats, as a group, have typically stood out more for their charisma, the skill with which they gain the trust of those they deal with, and their ability to adapt to any social setting, rather than for genuine enthusiasm or strict integrity; and the relationship between Charles and Lewis was such that no English nobleman could stay in France as an envoy for long without losing any patriotic or honorable feelings. Sunderland emerged from the corrupt environment where he was raised, clever, adaptable, shameless, free from biases, and lacking any principles. He was, by family ties, a Cavalier, but he had nothing in common with the Cavaliers. They were passionate about monarchy and theoretically condemned all forms of resistance. Yet they possessed the strong English hearts that would never tolerate true despotism. He, on the other hand, had a weak, theoretical liking for republican systems that conveniently allowed him to be the most submissive tool of absolute power in practice. Like many other skilled flatterers and negotiators, he was much better at reading people and exploiting their weaknesses than at understanding the emotions of large groups or predicting significant revolutions. He was skilled in intrigue; even shrewd and experienced individuals who had been warned about his treachery found it hard to resist his charm and his claims of loyalty. However, he was so focused on observing and pleasing specific individuals that he frequently neglected to gauge the mood of the nation. As a result, he made significant miscalculations regarding some of the most critical events of his time. More than one important public movement took him by surprise, and the world, unable to comprehend how such a clever man could overlook what was obvious to the politicians in coffeehouses, sometimes mistook his errors for intentional schemes.

It was only in private conference that his eminent abilities displayed themselves. In the royal closet, or in a very small circle, he exercised great influence. But at the Council board he was taciturn; and in the House of Lords he never opened his lips.

It was only in private meetings that his remarkable skills showed themselves. In the royal office or in a very small group, he had a lot of influence. But at the Council board, he was quiet; and in the House of Lords, he never spoke up.

The four confidential advisers of the crown soon found that their position was embarrassing and invidious. The other members of the Council murmured at a distinction inconsistent with the King's promises; and some of them, with Shaftesbury at their head, again betook themselves to strenuous opposition in Parliament. The agitation, which had been suspended by the late changes, speedily became more violent than ever. It was in vain that Charles offered to grant to the Commons any security for the Protestant religion which they could devise, provided only that they would not touch the order of succession. They would hear of no compromise. They would have the Exclusion Bill, and nothing but the Exclusion Bill. The King, therefore, a few weeks after he had publicly promised to take no step without the advice of his new Council, went down to the House of Lords without mentioning his intention in Council, and prorogued the Parliament.

The four confidential advisers of the crown quickly realized that their position was awkward and undesirable. The other Council members whispered about a distinction that went against the King’s promises, and some of them, led by Shaftesbury, returned to strong opposition in Parliament. The unrest, which had calmed down due to recent changes, soon became more intense than ever. It was pointless for Charles to offer the Commons any guarantees for the Protestant religion that they could come up with, as long as they didn’t touch the order of succession. They refused to consider any compromise. They wanted the Exclusion Bill, and only the Exclusion Bill. So, just a few weeks after he publicly promised to consult his new Council before taking any action, the King went to the House of Lords without informing the Council of his plans and prorogued the Parliament.

The day of that prorogation, the twenty-sixth of May, 1679, is a great era in our history. For on that day the Habeas Corpus Act received the royal assent. From the time of the Great Charter the substantive law respecting the personal liberty of Englishmen had been nearly the same as at present: but it had been inefficacious for want of a stringent system of procedure. What was needed was not a new light, but a prompt and searching remedy; and such a remedy the Habeas Corpus Act supplied. The King would gladly have refused his consent to that measure: but he was about to appeal from his Parliament to his people on the question of the succession, and he could not venture, at so critical a moment, to reject a bill which was in the highest degree popular.

The day of that prorogation, May 26, 1679, marks a significant moment in our history. On that day, the Habeas Corpus Act was officially approved. Since the time of the Great Charter, the laws regarding the personal liberty of English citizens had been mostly the same as they are now, but they hadn’t been effective due to a lack of a strict procedure. What was needed wasn’t a new perspective but a quick and thorough solution, and the Habeas Corpus Act provided that solution. The King would have preferred to deny his approval of that measure, but he was about to appeal to his people regarding the succession issue, and he couldn’t afford to reject a bill that was extremely popular at such a crucial time.

On the same day the press of England became for a short time free. In old times printers had been strictly controlled by the Court of Star Chamber. The Long Parliament had abolished the Star Chamber, but had, in spite of the philosophical and eloquent expostulation of Milton, established and maintained a censorship. Soon after the Restoration, an Act had been passed which prohibited the printing of unlicensed books; and it had been provided that this Act should continue in force till the end of the first session of the next Parliament. That moment had now arrived; and the King, in the very act of dismissing the House, emancipated the Press.

On the same day, the press in England briefly gained freedom. In the past, printers had been tightly controlled by the Court of Star Chamber. The Long Parliament had abolished the Star Chamber, but despite Milton's passionate arguments, they had set up and upheld a censorship system. Shortly after the Restoration, a law was enacted that banned the printing of unlicensed books, and it was stipulated that this law would remain in effect until the end of the first session of the next Parliament. That moment had now come; and the King, right as he was dismissing the House, freed the Press.

Shortly after the prorogation came a dissolution and another general election. The zeal and strength of the opposition were at the height. The cry for the Exclusion Bill was louder than ever, and with this cry was mingled another cry, which fired the blood of the multitude, but which was heard with regret and alarm by all judicious friends of freedom. Not only the rights of the Duke of York, an avowed Papist, but those of his two daughters, sincere and zealous Protestants, were assailed. It was confidently affirmed that the eldest natural son of the King had been born in wedlock, and was lawful heir to the crown.

Shortly after the suspension of Parliament, there was a dissolution and another general election. The opposition's enthusiasm and strength were at their peak. The demand for the Exclusion Bill was louder than ever, and alongside this demand was another cry that stirred the emotions of the masses but was met with concern and alarm by all sensible advocates for freedom. Not just the rights of the Duke of York, an open Catholic, but also those of his two daughters, who were genuine and passionate Protestants, were under attack. It was confidently claimed that the King's oldest illegitimate son had been born in wedlock and was the rightful heir to the crown.

Charles, while a wanderer on the Continent, had fallen in at the Hague with Lucy Walters, a Welsh girl of great beauty, but of weak understanding and dissolute manners. She became his mistress, and presented him with a son. A suspicious lover might have had his doubts; for the lady had several admirers, and was not supposed to be cruel to any. Charles, however, readily took her word, and poured forth on little James Crofts, as the boy was then called, an overflowing fondness, such as seemed hardly to belong to that cool and careless nature. Soon after the restoration, the young favourite, who had learned in France the exercises then considered necessary to a fine gentleman, made his appearance at Whitehall. He was lodged in the palace, attended by pages, and permitted to enjoy several distinctions which had till then been confined to princes of the blood royal. He was married, while still in tender youth, to Anne Scott, heiress of the noble house of Buccleuch. He took her name, and received with her hand possession of her ample domains. The estate which he had acquired by this match was popularly estimated at not less than ten thousand pounds a year. Titles, and favours more substantial than titles, were lavished on him. He was made Duke of Monmouth in England, Duke of Buccleuch in Scotland, a Knight of the Garter, Master of the Horse, Commander of the first troop of Life Guards, Chief Justice of Eyre south of Trent, and Chancellor of the University of Cambridge. Nor did he appear to the public unworthy of his high fortunes. His countenance was eminently handsome and engaging, his temper sweet, his manners polite and affable. Though a libertine, he won the hearts of the Puritans. Though he was known to have been privy to the shameful attack on Sir John Coventry, he easily obtained the forgiveness of the Country Party. Even austere moralists owned that, in such a court, strict conjugal fidelity was scarcely to be expected from one who, while a child, had been married to another child. Even patriots were willing to excuse a headstrong boy for visiting with immoderate vengeance an insult offered to his father. And soon the stain left by loose amours and midnight brawls was effaced by honourable exploits. When Charles and Lewis united their forces against Holland, Monmouth commanded the English auxiliaries who were sent to the Continent, and approved himself a gallant soldier and a not unintelligent officer. On his return he found himself the most popular man in the kingdom. Nothing was withheld from him but the crown; nor did even the crown seem to be absolutely beyond his reach. The distinction which had most injudiciously been made between him and the highest nobles had produced evil consequences. When a boy he had been invited to put on his hat in the presence chamber, while Howards and Seymours stood uncovered round him. When foreign princes died, he had mourned for them in the long purple cloak, which no other subject, except the Duke of York and Prince Rupert, was permitted to wear. It was natural that these things should lead him to regard himself as a legitimate prince of the House of Stuart. Charles, even at a ripe age, was devoted to his pleasures and regardless of his dignity. It could hardly be thought incredible that he should at twenty have secretly gone through the form of espousing a lady whose beauty had fascinated him. While Monmouth was still a child, and while the Duke of York still passed for a Protestant, it was rumoured throughout the country, and even in circles which ought to have been well informed, that the King had made Lucy Walters his wife, and that, if every one had his right, her son would be Prince of Wales. Much was said of a certain black box which, according to the vulgar belief, contained the contract of marriage. When Monmouth had returned from the Low Countries with a high character for valour and conduct, and when the Duke of York was known to be a member of a church detested by the great majority of the nation, this idle story became important. For it there was not the slightest evidence. Against it there was the solemn asseveration of the King, made before his Council, and by his order communicated to his people. But the multitude, always fond of romantic adventures, drank in eagerly the tale of the secret espousals and the black box. Some chiefs of the opposition acted on this occasion as they acted with respect to the more odious fables of Oates, and countenanced a story which they must have despised. The interest which the populace took in him whom they regarded as the champion of the true religion, and the rightful heir of the British throne, was kept up by every artifice. When Monmouth arrived in London at midnight, the watchmen were ordered by the magistrates to proclaim the joyful event through the streets of the City: the people left their beds: bonfires were lighted: the windows were illuminated: the churches were opened; and a merry peal rose from all the steeples. When he travelled, he was everywhere received with not less pomp, and with far more enthusiasm, than had been displayed when Kings had made progresses through the realm. He was escorted from mansion to mansion by long cavalcades of armed gentlemen and yeomen. Cities poured forth their whole population to receive him. Electors thronged round him, to assure him that their votes were at his disposal. To such a height were his pretensions carried, that he not only exhibited on his escutcheon the lions of England and the lilies of France without the baton sinister under which, according to the law of heraldry, they should have been debruised in token of his illegitimate birth, but ventured to touch for the king's evil. At the same time he neglected no art of condescension by which the love of the multitude could be conciliated. He stood godfather to the children of the peasantry, mingled in every rustic sport, wrestled, played at quarterstaff, and won footraces in his boots against fleet runners in shoes.

Charles, while traveling through the Continent, met Lucy Walters in the Hague, a beautiful Welsh girl who was not very bright and had a questionable reputation. She became his mistress and gave birth to a son. A jealous lover might have been suspicious because she had several admirers and was known not to be cruel to any of them. However, Charles easily took her word for it and showered little James Crofts, as the boy was named, with affection that seemed out of character for his usually cool demeanor. Shortly after the restoration, the young favorite, who had learned the ways of a gentleman in France, made his debut at Whitehall. He was given a room in the palace, attended by pages, and allowed to enjoy privileges typically reserved for royal blood. He married Anne Scott, heiress of the noble house of Buccleuch, while still very young. He adopted her name and inherited her vast estates, which were valued at no less than ten thousand pounds a year. He received a plethora of titles and substantial favors, becoming Duke of Monmouth in England, Duke of Buccleuch in Scotland, a Knight of the Garter, Master of the Horse, Commander of the first troop of Life Guards, Chief Justice of Eyre south of Trent, and Chancellor of the University of Cambridge. To the public, he seemed deserving of his high status, with a strikingly handsome face, a sweet temperament, and polite, friendly manners. Although he was known as a libertine, he managed to win over the Puritans. Despite being involved in the disgraceful attack on Sir John Coventry, he easily gained the forgiveness of the Country Party. Even strict moralists acknowledged that in such a court, strict marital fidelity was hardly to be expected from someone who had been married as a child. Even patriots were willing to excuse a headstrong youth for retaliating excessively to an insult against his father. Soon, the marks left by his troubled romances and late-night brawls were overshadowed by honorable deeds. When Charles and Lewis allied against Holland, Monmouth led the English auxiliaries sent to the Continent, proving himself a brave soldier and an intelligent officer. Upon his return, he found himself the most popular man in the kingdom. Nothing was denied to him but the crown, which didn’t seem entirely out of reach either. The unnecessary distinction made between him and the highest nobles brought about unfortunate consequences. As a boy, he had been invited to wear his hat in the presence chamber while Howards and Seymours stood without theirs. When foreign princes died, he mourned in the long purple cloak that no other subject, aside from the Duke of York and Prince Rupert, could wear. It was only natural for him to see himself as a legitimate prince of the House of Stuart. Charles, even as an older man, pursued his pleasures and showed little regard for his dignity. It was hardly surprising that at twenty, he might have secretly married a woman whose beauty captivated him. While Monmouth was still a child, and while the Duke of York was still seen as a Protestant, it was rumored that the King had wed Lucy Walters and that her son, if everyone got their rights, should be Prince of Wales. Much was said about a certain black box that, according to popular belief, contained the marriage contract. When Monmouth returned from the Low Countries with a solid reputation for bravery and conduct, and when the Duke of York was known to belong to a church despised by the majority of the nation, this baseless story gained significance. There was no evidence to support it, while the King strongly denied it in front of his Council, even communicating it to the public by his order. However, the public, always drawn to romantic stories, eagerly embraced the narrative about the secret marriage and the black box. Some opposition leaders behaved as they did regarding the more disgusting fabrications of Oates, supporting a tale they must have scorned. The interest of the populace in him, whom they viewed as the defender of the true faith and the rightful heir to the British throne, was heightened by every tactic imaginable. When Monmouth arrived in London at midnight, the magistrates ordered the watchmen to announce his arrival joyfully through the streets: people emerged from their homes, bonfires were lit, windows were illuminated, churches opened their doors, and a cheerful peal echoed from all the steeples. Wherever he traveled, he was welcomed with more pomp and much more enthusiasm than when Kings made their rounds through the realm. He was escorted from house to house by long processions of armed gentlemen and yeomen. Cities sent out their entire population to greet him. Electors crowded around him, assuring him that their votes were at his disposal. His aspirations reached such heights that he showcased the lions of England and the lilies of France on his coat of arms without the dark stripe that, according to heraldic law, should indicate his illegitimate status, and he even dared to provide healing for the king's evil. At the same time, he did everything possible to win the affection of the public. He became a godfather to the children of peasants, joined in every village sport, wrestled, participated in quarterstaff matches, and won footraces in his boots against swift runners in shoes.

It is a curious circumstance that, at two of the greatest conjunctures in our history, the chiefs of the Protestant party should have committed the same error, and should by that error have greatly endangered their country and their religion. At the death of Edward the Sixth they set up the Lady Jane, without any show of birthright, in opposition, not only to their enemy Mary, but also to Elizabeth, the true hope of England and of the Reformation. Thus the most respectable Protestants, with Elizabeth at their head, were forced to make common cause with the Papists. In the same manner, a hundred and thirty years later, a part of the opposition, by setting up Monmouth as a claimant of the crown, attacked the rights, not only of James, whom they justly regarded as an implacable foe of their faith and their liberties, but also of the Prince and Princess of Orange, who were eminently marked out, both by situation and by personal qualities, as the defenders of all free governments and of all reformed churches.

It is a strange coincidence that, during two of the most significant moments in our history, the leaders of the Protestant faction made the same mistake, putting their country and their faith at great risk. When Edward the Sixth died, they appointed Lady Jane as queen, without any legitimate claim, against not just their opponent Mary but also against Elizabeth, the true hope of England and of the Reformation. As a result, the most respected Protestants, with Elizabeth leading them, were forced to ally with the Catholics. Similarly, a hundred and thirty years later, part of the opposition, by backing Monmouth as a claimant to the throne, undermined the rights of James, whom they rightly saw as a relentless enemy of their beliefs and freedoms, as well as the Prince and Princess of Orange, who were clearly positioned by both circumstance and personal attributes as the champions of all free governments and all reformed churches.

The folly of this course speedily became manifest. At present the popularity of Monmouth constituted a great part of the strength of the opposition. The elections went against the court: the day fixed for the meeting of the Houses drew near; and it was necessary that the King should determine on some line of conduct. Those who advised him discerned the first faint signs of a change of public feeling, and hoped that, by merely postponing the conflict, he would be able to secure the victory. He therefore, without even asking the opinion of the Council of the Thirty, resolved to prorogue the new Parliament before it entered on business. At the same time the Duke of York, who had returned from Brussels, was ordered to retire to Scotland, and was placed at the head of the administration of that kingdom.

The foolishness of this decision quickly became clear. Right now, Monmouth's popularity was a major part of the opposition's strength. The elections were not in favor of the court: the date for the Houses to meet was approaching, and the King needed to decide on a course of action. His advisors noticed the early signs of changing public sentiment and hoped that simply delaying the conflict would secure a win for him. Therefore, without even consulting the Council of the Thirty, he decided to postpone the new Parliament before it could start its work. At the same time, the Duke of York, who had come back from Brussels, was ordered to go to Scotland and was put in charge of the administration of that kingdom.

Temple's plan of government was now avowedly abandoned and very soon forgotten. The Privy Council again became what it had been. Shaftesbury, and those who were connected with him in politics resigned their seats. Temple himself, as was his wont in unquiet times, retired to his garden and his library. Essex quitted the board of Treasury, and cast in his lot with the opposition. But Halifax, disgusted and alarmed by the violence of his old associates, and Sunderland, who never quitted place while he could hold it, remained in the King's service.

Temple's plan for the government was openly abandoned and quickly forgotten. The Privy Council returned to its previous state. Shaftesbury and his political allies resigned their positions. Temple himself, as was his habit during troubled times, retreated to his garden and library. Essex left the Treasury board and joined the opposition. However, Halifax, disturbed and worried by the actions of his former allies, and Sunderland, who never left his position as long as he could keep it, stayed in the King's service.

In consequence of the resignations which took place at this conjuncture, the way to greatness was left clear to a new set of aspirants. Two statesmen, who subsequently rose to the highest eminence which a British subject can reach, soon began to attract a large share of the public attention. These were Lawrence Hyde and Sidney Godolphin.

As a result of the resignations that happened at this time, the path to greatness was opened up for a new group of ambitious individuals. Two politicians, who later achieved the highest positions available to a British citizen, quickly started to capture a significant amount of public interest. These were Lawrence Hyde and Sidney Godolphin.

Lawrence Hyde was the second son of the Chancellor Clarendon, and was brother of the first Duchess of York. He had excellent parts, which had been improved by parliamentary and diplomatic experience; but the infirmities of his temper detracted much from the effective strength of his abilities. Negotiator and courtier as he was, he never learned the art of governing or of concealing his emotions. When prosperous, he was insolent and boastful: when he sustained a check, his undisguised mortification doubled the triumph of his enemies: very slight provocations sufficed to kindle his anger; and when he was angry he said bitter things which he forgot as soon as he was pacified, but which others remembered many years. His quickness and penetration would have made him a consummate man of business but for his selfsufficiency and impatience. His writings proved that he had many of the qualities of an orator: but his irritability prevented him from doing himself justice in debate; for nothing was easier than to goad him into a passion; and, from the moment when he went into a passion, he was at the mercy of opponents far inferior to him in capacity.

Lawrence Hyde was the second son of Chancellor Clarendon and the brother of the first Duchess of York. He had great abilities, which were enhanced by his experience in parliament and diplomacy; however, his temper often undermined his effectiveness. Although he was a skilled negotiator and courtier, he never mastered the art of governance or hiding his emotions. When things were going well, he came off as arrogant and braggy; when he faced a setback, his noticeable disappointment only delighted his enemies even more. Very minor incidents could ignite his anger, and when he was upset, he would say harsh things that he quickly forgot but that others remembered for years. His sharpness and insight could have made him a top-notch businessman if it weren't for his self-importance and impatience. His writings showed he had many qualities of a good speaker, but his irritability prevented him from performing his best in debates; it was all too easy to provoke him into a rage, and once he lost his temper, he became vulnerable to opponents who were much less capable than he was.

Unlike most of the leading politicians of that generation he was a consistent, dogged, and rancorous party man, a Cavalier of the old school, a zealous champion of the Crown and of the Church, and a hater of Republicans and Nonconformists. He had consequently a great body of personal adherents. The clergy especially looked on him as their own man, and extended to his foibles an indulgence of which, to say the truth, he stood in some need: for he drank deep; and when he was in a rage,—and he very often was in a rage,—he swore like a porter.

Unlike most of the prominent politicians of his time, he was a loyal, determined, and bitter party supporter, a traditional Cavalier, an eager defender of the Crown and the Church, and a person who despised Republicans and Nonconformists. As a result, he had a strong group of loyal followers. The clergy, in particular, considered him one of their own and were quite forgiving of his flaws, which, to be honest, he really needed: he drank heavily, and when he got angry—and he frequently got angry—he cursed like a dockworker.

He now succeeded Essex at the treasury. It is to be observed that the place of First Lord of the Treasury had not then the importance and dignity which now belong to it. When there was a Lord Treasurer, that great officer was generally prime minister: but, when the white staff was in commission, the chief commissioner hardly ranked so high as a Secretary of State. It was not till the time of Walpole that the First Lord of the Treasury became, under a humbler name, all that the Lord High Treasurer had been.

He succeeded Essex as the head of the treasury. It's worth noting that the position of First Lord of the Treasury didn’t have the significance and prestige that it does today. When there was a Lord Treasurer, that role was usually the prime minister: however, when the white staff was on duty, the chief commissioner barely ranked higher than a Secretary of State. It wasn't until Walpole's era that the First Lord of the Treasury, under a simpler title, took on all the responsibilities that the Lord High Treasurer used to have.

Godolphin had been bred a page at Whitehall, and had early acquired all the flexibility and the selfpossession of a veteran courtier. He was laborious, clearheaded, and profoundly versed in the details of finance. Every government, therefore, found him an useful servant; and there was nothing in his opinions or in his character which could prevent him from serving any government. "Sidney Godolphin," said Charles, "is never in the way, and never out of the way." This pointed remark goes far to explain Godolphin's extraordinary success in life.

Godolphin was raised as a page at Whitehall and quickly developed the adaptability and composure of an experienced courtier. He was hardworking, clear-minded, and deeply knowledgeable about finance. Because of this, every government found him to be a valuable asset, and there was nothing in his views or character that would stop him from serving any administration. "Sidney Godolphin," Charles remarked, "is never in the way and never out of the way." This insightful comment helps to clarify Godolphin's remarkable success in life.

He acted at different times with both the great political parties: but he never shared in the passions of either. Like most men of cautious tempers and prosperous fortunes, he had a strong disposition to support whatever existed. He disliked revolutions; and, for the same reason for which he disliked revolutions, he disliked counter-revolutions. His deportment was remarkably grave and reserved: but his personal tastes were low and frivolous; and most of the time which he could save from public business was spent in racing, cardplaying, and cockfighting. He now sate below Rochester at the Board of Treasury, and distinguished himself there by assiduity and intelligence.

He got involved with both major political parties at different times, but he never got caught up in the passions of either. Like many cautious and financially secure people, he had a tendency to support the status quo. He was against revolutions, and for the same reason, he was also against counter-revolutions. His demeanor was very serious and reserved, but his personal interests were quite trivial and lighthearted; most of the free time he had away from public duties was spent on racing, playing cards, and cockfighting. He was now serving below Rochester at the Board of Treasury, where he stood out for his hard work and intelligence.

Before the new Parliament was suffered to meet for the despatch of business a whole year elapsed, an eventful year, which has left lasting traces in our manners and language. Never before had political controversy been carried on with so much freedom. Never before had political clubs existed with so elaborate an organisation or so formidable an influence. The one question of the Exclusion occupied the public mind. All the presses and pulpits of the realm took part in the conflict. On one side it was maintained that the constitution and religion of the state could never be secure under a Popish King; on the other, that the right of James to wear the crown in his turn was derived from God, and could not be annulled, even by the consent of all the branches of the legislature. Every county, every town, every family, was in agitation. The civilities and hospitalities of neighbourhood were interrupted. The dearest ties of friendship and of blood were sundered. Even schoolboys were divided into angry parties; and the Duke of York and the Earl of Shaftesbury had zealous adherents on all the forms of Westminster and Eton. The theatres shook with the roar of the contending factions. Pope Joan was brought on the stage by the zealous Protestants. Pensioned poets filled their prologues and epilogues with eulogies on the King and the Duke. The malecontents besieged the throne with petitions, demanding that Parliament might be forthwith convened. The royalists sent up addresses, expressing the utmost abhorrence of all who presumed to dictate to the sovereign. The citizens of London assembled by tens of thousands to burn the Pope in effigy. The government posted cavalry at Temple Bar, and placed ordnance round Whitehall. In that year our tongue was enriched with two words, Mob and Sham, remarkable memorials of a season of tumult and imposture. 21 Opponents of the court were called Birminghams, Petitioners, and Exclusionists. Those who took the King's side were Antibirminghams, Abhorrers, and Tantivies. These appellations soon become obsolete: but at this time were first heard two nicknames which, though originally given in insult, were soon assumed with pride, which are still in daily use, which have spread as widely as the English race, and which will last as long as the English literature. It is a curious circumstance that one of these nicknames was of Scotch, and the other of Irish, origin. Both in Scotland and in Ireland, misgovernment had called into existence bands of desperate men whose ferocity was heightened by religions enthusiasm. In Scotland some of the persecuted Covenanters, driven mad by oppression, had lately murdered the Primate, had taken arms against the government, had obtained some advantages against the King's forces, and had not been put down till Monmouth, at the head of some troops from England, had routed them at Bothwell Bridge. These zealots were most numerous among the rustics of the western lowlands, who were vulgarly called Whigs. Thus the appellation of Whig was fastened on the Presbyterian zealots of Scotland, and was transferred to those English politicians who showed a disposition to oppose the court, and to treat Protestant Nonconformists with indulgence. The bogs of Ireland, at the same time, afforded a refuge to Popish outlaws, much resembling those who were afterwards known as Whiteboys. These men were then called Tories. The name of Tory was therefore given to Englishmen who refused to concur in excluding a Roman Catholic prince from the throne.

Before the new Parliament was allowed to meet for business, a whole year went by—an eventful year that has left lasting marks on our manners and language. Political debate had never before been so openly discussed. Political clubs had never existed with such organized structures or significant influence. The single issue of the Exclusion occupied the public mind. All the newspapers and churches joined in the argument. One side argued that the constitution and religion of the state could never be safe under a Catholic King; on the other side, it was claimed that James's right to the throne was given by God and could not be revoked, even with agreement from all legislative bodies. Every county, town, and family was in turmoil. Familiarities and neighborly kindness were disrupted. The strongest bonds of friendship and family were severed. Even schoolboys split into angry factions; the Duke of York and the Earl of Shaftesbury had passionate supporters at Westminster and Eton. The theaters shook with the uproar of opposing factions. Pope Joan was performed by fervent Protestants. Pensioned poets filled their prologues and epilogues with praises for the King and the Duke. The discontented bombarded the throne with petitions, demanding that Parliament be immediately convened. The royalists sent addresses expressing their extreme disgust for anyone who dared to dictate to the monarch. Citizens of London gathered in tens of thousands to burn the Pope in effigy. The government deployed cavalry at Temple Bar and positioned artillery around Whitehall. That year, our language was enriched with two words, Mob and Sham, notable reminders of a time of chaos and deception. 21 Opponents of the court were called Birminghams, Petitioners, and Exclusionists. Those who supported the King were known as Antibirminghams, Abhorrers, and Tantivies. These names soon became outdated, but at that moment, two nicknames emerged. Originally meant as insults, these terms were quickly embraced with pride, remain in everyday use, have spread widely among the English-speaking population, and will persist as long as English literature exists. Interestingly, one of these nicknames had Scottish origins, while the other came from Ireland. Both in Scotland and in Ireland, bad governance had led to the rise of bands of desperate men whose violence was fueled by religious fervor. In Scotland, some of the persecuted Covenanters, pushed to madness by oppression, had recently murdered the Primate, took up arms against the government, gained some victories against the King's forces, and were only defeated when Monmouth, leading troops from England, routed them at Bothwell Bridge. These zealots were most common among the rural people of the western lowlands, who were commonly referred to as Whigs. So, the name Whig became associated with the Presbyterian zealots of Scotland and was transferred to English politicians who were inclined to oppose the court and treat Protestant Nonconformists leniently. Meanwhile, the bogs of Ireland provided refuge for Catholic outlaws, similar to those later known as Whiteboys. These men were initially called Tories. The term Tory was thus applied to Englishmen who refused to agree with excluding a Catholic prince from the throne.

The rage of the hostile factions would have been sufficiently violent, if it had been left to itself. But it was studiously exasperated by the common enemy of both. Lewis still continued to bribe and flatter both the court and the opposition. He exhorted Charles to be firm: he exhorted James to raise a civil war in Scotland: he exhorted the Whigs not to flinch, and to rely with confidence on the protection of France.

The anger of the opposing factions would have been intense enough on its own. However, it was deliberately fueled by their shared enemy. Lewis kept bribing and flattering both the court and the opposition. He urged Charles to stay strong; he encouraged James to spark a civil war in Scotland; he told the Whigs not to back down and to trust in France’s support.

Through all this agitation a discerning eye might have perceived that the public opinion was gradually changing. The persecution of the Roman Catholics went on; but convictions were no longer matters of course. A new brood of false witnesses, among whom a villain named Dangerfield was the most conspicuous, infested the courts: but the stories of these men, though better constructed than that of Oates, found less credit. Juries were no longer so easy of belief as during the panic which had followed the murder of Godfrey; and Judges, who, while the popular frenzy was at the height, had been its most obsequious instruments, now ventured to express some part of what they had from the first thought.

Amid all this turmoil, a keen observer might have noticed that public opinion was slowly shifting. The persecution of Roman Catholics continued, but beliefs were no longer taken for granted. A new group of dishonest witnesses, with a notorious figure named Dangerfield standing out, plagued the courts: however, their stories, although better crafted than Oates's, were met with less credibility. Juries were no longer so gullible as they had been during the panic after Godfrey's murder, and judges, who had been the most compliant tools of popular hysteria at its peak, now started to voice some of what they had always believed.

At length, in October 1680, the Parliament met. The Whigs had so great a majority in the Commons that the Exclusion Bill went through all its stages there without difficulty. The King scarcely knew on what members of his own cabinet he could reckon. Hyde had been true to his Tory opinions, and had steadily supported the cause of hereditary monarchy. But Godolphin, anxious for quiet, and believing that quiet could be restored only by concession, wished the bill to pass. Sunderland, ever false, and ever shortsighted, unable to discern the signs of approaching reaction, and anxious to conciliate the party which he believed to be irresistible, determined to vote against the court. The Duchess of Portsmouth implored her royal lover not to rush headlong to destruction. If there were any point on which he had a scruple of conscience or of honour, it was the question of the succession; but during some days it seemed that he would submit. He wavered, asked what sum the Commons would give him if he yielded, and suffered a negotiation to be opened with the leading Whigs. But a deep mutual distrust which had been many years growing, and which had been carefully nursed by the arts of France, made a treaty impossible. Neither side would place confidence in the other. The whole nation now looked with breathless anxiety to the House of Lords. The assemblage of peers was large. The King himself was present. The debate was long, earnest, and occasionally furious. Some hands were laid on the pommels of swords in a manner which revived the recollection of the stormy Parliaments of Edward the Third and Richard the Second. Shaftesbury and Essex were joined by the treacherous Sunderland. But the genius of Halifax bore down all opposition. Deserted by his most important colleagues, and opposed to a crowd of able antagonists, he defended the cause of the Duke of York, in a succession of speeches which, many years later, were remembered as masterpieces of reasoning, of wit, and of eloquence. It is seldom that oratory changes votes. Yet the attestation of contemporaries leaves no doubt that, on this occasion, votes were changed by the oratory of Halifax. The Bishops, true to their doctrines, supported the principle of hereditary right, and the bill was rejected by a great majority. 22

Finally, in October 1680, Parliament convened. The Whigs held such a strong majority in the Commons that the Exclusion Bill passed through all its stages without any issues. The King barely knew which of his cabinet members he could rely on. Hyde stuck to his Tory beliefs and consistently supported hereditary monarchy. However, Godolphin, eager for peace and thinking it could only be achieved through compromise, wanted the bill to pass. Sunderland, always deceitful and short-sighted, unable to see the signs of an impending backlash, and eager to win over what he thought was an unstoppable party, decided to vote against the court. The Duchess of Portsmouth urged her royal lover not to rush into disaster. If there was anything that weighed on his conscience or honor, it was the issue of succession; yet for several days, it looked like he might give in. He hesitated, inquired about the amount the Commons would offer him if he complied, and allowed negotiations to begin with the leading Whigs. But a deep-seated mutual distrust, which had been building for many years and was carefully inflamed by French influence, made any agreement impossible. Neither side was willing to trust the other. The entire nation now watched the House of Lords with bated breath. The assembly of peers was sizable. The King himself was present. The debate was lengthy, intense, and sometimes heated. Some members had their hands on the hilts of their swords, recalling the tumultuous Parliaments of Edward III and Richard II. Shaftesbury and Essex were joined by the duplicitous Sunderland. Yet Halifax's brilliance overcame all opposition. Abandoned by his most significant allies and facing a crowd of skilled opponents, he defended the Duke of York's cause with a series of speeches that would be remembered for years to come as examples of reasoning, wit, and eloquence. It's rare for oratory to sway votes, yet historical accounts confirm that, on this occasion, Halifax's speeches did change votes. The Bishops, loyal to their beliefs, supported the principle of hereditary right, and the bill was rejected by a significant majority. 22

The party which preponderated in the House of Commons, bitterly mortified by this defeat, found some consolation in shedding the blood of Roman Catholics. William Howard, Viscount Stafford, one of the unhappy men who had been accused of a share in the plot, was impeached; and on the testimony of Oates and of two other false witnesses, Dugdale and Turberville, was found guilty of high treason, and suffered death. But the circumstances of his trial and execution ought to have given an useful warning to the Whig leaders. A large and respectable minority of the House of Lords pronounced the prisoner not guilty. The multitude, which a few months before had received the dying declarations of Oates's victims with mockery and execrations, now loudly expressed a belief that Stafford was a murdered man. When he with his last breath protested his innocence, the cry was, "God bless you, my Lord! We believe you, my Lord." A judicious observer might easily have predicted that the blood then shed would shortly have blood.

The party that held the majority in the House of Commons, deeply embarrassed by their defeat, found some comfort in targeting Roman Catholics. William Howard, Viscount Stafford, one of the unfortunate individuals accused of being involved in the plot, was impeached. Based on the testimonies of Oates and two other unreliable witnesses, Dugdale and Turberville, he was found guilty of high treason and executed. However, the details of his trial and execution should have served as a crucial warning to the Whig leaders. A significant and respected minority in the House of Lords declared the prisoner not guilty. The crowd, which only months earlier had mocked and cursed the dying statements of Oates's victims, now loudly stated their belief that Stafford had been murdered. As he proclaimed his innocence with his last breath, the cry rang out, "God bless you, my Lord! We believe you, my Lord." A careful observer could easily have predicted that the blood spilled that day would soon lead to more bloodshed.

The King determined to try once more the experiment of a dissolution. A new Parliament was summoned to meet at Oxford, in March, 1681. Since the days of the Plantagenets the Houses had constantly sat at Westminster, except when the plague was raging in the capital: but so extraordinary a conjuncture seemed to require extraordinary precautions. If the Parliament were held in its usual place of assembling, the House of Commons might declare itself permanent, and might call for aid on the magistrates and citizens of London. The trainbands might rise to defend Shaftesbury as they had risen forty years before to defend Pym and Hampden. The Guards might be overpowered, the palace forced, the King a prisoner in the hands of his mutinous subjects. At Oxford there was no such danger. The University was devoted to the crown; and the gentry of the neighbourhood were generally Tories. Here, therefore, the opposition had more reason than the King to apprehend violence.

The King decided to give dissolution another shot. A new Parliament was called to meet in Oxford in March 1681. Since the Plantagenet era, the Houses had always met in Westminster, except during outbreaks of the plague in the city. But this unusual situation seemed to call for unusual measures. If Parliament met in its usual spot, the House of Commons might establish itself as permanent and could seek support from the magistrates and citizens of London. The militia could rise up to protect Shaftesbury just like they had forty years earlier to defend Pym and Hampden. The Guards could be overwhelmed, the palace could be stormed, and the King could end up a prisoner in the hands of his rebellious subjects. In Oxford, however, there was no such risk. The University was loyal to the crown, and the local gentry were mostly Tories. Thus, in this setting, the opposition had more reason than the King to fear violence.

The elections were sharply contested. The Whigs still composed a majority of the House of Commons: but it was plain that the Tory spirit was fast rising throughout the country. It should seem that the sagacious and versatile Shaftesbury ought to have foreseen the coming change, and to have consented to the compromise which the court offered: but he appears to have forgotten his old tactics. Instead of making dispositions which, in the worst event, would have secured his retreat, he took up a position in which it was necessary that he should either conquer or perish. Perhaps his head, strong as it was, had been turned by popularity, by success, and by the excitement of conflict. Perhaps he had spurred his party till he could no longer curb it, and was really hurried on headlong by those whom he seemed to guide.

The elections were highly competitive. The Whigs still made up the majority in the House of Commons, but it was clear that the Tory sentiment was quickly gaining momentum across the country. It seems that the clever and adaptable Shaftesbury should have anticipated the upcoming change and agreed to the compromise offered by the court, but he appears to have forgotten his old strategies. Instead of positioning himself in a way that would have guaranteed his escape in the worst-case scenario, he took a stance where he had to either win or face defeat. Perhaps his strong mind had been clouded by popularity, success, and the thrill of battle. Maybe he had pushed his party so hard that he could no longer control it and was actually being driven forward recklessly by those he seemed to lead.

The eventful day arrived. The meeting at Oxford resembled rather that of a Polish Diet than that of an English Parliament. The Whig members were escorted by great numbers of their armed and mounted tenants and serving men, who exchanged looks of defiance with the royal Guards. The slightest provocation might, under such circumstances, have produced a civil war; but neither side dared to strike the first blow. The King again offered to consent to anything but the Exclusion Bill. The Commons were determined to accept nothing but the Exclusion Bill. In a few days the Parliament was again dissolved.

The eventful day arrived. The meeting at Oxford felt more like a Polish Diet than an English Parliament. The Whig members were accompanied by large numbers of their armed and mounted tenants and servants, who exchanged defiant looks with the royal Guards. Just a small spark could have ignited a civil war in such a tense atmosphere; however, neither side was willing to make the first move. The King once again offered to agree to anything except the Exclusion Bill. The Commons were resolute in accepting nothing less than the Exclusion Bill. A few days later, Parliament was once again dissolved.

The King had triumphed. The reaction, which had begun some months before the meeting of the House at Oxford, now went rapidly on. The nation, indeed, was still hostile to Popery: but, when men reviewed the whole history of the plot, they felt that their Protestant zeal had hurried them into folly and crime, and could scarcely believe that they had been induced by nursery tales to clamour for the blood of fellow subjects and fellow Christians. The most loyal, indeed, could not deny that the administration of Charles had often been highly blamable. But men who had not the full information which we possess touching his dealings with France, and who were disgusted by the violence of the Whigs, enumerated the large concessions which, during the last few years he had made to his Parliaments, and the still larger concessions which he had declared himself willing to make. He had consented to the laws which excluded Roman Catholics from the House of Lords, from the Privy Council, and from all civil and military offices. He had passed the Habeas Corpus Act. If securities yet stronger had not been provided against the dangers to which the constitution and the Church might be exposed under a Roman Catholic sovereign, the fault lay, not with Charles who had invited the Parliament to propose such securities, but with those Whigs who had refused to hear of any substitute for the Exclusion Bill. One thing only had the King denied to his people. He had refused to take away his brother's birthright. And was there not good reason to believe that this refusal was prompted by laudable feelings? What selfish motive could faction itself impute to the royal mind? The Exclusion Bill did not curtail the reigning King's prerogatives, or diminish his income. Indeed, by passing it, he might easily have obtained an ample addition to his own revenue. And what was it to him who ruled after him? Nay, if he had personal predilections, they were known to be rather in favour of the Duke of Monmouth than of the Duke of York. The most natural explanation of the King's conduct seemed to be that, careless as was his temper and loose as were his morals, he had, on this occasion, acted from a sense of duty and honour. And, if so, would the nation compel him to do what he thought criminal and disgraceful? To apply, even by strictly constitutional means, a violent pressure to his conscience, seemed to zealous royalists ungenerous and undutiful. But strictly constitutional means were not the only means which the Whigs were disposed to employ. Signs were already discernible which portended the approach of great troubles. Men, who, in the time of the civil war and of the Commonwealth, had acquired an odious notoriety, had emerged from the obscurity in which, after the Restoration, they had hidden themselves from the general hatred, showed their confident and busy faces everywhere, and appeared to anticipate a second reign of the Saints. Another Naseby, another High Court of Justice, another usurper on the throne, the Lords again ejected from their hall by violence, the Universities again purged, the Church again robbed and persecuted, the Puritans again dominant, to such results did the desperate policy of the opposition seem to tend.

The King had won. The reaction, which had started a few months before the meeting of the House at Oxford, was now moving quickly. The nation was still against Popery, but as people looked back on the entire history of the plot, they realized that their Protestant fervor had led them into foolishness and wrongdoing. They could hardly believe they had been swayed by childish stories to demand the blood of their fellow citizens and fellow Christians. Even the most loyal supporters couldn’t deny that Charles’s administration had often been quite blameworthy. But those who didn’t have the full details we now possess about his dealings with France and who were repulsed by the Whigs' aggression noted the significant concessions he had made to his Parliaments in recent years, as well as the even larger concessions he was willing to make. He had agreed to laws that banned Roman Catholics from the House of Lords, the Privy Council, and all civil and military positions. He had enacted the Habeas Corpus Act. If stronger safeguards against the dangers the constitution and the Church might face under a Roman Catholic sovereign were not provided, the fault was not with Charles, who had invited Parliament to propose such safeguards, but with those Whigs who had refused to consider any alternative to the Exclusion Bill. The King had only denied his people one thing: he had refused to take away his brother's birthright. Was there not good reason to believe this refusal came from honorable intentions? What selfish motive could the faction attribute to the royal mind? The Exclusion Bill did not limit the reigning King’s powers or reduce his income. In fact, by supporting it, he could have easily secured a significant increase to his own revenue. And what did it matter to him who ruled after him? If he had personal preferences, they were known to lean more towards the Duke of Monmouth than the Duke of York. The most reasonable interpretation of the King's actions seemed to be that, despite his careless nature and loose morals, he had acted out of a sense of duty and honor this time. If that were the case, should the nation force him to do something he believed was wrong and disgraceful? Applying violent pressure to his conscience, even through strictly constitutional means, seemed to loyal royalists both unfair and disloyal. But strictly constitutional means were not the only tools the Whigs were ready to use. Signs were already appearing that hinted at the emergence of severe troubles. People who had gained a notorious reputation during the civil war and the Commonwealth had come out of hiding after the Restoration, showing their confident and active faces everywhere, seemingly eager for a second reign of the Saints. Another Naseby, another High Court of Justice, another usurper on the throne, the Lords again forcibly removed from their hall, the Universities once more purged, the Church again robbed and persecuted, and the Puritans again in control—these alarming results appeared to be the aim of the opposition's desperate policy.

Strongly moved by these apprehensions, the majority of the upper and middle classes hastened to rally round the throne. The situation of the King bore, at this time, a great resemblance to that in which his father stood just after the Remonstrance had been voted. But the reaction of 1641 had not been suffered to run its course. Charles the First, at the very moment when his people, long estranged, were returning to him with hearts disposed to reconciliation, had, by a perfidious violation of the fundamental laws of the realm, forfeited their confidence for ever. Had Charles the Second taken a similar course, had he arrested the Whig leaders in an irregular manner, had he impeached them of high treason before a tribunal which had no legal jurisdiction over them, it is highly probable that they would speedily have regained the ascendancy which they had lost. Fortunately for himself, he was induced, at this crisis, to adopt a policy singularly judicious. He determined to conform to the law, but at the same time to make vigorous and unsparing use of the law against his adversaries. He was not bound to convoke a Parliament till three years should have elapsed. He was not much distressed for money. The produce of the taxes which had been settled on him for life exceeded the estimate. He was at peace with all the world. He could retrench his expenses by giving up the costly and useless settlement of Tangier; and he might hope for pecuniary aid from France. He had, therefore, ample time and means for a systematic attack on the opposition under the forms of the constitution. The Judges were removable at his pleasure: the juries were nominated by the Sheriffs; and, in almost all the counties of England, the Sheriffs were nominated by himself. Witnesses, of the same class with those who had recently sworn away the lives of Papists, were ready to swear away the lives of Whigs.

Feeling deeply concerned about these fears, most of the upper and middle classes quickly gathered around the throne. At this time, the situation of the King closely resembled that of his father shortly after the Remonstrance had been passed. However, the reaction of 1641 had not been allowed to play out fully. Charles the First, at the exact moment when his long-estranged people were returning to him with a willingness to reconcile, had permanently lost their trust due to a treacherous violation of the fundamental laws of the realm. Had Charles the Second chosen a similar path, had he arrested the Whig leaders in an unlawful manner, or had he accused them of high treason before a court that had no legal authority over them, it is very likely that they would quickly have regained the power they had lost. Fortunately for him, he decided at this critical moment to adopt a remarkably wise strategy. He chose to adhere to the law while also making strong and ruthless use of the law against his opponents. He was not obligated to call a Parliament for three years. He wasn’t facing much financial strain either—the revenue from the taxes that had been established for his lifetime exceeded expectations. He was at peace with everyone. He could cut back on expenses by ending the expensive and pointless settlement of Tangier, and he could also hope for financial support from France. Therefore, he had plenty of time and resources for a systematic attack on the opposition within the framework of the constitution. The Judges were removable at his discretion: the juries were chosen by the Sheriffs; and, in nearly all the counties of England, the Sheriffs were appointed by him. Witnesses from the same group that had recently testified against Papists were ready to testify against Whigs.

The first victim was College, a noisy and violent demagogue of mean birth and education. He was by trade a joiner, and was celebrated as the inventor of the Protestant flail. 23 He had been at Oxford when the Parliament sate there, and was accused of having planned a rising and an attack on the King's guards. Evidence was given against him by Dugdale and Turberville, the same infamous men who had, a few months earlier, borne false witness against Stafford. In the sight of a jury of country squires no Exclusionist was likely to find favour. College was convicted. The crowd which filled the court house of Oxford received the verdict with a roar of exultation, as barbarous as that which he and his friends had been in the habit of raising when innocent Papists were doomed to the gallows. His execution was the beginning of a new judicial massacre not less atrocious than that in which he had himself borne a share.

The first victim was College, a loud and violent demagogue from a humble background with minimal education. He worked as a carpenter and was known as the inventor of the Protestant flail. 23 He had been at Oxford when Parliament was there and was accused of planning a revolt and an attack on the King's guards. Evidence against him was provided by Dugdale and Turberville, the same notorious individuals who had, a few months earlier, lied against Stafford. In front of a jury of local gentry, no Exclusionist was likely to get any sympathy. College was found guilty. The crowd that filled the Oxford courthouse reacted to the verdict with a deafening cheer, as savage as the cheers he and his friends would raise when innocent Catholics were condemned to hang. His execution marked the start of a new wave of judicial killings that were just as horrific as the ones he had participated in.

The government, emboldened by this first victory, now aimed a blow at an enemy of a very different class. It was resolved that Shaftesbury should be brought to trial for his life. Evidence was collected which, it was thought, would support a charge of treason. But the facts which it was necessary to prove were alleged to have been committed in London. The Sheriffs of London, chosen by the citizens, were zealous Whigs. They named a Whig grand jury, which threw out the bill. This defeat, far from discouraging those who advised the King, suggested to them a new and daring scheme. Since the charter of the capital was in their way, that charter must be annulled. It was pretended, therefore, that the City had by some irregularities forfeited its municipal privileges; and proceedings were instituted against the corporation in the Court of King's Bench. At the same time those laws which had, soon after the Restoration, been enacted against Nonconformists, and which had remained dormant during the ascendency of the Whigs, were enforced all over the kingdom with extreme rigour.

The government, fueled by this initial victory, now targeted an enemy of a very different type. They decided that Shaftesbury should be put on trial for his life. Evidence was gathered that they believed would support a treason charge. However, the facts that needed to be proven were said to have taken place in London. The Sheriffs of London, elected by the citizens, were enthusiastic Whigs. They appointed a Whig grand jury, which dismissed the charges. This setback, rather than discouraging the King's advisors, inspired them to devise a bold new plan. Since the city's charter was an obstacle, it needed to be revoked. It was claimed that the City had forfeited its municipal rights due to some irregularities; thus, legal proceedings were initiated against the corporation in the Court of King's Bench. Meanwhile, the laws that had been enacted against Nonconformists right after the Restoration, which had been inactive during the Whigs' rise to power, were enforced across the country with extreme strictness.

Yet the spirit of the Whigs was not subdued. Though in evil plight, they were still a numerous and powerful party; and as they mustered strong in the large towns, and especially in the capital, they made a noise and a show more than proportioned to their real force. Animated by the recollection of past triumphs, and by the sense of present oppression, they overrated both their strength and their wrongs. It was not in their power to make out that clear and overwhelming case which can alone justify so violent a remedy as resistance to an established government. Whatever they might suspect, they could not prove that their sovereign had entered into a treaty with France against the religion and liberties of England. What was apparent was not sufficient to warrant an appeal to the sword. If the Lords had thrown out the Exclusion Bill, they had thrown it out in the exercise of a right coeval with the constitution. If the King had dissolved the Oxford Parliament, he had done so by virtue of a prerogative which had never been questioned. If he had, since the dissolution, done some harsh things, still those things were in strict conformity with the letter of the law, and with the recent practice of the malecontents themselves. If he had prosecuted his opponents, he had prosecuted them according to the proper forms, and before the proper tribunals. The evidence now produced for the crown was at least as worthy of credit as the evidence on which the noblest blood of England had lately been shed by the opposition. The treatment which an accused Whig had now to expect from judges, advocates, sheriffs, juries and spectators, was no worse than the treatment which had lately been thought by the Whigs good enough for an accused Papist. If the privileges of the City of London were attacked, they were attacked, not by military violence or by any disputable exercise of prerogative, but according to the regular practice of Westminster Hall. No tax was imposed by royal authority. No law was suspended. The Habeas Corpus Act was respected. Even the Test Act was enforced. The opposition, therefore, could not bring home to the King that species of misgovernment which alone could justify insurrection. And, even had his misgovernment been more flagrant than it was, insurrection would still have been criminal, because it was almost certain to be unsuccessful. The situation of the Whigs in 1682 differed widely from that of the Roundheads forty years before. Those who took up arms against Charles the First acted under the authority of a Parliament which had been legally assembled, and which could not, without its own consent, be legally dissolved. The opponents of Charles the Second were private men. Almost all the military and naval resources of the kingdom had been at the disposal of those who resisted Charles the First. All the military and naval resources of the kingdom were at the disposal of Charles the Second. The House of Commons had been supported by at least half the nation against Charles the First. But those who were disposed to levy war against Charles the Second were certainly a minority. It could hardly be doubted, therefore, that, if they attempted a rising, they would fail. Still less could it be doubted that their failure would aggravate every evil of which they complained. The true policy of the Whigs was to submit with patience to adversity which was the natural consequence and the just punishment of their errors, to wait patiently for that turn of public feeling which must inevitably come, to observe the law, and to avail themselves of the protection, imperfect indeed, but by no means nugatory, which the law afforded to innocence. Unhappily they took a very different course. Unscrupulous and hot-headed chiefs of the party formed and discussed schemes of resistance, and were heard, if not with approbation, yet with the show of acquiescence, by much better men than themselves. It was proposed that there should be simultaneous insurrections in London, in Cheshire, at Bristol, and at Newcastle. Communications were opened with the discontented Presbyterians of Scotland, who were suffering under a tyranny such as England, in the worst times, had never known. While the leaders of the opposition thus revolved plans of open rebellion, but were still restrained by fears or scruples from taking any decisive step, a design of a very different kind was meditated by some of their accomplices. To fierce spirits, unrestrained by principle, or maddened by fanaticism, it seemed that to waylay and murder the King and his brother was the shortest and surest way of vindicating the Protestant religion and the liberties of England. A place and a time were named; and the details of the butchery were frequently discussed, if not definitely arranged. This scheme was known but to few, and was concealed with especial care from the upright and humane Russell, and from Monmouth, who, though not a man of delicate conscience, would have recoiled with horror from the guilt of parricide. Thus there were two plots, one within the other. The object of the great Whig plot was to raise the nation in arms against the government. The lesser plot, commonly called the Rye House Plot, in which only a few desperate men were concerned, had for its object the assassination of the King and of the heir presumptive.

Yet the Whigs' spirit was unbroken. Even though they were in a tough spot, they remained a large and powerful party. They were particularly strong in the big cities, especially the capital, which made them seem more influential than they actually were. Encouraged by memories of past victories and feeling oppressed in the present, they overestimated both their strength and their grievances. They couldn't clearly demonstrate the overwhelming case needed to justify the extreme response of resisting an established government. No matter what they suspected, they couldn't prove that their king had made a deal with France against England's religion and freedoms. What was obvious wasn't enough to justify resorting to violence. If the Lords had rejected the Exclusion Bill, they had done so as part of a right that was as old as the constitution itself. If the King had dissolved the Oxford Parliament, he did so with a prerogative that had never been contested. Even if he had done some harsh things after the dissolution, those actions were strictly in line with the law and in keeping with what the dissenters themselves had recently done. When he prosecuted his opponents, he followed the proper procedures and went through the appropriate courts. The evidence now presented for the crown was at least as credible as the evidence that had recently led to the deaths of many noble individuals by the opposition. The treatment an accused Whig could expect from judges, lawyers, sheriffs, juries, and the public was no worse than what the Whigs had previously deemed acceptable for an accused Papist. If the privileges of the City of London were under attack, they were challenged not through military force or any questionable use of prerogative, but in accordance with standard practices at Westminster Hall. No tax was imposed by royal authority. No laws were suspended. The Habeas Corpus Act was upheld. Even the Test Act was enforced. Therefore, the opposition couldn't convincingly hold the King accountable for the type of misgovernment that would justify rebellion. And even if his misgovernment had been more blatant, insurrection would still be a crime because it was likely to fail. The position of the Whigs in 1682 was very different from that of the Roundheads forty years earlier. Those who took up arms against Charles the First were acting under a Parliament that had been legally assembled and could not be dissolved without its own consent. The opponents of Charles the Second were private citizens. Almost all military and naval resources were available to those resisting Charles the First, but those forces were all under Charles the Second's control. The House of Commons had the support of at least half the nation against Charles the First. But those looking to wage war against Charles the Second were certainly in the minority. It was almost guaranteed that if they attempted an uprising, they would fail. It was even more certain that their failure would worsen every issue they were complaining about. The best strategy for the Whigs was to endure their misfortune patiently, which was a natural result and rightful punishment for their mistakes, to wait for the inevitable shift in public sentiment, to follow the law, and to use the protection—imperfect but certainly not trivial—that the law provided for the innocent. Unfortunately, they chose a very different path. Unscrupulous and hot-headed leaders within the party devised and discussed plans for resistance, and were listened to, if not approved of, by much better individuals than themselves. They suggested that there should be simultaneous uprisings in London, Cheshire, Bristol, and Newcastle. They opened lines of communication with discontented Presbyterians in Scotland, who were enduring a tyranny that England had never experienced even in its darkest times. While the opposition leaders were contemplating open rebellion, they were still held back by fear or hesitation from taking any definitive action. A very different plan was being considered by some of their allies. To those fierce spirits, unbound by principle or driven mad by fanaticism, it seemed that ambushing and killing the King and his brother was the quickest and surest way to defend the Protestant faith and the freedoms of England. A location and time were set, and the details of the murder were often discussed, if not fully arranged. This plan was known to only a few and was kept especially secret from the honest and compassionate Russell, and from Monmouth, who, though not particularly scrupulous, would have recoiled in horror from the guilt of murder against his own father. Thus, there were two plots, one within the other. The main Whig plot aimed to rally the nation against the government. The smaller plot, commonly known as the Rye House Plot, which involved only a handful of desperate individuals, aimed to assassinate the King and the heir apparent.

Both plots were soon discovered. Cowardly traitors hastened to save themselves, by divulging all, and more than all, that had passed in the deliberations of the party. That only a small minority of those who meditated resistance had admitted into their minds the thought of assassination is fully established: but, as the two conspiracies ran into each other, it was not difficult for the government to confound them together. The just indignation excited by the Rye House Plot was extended for a time to the whole Whig body. The King was now at liberty to exact full vengeance for years of restraint and humiliation. Shaftesbury, indeed, had escaped the fate which his manifold perfidy had well deserved. He had seen that the ruin of his party was at hand, had in vain endeavoured to make his peace with the royal brothers, had fled to Holland, and had died there, under the generous protection of a government which he had cruelly wronged. Monmouth threw himself at his father's feet and found mercy, but soon gave new offence, and thought it prudent to go into voluntary exile. Essex perished by his own hand in the Tower. Russell, who appears to have been guilty of no offence falling within the definition of high treason, and Sidney, of whose guilt no legal evidence could be produced, were beheaded in defiance of law and justice. Russell died with the fortitude of a Christian, Sidney with the fortitude of a Stoic. Some active politicians of meaner rank were sent to the gallows. Many quitted the country. Numerous prosecutions for misprision of treason, for libel, and for conspiracy were instituted. Convictions were obtained without difficulty from Tory juries, and rigorous punishments were inflicted by courtly judges. With these criminal proceedings were joined civil proceedings scarcely less formidable. Actions were brought against persons who had defamed the Duke of York and damages tantamount to a sentence of perpetual imprisonment were demanded by the plaintiff, and without difficulty obtained. The Court of King's Bench pronounced that the franchises of the City of London were forfeited to the Crown. Flushed with this great victory, the government proceeded to attack the constitutions of other corporations which were governed by Whig officers, and which had been in the habit of returning Whig members to Parliament. Borough after borough was compelled to surrender its privileges; and new charters were granted which gave the ascendency everywhere to the Tories.

Both plots were quickly uncovered. Cowardly traitors rushed to save themselves by spilling all the details of the party's discussions. It's clear that only a small minority of those who were thinking about resistance actually considered assassination. However, since the two conspiracies intertwined, the government found it easy to lump them together. The rightful outrage sparked by the Rye House Plot spread for a time to the entire Whig party. The King was now free to seek full vengeance for years of restraint and humiliation. Shaftesbury, in fact, avoided the punishment he richly deserved for his many betrayals. He realized his party was on the brink of destruction, tried in vain to reconcile with the royal brothers, fled to Holland, and died there under the protection of a government he had greatly wronged. Monmouth threw himself at his father's feet and was shown mercy, but soon caused more offense and decided to go into voluntary exile. Essex took his own life in the Tower. Russell, who seems to have committed no crime that qualified as high treason, and Sidney, who had no legal evidence of guilt against him, were executed in defiance of law and justice. Russell died with the strength of a Christian, while Sidney faced death with the resolve of a Stoic. Some lesser-known politicians were hanged. Many left the country. Numerous prosecutions for misprision of treason, libel, and conspiracy were initiated. Convictions were easily secured by Tory juries, and harsh punishments were handed down by loyal judges. Alongside these criminal proceedings were civil actions that were hardly less intimidating. Lawsuits were filed against those who had insulted the Duke of York, demanding damages equivalent to a sentence of perpetual imprisonment, which were readily granted. The Court of King's Bench ruled that the City of London's rights were forfeited to the Crown. Energized by this great victory, the government began attacking the charters of other corporations run by Whig officials, which had a history of sending Whig members to Parliament. Borough after borough was forced to give up its privileges, and new charters were issued that favored the Tories everywhere.

These proceedings, however reprehensible, had yet the semblance of legality. They were also accompanied by an act intended to quiet the uneasiness with which many loyal men looked forward to the accession of a Popish sovereign. The Lady Anne, younger daughter of the Duke of York by his first wife, was married to George, a prince of the orthodox House of Denmark. The Tory gentry and clergy might now flatter themselves that the Church of England had been effectually secured without any violation of the order of succession. The King and the heir presumptive were nearly of the same age. Both were approaching the decline of life. The King's health was good. It was therefore probable that James, if he came to the throne, would have but a short reign. Beyond his reign there was the gratifying prospect of a long series of Protestant sovereigns.

These proceedings, while clearly problematic, still carried a sense of legality. They were also accompanied by a measure aimed at easing the concerns of many loyal individuals who were apprehensive about the rise of a Catholic king. Lady Anne, the younger daughter of the Duke of York from his first marriage, was married to George, a prince from the orthodox House of Denmark. The Tory gentry and clergy could now reassure themselves that the Church of England was effectively secured without any breach of the succession order. The King and the heir presumptive were roughly the same age, both nearing the later years of life. The King's health was good. It seemed likely that James, if he ascended the throne, would have a short reign. Beyond his reign, there lay the encouraging prospect of a long line of Protestant monarchs.

The liberty of unlicensed printing was of little or no use to the vanquished party; for the temper of judges and juries was such that no writer whom the government prosecuted for a libel had any chance of escaping. The dread of punishment therefore did all that a censorship could have done. Meanwhile, the pulpits resounded with harangues against the sin of rebellion. The treatises in which Filmer maintained that hereditary despotism was the form of government ordained by God, and that limited monarchy was a pernicious absurdity, had recently appeared, and had been favourably received by a large section of the Tory party. The university of Oxford, on the very day on which Russell was put to death, adopted by a solemn public act these strange doctrines, and ordered the political works of Buchanan, Milton, and Baxter to be publicly burned in the court of the Schools.

The freedom of unregulated printing was pretty much useless to the defeated party, as judges and juries were biased in such a way that any writer the government went after for libel had no real chance of escaping punishment. The fear of consequences effectively acted as a form of censorship. Meanwhile, sermons echoed with speeches condemning the sin of rebellion. Filmer's writings, which argued that hereditary rule was the government style ordained by God and that limited monarchy was a ridiculous idea, had recently come out and received a positive response from many in the Tory party. On the same day that Russell was executed, the University of Oxford officially adopted these bizarre doctrines and ordered the political works of Buchanan, Milton, and Baxter to be publicly burned in the court of the Schools.

Thus emboldened, the King at length ventured to overstep the bounds which he had during some years observed, and to violate the plain letter of the law. The law was that not more than three years should pass between the dissolving of one Parliament and the convoking of another. But, when three years had elapsed after the dissolution of the Parliament which sate at Oxford, no writs were issued for an election. This infraction of the constitution was the more reprehensible, because the King had little reason to fear a meeting with a new House of Commons. The counties were generally on his side; and many boroughs in which the Whigs had lately held sway had been so remodelled that they were certain to return none but courtiers.

Emboldened by this, the King finally dared to cross the limits he had respected for several years and to break the clear letter of the law. The law stated that no more than three years should pass between the dissolution of one Parliament and the convening of another. However, when three years had gone by after the dissolution of the Parliament that met at Oxford, no writs were issued for an election. This violation of the constitution was even more blameworthy because the King had little reason to fear the emergence of a new House of Commons. The counties were mostly on his side, and many boroughs where the Whigs had recently held power had been restructured to ensure that they would return only supporters of the King.

In a short time the law was again violated in order to gratify the Duke of York. That prince was, partly on account of his religion, and partly on account of the sternness and harshness of his nature, so unpopular that it had been thought necessary to keep him out of sight while the Exclusion Bill was before Parliament, lest his appearance should give an advantage to the party which was struggling to deprive him of his birthright. He had therefore been sent to govern Scotland, where the savage old tyrant Lauderdale was sinking into the grave. Even Lauderdale was now outdone. The administration of James was marked by odious laws, by barbarous punishments, and by judgments to the iniquity of which even that age furnished no parallel. The Scottish Privy Council had power to put state prisoners to the question. But the sight was so dreadful that, as soon as the boots appeared, even the most servile and hardhearted courtiers hastened out of the chamber. The board was sometimes quite deserted: and it was at length found necessary to make an order that the members should keep their seats on such occasions. The Duke of York, it was remarked, seemed to take pleasure in the spectacle which some of the worst men then living were unable to contemplate without pity and horror. He not only came to Council when the torture was to be inflicted, but watched the agonies of the sufferers with that sort of interest and complacency with which men observe a curious experiment in science. Thus he employed himself at Edinburgh, till the event of the conflict between the court and the Whigs was no longer doubtful. He then returned to England: but he was still excluded by the Test Act from all public employment; nor did the King at first think it safe to violate a statute which the great majority of his most loyal subjects regarded as one of the chief securities of their religion and of their civil rights. When, however, it appeared, from a succession of trials, that the nation had patience to endure almost anything that the government had courage to do, Charles ventured to dispense with the law in his brother's favour. The Duke again took his seat in the Council, and resumed the direction of naval affairs.

In a short time, the law was once again broken to please the Duke of York. This prince was so unpopular, partly because of his religion and partly due to his harsh and stern nature, that it was deemed necessary to keep him out of sight while the Exclusion Bill was being discussed in Parliament, for fear his presence would help the party that was trying to take away his birthright. He was therefore sent to govern Scotland, where the cruel old tyrant Lauderdale was nearing death. Even Lauderdale was now outdone. James's administration was characterized by terrible laws, brutal punishments, and judgments so immoral that even the times were shocked. The Scottish Privy Council had the power to torture state prisoners. But the sight was so horrifying that as soon as the torture boots appeared, even the most obedient and cold-hearted courtiers quickly left the room. Sometimes the board was completely empty; eventually, it became necessary to mandate that members stay in their seats during those events. It was noted that the Duke of York seemed to enjoy the spectacle, which even some of the worst men of the time could not bear to watch without feeling pity and horror. He not only attended Council meetings when torture was to be administered but also observed the suffering of the victims with a kind of fascination, as one might watch an intriguing scientific experiment. He occupied himself with this in Edinburgh until the outcome of the conflict between the court and the Whigs was no longer in doubt. He then returned to England; however, he was still barred from public office by the Test Act, and the King initially did not think it wise to break a law that the vast majority of his loyal subjects considered vital for their religion and civil rights. Yet, when it became clear, through a series of trials, that the nation was willing to tolerate nearly anything the government dared to do, Charles took the risk to bypass the law in favor of his brother. The Duke once again took his seat on the Council and resumed control over naval affairs.

These breaches of the constitution excited, it is true, some murmurs among the moderate Tories, and were not unanimously approved even by the King's ministers. Halifax in particular, now a Marquess and Lord Privy Seal, had, from the very day on which the Tories had by his help gained the ascendant, begun to turn Whig. As soon as the Exclusion Bill had been thrown out, he had pressed the House of Lords to make provision against the danger to which, in the next reign, the liberties and religion of the nation might be exposed. He now saw with alarm the violence of that reaction which was, in no small measure, his own work. He did not try to conceal the scorn which he felt for the servile doctrines of the University of Oxford. He detested the French alliance. He disapproved of the long intermission of Parliaments. He regretted the severity with which the vanquished party was treated. He who, when the Whigs were predominant, had ventured to pronounce Stafford not guilty, ventured, when they were vanquished and helpless, to intercede for Russell. At one of the last Councils which Charles held a remarkable scene took place. The charter of Massachusetts had been forfeited. A question arose how, for the future, the colony should be governed. The general opinion of the board was that the whole power, legislative as well as executive, should abide in the crown. Halifax took the opposite side, and argued with great energy against absolute monarchy, and in favour of representative government. It was vain, he said, to think that a population, sprung from the English stock, and animated by English feelings, would long bear to be deprived of English institutions. Life, he exclaimed, would not be worth having in a country where liberty and property were at the mercy of one despotic master. The Duke of York was greatly incensed by this language, and represented to his brother the danger of retaining in office a man who appeared to be infected with all the worst notions of Marvell and Sidney.

These violations of the constitution did spark some discontent among the moderate Tories, and not even the King's ministers fully supported them. Halifax, in particular, now a Marquess and Lord Privy Seal, had started to shift towards the Whigs from the very day the Tories gained power with his help. Once the Exclusion Bill was rejected, he urged the House of Lords to prepare for the risks that the liberties and religion of the nation might face in the next reign. He now viewed the extreme backlash with alarm, which was largely his own doing. He didn’t hide his disdain for the servile beliefs coming from the University of Oxford. He hated the alliance with France, opposed the long gaps between Parliaments, and lamented the harsh treatment of the defeated party. He had, when the Whigs were in charge, dared to declare Stafford not guilty and, when the Whigs were beaten and powerless, sought to plead for Russell. During one of the last Councils held by Charles, a remarkable event occurred. The charter of Massachusetts had been revoked, and a discussion arose about how the colony should be governed moving forward. The board generally believed that all power, both legislative and executive, should remain with the crown. Halifax took a different stance, passionately arguing against absolute monarchy and in favor of representative government. It was pointless, he said, to think that a population descended from English stock and driven by English sentiments would tolerate being denied English institutions for long. Life, he declared, would not be worth living in a country where liberty and property were at the mercy of a single despotic ruler. The Duke of York was deeply angered by this rhetoric and warned his brother about the dangers of keeping a man in office who seemed to be influenced by the worst ideas of Marvell and Sidney.

Some modern writers have blamed Halifax for continuing in the ministry while he disapproved of the manner in which both domestic and foreign affairs were conducted. But this censure is unjust. Indeed it is to be remarked that the word ministry, in the sense in which we use it, was then unknown. 24 The thing itself did not exist; for it belongs to an age in which parliamentary government is fully established. At present the chief servants of the crown form one body. They are understood to be on terms of friendly confidence with each other, and to agree as to the main principles on which the executive administration ought to be conducted. If a slight difference of opinion arises among them, it is easily compromised: but, if one of them differs from the rest on a vital point, it is his duty to resign. While he retains his office, he is held responsible even for steps which he has tried to dissuade his colleagues from taking. In the seventeenth century, the heads of the various branches of the administration were bound together in no such partnership. Each of them was accountable for his own acts, for the use which he made of his own official seal, for the documents which he signed, for the counsel which he gave to the King. No statesman was held answerable for what he had not himself done, or induced others to do. If he took care not to be the agent in what was wrong, and if, when consulted, he recommended what was right, he was blameless. It would have been thought strange scrupulosity in him to quit his post, because his advice as to matters not strictly within his own department was not taken by his master; to leave the Board of Admiralty, for example, because the finances were in disorder, or the Board of Treasury because the foreign relations of the kingdom were in an unsatisfactory state. It was, therefore, by no means unusual to see in high office, at the same time, men who avowedly differed from one another as widely as ever Pulteney differed from Walpole, or Fox from Pitt.

Some modern writers have criticized Halifax for staying in the government while he disagreed with how domestic and foreign affairs were handled. But this criticism isn't fair. In fact, it's worth noting that the term "ministry," as we use it today, wasn’t used back then. 24 The concept itself didn’t exist; it was a time before parliamentary government was fully established. Today, the main officials of the crown work together as a cohesive unit. They’re expected to have a solid trust in one another and share the same core beliefs about how the executive administration should operate. If there’s a minor disagreement, it can usually be resolved easily. However, if one person disagrees fundamentally with the others on a critical issue, they are expected to resign. While in office, they are held accountable even for decisions they tried to talk their colleagues out of. In the seventeenth century, the leaders of different administrative branches were not bound by any such cooperative agreement. Each was responsible for their own actions, the use of their official seal, the documents they signed, and the advice they gave to the King. No statesman was held liable for anything he didn’t personally do or persuade others to do. As long as he avoided being part of anything wrong and recommended the right actions when asked, he was not at fault. It would have seemed excessive for him to resign just because his suggestions regarding matters outside his direct responsibility weren’t accepted by his leader; for instance, leaving the Admiralty Board because of financial issues, or resigning from the Treasury Board due to poor foreign relations. Therefore, it was not uncommon to find individuals in high positions who openly disagreed with each other, just like Pulteney differed from Walpole or Fox from Pitt.

The moderate and constitutional counsels of Halifax were timidly and feebly seconded by Francis North, Lord Guildford who had lately been made Keeper of the Great Seal. The character of Guildford has been drawn at full length by his brother Roger North, a most intolerant Tory, a most affected and pedantic writer, but a vigilant observer of all those minute circumstances which throw light on the dispositions of men. It is remarkable that the biographer, though he was under the influence of the strongest fraternal partiality, and though he was evidently anxious to produce a flattering likeness, was unable to portray the Lord Keeper otherwise than as the most ignoble of mankind. Yet the intellect of Guildford was clear, his industry great, his proficiency in letters and science respectable, and his legal learning more than respectable. His faults were selfishness, cowardice, and meanness. He was not insensible to the power of female beauty, nor averse from excess in wine. Yet neither wine nor beauty could ever seduce the cautious and frugal libertine, even in his earliest youth, into one fit of indiscreet generosity. Though of noble descent, he rose in his profession by paying ignominious homage to all who possessed influence in the courts. He became Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, and as such was party to some of the foulest judicial murders recorded in our history. He had sense enough to perceive from the first that Oates and Bedloe were impostors: but the Parliament and the country were greatly excited: the government had yielded to the pressure; and North was not a man to risk a good place for the sake of justice and humanity. Accordingly, while he was in secret drawing up a refutation of the whole romance of the Popish plot, he declared in public that the truth of the story was as plain as the sun in heaven, and was not ashamed to browbeat, from the seat of judgment, the unfortunate Roman Catholics who were arraigned before him for their lives. He had at length reached the highest post in the law. But a lawyer, who, after many years devoted to professional labour, engages in politics for the first time at an advanced period of life, seldom distinguishes himself as a statesman; and Guildford was no exception to the general rule. He was indeed so sensible of his deficiencies that he never attended the meetings of his colleagues on foreign affairs. Even on questions relating to his own profession his opinion had less weight at the Council board than that of any man who has ever held the Great Seal. Such as his influence was, however, he used it, as far as he dared, on the side of the laws.

The moderate and constitutional advice from Halifax was timidly and weakly supported by Francis North, Lord Guildford, who had recently become Keeper of the Great Seal. Guildford’s character has been thoroughly described by his brother Roger North, who was a very intolerant Tory, an overly affected and pedantic writer, but a keen observer of all the small details that reveal people's true nature. It’s notable that the biographer, although strongly biased by brotherly affection and eager to create a flattering portrayal, could only depict Lord Keeper as one of the least admirable people. Yet Guildford had a clear intellect, immense work ethic, respectable knowledge of letters and science, and more than respectable legal expertise. His flaws included selfishness, cowardice, and pettiness. He was not oblivious to the allure of female beauty, nor was he averse to drinking too much. However, neither wine nor beauty could ever tempt the cautious and frugal libertine, even in his youth, into a moment of indiscreet generosity. Despite his noble background, he climbed the ranks in his career by showing humiliating deference to those in power in the courts. He became Chief Justice of the Common Pleas and was involved in some of the most notorious judicial wrongs in our history. He was smart enough to realize from the start that Oates and Bedloe were frauds, but Parliament and the public were very agitated, the government had given in to the pressure, and North wasn’t the type to risk a good position for the sake of justice and humanity. Thus, while secretly drafting a refutation of the entire Popish plot narrative, he publicly insisted that the truth of the tale was as obvious as the sun in the sky and shamelessly berated the unfortunate Roman Catholics brought before him facing their lives. He had finally achieved the highest position in law. However, a lawyer who, after many years in his profession, enters politics for the first time later in life rarely makes a mark as a statesman, and Guildford was no exception to this trend. He was acutely aware of his weaknesses, which is why he never attended the meetings of his colleagues concerning foreign affairs. Even on matters related to his own profession, his opinions carried less weight at the Council board than those of anyone else who had ever held the Great Seal. Nevertheless, he used whatever influence he had, as much as he dared, on the side of the law.

The chief opponent of Halifax was Lawrence Hyde, who had recently been created Earl of Rochester. Of all Tories, Rochester was the most intolerant and uncompromising. The moderate members of his party complained that the whole patronage of the Treasury, while he was First Commissioner there, went to noisy zealots, whose only claim to promotion was that they were always drinking confusion to Whiggery, and lighting bonfires to burn the Exclusion Bill. The Duke of York, pleased with a spirit which so much resembled his own supported his brother in law passionately and obstinately.

The main opponent of Halifax was Lawrence Hyde, who had recently been made the Earl of Rochester. Among all Tories, Rochester was the most intolerant and uncompromising. The moderate members of his party complained that all the patronage of the Treasury, while he was First Commissioner there, went to loud zealots, whose only qualification for promotion was that they were always celebrating Whiggery's downfall and lighting bonfires to burn the Exclusion Bill. The Duke of York, pleased with a spirit that mirrored his own, passionately and stubbornly supported his brother-in-law.

The attempts of the rival ministers to surmount and supplant each other kept the court in incessant agitation. Halifax pressed the King to summon a Parliament, to grant a general amnesty, to deprive the Duke of York of all share in the government, to recall Monmouth from banishment, to break with Lewis, and to form a close union with Holland on the principles of the Triple Alliance. The Duke of York, on the other hand, dreaded the meeting of a Parliament, regarded the vanquished Whigs with undiminished hatred, still flattered himself that the design formed fourteen years before at Dover might be accomplished, daily represented to his brother the impropriety of suffering one who was at heart a Republican to hold the Privy Seal, and strongly recommended Rochester for the great place of Lord Treasurer.

The efforts of the competing ministers to outmaneuver and replace each other kept the court in constant turmoil. Halifax urged the King to call a Parliament, offer a general amnesty, remove the Duke of York from any governmental role, bring Monmouth back from exile, break ties with Lewis, and create a strong alliance with Holland based on the principles of the Triple Alliance. The Duke of York, however, feared a Parliament meeting, held onto his deep-seated animosity towards the defeated Whigs, still believed that the plan made fourteen years earlier in Dover could be realized, frequently pointed out to his brother the inappropriateness of allowing someone who was fundamentally a Republican to hold the Privy Seal, and strongly suggested Rochester for the important position of Lord Treasurer.

While the two factions were struggling, Godolphin, cautious, silent, and laborious, observed a neutrality between them. Sunderland, with his usual restless perfidy, intrigued against them both. He had been turned out of office in disgrace for having voted in favour of the Exclusion Bill, but had made his peace by employing the good offices of the Duchess of Portsmouth and by cringing to the Duke of York, and was once more Secretary of State.

While the two groups were in conflict, Godolphin, careful, quiet, and hardworking, stayed neutral between them. Sunderland, with his typical scheming nature, plotted against both sides. He had been removed from office in disgrace for voting in favor of the Exclusion Bill, but he had smoothed things over by getting the support of the Duchess of Portsmouth and by appeasing the Duke of York, and he was again Secretary of State.

Nor was Lewis negligent or inactive. Everything at that moment favoured his designs. He had nothing to apprehend from the German empire, which was then contending against the Turks on the Danube. Holland could not, unsupported venture to oppose him. He was therefore at liberty to indulge his ambition and insolence without restraint. He seized Strasburg, Courtray, Luxemburg. He exacted from the republic of Genoa the most humiliating submissions. The power of France at that time reached a higher point than it ever before or ever after attained, during the ten centuries which separated the reign of Charlemagne from the reign of Napoleon. It was not easy to say where her acquisitions would stop, if only England could be kept in a state of vassalage. The first object of the court of Versailles was therefore to prevent the calling of a Parliament and the reconciliation of English parties. For this end bribes, promises, and menaces were unsparingly employed. Charles was sometimes allured by the hope of a subsidy, and sometimes frightened by being told that, if he convoked the Houses, the secret articles of the treaty of Dover should be published. Several Privy Councillors were bought; and attempts were made to buy Halifax, but in vain. When he had been found incorruptible, all the art and influence of the French embassy were employed to drive him from office: but his polished wit and his various accomplishments had made him so agreeable to his master, that the design failed. 25

Lewis was neither careless nor inactive. Everything at that moment supported his plans. He had no reason to fear the German Empire, which was then fighting against the Turks on the Danube. Holland could not, without support, challenge him. He was free to follow his ambition and arrogance without any limits. He took Strasbourg, Courtray, and Luxembourg. He forced the Republic of Genoa to make the most humiliating concessions. At that time, France's power reached a level higher than it had ever reached before or would reach again, during the ten centuries that separated Charlemagne's reign from Napoleon's. It was hard to predict where her expansion would stop, as long as England could be kept in a state of subservience. Therefore, the primary goal of the court of Versailles was to prevent the convening of Parliament and the reconciliation of English factions. For this purpose, bribes, promises, and threats were used without restraint. Charles was sometimes tempted by the promise of a subsidy and other times intimidated by warnings that if he called the Houses, the secret articles of the treaty of Dover would be revealed. Several Privy Councillors were bribed, and there were attempts to corrupt Halifax, but they failed. When he proved to be incorruptible, all the skill and influence of the French embassy were employed to remove him from office: however, his polished wit and diverse talents made him so favored by the king that the plan did not succeed. 25

Halifax was not content with standing on the defensive. He openly accused Rochester of malversation. An inquiry took place. It appeared that forty thousand pounds had been lost to the public by the mismanagement of the First Lord of the Treasury. In consequence of this discovery he was not only forced to relinquish his hopes of the white staff, but was removed from the direction of the finances to the more dignified but less lucrative and important post of Lord President. "I have seen people kicked down stairs," said Halifax; "but my Lord Rochester is the first person that I ever saw kicked up stairs." Godolphin, now a peer, became First Commissioner of the Treasury.

Halifax wasn’t satisfied with just playing defense. He openly accused Rochester of wrongdoing. An investigation happened. It turned out that forty thousand pounds had been lost to the public due to the mismanagement of the First Lord of the Treasury. Because of this finding, Rochester not only had to give up his dreams of a higher position but was also removed from overseeing the finances and given the more prestigious but less profitable and less significant role of Lord President. "I’ve seen people get kicked down the stairs," Halifax said, "but Lord Rochester is the first person I've seen get kicked up the stairs." Godolphin, now a peer, became the First Commissioner of the Treasury.

Still, however, the contest continued. The event depended wholly on the will of Charles; and Charles could not come to a decision. In his perplexity he promised everything to everybody. He would stand by France: he would break with France: he would never meet another Parliament: he would order writs for a Parliament to be issued without delay. He assured the Duke of York that Halifax should be dismissed from office, and Halifax that the Duke should be sent to Scotland. In public he affected implacable resentment against Monmouth, and in private conveyed to Monmouth assurances of unalterable affection. How long, if the King's life had been protracted, his hesitation would have lasted, and what would have been his resolve, can only be conjectured. Early in the year 1685, while hostile parties were anxiously awaiting his determination, he died, and a new scene opened. In a few mouths the excesses of the government obliterated the impression which had been made on the public mind by the excesses of the opposition. The violent reaction which had laid the Whig party prostrate was followed by a still more violent reaction in the opposite direction; and signs not to be mistaken indicated that the great conflict between the prerogatives of the Crown and the privileges of the Parliament, was about to be brought to a final issue.

Still, the contest continued. The event depended entirely on Charles's decision, and he couldn't make up his mind. In his confusion, he promised everything to everyone. He would support France; he would break away from France; he would never meet another Parliament; he would order writs for a Parliament to be issued right away. He assured the Duke of York that Halifax would be removed from office, and he told Halifax that the Duke would be sent to Scotland. In public, he pretended to be unyieldingly angry with Monmouth, but in private, he assured Monmouth of his unwavering friendship. How long his indecision would have gone on, had the King's life continued, and what his ultimate decision would have been, is anyone's guess. Early in 1685, while rival groups anxiously awaited his choice, he died, and a new chapter began. Within a few months, the government's excesses erased the impressions made on the public by the opposition's extremes. The intense backlash that had left the Whig party devastated was followed by an even stronger backlash in the opposite direction; unmistakable signs indicated that the major conflict between the powers of the Crown and the rights of Parliament was about to reach a decisive point.





CHAPTER III.

I INTEND, in this chapter, to give a description of the state in which England was at the time when the crown passed from Charles the Second to his brother. Such a description, composed from scanty and dispersed materials, must necessarily be very imperfect. Yet it may perhaps correct some false notions which would make the subsequent narrative unintelligible or uninstructive.

I INTEND, in this chapter, to describe the state of England at the time when the crown passed from Charles the Second to his brother. This description, drawn from limited and scattered sources, will inevitably be incomplete. However, it may help to clarify some misunderstandings that could make the following narrative confusing or unhelpful.

If we would study with profit the history of our ancestors, we must be constantly on our guard against that delusion which the well known names of families, places, and offices naturally produce, and must never forget that the country of which we read was a very different country from that in which we live. In every experimental science there is a tendency towards perfection. In every human being there is a wish to ameliorate his own condition. These two principles have often sufficed, even when counteracted by great public calamities and by bad institutions, to carry civilisation rapidly forward. No ordinary misfortune, no ordinary misgovernment, will do so much to make a nation wretched, as the constant progress of physical knowledge and the constant effort of every man to better himself will do to make a nation prosperous. It has often been found that profuse expenditure, heavy taxation, absurd commercial restrictions, corrupt tribunals, disastrous wars, seditions, persecutions, conflagrations, inundations, have not been able to destroy capital so fast as the exertions of private citizens have been able to create it. It can easily be proved that, in our own land, the national wealth has, during at least six centuries, been almost uninterruptedly increasing; that it was greater under the Tudors than under the Plantagenets; that it was greater under the Stuarts than under the Tudors; that, in spite of battles, sieges, and confiscations, it was greater on the day of the Restoration than on the day when the Long Parliament met; that, in spite of maladministration, of extravagance, of public bankruptcy, of two costly and unsuccessful wars, of the pestilence and of the fire, it was greater on the day of the death of Charles the Second than on the day of his Restoration. This progress, having continued during many ages, became at length, about the middle of the eighteenth century, portentously rapid, and has proceeded, during the nineteenth, with accelerated velocity. In consequence partly of our geographical and partly of our moral position, we have, during several generations, been exempt from evils which have elsewhere impeded the efforts and destroyed the fruits of industry. While every part of the Continent, from Moscow to Lisbon, has been the theatre of bloody and devastating wars, no hostile standard has been seen here but as a trophy. While revolutions have taken place all around us, our government has never once been subverted by violence. During more than a hundred years there has been in our island no tumult of sufficient importance to be called an insurrection; nor has the law been once borne down either by popular fury or by regal tyranny: public credit has been held sacred: the administration of justice has been pure: even in times which might by Englishmen be justly called evil times, we have enjoyed what almost every other nation in the world would have considered as an ample measure of civil and religious freedom. Every man has felt entire confidence that the state would protect him in the possession of what had been earned by his diligence and hoarded by his selfdenial. Under the benignant influence of peace and liberty, science has flourished, and has been applied to practical purposes on a scale never before known. The consequence is that a change to which the history of the old world furnishes no parallel has taken place in our country. Could the England of 1685 be, by some magical process, set before our eyes, we should not know one landscape in a hundred or one building in ten thousand. The country gentleman would not recognise his own fields. The inhabitant of the town would not recognise his own street. Everything has been changed, but the great features of nature, and a few massive and durable works of human art. We might find out Snowdon and Windermere, the Cheddar Cliffs and Beachy Head. We might find out here and there a Norman minster, or a castle which witnessed the wars of the Roses. But, with such rare exceptions, everything would be strange to us. Many thousands of square miles which are now rich corn land and meadow, intersected by green hedgerows and dotted with villages and pleasant country seats, would appear as moors overgrown with furze, or fens abandoned to wild ducks. We should see straggling huts built of wood and covered with thatch, where we now see manufacturing towns and seaports renowned to the farthest ends of the world. The capital itself would shrink to dimensions not much exceeding those of its present suburb on the south of the Thames. Not less strange to us would be the garb and manners of the people, the furniture and the equipages, the interior of the shops and dwellings. Such a change in the state of a nation seems to be at least as well entitled to the notice of a historian as any change of the dynasty or of the ministry. 26

If we want to effectively study the history of our ancestors, we need to stay vigilant against the misconception created by the well-known names of families, places, and roles, and we should never forget that the country we read about was very different from the one we live in today. Every experimental science tends toward perfection. Every person wishes to improve their own circumstances. These two principles have often been enough, even when faced with significant public disasters and poor institutions, to push civilization forward quickly. No ordinary misfortune or mismanagement can make a nation miserable like the steady advancement of knowledge and the efforts of individuals to improve their own lives can make a nation prosperous. It has often been shown that extravagant spending, high taxes, nonsensical commercial restrictions, corrupt courts, disastrous wars, uprisings, persecutions, fires, and floods have not destroyed wealth as quickly as the efforts of private citizens have been able to create it. It is easy to prove that, in our own country, national wealth has been almost continuously increasing for at least six centuries; that it was greater under the Tudors than it was under the Plantagenets; that it was greater under the Stuarts than under the Tudors; that despite battles, sieges, and confiscations, it was greater on the day of the Restoration than on the day the Long Parliament met; and that, despite poor governance, extravagance, public bankruptcy, two expensive and unsuccessful wars, the plague, and the Great Fire, it was greater on the day Charles II died than on the day he was restored. This progress, which continued for many years, became astonishingly rapid in the middle of the eighteenth century and has continued to accelerate through the nineteenth. Partly due to our geographical and moral position, we've been spared the troubles that have hindered efforts and destroyed the outcomes of industry elsewhere for several generations. While every part of the continent, from Moscow to Lisbon, has been the scene of bloody and devastating wars, we have seen no hostile flag here except as a trophy. While revolutions have erupted all around us, our government has never been overthrown by violence. For more than a hundred years, there has been no significant unrest in our island to be called an insurrection; nor has the law ever been undermined by popular rage or royal tyranny: public credit has been respected; justice has been administered fairly; and even in times that could rightly be considered tumultuous by the English, we have enjoyed what nearly every other nation in the world would have regarded as ample civil and religious freedom. Every person has felt complete confidence that the state would protect what they earned through hard work and saved through self-denial. Under the kind influence of peace and freedom, science has thrived and has been applied to practical purposes on an unprecedented scale. As a result, a change has occurred in our country that the history of the old world does not parallel. If the England of 1685 could be magically brought before us, we would barely recognize one landscape in a hundred or one building in ten thousand. The country gentleman would not recognize his own fields. The townsfolk would not recognize their own streets. Everything has changed except for the major features of nature and a few large and enduring works of human art. We might recognize Snowdon and Windermere, the Cheddar Cliffs, and Beachy Head. We might find a Norman cathedral or a castle that witnessed the Wars of the Roses here and there. But, with such rare exceptions, everything else would be unfamiliar. Many thousands of square miles that are now fertile fields and meadows, dotted with villages and charming homes, would appear as moors covered with gorse or marshes left to wild ducks. We would see scattered huts made of wood and thatched roofs where we now find bustling manufacturing towns and seaports known around the world. The capital itself would shrink to a size not much bigger than its current southern suburbs along the Thames. Equally strange to us would be the clothing and customs of the people, the furniture and carriages, the interiors of shops and homes. Such a transformation in a nation's state seems at least as deserving of a historian's attention as any change in the ruling dynasty or government. 26

One of the first objects of an inquirer, who wishes to form a correct notion of the state of a community at a given time, must be to ascertain of how many persons that community then consisted. Unfortunately the population of England in 1685, cannot be ascertained with perfect accuracy. For no great state had then adopted the wise course of periodically numbering the people. All men were left to conjecture for themselves; and, as they generally conjectured without examining facts, and under the influence of strong passions and prejudices, their guesses were often ludicrously absurd. Even intelligent Londoners ordinarily talked of London as containing several millions of souls. It was confidently asserted by many that, during the thirty-five years which had elapsed between the accession of Charles the First and the Restoration the population of the City had increased by two millions. 27 Even while the ravages of the plague and fire were recent, it was the fashion to say that the capital still had a million and a half of inhabitants. 28 Some persons, disgusted by these exaggerations, ran violently into the opposite extreme. Thus Isaac Vossius, a man of undoubted parts and learning, strenuously maintained that there were only two millions of human beings in England, Scotland, and Ireland taken together. 29

One of the first things anyone investigating a community needs to do to understand its state at a certain time is to find out how many people lived there. Unfortunately, the population of England in 1685 can't be determined with complete accuracy. At that time, no major state had taken the smart step of regularly counting its people. Everyone was left to guess, and since they often based their guesses on strong emotions and biases without checking the facts, their estimates were frequently ridiculously absurd. Even smart Londoners usually spoke of their city as if it had several million residents. Many confidently claimed that, in the thirty-five years since Charles the First became king until the Restoration, the city's population had grown by two million. 27 Even with the recent devastation from plague and fire, it was common to say that the capital still had a million and a half inhabitants. 28 In reaction to these exaggerations, some people swung to the opposite extreme. For instance, Isaac Vossius, a well-respected and knowledgeable man, strongly argued that there were only two million people living in England, Scotland, and Ireland combined. 29

We are not, however, left without the means of correcting the wild blunders into which some minds were hurried by national vanity and others by a morbid love of paradox. There are extant three computations which seem to be entitled to peculiar attention. They are entirely independent of each other: they proceed on different principles; and yet there is little difference in the results.

We are not, however, without the means to correct the wild mistakes that some people made due to national pride and others due to an unhealthy obsession with contradiction. Three calculations exist that deserve special attention. They are completely independent of each other, based on different principles, yet the results are very similar.

One of these computations was made in the year 1696 by Gregory King, Lancaster herald, a political arithmetician of great acuteness and judgment. The basis of his calculations was the number of houses returned in 1690 by the officers who made the last collection of the hearth money. The conclusion at which he arrived was that the population of England was nearly five millions and a half. 30

One of these calculations was done in 1696 by Gregory King, a Lancaster herald and a sharp and insightful political mathematician. He based his calculations on the number of houses reported in 1690 by the officers who conducted the last collection of the hearth tax. His conclusion was that the population of England was nearly five and a half million. 30

About the same time King William the Third was desirous to ascertain the comparative strength of the religious sects into which the community was divided. An inquiry was instituted; and reports were laid before him from all the dioceses of the realm. According to these reports the number of his English subjects must have been about five million two hundred thousand. 31

About the same time, King William the Third wanted to find out the relative strength of the religious groups within the community. An investigation was started, and reports were submitted to him from all the dioceses in the kingdom. Based on these reports, the number of his English subjects was estimated to be about five million two hundred thousand. 31

Lastly, in our own days, Mr. Finlaison, an actuary of eminent skill, subjected the ancient parochial registers of baptisms, marriages, and burials, to all the tests which the modern improvements in statistical science enabled him to apply. His opinion was, that, at the close of the seventeenth century, the population of England was a little under five million two hundred thousand souls. 32

Lastly, in our time, Mr. Finlaison, a highly skilled actuary, analyzed the old parish records of baptisms, marriages, and burials using all the modern statistical methods available to him. He believed that, at the end of the seventeenth century, the population of England was just under five million two hundred thousand people. 32

Of these three estimates, framed without concert by different persons from different sets of materials, the highest, which is that of King, does not exceed the lowest, which is that of Finlaison, by one twelfth. We may, therefore, with confidence pronounce that, when James the Second reigned, England contained between five million and five million five hundred thousand inhabitants. On the very highest supposition she then had less than one third of her present population, and less than three times the population which is now collected in her gigantic capital.

Of these three estimates, created independently by different people using different sources, the highest one, from King, doesn't exceed the lowest one, from Finlaison, by more than one twelfth. Therefore, we can confidently say that during the reign of James the Second, England had between five million and five million five hundred thousand inhabitants. Even on the highest assumption, this means she had less than one third of her current population and less than three times the population now found in her massive capital.

The increase of the people has been great in every part of the kingdom, but generally much greater in the northern than in the southern shires. In truth a large part of the country beyond Trent was, down to the eighteenth century, in a state of barbarism. Physical and moral causes had concurred to prevent civilisation from spreading to that region. The air was inclement; the soil was generally such as required skilful and industrious cultivation; and there could be little skill or industry in a tract which was often the theatre of war, and which, even when there was nominal peace, was constantly desolated by bands of Scottish marauders. Before the union of the two British crowns, and long after that union, there was as great a difference between Middlesex and Northumberland as there now is between Massachusetts and the settlements of those squatters who, far to the west of the Mississippi, administer a rude justice with the rifle and the dagger. In the reign of Charles the Second, the traces left by ages of slaughter and pillage were distinctly perceptible, many miles south of the Tweed, in the face of the country and in the lawless manners of the people. There was still a large class of mosstroopers, whose calling was to plunder dwellings and to drive away whole herds of cattle. It was found necessary, soon after the Restoration, to enact laws of great severity for the prevention of these outrages. The magistrates of Northumberland and Cumberland were authorised to raise bands of armed men for the defence of property and order; and provision was made for meeting the expense of these levies by local taxation. 33 The parishes were required to keep bloodhounds for the purpose of hunting the freebooters. Many old men who were living in the middle of the eighteenth century could well remember the time when those ferocious dogs were common. 34 Yet, even with such auxiliaries, it was often found impossible to track the robbers to their retreats among the hills and morasses. For the geography of that wild country was very imperfectly known. Even after the accession of George the Third, the path over the fells from Borrowdale to Ravenglas was still a secret carefully kept by the dalesmen, some of whom had probably in their youth escaped from the pursuit of justice by that road. 35 The seats of the gentry and the larger farmhouses were fortified. Oxen were penned at night beneath the overhanging battlements of the residence, which was known by the name of the Peel. The inmates slept with arms at their sides. Huge stones and boiling water were in readiness to crush and scald the plunderer who might venture to assail the little garrison. No traveller ventured into that country without making his will. The Judges on circuit, with the whole body of barristers, attorneys, clerks, and serving men, rode on horseback from Newcastle to Carlisle, armed and escorted by a strong guard under the command of the Sheriffs. It was necessary to carry provisions; for the country was a wilderness which afforded no supplies. The spot where the cavalcade halted to dine, under an immense oak, is not yet forgotten. The irregular vigour with which criminal justice was administered shocked observers whose lives had been passed in more tranquil districts. Juries, animated by hatred and by a sense of common danger, convicted housebreakers and cattle stealers with the promptitude of a court martial in a mutiny; and the convicts were hurried by scores to the gallows. 36 Within the memory of some whom this generation has seen, the sportsman who wandered in pursuit of game to the sources of the Tyne found the heaths round Keeldar Castle peopled by a race scarcely less savage than the Indians of California, and heard with surprise the half naked women chaunting a wild measure, while the men with brandished dirks danced a war dance. 37

The population has increased significantly across the kingdom, but it's been much higher in the northern regions than in the southern ones. In fact, a large part of the area beyond the Trent remained quite primitive until the eighteenth century. Various physical and social factors kept civilization from spreading to that region. The weather was harsh, the soil generally required skilled and hard work to cultivate, and there was little opportunity for skill or effort in a land that frequently saw warfare, even during times when there was supposed to be peace, it was often ravaged by Scottish raiders. Before the union of the two British crowns, and well after, there was a huge difference between Middlesex and Northumberland, similar to the current distinction between Massachusetts and the settlements of squatters far west of the Mississippi, who enforce their own rough brand of justice with guns and knives. During Charles the Second's reign, the signs of centuries of violence and looting were clear many miles south of the Tweed, visible in the landscape and in the unruly behavior of the people. There was still a significant group of bandits, whose job was to rob homes and steal entire herds of cattle. Soon after the Restoration, laws of strict enforcement were enacted to prevent these crimes. The magistrates in Northumberland and Cumberland were authorized to raise armed groups for the protection of property and public order, and funding for these forces was to be covered by local taxes. 33 The parishes were ordered to keep bloodhounds to track down the robbers. Many old men living in the mid-eighteenth century could remember when those fierce dogs were commonplace. 34 Even with such help, it was often impossible to follow the thieves back to their hideouts in the hills and marshes, as the geography of that wild area was not well known. Even after George the Third took the throne, the route over the fells from Borrowdale to Ravenglas remained a closely guarded secret among the local residents, some of whom likely escaped justice by using that path in their youth. 35 The homes of the gentry and larger farms were fortified. Oxen were kept penned at night under the overhanging walls of the residence, known as the Peel. The residents slept with weapons at their sides. They were prepared with heavy stones and boiling water to defend against any intruder who may try to attack their small fortress. No traveler dared enter that area without first making a will. The Judges on circuit, along with a team of barristers, attorneys, clerks, and servants, traveled on horseback from Newcastle to Carlisle, armed and protected by a strong guard led by the Sheriffs. It was essential to bring provisions since the area was a wilderness with no available supplies. The place where the group stopped to eat, under a massive oak tree, is still remembered. The rough way in which criminal justice was administered shocked those used to quieter regions. Juries, driven by anger and a shared sense of danger, convicted burglars and cattle thieves with the speed of a military tribunal during a mutiny, and the convicted were quickly sent to the gallows. 36 Within the memory of some alive today, the sportsman searching for game at the sources of the Tyne would find the heaths around Keeldar Castle inhabited by a people almost as savage as the Indians of California, and would be surprised to hear the half-naked women singing a wild tune while the men brandished their daggers and performed a war dance. 37

Slowly and with difficulty peace was established on the border. In the train of peace came industry and all the arts of life. Meanwhile it was discovered that the regions north of the Trent possessed in their coal beds a source of wealth far more precious than the gold mines of Peru. It was found that, in the neighbourhood of these beds, almost every manufacture might be most profitably carried on. A constant stream of emigrants began to roll northward. It appeared by the returns of 1841 that the ancient archiepiscopal province of York contained two-sevenths of the population of England. At the time of the Revolution that province was believed to contain only one seventh of the population. 38 In Lancashire the number of inhabitants appear to have increased ninefold, while in Norfolk, Suffolk, and Northamptonshire it has hardly doubled. 39

Slowly and with difficulty, peace was established at the border. With peace came industry and all aspects of daily life. Meanwhile, it was discovered that the regions north of the Trent had coal beds that were a source of wealth far more valuable than the gold mines of Peru. It was found that in the vicinity of these coal beds, nearly every type of manufacturing could be carried out most profitably. A steady flow of emigrants started moving north. According to the 1841 census, the historic archiepiscopal province of York held two-sevenths of England's population. At the time of the Revolution, that province was thought to account for only one-seventh of the population. 38 In Lancashire, the number of inhabitants appears to have increased ninefold, while in Norfolk, Suffolk, and Northamptonshire, it has barely doubled. 39

Of the taxation we can speak with more confidence and precision than of the population. The revenue of England, when Charles the Second died, was small, when compared with the resources which she even then possessed, or with the sums which were raised by the governments of the neighbouring countries. It had, from the time of the Restoration, been almost constantly increasing, yet it was little more than three fourths of the revenue of the United Provinces, and was hardly one fifth of the revenue of France.

We can discuss taxation with more certainty and accuracy than we can about the population. When Charles the Second died, England's revenue was limited when stacked against the resources it had at that time or the amounts collected by neighboring countries. Since the Restoration, it had been steadily increasing, but it was still just over three-fourths of the revenue of the United Provinces and barely one-fifth of the revenue of France.

The most important head of receipt was the excise, which, in the last year of the reign of Charles, produced five hundred and eighty-five thousand pounds, clear of all deductions. The net proceeds of the customs amounted in the same year to five hundred and thirty thousand pounds. These burdens did not lie very heavy on the nation. The tax on chimneys, though less productive, call forth far louder murmurs. The discontent excited by direct imposts is, indeed, almost always out of proportion to the quantity of money which they bring into the Exchequer; and the tax on chimneys was, even among direct imposts, peculiarly odious: for it could be levied only by means of domiciliary visits; and of such visits the English have always been impatient to a degree which the people of other countries can but faintly conceive. The poorer householders were frequently unable to pay their hearth money to the day. When this happened, their furniture was distrained without mercy: for the tax was farmed; and a farmer of taxes is, of all creditors, proverbially the most rapacious. The collectors were loudly accused of performing their unpopular duty with harshness and insolence. It was said that, as soon as they appeared at the threshold of a cottage, the children began to wail, and the old women ran to hide their earthenware. Nay, the single bed of a poor family had sometimes been carried away and sold. The net annual receipt from this tax was two hundred thousand pounds. 40

The biggest source of revenue was the excise tax, which in the last year of Charles' reign brought in five hundred eighty-five thousand pounds, after all deductions. The net income from customs that same year totaled five hundred thirty thousand pounds. These taxes weren’t overly burdensome on the nation. The chimney tax, though less profitable, sparked much louder complaints. The dissatisfaction caused by direct taxes is often out of proportion to the actual money they generate for the government, and the chimney tax was especially hated among direct taxes: it could only be enforced through home visits, and the English have always been particularly intolerant of this to a degree that people from other countries can barely understand. Many poorer households often struggled to pay their chimney tax on time. When they fell behind, their furniture was seized without mercy because the tax was farmed out; and tax farmers are known to be some of the most ruthless creditors. The collectors were frequently accused of carrying out their unpopular tasks with cruelty and arrogance. It was said that as soon as they showed up at a cottage, the children would start crying, and the elderly women would rush to hide their pots and pans. In fact, sometimes the single bed of a poor family was taken away and sold. The net annual income from this tax was two hundred thousand pounds. 40

When to the three great sources of income which have been mentioned we add the royal domains, then far more extensive than at present, the first fruits and tenths, which had not yet been surrendered to the Church, the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster, the forfeitures, and the fines, we shall find that the whole annual revenue of the crown may be fairly estimated at about fourteen hundred thousand pounds. Of this revenue part was hereditary; the rest had been granted to Charles for life; and he was at liberty to lay out the whole exactly as he thought fit. Whatever he could save by retrenching from the expenditure of the public departments was an addition to his privy purse. Of the Post Office more will hereafter be said. The profits of that establishment had been appropriated by Parliament to the Duke of York.

When we add to the three major sources of income previously mentioned the royal lands, which were much larger than today, the first fruits and tithes that had not yet been given to the Church, the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster, the confiscations, and the fines, we find that the total annual revenue of the crown can be reasonably estimated at about one million four hundred thousand pounds. Part of this income was hereditary; the rest had been granted to Charles for life, and he could spend it however he wanted. Any savings from reducing public department spending would go into his personal funds. More will be discussed later about the Post Office. Its profits had been allocated by Parliament to the Duke of York.

The King's revenue was, or rather ought to have been, charged with the payment of about eighty thousand pounds a year, the interest of the sum fraudulently destined in the Exchequer by the Cabal. While Danby was at the head of the finances, the creditors had received dividends, though not with the strict punctuality of modern times: but those who had succeeded him at the treasury had been less expert, or less solicitous to maintain public faith. Since the victory won by the court over the Whigs, not a farthing had been paid; and no redress was granted to the sufferers, till a new dynasty had been many years on the throne. There can be no greater error than to imagine that the device of meeting the exigencies of the state by loans was imported into our island by William the Third. What really dates from his reign is not the system of borrowing, but the system of funding. From a period of immemorable antiquity it had been the practice of every English government to contract debts. What the Revolution introduced was the practice of honestly paying them. 41

The King's income was, or really should have been, responsible for paying about eighty thousand pounds a year, which was the interest on the sum that had been fraudulently allocated in the Exchequer by the Cabal. While Danby was in charge of finances, creditors received payments, although not with the strict punctuality we expect today. However, those who took over after him at the treasury were either less skilled or less motivated to uphold public trust. Since the court's victory over the Whigs, not a single penny had been paid, and no compensation was provided to those affected until a new dynasty had been on the throne for many years. It's a significant mistake to think that the idea of handling the state's financial needs through loans was brought to our island by William the Third. What actually began during his reign was not the borrowing system itself, but the funding system. For a time immemorial, every English government had borrowed money. What the Revolution brought about was the commitment to genuinely repay those debts. 41

By plundering the public creditor, it was possible to make an income of about fourteen hundred thousand pounds, with some occasional help from Versailles, support the necessary charges of the government and the wasteful expenditure of the court. For that load which pressed most heavily on the finances of the great continental states was here scarcely felt. In France, Germany, and the Netherlands, armies, such as Henry the Fourth and Philip the Second had never employed in time of war, were kept up in the midst of peace. Bastions and raveling were everywhere rising, constructed on principles unknown to Parma and Spinola. Stores of artillery and ammunition were accumulated, such as even Richelieu, whom the preceding generation had regarded as a worker of prodigies, would have pronounced fabulous. No man could journey many leagues in those countries without hearing the drums of a regiment on march, or being challenged by the sentinels on the drawbridge of a fortress. In our island, on the contrary, it was possible to live long and to travel far without being once reminded, by any martial sight or sound, that the defence of nations had become a science and a calling. The majority of Englishmen who were under twenty-five years of age had probably never seen a company of regular soldiers. Of the cities which, in the civil war, had valiantly repelled hostile armies, scarcely one was now capable of sustaining a siege The gates stood open night and day. The ditches were dry. The ramparts had been suffered to fall into decay, or were repaired only that the townsfolk might have a pleasant walk on summer evenings. Of the old baronial keeps many had been shattered by the cannon of Fairfax and Cromwell, and lay in heaps of ruin, overgrown with ivy. Those which remained had lost their martial character, and were now rural palaces of the aristocracy. The moats were turned into preserves of carp and pike. The mounds were planted with fragrant shrubs, through which spiral walks ran up to summer houses adorned with mirrors and paintings. 42 On the capes of the sea coast, and on many inland hills, were still seen tall posts, surmounted by barrels. Once those barrels had been filled with pitch. Watchmen had been set round them in seasons of danger; and, within a few hours after a Spanish sail had been discovered in the Channel, or after a thousand Scottish mosstroopers had crossed the Tweed, the signal fires were blazing fifty miles off, and whole counties were rising in arms. But many years had now elapsed since the beacons had been lighted; and they were regarded rather as curious relics of ancient manners than as parts of a machinery necessary to the safety of the state. 43

By exploiting public creditors, an income of about fourteen hundred thousand pounds was generated, with occasional assistance from Versailles, to cover the essential expenses of the government and the extravagant spending of the court. The financial burden that weighed heavily on the major continental states was hardly felt here. In France, Germany, and the Netherlands, armies—like those commanded by Henry the Fourth and Philip the Second in wartime—were maintained even in peacetime. Fortifications and ramparts were being constructed everywhere, based on principles unknown to Parma and Spinola. Stockpiles of artillery and ammunition were gathered that would have seemed unbelievable, even to Richelieu, who had been considered a miraculous figure by the previous generation. No one could travel many miles in those countries without hearing the drums of a marching regiment or being challenged by sentinels at the drawbridge of a fortress. On our island, however, one could live a long time and travel great distances without ever being reminded, by any military sight or sound, that national defense had become a science and a profession. The majority of Englishmen under twenty-five had probably never seen a company of regular soldiers. Of the cities that had bravely defended against enemy armies during the civil war, hardly any could now withstand a siege. The gates stood open day and night. The ditches were dry. The ramparts had fallen into disrepair, or were maintained only so townspeople could enjoy pleasant walks on summer evenings. Many old baronial keeps had been destroyed by Fairfax and Cromwell’s cannon and lay in ruins, overgrown with ivy. Those that remained had lost their martial essence and were now country estates of the aristocracy. The moats had become fish preserves. The mounds were planted with fragrant shrubs, with winding paths leading to summer houses adorned with mirrors and paintings. 42 Tall posts topped with barrels were still visible on the coastal capes and many inland hills. Once, those barrels had been filled with pitch. Watchmen had been stationed around them during times of danger; and within hours of spotting a Spanish ship in the Channel or a thousand Scottish raiders crossing the Tweed, signal fires would blaze fifty miles away, and entire counties would rise up in arms. But many years had passed since the beacons had last been lit; now they were seen more as curious remnants of a bygone era than as essential tools for the safety of the state. 43

The only army which the law recognised was the militia. That force had been remodelled by two Acts of Parliament, passed shortly after the Restoration. Every man who possessed five hundred pounds a year derived from land, or six thousand pounds of personal estate, was bound to provide, equip, and pay, at his own charge, one horseman. Every man who had fifty pounds a year derived from land, or six hundred pounds of personal estate, was charged in like manner with one pikemen or musketeer. Smaller proprietors were joined together in a kind of society, for which our language does not afford a special name, but which an Athenian would have called a Synteleia; and each society was required to furnish, according to its means, a horse soldier or a foot soldier. The whole number of cavalry and infantry thus maintained was popularly estimated at a hundred and thirty thousand men. 44

The only army recognized by the law was the militia. This force was restructured by two Acts of Parliament, passed shortly after the Restoration. Every man with an income of five hundred pounds a year from land, or six thousand pounds in personal property, was required to supply, equip, and pay for one horseman out of his own pocket. Every man earning fifty pounds a year from land, or six hundred pounds in personal estate, had the same obligation for one pikeman or musketeer. Smaller landowners formed a type of society, for which our language lacks a specific term, but which an Athenian would refer to as a Synteleia; each society was expected to provide, according to their means, either a cavalry or infantry soldier. The total estimated number of cavalry and infantry supported this way was around one hundred and thirty thousand men. 44

The King was, by the ancient constitution of the realm, and by the recent and solemn acknowledgment of both Houses of Parliament, the sole Captain General of this large force. The Lords Lieutenants and their Deputies held the command under him, and appointed meetings for drilling and inspection. The time occupied by such meetings, however, was not to exceed fourteen days in one year. The Justices of the Peace were authorised to inflict severe penalties for breaches of discipline. Of the ordinary cost no part was paid by the crown: but when the trainbands were called out against an enemy, their subsistence became a charge on the general revenue of the state, and they were subject to the utmost rigour of martial law.

The King was, according to the ancient constitution of the realm and the recent formal acknowledgment from both Houses of Parliament, the sole Commander-in-Chief of this large force. The Lords Lieutenants and their Deputies held command under him and scheduled meetings for training and inspections. However, these meetings were not to last more than fourteen days in one year. The Justices of the Peace were authorized to impose strict penalties for violations of discipline. The ordinary costs were not covered by the crown, but when the militia was called out to face an enemy, their upkeep became a burden on the general revenue of the state, and they were subject to the full extent of martial law.

There were those who looked on the militia with no friendly eye. Men who had travelled much on the Continent, who had marvelled at the stern precision with which every sentinel moved and spoke in the citadels built by Vauban, who had seen the mighty armies which poured along all the roads of Germany to chase the Ottoman from the Gates of Vienna, and who had been dazzled by the well ordered pomp of the household troops of Lewis, sneered much at the way in which the peasants of Devonshire and Yorkshire marched and wheeled, shouldered muskets and ported pikes. The enemies of the liberties and religion of England looked with aversion on a force which could not, without extreme risk, be employed against those liberties and that religion, and missed no opportunity of throwing ridicule on the rustic soldiery. 45 Enlightened patriots, when they contrasted these rude levies with the battalions which, in time of war, a few hours might bring to the coast of Kent or Sussex, were forced to acknowledge that, dangerous as it might be to keep up a permanent military establishment, it might be more dangerous still to stake the honour and independence of the country on the result of a contest between plowmen officered by Justices of the Peace, and veteran warriors led by Marshals of France. In Parliament, however, it was necessary to express such opinions with some reserve; for the militia was an institution eminently popular. Every reflection thrown on it excited the indignation of both the great parties in the state, and especially of that party which was distinguished by peculiar zeal for monarchy and for the Anglican Church. The array of the counties was commanded almost exclusively by Tory noblemen and gentlemen. They were proud of their military rank, and considered an insult offered to the service to which they belonged as offered to themselves. They were also perfectly aware that whatever was said against a militia was said in favour of a standing army; and the name of standing army was hateful to them. One such army had held dominion in England; and under that dominion the King had been murdered, the nobility degraded, the landed gentry plundered, the Church persecuted. There was scarcely a rural grandee who could not tell a story of wrongs and insults suffered by himself, or by his father, at the hands of the parliamentary soldiers. One old Cavalier had seen half his manor house blown up. The hereditary elms of another had been hewn down. A third could never go into his parish church without being reminded by the defaced scutcheons and headless statues of his ancestry, that Oliver's redcoats had once stabled their horses there. The consequence was that those very Royalists, who were most ready to fight for the King themselves, were the last persons whom he could venture to ask for the means of hiring regular troops.

There were those who viewed the militia with skepticism. Men who had traveled extensively across the continent and marveled at the strict discipline with which every guard moved and spoke in the fortifications designed by Vauban, who had seen the massive armies marching along the roads of Germany to drive the Ottomans from the Gates of Vienna, and who had been impressed by the organized splendor of Louis’ household troops, often scoffed at the way the farmers from Devonshire and Yorkshire marched and maneuvered, carrying muskets and pikes. The opponents of England's liberties and religion looked with disdain on a force that couldn’t, without considerable risk, be used against those liberties and that religion, and seized every chance to mock the rural soldiers. Enlightened patriots, when they compared these rough recruits to the battalions that could quickly arrive on the coasts of Kent or Sussex in times of war, were obliged to admit that, while maintaining a permanent military force might be risky, it could be even more dangerous to wager the honor and independence of the country on a battle between farmers led by Justices of the Peace, and seasoned fighters commanded by French Marshals. In Parliament, however, expressing such views required restraint, as the militia was a widely popular institution. Any criticism of it sparked outrage from both major political parties, particularly from those known for their fervent support of the monarchy and the Anglican Church. The county militias were mostly led by Tory nobles and gentlemen, who took pride in their military rank and regarded any disrespect toward the service as a personal insult. They also recognized that any criticism of the militia was essentially supporting a standing army, a term that repulsed them. One such army had ruled England; and under its control, the King was murdered, the nobility degraded, the landed gentry plundered, and the Church persecuted. Almost every rural aristocrat had a story about the wrongs and insults inflicted on them or their fathers by the parliamentary soldiers. One old Cavalier had seen half of his manor house blown up. The ancestral elms of another had been cut down. A third could never enter his parish church without being reminded by the damaged crests and headless statues of his lineage that Oliver's redcoats had once kept their horses there. As a result, those very Royalists, who were most eager to fight for the King themselves, were the last people he could risk asking for help in hiring regular troops.

Charles, however, had, a few months after his restoration, begun to form a small standing army. He felt that, without some better protection than that of the trainbands and beefeaters, his palace and person would hardly be secure, in the vicinity of a great city swarming with warlike Fifth Monarchy men who had just been disbanded. He therefore, careless and profuse as he was, contrived to spare from his pleasures a sum sufficient to keep up a body of guards. With the increase of trade and of public wealth his revenues increased; and he was thus enabled, in spite of the occasional murmurs of the Commons, to make gradual additions to his regular forces. One considerable addition was made a few months before the close of his reign. The costly, useless, and pestilential settlement of Tangier was abandoned to the barbarians who dwelt around it; and the garrison, consisting of one regiment of horse and two regiments of foot, was brought to England.

Charles, however, a few months after he returned to power, started to build a small standing army. He realized that without better protection than what the local militia and palace guards offered, his palace and safety wouldn’t be secure, especially near a large city filled with aggressive Fifth Monarchy supporters who had just been disbanded. So, despite being careless and extravagant, he managed to set aside some money from his pleasures to maintain a group of guards. As trade and public wealth grew, his income also increased; this allowed him, despite occasional complaints from the Commons, to gradually add to his regular forces. One significant addition happened a few months before his reign ended. The expensive, pointless, and troublesome settlement of Tangier was abandoned to the nearby tribes; and the garrison, made up of one cavalry regiment and two infantry regiments, was brought back to England.

The little army formed by Charles the Second was the germ of that great and renowned army which has, in the present century, marched triumphant into Madrid and Paris, into Canton and Candahar. The Life Guards, who now form two regiments, were then distributed into three troops, each of which consisted of two hundred carabineers, exclusive of officers. This corps, to which the safety of the King and royal family was confided, had a very peculiar character. Even the privates were designated as gentlemen of the Guard. Many of them were of good families, and had held commissions in the civil war. Their pay was far higher than that of the most favoured regiment of our time, and would in that age have been thought a respectable provision for the younger son of a country squire. Their fine horses, their rich housings, their cuirasses, and their buff coats adorned with ribands, velvet, and gold lace, made a splendid appearance in Saint James's Park. A small body of grenadier dragoons, who came from a lower class and received lower pay, was attached to each troop. Another body of household cavalry distinguished by blue coats and cloaks, and still called the Blues, was generally quartered in the neighbourhood of the capital. Near the capital lay also the corps which is now designated as the first regiment of dragoons, but which was then the only regiment of dragoons on the English establishment. It had recently been formed out of the cavalry which had returned from Tangier. A single troop of dragoons, which did not form part of any regiment, was stationed near Berwick, for the purpose of keeping, the peace among the mosstroopers of the border. For this species of service the dragoon was then thought to be peculiarly qualified. He has since become a mere horse soldier. But in the seventeenth century he was accurately described by Montecuculi as a foot soldier who used a horse only in order to arrive with more speed at the place where military service was to be performed.

The small army formed by Charles the Second was the foundation of that great and famous army which, in this century, has marched triumphantly into Madrid and Paris, into Canton and Candahar. The Life Guards, now consisting of two regiments, were originally organized into three troops, each made up of two hundred carabineers, not including officers. This corps, responsible for the safety of the King and royal family, had a very unique character. Even the privates were referred to as gentlemen of the Guard. Many of them came from good families and had held commissions during the civil war. Their pay was significantly higher than that of the most favored regiment of today, and would have been seen as a decent income for the younger son of a country gentleman back then. Their impressive horses, rich trappings, cuirasses, and buff coats adorned with ribbons, velvet, and gold lace created a striking sight in Saint James's Park. A small group of grenadier dragoons, who came from a lower social class and earned less, was attached to each troop. Another unit of household cavalry, marked by blue coats and cloaks, still known as the Blues, was generally stationed near the capital. Close to the capital was also the corps now referred to as the first regiment of dragoons, which was then the only dragoon regiment in the English army. It had recently been established from the cavalry that returned from Tangier. A single troop of dragoons, not part of any regiment, was stationed near Berwick to maintain peace among the moss troopers of the border. For this type of duty, the dragoon was then considered especially suited. He has since become just a horse soldier. However, in the seventeenth century, he was accurately described by Montecuculi as a foot soldier who used a horse only to get to the military duty location more quickly.

The household infantry consisted of two regiments, which were then, as now, called the first regiment of Foot Guards, and the Coldstream Guards. They generally did duty near Whitehall and Saint James's Palace. As there were then no barracks, and as, by the Petition of Right, it had been declared unlawful to quarter soldiers on private families, the redcoats filled all the alehouses of Westminster and the Strand.

The household infantry was made up of two regiments, which were called the first regiment of Foot Guards and the Coldstream Guards, just like today. They usually served near Whitehall and St. James's Palace. Since there were no barracks at that time and, according to the Petition of Right, it was declared illegal to put soldiers in private homes, the redcoats occupied all the pubs in Westminster and the Strand.

There were five other regiments of foot. One of these, called the Admiral's Regiment, was especially destined to service on board of the fleet. The remaining four still rank as the first four regiments of the line. Two of these represented two brigades which had long sustained on the Continent the fame of British valour. The first, or Royal regiment, had, under the great Gustavus, borne a conspicuous part in the deliverance of Germany. The third regiment, distinguished by fleshcoloured facings, from which it had derived the well known name of the Buffs, had, under Maurice of Nassau, fought not less bravely for the deliverance of the Netherlands. Both these gallant bands had at length, after many vicissitudes, been recalled from foreign service by Charles the Second, and had been placed on the English establishment.

There were five other infantry regiments. One of these, known as the Admiral's Regiment, was specifically assigned to service on board the fleet. The other four are still recognized as the first four regiments of the line. Two of these represented two brigades that had long upheld the reputation of British bravery on the Continent. The first, or Royal regiment, had played a significant role in freeing Germany under the great Gustavus. The third regiment, notable for its flesh-colored facings, which gave it the well-known name of the Buffs, had also fought valiantly for the liberation of the Netherlands under Maurice of Nassau. After many changes, both of these brave units were eventually called back from foreign service by Charles the Second and integrated into the English military.

The regiments which now rank as the second and fourth of the line had, in 1685, just returned from Tangier, bringing with them cruel and licentious habits contracted in a long course of warfare with the Moors. A few companies of infantry which had not been regimented lay in garrison at Tilbury Fort, at Portsmouth, at Plymouth, and at some other important stations on or near the coast.

The regiments that are now known as the second and fourth in line had just returned from Tangier in 1685, bringing back with them harsh and immoral habits picked up during a long period of fighting against the Moors. A few companies of infantry that were not yet organized as regiments were stationed at Tilbury Fort, Portsmouth, Plymouth, and a few other key locations on or near the coast.

Since the beginning of the seventeenth century a great change had taken place in the arms of the infantry. The pike had been gradually giving place to the musket; and, at the close of the reign of Charles the Second, most of his foot were musketeers. Still, however, there was a large intermixture of pikemen. Each class of troops was occasionally instructed in the use of the weapon which peculiarly belonged to the other class. Every foot soldier had at his side a sword for close fight. The musketeer was generally provided with a weapon which had, during many years, been gradually coming into use, and which the English then called a dagger, but which, from the time of William the Third, has been known among us by the French name of bayonet. The bayonet seems not to have been then so formidable an instrument of destruction as it has since become; for it was inserted in the muzzle of the gun; and in action much time was lost while the soldier unfixed his bayonet in order to fire, and fixed it again in order to charge. The dragoon, when dismounted, fought as a musketeer.

Since the early seventeenth century, significant changes had occurred in infantry weaponry. The pike was gradually being replaced by the musket, and by the end of Charles the Second's reign, most of his infantry were musketeers. However, there was still a considerable mix of pikemen. Troops from each category occasionally trained in using the weapon specific to the other group. Every foot soldier carried a sword for close combat. The musketeer typically had a weapon that had been coming into use for many years, which the English at the time referred to as a dagger, but which has been known by its French name, bayonet, since the time of William the Third. The bayonet didn't seem to be as deadly then as it eventually became; it was inserted into the muzzle of the gun, and during battle, much time was wasted as soldiers removed the bayonet to fire and then reattached it to charge. When dismounted, the dragoon fought as a musketeer.

The regular army which was kept up in England at the beginning of the year 1685 consisted, all ranks included, of about seven thousand foot, and about seventeen hundred cavalry and dragoons. The whole charge amounted to about two hundred and ninety thousand pounds a year, less then a tenth part of what the military establishment of France then cost in time of peace. The daily pay of a private in the Life Guards was four shillings, in the Blues two shillings and sixpence, in the Dragoons eighteen pence, in the Foot Guards tenpence, and in the line eightpence. The discipline was lax, and indeed could not be otherwise. The common law of England knew nothing of courts martial, and made no distinction, in time of peace, between a soldier and any other subject; nor could the government then venture to ask even the most loyal Parliament for a Mutiny Bill. A soldier, therefore, by knocking down his colonel, incurred only the ordinary penalties of assault and battery, and by refusing to obey orders, by sleeping on guard, or by deserting his colours, incurred no legal penalty at all. Military punishments were doubtless inflicted during the reign of Charles the Second; but they were inflicted very sparingly, and in such a manner as not to attract public notice, or to produce an appeal to the courts of Westminster Hall.

The regular army in England at the start of 1685 had about seven thousand infantry and roughly seventeen hundred cavalry and dragoons across all ranks. The total annual cost was around two hundred and ninety thousand pounds, which was less than a tenth of what France's military establishment spent during peacetime. A private in the Life Guards earned four shillings daily, in the Blues two shillings and sixpence, in the Dragoons eighteen pence, in the Foot Guards tenpence, and in the line eight pence. Discipline was slack and it couldn’t be otherwise. English common law didn’t recognize courts martial and made no distinction between a soldier and any other citizen during peacetime; the government also couldn’t risk asking even the most loyal Parliament for a Mutiny Bill. Thus, a soldier could knock down his colonel and face only the usual consequences for assault and battery, and if he disobeyed orders, fell asleep on guard, or deserted, he had no legal penalties at all. Military punishments were certainly carried out during Charles the Second's reign, but very rarely, and in a way that didn’t draw public attention or lead to appeals in the courts of Westminster Hall.

Such an army as has been described was not very likely to enslave five millions of Englishmen. It would indeed have been unable to suppress an insurrection in London, if the trainbands of the City had joined the insurgents. Nor could the King expect that, if a rising took place in England, he would obtain effectual help from his other dominions. For, though both Scotland and Ireland supported separate military establishments, those establishments were not more than sufficient to keep down the Puritan malecontents of the former kingdom and the Popish malecontents of the latter. The government had, however, an important military resource which must not be left unnoticed. There were in the pay of the United Provinces six fine regiments, of which three had been raised in England and three in Scotland. Their native prince had reserved to himself the power of recalling them, if he needed their help against a foreign or domestic enemy. In the meantime they were maintained without any charge to him, and were kept under an excellent discipline to which he could not have ventured to subject them. 46

An army like the one described was unlikely to enslave five million English people. It would have struggled to put down a rebellion in London, especially if the city's militia joined the rebels. The King also couldn't count on significant support from his other territories if unrest broke out in England. Both Scotland and Ireland had their own military forces, but those were only enough to manage the discontent among the Puritans in Scotland and the Catholics in Ireland. However, the government had a key military asset that should not be overlooked. The United Provinces were funding six strong regiments, three raised in England and three in Scotland. Their home prince had the authority to call them back if he needed them for a foreign or internal threat. In the meantime, they were funded at no cost to him and were kept under excellent discipline that he wouldn't have dared to enforce himself. 46

If the jealousy of the Parliament and of the nation made it impossible for the King to maintain a formidable standing army, no similar impediment prevented him from making England the first of maritime powers. Both Whigs and Tories were ready to applaud every step tending to increase the efficiency of that force which, while it was the best protection of the island against foreign enemies, was powerless against civil liberty. All the greatest exploits achieved within the memory of that generation by English soldiers had been achieved in war against English princes. The victories of our sailors had been won over foreign foes, and had averted havoc and rapine from our own soil. By at least half the nation the battle of Naseby was remembered with horror, and the battle of Dunbar with pride chequered by many painful feelings: but the defeat of the Armada, and the encounters of Blake with the Hollanders and Spaniards were recollected with unmixed exultation by all parties. Ever since the Restoration, the Commons, even when most discontented and most parsimonious, had always been bountiful to profusion where the interest of the navy was concerned. It had been represented to them, while Danby was minister, that many of the vessels in the royal fleet were old and unfit for sea; and, although the House was, at that time, in no giving mood, an aid of near six hundred thousand pounds had been granted for the building of thirty new men of war.

If the jealousy of Parliament and the nation made it impossible for the King to keep a strong standing army, there was no similar obstacle preventing him from making England the top maritime power. Both Whigs and Tories were quick to support every measure aimed at boosting the efficiency of a force that, while being the best defense of the island against foreign enemies, was ineffective against civil liberty. All the greatest achievements of English soldiers during that generation were against English princes. Our sailors' victories were over foreign foes and kept devastation and looting off our own land. At least half the nation remembered the battle of Naseby with horror, and the battle of Dunbar with a mix of pride and painful emotions; however, the defeat of the Armada and Blake's encounters with the Dutch and Spaniards were recalled with pure joy by everyone. Since the Restoration, the Commons, even when most dissatisfied and stingy, had always been generous to excess when it came to the interests of the navy. It had been reported to them, while Danby was minister, that many ships in the royal fleet were old and unfit for the sea; and although the House wasn’t inclined to give at that moment, they granted nearly six hundred thousand pounds for the construction of thirty new warships.

But the liberality of the nation had been made fruitless by the vices of the government. The list of the King's ships, it is true, looked well. There were nine first rates, fourteen second rates, thirty-nine third rates, and many smaller vessels. The first rates, indeed, were less than the third rates of our time; and the third rates would not now rank as very large frigates. This force, however, if it had been efficient, would in those days have been regarded by the greatest potentate as formidable. But it existed only on paper. When the reign of Charles terminated, his navy had sunk into degradation and decay, such as would be almost incredible if it were not certified to us by the independent and concurring evidence of witnesses whose authority is beyond exception. Pepys, the ablest man in the English Admiralty, drew up, in the year 1684, a memorial on the state of his department, for the information of Charles. A few months later Bonrepaux, the ablest man in the French Admiralty, having visited England for the especial purpose of ascertaining her maritime strength, laid the result of his inquiries before Lewis. The two reports are to the same effect. Bonrepaux declared that he found everything in disorder and in miserable condition, that the superiority of the French marine was acknowledged with shame and envy at Whitehall, and that the state of our shipping and dockyards was of itself a sufficient guarantee that we should not meddle in the disputes of Europe. 47 Pepys informed his master that the naval administration was a prodigy of wastefulness, corruption, ignorance, and indolence, that no estimate could be trusted, that no contract was performed, that no check was enforced. The vessels which the recent liberality of Parliament had enabled the government to build, and which had never been out of harbour, had been made of such wretched timber that they were more unfit to go to sea than the old hulls which had been battered thirty years before by Dutch and Spanish broadsides. Some of the new men of war, indeed, were so rotten that, unless speedily repaired, they would go down at their moorings. The sailors were paid with so little punctuality that they were glad to find some usurer who would purchase their tickets at forty per cent. discount. The commanders who had not powerful friends at court were even worse treated. Some officers, to whom large arrears were due, after vainly importuning the government during many years, had died for want of a morsel of bread.

But the generosity of the country had been wasted because of the government's issues. The list of the King's ships, to be fair, looked impressive. There were nine first rates, fourteen second rates, thirty-nine third rates, and many smaller vessels. The first rates, in fact, were fewer than today's third rates, and the third rates wouldn't even be considered large frigates by now. However, if this force had been effective, it would have been seen as a serious threat by even the most powerful leaders of that time. Unfortunately, it only existed on paper. By the end of Charles's reign, his navy had severely declined and fallen into disrepair, a situation that would be almost unbelievable if we didn't have solid testimonies from credible witnesses. Pepys, the most capable person in the English Admiralty, wrote a memo in 1684 about the state of his department for Charles's awareness. A few months later, Bonrepaux, the top official in the French Admiralty, visited England specifically to assess its maritime strength and presented his findings to Louis. Both reports confirmed the same issues. Bonrepaux stated that he found everything in chaos and in terrible condition, that the French navy's superiority was acknowledged with embarrassment and envy at Whitehall, and that the state of our ships and dockyards was enough proof that we shouldn't get involved in Europe's conflicts. 47 Pepys informed his boss that the naval management was a complete mess of wastefulness, corruption, ignorance, and laziness, that no estimates could be trusted, that no contracts were fulfilled, and that no oversight was enforced. The ships that Parliament's recent generosity had allowed the government to build, which had never left the harbor, were made of such poor-quality wood that they were more unfit for sea duty than the old hulls battered by Dutch and Spanish cannon fire thirty years earlier. Some of the new warships were so decayed that, unless quickly repaired, they would sink at their docks. The sailors were paid so infrequently that they were happy to find a usurer who would buy their pay tickets at a forty percent discount. The commanders without influential friends at court were treated even worse. Some officers, owed large amounts in back pay, had died after pleading with the government for many years for just a crumb of bread.

Most of the ships which were afloat were commanded by men who had not been bred to the sea. This, it is true, was not an abuse introduced by the government of Charles. No state, ancient or modern, had, before that time, made a complete separation between the naval and military service. In the great civilised nations of antiquity, Cimon and Lysander, Pompey and Agrippa, had fought battles by sea as well as by land. Nor had the impulse which nautical science received at the close of the fifteenth century produced any new division of labour. At Flodden the right wing of the victorious army was led by the Admiral of England. At Jarnac and Moncontour the Huguenot ranks were marshalled by the Admiral of France. Neither John of Austria, the conqueror of Lepanto, nor Lord Howard of Effingham, to whose direction the marine of England was confided when the Spanish invaders were approaching our shores, had received the education of a sailor. Raleigh, highly celebrated as a naval commander, had served during many years as a soldier in France, the Netherlands, and Ireland. Blake had distinguished himself by his skilful and valiant defence of an inland town before he humbled the pride of Holland and of Castile on the ocean. Since the Restoration the same system had been followed. Great fleets had been entrusted to the direction of Rupert and Monk; Rupert, who was renowned chiefly as a hot and daring cavalry officer, and Monk, who, when he wished his ship to change her course, moved the mirth of his crew by calling out, "Wheel to the left!"

Most of the ships that were out at sea were commanded by men who weren’t raised to be sailors. This, to be fair, wasn’t a problem started by Charles’s government. No state, ancient or modern, had completely separated naval and military service before that time. In the great civilizations of the past, figures like Cimon and Lysander, Pompey and Agrippa, fought battles on both sea and land. The surge in nautical knowledge at the end of the fifteenth century didn’t create any new division of labor either. At Flodden, the right wing of the victorious army was led by the Admiral of England. At Jarnac and Moncontour, the Huguenot forces were organized by the Admiral of France. Both John of Austria, who won at Lepanto, and Lord Howard of Effingham, who was in charge of the English navy when the Spanish invaders approached, were not trained sailors. Raleigh, who was highly regarded as a naval commander, had spent many years serving as a soldier in France, the Netherlands, and Ireland. Blake gained recognition for his skilled and brave defense of an inland town before he defeated the pride of Holland and Castile at sea. Since the Restoration, the same system continued. Great fleets were placed in the hands of Rupert and Monk; Rupert, known mainly as an aggressive and bold cavalry officer, and Monk, who would amuse his crew by calling out, “Wheel to the left!” whenever he wanted his ship to change direction.

But about this time wise men began to perceive that the rapid improvement, both of the art of war and of the art of navigation, made it necessary to draw a line between two professions which had hitherto been confounded. Either the command of a regiment or the command of a ship was now a matter quite sufficient to occupy the attention of a single mind. In the year 1672 the French government determined to educate young men of good family from a very early age especially for the sea service. But the English government, instead of following this excellent example, not only continued to distribute high naval commands among landsmen, but selected for such commands landsmen who, even on land, could not safely have been put in any important trust. Any lad of noble birth, any dissolute courtier for whom one of the King's mistresses would speak a word, might hope that a ship of the line, and with it the honour of the country and the lives of hundreds of brave men, would be committed to his care. It mattered not that he had never in his life taken a voyage except on the Thames, that he could not keep his feet in a breeze, that he did not know the difference between latitude and longitude. No previous training was thought necessary; or, at most, he was sent to make a short trip in a man of war, where he was subjected to no discipline, where he was treated with marked respect, and where he lived in a round of revels and amusements. If, in the intervals of feasting, drinking, and gambling, he succeeded in learning the meaning of a few technical phrases and the names of the points of the compass, he was thought fully qualified to take charge of a three-decker. This is no imaginary description. In 1666, John Sheffield, Earl of Mulgrave, at seventeen years of age, volunteered to serve at sea against the Dutch. He passed six weeks on board, diverting himself, as well as he could, in the society of some young libertines of rank, and then returned home to take the command of a troop of horse. After this he was never on the water till the year 1672, when he again joined the fleet, and was almost immediately appointed Captain of a ship of eighty-four guns, reputed the finest in the navy. He was then twenty-three years old, and had not, in the whole course of his life, been three months afloat. As soon as he came back from sea he was made Colonel of a regiment of foot. This is a specimen of the manner in which naval commands of the highest importance were then given; and a very favourable specimen; for Mulgrave, though he wanted experience, wanted neither parts nor courage. Others were promoted in the same way who not only were not good officers, but who were intellectually and morally incapable of ever becoming good officers, and whose only recommendation was that they had been ruined by folly and vice. The chief bait which allured these men into the service was the profit of conveying bullion and other valuable commodities from port to port; for both the Atlantic and the Mediterranean were then so much infested by pirates from Barbary that merchants were not willing to trust precious cargoes to any custody but that of a man of war. A Captain might thus clear several thousands of pounds by a short voyage; and for this lucrative business he too often neglected the interests of his country and the honour of his flag, made mean submissions to foreign powers, disobeyed the most direct injunctions of his superiors, lay in port when he was ordered to chase a Sallee rover, or ran with dollars to Leghorn when his instructions directed him to repair to Lisbon. And all this he did with impunity. The same interest which had placed him in a post for which he was unfit maintained him there. No Admiral, bearded by these corrupt and dissolute minions of the palace, dared to do more than mutter something about a court martial. If any officer showed a higher sense of duty than his fellows, he soon found out he lost money without acquiring honor. One Captain, who, by strictly obeying the orders of the Admiralty, missed a cargo which would have been worth four thousand pounds to him, was told by Charles, with ignoble levity, that he was a great fool for his pains.

But around this time, wise people started to realize that the rapid advancements in both warfare and navigation made it necessary to distinguish between two professions that had previously been mixed up. Either leading a regiment or commanding a ship was now a task sufficient to occupy the mind of one person. In 1672, the French government decided to train young men from good families specifically for naval service from a very early age. However, the English government, instead of following this excellent example, continued to assign high naval commands to land-based individuals, often selecting those who couldn't even be trusted with important duties on land. Any young noble or any disreputable courtier who could get a favorable word from one of the King's mistresses might expect to command a ship of the line, alongside the honor of the country and the lives of hundreds of brave men. It didn't matter that he had only ever sailed the Thames, that he couldn't keep his balance in the wind, or that he didn't know the difference between latitude and longitude. No prior training was considered necessary; at most, he would go on a short trip in a warship, where he faced no discipline, was treated with great respect, and engaged in a cycle of feasting and entertainment. If, between indulgences of eating, drinking, and gambling, he managed to learn a few technical terms and the names of the compass points, he was deemed fully qualified to command a three-decker. This is no made-up story. In 1666, John Sheffield, the Earl of Mulgrave, volunteered to serve at sea against the Dutch at seventeen. He spent six weeks on board, entertaining himself as best he could among a group of young, privileged libertines, and then returned home to lead a troop of cavalry. After that, he never went back to sea until 1672, when he rejoined the fleet and was almost immediately appointed Captain of an eighty-four-gun ship, considered the finest in the navy. He was then twenty-three years old and had spent no more than three months at sea in his entire life. Once he returned from the ocean, he was made Colonel of a infantry regiment. This exemplifies how top naval commands were issued back then; and it's a somewhat favorable case since Mulgrave, despite lacking experience, had both intelligence and courage. Others were promoted in the same way who were not only poor officers but who were intellectually and morally incapable of ever being good officers, and their only qualification was that they had been ruined by foolishness and vice. The primary lure that drew these individuals into service was the profit from transporting gold and other valuable goods from port to port; for both the Atlantic and the Mediterranean were heavily infested with pirates from Barbary, making merchants reluctant to entrust valuable cargoes to anyone but a warship. A Captain could clear several thousand pounds from a short voyage, and for this lucrative business, he often neglected the interests of his country and the honor of his flag, made humiliating concessions to foreign powers, defied direct orders from his superiors, stayed in port when he was supposed to pursue a Sallee rover, or sailed to Leghorn with gold when his orders were to go to Lisbon. And he got away with it. The same interests that had placed him in an unsuitable position kept him there. No Admiral, confronted by these corrupt and dissolute court favorites, dared to do anything more than whisper something about a court martial. If any officer exhibited a stronger sense of duty than his peers, he quickly discovered that he would lose money without gaining honor. One Captain, who strictly followed the Admiralty’s orders, missed a cargo that could have been worth four thousand pounds to him, and was told by Charles, with contemptible lightness, that he was a great fool for his efforts.

The discipline of the navy was of a piece throughout. As the courtly Captain despised the Admiralty, he was in turn despised by his crew. It could not be concealed that he was inferior in Seamanship to every foremast man on board. It was idle to expect that old sailors, familiar with the hurricanes of the tropics and with the icebergs of the Arctic Circle, would pay prompt and respectful obedience to a chief who knew no more of winds and waves than could be learned in a gilded barge between Whitehall Stairs and Hampton Court. To trust such a novice with the working of a ship was evidently impossible. The direction of the navigation was therefore taken from the Captain and given to the Master; but this partition of authority produced innumerable inconveniences. The line of demarcation was not, and perhaps could not be, drawn with precision. There was therefore constant wrangling. The Captain, confident in proportion to his ignorance, treated the Master with lordly contempt. The Master, well aware of the danger of disobliging the powerful, too often, after a struggle, yielded against his better judgment; and it was well if the loss of ship and crew was not the consequence. In general the least mischievous of the aristocratical Captains were those who completely abandoned to others the direction of the vessels, and thought only of making money and spending it. The way in which these men lived was so ostentatious and voluptuous that, greedy as they were of gain, they seldom became rich. They dressed as if for a gala at Versailles, ate off plate, drank the richest wines, and kept harems on board, while hunger and scurvy raged among the crews, and while corpses were daily flung out of the portholes.

The navy's discipline was consistent throughout. The snobby Captain looked down on the Admiralty, and his crew, in turn, looked down on him. It was obvious that he was less skilled in seamanship than anyone else on the ship. It was unrealistic to expect seasoned sailors, experienced with tropical hurricanes and Arctic icebergs, to show prompt and respectful obedience to a leader who knew nothing about navigating the seas beyond what he could learn in a fancy boat traveling from Whitehall Stairs to Hampton Court. Trusting such a rookie with the operation of a ship was clearly out of the question. So, the navigation responsibility was taken from the Captain and given to the Master; however, this division of authority led to many problems. The boundary between their roles was vague and likely could never be defined clearly. This resulted in constant arguments. The Captain, overconfident despite his lack of knowledge, treated the Master with arrogant disdain. The Master, aware of the risks of upsetting someone powerful, often ended up conceding against his better judgment after a struggle; and it was fortunate if that didn’t lead to the loss of the ship and crew. Generally, the least harmful of the arrogant Captains were those who completely delegated the navigation to others and focused solely on earning and spending money. Their extravagant lifestyles were so ostentatious that, despite their greed for wealth, they rarely became rich. They dressed for a gala at Versailles, dined on fine china, drank the best wines, and kept harems on board, all while hunger and scurvy ran rampant among the crew, and corpses were routinely thrown out of the portholes.

Such was the ordinary character of those who were then called gentlemen Captains. Mingled with them were to be found, happily for our country, naval commanders of a very different description, men whose whole life had been passed on the deep, and who had worked and fought their way from the lowest offices of the forecastle to rank and distinction. One of the most eminent of these officers was Sir Christopher Mings, who entered the service as a cabin boy, who fell fighting bravely against the Dutch, and whom his crew, weeping and vowing vengeance, carried to the grave. From him sprang, by a singular kind of descent, a line of valiant and expert sailors. His cabin boy was Sir John Narborough; and the cabin boy of Sir John Narborough was Sir Cloudesley Shovel. To the strong natural sense and dauntless courage of this class of men England owes a debt never to be forgotten. It was by such resolute hearts that, in spite of much maladministration, and in spite of the blunders and treasons of more courtly admirals, our coasts were protected and the reputation of our flag upheld during many gloomy and perilous years. But to a landsman these tarpaulins, as they were called, seemed a strange and half savage race. All their knowledge was professional; and their professional knowledge was practical rather than scientific. Off their own element they were as simple as children. Their deportment was uncouth. There was roughness in their very good nature; and their talk, where it was not made up of nautical phrases, was too commonly made up of oaths and curses. Such were the chiefs in whose rude school were formed those sturdy warriors from whom Smollett, in the next age, drew Lieutenant Bowling and Commodore Trunnion. But it does not appear that there was in the service of any of the Stuarts a single naval officer such as, according to the notions of our times, a naval officer ought to be, that is to say, a man versed in the theory and practice of his calling, and steeled against all the dangers of battle and tempest, yet of cultivated mind and polished manners. There were gentlemen and there were seamen in the navy of Charles the Second. But the seamen were not gentlemen; and the gentlemen were not seamen.

The typical character of those who were then called gentlemen captains was quite ordinary. Fortunately for our country, there were also naval commanders of a very different kind—men who had spent their entire lives at sea and had worked and fought their way up from the lowest ranks to achieve respect and recognition. One of the most notable of these officers was Sir Christopher Mings, who started his career as a cabin boy and died bravely fighting against the Dutch; his crew mourned for him and vowed to seek revenge, carrying him to his grave. From him came a remarkable line of brave and skilled sailors. His cabin boy was Sir John Narborough, and Sir John Narborough's cabin boy was Sir Cloudesley Shovel. England owes a debt to the natural sense and fearless courage of these men that can never be forgotten. It was through their determined hearts that, despite significant mismanagement and the mistakes and betrayals of more aristocratic admirals, our coasts were defended and the reputation of our flag was maintained during many dark and dangerous years. But to someone from the land, these sailors—often referred to as “tarpaulins”—seemed like a strange and somewhat primitive group. All their knowledge was professional, and their expertise was more practical than theoretical. Out of their element, they were as simple as children. Their behavior was rough around the edges. There was a ruggedness to their goodwill, and their conversations, when not filled with nautical terms, were often laced with swearing and cursing. These were the leaders in whose tough environment those strong warriors were shaped, from whom Smollett would later create Lieutenant Bowling and Commodore Trunnion. However, it seems there was no naval officer in the service of any of the Stuarts who fit the modern idea of what a naval officer should be—a person knowledgeable in both the theory and practice of their duties, toughened by the dangers of battle and storms, yet possessing a cultured mind and refined manners. In the navy of Charles the Second, there were gentlemen and there were sailors, but the sailors were not gentlemen, and the gentlemen were not sailors.

The English navy at that time might, according to the most exact estimates which have come down to us, have been kept in an efficient state for three hundred and eighty thousand pounds a year. Four hundred thousand pounds a year was the sum actually expended, but expended, as we have seen, to very little purpose. The cost of the French marine was nearly the same the cost of the Dutch marine considerably more. 48

The English navy back then, based on the best estimates we have, could have been maintained effectively for three hundred eighty thousand pounds a year. They actually spent four hundred thousand pounds a year, but as we’ve seen, this was mostly wasted. The cost of the French navy was about the same, while the cost of the Dutch navy was significantly higher. 48

The charge of the English ordnance in the seventeenth century was, as compared with other military and naval charges, much smaller than at present. At most of the garrisons there were gunners: and here and there, at an important post, an engineer was to be found. But there was no regiment of artillery, no brigade of sappers and miners, no college in which young soldiers could learn the scientific part of the art of war. The difficulty of moving field pieces was extreme. When, a few years later, William marched from Devonshire to London, the apparatus which he brought with him, though such as had long been in constant use on the Continent, and such as would now be regarded at Woolwich as rude and cumbrous, excited in our ancestors an admiration resembling that which the Indians of America felt for the Castilian harquebusses. The stock of gunpowder kept in the English forts and arsenals was boastfully mentioned by patriotic writers as something which might well impress neighbouring nations with awe. It amounted to fourteen or fifteen thousand barrels, about a twelfth of the quantity which it is now thought necessary to have in store. The expenditure under the head of ordnance was on an average a little above sixty thousand pounds a year. 49

The responsibility for managing English artillery in the seventeenth century was, compared to other military and naval roles, much smaller than it is today. Most garrisons had gunners, and occasionally, at a key location, an engineer could be found. However, there was no artillery regiment, no sapper and miner brigade, and no military academy where young soldiers could study the technical aspects of warfare. The challenge of transporting field artillery was significant. A few years later, when William marched from Devonshire to London, the equipment he brought, although commonly used on the Continent for a long time and considered outdated and bulky now at Woolwich, impressed our ancestors similarly to how Native Americans viewed the Spanish harquebusses. Patriotic writers proudly mentioned the stock of gunpowder stored in English forts and arsenals as something that could instill fear in neighboring countries. It totaled around fourteen or fifteen thousand barrels, about one-twelfth of the amount that is now deemed necessary to keep on hand. The annual budget for artillery averaged just over sixty thousand pounds. 49

The whole effective charge of the army, navy, and ordnance, was about seven hundred and fifty thousand pounds. The noneffective charge, which is now a heavy part of our public burdens, can hardly be said to have existed. A very small number of naval officers, who were not employed in the public service, drew half pay. No Lieutenant was on the list, nor any Captain who had not commanded a ship of the first or second rate. As the country then possessed only seventeen ships of the first and second rate that had ever been at sea, and as a large proportion of the persons who had commanded such ships had good posts on shore, the expenditure under this head must have been small indeed. 50 In the army, half pay was given merely as a special and temporary allowance to a small number of officers belonging to two regiments, which were peculiarly situated. 51 Greenwich Hospital had not been founded. Chelsea Hospital was building: but the cost of that institution was defrayed partly by a deduction from the pay of the troops, and partly by private subscription. The King promised to contribute only twenty thousand pounds for architectural expenses, and five thousand a year for the maintenance of the invalids. 52 It was no part of the plan that there should be outpensioners. The whole noneffective charge, military and naval, can scarcely have exceeded ten thousand pounds a year. It now exceeds ten thousand pounds a day.

The total effective cost of the army, navy, and ordnance was about seven hundred and fifty thousand pounds. The non-effective cost, which is now a significant part of our public burdens, was almost negligible. Only a very small number of naval officers who weren’t serving in the public sector received half pay. No Lieutenant was on the list, nor any Captain who hadn’t commanded a ship of the first or second rate. Since the country only had seventeen ships of the first and second rate that had ever been at sea, and a large number of those who had commanded such ships held good positions on land, the expenses in this area must have been very low indeed. 50 In the army, half pay was only a special and temporary allowance for a small number of officers from two regiments that were in unique situations. 51 Greenwich Hospital had not yet been established. Chelsea Hospital was under construction: the costs for this institution were covered partly through deductions from the pay of soldiers and partly through private donations. The King agreed to contribute only twenty thousand pounds for architectural costs and five thousand a year for the care of the invalids. 52 There was no plan for there to be outpensioners. The total non-effective cost, military and naval, could hardly have exceeded ten thousand pounds a year. Now it exceeds ten thousand pounds a day.

Of the expense of civil government only a small portion was defrayed by the crown. The great majority of the functionaries whose business was to administer justice and preserve order either gave their services to the public gratuitously, or were remunerated in a manner which caused no drain on the revenue of the state. The Sheriffs, mayors, and aldermen of the towns, the country gentlemen who were in the commission of the peace, the headboroughs, bailiffs, and petty constables, cost the King nothing. The superior courts of law were chiefly supported by fees.

Most of the costs of civil government were covered by the crown. The vast majority of officials responsible for administering justice and maintaining order either offered their services for free or were paid in a way that didn't impact the state's revenue. The sheriffs, mayors, and aldermen of the towns, the country gentlemen in charge of maintaining the peace, the headboroughs, bailiffs, and petty constables didn't cost the King anything. The higher courts were primarily funded by fees.

Our relations with foreign courts had been put on the most economical footing. The only diplomatic agent who had the title of Ambassador resided at Constantinople, and was partly supported by the Turkish Company. Even at the court of Versailles England had only an Envoy; and she had not even an Envoy at the Spanish, Swedish, and Danish courts. The whole expense under this head cannot, in the last year of the reign of Charles the Second, have much exceeded twenty thousand pounds. 53

Our relationships with foreign courts had been minimized to the most basic level. The only diplomatic agent with the title of Ambassador lived in Constantinople and was partially funded by the Turkish Company. Even at the court of Versailles, England only had an Envoy; and there was not even an Envoy at the Spanish, Swedish, and Danish courts. The total cost for this in the last year of Charles the Second's reign probably didn't go over twenty thousand pounds. 53

In this frugality there was nothing laudable. Charles was, as usual, niggardly in the wrong place, and munificent in the wrong place. The public service was starved that courtiers might be pampered. The expense of the navy, of the ordnance, of pensions to needy old officers, of missions to foreign courts, must seem small indeed to the present generation. But the personal favourites of the sovereign, his ministers, and the creatures of those ministers, were gorged with public money. Their salaries and pensions, when compared with the incomes of the nobility, the gentry, the commercial and professional men of that age, will appear enormous. The greatest estates in the kingdom then very little exceeded twenty thousand a year. The Duke of Ormond had twenty-two thousand a year. 54 The Duke of Buckingham, before his extravagance had impaired his great property, had nineteen thousand six hundred a year. 55 George Monk, Duke of Albemarle, who had been rewarded for his eminent services with immense grants of crown land, and who had been notorious both for covetousness and for parsimony, left fifteen thousand a year of real estate, and sixty thousand pounds in money which probably yielded seven per cent. 56 These three Dukes were supposed to be three of the very richest subjects in England. The Archbishop of Canterbury can hardly have had five thousand a year. 57 The average income of a temporal peer was estimated, by the best informed persons, at about three thousand a year, the average income of a baronet at nine hundred a year, the average income of a member of the House of Commons at less than eight hundred a year. 58 A thousand a year was thought a large revenue for a barrister. Two thousand a year was hardly to be made in the Court of King's Bench, except by the crown lawyers. 59 It is evident, therefore, that an official man would have been well paid if he had received a fourth or fifth part of what would now be an adequate stipend. In fact, however, the stipends of the higher class of official men were as large as at present, and not seldom larger. The Lord Treasurer, for example, had eight thousand a year, and, when the Treasury was in commission, the junior Lords had sixteen hundred a year each. The Paymaster of the Forces had a poundage, amounting, in time of peace, to about five thousand a year, on all the money which passed through his hands. The Groom of the Stole had five thousand a year, the Commissioners of the Customs twelve hundred a year each, the Lords of the Bedchamber a thousand a year each. 60 The regular salary, however, was the smallest part of the gains of an official man at that age. From the noblemen who held the white staff and the great seal, down to the humblest tidewaiter and gauger, what would now be called gross corruption was practiced without disguise and without reproach. Titles, places, commissions, pardons, were daily sold in market overt by the great dignitaries of the realm; and every clerk in every department imitated, to the best of his power, the evil example.

In this frugality, there was nothing praiseworthy. Charles was, as usual, stingy in the wrong areas and generous in the wrong areas. Public services were neglected so that courtiers could live in luxury. The costs of the navy, ordnance, pensions for needy retired officers, and missions to foreign courts must seem small to today’s generation. But the king's personal favorites, his ministers, and the allies of those ministers were lavishly supplied with public funds. Their salaries and pensions, compared to the incomes of the nobility, gentry, and the commercial and professional classes of that time, would appear enormous. The largest estates in the kingdom didn't exceed twenty thousand a year. The Duke of Ormond had twenty-two thousand a year. 54 The Duke of Buckingham, before his lavish spending affected his great wealth, had nineteen thousand six hundred a year. 55 George Monk, Duke of Albemarle, who was rewarded for his significant services with large grants of crown land and was known for his greed and stinginess, left fifteen thousand a year in real estate and sixty thousand pounds in cash, which probably returned about seven percent. 56 These three Dukes were believed to be among the richest subjects in England. The Archbishop of Canterbury probably had less than five thousand a year. 57 The average income of a temporal peer was estimated by knowledgeable sources to be around three thousand a year, the average income for a baronet at nine hundred a year, and the average income for a member of the House of Commons at less than eight hundred a year. 58 A thousand a year was considered a good income for a barrister. Making two thousand a year was rarely achieved in the Court of King's Bench, except by the crown lawyers. 59 Therefore, it’s clear that an official would have been well compensated if he received a quarter or fifth of what would now be a reasonable salary. However, the salaries of higher-ranking officials were as large as they are now, and often larger. The Lord Treasurer, for example, had eight thousand a year, and when the Treasury was in commission, the junior Lords received sixteen hundred a year each. The Paymaster of the Forces had a fee that amounted to about five thousand a year during peacetime for all the money that passed through his hands. The Groom of the Stole had five thousand a year, the Commissioners of the Customs twelve hundred a year each, and the Lords of the Bedchamber a thousand a year each. 60 However, the regular salary was the smallest part of an official's earnings at that time. From the noblemen who held the white staff and great seal down to the lowest tidewaiter and gauger, what we would now call outright corruption was practiced openly and without shame. Titles, positions, commissions, pardons were routinely sold in open markets by the top officials of the realm, and every clerk in every department tried to mimic this corrupt behavior as much as possible.

During the last century no prime minister, however powerful, has become rich in office; and several prime ministers have impaired their private fortune in sustaining their public character. In the seventeenth century, a statesman who was at the head of affairs might easily, and without giving scandal, accumulate in no long time an estate amply sufficient to support a dukedom. It is probable that the income of the prime minister, during his tenure of power, far exceeded that of any other subject. The place of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland was popularly reported to be worth forty thousand pounds a year. 61 The gains of the Chancellor Clarendon, of Arlington, of Lauderdale, and of Danby, were certainly enormous. The sumptuous palace to which the populace of London gave the name of Dunkirk Mouse, the stately pavilions, the fishponds, the deer park and the orangery of Euston, the more than Italian luxury of Ham, with its busts, fountains, and aviaries, were among the many signs which indicated what was the shortest road to boundless wealth. This is the true explanation of the unscrupulous violence with which the statesmen of that day struggled for office, of the tenacity with which, in spite of vexations, humiliations and dangers, they clung to it, and of the scandalous compliances to which they stooped in order to retain it. Even in our own age, formidable as is the power of opinion, and high as is the standard of integrity, there would be great risk of a lamentable change in the character of our public men, if the place of First Lord of the Treasury or Secretary of State were worth a hundred thousand pounds a year. Happy for our country the emoluments of the highest class of functionaries have not only not grown in proportion to the general growth of our opulence, but have positively diminished.

In the past century, no prime minister, no matter how influential, has gotten rich while in office; and several have even lost personal wealth while trying to maintain their public image. In the seventeenth century, a politician in charge could easily, and without creating a scandal, quickly amass a fortune enough to support a dukedom. It's likely that the prime minister's income during their time in power far outstripped that of any other individual. The position of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland was commonly believed to be worth forty thousand pounds a year. 61 The earnings of Chancellor Clarendon, Arlington, Lauderdale, and Danby were undoubtedly vast. The lavish palace known as Dunkirk Mouse, the grand pavilions, the fishponds, the deer park, and the orangery at Euston, as well as the extravagant luxury of Ham, with its busts, fountains, and aviaries, were clear indications of the quickest route to immense wealth. This explains the ruthless determination with which politicians of that era fought for power, the persistence with which they clung to their positions despite setbacks, insults, and threats, and the questionable compromises they made to keep it. Even today, despite the strong influence of public opinion and a high standard of integrity, there would be a significant risk of a regrettable shift in the character of our public leaders if the roles of First Lord of the Treasury or Secretary of State were valued at a hundred thousand pounds a year. Fortunately for our country, the pay for our top officials has not only failed to increase in line with our overall wealth but has actually decreased.

The fact that the sum raised in England by taxation has, in a time not exceeding two long lives, been multiplied forty-fold, is strange, and may at first sight seem appalling. But those who are alarmed by the increase of the public burdens may perhaps be reassured when they have considered the increase of the public resources. In the year 1685, the value of the produce of the soil far exceeded the value of all the other fruits of human industry. Yet agriculture was in what would now be considered as a very rude and imperfect state. The arable land and pasture land were not supposed by the best political arithmeticians of that age to amount to much more than half the area of the kingdom. 62 The remainder was believed to consist of moor, forest, and fen. These computations are strongly confirmed by the road books and maps of the seventeenth century. From those books and maps it is clear that many routes which now pass through an endless succession of orchards, cornfields, hayfields, and beanfields, then ran through nothing but heath, swamp, and warren. 63 In the drawings of English landscapes made in that age for the Grand Duke Cosmo, scarce a hedgerow is to be seen, and numerous tracts; now rich with cultivation, appear as bare as Salisbury Plain. 64 At Enfield, hardly out of sight of the smoke of the capital, was a region of five and twenty miles in circumference, which contained only three houses and scarcely any enclosed fields. Deer, as free as in an American forest, wandered there by thousands. 65 It is to be remarked, that wild animals of large size were then far more numerous than at present. The last wild boars, indeed, which had been preserved for the royal diversion, and had been allowed to ravage the cultivated land with their tusks, had been slaughtered by the exasperated rustics during the license of the civil war. The last wolf that has roamed our island had been slain in Scotland a short time before the close of the reign of Charles the Second. But many breeds, now extinct, or rare, both of quadrupeds and birds, were still common. The fox, whose life is now, in many counties, held almost as sacred as that of a human being, was then considered as a mere nuisance. Oliver Saint John told the Long Parliament that Strafford was to be regarded, not as a stag or a hare, to whom some law was to be given, but as a fox, who was to be snared by any means, and knocked on the head without pity. This illustration would be by no means a happy one, if addressed to country gentlemen of our time: but in Saint John's days there were not seldom great massacres of foxes to which the peasantry thronged with all the dogs that could be mustered. Traps were set: nets were spread: no quarter was given; and to shoot a female with cub was considered as a feat which merited the warmest gratitude of the neighbourhood. The red deer were then as common in Gloucestershire and Hampshire, as they now are among the Grampian Hills. On one occasion Queen Anne, travelling to Portsmouth, saw a herd of no less than five hundred. The wild bull with his white mane was still to be found wandering in a few of the southern forests. The badger made his dark and tortuous hole on the side of every hill where the copsewood grew thick. The wild cats were frequently heard by night wailing round the lodges of the rangers of whittlebury and Needwood. The yellow-breasted martin was still pursued in Cranbourne Chase for his fur, reputed inferior only to that of the sable. Fen eagles, measuring more than nine feet between the extremities of the wings, preyed on fish along the coast of Norfolk. On all the downs, from the British Channel to Yorkshire huge bustards strayed in troops of fifty or sixty, and were often hunted with greyhounds. The marshes of Cambridgeshire and Lincolnshire were covered during some months of every year by immense clouds of cranes. Some of these races the progress of cultivation has extirpated. Of others the numbers are so much diminished that men crowd to gaze at a specimen as at a Bengal tiger, or a Polar bear. 66

The fact that the amount raised through taxation in England has been multiplied by forty in just a couple of lifetimes is unusual and might seem shocking at first. However, those worried about the rise in public taxes might feel more at ease after considering the growth of public resources. Back in 1685, the value of agricultural produce vastly outstripped the value of all other human endeavors. Yet, farming was in what we would now see as a very primitive and incomplete state. The best political mathematicians of that time estimated that arable and pasture land accounted for just over half of the kingdom’s total area. 62 The rest was thought to consist of moor, forest, and swamp. These estimates are strongly supported by road books and maps from the seventeenth century. From these sources, it’s obvious that many routes that now wind through endless orchards, fields of grain, hay, and beans once passed through nothing but heath, marsh, and wasteland. 63 In the artwork depicting English landscapes for Grand Duke Cosmo during that era, hedgerows are rarely seen, and many areas that are now heavily cultivated appeared as barren as Salisbury Plain. 64 Near Enfield, not far from the smoke of the capital, there was a region spanning twenty-five miles that had only three houses and hardly any enclosed fields. Thousands of deer roamed there as freely as in an American forest. 65 It's noteworthy that large wild animals were much more abundant back then than they are today. The last wild boars, which had been preserved for royal hunting and had been allowed to destroy cultivated land with their tusks, were slaughtered by angry villagers during the chaos of the civil war. The last wolf known to roam our island was killed in Scotland shortly before Charles the Second’s reign ended. However, many breeds of mammals and birds, now extinct or rare, were still quite common. The fox, which is now cherished in many counties, was seen back then as nothing more than a nuisance. Oliver Saint John told the Long Parliament that Strafford should not be seen like a stag or a hare, to whom laws apply, but as a fox, who should be trapped by any means necessary and killed without mercy. This comparison wouldn’t resonate well with today’s country gentlemen, but in Saint John’s time, large-scale fox hunts were common, with villagers showing up with all the dogs they could gather. Traps were set, nets were laid out, no mercy was shown, and shooting a female fox with kits was regarded as a feat deserving of great praise from the local community. Red deer were then as prevalent in Gloucestershire and Hampshire as they are now in the Grampian Hills. Once, Queen Anne spotted a herd of five hundred while traveling to Portsmouth. The wild bull with its white mane could still be found roaming a few southern forests. Badgers dug their dark, winding burrows on every hill where the underbrush was thick. Wildcats were often heard at night around the lodges of the rangers in Whittlebury and Needwood. The yellow-breasted martin was still hunted in Cranbourne Chase for its fur, considered second only to the sable’s. Fen eagles, spanning more than nine feet from tip to tip of their wings, hunted fish along the coast of Norfolk. Huge bustards wandered in flocks of fifty or sixty across all the downs from the British Channel to Yorkshire and were often chased with greyhounds. During some months of every year, the marshes of Cambridgeshire and Lincolnshire were filled with immense flocks of cranes. Some of these species have been wiped out by agricultural expansion. For others, the populations have dwindled so much that people gather to see them as they would a Bengal tiger or a Polar bear. 66

The progress of this great change can nowhere be more clearly traced than in the Statute Book. The number of enclosure acts passed since King George the Second came to the throne exceeds four thousand. The area enclosed under the authority of those acts exceeds, on a moderate calculation, ten thousand square miles. How many square miles, which were formerly uncultivated or ill cultivated, have, during the same period, been fenced and carefully tilled by the proprietors without any application to the legislature, can only be conjectured. But it seems highly probable that a fourth part of England has been, in the course of little more than a century, turned from a wild into a garden.

The progress of this significant change can be most clearly seen in the Statute Book. Since King George the Second took the throne, more than four thousand enclosure acts have been passed. The land enclosed under these acts amounts to over ten thousand square miles by a conservative estimate. It’s hard to know exactly how many square miles that were once uncultivated or poorly cultivated have been fenced and meticulously farmed by owners without going through the legislature during the same time. However, it seems very likely that about a quarter of England has been transformed from wilderness into cultivated land in just a little over a century.

Even in those parts of the kingdom which at the close of the reign of Charles the Second were the best cultivated, the farming, though greatly improved since the civil war, was not such as would now be thought skilful. To this day no effectual steps have been taken by public authority for the purpose of obtaining accurate accounts of the produce of the English soil. The historian must therefore follow, with some misgivings, the guidance of those writers on statistics whose reputation for diligence and fidelity stands highest. At present an average crop of wheat, rye, barley, oats, and beans, is supposed considerably to exceed thirty millions of quarters. The crop of wheat would be thought wretched if it did not exceed twelve millions of quarters. According to the computation made in the year 1696 by Gregory King, the whole quantity of wheat, rye, barley, oats, and beans, then annually grown in the kingdom, was somewhat less than ten millions of quarters. The wheat, which was then cultivated only on the strongest clay, and consumed only by those who were in easy circumstances, he estimated at less than two millions of quarters. Charles Davenant, an acute and well informed though most unprincipled and rancorous politician, differed from King as to some of the items of the account, but came to nearly the same general conclusions. 67

Even in the parts of the kingdom that were the most developed by the end of Charles the Second's reign, farming, while improved since the civil war, wouldn’t be considered skilled by today’s standards. To this day, public authorities have not taken effective steps to gather accurate data on the produce of English soil. Therefore, historians must cautiously rely on the work of those statistical writers who are most respected for their thoroughness and accuracy. Currently, an average crop of wheat, rye, barley, oats, and beans is estimated to exceed thirty million quarters. The wheat crop would be seen as terrible if it didn’t exceed twelve million quarters. According to Gregory King's calculations made in 1696, the total quantity of wheat, rye, barley, oats, and beans grown annually in the kingdom was just under ten million quarters. He estimated that the wheat, which was then only grown on the best clay and consumed exclusively by those in comfortable circumstances, amounted to less than two million quarters. Charles Davenant, a sharp and knowledgeable but highly unscrupulous and bitter politician, disagreed with King on some items in the account but reached similar overall conclusions. 67

The rotation of crops was very imperfectly understood. It was known, indeed, that some vegetables lately introduced into our island, particularly the turnip, afforded excellent nutriment in winter to sheep and oxen: but it was not yet the practice to feed cattle in this manner. It was therefore by no means easy to keep them alive during the season when the grass is scanty. They were killed and salted in great numbers at the beginning of the cold weather; and, during several months, even the gentry tasted scarcely any fresh animal food, except game and river fish, which were consequently much more important articles in housekeeping than at present. It appears from the Northumberland Household Book that, in the reign of Henry the Seventh, fresh meat was never eaten even by the gentlemen attendant on a great Earl, except during the short interval between Midsummer and Michaelmas. But in the course of two centuries an improvement had taken place; and under Charles the Second it was not till the beginning of November that families laid in their stock of salt provisions, then called Martinmas beef. 68

Crop rotation was not well understood. It was known that some vegetables recently introduced to our island, especially turnips, provided great nutrition in winter for sheep and cattle. However, it wasn't common practice to feed livestock this way. As a result, it was quite challenging to keep them alive during seasons when grass was scarce. Many were killed and salted in large numbers at the start of cold weather, and for several months, even the wealthy rarely ate fresh meat, except for game and river fish, making these items much more significant in households than they are today. The Northumberland Household Book shows that during the reign of Henry the Seventh, fresh meat was hardly consumed, even by gentlemen serving a great Earl, except for a brief period between Midsummer and Michaelmas. However, over the course of two centuries, things improved; by the time of Charles the Second, families didn’t stock up on salt provisions, known as Martinmas beef, until early November. 68

The sheep and the ox of that time were diminutive when compared with the sheep and oxen which are now driven to our markets. 69 Our native horses, though serviceable, were held in small esteem, and fetched low prices. They were valued, one with another, by the ablest of those who computed the national wealth, at not more than fifty shillings each. Foreign breeds were greatly preferred. Spanish jennets were regarded as the finest chargers, and were imported for purposes of pageantry and war. The coaches of the aristocracy were drawn by grey Flemish mares, which trotted, as it was thought, with a peculiar grace, and endured better than any cattle reared in our island the work of dragging a ponderous equipage over the rugged pavement of London. Neither the modern dray horse nor the modern race horse was then known. At a much later period the ancestors of the gigantic quadrupeds, which all foreigners now class among the chief wonders of London, were brought from the marshes of Walcheren; the ancestors of Childers and Eclipse from the sands of Arabia. Already, however, there was among our nobility and gentry a passion for the amusements of the turf. The importance of improving our studs by an infusion of new blood was strongly felt; and with this view a considerable number of barbs had lately been brought into the country. Two men whose authority on such subjects was held in great esteem, the Duke of Newcastle and Sir John Fenwick, pronounced that the meanest hack ever imported from Tangier would produce a diner progeny than could be expected from the best sire of our native breed. They would not readily have believed that a time would come when the princes and nobles of neighbouring lands would be as eager to obtain horses from England as ever the English had been to obtain horses from Barbary. 70

The sheep and oxen back then were much smaller compared to the sheep and cattle we see in our markets today. 69 Our native horses, although useful, were not valued highly and sold for low prices. According to the best estimators of national wealth, they were worth no more than fifty shillings each. Foreign breeds were much more desirable. Spanish jennets were considered the best horses and were brought in for show and military purposes. The coaches of the upper class were pulled by gray Flemish mares, which were thought to trot with a unique grace and handled the tough job of carrying heavy carriages over London's rough streets better than any local cattle. Neither modern dray horses nor racehorses existed at that time. It was much later that the ancestors of the massive horses that foreigners now regard as one of London’s main attractions were brought from the marshes of Walcheren, and the ancestors of Childers and Eclipse came from the sands of Arabia. Nonetheless, even then, there was a strong enthusiasm among our nobility and gentry for horse racing. There was a recognized need to improve our horse stock by bringing in new blood, leading to the import of a significant number of barbs into the country. Two respected figures in this area, the Duke of Newcastle and Sir John Fenwick, claimed that even the lowest-quality horse imported from Tangier would produce better offspring than the best sire of our native breed. They would not have easily believed that one day, princes and nobles from neighboring countries would be just as eager to get horses from England as the English had once been to acquire horses from Barbary. 70

The increase of vegetable and animal produce, though great, seems small when compared with the increase of our mineral wealth. In 1685 the tin of Cornwall, which had, more than two thousand years before, attracted the Tyrian sails beyond the pillars of Hercules, was still one of the most valuable subterranean productions of the island. The quantity annually extracted from the earth was found to be, some years later, sixteen hundred tons, probably about a third of what it now is. 71 But the veins of copper which lie in the same region were, in the time of Charles the Second, altogether neglected, nor did any landowner take them into the account in estimating the value of his property. Cornwall and Wales at present yield annually near fifteen thousand tons of copper, worth near a million and a half sterling; that is to say, worth about twice as much as the annual produce of all English mines of all descriptions in the seventeenth century. 72 The first bed of rock salt had been discovered in Cheshire not long after the Restoration, but does not appear to have been worked till much later. The salt which was obtained by a rude process from brine pits was held in no high estimation. The pans in which the manufacture was carried on exhaled a sulphurous stench; and, when the evaporation was complete, the substance which was left was scarcely fit to be used with food. Physicians attributed the scorbutic and pulmonary complaints which were common among the English to this unwholesome condiment. It was therefore seldom used by the upper and middle classes; and there was a regular and considerable importation from France. At present our springs and mines not only supply our own immense demand, but send annually more than seven hundred millions of pounds of excellent salt to foreign countries. 73

The increase in vegetable and animal products, while significant, seems minor compared to the growth of our mineral resources. In 1685, the tin from Cornwall, which had drawn Tyrian ships beyond the pillars of Hercules over two thousand years earlier, was still one of the most valuable underground resources of the island. A few years later, the annual extraction was around sixteen hundred tons, probably about a third of what it is today. 71 However, the copper deposits in the same area were completely overlooked during the time of Charles the Second, and no landowners considered them when evaluating their property’s worth. Nowadays, Cornwall and Wales together yield nearly fifteen thousand tons of copper each year, valued at about one and a half million pounds; that’s roughly twice the total annual output of all English mines combined in the seventeenth century. 72 The first bed of rock salt was found in Cheshire not long after the Restoration, but it seems it wasn’t exploited until much later. The salt obtained from brine pits using a crude method was not highly regarded. The pans used for its production emitted a foul smell, and when the evaporation was finished, the leftover substance was barely fit for consumption. Doctors attributed the scurvy and respiratory diseases common among the English to this unwholesome seasoning. As a result, it was rarely used by the upper and middle classes, and there was a substantial importation from France. Today, our springs and mines not only meet our massive demand but also export over seven hundred million pounds of high-quality salt to other countries each year. 73

Far more important has been the improvement of our iron works. Such works had long existed in our island, but had not prospered, and had been regarded with no favourable eye by the government and by the public. It was not then the practice to employ coal for smelting the ore; and the rapid consumption of wood excited the alarm of politicians. As early as the reign of Elizabeth, there had been loud complaints that whole forests were cut down for the purpose of feeding the furnaces; and the Parliament had interfered to prohibit the manufacturers from burning timber. The manufacture consequently languished. At the close of the reign of Charles the Second, great part of the iron which was used in this country was imported from abroad; and the whole quantity cast here annually seems not to have exceeded ten thousand tons. At present the trade is thought to be in a depressed state if less than a million of tons are produced in a year. 74

The improvement of our ironworks has been much more significant. These operations had been around on our island for a long time but hadn’t thrived and were viewed unfavorably by both the government and the public. Back then, it wasn’t common to use coal for smelting ore, and the excessive use of wood raised concerns among politicians. As early as Queen Elizabeth’s reign, there were loud complaints about entire forests being cut down to fuel the furnaces, leading Parliament to step in and ban manufacturers from burning timber. As a result, production suffered. By the end of King Charles the Second's reign, a large portion of the iron used in this country was imported, and the total amount produced here each year didn’t seem to exceed ten thousand tons. Nowadays, the trade is considered to be struggling if less than a million tons are produced in a year. 74

One mineral, perhaps more important than iron itself, remains to be mentioned. Coal, though very little used in any species of manufacture, was already the ordinary fuel in some districts which were fortunate enough to possess large beds, and in the capital, which could easily be supplied by water carriage, It seems reasonable to believe that at least one half of the quantity then extracted from the pits was consumed in London. The consumption of London seemed to the writers of that age enormous, and was often mentioned by them as a proof of the greatness of the imperial city. They scarcely hoped to be believed when they affirmed that two hundred and eighty thousand chaldrons that is to say, about three hundred and fifty thousand tons, were, in the last year of the reign of Charles the Second, brought to the Thames. At present three millions and a half of tons are required yearly by the metropolis; and the whole annual produce cannot, on the most moderate computation, be estimated at less than thirty millions of tons. 75

One mineral, perhaps more important than iron itself, still needs to be mentioned. Coal, although not widely used in manufacturing, was already the common fuel in some regions fortunate enough to have large deposits, and in the capital, which could easily be supplied via water transport. It seems reasonable to believe that at least half of the amount then extracted from the mines was consumed in London. The consumption in London seemed enormous to the writers of that time, who often cited it as proof of the greatness of the imperial city. They could hardly expect to be believed when they stated that two hundred and eighty thousand chaldrons, or about three hundred and fifty thousand tons, were brought to the Thames in the last year of Charles the Second's reign. Nowadays, the city requires three and a half million tons annually, and the total yearly production is estimated to be at least thirty million tons. 75

While these great changes have been in progress, the rent of land has, as might be expected, been almost constantly rising. In some districts it has multiplied more than tenfold. In some it has not more than doubled. It has probably, on the average, quadrupled.

While these significant changes have been happening, land rents have, as you might expect, been rising almost constantly. In some areas, it has increased more than ten times. In others, it has only doubled. On average, it has likely quadrupled.

Of the rent, a large proportion was divided among the country gentlemen, a class of persons whose position and character it is most important that we should clearly understand; for by their influence and by their passions the fate of the nation was, at several important conjunctures, determined.

A large portion of the rent was shared among the country gentlemen, a group whose role and nature we must fully understand; their influence and passions shaped the destiny of the nation at several critical moments.

We should be much mistaken if we pictured to ourselves the squires of the seventeenth century as men bearing a close resemblance to their descendants, the county members and chairmen of quarter sessions with whom we are familiar. The modern country gentleman generally receives a liberal education, passes from a distinguished school to a distinguished college, and has ample opportunity to become an excellent scholar. He has generally seen something of foreign countries. A considerable part of his life has generally been passed in the capital; and the refinements of the capital follow him into the country. There is perhaps no class of dwellings so pleasing as the rural seats of the English gentry. In the parks and pleasure grounds, nature, dressed yet not disguised by art, wears her most alluring form. In the buildings, good sense and good taste combine to produce a happy union of the comfortable and the graceful. The pictures, the musical instruments, the library, would in any other country be considered as proving the owner to be an eminently polished and accomplished man. A country gentleman who witnessed the Revolution was probably in receipt of about a fourth part of the rent which his acres now yield to his posterity. He was, therefore, as compared with his posterity, a poor man, and was generally under the necessity of residing, with little interruption, on his estate. To travel on the Continent, to maintain an establishment in London, or even to visit London frequently, were pleasures in which only the great proprietors could indulge. It may be confidently affirmed that of the squires whose names were then in the Commissions of Peace and Lieutenancy not one in twenty went to town once in five years, or had ever in his life wandered so far as Paris. Many lords of manors had received an education differing little from that of their menial servants. The heir of an estate often passed his boyhood and youth at the seat of his family with no better tutors than grooms and gamekeepers, and scarce attained learning enough to sign his name to a Mittimus. If he went to school and to college, he generally returned before he was twenty to the seclusion of the old hall, and there, unless his mind were very happily constituted by nature, soon forgot his academical pursuits in rural business and pleasures. His chief serious employment was the care of his property. He examined samples of grain, handled pigs, and, on market days, made bargains over a tankard with drovers and hop merchants. His chief pleasures were commonly derived from field sports and from an unrefined sensuality. His language and pronunciation were such as we should now expect to hear only from the most ignorant clowns. His oaths, coarse jests, and scurrilous terms of abuse, were uttered with the broadest accent of his province. It was easy to discern, from the first words which he spoke, whether he came from Somersetshire or Yorkshire. He troubled himself little about decorating his abode, and, if he attempted decoration, seldom produced anything but deformity. The litter of a farmyard gathered under the windows of his bedchamber, and the cabbages and gooseberry bushes grew close to his hall door. His table was loaded with coarse plenty; and guests were cordially welcomed to it. But, as the habit of drinking to excess was general in the class to which he belonged, and as his fortune did not enable him to intoxicate large assemblies daily with claret or canary, strong beer was the ordinary beverage. The quantity of beer consumed in those days was indeed enormous. For beer then was to the middle and lower classes, not only all that beer is, but all that wine, tea, and ardent spirits now are. It was only at great houses, or on great occasions, that foreign drink was placed on the board. The ladies of the house, whose business it had commonly been to cook the repast, retired as soon as the dishes had been devoured, and left the gentlemen to their ale and tobacco. The coarse jollity of the afternoon was often prolonged till the revellers were laid under the table.

We would be mistaken if we imagined the squires of the seventeenth century as resembling the members of county councils and chairmen of quarter sessions we know today. The modern country gentleman usually gets a good education, transitioning from a well-regarded school to a prestigious college, and has plenty of chances to become a solid scholar. He often has traveled abroad and spent a significant portion of his life in the capital, bringing urban sophistication back to the countryside. There's perhaps no type of home as charming as the rural estates of the English gentry. In the parks and gardens, nature appears at its best, enhanced yet not overdone by human effort. In the architecture, common sense and taste come together to create a lovely blend of comfort and style. The artwork, musical instruments, and library would be seen in any other country as signs of a cultured and accomplished individual. A country gentleman who witnessed the Revolution likely received only about a quarter of the rent that his land yields today. Compared to his descendants, he was fairly poor and typically had to live mostly on his estate. Traveling on the continent, maintaining a place in London, or even frequent visits to the city were luxuries only the wealthiest landowners could afford. It's safe to say that of the squires listed as Justices of the Peace and Lieutenants, fewer than one in twenty went to town once every five years or had ever been as far as Paris. Many lords of manors were educated little differently than their servants. The heir to an estate often spent his childhood and youth at his family’s estate, with no better teachers than grooms and gamekeepers, barely learning enough to sign his name. If he went to school and college, he usually returned to the family home before twenty, where, unless he was naturally gifted, he quickly forgot his studies, focusing instead on country life and its pleasures. His main serious task was managing his property. He checked grain samples, took care of pigs, and made deals with drovers and hop merchants over a drink on market days. His main enjoyment came from hunting and physical pleasures, and his language and accent were typically what we’d now expect only from the most uneducated peasants. His curses, crude jokes, and vulgar insults were spoken with the strongest regional accent. It was easy to tell where he was from as soon as he spoke, whether it was Somersetshire or Yorkshire. He didn’t concern himself much with decorating his home, and if he tried, the result was often unattractive. The mess of a farmyard gathered outside his bedroom window, and cabbages and gooseberry bushes were planted near his front door. His table was filled with simple, hearty food, and guests were warmly welcomed. However, since heavy drinking was common among his class and his income didn’t allow him to serve large gatherings daily with fine wine, strong beer was the typical drink. The amount of beer consumed back then was truly remarkable. For the middle and lower classes, beer served not just as their beer but also as all that wine, tea, and spirits do today. It was only at grand houses or on special occasions that imported beverages appeared on the table. The ladies of the house, who usually cooked the meals, would leave as soon as the food was gone, letting the men enjoy their ale and tobacco. The rough merriment of the afternoon often continued until the revelers ended up under the table.

It was very seldom that the country gentleman caught glimpses of the great world; and what he saw of it tended rather to confuse than to enlighten his understanding. His opinions respecting religion, government, foreign countries and former times, having been derived, not from study, from observation, or from conversation with enlightened companions, but from such traditions as were current in his own small circle, were the opinions of a child. He adhered to them, however, with the obstinacy which is generally found in ignorant men accustomed to be fed with flattery. His animosities were numerous and bitter. He hated Frenchmen and Italians, Scotchmen and Irishmen, Papists and Presbyterians, Independents and Baptists, Quakers and Jews. Towards London and Londoners he felt an aversion which more than once produced important political effects. His wife and daughter were in tastes and acquirements below a housekeeper or a stillroom maid of the present day. They stitched and spun, brewed gooseberry wine, cured marigolds, and made the crust for the venison pasty.

The country gentleman rarely saw much of the outside world, and what he did see often confused him instead of clarifying things. His views on religion, government, foreign countries, and history came not from study, observation, or meaningful conversations with informed people, but from the common beliefs circulating in his small social circle. His opinions were childlike. Still, he clung to them stubbornly, a trait often found in ignorant people who are used to receiving flattery. He harbored many intense and bitter grudges. He disliked French and Italian people, Scots and Irish, Catholics and Presbyterians, Independents and Baptists, Quakers and Jews. He had a strong aversion to London and its people, which sometimes had significant political repercussions. His wife and daughter were less skilled and educated than a modern housekeeper or maid. They sewed, spun, made gooseberry wine, cured marigolds, and prepared the crust for venison pie.

From this description it might be supposed that the English esquire of the seventeenth century did not materially differ from a rustic miller or alehouse keeper of our time. There are, however, some important parts of his character still to be noted, which will greatly modify this estimate. Unlettered as he was and unpolished, he was still in some most important points a gentleman. He was a member of a proud and powerful aristocracy, and was distinguished by many both of the good and of the bad qualities which belong to aristocrats. His family pride was beyond that of a Talbot or a Howard. He knew the genealogies and coats of arms of all his neighbours, and could tell which of them had assumed supporters without any right, and which of them were so unfortunate as to be greatgrandsons of aldermen. He was a magistrate, and, as such, administered gratuitously to those who dwelt around him a rude patriarchal justice, which, in spite of innumerable blunders and of occasional acts of tyranny, was yet better than no justice at all. He was an officer of the trainbands; and his military dignity, though it might move the mirth of gallants who had served a campaign in Flanders, raised his character in his own eyes and in the eyes of his neighbours. Nor indeed was his soldiership justly a subject of derision. In every county there were elderly gentlemen who had seen service which was no child's play. One had been knighted by Charles the First, after the battle of Edgehill. Another still wore a patch over the scar which he had received at Naseby. A third had defended his old house till Fairfax had blown in the door with a petard. The presence of these old Cavaliers, with their old swords and holsters, and with their old stories about Goring and Lunsford, gave to the musters of militia an earnest and warlike aspect which would otherwise have been wanting. Even those country gentlemen who were too young to have themselves exchanged blows with the cuirassiers of the Parliament had, from childhood, been surrounded by the traces of recent war, and fed with stories of the martial exploits of their fathers and uncles. Thus the character of the English esquire of the seventeenth century was compounded of two elements which we seldom or never find united. His ignorance and uncouthness, his low tastes and gross phrases, would, in our time, be considered as indicating a nature and a breeding thoroughly plebeian. Yet he was essentially a patrician, and had, in large measure both the virtues and the vices which flourish among men set from their birth in high place, and used to respect themselves and to be respected by others. It is not easy for a generation accustomed to find chivalrous sentiments only in company with liberal Studies and polished manners to image to itself a man with the deportment, the vocabulary, and the accent of a carter, yet punctilious on matters of genealogy and precedence, and ready to risk his life rather than see a stain cast on the honour of his house. It is however only by thus joining together things seldom or never found together in our own experience, that we can form a just idea of that rustic aristocracy which constituted the main strength of the armies of Charles the First, and which long supported, with strange fidelity, the interest of his descendants.

From this description, one might think that the English squire of the seventeenth century wasn’t very different from a country miller or pub owner today. However, there are some key aspects of his character that change this view significantly. Although he was uneducated and rough around the edges, in many important ways, he was still a gentleman. He belonged to a proud and powerful aristocracy and was marked by both the good and bad traits that come with being part of the upper class. His family pride surpassed that of a Talbot or a Howard. He knew the family histories and crests of all his neighbors and could point out which ones had wrongfully claimed supporters and which were unfortunate enough to be great-grandsons of aldermen. He served as a magistrate, administering a rough, patriarchal form of justice to those around him, which, despite many mistakes and occasional acts of oppression, was still better than no justice at all. He was an officer in the local militia; and while his military status might amuse those who had served in a campaign in Flanders, it raised his standing in his own eyes and those of his neighbors. His military service wasn’t really something to mock, either. In every county, there were older gentlemen who had experienced real service. One had been knighted by Charles the First after the battle of Edgehill. Another still had a patch over the scar he got at Naseby. A third had defended his old home until Fairfax blew in the door with a bomb. The presence of these old Cavaliers, with their aging swords and holsters and their stories about Goring and Lunsford, gave the militia gatherings a serious and warlike vibe that would otherwise have been missing. Even those country gentlemen who were too young to have faced off with the Parliament's cavalry had grown up surrounded by the aftermath of recent wars and stories of their fathers’ and uncles’ military exploits. So, the character of the English squire of the seventeenth century combined two elements that we rarely find together. His ignorance and roughness, along with his low tastes and crude language, would today be seen as signs of a thoroughly common upbringing. Yet, he was fundamentally a patrician and possessed many of the virtues and vices common among people born into high status, used to respecting themselves and being respected by others. It’s hard for a generation that associates chivalry only with education and polished manners to imagine a man with the behavior, language, and accent of a cart driver, yet who was meticulous about genealogy and social rank, and willing to risk his life to protect his family’s honor. However, it is only by blending together things rarely or never found in our own experience that we can form an accurate picture of the rustic aristocracy that made up the core strength of Charles the First's armies and loyally supported the interests of his descendants for a long time.

The gross, uneducated; untravelled country gentleman was commonly a Tory; but, though devotedly attached to hereditary monarchy, he had no partiality for courtiers and ministers. He thought, not without reason, that Whitehall was filled with the most corrupt of mankind, and that of the great sums which the House of Commons had voted to the crown since the Restoration part had been embezzled by cunning politicians, and part squandered on buffoons and foreign courtesans. His stout English heart swelled with indignation at the thought that the government of his country should be subject to French dictation. Being himself generally an old Cavalier, or the son of an old Cavalier, he reflected with bitter resentment on the ingratitude with which the Stuarts had requited their best friends. Those who heard him grumble at the neglect with which he was treated, and at the profusion with which wealth was lavished on the bastards of Nell Gwynn and Madam Carwell, would have supposed him ripe for rebellion. But all this ill humour lasted only till the throne was really in danger. It was precisely when those whom the sovereign had loaded with wealth and honours shrank from his side that the country gentlemen, so surly and mutinous in the season of his prosperity, rallied round him in a body. Thus, after murmuring twenty years at the misgovernment of Charles the Second, they came to his rescue in his extremity, when his own Secretaries of State and the Lords of his own Treasury had deserted him, and enabled him to gain a complete victory over the opposition; nor can there be any doubt that they would have shown equal loyalty to his brother James, if James would, even at the last moment, have refrained from outraging their strongest feeling. For there was one institution, and one only, which they prized even more than hereditary monarchy; and that institution was the Church of England. Their love of the Church was not, indeed, the effect of study or meditation. Few among them could have given any reason, drawn from Scripture or ecclesiastical history, for adhering to her doctrines, her ritual, and her polity; nor were they, as a class, by any means strict observers of that code of morality which is common to all Christian sects. But the experience of many ages proves that men may be ready to fight to the death, and to persecute without pity, for a religion whose creed they do not understand, and whose precepts they habitually disobey. 76

The crude, uneducated, and untraveled country gentleman was usually a Tory; however, even though he was deeply devoted to hereditary monarchy, he had no fondness for courtiers and ministers. He believed, not without reason, that Whitehall was filled with the most corrupt people, and that part of the large sums the House of Commons had given to the crown since the Restoration had been misappropriated by sly politicians, while another portion was wasted on entertainers and foreign mistresses. His strong English heart swelled with anger at the thought that the government of his country should be influenced by French dictates. Being typically an old Cavalier or the son of one, he bitterly resented the ingratitude with which the Stuarts had treated their best allies. Those who heard him complain about the neglect he faced and the lavishness with which wealth was handed out to the illegitimate children of Nell Gwynn and Madam Carwell would have thought he was ready for rebellion. But all this bad mood lasted only until the throne was actually in danger. It was precisely when those the king had rewarded with wealth and honors pulled away from him that the country gentlemen, who had been so grumpy and rebellious during his prosperous times, rallied around him. Thus, after grumbling for twenty years about the mismanagement of Charles the Second, they came to his aid in his time of need, when even his Secretaries of State and the Lords of his own Treasury had abandoned him, and they helped him achieve a decisive victory over the opposition; and there’s no doubt that they would have shown the same loyalty to his brother James, if James had, even at the last moment, refrained from insulting their strongest beliefs. For there was one institution, and only one, that they valued even more than hereditary monarchy; and that institution was the Church of England. Their love for the Church wasn’t built on study or contemplation. Few among them could have provided any reasoning, from Scripture or church history, for adhering to her doctrines, rituals, and governance; nor were they, as a group, particularly strict followers of the moral code common to all Christian denominations. But history shows that people can be ready to fight to the death and persecute mercilessly for a religion whose beliefs they do not comprehend and whose teachings they regularly ignore. 76

The rural clergy were even more vehement in Toryism than the rural gentry, end were a class scarcely less important. It is to be observed, however, that the individual clergyman, as compared with the individual gentleman, then ranked much lower than in our days. The main support of the Church was derived from the tithe; and the tithe bore to the rent a much smaller ratio than at present. King estimated the whole income of the parochial and collegiate clergy at only four hundred and eighty thousand pounds a year; Davenant at only five hundred and forty-four thousand a year. It is certainly now more than seven times as great as the larger of these two sums. The average rent of the land has not, according to any estimate, increased proportionally. It follows that the rectors and vicars must have been, as compared with the neighbouring knights and squires, much poorer in the seventeenth than in the nineteenth century.

The rural clergy were even more passionate about Toryism than the rural gentry and were a class that was hardly less significant. It's important to note, though, that individual clergymen ranked much lower than individual gentlemen did back then compared to today. The Church mainly relied on tithes, which made up a much smaller portion of rent than they do now. King estimated the total income of parish and college clergy at only four hundred eighty thousand pounds a year, while Davenant estimated it at only five hundred forty-four thousand a year. Today, it's certainly more than seven times the larger of those two amounts. The average rent of land hasn’t increased proportionally, according to any estimates. This means that rectors and vicars were likely much poorer compared to nearby knights and squires in the seventeenth century than they were in the nineteenth century.

The place of the clergyman in society had been completely changed by the Reformation. Before that event, ecclesiastics had formed the majority of the House of Lords, had, in wealth and splendour, equalled, and sometimes outshone, the greatest of the temporal barons, and had generally held the highest civil offices. Many of the Treasurers, and almost all the Chancellors of the Plantagenets were Bishops. The Lord Keeper of the Privy Seal and the Master of the Rolls were ordinarily churchmen. Churchmen transacted the most important diplomatic business. Indeed all that large portion of the administration which rude and warlike nobles were incompetent to conduct was considered as especially belonging to divines. Men, therefore, who were averse to the life of camps, and who were, at the same time, desirous to rise in the state, commonly received the tonsure. Among them were sons of all the most illustrious families, and near kinsmen of the throne, Scroops and Nevilles, Bourchiers, Staffords and Poles. To the religious houses belonged the rents of immense domains, and all that large portion of the tithe which is now in the hands of laymen. Down to the middle of the reign of Henry the Eighth, therefore, no line of life was so attractive to ambitious and covetous natures as the priesthood. Then came a violent revolution. The abolition of the monasteries deprived the Church at once of the greater part of her wealth, and of her predominance in the Upper House of Parliament. There was no longer an Abbot of Glastonbury or an Abbot of Reading, seated among the peers, and possessed of revenues equal to those of a powerful Earl. The princely splendour of William of Wykeham and of William of Waynflete had disappeared. The scarlet hat of the Cardinal, the silver cross of the Legate, were no more. The clergy had also lost the ascendency which is the natural reward of superior mental cultivation. Once the circumstance that a man could read had raised a presumption that he was in orders. But, in an age which produced such laymen as William Cecil and Nicholas Bacon, Roger Ascham and Thomas Smith, Walter Mildmay and Francis Walsingham, there was no reason for calling away prelates from their dioceses to negotiate treaties, to superintend the finances, or to administer justice. The spiritual character not only ceased to be a qualification for high civil office, but began to be regarded as a disqualification. Those worldly motives, therefore, which had formerly induced so many able, aspiring, and high born youths to assume the ecclesiastical habit, ceased to operate. Not one parish in two hundred then afforded what a man of family considered as a maintenance. There were still indeed prizes in the Church: but they were few; and even the highest were mean, when compared with the glory which had once surrounded the princes of the hierarchy. The state kept by Parker and Grindal seemed beggarly to those who remembered the imperial pomp of Wolsey, his palaces, which had become the favorite abodes of royalty, Whitehall and Hampton Court, the three sumptuous tables daily spread in his refectory, the forty-four gorgeous copes in his chapel, his running footmen in rich liveries, and his body guards with gilded poleaxes. Thus the sacerdotal office lost its attraction for the higher classes. During the century which followed the accession of Elizabeth, scarce a single person of noble descent took orders. At the close of the reign of Charles the Second, two sons of peers were Bishops; four or five sons of peers were priests, and held valuable preferment: but these rare exceptions did not take away the reproach which lay on the body. The clergy were regarded as, on the whole, a plebeian class. 77 And, indeed, for one who made the figure of a gentleman, ten were mere menial servants. A large proportion of those divines who had no benefices, or whose benefices were too small to afford a comfortable revenue, lived in the houses of laymen. It had long been evident that this practice tended to degrade the priestly character. Laud had exerted himself to effect a change; and Charles the First had repeatedly issued positive orders that none but men of high rank should presume to keep domestic chaplains. 78 But these injunctions had become obsolete. Indeed during the domination of the Puritan, many of the ejected ministers of the Church of England could obtain bread and shelter only by attaching themselves to the households of royalist gentlemen; and the habits which had been formed in those times of trouble continued long after the reestablishment of monarchy and episcopacy. In the mansions of men of liberal sentiments and cultivated understandings, the chaplain was doubtless treated with urbanity and kindness. His conversation, his literary assistance, his spiritual advice, were considered as an ample return for his food, his lodging, and his stipend. But this was not the general feeling of the country gentlemen. The coarse and ignorant squire, who thought that it belonged to his dignity to have grace said every day at his table by an ecclesiastic in full canonicals, found means to reconcile dignity with economy. A young Levite—such was the phrase then in use—might be had for his board, a small garret, and ten pounds a year, and might not only perform his own professional functions, might not only be the most patient of butts and of listeners, might not only be always ready in fine weather for bowls, and in rainy weather for shovelboard, but might also save the expense of a gardener, or of a groom. Sometimes the reverend man nailed up the apricots; and sometimes he curried the coach horses. He cast up the farrier's bills. He walked ten miles with a message or a parcel. He was permitted to dine with the family; but he was expected to content himself with the plainest fare. He might fill himself with the corned beef and the carrots: but, as soon as the tarts and cheesecakes made their appearance, he quitted his seat, and stood aloof till he was summoned to return thanks for the repast, from a great part of which he had been excluded. 79

The role of the clergyman in society was completely transformed by the Reformation. Before that, church leaders made up the majority of the House of Lords, matched or even surpassed the wealth and opulence of the most powerful barons, and generally held the highest civic positions. Many Treasurers and almost all Chancellors during the Plantagenet era were Bishops. The Lord Keeper of the Privy Seal and the Master of the Rolls were usually clergy members. Clergy handled the most important diplomatic matters. Indeed, the administration that rough and warlike nobles were unfit to manage was considered especially suited for divine leaders. Therefore, men who wanted to avoid military life but still wished to advance in society often chose to become priests. Among them were sons from illustrious families and close relatives of the throne, like the Scroops, Nevilles, Bourchiers, Staffords, and Poles. The religious institutions owned the rents from vast estates and a large portion of the tithes that laymen now control. Up until the mid-reign of Henry the Eighth, no career was more appealing to ambitious and greedy individuals than the priesthood. Then came a drastic change. The dismantling of the monasteries stripped the Church of most of its wealth and its dominance in the Upper House of Parliament. There were no longer Abbott of Glastonbury or Abbott of Reading sitting among the peers with incomes on par with a powerful Earl. The grand grandeur of figures like William of Wykeham and William of Waynflete had vanished. The cardinal's red hat and the legate's silver cross were things of the past. The clergy also lost the influence that came from superior education. In the past, simply being literate suggested a man might be in holy orders. But in an age that produced laymen like William Cecil and Nicholas Bacon, Roger Ascham and Thomas Smith, Walter Mildmay and Francis Walsingham, there was no reason to pull bishops away from their dioceses to engage in treaties, oversee finances, or administer justice. Being a clergyman ceased to be a qualification for high office, and began to be viewed as a drawback. Consequently, the worldly motivations that once drove many capable, ambitious, and well-born young men to enter the Church no longer held sway. Fewer than one in two hundred parishes provided what a gentleman considered a decent living. There were still positions in the Church, but they were few, and even the top roles seemed insignificant when compared to the grandeur that once surrounded the hierarchy's leaders. The lifestyle maintained by Parker and Grindal felt shabby to those who recalled the regal splendor of Wolsey, with his palaces that had become favored residences for royalty, like Whitehall and Hampton Court, his opulent meals, and his lavish chapel decorations with countless elegant garments. The once-attractive clergy titles lost their charm for the upper classes. During the century following Elizabeth's accession, hardly anyone of noble descent entered the clergy. By the end of Charles the Second’s reign, two sons of peers were Bishops; four or five sons of peers were priests with notable positions, but these exceptions did not erase the stigma attached to the clergy. Overall, they were seen as a lower-class group. And indeed, for every person who presented themselves as a gentleman, ten were merely servants. Many clergy without benefices, or those with tiny incomes, lived in the homes of laypeople. This practice had long been known to undermine the dignity of the priesthood. Laud had tried to bring about change, and Charles the First had frequently commanded that only men of high rank should keep domestic chaplains. But these orders had become outdated. In fact, during Puritan rule, many expelled ministers from the Church of England had to rely on being part of royalist households for food and shelter; and the attitudes formed during those tumultuous times persisted long after the monarchy and episcopacy were restored. In the homes of cultured and open-minded gentlemen, chaplains were treated with respect and kindness. Their conversation, literary help, and spiritual counsel were seen as enough payment for their meals, housing, and salary. However, this was not the common attitude among country gentlemen. The rough and uneducated squire, who thought it was beneath him not to have grace said at his table by a clergyman in full dress, found a way to balance dignity with thriftiness. A young Levite—this was the expression used then—could be had for his meals, a small room, and ten pounds a year. He could perform his religious duties, endure endless teasing as a listener, and be available for games in good weather or indoor activities when it rained. He might even save on hiring a gardener or a coachman. Sometimes the clergyman would tend to the fruit trees or help groom the horses. He handled the farrier's bills and ran messages for the family. He was allowed to dine with them but was expected to be satisfied with the simplest food. He could fill up on corned beef and carrots but would have to leave his seat as soon as desserts like tarts and cheesecakes appeared, standing off until he was called back to give thanks for a meal from which he was largely excluded.

Perhaps, after some years of service, he was presented to a living sufficient to support him; but he often found it necessary to purchase his preferment by a species of Simony, which furnished an inexhaustible subject of pleasantry to three or four generations of scoffers. With his cure he was expected to take a wife. The wife had ordinarily been in the patron's service; and it was well if she was not suspected of standing too high in the patron's favor. Indeed the nature of the matrimonial connections which the clergymen of that age were in the habit of forming is the most certain indication of the place which the order held in the social system. An Oxonian, writing a few months after the death of Charles the Second, complained bitterly, not only that the country attorney and the country apothecary looked down with disdain on the country clergyman but that one of the lessons most earnestly inculcated on every girl of honourable family was to give no encouragement to a lover in orders, and that, if any young lady forgot this precept, she was almost as much disgraced as by an illicit amour. 80 Clarendon, who assuredly bore no ill will to the priesthood, mentions it as a sign of the confusion of ranks which the great rebellion had produced, that some damsels of noble families had bestowed themselves on divines. 81 A waiting woman was generally considered as the most suitable helpmate for a parson. Queen Elizabeth, as head of the Church, had given what seemed to be a formal sanction to this prejudice, by issuing special orders that no clergyman should presume to espouse a servant girl, without the consent of the master or mistress. 82 During several generations accordingly the relation between divines and handmaidens was a theme for endless jest; nor would it be easy to find, in the comedy of the seventeenth century, a single instance of a clergyman who wins a spouse above the rank of cook. 83 Even so late as the time of George the Second, the keenest of all observers of life and manners, himself a priest, remarked that, in a great household, the chaplain was the resource of a lady's maid whose character had been blown upon, and who was therefore forced to give up hopes of catching the steward. 84

Maybe after several years of work, he was given a position that paid enough to support him; but he often found it necessary to buy his way into promotions through a kind of Simony, which provided endless fodder for jokes for three or four generations of mockers. With his church position, he was expected to marry. The wife usually came from the patron's service, and it was a good thing if she wasn’t suspected of being too favored by the patron. In fact, the nature of the marriages that clergymen of that time typically formed is the clearest indication of the place that the clergy occupied in the social hierarchy. An Oxford student, writing just months after Charles the Second's death, complained bitterly that both the local lawyer and the local doctor looked down on the country clergyman with disdain, but that one of the most strongly emphasized lessons for every girl from a respectable family was to avoid encouraging a suitor who was in holy orders; and if any young woman forgot this advice, she was almost as disgraced as if she had engaged in an illicit affair. 80 Clarendon, who certainly had no animosity toward the clergy, noted it as a sign of the disorder of social ranks caused by the great rebellion that some noblewomen had chosen to marry clergymen. 81 A maidservant was generally seen as the ideal partner for a priest. Queen Elizabeth, as the head of the Church, appeared to give formal approval to this bias by issuing special orders that no clergyman should dare to marry a servant girl without the master's or mistress's consent. 82 For several generations, therefore, the relationship between clergymen and maid servants was a recurring source of humor; nor would it be easy to find any example in the 17th-century comedy of a clergyman marrying someone above the rank of a cook. 83 Even as late as the time of George the Second, the sharpest observer of life and customs, who was himself a priest, noted that in a large household, the chaplain was the fallback for a maid whose reputation had been tarnished and who therefore had to give up hopes of winning the steward. 84

In general the divine who quitted his chaplainship for a benefice and a wife found that he had only exchanged one class of vexations for another. Hardly one living in fifty enabled the incumbent to bring up a family comfortably. As children multiplied end grew, the household of the priest became more and more beggarly. Holes appeared more and more plainly in the thatch of his parsonage and in his single cassock. Often it was only by toiling on his glebe, by feeding swine, and by loading dungcarts, that he could obtain daily bread; nor did his utmost exertions always prevent the bailiffs from taking his concordance and his inkstand in execution. It was a white day on which he was admitted into the kitchen of a great house, and regaled by the servants with cold meat and ale. His children were brought up like the children of the neighbouring peasantry. His boys followed the plough; and his girls went out to service. 85 Study he found impossible: for the advowson of his living would hardly have sold for a sum sufficient to purchase a good theological library; and he might be considered as unusually lucky if he had ten or twelve dogeared volumes among the pots and pans on his shelves. Even a keen and strong intellect might be expected to rust in so unfavourable a situation.

In general, the clergyman who left his position for a better-paying job and a wife found that he had only traded one set of problems for another. Hardly one in fifty parishes allowed the priest to support a family comfortably. As children were born and grew, the priest's household became increasingly impoverished. Holes became more apparent in the thatch of his rectory and in his sole cassock. Often, it was only by working his land, taking care of pigs, and hauling manure that he could put food on the table; even his hardest efforts didn’t always stop the bailiffs from seizing his concordance and inkstand for debts. It was a rare occasion when he was welcomed into the kitchen of a wealthy household and treated by the servants to cold meat and ale. His children were raised just like the kids of neighboring farmers. His sons worked the fields, and his daughters went into service. 85 Studying was impossible; the value of his living wouldn’t have covered the cost of a decent theological library, and he would have been quite fortunate to possess ten or twelve battered books among the pots and pans on his shelves. Even a sharp and capable mind would likely stagnate in such an unfavorable environment.

Assuredly there was at that time no lack in the English Church of ministers distinguished by abilities and learning But it is to be observed that these ministers were not scattered among the rural population. They were brought together at a few places where the means of acquiring knowledge were abundant, and where the opportunities of vigorous intellectual exercise were frequent. 86 At such places were to be found divines qualified by parts, by eloquence, by wide knowledge of literature, of science, and of life, to defend their Church victoriously against heretics and sceptics, to command the attention of frivolous and worldly congregations, to guide the deliberations of senates, and to make religion respectable, even in the most dissolute of courts. Some laboured to fathom the abysses of metaphysical theology: some were deeply versed in biblical criticism; and some threw light on the darkest parts of ecclesiastical history. Some proved themselves consummate masters of logic. Some cultivated rhetoric with such assiduity and success that their discourses are still justly valued as models of style. These eminent men were to be found, with scarcely a single exception, at the Universities, at the great Cathedrals, or in the capital. Barrow had lately died at Cambridge; and Pearson had gone thence to the episcopal bench. Cudworth and Henry More were still living there. South and Pococke, Jane and Aldrich, were at Oxford, Prideaux was in the close of Norwich, and Whitby in the close of Salisbury. But it was chiefly by the London clergy, who were always spoken of as a class apart, that the fame of their profession for learning and eloquence was upheld. The principal pulpits of the metropolis were occupied about this time by a crowd of distinguished men, from among whom was selected a large proportion of the rulers of the Church. Sherlock preached at the Temple, Tillotson at Lincoln's Inn, Wake and Jeremy Collier at Gray's Inn, Burnet at the Rolls, Stillingfleet at Saint Paul's Cathedral, Patrick at Saint Paul's in Covent Garden, Fowler at Saint Giles's, Cripplegate, Sharp at Saint Giles's in the Fields, Tenison at Saint Martin's, Sprat at Saint Margaret's, Beveridge at Saint Peter's in Cornhill. Of these twelve men, all of high note in ecclesiastical history, ten became Bishops, and four Archbishops. Meanwhile almost the only important theological works which came forth from a rural parsonage were those of George Bull, afterwards Bishop of Saint David's; and Bull never would have produced those works, had he not inherited an estate, by the sale of which he was enabled to collect a library, such as probably no other country clergyman in England possessed. 87

Certainly, there was no shortage of ministers in the English Church at that time who were remarkable for their skills and knowledge. However, it’s important to note that these ministers weren't spread out among the rural population. Instead, they gathered in a few places where resources for learning were plentiful and where opportunities for active intellectual engagement were common. 86 At these locations were divines who were talented, eloquent, and well-versed in literature, science, and life, capable of successfully defending their Church against heretics and skeptics, capturing the attention of disengaged and worldly congregations, guiding senate discussions, and making religion respectable, even in the most corrupt courts. Some sought to explore the depths of metaphysical theology; some excelled in biblical criticism; others illuminated the darkest aspects of ecclesiastical history. Some were masterful logicians. Some dedicated themselves to rhetoric with such diligence and success that their speeches are still regarded as exemplary in style. These distinguished individuals were mostly found at the Universities, the great Cathedrals, or in the capital. Barrow had recently passed away at Cambridge; Pearson had moved on to become a bishop. Cudworth and Henry More were still thriving there. South and Pococke, Jane and Aldrich, were at Oxford, Prideaux was in Norwich, and Whitby was in Salisbury. However, it was mainly the London clergy, often regarded as a distinct group, who maintained the reputation of their profession for scholarship and eloquence. The major pulpits in the capital during this time were filled with a host of notable figures, many of whom were later chosen as leaders of the Church. Sherlock preached at the Temple, Tillotson at Lincoln's Inn, Wake and Jeremy Collier at Gray's Inn, Burnet at the Rolls, Stillingfleet at Saint Paul's Cathedral, Patrick at Saint Paul's in Covent Garden, Fowler at Saint Giles's, Cripplegate, Sharp at Saint Giles's in the Fields, Tenison at Saint Martin's, Sprat at Saint Margaret's, and Beveridge at Saint Peter's in Cornhill. Among these twelve men, all significant in ecclesiastical history, ten became Bishops, and four were made Archbishops. Meanwhile, the only notable theological works emerging from a rural parsonage were those of George Bull, who later became Bishop of Saint David's; and Bull would not have produced those works without inheriting an estate, which he sold to afford a library that likely surpassed what any other country clergyman in England had. 87

Thus the Anglican priesthood was divided into two sections, which, in acquirements, in manners, and in social position, differed widely from each other. One section, trained for cities and courts, comprised men familiar with all ancient and modern learning; men able to encounter Hobbes or Bossuet at all the weapons of controversy; men who could, in their sermons, set forth the majesty and beauty of Christianity with such justness of thought, and such energy of language, that the indolent Charles roused himself to listen and the fastidious Buckingham forgot to sneer; men whose address, politeness, and knowledge of the world qualified them to manage the consciences of the wealthy and noble; men with whom Halifax loved to discuss the interests of empires, and from whom Dryden was not ashamed to own that he had learned to write. 88 The other section was destined to ruder and humbler service. It was dispersed over the country, and consisted chiefly of persons not at all wealthier, and not much more refined, than small farmers or upper servants. Yet it was in these rustic priests, who derived but a scanty subsistence from their tithe sheaves and tithe pigs, and who had not the smallest chance of ever attaining high professional honours, that the professional spirit was strongest. Among those divines who were the boast of the Universities and the delight of the capital, and who had attained, or might reasonably expect to attain, opulence and lordly rank, a party, respectable in numbers, and more respectable in character, leaned towards constitutional principles of government, lived on friendly terms with Presbyterians, Independents, and Baptists, would gladly have seen a full toleration granted to all Protestant sects, and would even have consented to make alterations in the Liturgy, for the purpose of conciliating honest and candid Nonconformists. But such latitudinarianism was held in horror by the country parson. He took, indeed, more pride in his ragged gown than his superiors in their lawn and their scarlet hoods. The very consciousness that there was little in his worldly circumstances to distinguish him from the villagers to whom he preached led him to hold immoderately high the dignity of that sacerdotal office which was his single title to reverence. Having lived in seclusion, and having had little opportunity of correcting his opinions by reading or conversation, he held and taught the doctrines of indefeasible hereditary right, of passive obedience, and of nonresistance, in all their crude absurdity. Having been long engaged in a petty war against the neighbouring dissenters, he too often hated them for the wrong which he had done them, and found no fault with the Five Mile Act and the Conventicle Act, except that those odious laws had not a sharper edge. Whatever influence his office gave him was exerted with passionate zeal on the Tory side; and that influence was immense. It would be a great error to imagine, because the country rector was in general not regarded as a gentleman, because he could not dare to aspire to the hand of one of the young ladies at the manor house, because he was not asked into the parlours of the great, but was left to drink and smoke with grooms and butlers, that the power of the clerical body was smaller than at present. The influence of a class is by no means proportioned to the consideration which the members of that class enjoy in their individual capacity. A Cardinal is a much more exalted personage than a begging friar: but it would be a grievous mistake to suppose that the College of Cardinals has exercised greater dominion over the public mind of Europe than the Order of Saint Francis. In Ireland, at present, a peer holds a far higher station in society than a Roman Catholic priest: yet there are in Munster and Connaught few counties where a combination of priests would not carry an election against a combination of peers. In the seventeenth century the pulpit was to a large portion of the population what the periodical press now is. Scarce any of the clowns who came to the parish church ever saw a Gazette or a political pamphlet. Ill informed as their spiritual pastor might be, he was yet better informed than themselves: he had every week an opportunity of haranguing them; and his harangues were never answered. At every important conjuncture, invectives against the Whigs and exhortations to obey the Lord's anointed resounded at once from many thousands of pulpits; and the effect was formidable indeed. Of all the causes which, after the dissolution of the Oxford Parliament, produced the violent reaction against the Exclusionists, the most potent seems to have been the oratory of the country clergy.

Thus, the Anglican priesthood was split into two groups that, in terms of education, behavior, and social status, varied greatly from one another. One group, trained for cities and courts, included men well-versed in both ancient and modern knowledge; men capable of debating Hobbes or Bossuet using all the tools of argument; men who, in their sermons, could eloquently present the majesty and beauty of Christianity with such clarity of thought and such powerful language that the lazy Charles perked up to listen and the picky Buckingham forgot to scoff; men whose charm, politeness, and worldly knowledge allowed them to guide the consciences of the wealthy and noble; men with whom Halifax enjoyed discussing the interests of empires and from whom Dryden was proud to admit he had learned to write. 88 The other group was set for more rugged and humble service. It was spread throughout the countryside and consisted mainly of people not much wealthier or more refined than small farmers or upper servants. Yet it was among these rural priests, who barely earned a living from their tithes and had no hope of ever reaching high professional status, that the professional spirit was strongest. Among those clergy who were celebrated at the Universities and adored in the capital, who had achieved or could reasonably expect to achieve wealth and noble rank, a substantial and reputable faction leaned toward constitutional principles of government, maintained friendly relations with Presbyterians, Independents, and Baptists, would have happily welcomed full toleration for all Protestant sects, and would even have been willing to make changes to the Liturgy to accommodate honest and open-minded Nonconformists. But such open-mindedness was viewed with horror by the country parson. He took more pride in his tattered gown than his superiors did in their fine robes and scarlet hoods. The sheer awareness that there was little in his worldly situation to separate him from the villagers to whom he preached led him to uphold the dignity of his clerical office, which was his only claim to respect, with excessive fervor. Having lived in isolation and having had few chances to challenge his views through reading or conversation, he held and preached the doctrines of absolute hereditary right, passive obedience, and nonresistance in all their raw absurdity. Engaged for a long time in a petty conflict with the local dissenters, he often hated them for the wrongs he had inflicted upon them, and found no fault with the Five Mile Act and the Conventicle Act, except that those hateful laws didn't have a sharper bite. Whatever influence his office granted him was passionately wielded on the Tory side, and that influence was significant. It would be a major mistake to think that because the country rector was generally not considered a gentleman, because he couldn't dare to aspire to the hand of one of the young ladies at the manor house, because he wasn't invited into the drawing rooms of the elite but was left to drink and smoke with grooms and servants, the power of the clergy was less than it is today. The influence of a social class is not necessarily reflected in the esteem that individual members of that class receive. A Cardinal is a much more elevated figure than a begging friar, but it would be a serious error to assume that the College of Cardinals has wielded greater control over public opinion in Europe than the Order of Saint Francis. In Ireland today, a noble holds a much higher status in society than a Roman Catholic priest, yet in Munster and Connaught, there are few counties where a united group of priests wouldn’t win an election against a united group of nobles. In the seventeenth century, the pulpit was to a large part of the population what the periodical press is now. Hardly any of the common people who attended the parish church ever saw a Gazette or a political pamphlet. Ill-informed as their spiritual leader might be, he was still better informed than they were: he had the opportunity every week to deliver speeches to them, and his speeches were never contested. At every significant moment, tirades against the Whigs and calls to obey the Lord’s anointed echoed from thousands of pulpits at once; and the impact was indeed formidable. Of all the factors that, after the dissolution of the Oxford Parliament, led to the violent backlash against the Exclusionists, the most powerful seems to have been the oratory of the country clergy.

The power which the country gentleman and the country clergyman exercised in the rural districts was in some measure counterbalanced by the power of the yeomanry, an eminently manly and truehearted race. The petty proprietors who cultivated their own fields with their own hands, and enjoyed a modest competence, without affecting to have scutcheons and crests, or aspiring to sit on the bench of justice, then formed a much more important part of the nation than at present. If we may trust the best statistical writers of that age, not less than a hundred and sixty thousand proprietors, who with their families must have made up more than a seventh of the whole population, derived their subsistence from little freehold estates. The average income of these small landholders, an income mace up of rent, profit, and wages, was estimated at between sixty and seventy pounds a year. It was computed that the number of persons who tilled their own land was greater than the number of those who farmed the land of others. 89 A large portion of the yeomanry had, from the time of the Reformation, leaned towards Puritanism, had, in the civil war, taken the side of the Parliament, had, after the Restoration, persisted in hearing Presbyterian and Independent preachers, had, at elections, strenuously supported the Exclusionists and had continued even after the discovery of the Rye House plot and the proscription of the Whig leaders, to regard Popery and arbitrary power with unmitigated hostility.

The influence that country gentlemen and clergymen held in rural areas was somewhat balanced out by the influence of the yeomanry, a truly honorable and straightforward group. The small landowners who worked their own fields and enjoyed a modest living, without claiming noble titles or wanting to serve on the judicial bench, played a much more significant role in society than they do today. According to the best statistics of that time, over one hundred sixty thousand landowners, along with their families, likely accounted for more than a seventh of the total population, earning their livelihoods from small freehold farms. The average income for these small landholders, which came from rent, profits, and wages, was estimated to be between sixty and seventy pounds a year. It was believed that more people farmed their own land than those who worked the land of others. 89 A significant number of the yeomanry had, since the Reformation, leaned toward Puritanism, sided with Parliament during the civil war, continued to attend Presbyterian and Independent preachers after the Restoration, strongly supported the Exclusionists in elections, and maintained, even after the discovery of the Rye House plot and the banning of the Whig leaders, a deep-seated hostility toward Popery and arbitrary power.

Great as has been the change in the rural life of England since the Revolution, the change which has come to pass in the cities is still more amazing. At present above a sixth part of the nation is crowded into provincial towns of more than thirty thousand inhabitants. In the reign of Charles the second no provincial town in the kingdom contained thirty thousand inhabitants; and only four provincial towns contained so many as ten thousand inhabitants.

Great as the change in rural life in England has been since the Revolution, the change in the cities is even more astounding. Right now, over a sixth of the population is packed into provincial towns with more than thirty thousand residents. During the reign of Charles II, no provincial town in the kingdom had thirty thousand residents, and only four provincial towns had as many as ten thousand inhabitants.

Next to the capital, but next at an immense distance, stood Bristol, then the first English seaport, and Norwich, then the first English manufacturing town. Both have since that time been far outstripped by younger rivals; yet both have made great positive advances. The population of Bristol has quadrupled. The population of Norwich has more than doubled.

Next to the capital, but quite far away, was Bristol, which was then the first English seaport, and Norwich, which was then the first English manufacturing town. Both have since been surpassed by newer competitors; however, both have made significant progress. The population of Bristol has quadrupled. The population of Norwich has more than doubled.

Pepys, who visited Bristol eight years after the Restoration, was struck by the splendour of the city. But his standard was not high; for he noted down as a wonder the circumstance that, in Bristol, a man might look round him and see nothing but houses. It seems that, in no other place with which he was acquainted, except London, did the buildings completely shut out the woods and fields. Large as Bristol might then appear, it occupied but a very small portion of the area on which it now stands. A few churches of eminent beauty rose out of a labyrinth of narrow lanes built upon vaults of no great solidity. If a coach or a cart entered those alleys, there was danger that it would be wedged between the houses, and danger also that it would break in the cellars. Goods were therefore conveyed about the town almost exclusively in trucks drawn by dogs; and the richest inhabitants exhibited their wealth, not by riding in gilded carriages, but by walking the streets with trains of servants in rich liveries, and by keeping tables loaded with good cheer. The pomp of the christenings and burials far exceeded what was seen at any other place in England. The hospitality of the city was widely renowned, and especially the collations with which the sugar refiners regaled their visitors. The repast was dressed in the furnace, and was accompanied by a rich beverage made of the best Spanish wine, and celebrated over the whole kingdom as Bristol milk. This luxury was supported by a thriving trade with the North American plantations and with the West Indies. The passion for colonial traffic was so strong that there was scarcely a small shopkeeper in Bristol who had not a venture on board of some ship bound for Virginia or the Antilles. Some of these ventures indeed were not of the most honourable kind. There was, in the Transatlantic possessions of the crown, a great demand for labour; and this demand was partly supplied by a system of crimping and kidnapping at the principal English seaports. Nowhere was this system in such active and extensive operation as at Bristol. Even the first magistrates of that city were not ashamed to enrich themselves by so odious a commerce. The number of houses appears, from the returns of the hearth money, to have been in the year 1685, just five thousand three hundred. We can hardly suppose the number of persons in a house to have been greater than in the city of London; and in the city of London we learn from the best authority that there were then fifty-five persons to ten houses. The population of Bristol must therefore have been about twenty-nine thousand souls. 90

Pepys, who visited Bristol eight years after the Restoration, was impressed by the city's grandeur. But his expectations were not high; he noted as remarkable the fact that in Bristol, a person could look around and see nothing but houses. It seemed that, in no other place he knew, except London, did the buildings completely block out the woods and fields. Despite how large Bristol seemed at the time, it took up only a small fraction of the area it covers today. A few beautiful churches stood out among a maze of narrow lanes built on not very sturdy foundations. If a carriage or cart went into those alleys, it risked getting stuck between the houses or breaking through the cellars. Because of this, goods were mostly transported around town using carts pulled by dogs. The wealthiest residents showed off their status, not by riding in fancy carriages, but by walking the streets with groups of servants in elaborate outfits and by hosting tables filled with abundant food. The celebrations for baptisms and funerals were much more extravagant than in any other town in England. The city was well-known for its hospitality, especially the feasts that sugar refiners laid out for their guests. The meal was prepared in the furnace and served with a rich drink made from top-quality Spanish wine, famous throughout the kingdom as Bristol milk. This luxury was supported by a booming trade with the North American plantations and the West Indies. The obsession with colonial trade was so intense that nearly every small shopkeeper in Bristol had a stake in some ship headed for Virginia or the Caribbean. Some of these investments were not very reputable. In the crown's Transatlantic territories, there was a high demand for labor, which was partly met through a system of crimping and kidnapping at major English ports. This practice was more active and widespread in Bristol than anywhere else. Even the city's top officials were not ashamed to profit from this despicable trade. The number of houses, according to the hearth money records, was about five thousand three hundred in 1685. It's hard to believe that the number of people per household was greater than in London, where it was reported that there were fifty-five people for every ten houses at the time. Therefore, the population of Bristol must have been around twenty-nine thousand people. 90

Norwich was the capital of a large and fruitful province. It was the residence of a Bishop and of a Chapter. It was the chief seat of the chief manufacture of the realm. Some men distinguished by learning and science had recently dwelt there and no place in the kingdom, except the capital and the Universities, had more attractions for the curious. The library, the museum, the aviary, and the botanical garden of Sir Thomas Browne, were thought by Fellows of the Royal Society well worthy of a long pilgrimage. Norwich had also a court in miniature. In the heart of the city stood an old palace of the Dukes of Norfolk, said to be the largest town house in the kingdom out of London. In this mansion, to which were annexed a tennis court, a bowling green, and a wilderness stretching along the banks of the Wansum, the noble family of Howard frequently resided, and kept a state resembling that of petty sovereigns. Drink was served to guests in goblets of pure gold. The very tongs and shovels were of silver. Pictures by Italian masters adorned the walls. The cabinets were filled with a fine collection of gems purchased by that Earl of Arundel whose marbles are now among the ornaments of Oxford. Here, in the year 1671, Charles and his court were sumptuously entertained. Here, too, all comers were annually welcomed, from Christmas to Twelfth Night. Ale flowed in oceans for the populace. Three coaches, one of which had been built at a cost of five hundred pounds to contain fourteen persons, were sent every afternoon round the city to bring ladies to the festivities; and the dances were always followed by a luxurious banquet. When the Duke of Norfolk came to Norwich, he was greeted like a King returning to his capital. The bells of the Cathedral and of St. Peter Mancroft were rung: the guns of the castle were fired; and the Mayor and Aldermen waited on their illustrious fellow citizen with complimentary addresses. In the year 1693 the population of Norwich was found by actual enumeration, to be between twenty-eight and twenty-nine thousand souls. 91

Norwich was the capital of a large and fruitful province. It was home to a Bishop and a Chapter. It was the main center of the top industry in the realm. Some knowledgeable and educated individuals had recently lived there, making it one of the most appealing places in the kingdom, apart from the capital and the Universities, for those seeking knowledge. The library, museum, aviary, and botanical garden of Sir Thomas Browne were considered by Fellows of the Royal Society worthy of a long visit. Norwich also had a mini court. In the center of the city stood an old palace of the Dukes of Norfolk, said to be the largest townhouse outside London. In this mansion, which included a tennis court, a bowling green, and a garden along the banks of the Wansum, the noble Howard family often lived and maintained a lifestyle similar to that of minor royalty. Drinks were served to guests in pure gold goblets. Even the tongs and shovels were made of silver. The walls were adorned with paintings by Italian masters. The cabinets were filled with a beautiful collection of gems bought by the Earl of Arundel, whose marbles now decorate Oxford. Here, in 1671, Charles and his court were lavishly hosted. Here, too, everyone was welcomed annually from Christmas to Twelfth Night. Ale flowed abundantly for the public. Three coaches, one of which was built at a cost of five hundred pounds to carry fourteen people, were sent every afternoon around the city to bring ladies to the festivities; and the dances were always followed by a lavish banquet. When the Duke of Norfolk arrived in Norwich, he was welcomed like a king returning to his capital. The bells of the Cathedral and St. Peter Mancroft rang; the castle guns fired; and the Mayor and Aldermen honored their distinguished fellow citizen with complimentary addresses. In 1693, the population of Norwich was found through actual counting to be between twenty-eight and twenty-nine thousand people. 91

Far below Norwich, but still high in dignity and importance, were some other ancient capitals of shires. In that age it was seldom that a country gentleman went up with his family to London. The county town was his metropolis. He sometimes made it his residence during part of the year. At all events, he was often attracted thither by business and pleasure, by assizes, quarter sessions, elections, musters of militia, festivals, and races. There were the halls where the judges, robed in scarlet and escorted by javelins and trumpets, opened the King's commission twice a year. There were the markets at which the corn, the cattle, the wool, and the hops of the surrounding country were exposed to sale. There were the great fairs to which merchants came clown from London, and where the rural dealer laid in his annual stores of sugar, stationery, cutlery, and muslin. There were the shops at which the best families of the neighbourhood bought grocery and millinery. Some of these places derived dignity from interesting historical recollections, from cathedrals decorated by all the art and magnificence of the middle ages, from palaces where a long succession of prelates had dwelt, from closes surrounded by the venerable abodes of deans and canons, and from castles which had in the old time repelled the Nevilles or de Veres, and which bore more recent traces of the vengeance of Rupert or of Cromwell.

Far below Norwich, yet still significant in dignity and importance, were some other ancient county capitals. Back then, it was rare for a country gentleman to take his family up to London. The county town was his city. He sometimes spent part of the year living there. In any case, he was often drawn there for business and leisure, whether for court sessions, elections, military musters, festivals, or races. There were the halls where judges, dressed in scarlet and accompanied by javelins and trumpets, opened the King's commission twice a year. There were the markets where the local corn, cattle, wool, and hops were sold. There were the big fairs where merchants came down from London, and where local sellers stocked up on their annual goods like sugar, stationery, cutlery, and muslin. There were the shops where the best families in the area bought groceries and clothing. Some of these places gained prestige from fascinating historical memories, from cathedrals adorned with the artistry and grandeur of the Middle Ages, from palaces that were home to a long line of bishops, from neighborhoods surrounded by the historic residences of deans and canons, and from castles that had once withstood the Nevilles or de Veres, bearing more recent signs of the wrath of Rupert or Cromwell.

Conspicuous amongst these interesting cities were York, the capital of the north, and Exeter, the capital of the west. Neither can have contained much more than ten thousand inhabitants. Worcester, the queen of the cider land had but eight thousand; Nottingham probably as many. Gloucester, renowned for that resolute defence which had been fatal to Charles the First, had certainly between four and five thousand; Derby not quite four thousand. Shrewsbury was the chief place of an extensive and fertile district. The Court of the Marches of Wales was held there. In the language of the gentry many miles round the Wrekin, to go to Shrewsbury was to go to town. The provincial wits and beauties imitated, as well as they could, the fashions of Saint James's Park, in the walks along the side of the Severn. The inhabitants were about seven thousand. 92

Among these notable cities were York, the capital of the north, and Exeter, the capital of the west. Each likely had no more than ten thousand residents. Worcester, the queen of cider country, had about eight thousand; Nottingham probably had around the same. Gloucester, famous for its strong defense that proved disastrous for Charles the First, had certainly between four and five thousand; Derby had just under four thousand. Shrewsbury was the main town in a large and fertile area. The Court of the Marches of Wales was held there. In the language of the gentry from many miles around the Wrekin, going to Shrewsbury meant going to town. Local wits and beauties tried to imitate, as best they could, the styles from Saint James's Park while walking along the banks of the Severn. The population was about seven thousand. 92

The population of every one of these places has, since the Revolution, much more than doubled. The population of some has multiplied sevenfold. The streets have been almost entirely rebuilt. Slate has succeeded to thatch, and brick to timber. The pavements and the lamps, the display of wealth in the principal shops, and the luxurious neatness of the dwellings occupied by the gentry would, in the seventeenth century, have seemed miraculous. Yet is the relative importance of the old capitals of counties by no means what it was. Younger towns, towns which are rarely or never mentioned in our early history and which sent no representatives to our early Parliaments, have, within the memory of persons still living, grown to a greatness which this generation contemplates with wonder and pride, not unaccompanied by awe and anxiety.

The population of each of these places has more than doubled since the Revolution. In some areas, it has even increased sevenfold. The streets have been almost completely rebuilt. Slate has replaced thatch, and brick has taken the place of timber. The sidewalks, streetlights, the display of wealth in the main shops, and the luxurious tidiness of the homes occupied by the wealthy would have seemed miraculous in the seventeenth century. Yet, the relative importance of the old county capitals is no longer what it used to be. Younger towns, which are rarely or never mentioned in our early history and which didn't send any representatives to our early Parliaments, have grown to a size that this generation looks at with wonder and pride, mixed with awe and anxiety.

The most eminent of these towns were indeed known in the seventeenth century as respectable seats of industry. Nay, their rapid progress and their vast opulence were then sometimes described in language which seems ludicrous to a man who has seen their present grandeur. One of the most populous and prosperous among them was Manchester. Manchester had been required by the Protector to send one representative to his Parliament, and was mentioned by writers of the time of Charles the Second as a busy and opulent place. Cotton had, during half a century, been brought thither from Cyprus and Smyrna; but the manufacture was in its infancy. Whitney had not yet taught how the raw material might be furnished in quantities almost fabulous. Arkwright had not yet taught how it might be worked up with a speed and precision which seem magical. The whole annual import did not, at the end of the seventeenth century, amount to two millions of pounds, a quantity which would now hardly supply the demand of forty-eight hours. That wonderful emporium, which in population and wealth far surpassed capitals so much renowned as Berlin, Madrid, and Lisbon, was then a mean and ill built market town containing under six thousand people. It then had not a single press. It now supports a hundred printing establishments. It then had not a single coach. It now Supports twenty coach makers. 93

The most notable of these towns were indeed recognized in the seventeenth century as respectable centers of industry. In fact, their rapid growth and immense wealth were sometimes described in ways that seem silly to someone who has witnessed their current splendor. One of the most populated and prosperous among them was Manchester. The Protector had required Manchester to send one representative to his Parliament, and writers during the time of Charles the Second referred to it as a busy and wealthy place. For half a century, cotton had been brought there from Cyprus and Smyrna, but the manufacturing process was still in its early stages. Whitney had not yet shown how to produce the raw material in almost unbelievable amounts. Arkwright had not yet demonstrated how it could be processed with a speed and accuracy that seem magical. By the end of the seventeenth century, the total annual import didn't even reach two million pounds, a figure that would scarcely meet the demand for just forty-eight hours today. That remarkable hub, which in population and wealth far outstripped well-known capitals like Berlin, Madrid, and Lisbon, was then a small, poorly constructed market town with fewer than six thousand residents. At that time, it had no printing presses. Now, it hosts a hundred printing companies. Back then, there were no coaches. Now it supports twenty coach makers. 93

Leeds was already the chief seat of the woollen manufactures of Yorkshire; but the elderly inhabitants could still remember the time when the first brick house, then and long after called the Red House, was built. They boasted loudly of their increasing wealth, and of the immense sales of cloth which took place in the open air on the bridge. Hundreds, nay thousands of pounds, had been paid down in the course of one busy market day. The rising importance of Leeds had attracted the notice of successive governments. Charles the First had granted municipal privileges to the town. Oliver had invited it to send one member to the House of Commons. But from the returns of the hearth money it seems certain that the whole population of the borough, an extensive district which contains many hamlets, did not, in the reign of Charles the Second, exceed seven thousand souls. In 1841 there were more than a hundred and fifty thousand. 94

Leeds was already the main center for wool manufacturing in Yorkshire, but the older residents could still recall when the first brick house, known as the Red House, was built. They proudly boasted about their growing wealth and the huge sales of cloth that took place outdoors on the bridge. Hundreds, even thousands of pounds, had changed hands during a busy market day. The town's rising significance had caught the attention of various governments. Charles the First had given the town municipal rights. Oliver invited them to send a representative to the House of Commons. However, records of the hearth tax indicate that during Charles the Second's reign, the entire population of the borough, which includes several small villages, did not exceed seven thousand people. By 1841, that number had grown to over one hundred and fifty thousand. 94

About a day's journey south of Leeds, on the verge of a wild moorland tract, lay an ancient manor, now rich with cultivation, then barren and unenclosed, which was known by the name of Hallamshire. Iron abounded there; and, from a very early period, the rude whittles fabricated there had been sold all over the kingdom. They had indeed been mentioned by Geoffrey Chaucer in one of his Canterbury Tales. But the manufacture appears to have made little progress during the three centuries which followed his time. This languor may perhaps be explained by the fact that the trade was, during almost the whole of this long period, subject to such regulations as the lord and his court feet thought fit to impose. The more delicate kinds of cutlery were either made in the capital or brought from the Continent. Indeed it was not till the reign of George the First that the English surgeons ceased to import from France those exquisitely fine blades which are required for operations on the human frame. Most of the Hallamshire forges were collected in a market town which had sprung up near the castle of the proprietor, and which, in the reign of James the First, had been a singularly miserable place, containing about two thousand inhabitants, of whom a third were half starved and half naked beggars. It seems certain from the parochial registers that the population did not amount to four thousand at the end of the reign of Charles the Second. The effects of a species of toil singularly unfavourable to the health and vigour of the human frame were at once discerned by every traveller. A large proportion of the people had distorted limbs. This is that Sheffield which now, with its dependencies, contains a hundred and twenty thousand souls, and which sends forth its admirable knives, razors, and lancets to the farthest ends of the world. 95

About a day's journey south of Leeds, on the edge of a wild moorland area, stood an old manor, now flourishing with agriculture, but once barren and unfenced, known as Hallamshire. Iron was plentiful there, and from a very early time, the rough tools made there had been sold throughout the kingdom. They were even mentioned by Geoffrey Chaucer in one of his Canterbury Tales. However, it seems that the industry made little progress in the three centuries that followed his time. This stagnation might be explained by the fact that the trade was, for almost the entire period, subject to regulations imposed by the lord and his court. The finer types of cutlery were either produced in the capital or imported from the Continent. In fact, it wasn't until the reign of George the First that English surgeons stopped importing those finely crafted blades from France required for surgical procedures. Most of the Hallamshire forges were located in a market town that developed near the owner's castle, which, during the reign of James the First, was a notably miserable place with about two thousand residents, a third of whom were starving and naked beggars. The parochial records indicate that the population did not exceed four thousand at the end of the reign of Charles the Second. Every traveler could immediately see the detrimental effects of a type of labor that was particularly harmful to health and strength. A significant number of people had distorted limbs. This is the Sheffield that now, along with its surrounding areas, has a population of one hundred and twenty thousand and produces its excellent knives, razors, and lancets that reach every corner of the globe. 95

Birmingham had not been thought of sufficient importance to return a member to Oliver's Parliament. Yet the manufacturers of Birmingham were already a busy and thriving race. They boasted that their hardware was highly esteemed, not indeed as now, at Pekin and Lima, at Bokhara and Timbuctoo, but in London, and even as far off as Ireland. They had acquired a less honourable renown as coiners of bad money. In allusion to their spurious groats, some Tory wit had fixed on demagogues, who hypocritically affected zeal against Popery, the nickname of Birminghams. Yet in 1685 the population, which is now little less than two hundred thousand, did not amount to four thousand. Birmingham buttons were just beginning to be known: of Birmingham guns nobody had yet heard; and the place whence, two generations later, the magnificent editions of Baskerville went forth to astonish all the librarians of Europe, did not contain a single regular shop where a Bible or an almanack could be bought. On Market days a bookseller named Michael Johnson, the father of the great Samuel Johnson, came over from Lichfield, and opened stall during a few hours. This supply of literature was long found equal to the demand. 96

Birmingham wasn’t considered important enough to send a representative to Oliver's Parliament. Still, the manufacturers in Birmingham were already a busy and thriving community. They prided themselves on their hardware being highly regarded, not quite like it is today in places like Beijing and Lima, or as far as Bukhara and Timbuktu, but in London and even in Ireland. They had also gained a less reputable fame for producing counterfeit money. Referring to their fake groats, some Tory humorist had linked the name of Birmingham with demagogues who pretended to passionately oppose Catholicism. However, in 1685, the population, which is now nearly two hundred thousand, was less than four thousand. Birmingham buttons were just starting to gain recognition; nobody had heard of Birmingham guns yet; and the place that would later produce the magnificent Baskerville editions that amazed librarians across Europe didn't have a single proper shop where one could buy a Bible or an almanac. On market days, a bookseller named Michael Johnson, who was the father of the famous Samuel Johnson, would come over from Lichfield and set up a stall for a few hours. This supply of literature was long sufficient for the demand. 96

These four chief seats of our great manufactures deserve especial mention. It would be tedious to enumerate all the populous and opulent hives of industry which, a hundred and fifty years ago, were hamlets without parish churches, or desolate moors, inhabited only by grouse and wild deer. Nor has the change been less signal in those outlets by which the products of the English looms and forges are poured forth over the whole world. At present Liverpool contains more than three hundred thousand inhabitants. The shipping registered at her port amounts to between four and five hundred thousand tons. Into her custom house has been repeatedly paid in one year a sum more than thrice as great as the whole income of the English crown in 1685. The receipts of her post office, even since the great reduction of the duty, exceed the sum which the postage of the whole kingdom yielded to the Duke of York. Her endless docks, quays, and warehouses are among the wonders of the world. Yet even those docks and quays and warehouses seem hardly to suffice for the gigantic trade of the Mersey; and already a rival city is growing fast on the opposite shore. In the days of Charles the Second Liverpool was described as a rising town which had recently made great advances, and which maintained a profitable intercourse with Ireland and with the sugar colonies. The customs had multiplied eight-fold within sixteen years, and amounted to what was then considered as the immense sum of fifteen thousand pounds annually. But the population can hardly have exceeded four thousand: the shipping was about fourteen hundred tons, less than the tonnage of a single modern Indiaman of the first class, and the whole number of seamen belonging to the port cannot be estimated at more than two hundred. 97

These four main centers of our major industries deserve special mention. It would be tedious to list all the busy and wealthy hubs of industry that, a hundred and fifty years ago, were just small villages without churches or desolate moors, home only to grouse and wild deer. The transformation has also been significant in the ways that the products of English looms and forges are distributed throughout the world. Currently, Liverpool has over three hundred thousand residents. The shipping registered at the port totals between four and five hundred thousand tons. In one year, the custom house has received a payment more than three times the entire income of the English crown in 1685. The revenue from the post office, even after the large reduction in duty, is greater than what the postage of the whole kingdom brought in for the Duke of York. Her countless docks, quays, and warehouses are wonders of the world. Yet even these docks, quays, and warehouses seem hardly enough for the massive trade of the Mersey; and a rival city is already rapidly developing on the opposite shore. In the time of Charles the Second, Liverpool was described as an up-and-coming town that had recently made significant progress and had profitable trade with Ireland and the sugar colonies. The customs had increased eight-fold in just sixteen years, reaching what was then considered the enormous sum of fifteen thousand pounds annually. But the population was likely no more than four thousand: the shipping was around fourteen hundred tons, less than the tonnage of a single modern first-class Indiaman, and the total number of sailors registered at the port was probably no more than two hundred. 97

Such has been the progress of those towns where wealth is created and accumulated. Not less rapid has been the progress of towns of a very different kind, towns in which wealth, created and accumulated elsewhere, is expended for purposes of health and recreation. Some of the most remarkable of these gay places have sprung into existence since the time of the Stuarts. Cheltenham is now a greater city than any which the kingdom contained in the seventeenth century, London alone excepted. But in the seventeenth century, and at the beginning of the eighteenth, Cheltenham was mentioned by local historians merely as a rural parish lying under the Cotswold Hills, and affording good ground both for tillage and pasture. Corn grew and cattle browsed over the space now covered by that long succession of streets and villas. 98 Brighton was described as a place which had once been thriving, which had possessed many small fishing barks, and which had, when at the height of prosperity, contained above two thousand inhabitants, but which was sinking fast into decay. The sea was gradually gaining on the buildings, which at length almost entirely disappeared. Ninety years ago the ruins of an old fort were to be seen lying among the pebbles and seaweed on the beach; and ancient men could still point out the traces of foundations on a spot where a street of more than a hundred huts had been swallowed up by the waves. So desolate was the place after this calamity, that the vicarage was thought scarcely worth having. A few poor fishermen, however, still continued to dry their nets on those cliffs, on which now a town, more than twice as large and populous as the Bristol of the Stuarts, presents, mile after mile, its gay and fantastic front to the sea. 99

The progress of towns where wealth is created and accumulated has been significant. Equally rapid has been the development of towns of a different nature, where wealth generated elsewhere is spent on health and leisure. Some of the most notable of these vibrant places have emerged since the time of the Stuarts. Cheltenham is now a bigger city than any in the kingdom during the seventeenth century, except for London. Yet, in the seventeenth century and at the beginning of the eighteenth, local historians only referred to Cheltenham as a rural parish under the Cotswold Hills, offering good land for farming and grazing. Corn was cultivated and cattle grazed where a long row of streets and villas now stands. 98 Brighton was described as a once-thriving place that had many small fishing boats and, at its peak, over two thousand residents, but was rapidly falling into decline. The sea was slowly encroaching on the buildings, which eventually nearly vanished. Ninety years ago, the ruins of an old fort could be seen among the pebbles and seaweed on the beach, and old men would still point out the remnants of foundations where a street of more than a hundred huts had been consumed by the waves. The area was so desolate after this disaster that the vicarage seemed hardly worth keeping. However, a few poor fishermen still dried their nets on the cliffs, which now host a town that is more than twice as large and populated as Bristol during the Stuarts, presenting, mile after mile, its vibrant and whimsical facade to the sea. 99

England, however, was not, in the seventeenth century, destitute of watering places. The gentry of Derbyshire and of the neighbouring counties repaired to Buxton, where they were lodged in low rooms under bare rafters, and regaled with oatcake, and with a viand which the hosts called mutton, but which the guests suspected to be dog. A single good house stood near the spring. 100 Tunbridge Wells, lying within a day's journey of the capital, and in one of the richest and most highly civilised parts of the kingdom, had much greater attractions. At present we see there a town which would, a hundred and sixty years ago, have ranked, in population, fourth or fifth among the towns of England. The brilliancy of the shops and the luxury of the private dwellings far surpasses anything that England could then show. When the court, soon after the Restoration, visited Tunbridge Wells, there was no town: but, within a mile of the spring, rustic cottages, somewhat cleaner and neater than the ordinary cottages of that time, were scattered over the heath. Some of these cabins were movable and were carried on sledges from one part of the common to another. To these huts men of fashion, wearied with the din and smoke of London, sometimes came in the summer to breathe fresh air, and to catch a glimpse of rural life. During the season a kind of fair was daily held near the fountain. The wives and daughters of the Kentish farmers came from the neighbouring villages with cream, cherries, wheatears, and quails. To chaffer with them, to flirt with them, to praise their straw hats and tight heels, was a refreshing pastime to voluptuaries sick of the airs of actresses and maids of honour. Milliners, toymen, and jewellers came down from London, and opened a bazaar under the trees. In one booth the politician might find his coffee and the London Gazette; in another were gamblers playing deep at basset; and, on fine evenings, the fiddles were in attendance and there were morris dances on the elastic turf of the bowling green. In 1685 a subscription had just been raised among those who frequented the wells for building a church, which the Tories, who then domineered everywhere, insisted on dedicating to Saint Charles the Martyr. 101

England, however, wasn't lacking in spa towns during the seventeenth century. The gentry from Derbyshire and the surrounding counties flocked to Buxton, where they stayed in low rooms with bare rafters and were served oatcakes and a dish the hosts called mutton, though the guests suspected it might actually be dog. A decent hotel was located near the spring. 100 Tunbridge Wells, just a day's journey from the capital and in one of the richest and most refined areas of the kingdom, was far more appealing. Today, it boasts a town that, 160 years ago, would have ranked fourth or fifth in population among English towns. The quality of the shops and the luxury of private homes far exceed anything England had at that time. When the court visited Tunbridge Wells shortly after the Restoration, there was no actual town; instead, rustic cottages that were slightly cleaner and neater than typical ones of the time were scattered across the heath, about a mile from the spring. Some of these cabins were portable and were moved on sledges from one part of the common to another. Fashionable people, tired of the noise and smoke of London, sometimes came here in the summer to enjoy fresh air and experience rural life. During the season, a sort of fair happened daily near the fountain. The wives and daughters of Kentish farmers arrived from nearby villages with cream, cherries, wheatears, and quails. Bargaining with them, flirting, and complimenting their straw hats and fitted shoes offered a refreshing break for those weary of the pretenses of actresses and maids of honor. Milliners, toy sellers, and jewelers traveled down from London to set up a market under the trees. In one stall, a politician could find coffee and the London Gazette; in another, gamblers were deep in basset games; and on nice evenings, there were fiddles playing for morris dances on the soft turf of the bowling green. In 1685, a subscription had just been organized among those who frequented the wells for building a church, which the Tories, who dominated at the time, insisted should be dedicated to Saint Charles the Martyr. 101

But at the head of the English watering places, without a rival. was Bath. The springs of that city had been renowned from the days of the Romans. It had been, during many centuries, the seat of a Bishop. The sick repaired thither from every part of the realm. The King sometimes held his court there. Nevertheless, Bath was then a maze of only four or five hundred houses, crowded within an old wall in the vicinity of the Avon. Pictures of what were considered as the finest of those houses are still extant, and greatly resemble the lowest rag shops and pothouses of Ratcliffe Highway. Travellers indeed complained loudly of the narrowness and meanness of the streets. That beautiful city which charms even eyes familiar with the masterpieces of Bramante and Palladio, and which the genius of Anstey and of Smollett, of Frances Burney and of Jane Austen, has made classic ground, had not begun to exist. Milsom Street itself was an open field lying far beyond the walls; and hedgerows intersected the space which is now covered by the Crescent and the Circus. The poor patients to whom the waters had been recommended lay on straw in a place which, to use the language of a contemporary physician, was a covert rather than a lodging. As to the comforts and luxuries which were to be found in the interior of the houses of Bath by the fashionable visitors who resorted thither in search of health or amusement, we possess information more complete and minute than can generally be obtained on such subjects. A writer who published an account of that city about sixty years after the Revolution has accurately described the changes which had taken place within his own recollection. He assures us that, in his younger days, the gentlemen who visited the springs slept in rooms hardly as good as the garrets which he lived to see occupied by footmen. The floors of the dining rooms were uncarpeted, and were coloured brown with a wash made of soot and small beer, in order to hide the dirt. Not a wainscot was painted. Not a hearth or a chimneypiece was of marble. A slab of common free-stone and fire irons which had cost from three to four shillings were thought sufficient for any fireplace. The best-apartments were hung with coarse woollen stuff, and were furnished with rushbottomed chairs. Readers who take an interest in the progress of civilisation and of the useful arts will be grateful to the humble topographer who has recorded these facts, and will perhaps wish that historians of far higher pretensions had sometimes spared a few pages from military evolutions and political intrigues, for the purpose of letting us know how the parlours and bedchambers of our ancestors looked. 102

But at the top of the English spa towns, with no one to compare, was Bath. The springs in that city have been famous since Roman times. It has been the seat of a Bishop for many centuries. Sick people came from all over the country to visit. The King sometimes held court there. Still, Bath was just a maze of four or five hundred houses, crammed within an old wall near the Avon. Pictures of what were thought to be the best of those houses still exist, and they look a lot like the worst rag shops and pubs on Ratcliffe Highway. Travelers often complained about the narrow and shabby streets. That beautiful city, which delights even those accustomed to the masterpieces of Bramante and Palladio, and which the talents of Anstey, Smollett, Frances Burney, and Jane Austen have made legendary, had not even begun to take shape. Milsom Street itself was an open field well outside the walls, with hedgerows cutting across the space that is now filled by the Crescent and the Circus. Poor patients recommended to try the waters laid on straw in a place that, according to a contemporary doctor, was more of a shelter than a lodging. As for the comforts and luxuries that fashionable visitors found inside the houses of Bath while seeking health or entertainment, we have detailed information that is better than what is usually available on such topics. A writer who published a description of the city about sixty years after the Revolution accurately noted the changes that had occurred in his own lifetime. He confirms that, in his youth, the gentlemen visiting the springs stayed in rooms that were barely better than the attics he later saw occupied by footmen. The dining room floors weren't carpeted and were covered in a brown wash made of soot and small beer to hide the dirt. No wainscoting was painted. No fireplace or mantel was made of marble. A slab of ordinary free-stone and fire irons that cost three to four shillings were considered adequate for any fireplace. The best rooms were draped with coarse wool fabric and furnished with rush-bottomed chairs. Readers interested in the progress of civilization and useful arts will be thankful to the humble topographer who documented these facts and might wish that historians with loftier ambitions sometimes traded a few pages from military maneuvers and political plots to show us what our ancestors' parlors and bedrooms looked like. 102

The position of London, relatively to the other towns of the empire, was, in the time of Charles the Second, far higher than at present. For at present the population of London is little more than six times the population of Manchester or of Liverpool. In the days of Charles the Second the population of London was more than seventeen times the population of Bristol or of Norwich. It may be doubted whether any other instance can be mentioned of a great kingdom in which the first city was more than seventeen times as large as the second. There is reason to believe that, in 1685, London had been, during about half a century, the most populous capital in Europe. The inhabitants, who are now at least nineteen hundred thousand, were then probably little more shall half a million. 103 London had in the world only one commercial rival, now long ago outstripped, the mighty and opulent Amsterdam. English writers boasted of the forest of masts and yardarms which covered the river from the Bridge to the Tower, and of the stupendous sums which were collected at the Custom House in Thames Street. There is, indeed, no doubt that the trade of the metropolis then bore a far greater proportion than at present to the whole trade of the country; yet to our generation the honest vaunting of our ancestors must appear almost ludicrous. The shipping which they thought incredibly great appears not to have exceeded seventy thousand tons. This was, indeed, then more than a third of the whole tonnage of the kingdom, but is now less than a fourth of the tonnage of Newcastle, and is nearly equalled by the tonnage of the steam vessels of the Thames.

The status of London, compared to other cities in the empire, was much more prominent during the time of Charles II than it is today. Currently, London's population is just over six times that of Manchester or Liverpool. Back in Charles II’s days, London’s population was more than seventeen times larger than that of Bristol or Norwich. It's debatable whether there's another example of a major kingdom where the largest city was over seventeen times larger than the second city. It’s believed that, in 1685, London had been the most populous capital in Europe for about fifty years. The population, which is now at least one million nine hundred thousand, was likely just a bit more than half a million back then. 103 At that time, London had only one commercial competitor, the powerful and wealthy Amsterdam, which has long since been surpassed. English writers took pride in the forest of masts and sails that filled the river from the Bridge to the Tower, and in the enormous sums collected at the Custom House on Thames Street. There’s no doubt that the trade in the capital then accounted for a much larger part of the nation’s overall trade than it does now; however, to us, the proud claims of our ancestors sound almost laughable. The shipping they considered impressively large doesn’t seem to have exceeded seventy thousand tons. While that was more than a third of the country’s total tonnage at the time, it is now less than a fourth of Newcastle’s tonnage and is nearly matched by the tonnage of steam vessels on the Thames.

The customs of London amounted, in 1685, to about three hundred and thirty thousand pounds a year. In our time the net duty paid annually, at the same place, exceeds ten millions. 104

The customs of London totaled about three hundred thirty thousand pounds a year in 1685. Nowadays, the net duty paid each year at the same location is over ten million. 104

Whoever examines the maps of London which were published towards the close of the reign of Charles the Second will see that only the nucleus of the present capital then existed. The town did not, as now, fade by imperceptible degrees into the country. No long avenues of villas, embowered in lilacs and laburnums, extended from the great centre of wealth and civilisation almost to the boundaries of Middlesex and far into the heart of Kent and Surrey. In the east, no part of the immense line of warehouses and artificial lakes which now stretches from the Tower to Blackwall had even been projected. On the west, scarcely one of those stately piles of building which are inhabited by the noble and wealthy was in existence; and Chelsea, which is now peopled by more than forty thousand human beings, was a quiet country village with about a thousand inhabitants. 105 On the north, cattle fed, and sportsmen wandered with dogs and guns, over the site of the borough of Marylebone, and over far the greater part of the space now covered by the boroughs of Finsbury and of the Tower Hamlets. Islington was almost a solitude; and poets loved to contrast its silence and repose with the din and turmoil of the monster London. 106 On the south the capital is now connected with its suburb by several bridges, not inferior in magnificence and solidity to the noblest works of the Caesars. In 1685, a single line of irregular arches, overhung by piles of mean and crazy houses, and garnished, after a fashion worthy of the naked barbarians of Dahomy, with scores of mouldering heads, impeded the navigation of the river.

Whoever looks at the maps of London published toward the end of Charles the Second's reign will see that only the core of what we now call the capital existed then. The town did not blend into the countryside as it does today. Long streets lined with houses surrounded by lilacs and laburnums didn’t stretch from the main hub of wealth and civilization nearly to the borders of Middlesex and deep into Kent and Surrey. In the east, there was no part of the vast line of warehouses and artificial lakes that now runs from the Tower to Blackwall. In the west, hardly any of those impressive buildings where the noble and wealthy live existed; Chelsea, now home to over forty thousand people, was just a quiet country village with about a thousand residents. 105 To the north, cattle grazed, and hunters wandered with their dogs and guns over the area that would become the borough of Marylebone, as well as most of what is now Finsbury and the Tower Hamlets. Islington was nearly deserted; poets liked to contrast its tranquility with the noise and chaos of the sprawling London. 106 To the south, the capital is now linked to its suburbs by several bridges that rival the grandeur and sturdiness of the greatest works of the Caesars. In 1685, a single line of uneven arches, overshadowed by ramshackle houses and adorned, in a way reminiscent of the naked barbarians of Dahomy, with numerous decaying heads, obstructed the river's navigation.

Of the metropolis, the City, properly so called, was the most important division. At the time of the Restoration it had been built, for the most part, of wood and plaster; the few bricks that were used were ill baked; the booths where goods were exposed to sale projected far into the streets, and were overhung by the upper stories. A few specimens of this architecture may still be seen in those districts which were not reached by the great fire. That fire had, in a few days, covered a space of little less shall a square mile with the ruins of eighty-nine churches and of thirteen thousand houses. But the City had risen again with a celerity which had excited the admiration of neighbouring countries. Unfortunately, the old lines of the streets had been to a great extent preserved; and those lines, originally traced in an age when even princesses performed their journeys on horseback, were often too narrow to allow wheeled carriages to pass each other with ease, and were therefore ill adapted for the residence of wealthy persons in an age when a coach and six was a fashionable luxury. The style of building was, however, far superior to that of the City which had perished. The ordinary material was brick, of much better quality than had formerly been used. On the sites of the ancient parish churches had arisen a multitude of new domes, towers, and spires which bore the mark of the fertile genius of Wren. In every place save one the traces of the great devastation had been completely effaced. But the crowds of workmen, the scaffolds, and the masses of hewn stone were still to be seen where the noblest of Protestant temples was slowly rising on the ruins of the Old Cathedral of Saint Paul. 107

Of the metropolis, the City, as it’s actually called, was the most significant part. By the time of the Restoration, it had mostly been built with wood and plaster; the few bricks used were poorly made. The stalls where goods were sold extended far into the streets, overshadowed by the upper floors. A few examples of this architecture can still be found in areas that weren’t affected by the massive fire. That fire had, in just a few days, covered nearly a square mile with the ruins of eighty-nine churches and thirteen thousand houses. However, the City quickly rebuilt, which impressed neighboring countries. Unfortunately, the old street layout was largely maintained. These roads, originally designed in a time when even princesses traveled on horseback, were often too narrow for carriages to pass each other comfortably, making them unsuitable for wealthy residents in an era when a carriage with six horses was a common luxury. The new buildings were, however, far superior to those that had been lost. The usual material was brick, which was of much better quality than what had been used before. On the sites of the old parish churches, a number of new domes, towers, and spires had risen, showcasing the creative genius of Wren. In every place but one, the signs of the great destruction had been completely erased. But the crowds of workers, the scaffolding, and the piles of cut stone were still visible where the most magnificent Protestant church was slowly being constructed on the ruins of the Old Cathedral of Saint Paul. 107

The whole character of the City has, since that time, undergone a complete change. At present the bankers, the merchants, and the chief shopkeepers repair thither on six mornings of every week for the transaction of business; but they reside in other quarters of the metropolis, or at suburban country seats surrounded by shrubberies and flower gardens. This revolution in private habits has produced a political revolution of no small importance. The City is no longer regarded by the wealthiest traders with that attachment which every man naturally feels for his home. It is no longer associated in their minds with domestic affections and endearments. The fireside, the nursery, the social table, the quiet bed are not there. Lombard Street and Threadneedle Street are merely places where men toil and accumulate. They go elsewhere to enjoy and to expend. On a Sunday, or in an evening after the hours of business, some courts and alleys, which a few hours before had been alive with hurrying feet and anxious faces, are as silent as the glades of a forest. The chiefs of the mercantile interest are no longer citizens. They avoid, they almost contemn, municipal honours and duties. Those honours and duties are abandoned to men who, though useful and highly respectable, seldom belong to the princely commercial houses of which the names are renowned throughout the world.

Since that time, the whole character of the City has changed completely. Nowadays, the bankers, merchants, and main shopkeepers come there six mornings a week for business; however, they live in other parts of the metropolis or in suburban homes surrounded by shrubs and flower gardens. This shift in private habits has led to a political change of significant importance. Wealthiest traders no longer feel the same connection to the City as they do to their homes. It’s no longer linked in their minds with family love and warmth. The hearth, the nursery, the dining table, and the quiet bedroom are missing. Lombard Street and Threadneedle Street have become just places where people work and earn money. They go elsewhere to relax and spend their leisure time. On Sundays or in the evenings after work, some courts and alleys, which just hours before were bustling with hurried footsteps and anxious faces, become as quiet as a forest glade. The leaders of the commercial sector are no longer true citizens. They shy away from, and almost disdain, municipal honors and responsibilities. Those honors and responsibilities are left to individuals who, while useful and respected, rarely come from the prestigious commercial houses known worldwide.

In the seventeenth century the City was the merchant's residence. Those mansions of the great old burghers which still exist have been turned into counting houses and warehouses: but it is evident that they were originally not inferior in magnificence to the dwellings which were then inhabited by the nobility. They sometimes stand in retired and gloomy courts, and are accessible only by inconvenient passages: but their dimensions are ample, and their aspect stately. The entrances are decorated with richly carved pillars and canopies. The staircases and landing places are not wanting in grandeur. The floors are sometimes of wood tessellated after the fashion of France. The palace of Sir Robert Clayton, in the Old Jewry, contained a superb banqueting room wainscoted with cedar, and adorned with battles of gods and giants in fresco. 108 Sir Dudley North expended four thousand pounds, a sum which would then have been important to a Duke, on the rich furniture of his reception rooms in Basinghall Street. 109 In such abodes, under the last Stuarts, the heads of the great firms lived splendidly and hospitably. To their dwelling place they were bound by the strongest ties of interest and affection. There they had passed their youth, had made their friendships, had courted their wives had seen their children grow up, had laid the remains of their parents in the earth, and expected that their own remains would be laid. That intense patriotism which is peculiar to the members of societies congregated within a narrow space was, in such circumstances, strongly developed. London was, to the Londoner, what Athens was to the Athenian of the age of Pericles, what Florence was to the Florentine of the fifteenth century. The citizen was proud of the grandeur of his city, punctilious about her claims to respect, ambitious of her offices, and zealous for her franchises.

In the seventeenth century, the City was home to merchants. The impressive mansions of the wealthy burghers that still stand have been converted into offices and storage spaces, but it’s clear they were once just as magnificent as the homes of the nobility. They often sit in secluded, dark courtyards and can only be reached via awkward pathways, yet they are spacious and have a stately appearance. The entrances feature beautifully carved pillars and awnings. The staircases and landings are quite grand. Some floors are made of wood arranged in a pattern reminiscent of French style. Sir Robert Clayton’s palace in the Old Jewry had a stunning banquet hall paneled with cedar, decorated with frescoes of battles between gods and giants. 108 Sir Dudley North spent four thousand pounds, a substantial amount for a Duke back then, on the luxurious furniture for his reception rooms on Basinghall Street. 109 In these homes, during the final years of the Stuarts, the heads of major firms lived lavishly and hosted guests warmly. They were deeply attached to these places out of both interest and affection. There, they had spent their youth, formed friendships, courted their wives, watched their children grow up, buried their parents, and anticipated their own final rest. The strong patriotism typical of members of tightly-knit communities was particularly pronounced in these circumstances. To the Londoner, London was what Athens was to the Athenian in the age of Pericles, and what Florence was to the Florentine in the fifteenth century. The citizen took pride in his city’s greatness, was meticulous about its reputation, aspired to its positions of influence, and was passionate about its rights.

At the close of the reign of Charles the Second the pride of the Londoners was smarting from a cruel mortification. The old charter had been taken away; and the magistracy had been remodelled. All the civic functionaries were Tories: and the Whigs, though in numbers and in wealth superior to their opponents, found themselves excluded from every local dignity. Nevertheless, the external splendour of the municipal government was not diminished, nay, was rather increased by this change. For, under the administration of some Puritans who had lately borne rule, the ancient fame of the City for good cheer had declined: but under the new magistrates, who belonged to a more festive party, and at whose boards guests of rank and fashion from beyond Temple Bar were often seen, the Guildhall and the halls of the great companies were enlivened by many sumptuous banquets. During these repasts, odes composed by the poet laureate of the corporation, in praise of the King, the Duke, and the Mayor, were sung to music. The drinking was deep and the shouting loud. An observant Tory, who had often shared in these revels, has remarked that the practice of huzzaing after drinking healths dates from this joyous period. 110

At the end of Charles the Second's reign, the Londoners' pride was stinging from a harsh blow. The old charter was revoked, and the government had been reshaped. All the city officials were Tories, and although the Whigs were more numerous and wealthier than their opponents, they found themselves shut out from all local positions of power. However, the visible grandeur of the municipal government didn't decrease; in fact, it was enhanced by this shift. Under the leadership of some Puritans who had recently been in charge, the City’s reputation for great food had faded, but with the new magistrates from a more festive faction, who often hosted guests of prominence from beyond Temple Bar, the Guildhall and the grand company halls buzzed with lavish banquets. During these meals, odes written by the corporation's poet laureate, celebrating the King, the Duke, and the Mayor, were sung to music. Drinking was heavy, and the cheering was loud. A keen Tory, who often participated in these festivities, noted that the tradition of cheering after toasting to health dates back to this joyful time. 110

The magnificence displayed by the first civic magistrate was almost regal. The gilded coach, indeed, which is now annually admired by the crowd, was not yet a part of his state. On great occasions he appeared on horseback, attended by a long cavalcade inferior in magnificence only to that which, before a coronation, escorted the sovereign from the Tower to Westminster. The Lord Mayor was never seen in public without his rich robe, his hood of black velvet, his gold chain, his jewel, and a great attendance of harbingers and guards. 111 Nor did the world find anything ludicrous in the pomp which constantly surrounded him. For it was not more than became the place which, as wielding the strength and representing the dignity of the City of London, he was entitled to occupy in the State. That City, being then not only without equal in the country, but without second, had, during five and forty years, exercised almost as great an influence on the politics of England as Paris has, in our own time, exercised on the politics of France. In intelligence London was greatly in advance of every other part of the kingdom. A government, supported and trusted by London, could in a day obtain such pecuniary means as it would have taken months to collect from the rest of the island. Nor were the military resources of the capital to be despised. The power which the Lord Lieutenants exercised in other parts of the kingdom was in London entrusted to a Commission of eminent citizens. Under the order of this Commission were twelve regiments of foot and two regiments of horse. An army of drapers' apprentices and journeymen tailors, with common councilmen for captains and aldermen for colonels, might not indeed have been able to stand its ground against regular troops; but there were then very few regular troops in the kingdom. A town, therefore, which could send forth, at an hour's notice, thousands of men, abounding in natural courage, provided with tolerable weapons, and not altogether untinctured with martial discipline, could not but be a valuable ally and a formidable enemy. It was not forgotten that Hampden and Pym had been protected from lawless tyranny by the London trainbands; that, in the great crisis of the civil war, the London trainbands had marched to raise the siege of Gloucester; or that, in the movement against the military tyrants which followed the downfall of Richard Cromwell, the London trainbands had borne a signal part. In truth, it is no exaggeration to say that, but for the hostility of the City, Charles the First would never have been vanquished, and that, without the help of the City, Charles the Second could scarcely have been restored.

The grandeur shown by the first civic leader was almost royal. The gilded coach, which crowds admire every year now, wasn’t yet part of his official state. On significant occasions, he rode on horseback, followed by a long procession that was only slightly less impressive than the one that escorted the king from the Tower to Westminster before a coronation. The Lord Mayor was never seen in public without his luxurious robe, his black velvet hood, his gold chain, his jewel, and a large group of attendants and guards. 111 No one found the constant pomp surrounding him ridiculous. It was fitting for the role he held, which wielded the power and represented the dignity of the City of London in the State. Back then, the City had no equal in the country and, for forty-five years, had nearly as much influence on England’s politics as Paris does on France today. London was significantly ahead of every other part of the kingdom in terms of intelligence. A government backed by and trusted by London could gather financial resources in a day that would take months to collect from the rest of the country. The military strength of the capital was not to be underestimated, either. The power held by the Lord Lieutenants in other parts of the kingdom was given in London to a Commission of prominent citizens. Under this Commission were twelve infantry regiments and two cavalry regiments. While an army of drapers' apprentices and journeyman tailors, led by common council members as captains and aldermen as colonels, might not have stood a chance against regular troops, there were very few regular troops in the kingdom at that time. A city that could mobilize thousands of men at a moment's notice, filled with natural courage, armed with decent weapons, and somewhat familiar with military discipline, was undoubtedly a valuable ally and a formidable opponent. It was remembered that Hampden and Pym were protected from lawless tyranny by the London trainbands; that during the critical moment of the civil war, the London trainbands marched to lift the siege of Gloucester; and that in the uprising against the military tyrants following Richard Cromwell’s downfall, the London trainbands played a significant role. In fact, it’s no exaggeration to say that without the City’s opposition, Charles the First would have never been defeated, and without the City’s support, Charles the Second could hardly have been restored.

These considerations may serve to explain why, in spite of that attraction which had, during a long course of years, gradually drawn the aristocracy westward, a few men of high rank had continued, till a very recent period, to dwell in the vicinity of the Exchange and of the Guildhall. Shaftesbury and Buckingham, while engaged in bitter and unscrupulous opposition to the government, had thought that they could nowhere carry on their intrigues so conveniently or so securely as under the protection of the City magistrates and the City militia. Shaftesbury had therefore lived in Aldersgate Street, at a house which may still be easily known by pilasters and wreaths, the graceful work of Inigo. Buckingham had ordered his mansion near Charing Cross, once the abode of the Archbishops of York, to be pulled down; and, while streets and alleys which are still named after him were rising on that site, chose to reside in Dowgate. 112

These thoughts might help explain why, despite the pull that had gradually drawn the aristocracy westward over many years, a few high-ranking individuals continued to live near the Exchange and the Guildhall until very recently. Shaftesbury and Buckingham, while engaged in fierce and relentless opposition to the government, believed they could conduct their intrigues more conveniently and securely under the protection of the City magistrates and the City militia. Shaftesbury had therefore lived on Aldersgate Street, in a house that can still be easily recognized by its pilasters and wreaths, the elegant work of Inigo. Buckingham had ordered his mansion near Charing Cross, once home to the Archbishops of York, to be demolished; and while streets and alleys still named after him were being built on that site, he chose to live in Dowgate. 112

These, however, were rare exceptions. Almost all the noble families of England had long migrated beyond the walls. The district where most of their town houses stood lies between the city and the regions which are now considered as fashionable. A few great men still retained their hereditary hotels in the Strand. The stately dwellings on the south and west of Lincoln's Inn Fields, the Piazza of Covent Garden, Southampton Square, which is now called Bloomsbury Square, and King's Square in Soho Fields, which is now called Soho Square, were among the favourite spots. Foreign princes were carried to see Bloomsbury Square, as one of the wonders of England. 113 Soho Square, which had just been built, was to our ancestors a subject of pride with which their posterity will hardly sympathise. Monmouth Square had been the name while the fortunes of the Duke of Monmouth flourished; and on the southern side towered his mansion. The front, though ungraceful, was lofty and richly adorned. The walls of the principal apartments were finely sculptured with fruit, foliage, and armorial bearings, and were hung with embroidered satin. 114 Every trace of this magnificence has long disappeared; and no aristocratical mansion is to be found in that once aristocratical quarter. A little way north from Holborn, and on the verge of the pastures and corn-fields, rose two celebrated palaces, each with an ample garden. One of them, then called Southampton House, and subsequently Bedford House, was removed about fifty years ago to make room for a new city, which now covers with its squares, streets, and churches, a vast area, renowned in the seventeenth century for peaches and snipes. The other, Montague House, celebrated for its frescoes and furniture, was, a few months after the death of Charles the Second, burned to the ground, and was speedily succeeded by a more magnificent Montague House, which, having been long the repository of such various and precious treasures of art, science, and learning as were scarcely ever before assembled under a single roof, has now given place to an edifice more magnificent still. 115

These were, however, rare exceptions. Almost all the noble families of England had long moved beyond the city limits. The area where most of their townhouses were located lay between the city and what are now considered fashionable neighborhoods. A few prominent figures still held onto their inherited residences on the Strand. The grand homes to the south and west of Lincoln's Inn Fields, the Piazza of Covent Garden, Southampton Square—now known as Bloomsbury Square—and King's Square in Soho Fields—now called Soho Square—were among the popular spots. Foreign royalty were brought to see Bloomsbury Square as one of England's wonders. 113 Soho Square, which had just been constructed, was a source of pride for our ancestors that their descendants will likely not relate to. Monmouth Square was the name used while the fortunes of the Duke of Monmouth thrived, and his mansion towered on the southern side. Though its front was not graceful, it was tall and richly decorated. The walls of the main rooms were intricately sculpted with fruit, leaves, and coats of arms, and were draped with embroidered satin. 114 Every trace of this grandeur has long vanished, and no aristocratic mansion can be found in that once-elegant area. A little north of Holborn, on the edge of the pastures and cornfields, stood two notable palaces, each with a large garden. One of them, then called Southampton House and later Bedford House, was demolished about fifty years ago to make way for a new city, which now fills a vast area with its squares, streets, and churches, once famous in the seventeenth century for peaches and snipe. The other, Montague House, known for its frescoes and furniture, was burned to the ground a few months after the death of Charles the Second, and was quickly replaced by a more magnificent Montague House. This second Montague House, which housed an extraordinary collection of art, science, and learning treasures rarely assembled under one roof, has now been replaced by an even more impressive building. 115

Nearer to the Court, on a space called St. James's Fields, had just been built St. James's Square and Jermyn Street. St. James's Church had recently been opened for the accommodation of the inhabitants of this new quarter. 116 Golden Square, which was in the next generation inhabited by lords and ministers of state, had not yet been begun. Indeed the only dwellings to be seen on the north of Piccadilly were three or four isolated and almost rural mansions, of which the most celebrated was the costly pile erected by CIarendon, and nicknamed Dunkirk House. It had been purchased after its founder's downfall by the Duke of Albemarle. The Clarendon Hotel and Albemarle Street still preserve the memory of the site.

Near the Court, in an area called St. James's Fields, St. James's Square and Jermyn Street had just been built. St. James's Church had recently opened to serve the residents of this new neighborhood. 116 Golden Square, which in the next generation would be home to lords and government officials, hadn't even started construction yet. In fact, the only buildings visible north of Piccadilly were three or four scattered and almost countryside-style mansions, the most famous of which was the expensive structure built by Clarendon, nicknamed Dunkirk House. After its founder's downfall, it was bought by the Duke of Albemarle. The Clarendon Hotel and Albemarle Street still remind us of the location.

He who then rambled to what is now the gayest and most crowded part of Regent Street found himself in a solitude, and, was sometimes so fortunate as to have a shot at a woodcock. 117 On the north the Oxford road ran between hedges. Three or four hundred yards to the south were the garden walls of a few great houses which were considered as quite out of town. On the west was a meadow renowned for a spring from which, long afterwards, Conduit Street was named. On the east was a field not to be passed without a shudder by any Londoner of that age. There, as in a place far from the haunts of men, had been dug, twenty years before, when the great plague was raging, a pit into which the dead carts had nightly shot corpses by scores. It was popularly believed that the earth was deeply tainted with infection, and could not be disturbed without imminent risk to human life. No foundations were laid there till two generations had passed without any return of the pestilence, and till the ghastly spot had long been surrounded by buildings. 118

He who wandered into what is now the liveliest and most crowded part of Regent Street found himself in solitude and was sometimes lucky enough to get a shot at a woodcock. 117 To the north, the Oxford road ran between hedges. Three or four hundred yards to the south were the garden walls of a few grand houses that were considered quite out of the city. To the west was a meadow famous for a spring that later became the namesake of Conduit Street. To the east was a field that would send shivers down the spine of any Londoner from that time. There, in a place far removed from human habitation, a pit had been dug twenty years earlier when the great plague was spreading, into which the dead carts had nightly dumped bodies by the dozens. It was widely believed that the ground was heavily infected and could not be disturbed without serious risk to human life. No buildings were constructed there until two generations had passed without a return of the plague, and until the eerie spot had long been surrounded by other structures. 118

We should greatly err if we were to suppose that any of the streets and squares then bore the same aspect as at present. The great majority of the houses, indeed have, since that time, been wholly, or in great part, rebuilt. If the most fashionable parts of the capital could be placed before us such as they then were, we should be disgusted by their squalid appearance, and poisoned by their noisome atmosphere.

We would be seriously mistaken if we thought that any of the streets and squares looked the same now as they did back then. Most of the houses have, since that time, been completely or largely rebuilt. If we could see the most fashionable areas of the city as they were then, we would be appalled by their filthy appearance and sickened by their disgusting air.

In Covent Garden a filthy and noisy market was held close to the dwellings of the great. Fruit women screamed, carters fought, cabbage stalks and rotten apples accumulated in heaps at the thresholds of the Countess of Berkshire and of the Bishop of Durham. 119

In Covent Garden, a dirty and loud market took place near the homes of the wealthy. Women selling fruit yelled, drivers argued, and piles of cabbage stalks and rotten apples stacked up at the doorsteps of the Countess of Berkshire and the Bishop of Durham. 119

The centre of Lincoln's Inn Fields was an open space where the rabble congregated every evening, within a few yards of Cardigan House and Winchester House, to hear mountebanks harangue, to see bears dance, and to set dogs at oxen. Rubbish was shot in every part of the area. Horses were exercised there. The beggars were as noisy and importunate as in the worst governed cities of the Continent. A Lincoln's Inn mumper was a proverb. The whole fraternity knew the arms and liveries of every charitably disposed grandee in the neighbourhood, and as soon as his lordship's coach and six appeared, came hopping and crawling in crowds to persecute him. These disorders lasted, in spite of many accidents, and of some legal proceedings, till, in the reign of George the Second, Sir Joseph Jekyll, Master of the Rolls, was knocked down and nearly killed in the middle of the Square. Then at length palisades were set up, and a pleasant garden laid out. 120

The center of Lincoln's Inn Fields was an open area where the crowd gathered every evening, just yards away from Cardigan House and Winchester House, to listen to street performers, watch bears dance, and see dogs chase oxen. Trash was scattered everywhere. Horses were exercised there. The beggars were as loud and persistent as in the worst-managed cities on the Continent. A Lincoln's Inn beggar was a common saying. Everyone in the community knew the coats of arms and uniforms of every generous noble in the area, and as soon as his lordship's coach and six appeared, they would come hopping and crawling in droves to bug him. These disturbances continued, despite various incidents and some legal actions, until during the reign of George the Second, Sir Joseph Jekyll, Master of the Rolls, was knocked down and nearly killed in the middle of the Square. Finally, palisades were erected, and a nice garden was established. 120

Saint James's Square was a receptacle for all the offal and cinders, for all the dead cats and dead dogs of Westminster. At one time a cudgel player kept the ring there. At another time an impudent squatter settled himself there, and built a shed for rubbish under the windows of the gilded saloons in which the first magnates of the realm, Norfolk, Ormond, Kent, and Pembroke, gave banquets and balls. It was not till these nuisances had lasted through a whole generation, and till much had been written about them, that the inhabitants applied to Parliament for permission to put up rails, and to plant trees. 121

Saint James's Square was a dumping ground for all the trash and debris, for all the dead cats and dogs in Westminster. At one point, a street performer entertained crowds there. At another time, a bold squatter set up camp and built a shed for junk right under the windows of the fancy salons where the most important people, like Norfolk, Ormond, Kent, and Pembroke, held their banquets and parties. It wasn’t until these nuisances persisted for a whole generation and after a lot had been written about them that the locals finally asked Parliament for permission to install fences and plant trees. 121

When such was the state of the region inhabited by the most luxurious portion of society, we may easily believe that the great body of the population suffered what would now be considered as insupportable grievances. The pavement was detestable: all foreigners cried shame upon it. The drainage was so bad that in rainy weather the gutters soon became torrents. Several facetious poets have commemorated the fury with which these black rivulets roared down Snow Hill and Ludgate Hill, bearing to Fleet Ditch a vast tribute of animal and vegetable filth from the stalls of butchers and greengrocers. This flood was profusely thrown to right and left by coaches and carts. To keep as far from the carriage road as possible was therefore the wish of every pedestrian. The mild and timid gave the wall. The bold and athletic took it. If two roisterers met they cocked their hats in each other's faces, and pushed each other about till the weaker was shoved towards the kennel. If he was a mere bully he sneaked off, mattering that he should find a time. If he was pugnacious, the encounter probably ended in a duel behind Montague House. 122

When the situation was like this in the area where the wealthiest people lived, it’s easy to believe that most of the population faced what would now be seen as unbearable problems. The pavement was terrible: all visitors complained about it. The drainage was so poor that during rainy weather the gutters quickly turned into rivers. Several humorous poets have captured the intensity with which these black streams rushed down Snow Hill and Ludgate Hill, sending a huge amount of animal and vegetable waste from the butcher and greengrocer stalls to Fleet Ditch. This flood was thrown around by coaches and carts. As a result, every pedestrian tried to stay as far from the carriageway as possible. The gentle and timid stepped aside to give way. The bold and strong took the space. When two rowdy guys met, they tipped their hats at each other and shoved each other around until the weaker one was pushed toward the gutter. If he was just a bully, he would back off, planning to find a better moment. If he was looking for a fight, the confrontation probably ended in a duel behind Montague House. 122

The houses were not numbered. There would indeed have been little advantage in numbering them; for of the coachmen, chairmen, porters, and errand boys of London, a very small proportion could read. It was necessary to use marks which the most ignorant could understand. The shops were therefore distinguished by painted or sculptured signs, which gave a gay and grotesque aspect to the streets. The walk from Charing Cross to Whitechapel lay through an endless succession of Saracens' Heads, Royal Oaks, Blue Bears, and Golden Lambs, which disappeared when they were no longer required for the direction of the common people.

The houses didn’t have numbers. There really wouldn’t have been much point in numbering them, since very few of the coachmen, chairmen, porters, and delivery boys in London could read. It was important to use signs that even the least educated could recognize. As a result, the shops were marked with painted or carved signs, giving the streets a bright and quirky vibe. The walk from Charing Cross to Whitechapel went past an endless stream of Saracens' Heads, Royal Oaks, Blue Bears, and Golden Lambs, which were taken down when they were no longer needed to guide the general public.

When the evening closed in, the difficulty and danger of walking about London became serious indeed. The garret windows were opened, and pails were emptied, with little regard to those who were passing below. Falls, bruises and broken bones were of constant occurrence. For, till the last year of the reign of Charles the Second, most of the streets were left in profound darkness. Thieves and robbers plied their trade with impunity: yet they were hardly so terrible to peaceable citizens as another class of ruffians. It was a favourite amusement of dissolute young gentlemen to swagger by night about the town, breaking windows, upsetting sedans, beating quiet men, and offering rude caresses to pretty women. Several dynasties of these tyrants had, since the Restoration, domineered over the streets. The Muns and Tityre Tus had given place to the Hectors, and the Hectors had been recently succeeded by the Scourers. At a later period arose the Nicker, the Hawcubite, and the yet more dreaded name of Mohawk. 123 The machinery for keeping the peace was utterly contemptible. There was an Act of Common Council which provided that more than a thousand watchmen should be constantly on the alert in the city, from sunset to sunrise, and that every inhabitant should take his turn of duty. But this Act was negligently executed. Few of those who were summoned left their homes; and those few generally found it more agreeable to tipple in alehouses than to pace the streets. 124

As evening fell, walking around London became quite risky. The attic windows opened up, and buckets were emptied with little concern for those below. Falls, injuries, and broken bones happened all the time. Until the last year of Charles the Second's reign, many streets were left in complete darkness. Thieves and robbers operated without fear, but they weren't as intimidating to law-abiding citizens as another group of troublemakers. It was a popular pastime for rowdy young men to roam the town at night, breaking windows, tipping over carriages, assaulting peaceful folks, and making unwelcome advances on attractive women. Since the Restoration, several waves of these bullies had terrorized the streets. The Muns and Tityre Tus were replaced by the Hectors, who were then recently succeeded by the Scourers. Later on, names like Nicker, Hawcubite, and the even more feared Mohawk emerged. 123 The system for maintaining order was utterly pathetic. There was a Common Council Act stating that more than a thousand watchmen should always be vigilant in the city from sunset to sunrise, with each resident required to take a turn. But this Act was poorly enforced. Few who were called upon actually left their homes, and those few usually preferred to hang out in pubs rather than walk the streets. 124

It ought to be noticed that, in the last year of the reign of Charles the Second, began a great change in the police of London, a change which has perhaps added as much to the happiness of the body of the people as revolutions of much greater fame. An ingenious projector, named Edward Heming, obtained letters patent conveying to him, for a term of years, the exclusive right of lighting up London. He undertook, for a moderate consideration, to place a light before every tenth door, on moonless nights, from Michaelmas to Lady Day, and from six to twelve of the clock. Those who now see the capital all the year round, from dusk to dawn, blazing with a splendour beside which the illuminations for La Hogue and Blenheim would have looked pale, may perhaps smile to think of Heming's lanterns, which glimmered feebly before one house in ten during a small part of one night in three. But such was not the feeling of his contemporaries. His scheme was enthusiastically applauded, and furiously attacked. The friends of improvement extolled him as the greatest of all the benefactors of his city. What, they asked, were the boasted inventions of Archimedes, when compared with the achievement of the man who had turned the nocturnal shades into noon-day? In spite of these eloquent eulogies the cause of darkness was not left undefended. There were fools in that age who opposed the introduction of what was called the new light as strenuously as fools in our age have opposed the introduction of vaccination and railroads, as strenuously as the fools of an age anterior to the dawn of history doubtless opposed the introduction of the plough and of alphabetical writing. Many years after the date of Heming's patent there were extensive districts in which no lamp was seen. 125

It should be noted that in the last year of Charles the Second’s reign, a significant change began in the police system of London, one that likely brought as much happiness to the people as much more famous revolutions. An innovative thinker named Edward Heming received letters patent granting him, for several years, the exclusive right to illuminate London. He committed, for a reasonable fee, to place a light outside every tenth door on moonless nights, from Michaelmas to Lady Day, and from six in the evening to midnight. Those who now see the capital glowing with brilliance from dusk till dawn all year round—including lights that would make the illuminations for the battles of La Hogue and Blenheim look dim—might chuckle at the memory of Heming’s lanterns, which shone faintly in front of one in ten houses during just part of one night in three. However, his contemporaries did not share that sentiment. His plan was warmly praised and fiercely criticized. Supporters of progress hailed him as the greatest benefactor of his city. They argued that what were the celebrated inventions of Archimedes compared to the achievements of the man who transformed nighttime into daylight? Despite these passionate praises, the cause of darkness was also fiercely defended. There were those in that time who opposed the introduction of what was called the new light as vigorously as some today oppose vaccination and railroads, just as surely as people in times before recorded history likely resisted the plow and the alphabet. Many years after Heming’s patent was granted, there were still large areas where no lamp could be found. 125

We may easily imagine what, in such times, must have been the state of the quarters of London which were peopled by the outcasts of society. Among those quarters one had attained a scandalous preeminence. On the confines of the City and the Temple had been founded, in the thirteenth century, a House of Carmelite Friars, distinguished by their white hoods. The precinct of this house had, before the Reformation, been a sanctuary for criminals, and still retained the privilege of protecting debtors from arrest. Insolvents consequently were to be found in every dwelling, from cellar to garret. Of these a large proportion were knaves and libertines, and were followed to their asylum by women more abandoned than themselves. The civil power was unable to keep order in a district swarming with such inhabitants; and thus Whitefriars became the favourite resort of all who wished to be emancipated from the restraints of the law. Though the immunities legally belonging to the place extended only to cases of debt, cheats, false witnesses, forgers, and highwaymen found refuge there. For amidst a rabble so desperate no peace officer's life was in safety. At the cry of "Rescue," bullies with swords and cudgels, and termagant hags with spits and broomsticks, poured forth by hundreds; and the intruder was fortunate if he escaped back into Fleet Street, hustled, stripped, and pumped upon. Even the warrant of the Chief Justice of England could not be executed without the help of a company of musketeers. Such relics of the barbarism of the darkest ages were to be found within a short walk of the chambers where Somers was studying history and law, of the chapel where Tillotson was preaching, of the coffee house where Dryden was passing judgment on poems and plays, and of the hall where the Royal Society was examining the astronomical system of Isaac Newton. 126

We can easily imagine what the areas of London, occupied by society's outcasts, must have been like during such times. Among those areas, one reached a notorious prominence. At the edge of the City and the Temple, a House of Carmelite Friars had been established in the thirteenth century, recognized by their white hoods. Before the Reformation, the precinct of this house had served as a sanctuary for criminals, and it still had the right to protect debtors from arrest. As a result, defaulting debtors were found in every home, from basement to attic. A significant number of these individuals were deceitful and unruly, often accompanied by women who were even more depraved than they were. The authorities couldn't maintain order in a neighborhood teeming with such residents, making Whitefriars a popular hangout for anyone wanting to escape the law's restrictions. Although the legal protections of the area only applied to debt cases, scammers, false witnesses, forgers, and highway robbers also found refuge there. In such a desperate crowd, no peace officer could feel safe. At the shout of "Rescue," fighters with swords and clubs, along with fierce women wielding spits and brooms, rushed out by the hundreds; and any intruder was lucky if they made it back to Fleet Street, hustled, robbed, and drenched. Even a warrant from the Chief Justice of England couldn't be enforced without a group of musketeers. Such remnants of the darkest ages were located just a short walk from the chambers where Somers was studying history and law, from the chapel where Tillotson was preaching, from the coffee house where Dryden was critiquing poems and plays, and from the hall where the Royal Society was investigating Isaac Newton's astronomical system. 126

Each of the two cities which made up the capital of England had its own centre of attraction. In the metropolis of commerce the point of convergence was the Exchange; in the metropolis of fashion the Palace. But the Palace did not retain influence so long as the Exchange. The Revolution completely altered the relations between the Court and the higher classes of society. It was by degrees discovered that the King, in his individual capacity, had very little to give; that coronets and garters, bishoprics and embassies, lordships of the Treasury and tellerships of the Exchequer, nay, even charges in the royal stud and bedchamber, were really bestowed, not by him, but by his advisers. Every ambitious and covetous man perceived that he would consult his own interest far better by acquiring the dominion of a Cornish borough, and by rendering good service to the ministry during a critical session, than by becoming the companion, or even the minion, of his prince. It was therefore in the antechambers, not of George the First and of George the Second, but of Walpole and of Pelham, that the daily crowd of courtiers was to be found. It is also to be remarked that the same Revolution, which made it impossible that our Kings should use the patronage of the state merely for the purpose of gratifying their personal predilections, gave us several Kings unfitted by their education and habits to be gracious and affable hosts. They had been born and bred on the Continent. They never felt themselves at home in our island. If they spoke our language, they spoke it inelegantly and with effort. Our national character they never fully understood. Our national manners they hardly attempted to acquire. The most important part of their duty they performed better than any ruler who preceded them: for they governed strictly according to law: but they could not be the first gentlemen of the realm, the heads of polite society. If ever they unbent, it was in a very small circle where hardly an English face was to be seen; and they were never so happy as when they could escape for a summer to their native land. They had indeed their days of reception for our nobility and gentry; but the reception was a mere matter of form, and became at last as solemn a ceremony as a funeral.

Each of the two cities that made up the capital of England had its own main attraction. In the hub of commerce, the focal point was the Exchange; in the center of fashion, it was the Palace. However, the Palace didn’t hold influence for as long as the Exchange did. The Revolution completely changed the relationship between the Court and the upper classes. It gradually became clear that the King, on his own, had very little to offer; that titles, prestigious positions, bishoprics, and embassies were actually given out, not by him, but by his advisors. Every ambitious and greedy person realized that it was in their best interest to take control of a Cornish borough and provide good service to the government during a critical session than to become a companion, or even a favorite, of the King. Therefore, the crowds of courtiers were found daily not in the presence of George the First or George the Second, but in the antechambers of Walpole and Pelham. It's also worth noting that the same Revolution, which made it impossible for our Kings to use state patronage solely for their personal preferences, gave us several Kings who were poorly suited, due to their upbringing and habits, to be gracious and friendly hosts. They had been born and raised on the Continent and never felt at home in our country. If they spoke our language, they did so clumsily and with difficulty. They never fully understood our national character, and they hardly made an effort to adopt our manners. The most important aspect of their role they performed better than any ruler before them: they governed strictly according to the law. But they could not be the most genteel figures of the realm or the leaders of polite society. Whenever they relaxed, it was in a very small circle where few English faces were seen, and they were never happier than when they could escape for the summer to their homeland. They did have occasions to receive our nobility and gentry, but those receptions were merely formalities and eventually became as solemn as a funeral.

Not such was the court of Charles the Second. Whitehall, when he dwelt there, was the focus of political intrigue and of fashionable gaiety. Half the jobbing and half the flirting of the metropolis went on under his roof. Whoever could make himself agreeable to the prince, or could secure the good offices of the mistress, might hope to rise in the world without rendering any service to the government, without being even known by sight to any minister of state. This courtier got a frigate, and that a company; a third, the pardon of a rich offender; a fourth, a lease of crown land on easy terms. If the King notified his pleasure that a briefless lawyer should be made a judge, or that a libertine baronet should be made a peer, the gravest counsellors, after a little murmuring, submitted. 127 Interest, therefore, drew a constant press of suitors to the gates of the palace; and those gates always stood wide. The King kept open house every day, and all day long, for the good society of London, the extreme Whigs only excepted. Hardly any gentleman had any difficulty in making his way to the royal presence. The levee was exactly what the word imports. Some men of quality came every morning to stand round their master, to chat with him while his wig was combed and his cravat tied, and to accompany him in his early walk through the Park. All persons who had been properly introduced might, without any special invitation, go to see him dine, sup, dance, and play at hazard, and might have the pleasure of hearing him tell stories, which indeed he told remarkably well, about his flight from Worcester, and about the misery which he had endured when he was a state prisoner in the hands of the canting meddling preachers of Scotland. Bystanders whom His Majesty recognised often came in for a courteous word. This proved a far more successful kingcraft than any that his father or grandfather had practiced. It was not easy for the most austere republican of the school of Marvel to resist the fascination of so much good humour and affability; and many a veteran Cavalier, in whose heart the remembrance of unrequited sacrifices and services had been festering during twenty years, was compensated in one moment for wounds and sequestrations by his sovereign's kind nod, and "God bless you, my old friend!"

Not so with the court of Charles the Second. Whitehall, when he lived there, was the center of political scheming and fashionable fun. Half the business deals and half the flirting in the city happened under his roof. Anyone who could charm the prince or get on the good side of his mistress had a shot at advancing in society without doing any work for the government or even being recognized by any government official. One courtier snagged a frigate, another got a company; a third received a pardon for a wealthy criminal; a fourth secured a lease on crown land for cheap. If the King expressed his wish to make a lawyer without a brief a judge, or to elevate a party-loving baronet to a peer, even the most serious advisers eventually complied after some grumbling. 127 Interest, therefore, brought a steady stream of applicants to the palace gates, which were always open. The King hosted an open house every day, welcoming the good society of London, except for the extreme Whigs. Hardly any gentleman had trouble making his way to the royal presence. The levee was exactly what the word means. Some noblemen came every morning to gather around their master, chat while he had his wig styled and his cravat tied, and join him for an early stroll through the Park. Anyone properly introduced could drop in to see him dine, have supper, dance, and gamble, and enjoy hearing him tell stories, which he told exceptionally well, about his escape from Worcester and the hardships he faced as a state prisoner at the hands of the hypocritical, meddling preachers of Scotland. Bystanders recognized by His Majesty often received a friendly word. This approach proved to be a much more effective form of kingship than anything his father or grandfather had practiced. It wasn’t easy for even the sternest republican to resist the charm of such good humor and friendliness; and many a veteran Cavalier, whose heart had been burdened for twenty years with memories of unreturned sacrifices, found that one kind nod and “God bless you, my old friend!” from his sovereign made up for all his injuries and losses in an instant.

Whitehall naturally became the chief staple of news. Whenever there was a rumour that anything important had happened or was about to happen, people hastened thither to obtain intelligence from the fountain head. The galleries presented the appearance of a modern club room at an anxious time. They were full of people enquiring whether the Dutch mail was in, what tidings the express from France had brought, whether John Sobiesky had beaten the Turks, whether the Doge of Genoa was really at Paris These were matters about which it was safe to talk aloud. But there were subjects concerning which information was asked and given in whispers. Had Halifax got the better of Rochester? Was there to be a Parliament? Was the Duke of York really going to Scotland? Had Monmouth really been summoned from the Hague? Men tried to read the countenance of every minister as he went through the throng to and from the royal closet. All sorts of auguries were drawn from the tone in which His Majesty spoke to the Lord President, or from the laugh with which His Majesty honoured a jest of the Lord Privy Seal; and in a few hours the hopes and fears inspired by such slight indications had spread to all the coffee houses from Saint James's to the Tower. 128

Whitehall naturally became the main source of news. Whenever there was a rumor that something important had happened or was about to happen, people rushed there to get information straight from the source. The galleries looked like a modern club during a tense time. They were filled with people asking if the Dutch mail had arrived, what news the express from France brought, whether John Sobiesky had defeated the Turks, and if the Doge of Genoa was really in Paris. These were safe topics to discuss openly. But there were some subjects that were whispered about. Had Halifax outmaneuvered Rochester? Would there be a Parliament? Was the Duke of York really going to Scotland? Had Monmouth actually been called back from the Hague? People tried to read the expressions of every minister as he moved through the crowd to and from the royal closet. All kinds of predictions were made based on the way His Majesty spoke to the Lord President or the laugh with which His Majesty responded to a joke from the Lord Privy Seal; and in just a few hours, the hopes and fears raised by such small signs had spread to all the coffeehouses from Saint James's to the Tower. 128

The coffee house must not be dismissed with a cursory mention. It might indeed at that time have been not improperly called a most important political institution. No Parliament had sat for years The municipal council of the City had ceased to speak the sense of the citizens. Public meetings, harangues, resolutions, and the rest of the modern machinery of agitation had not yet come into fashion. Nothing resembling the modern newspaper existed. In such circumstances the coffee houses were the chief organs through which the public opinion of the metropolis vented itself.

The coffee house shouldn't just be brushed aside. It could have been rightly called a significant political institution back then. No Parliament had met for years, and the city council had stopped representing the citizens' views. Public meetings, speeches, resolutions, and other forms of modern activism hadn’t become popular yet. There was no equivalent to today’s newspaper. In that context, the coffee houses were the primary places where the public opinion of the city was expressed.

The first of these establishments had been set up by a Turkey merchant, who had acquired among the Mahometans a taste for their favourite beverage. The convenience of being able to make appointments in any part of the town, and of being able to pass evenings socially at a very small charge, was so great that the fashion spread fast. Every man of the upper or middle class went daily to his coffee house to learn the news and to discuss it. Every coffee house had one or more orators to whose eloquence the crowd listened with admiration, and who soon became, what the journalists of our time have been called, a fourth Estate of the realm. The Court had long seen with uneasiness the growth of this new power in the state. An attempt had been made, during Danby's administration, to close the coffee houses. But men of all parties missed their usual places of resort so much that there was an universal outcry. The government did not venture, in opposition to a feeling so strong and general, to enforce a regulation of which the legality might well be questioned. Since that time ten years had elapsed, and during those years the number and influence of the coffee houses had been constantly increasing. Foreigners remarked that the coffee house was that which especially distinguished London from all other cities; that the coffee house was the Londoner's home, and that those who wished to find a gentleman commonly asked, not whether he lived in Fleet Street or Chancery Lane, but whether he frequented the Grecian or the Rainbow. Nobody was excluded from these places who laid down his penny at the bar. Yet every rank and profession, and every shade of religious and political opinion, had its own headquarters. There were houses near Saint James's Park where fops congregated, their heads and shoulders covered with black or flaxen wigs, not less ample than those which are now worn by the Chancellor and by the Speaker of the House of Commons. The wig came from Paris and so did the rest of the fine gentleman's ornaments, his embroidered coat, his fringed gloves, and the tassel which upheld his pantaloons. The conversation was in that dialect which, long after it had ceased to be spoken in fashionable circles, continued, in the mouth of Lord Foppington, to excite the mirth of theatres. 129 The atmosphere was like that of a perfumer's shop. Tobacco in any other form than that of richly scented snuff was held in abomination. If any clown, ignorant of the usages of the house, called for a pipe, the sneers of the whole assembly and the short answers of the waiters soon convinced him that he had better go somewhere else. Nor, indeed, would he have had far to go. For, in general the coffee rooms reeked with tobacco like a guardroom: and strangers sometimes expressed their surprise that so many people should leave their own firesides to sit in the midst of eternal fog and stench. Nowhere was the smoking more constant than at Will's. That celebrated house, situated between Covent Garden and Bow Street, was sacred to polite letters. There the talk was about poetical justice and the unities of place and time. There was a faction for Perrault and the moderns, a faction for Boileau and the ancients. One group debated whether Paradise Lost ought not to have been in rhyme. To another an envious poetaster demonstrated that Venice Preserved ought to have been hooted from the stage. Under no roof was a greater variety of figures to be seen. There were Earls in stars and garters, clergymen in cassocks and bands, pert Templars, sheepish lads from the Universities, translators and index makers in ragged coats of frieze. The great press was to get near the chair where John Dryden sate. In winter that chair was always in the warmest nook by the fire; in summer it stood in the balcony. To bow to the Laureate, and to hear his opinion of Racine's last tragedy or of Bossu's treatise on epic poetry, was thought a privilege. A pinch from his snuff box was an honour sufficient to turn the head of a young enthusaist. There were coffee houses where the first medical men might be consulted. Doctor John Radcliffe, who, in the year 1685, rose to the largest practice in London, came daily, at the hour when the Exchange was full, from his house in Bow Street, then a fashionable part of the capital, to Garraway's, and was to be found, surrounded by surgeons and apothecaries, at a particular table. There were Puritan coffee houses where no oath was heard, and where lankhaired men discussed election and reprobation through their noses; Jew coffee houses where darkeyed money changers from Venice and Amsterdam greeted each other; and Popish coffee houses where, as good Protestants believed, Jesuits planned, over their cups, another great fire, and cast silver bullets to shoot the King. 130

The first of these places was started by a Turkish merchant who had developed a taste for their favorite drink among the Muslims. The convenience of being able to meet up anywhere in town and spend evenings socially for very little money made it extremely popular. Every man from the upper and middle classes went to his coffee house daily to catch up on the news and discuss it. Each coffee house had one or more speakers whose eloquence captivated the crowd, and who soon became what we now refer to as the fourth estate. The government had been uneasy about the rise of this new power for a long time. During Danby's administration, there was an attempt to close the coffee houses, but people from all political parties missed their go-to spots so much that there was an outcry. The government didn't dare enforce a regulation against such a strong and widespread sentiment, especially one whose legality may have been questionable. A decade has passed since that time, and during those years, the number and influence of coffee houses have consistently grown. Foreigners noted that coffee houses were what particularly set London apart from other cities; that coffee houses were considered the home of Londoners, and those looking for a gentleman typically asked not if he lived on Fleet Street or Chancery Lane, but if he frequented the Grecian or the Rainbow. No one was turned away from these places if they paid their penny at the bar. Yet, every class and profession, and every variation of religious and political belief had its own gathering spot. There were places near Saint James's Park where dandy types hung out, their heads and shoulders adorned with large black or blonde wigs, as extravagant as those worn by the Chancellor and the Speaker of the House of Commons today. The wigs, along with the rest of the fine gentleman's attire—embroidered coats, fringed gloves, and the tassels supporting their pantaloons—came from Paris. The conversation was in that style of speech which, long after its popularity faded in fashionable circles, continued to amuse audiences through characters like Lord Foppington. 129 The environment felt like a perfume shop. Tobacco, other than richly scented snuff, was frowned upon. If a foolish person, unaware of the house's customs, asked for a pipe, the derisive laughter of everyone present and the curt responses from the waitstaff quickly made it clear he should look elsewhere. In truth, he wouldn't have to go far. Generally, the coffee rooms smelled heavily of tobacco, like a barracks; and newcomers would sometimes express surprise that so many chose to leave the comfort of their own homes to sit in the midst of constant fog and odor. Nowhere was smoking more constant than at Will's. That famous establishment, located between Covent Garden and Bow Street, was dedicated to the discussion of literature. Conversations revolved around poetic justice and the unities of place and time. There were factions supporting Perrault and the moderns versus Boileau and the ancients. One group debated whether "Paradise Lost" should have been written in rhyme, while others argued that an envious poet should have been booed off the stage for "Venice Preserved." Under one roof, there was a remarkable diversity of characters. Earls in stars and garters, clergymen in their robes, snobby Templars, bashful university students, translators, and index makers in shabby frieze coats all gathered. The main goal was to get close to the chair where John Dryden sat. In winter, that chair was always by the warmest spot by the fire; in summer, it was on the balcony. Bowing to the Laureate and hearing his thoughts on Racine's latest tragedy or Bossu's treatise on epic poetry was considered a privilege. A pinch from his snuff box was an honor that could make a young enthusiast's head spin. There were coffee houses where leading medical professionals could be consulted. Doctor John Radcliffe, who gained the largest practice in London in 1685, would come daily from his home in Bow Street, then a fashionable area, to Garraway's at the busy hour of the Exchange, where he could be found surrounded by surgeons and apothecaries at a specific table. There were Puritan coffee houses where no swearing was allowed, and skinny men would discuss election and reprobation in hushed tones; Jewish coffee houses where dark-eyed money changers from Venice and Amsterdam greeted one another; and Catholic coffee houses where good Protestants believed Jesuits conspired over their drinks to start another great fire and cast silver bullets to assassinate the King. 130

These gregarious habits had no small share in forming the character of the Londoner of that age. He was, indeed, a different being from the rustic Englishman. There was not then the intercourse which now exists between the two classes. Only very great men were in the habit of dividing the year between town and country. Few esquires came to the capital thrice in their lives. Nor was it yet the practice of all citizens in easy circumstances to breathe the fresh air of the fields and woods during some weeks of every summer. A cockney, in a rural village, was stared at as much as if he had intruded into a Kraal of Hottentots. On the other hand, when the lord of a Lincolnshire or Shropshire manor appeared in Fleet Street, he was as easily distinguished from the resident population as a Turk or a Lascar. His dress, his gait, his accent, the manner in which he gazed at the shops, stumbled into the gutters, ran against the porters, and stood under the waterspouts, marked him out as an excellent subject for the operations of swindlers and barterers. Bullies jostled him into the kennel. Hackney coachmen splashed him from head to foot. Thieves explored with perfect security the huge pockets of his horseman's coat, while he stood entranced by the splendour of the Lord Mayor's show. Moneydroppers, sore from the cart's tail, introduced themselves to him, and appeared to him the most honest friendly gentlemen that he had ever seen. Painted women, the refuse of Lewkner Lane and Whetstone Park, passed themselves on him for countesses and maids of honour. If he asked his way to Saint James's, his informants sent him to Mile End. If he went into a shop, he was instantly discerned to be a fit purchaser of everything that nobody else would buy, of second-hand embroidery, copper rings, and watches that would not go. If he rambled into any fashionable coffee house, he became a mark for the insolent derision of fops and the grave waggery of Templars. Enraged and mortified, he soon returned to his mansion, and there, in the homage of his tenants and the conversation of his boon companions, found consolation for the vexatious and humiliations which he had undergone. There he was once more a great man, and saw nothing above himself except when at the assizes he took his seat on the bench near the Judge, or when at the muster of the militia he saluted the Lord Lieutenant.

These social habits played a significant role in shaping the character of the Londoner in that era. He was, in fact, quite different from the rural Englishman. At that time, there wasn't the level of interaction that exists today between the two classes. Only very prominent individuals typically divided their year between city and countryside. Few gentlemen visited the capital more than three times in their lives. It wasn't common for all well-off citizens to enjoy the fresh air of the fields and woods for a few weeks every summer. A Cockney in a rural village attracted just as much attention as if he had wandered into a community of Hottentots. Conversely, when a lord from Lincolnshire or Shropshire showed up in Fleet Street, he stood out from the local residents just as much as a Turk or a Lascar would. His clothing, mannerisms, accent, the way he stared at the shops, stumbled into the gutters, bumped into porters, and lingered under the rain spouts made him a perfect target for con artists and traders. Bullies would shove him into the gutter. Hackney cab drivers would splash him from head to toe. Thieves would confidently explore the deep pockets of his riding coat while he was mesmerized by the grandeur of the Lord Mayor's parade. Scammers, fresh from their exploits, would introduce themselves to him, appearing to be the most honest, friendly gentlemen he had ever encountered. Painted women, the dregs of Lewkner Lane and Whetstone Park, would pass themselves off as countesses and ladies-in-waiting. If he asked for directions to Saint James's, he'd be sent to Mile End. If he entered a shop, he would quickly be recognized as the perfect customer for items nobody else wanted, like second-hand embroidery, copper rings, and broken watches. If he wandered into a trendy coffee house, he became a target for the mocking laughter of dandy types and the serious jokes of law students. Frustrated and humiliated, he would soon retreat to his estate, where the respect of his tenants and the company of his friends provided comfort for the annoying and degrading experiences he had faced. There he was once again a significant figure, seeing nothing above himself unless he sat on the bench near the Judge at the assizes or greeted the Lord Lieutenant during the militia muster.

The chief cause which made the fusion of the different elements of society so imperfect was the extreme difficulty which our ancestors found in passing from place to place. Of all inventions, the alphabet and the printing press alone excepted, those inventions which abridge distance have done most for the civilisation of our species. Every improvement of the means of locomotion benefits mankind morally and intellectually as well as materially, and not only facilitates the interchange of the various productions of nature and art, but tends to remove national and provincial antipathies, and to bind together all the branches of the great human family. In the seventeenth century the inhabitants of London were, for almost every practical purpose, farther from Reading than they now are from Edinburgh, and farther from Edinburgh than they now are from Vienna.

The main reason the integration of different parts of society was so flawed was the great difficulty that our ancestors had in traveling from one place to another. Of all inventions, except for the alphabet and the printing press, those that reduce distance have contributed the most to our civilization. Every advancement in transportation not only benefits humanity physically but also morally and intellectually, making it easier to exchange various products of nature and art. It also helps to lessen national and regional hostilities and brings together all the branches of the larger human family. In the seventeenth century, the people of London were, for almost all practical purposes, farther away from Reading than they are now from Edinburgh, and farther from Edinburgh than they are now from Vienna.

The subjects of Charles the Second were not, it is true, quite unacquainted with that principle which has, in our own time, produced an unprecedented revolution in human affairs, which has enabled navies to advance in face of wind and tide, and brigades of troops, attended by all their baggage and artillery, to traverse kingdoms at a pace equal to that of the fleetest race horse. The Marquess of Worcester had recently observed the expansive power of moisture rarefied by heat. After many experiments he had succeeded in constructing a rude steam engine, which he called a fire water work, and which he pronounced to be an admirable and most forcible instrument of propulsion. 131 But the Marquess was suspected to be a madman, and known to be a Papist. His inventions, therefore found no favourable reception. His fire water work might, perhaps, furnish matter for conversation at a meeting of the Royal Society, but was not applied to any practical purpose. There were no railways, except a few made of timber, on which coals were carried from the mouths of the Northumbrian pits to the banks of the Tyne. 132 There was very little internal communication by water. A few attempts had been made to deepen and embank the natural streams, but with slender success. Hardly a single navigable canal had been even projected. The English of that day were in the habit of talking with mingled admiration and despair of the immense trench by which Lewis the Fourteenth had made a junction between the Atlantic and the Mediterranean. They little thought that their country would, in the course of a few generations, be intersected, at the cost of private adventurers, by artificial rivers making up more than four times the length of the Thames, the Severn, and the Trent together.

The subjects of Charles the Second weren't completely unaware of the principle that has, in our own time, led to an unprecedented revolution in human affairs, allowing navies to advance against wind and tide, and troops, along with all their baggage and artillery, to cross kingdoms at a speed equal to that of the fastest racehorse. The Marquess of Worcester had recently noticed the expansive power of moisture heated to a vapor. After many experiments, he successfully built a basic steam engine, which he called a fire water work, and claimed it was an excellent and powerful method of propulsion. 131 However, the Marquess was thought to be insane and was known to be a Papist. As a result, his inventions were not well received. His fire water work might have sparked some discussion at a meeting of the Royal Society, but it was not put to any practical use. There were no railways, except for a few wooden ones used to transport coal from the Northumbrian pits to the banks of the Tyne. 132 There was very limited internal water communication. A few attempts had been made to deepen and embank the natural streams but with little success. Hardly a single navigable canal had even been planned. The English of that time often spoke in a mix of admiration and despair about the massive trench that Louis the Fourteenth had created to connect the Atlantic and the Mediterranean. They had no idea that in just a few generations, their country would be crisscrossed, at the expense of private investors, by artificial rivers that would measure more than four times the length of the Thames, Severn, and Trent combined.

It was by the highways that both travellers and goods generally passed from place to place; and those highways appear to have been far worse than might have been expected from the degree of wealth and civilisation which the nation had even then attained. On the best lines of communication the ruts were deep, the descents precipitous, and the way often such as it was hardly possible to distinguish, in the dusk, from the unenclosed heath and fen which lay on both sides. Ralph Thorseby, the antiquary, was in danger of losing his way on the great North road, between Barnby Moor and Tuxford, and actually lost his way between Doncaster and York. 133 Pepys and his wife, travelling in their own coach, lost their way between Newbury and Reading. In the course of the same tour they lost their way near Salisbury, and were in danger of having to pass the night on the plain. 134 It was only in fine weather that the whole breadth of the road was available for wheeled vehicles. Often the mud lay deep on the right and the left; and only a narrow track of firm ground rose above the quagmire. 135 At such times obstructions and quarrels were frequent, and the path was sometimes blocked up during a long time by carriers, neither of whom would break the way. It happened, almost every day, that coaches stuck fast, until a team of cattle could be procured from some neighbouring farm, to tug them out of the slough. But in bad seasons the traveller had to encounter inconveniences still more serious. Thoresby, who was in the habit of travelling between Leeds and the capital, has recorded, in his Diary, such a series of perils and disasters as might suffice for a journey to the Frozen Ocean or to the Desert of Sahara. On one occasion he learned that the floods were out between Ware and London, that passengers had to swim for their lives, and that a higgler had perished in the attempt to cross. In consequence of these tidings he turned out of the high road, and was conducted across some meadows, where it was necessary for him to ride to the saddle skirts in water. 136 In the course of another journey he narrowly escaped being swept away by an inundation of the Trent. He was afterwards detained at Stamford four days, on account of the state of the roads, and then ventured to proceed only because fourteen members of the House of Commons, who were going up in a body to Parliament with guides and numerous attendants, took him into their company. 137 On the roads of Derbyshire, travellers were in constant fear for their necks, and were frequently compelled to alight and lead their beasts. 138 The great route through Wales to Holyhead was in such a state that, in 1685, a viceroy, going to Ireland, was five hours in travelling fourteen miles, from Saint Asaph to Conway. Between Conway and Beaumaris he was forced to walk a great part of the way; and his lady was carried in a litter. His coach was, with much difficulty, and by the help of many hands, brought after him entire. In general, carriages were taken to pieces at Conway, and borne, on the shoulders of stout Welsh peasants, to the Menai Straits. 139 In some parts of Kent and Sussex, none but the strongest horses could, in winter, get through the bog, in which, at every step, they sank deep. The markets were often inaccessible during several months. It is said that the fruits of the earth were sometimes suffered to rot in one place, while in another place, distant only a few miles, the supply fell far short of the demand. The wheeled carriages were, in this district, generally pulled by oxen. 140 When Prince George of Denmark visited the stately mansion of Petworth in wet weather, he was six hours in going nine miles; and it was necessary that a body of sturdy hinds should be on each side of his coach, in order to prop it. Of the carriages which conveyed his retinue several were upset and injured. A letter from one of the party has been preserved, in which the unfortunate courtier complains that, during fourteen hours, he never once alighted, except when his coach was overturned or stuck fast in the mud. 141

It was on the main roads that both travelers and goods typically moved from one place to another; however, these roads seemed to be much worse than might be expected given the level of wealth and civilization the country had even then achieved. On the best routes, the ruts were deep, the descents steep, and often the path was so indistinct, especially at dusk, that it was hard to tell it apart from the surrounding heath and marshland. Ralph Thorseby, an antiquary, almost lost his way on the major North road between Barnby Moor and Tuxford, and actually got lost between Doncaster and York. 133 Pepys and his wife, traveling in their own coach, lost their way between Newbury and Reading. During the same trip, they also got lost near Salisbury and risked having to spend the night on the plain. 134 It was only in good weather that the entire width of the road was usable for wheeled vehicles. Often, the mud was deep on both sides, leaving only a narrow track of solid ground above the bog. 135 During such times, obstacles and disputes were common, and sometimes the path would be blocked for a long time by carriers who refused to clear the way. Almost every day, coaches would get stuck until a team of cattle could be borrowed from a nearby farm to pull them out of the mud. But in bad weather, travelers faced even greater inconveniences. Thoresby, who regularly traveled between Leeds and the capital, recorded in his Diary a series of dangers and disasters that could rival a journey to the Frozen Ocean or the Sahara Desert. On one occasion, he found out that floods had occurred between Ware and London, that passengers had to swim for their lives, and that a trader had drowned trying to cross. After hearing this, he left the main road and was directed through some meadows, where he had to ride with water up to the saddle. 136 During another trip, he narrowly avoided being swept away by a flood of the Trent. He was then stuck in Stamford for four days due to the road conditions, and proceeded only when fourteen members of the House of Commons, who were traveling together to Parliament with guides and numerous attendants, took him along. 137 On the roads of Derbyshire, travelers constantly feared for their safety and often had to get down and lead their animals. 138 The main route through Wales to Holyhead was so bad that in 1685, a viceroy traveling to Ireland took five hours to cover fourteen miles, from Saint Asaph to Conway. Between Conway and Beaumaris, he had to walk a large part of the way, and his wife was carried in a litter. His coach was brought along with great difficulty and the help of many people. Generally, carriages were taken apart at Conway and carried on the backs of strong Welsh laborers to the Menai Straits. 139 In some areas of Kent and Sussex, only the strongest horses could manage to navigate the bog in winter, sinking deeply with every step. Markets were often unreachable for several months. It’s said that crops would sometimes rot in one place while just a few miles away, the supply was well below demand. In this region, wheeled carts were usually pulled by oxen. 140 When Prince George of Denmark visited the grand estate of Petworth in rainy weather, it took him six hours to travel nine miles, and a group of strong laborers had to be on either side of his coach to support it. Several of the carriages carrying his entourage were overturned and damaged. A letter from one of the party has been preserved, in which the unfortunate courtier complains that, over fourteen hours, he never got down except when his coach was flipped or stuck in the mud. 141

One chief cause of the badness of the roads seems to have been the defective state of the law. Every parish was bound to repair the highways which passed through it. The peasantry were forced to give their gratuitous labour six days in the year. If this was not sufficient, hired labour was employed, and the expense was met by a parochial rate. That a route connecting two great towns, which have a large and thriving trade with each other, should be maintained at the cost of the rural population scattered between them is obviously unjust; and this injustice was peculiarly glaring in the case of the great North road, which traversed very poor and thinly inhabited districts, and joined very rich and populous districts. Indeed it was not in the power of the parishes of Huntingdonshire to mend a high-way worn by the constant traffic between the West Riding of Yorkshire and London. Soon after the Restoration this grievance attracted the notice of Parliament; and an act, the first of our many turnpike acts, was passed imposing a small toll on travellers and goods, for the purpose of keeping some parts of this important line of communication in good repair. 142 This innovation, however, excited many murmurs; and the other great avenues to the capital were long left under the old system. A change was at length effected, but not without much difficulty. For unjust and absurd taxation to which men are accustomed is often borne far more willingly than the most reasonable impost which is new. It was not till many toll bars had been violently pulled down, till the troops had in many districts been forced to act against the people, and till much blood had been shed, that a good system was introduced. 143 By slow degrees reason triumphed over prejudice; and our island is now crossed in every direction by near thirty thousand miles of turnpike road.

One main reason for the poor condition of the roads seems to have been the flawed state of the law. Each parish was required to maintain the highways that ran through it. The local farmers had to provide unpaid labor for six days a year. If that wasn’t enough, hired workers were brought in, and the costs were covered by a parish tax. It’s clearly unfair that a route connecting two major towns with active trade should be funded by the rural communities in between; this injustice was particularly obvious with the main North road, which went through very poor and sparsely populated areas while linking affluent and densely populated regions. In fact, the parishes in Huntingdonshire couldn't repair a highway that was worn down by the constant traffic between West Riding of Yorkshire and London. Shortly after the Restoration, this issue caught the attention of Parliament, and the first of what would become many turnpike acts was passed, imposing a small toll on travelers and goods to help keep parts of this crucial route well-maintained. 142 However, this change led to a lot of complaints, and other major routes to the capital remained under the old system for a long time. Eventually, a change was made, but it wasn't easy. People often resist new, reasonable taxes more than they tolerate old, unjust ones. It wasn’t until many toll gates were forcefully torn down, troops were deployed against civilians in several areas, and a lot of blood was shed that a better system was put in place. 143 Gradually, reason won out over bias, and our island is now traversed in every direction by nearly thirty thousand miles of turnpike roads.

On the best highways heavy articles were, in the time of Charles the Second, generally conveyed from place to place by stage waggons. In the straw of these vehicles nestled a crowd of passengers, who could not afford to travel by coach or on horseback, and who were prevented by infirmity, or by the weight of their luggage, from going on foot. The expense of transmitting heavy goods in this way was enormous. From London to Birmingham the charge was seven pounds a ton; from London to Exeter twelve pounds a ton. 144 This was about fifteen pence a ton for every mile, more by a third than was afterwards charged on turnpike roads, and fifteen times what is now demanded by railway companies. The cost of conveyance amounted to a prohibitory tax on many useful articles. Coal in particular was never seen except in the districts where it was produced, or in the districts to which it could be carried by sea, and was indeed always known in the south of England by the name of sea coal.

On the best highways, during the time of Charles the Second, heavy items were usually transported from place to place by stage wagons. Inside these vehicles, a group of passengers squeezed in, who couldn't afford to travel by coach or horse and were unable to walk due to disabilities or because their luggage was too heavy. The cost of moving heavy goods this way was huge. From London to Birmingham, the charge was seven pounds per ton; from London to Exeter, it was twelve pounds per ton. 144 This worked out to about fifteen pence per ton for every mile, which was a third more than what was later charged on turnpike roads and fifteen times what railway companies charge today. The cost of transport became a prohibitive tax on many useful items. Coal, in particular, was rarely seen outside the areas where it was mined or in places it could be brought by sea, and it was always referred to in southern England as sea coal.

On byroads, and generally throughout the country north of York and west of Exeter, goods were carried by long trains of packhorses. These strong and patient beasts, the breed of which is now extinct, were attended by a class of men who seem to have borne much resemblance to the Spanish muleteers. A traveller of humble condition often found it convenient to perform a journey mounted on a packsaddle between two baskets, under the care of these hardy guides. The expense of this mode of conveyance was small. But the caravan moved at a foot's pace; and in winter the cold was often insupportable. 145

On back roads, and generally all over the area north of York and west of Exeter, goods were transported by long lines of packhorses. These strong and patient animals, the breed of which is now extinct, were managed by a type of men who closely resembled the Spanish muleteers. Travelers of modest means often found it handy to take a journey riding on a packsaddle situated between two baskets, with the help of these tough guides. The cost of this mode of transport was low. However, the caravan moved at a slow pace; and in winter, the cold was often unbearable. 145

The rich commonly travelled in their own carriages, with at least four horses. Cotton, the facetious poet, attempted to go from London to the Peak with a single pair, but found at Saint Albans that the journey would be insupportably tedious, and altered his Plan. 146 A coach and six is in our time never seen, except as part of some pageant. The frequent mention therefore of such equipages in old books is likely to mislead us. We attribute to magnificence what was really the effect of a very disagreeable necessity. People, in the time of Charles the Second, travelled with six horses, because with a smaller number there was great danger of sticking fast in the mire. Nor were even six horses always sufficient. Vanbrugh, in the succeeding generation, described with great humour the way in which a country gentleman, newly chosen a member of Parliament, went up to London. On that occasion all the exertions of six beasts, two of which had been taken from the plough, could not save the family coach from being embedded in a quagmire.

The wealthy usually traveled in their own carriages, pulled by at least four horses. Cotton, the witty poet, tried to go from London to the Peak with just one pair of horses, but found the journey would be unbearably long once he reached Saint Albans, so he changed his plan. 146 A coach and six horses are rarely seen today, except during some kind of parade. Because of this, the frequent references to such carriages in old books can mislead us. We might think they were symbols of luxury when they were actually just a necessary response to very uncomfortable conditions. Back in the time of Charles the Second, people traveled with six horses because using fewer posed a high risk of getting stuck in the mud. Even six horses weren't always enough. In the next generation, Vanbrugh humorously described how a country gentleman, newly elected to Parliament, made his way to London. On that occasion, despite the efforts of six horses—two of which had been taken from the plow—his family coach still got stuck in a muddy pit.

Public carriages had recently been much improved. During the years which immediately followed the Restoration, a diligence ran between London and Oxford in two days. The passengers slept at Beaconsfield. At length, in the spring of 1669, a great and daring innovation was attempted. It was announced that a vehicle, described as the Flying Coach, would perform the whole journey between sunrise and sunset. This spirited undertaking was solemnly considered and sanctioned by the Heads of the University, and appears to have excited the same sort of interest which is excited in our own time by the opening of a new railway. The Vicechancellor, by a notice affixed in all public places, prescribed the hour and place of departure. The success of the experiment was complete. At six in the morning the carriage began to move from before the ancient front of All Souls College; and at seven in the evening the adventurous gentlemen who had run the first risk were safely deposited at their inn in London. 147 The emulation of the sister University was moved; and soon a diligence was set up which in one day carried passengers from Cambridge to the capital. At the close of the reign of Charles the Second flying carriages ran thrice a week from London to the chief towns. But no stage coach, indeed no stage waggon, appears to have proceeded further north than York, or further west than Exeter. The ordinary day's journey of a flying coach was about fifty miles in the summer; but in winter, when the ways were bad and the nights long, little more than thirty. The Chester coach, the York coach, and the Exeter coach generally reached London in four days during the fine season, but at Christmas not till the sixth day. The passengers, six in number, were all seated in the carriage. For accidents were so frequent that it would have been most perilous to mount the roof. The ordinary fare was about twopence halfpenny a mile in summer, and somewhat more in winter. 148

Public carriages had recently improved a lot. In the years right after the Restoration, a coach traveled between London and Oxford in two days. Passengers would sleep in Beaconsfield. Finally, in the spring of 1669, a bold and exciting innovation was introduced. It was announced that a vehicle called the Flying Coach would make the entire journey from sunrise to sunset. This ambitious project was carefully considered and approved by the University heads and seems to have generated the same kind of buzz we feel today when a new railway opens. The Vice-Chancellor posted a notice in public places specifying the time and location of departure. The experiment was a complete success. At six in the morning, the carriage set off from the historic front of All Souls College, and by seven in the evening, the brave passengers who took the first ride were safely dropped off at their inn in London. 147 The competition from the sister university was sparked, and soon a coach was established that transported passengers from Cambridge to the capital in one day. By the end of Charles the Second's reign, flying coaches operated three times a week from London to the major towns. However, no stagecoach, and indeed no stage wagon, seemed to have traveled further north than York or further west than Exeter. The typical day's journey for a flying coach was about fifty miles in the summer, but in winter, when roads were bad and nights were long, it was barely more than thirty. The Chester coach, the York coach, and the Exeter coach usually reached London in four days during the good weather, but at Christmas, it took until the sixth day. There were usually six passengers seated in the carriage. Accidents were so common that riding on the roof would have been very dangerous. The usual fare was about two and a half pence per mile in the summer, and a bit more in the winter. 148

This mode of travelling, which by Englishmen of the present day would be regarded as insufferably slow, seemed to our ancestors wonderfully and indeed alarmingly rapid. In a work published a few months before the death of Charles the Second, the flying coaches are extolled as far superior to any similar vehicles ever known in the world. Their velocity is the subject of special commendation, and is triumphantly contrasted with the sluggish pace of the continental posts. But with boasts like these was mingled the sound of complaint and invective. The interests of large classes had been unfavourably affected by the establishment of the new diligences; and, as usual, many persons were, from mere stupidity and obstinacy, disposed to clamour against the innovation, simply because it was an innovation. It was vehemently argued that this mode of conveyance would be fatal to the breed of horses and to the noble art of horsemanship; that the Thames, which had long been an important nursery of seamen, would cease to be the chief thoroughfare from London up to Windsor and down to Gravesend; that saddlers and spurriers would be ruined by hundreds; that numerous inns, at which mounted travellers had been in the habit of stopping, would be deserted, and would no longer pay any rent; that the new carriages were too hot in summer and too cold in winter; that the passengers were grievously annoyed by invalids and crying children; that the coach sometimes reached the inn so late that it was impossible to get supper, and sometimes started so early that it was impossible to get breakfast. On these grounds it was gravely recommended that no public coach should be permitted to have more than four horses, to start oftener than once a week, or to go more than thirty miles a day. It was hoped that, if this regulation were adopted, all except the sick and the lame would return to the old mode of travelling. Petitions embodying such opinions as these were presented to the King in council from several companies of the City of London, from several provincial towns, and from the justices of several counties. We Smile at these things. It is not impossible that our descendants, when they read the history of the opposition offered by cupidity and prejudice to the improvements of the nineteenth century, may smile in their turn. 149

This way of traveling, which modern English people would find unbearably slow, seemed remarkably and even frighteningly fast to our ancestors. In a book published just a few months before Charles the Second's death, the flying coaches were praised as far better than any similar vehicles ever seen before. Their speed was especially highlighted and was proudly compared to the sluggish pace of continental mail services. However, along with these boasts were complaints and criticisms. The establishment of the new diligences had negatively impacted the interests of many groups, and, as usual, some people, out of sheer stubbornness or ignorance, were quick to protest against the change simply because it was a change. It was passionately argued that this form of transportation would be disastrous for horse breeding and the noble skill of horsemanship; that the Thames, which had long been a vital training ground for sailors, would stop being the main route from London to Windsor and down to Gravesend; that hundreds of saddlers and spurriers would go out of business; that many inns, where horse riders used to stop, would be abandoned and could no longer generate rent; that the new carriages were too hot in the summer and too cold in the winter; that passengers were seriously bothered by sick travelers and crying children; that sometimes the coach arrived late at the inn, making it impossible to have supper, and other times it left so early that it was impossible to get breakfast. On these grounds, it was seriously suggested that no public coach should be allowed to have more than four horses, operate more often than once a week, or travel more than thirty miles a day. It was hoped that, if this rule were put in place, everyone except the sick and disabled would go back to the old way of traveling. Petitions expressing these thoughts were submitted to the King in council from various companies in the City of London, several provincial towns, and from the justices of various counties. We smile at these things. It's not unlikely that our descendants, when they read about the resistance from greed and prejudice to the advancements of the nineteenth century, may smile in their turn. 149

In spite of the attractions of the flying coaches, it was still usual for men who enjoyed health and vigour, and who were not encumbered by much baggage, to perform long journeys on horseback. If the traveller wished to move expeditiously he rode post. Fresh saddle horses and guides were to be procured at convenient distances along all the great lines of road. The charge was threepence a mile for each horse, and fourpence a stage for the guide. In this manner, when the ways were good, it was possible to travel, for a considerable time, as rapidly as by any conveyance known in England, till vehicles were propelled by steam. There were as yet no post chaises; nor could those who rode in their own coaches ordinarily procure a change of horses. The King, however, and the great officers of state were able to command relays. Thus Charles commonly went in one day from Whitehall to New-market, a distance of about fifty-five miles through a level country; and this was thought by his subjects a proof of great activity. Evelyn performed the same journey in company with the Lord Treasurer Clifford. The coach was drawn by six horses, which were changed at Bishop Stortford and again at Chesterford. The travellers reached Newmarket at night. Such a mode of conveyance seems to have been considered as a rare luxury confined to princes and ministers. 150

Despite the appeal of flying coaches, it was still common for healthy and energetic men, who didn't have much luggage, to take long trips on horseback. If a traveler wanted to move quickly, they rode post. Fresh saddle horses and guides could be found at convenient intervals along all the major roads. The charge was threepence per mile for each horse and fourpence per stage for the guide. This way, when the roads were good, it was possible to travel for quite a while as fast as any transportation available in England until steam-powered vehicles came along. At that time, there were no post chaises, and those who traveled in their own coaches typically couldn’t get a change of horses. However, the King and high-ranking officials could request relays. Charles often traveled from Whitehall to Newmarket in a single day, covering about fifty-five miles through flat terrain, which his subjects viewed as a sign of great energy. Evelyn made the same journey with Lord Treasurer Clifford. Their coach was pulled by six horses, which were changed at Bishop Stortford and again at Chesterford. The travelers arrived in Newmarket at night. This mode of transportation was seen as a rare luxury reserved for princes and ministers. 150

Whatever might be the way in which a journey was performed, the travellers, unless they were numerous and well armed, ran considerable risk of being stopped and plundered. The mounted highwayman, a marauder known to our generation only from books, was to be found on every main road. The waste tracts which lay on the great routes near London were especially haunted by plunderers of this class. Hounslow Heath, on the Great Western Road, and Finchley Common, on the Great Northern Road, were perhaps the most celebrated of these spots. The Cambridge scholars trembled when they approached Epping Forest, even in broad daylight. Seamen who had just been paid off at Chatham were often compelled to deliver their purses on Gadshill, celebrated near a hundred years earlier by the greatest of poets as the scene of the depredations of Falstaff. The public authorities seem to have been often at a loss how to deal with the plunderers. At one time it was announced in the Gazette, that several persons, who were strongly suspected of being highwaymen, but against whom there was not sufficient evidence, would be paraded at Newgate in riding dresses: their horses would also be shown; and all gentlemen who had been robbed were invited to inspect this singular exhibition. On another occasion a pardon was publicly offered to a robber if he would give up some rough diamonds, of immense value, which he had taken when he stopped the Harwich mail. A short time after appeared another proclamation, warning the innkeepers that the eye of the government was upon them. Their criminal connivance, it was affirmed, enabled banditti to infest the roads with impunity. That these suspicions were not without foundation, is proved by the dying speeches of some penitent robbers of that age, who appear to have received from the innkeepers services much resembling those which Farquhar's Boniface rendered to Gibbet. 151

No matter how a journey was made, travelers, unless they were numerous and well armed, faced a significant risk of being stopped and robbed. The mounted highwayman, a criminal known to our generation only from books, could be found on every main road. The desolate areas along the major routes near London were particularly infested with thieves like these. Hounslow Heath, on the Great Western Road, and Finchley Common, on the Great Northern Road, were probably the most famous of these locations. Cambridge scholars feared approaching Epping Forest, even in broad daylight. Seamen who had just been paid off at Chatham often had to hand over their money at Gadshill, made famous nearly a century earlier by the greatest of poets as the site of Falstaff's robberies. The public authorities often seemed unsure how to handle the thieves. At one point, it was announced in the Gazette that several individuals, who were strongly suspected of being highwaymen but against whom there was not enough evidence, would be paraded at Newgate in riding attire: their horses would also be displayed; and all gentlemen who had been robbed were invited to view this unusual exhibition. On another occasion, a public pardon was offered to a robber if he would return some rough diamonds, of immense value, which he had taken when he stopped the Harwich mail. Shortly after, another proclamation appeared, warning innkeepers that the government was watching them. Their criminal complicity, it was claimed, allowed bandits to plague the roads without fear of consequences. That these suspicions were not unfounded is shown by the dying speeches of some remorseful robbers of that time, who seemed to have received services from the innkeepers that closely resembled those offered by Farquhar's Boniface to Gibbet. 151

It was necessary to the success and even to the safety of the highwayman that he should be a bold and skilful rider, and that his manners and appearance should be such as suited the master of a fine horse. He therefore held an aristocratical position in the community of thieves, appeared at fashionable coffee houses and gaming houses, and betted with men of quality on the race ground. 152 Sometimes, indeed, he was a man of good family and education. A romantic interest therefore attached, and perhaps still attaches, to the names of freebooters of this class. The vulgar eagerly drank in tales of their ferocity and audacity, of their occasional acts of generosity and good nature, of their amours, of their miraculous escapes, of their desperate struggles, and of their manly bearing at the bar and in the cart. Thus it was related of William Nevison, the great robber of Yorkshire, that he levied a quarterly tribute on all the northern drovers, and, in return, not only spared them himself, but protected them against all other thieves; that he demanded purses in the most courteous manner; that he gave largely to the poor what he had taken from the rich; that his life was once spared by the royal clemency, but that he again tempted his fate, and at length died, in 1685, on the gallows of York. 153 It was related how Claude Duval, the French page of the Duke of Richmond, took to the road, became captain of a formidable gang, and had the honour to be named first in a royal proclamation against notorious offenders; how at the head of his troop he stopped a lady's coach, in which there was a booty of four hundred pounds; how he took only one hundred, and suffered the fair owner to ransom the rest by dancing a coranto with him on the heath; how his vivacious gallantry stole away the hearts of all women; how his dexterity at sword and pistol made him a terror to all men; how, at length, in the year 1670, he was seized when overcome by wine; how dames of high rank visited him in prison, and with tears interceded for his life; how the King would have granted a pardon, but for the interference of Judge Morton, the terror of highwaymen, who threatened to resign his office unless the law were carried into full effect; and how, after the execution, the corpse lay in state with all the pomp of scutcheons, wax lights, black hangings and mutes, till the same cruel Judge, who had intercepted the mercy of the crown, sent officers to disturb the obsequies. 154 In these anecdotes there is doubtless a large mixture of fable; but they are not on that account unworthy of being recorded; for it is both an authentic and an important fact that such tales, whether false or true, were heard by our ancestors with eagerness and faith.

It was essential for the success and safety of the highwayman that he be a bold and skilled rider, and that his demeanor and appearance were fitting for someone who owned a fine horse. He therefore held an elite status in the world of thieves, frequented fashionable coffee houses and gaming venues, and placed bets with wealthy individuals at the racetrack. 152 Sometimes, he was actually from a good family and had a solid education. A romantic interest thus surrounded, and perhaps still surrounds, the names of these sorts of robbers. People eagerly consumed stories of their fierce bravery and daring, their occasional acts of generosity and kindness, their romances, miraculous escapes, desperate struggles, and noble demeanor in court and on the gallows. For instance, it's said of William Nevison, the notorious robber from Yorkshire, that he collected a regular tribute from all the northern drovers and, in return, not only spared them but also protected them from other thieves; that he made demands for purses in the most polite way; that he generously gave to the poor what he had taken from the rich; that his life was once spared due to royal mercy, but he again tempted fate and ultimately died on the gallows in York in 1685. 153 It was told how Claude Duval, the French page of the Duke of Richmond, turned to a life of crime, became the leader of a powerful gang, and earned the honor of being named first in a royal proclamation against notorious criminals; how, at the head of his gang, he stopped a lady's carriage, which held a fortune of four hundred pounds; how he only took one hundred and allowed the lady to reclaim the rest by dancing a coranto with him on the heath; how his charming bravado won the hearts of all women; how his skill with a sword and pistol made him a threat to all men; how, eventually, in 1670, he was captured while intoxicated; how ladies of high rank visited him in prison and wept as they pleaded for his life; how the King would have granted a pardon, except for the intervention of Judge Morton, the bane of highwaymen, who threatened to resign unless the law was upheld; and how, after his execution, his body lay in state with all the grandeur of elaborate decorations, candles, black drapes, and mourners, until the same harsh Judge, who had blocked the King’s mercy, sent officers to disrupt the funeral. 154 These stories likely contain a lot of fanciful exaggeration; however, they are still worth recording, as it is both a genuine and significant fact that such tales, whether true or not, were eagerly and wholeheartedly embraced by our ancestors.

All the various dangers by which the traveller was beset were greatly increased by darkness. He was therefore commonly desirous of having the shelter of a roof during the night; and such shelter it was not difficult to obtain. From a very early period the inns of England had been renowned. Our first great poet had described the excellent accommodation which they afforded to the pilgrims of the fourteenth century. Nine and twenty persons, with their horses, found room in the wide chambers and stables of the Tabard in Southwark. The food was of the best, and the wines such as drew the company on to drink largely. Two hundred years later, under the reign of Elizabeth, William Harrison gave a lively description of the plenty and comfort of the great hostelries. The Continent of Europe, he said, could show nothing like them. There were some in which two or three hundred people, with their horses, could without difficulty be lodged and fed. The bedding, the tapestry, above all, the abundance of clean and fine linen was matter of wonder. Valuable plate was often set on the tables. Nay, there were signs which had cost thirty or forty pounds. In the seventeenth century England abounded with excellent inns of every rank. The traveller sometimes, in a small village, lighted on a public house such as Walton has described, where the brick floor was swept clean, where the walls were stuck round with ballads, where the sheets smelt of lavender, and where a blazing fire, a cup of good ale, and a dish of trouts fresh from the neighbouring brook, were to be procured at small charge. At the larger houses of entertainment were to be found beds hung with silk, choice cookery, and claret equal to the best which was drunk in London. 155 The innkeepers too, it was said, were not like other innkeepers. On the Continent the landlord was the tyrant of those who crossed the threshold. In England he was a servant. Never was an Englishman more at home than when he took his ease in his inn. Even men of fortune, who might in their own mansions have enjoyed every luxury, were often in the habit of passing their evenings in the parlour of some neighbouring house of public entertainment. They seem to have thought that comfort and freedom could in no other place be enjoyed with equal perfection. This feeling continued during many generations to be a national peculiarity. The liberty and jollity of inns long furnished matter to our novelists and dramatists. Johnson declared that a tavern chair was the throne of human felicity; and Shenstone gently complained that no private roof, however friendly, gave the wanderer so warm a welcome as that which was to be found at an inn.

All the various dangers that travelers faced were made much worse by the darkness. Because of this, they often wanted the protection of a roof over their heads at night, which wasn’t hard to find. Since ancient times, England’s inns had been famous. Our first great poet described the excellent accommodations they offered to pilgrims in the fourteenth century. Twenty-nine people and their horses could easily fit in the spacious rooms and stables of the Tabard in Southwark. The food was top-notch, and the wines encouraged the guests to drink generously. Two hundred years later, during Elizabeth's reign, William Harrison gave a vivid account of the abundance and comfort of the great inns. He claimed that nothing in mainland Europe compared to them. Some could easily accommodate and feed two or three hundred people with their horses. The bedding, the tapestries, and especially the plentiful supply of clean, fine linen were astonishing. Valuable silverware was often displayed on the tables. Furthermore, there were signs that had cost thirty or forty pounds. By the seventeenth century, England was filled with excellent inns of all types. Sometimes, a traveler in a small village would come across a pub similar to what Walton described, where the brick floor was spotless, the walls were lined with ballads, the sheets smelled of lavender, and a roaring fire, a pint of good ale, and a dish of freshly caught trout from the nearby stream could be enjoyed for a modest price. In larger inns, guests could find silk-draped beds, gourmet meals, and claret as good as anything served in London. 155 Innkeepers were said to behave differently than innkeepers elsewhere. On the continent, the landlord was often a tyrant to those who entered. In England, he was a servant. No Englishman felt more at home than when he relaxed in his inn. Even wealthy men, who could enjoy every luxury in their own mansions, often spent their evenings in the parlor of a nearby public house. They seemed to believe that comfort and freedom could not be enjoyed elsewhere as perfectly. This sentiment remained a national characteristic for many generations. The freedom and cheerfulness of inns provided plenty of material for our novelists and playwrights. Johnson claimed that a tavern chair was the throne of human happiness, and Shenstone gently remarked that no private home, no matter how welcoming, offered a wanderer as warm a welcome as that found at an inn.

Many conveniences, which were unknown at Hampton Court and Whitehall in the seventeenth century, are in all modern hotels. Yet on the whole it is certain that the improvement of our houses of public entertainment has by no means kept pace with the improvement of our roads and of our conveyances. Nor is this strange; for it is evident that, all other circumstances being supposed equal, the inns will be best where the means of locomotion are worst. The quicker the rate of travelling, the less important is it that there should be numerous agreeable resting places for the traveller. A hundred and sixty years ago a person who came up to the capital from a remote county generally required, by the way, twelve or fifteen meals, and lodging for five or six nights. If he were a great man, he expected the meals and lodging to be comfortable, and even luxurious. At present we fly from York or Exeter to London by the light of a single winter's day. At present, therefore, a traveller seldom interrupts his journey merely for the sake of rest and refreshment. The consequence is that hundreds of excellent inns have fallen into utter decay. In a short time no good houses of that description will be found, except at places where strangers are likely to be detained by business or pleasure.

Many conveniences that were unknown at Hampton Court and Whitehall in the seventeenth century are standard in all modern hotels. However, it's clear that the improvement of our public accommodations hasn't kept up with the advancements in our roads and transportation. This isn't surprising; it's obvious that, assuming all other factors are equal, inns will be better where travel options are worse. The faster we can travel, the less crucial it is to have plenty of nice places for the traveler to rest. One hundred sixty years ago, a person arriving in the capital from a distant county typically needed about twelve or fifteen meals and a place to stay for five or six nights. If they were an important person, they expected those meals and accommodations to be comfortable, even luxurious. Nowadays, we can travel from York or Exeter to London in just one winter's day. As a result, travelers rarely stop their journey just for rest and refreshment. The outcome is that countless great inns have fallen into complete disrepair. Soon, the only decent places of that kind will be found in areas where visitors are likely to stay for business or leisure.

The mode in which correspondence was carried on between distant places may excite the scorn of the present generation; yet it was such as might have moved the admiration and envy of the polished nations of antiquity, or of the contemporaries of Raleigh and Cecil. A rude and imperfect establishment of posts for the conveyance of letters had been set up by Charles the First, and had been swept away by the civil war. Under the Commonwealth the design was resumed. At the Restoration the proceeds of the Post Office, after all expenses had been paid, were settled on the Duke of York. On most lines of road the mails went out and came in only on the alternate days. In Cornwall, in the fens of Lincolnshire, and among the hills and lakes of Cumberland, letters were received only once a week. During a royal progress a daily post was despatched from the capital to the place where the court sojourned. There was also daily communication between London and the Downs; and the same privilege was sometimes extended to Tunbridge Wells and Bath at the seasons when those places were crowded by the great. The bags were carried on horseback day and night at the rate of about five miles an hour. 156

The way people communicated between distant places might seem laughable to today’s generation, but it would have garnered admiration and envy from the cultured societies of ancient times or the contemporaries of Raleigh and Cecil. A basic and incomplete postal system for delivering letters had been established by Charles the First, but it was dismantled during the civil war. The system was revived under the Commonwealth. When the monarchy was restored, the profits from the Post Office, after covering all expenses, were allocated to the Duke of York. On most routes, mail was sent and received only every other day. In places like Cornwall, the Lincolnshire fens, and the hills and lakes of Cumberland, letters arrived just once a week. During royal visits, there was a daily mail service from the capital to wherever the court was staying. There was also daily communication between London and the Downs, and sometimes this service was extended to Tunbridge Wells and Bath during peak seasons when those places were popular among the elite. The bags were transported on horseback, day and night, at a speed of about five miles an hour. 156

The revenue of this establishment was not derived solely from the charge for the transmission of letters. The Post Office alone was entitled to furnish post horses; and, from the care with which this monopoly was guarded, we may infer that it was found profitable. 157 If, indeed, a traveller had waited half an hour without being supplied he might hire a horse wherever he could.

The income of this establishment didn’t come only from the fees for sending letters. The Post Office was the only one allowed to provide post horses, and given how carefully this monopoly was protected, it’s clear that it was quite profitable. 157 If a traveler waited half an hour without being provided with a horse, they could rent one from anywhere else.

To facilitate correspondence between one part of London and another was not originally one of the objects of the Post Office. But, in the reign of Charles the Second, an enterprising citizen of London, William Dockwray, set up, at great expense, a penny post, which delivered letters and parcels six or eight times a day in the busy and crowded streets near the Exchange, and four times a day in the outskirts of the capital. This improvement was, as usual, strenuously resisted. The porters complained that their interests were attacked, and tore down the placards in which the scheme was announced to the public. The excitement caused by Godfrey's death, and by the discovery of Coleman's papers, was then at the height. A cry was therefore raised that the penny post was a Popish contrivance. The great Doctor Oates, it was affirmed, had hinted a suspicion that the Jesuits were at the bottom of the scheme, and that the bags, if examined, would be found full of treason. 158 The utility of the enterprise was, however, so great and obvious that all opposition proved fruitless. As soon as it became clear that the speculation would be lucrative, the Duke of York complained of it as an infraction of his monopoly; and the courts of law decided in his favour. 159

To make communication between different parts of London easier wasn't originally one of the goals of the Post Office. However, during the reign of Charles II, a resourceful Londoner named William Dockwray set up a penny post at great expense, delivering letters and packages six to eight times a day in the busy streets near the Exchange, and four times a day in the outer areas of the city. This improvement faced strong opposition, as the porters claimed their livelihoods were threatened and tore down the posters announcing the scheme to the public. At that time, the excitement over Godfrey's death and the discovery of Coleman's papers was at its peak. As a result, people started to shout that the penny post was a Popish plot. It was alleged that the prominent Doctor Oates had hinted at suspicions that the Jesuits were behind the scheme, and that if the bags were searched, they would be found filled with treason. 158 However, the usefulness of the venture was so significant and clear that all opposition was in vain. Once it became obvious that the business would be profitable, the Duke of York complained about it as a violation of his monopoly, and the courts ruled in his favor. 159

The revenue of the Post Office was from the first constantly increasing. In the year of the Restoration a committee of the House of Commons, after strict enquiry, had estimated the net receipt at about twenty thousand pounds. At the close of the reign of Charles the Second, the net receipt was little short of fifty thousand pounds; and this was then thought a stupendous sum. The gross receipt was about seventy thousand pounds. The charge for conveying a single letter was twopence for eighty miles, and threepence for a longer distance. The postage increased in proportion to the weight of the packet. 160 At present a single letter is carried to the extremity of Scotland or of Ireland for a penny; and the monopoly of post horses has long ceased to exist. Yet the gross annual receipts of the department amount to more than eighteen hundred thousand pounds, and the net receipts to more than seven hundred thousand pounds. It is, therefore, scarcely possible to doubt that the number of letters now conveyed by mail is seventy times the number which was so conveyed at the time of the accession of James the Second. 161

The revenue of the Post Office has been steadily increasing from the beginning. In the year of the Restoration, a committee from the House of Commons, after thorough investigation, estimated the net income at about twenty thousand pounds. By the end of Charles the Second's reign, the net income was just under fifty thousand pounds, which was considered an enormous amount at the time. The total income was about seventy thousand pounds. The cost to send a single letter was two pence for up to eighty miles and three pence for longer distances. Postage increased with the weight of the packet. 160 Nowadays, a single letter can be sent to the farthest parts of Scotland or Ireland for just a penny, and the monopoly on post horses has been long gone. Still, the annual gross receipts of the department exceed eighteen hundred thousand pounds, with net receipts over seven hundred thousand pounds. It’s hard to believe that the number of letters sent by mail now is seventy times what it was when James the Second came to the throne. 161

No part of the load which the old mails carried out was more important than the newsletters. In 1685 nothing like the London daily paper of our time existed, or could exist. Neither the necessary capital nor the necessary skill was to be found. Freedom too was wanting, a want as fatal as that of either capital or skill. The press was not indeed at that moment under a general censorship. The licensing act, which had been passed soon after the Restoration, had expired in 1679. Any person might therefore print, at his own risk, a history, a sermon, or a poem, without the previous approbation of any officer; but the Judges were unanimously of opinion that this liberty did not extend to Gazettes, and that, by the common law of England, no man, not authorised by the crown, had a right to publish political news. 162 While the Whig party was still formidable, the government thought it expedient occasionally to connive at the violation of this rule. During the great battle of the Exclusion Bill, many newspapers were suffered to appear, the Protestant Intelligence, the Current Intelligence, the Domestic Intelligence, the True News, the London Mercury. 163 None of these was published oftener than twice a week. None exceeded in size a single small leaf. The quantity of matter which one of them contained in a year was not more than is often found in two numbers of the Times. After the defeat of the Whigs it was no longer necessary for the King to be sparing in the use of that which all his Judges had pronounced to be his undoubted prerogative. At the close of his reign no newspaper was suffered to appear without his allowance: and his allowance was given exclusively to the London Gazette. The London Gazette came out only on Mondays and Thursdays. The contents generally were a royal proclamation, two or three Tory addresses, notices of two or three promotions, an account of a skirmish between the imperial troops and the Janissaries on the Danube, a description of a highwayman, an announcement of a grand cockfight between two persons of honour, and an advertisement offering a reward for a strayed dog. The whole made up two pages of moderate size. Whatever was communicated respecting matters of the highest moment was communicated in the most meagre and formal style. Sometimes, indeed, when the government was disposed to gratify the public curiosity respecting an important transaction, a broadside was put forth giving fuller details than could be found in the Gazette: but neither the Gazette nor any supplementary broadside printed by authority ever contained any intelligence which it did not suit the purposes of the Court to publish. The most important parliamentary debates, the most important state trials recorded in our history, were passed over in profound silence. 164 In the capital the coffee houses supplied in some measure the place of a journal. Thither the Londoners flocked, as the Athenians of old flocked to the market place, to hear whether there was any news. There men might learn how brutally a Whig, had been treated the day before in Westminster Hall, what horrible accounts the letters from Edinburgh gave of the torturing of Covenanters, how grossly the Navy Board had cheated the crown in the Victualling of the fleet, and what grave charges the Lord Privy Seal had brought against the Treasury in the matter of the hearth money. But people who lived at a distance from the great theatre of political contention could be kept regularly informed of what was passing there only by means of newsletters. To prepare such letters became a calling in London, as it now is among the natives of India. The newswriter rambled from coffee room to coffee room, collecting reports, squeezed himself into the Sessions House at the Old Bailey if there was an interesting trial, nay perhaps obtained admission to the gallery of Whitehall, and noticed how the King and Duke looked. In this way he gathered materials for weekly epistles destined to enlighten some county town or some bench of rustic magistrates. Such were the sources from which the inhabitants of the largest provincial cities, and the great body of the gentry and clergy, learned almost all that they knew of the history of their own time. We must suppose that at Cambridge there were as many persons curious to know what was passing in the world as at almost any place in the kingdom, out of London. Yet at Cambridge, during a great part of the reign of Charles the Second, the Doctors of Laws and the Masters of Arts had no regular supply of news except through the London Gazette. At length the services of one of the collectors of intelligence in the capital were employed. That was a memorable day on which the first newsletter from London was laid on the table of the only coffee room in Cambridge. 165 At the seat of a man of fortune in the country the newsletter was impatiently expected. Within a week after it had arrived it had been thumbed by twenty families. It furnished the neighboring squires with matter for talk over their October, and the neighboring rectors with topics for sharp sermons against Whiggery or Popery. Many of these curious journals might doubtless still be detected by a diligent search in the archives of old families. Some are to be found in our public libraries; and one series, which is not the least valuable part of the literary treasures collected by Sir James Mackintosh, will be occasionally quoted in the course of this work. 166

No part of the load that the old mail carried was more important than the newsletters. In 1685, there was nothing like today's London daily paper. There simply wasn't enough capital or skill available. There was also a lack of freedom, which was just as damaging as the lack of capital or skill. At that time, the press wasn't under a general censorship. The licensing act, passed shortly after the Restoration, had expired in 1679. Therefore, anyone could print, at their own risk, a history, a sermon, or a poem without the prior approval of any officer; however, the Judges unanimously believed that this freedom didn’t apply to Gazettes, and that according to common law in England, no one, unless authorized by the crown, had the right to publish political news. 162 While the Whig party was still strong, the government occasionally chose to ignore this rule. During the major battle over the Exclusion Bill, many newspapers published, including the Protestant Intelligence, the Current Intelligence, the Domestic Intelligence, the True News, and the London Mercury. 163 None of these were published more than twice a week. None were bigger than a single small leaf. The total content of one of these in a year was no more than is often found in two issues of the Times. After the Whigs were defeated, the King no longer needed to be cautious about exercising what all his Judges had declared to be his undeniable right. By the end of his reign, no newspaper was allowed to appear without his permission, and his permission was given only to the London Gazette. The London Gazette was published only on Mondays and Thursdays. Its content usually included a royal proclamation, two or three Tory addresses, a notice of a couple of promotions, a report on a skirmish between imperial troops and the Janissaries on the Danube, a description of a highwayman, an announcement of a grand cockfight between two honorable persons, and an advertisement for a lost dog with a reward. The whole thing filled two pages of moderate size. Whatever was communicated about significant matters was done in a very brief and formal style. Sometimes, when the government wanted to satisfy public curiosity about an important event, a broadside would be issued with more details than could be found in the Gazette: but neither the Gazette nor any official broadside ever contained any information that didn't serve the Court's purposes. The most significant parliamentary debates and state trials recorded in our history were ignored entirely. 164 In the capital, coffee houses somewhat filled the role of a journal. Londoners flocked there, just like the Athenians of old gathered in the marketplace, to hear the news. There, people could learn how brutally a Whig was treated the day before in Westminster Hall, the gruesome accounts from Edinburgh about the torture of Covenanters, how grossly the Navy Board had cheated the crown in supplying the fleet, and the serious accusations the Lord Privy Seal had made against the Treasury regarding the hearth money. But people living farther from the center of political drama could only stay updated on ongoing events through newsletters. Writing these letters became a profession in London, just like it is now among the people in India. Newswriters would move from coffee house to coffee house, collecting reports, squeezing into the Sessions House at Old Bailey if there was an interesting trial, and maybe even getting access to the gallery at Whitehall to observe how the King and Duke looked. This way, they gathered materials for weekly letters meant to inform a county town or a group of local magistrates. Such were the sources from which the residents of the largest provincial cities, and the majority of the gentry and clergy, learned almost everything they knew about their current history. We must assume that there were just as many curious people wanting to know what was happening in the world at Cambridge as in almost any other place in the kingdom outside London. Yet at Cambridge, for much of Charles the Second’s reign, the Doctors of Laws and Masters of Arts had no regular news supply except through the London Gazette. Eventually, one of the intelligence collectors in the capital was employed. It was a memorable day when the first newsletter from London was placed on the table of the only coffee house in Cambridge. 165 In the residence of a wealthy man in the country, the newsletter was eagerly anticipated. Within a week of its arrival, it had been thumbed through by twenty families. It provided the neighboring squires with topics to discuss over their October, and the nearby rectors with content for sharp sermons against Whiggery or Popery. Many of these interesting journals can likely still be found through diligent searching in the archives of old families. Some exist in our public libraries, and one series, which is a valuable part of the literary treasures collected by Sir James Mackintosh, will be occasionally referenced throughout this work. 166

It is scarcely necessary to say that there were then no provincial newspapers. Indeed, except in the capital and at the two Universities, there was scarcely a printer in the kingdom. The only press in England north of Trent appears to have been at York. 167

It’s hardly worth mentioning that there were no regional newspapers at that time. In fact, other than in the capital and at the two universities, there was barely a printer in the entire country. The only printing press in England north of the Trent River seemed to be in York. 167

It was not only by means of the London Gazette that the government undertook to furnish political instruction to the people. That journal contained a scanty supply of news without comment. Another journal, published under the patronage of the court, consisted of comment without news. This paper, called the Observator, was edited by an old Tory pamphleteer named Roger Lestrange. Lestrange was by no means deficient in readiness and shrewdness; and his diction, though coarse, and disfigured by a mean and flippant jargon which then passed for wit in the green room and the tavern, was not without keenness and vigour. But his nature, at once ferocious and ignoble, showed itself in every line that he penned. When the first Observators appeared there was some excuse for his acrimony. The Whigs were then powerful; and he had to contend against numerous adversaries, whose unscrupulous violence might seem to justify unsparing retaliation. But in 1685 all the opposition had been crushed. A generous spirit would have disdained to insult a party which could not reply, and to aggravate the misery of prisoners, of exiles, of bereaved families: but; from the malice of Lestrange the grave was no hiding place, and the house of mourning no sanctuary. In the last month of the reign of Charles the Second, William Jenkyn, an aged dissenting pastor of great note, who had been cruelly persecuted for no crime but that of worshipping God according to the fashion generally followed throughout protestant Europe, died of hardships and privations at Newgate. The outbreak of popular sympathy could not be repressed. The corpse was followed to the grave by a train of a hundred and fifty coaches. Even courtiers looked sad. Even the unthinking King showed some signs of concern. Lestrange alone set up a howl of savage exultation, laughed at the weak compassion of the Trimmers, proclaimed that the blasphemous old impostor had met with a most righteous punishment, and vowed to wage war, not only to the death, but after death, with all the mock saints and martyrs. 168 Such was the spirit of the paper which was at this time the oracle of the Tory party, and especially of the parochial clergy.

It wasn't just through the London Gazette that the government aimed to provide political education to the public. That publication offered limited news without commentary. Another publication, backed by the court, featured commentary without news. This paper, called the Observator, was edited by an old Tory pamphleteer named Roger Lestrange. Lestrange was certainly quick-witted and clever; his language, while rough and marred by a petty, sarcastic style that was popular in theaters and pubs, had a certain sharpness and energy. However, his ferocious and base nature was evident in every line he wrote. When the first Observators came out, he had some reason for his bitterness. The Whigs were strong at that time, and he faced many opponents whose ruthless tactics might have justified his harsh responses. But by 1685, all opposition had been defeated. A noble spirit would have refrained from attacking a party that couldn't retaliate and would not have added to the suffering of prisoners, exiles, or grieving families; yet Lestrange's spite knew no bounds, and even the grave was not a refuge, nor was the mourning house a safe space. In the final month of Charles the Second's reign, William Jenkyn, an elderly dissenting pastor of significant repute, who had been brutally persecuted for no reason other than worshipping God in a manner common across Protestant Europe, died from hardships and deprivations at Newgate. A wave of public sympathy erupted. His funeral procession was followed by a line of one hundred and fifty coaches. Even courtiers looked somber. Even the unthinking King showed some signs of concern. Lestrange alone let out a cry of savage glee, mocked the weak compassion of the Trimmers, declared that the blasphemous old fraud had received his just deserts, and vowed to fight, not just unto death, but beyond it, against all the false saints and martyrs. 168 Such was the spirit of the paper that, at this time, served as the voice of the Tory party, particularly among local clergy.

Literature which could be carried by the post bag then formed the greater part of the intellectual nutriment ruminated by the country divines and country justices. The difficulty and expense of conveying large packets from place to place was so great, that an extensive work was longer in making its way from Paternoster Row to Devonshire or Lancashire than it now is in reaching Kentucky. How scantily a rural parsonage was then furnished, even with books the most necessary to a theologian, has already been remarked. The houses of the gentry were not more plentifully supplied. Few knights of the shire had libraries so good as may now perpetually be found in a servants' hall or in the back parlour of a small shopkeeper. An esquire passed among his neighbours for a great scholar, if Hudibras and Baker's Chronicle, Tarlton's Jests and the Seven Champions of Christendom, lay in his hall window among the fishing rods and fowling pieces. No circulating library, no book society, then existed even in the capital: but in the capital those students who could not afford to purchase largely had a resource. The shops of the great booksellers, near Saint Paul's Churchyard, were crowded every day and all day long with readers; and a known customer was often permitted to carry a volume home. In the country there was no such accommodation; and every man was under the necessity of buying whatever he wished to read. 169

Literature that could be delivered by mail made up most of the intellectual food consumed by country ministers and local judges. The difficulty and cost of sending large packages from one place to another were so high that it took longer for a big work to travel from Paternoster Row to Devonshire or Lancashire than it does now to reach Kentucky. It's already been noted how poorly equipped a rural parsonage was, even with the most essential books for a theologian. The homes of the gentry weren’t any better stocked. Few county knights had libraries as good as those that can now be found in a servant's hall or the back parlor of a small shopkeeper. An esquire would be considered a great scholar among his neighbors if he had Hudibras, Baker's Chronicle, Tarlton's Jests, and the Seven Champions of Christendom displayed in his hall window among fishing rods and shotguns. There were no circulating libraries or book societies even in the capital; however, students in the capital who couldn't afford to buy lots of books had a way around that. The shops of major booksellers near Saint Paul's Churchyard were packed every day and all day long with readers, and known customers were often allowed to take a book home. In the countryside, there was no such option, and everyone had to purchase whatever they wanted to read. 169

As to the lady of the manor and her daughters, their literary stores generally consisted of a prayer book and receipt book. But in truth they lost little by living in rural seclusion. For, even in the highest ranks, and in those situations which afforded the greatest facilities for mental improvement, the English women of that generation were decidedly worse educated than they have been at any other time since the revival of learning. At an early period they had studied the masterpieces of ancient genius. In the present day they seldom bestow much attention on the dead languages; but they are familiar with the tongue of Pascal and Moliere, with the tongue of Dante and Tasso, with the tongue of Goethe and Schiller; nor is there any purer or more graceful English than that which accomplished women now speak and write. But, during the latter part of the seventeenth century, the culture of the female mind seems to have been almost entirely neglected. If a damsel had the least smattering of literature she was regarded as a prodigy. Ladies highly born, highly bred, and naturally quick witted, were unable to write a line in their mother tongue without solecisms and faults of spelling such as a charity girl would now be ashamed to commit. 170

As for the lady of the manor and her daughters, their reading material mostly consisted of a prayer book and a cookbook. In reality, they missed out on little by living in the countryside. Even among the upper class, and in situations that offered the best opportunities for learning, English women of that time were definitely less educated than any other time since the revival of learning. Earlier on, they had studied the great works of ancient geniuses. Nowadays, they rarely pay much attention to dead languages, but they are well-acquainted with the works of Pascal and Moliere, Dante and Tasso, Goethe and Schiller; and no other English is as pure or elegant as that which accomplished women speak and write today. However, during the later part of the seventeenth century, the education of women seemed to be almost completely overlooked. If a young woman had even a slight knowledge of literature, she was considered a marvel. Ladies who were well-born, well-bred, and naturally intelligent struggled to write a single sentence in their native language without making mistakes and spelling errors that a charity school girl would now be embarrassed to make. 170

The explanation may easily be found. Extravagant licentiousness, the natural effect of extravagant austerity, was now the mode; and licentiousness had produced its ordinary effect, the moral and intellectual degradation of women. To their personal beauty, it was the fashion to pay rude and impudent homage. But the admiration and desire which they inspired were seldom mingled with respect, with affection, or with any chivalrous sentiment. The qualities which fit them to be companions, advisers, confidential friends, rather repelled than attracted the libertines of Whitehall. In that court a maid of honour, who dressed in such a manner as to do full justice to a white bosom, who ogled significantly, who danced voluptuously, who excelled in pert repartee, who was not ashamed to romp with Lords of the Bedchamber and Captains of the Guards, to sing sly verses with sly expression, or to put on a page's dress for a frolic, was more likely to be followed and admired, more likely to be honoured with royal attentions, more likely to win a rich and noble husband than Jane Grey or Lucy Hutchinson would have been. In such circumstances the standard of female attainments was necessarily low; and it was more dangerous to be above that standard than to be beneath it. Extreme ignorance and frivolity were thought less unbecoming in a lady than the slightest tincture of pedantry. Of the too celebrated women whose faces we still admire on the walls of Hampton Court, few indeed were in the habit of reading anything more valuable than acrostics, lampoons, and translations of the Clelia and the Grand Cyrus.

The reason is easy to see. Outrageous indulgence, the natural result of extreme restraint, was now the trend; and indulgence had led to its usual outcome: the moral and intellectual decline of women. It was common to give crude and disrespectful praise to their looks. However, the admiration and desire they inspired rarely included respect, affection, or any noble sentiment. The traits that made them suitable companions, advisers, and close friends tended to repel rather than attract the players of Whitehall. In that court, a maid of honor who dressed to highlight her white skin, who flirted meaningfully, who danced provocatively, who excelled at cheeky banter, and who wasn't afraid to play around with Lords of the Bedchamber and Captains of the Guards, sing sly songs with a mischievous look, or wear a page's outfit for fun, was far more likely to be pursued and admired, to receive royal attention, and to attract a wealthy and noble husband than Jane Grey or Lucy Hutchinson would have been. Given these circumstances, the standard for women's achievements was inevitably low; it was seen as riskier to exceed that standard than to fall below it. Being extremely ignorant and frivolous was considered less inappropriate for a lady than showing even a hint of intellectuality. Among the too-famous women whose portraits we still admire on the walls of Hampton Court, very few were in the habit of reading anything more valuable than acrostics, satirical poems, and translations of the Clelia and the Grand Cyrus.

The literary acquirements, even of the accomplished gentlemen of that generation, seem to have been somewhat less solid and profound than at an earlier or a later period. Greek learning, at least, did not flourish among us in the days of Charles the Second, as it had flourished before the civil war, or as it again flourished long after the Revolution. There were undoubtedly scholars to whom the whole Greek literature, from Homer to Photius, was familiar: but such scholars were to be found almost exclusively among the clergy resident at the Universities, and even at the Universities were few, and were not fully appreciated. At Cambridge it was not thought by any means necessary that a divine should be able to read the Gospels in the original. 171 Nor was the standard at Oxford higher. When, in the reign of William the Third, Christ Church rose up as one man to defend the genuineness of the Epistles of Phalaris, that great college, then considered as the first seat of philology in the kingdom, could not muster such a stock of Attic learning as is now possessed by several youths at every great public school. It may easily be supposed that a dead language, neglected at the Universities, was not much studied by men of the world. In a former age the poetry and eloquence of Greece had been the delight of Raleigh and Falkland. In a later age the poetry and eloquence of Greece were the delight of Pitt and Fox, of Windham and Grenville. But during the latter part of the seventeenth century there was in England scarcely one eminent statesman who could read with enjoyment a page of Sophocles or Plato.

The literary knowledge of even the well-educated gentlemen of that time appears to have been somewhat less solid and profound compared to earlier or later periods. Greek learning, at least, didn't thrive among us during the days of Charles the Second, as it had before the civil war or as it did again long after the Revolution. There were certainly scholars who were familiar with the entire Greek literature, from Homer to Photius, but such scholars were mostly found among the clergy at the Universities, and even there they were few and not fully appreciated. At Cambridge, it was not considered necessary for a clergyman to be able to read the Gospels in the original. 171 The standard at Oxford wasn't any higher. When, during the reign of William the Third, Christ Church united to defend the authenticity of the Epistles of Phalaris, that prestigious college, then seen as the leading center of philology in the kingdom, could not gather as much Attic knowledge as several students possess at every major public school today. It's easy to assume that a dead language, neglected at the Universities, wasn't studied much by worldly men. In a previous age, the poetry and eloquence of Greece had been the joy of Raleigh and Falkland. In a later age, the poetry and eloquence of Greece were cherished by Pitt and Fox, Windham and Grenville. But during the latter part of the seventeenth century, there was hardly an eminent statesman in England who could read a page of Sophocles or Plato with pleasure.

Good Latin scholars were numerous. The language of Rome, indeed, had not altogether lost its imperial prerogatives, and was still, in many parts of Europe, almost indispensable to a traveller or a negotiator. To speak it well was therefore a much more common accomplishment shall in our time; and neither Oxford nor Cambridge wanted poets who, on a great occasion, could lay at the foot of the throne happy imitations of the verses in which Virgil and Ovid had celebrated the greatness of Augustus.

There were many skilled Latin scholars. The language of Rome hadn't completely lost its importance and was still essential for travelers and negotiators in many parts of Europe. Being able to speak it well was a much more common skill than it is today; both Oxford and Cambridge still sought poets who could present impressive versions of the verses in which Virgil and Ovid praised the greatness of Augustus during significant occasions.

Yet even the Latin was giving way to a younger rival. France united at that time almost every species of ascendency. Her military glory was at the height. She had vanquished mighty coalitions. She had dictated treaties. She had subjugated great cities and provinces. She had forced the Castilian pride to yield her the precedence. She had summoned Italian princes to prostrate themselves at her footstool. Her authority was supreme in all matters of good breeding, from a duel to a minuet. She determined how a gentleman's coat must be cut, how long his peruke must be, whether his heels must be high or low, and whether the lace on his hat must be broad or narrow. In literature she gave law to the world. The fame of her great writers filled Europe. No other country could produce a tragic poet equal to Racine, a comic poet equal to Moliere, a trifler so agreeable as La Fontaine, a rhetorician so skilful as Bossuet. The literary glory of Italy and of Spain had set; that of Germany had not yet dawned. The genius, therefore, of the eminent men who adorned Paris shone forth with a splendour which was set off to full advantage by contrast. France, indeed, had at that time an empire over mankind, such as even the Roman Republic never attained. For, when Rome was politically dominant, she was in arts and letters the humble pupil of Greece. France had, over the surrounding countries, at once the ascendency which Rome had over Greece, and the ascendency which Greece had over Rome. French was fast becoming the universal language, the language of fashionable society, the language of diplomacy. At several courts princes and nobles spoke it more accurately and politely than their mother tongue. In our island there was less of this servility than on the Continent. Neither our good nor our bad qualities were those of imitators. Yet even here homage was paid, awkwardly indeed and sullenly, to the literary supremacy of our neighbours. The melodious Tuscan, so familiar to the gallants and ladies of the court of Elizabeth, sank into contempt. A gentleman who quoted Horace or Terence was considered in good company as a pompous pedant. But to garnish his conversation with scraps of French was the best proof which he could give of his parts and attainments. 172 New canons of criticism, new models of style came into fashion. The quaint ingenuity which had deformed the verses of Donne, and had been a blemish on those of Cowley, disappeared from our poetry. Our prose became less majestic, less artfully involved, less variously musical than that of an earlier age, but more lucid, more easy, and better fitted for controversy and narrative. In these changes it is impossible not to recognise the influence of French precept and of French example. Great masters of our language, in their most dignified compositions, affected to use French words, when English words, quite as expressive and sonorous, were at hand: 173 and from France was imported the tragedy in rhyme, an exotic which, in our soil, drooped, and speedily died.

Yet even Latin was losing ground to a newer rival. At that time, France had almost every kind of influence. Her military might was at its peak. She had defeated powerful coalitions. She had dictated treaties. She had conquered major cities and regions. She had made Castile yield to her prominence. She had called Italian princes to bow before her. Her authority reigned supreme in matters of etiquette, whether it was a duel or a minuet. She determined how a gentleman's coat should be tailored, how long his wig should be, whether his heels should be high or low, and whether the lace on his hat should be wide or narrow. In literature, she set the standards for the world. The reputations of her great writers spread across Europe. No other country could boast a tragic poet equal to Racine, a comic poet like Molière, or a charming storyteller like La Fontaine, nor a skilled rhetorician like Bossuet. The literary brilliance of Italy and Spain had faded, while Germany's had yet to emerge. Thus, the genius of the prominent figures who graced Paris shone with a brilliance that was enhanced by contrast. At that time, France wielded a global influence that even the Roman Republic never reached. When Rome had political dominance, she was a humble student of Greece in the arts and letters. France possessed the same kind of influence over its neighboring countries that Rome had over Greece, combined with the influence that Greece held over Rome. French was quickly becoming the universal language—the language of fashionable society and diplomacy. In several courts, princes and nobles spoke it more accurately and elegantly than their native language. In our island, there was less of this imitation than on the Continent. Our strengths and weaknesses were not those of copycats. Yet even here, there was a clumsy and begrudging acknowledgment of our neighbors' literary superiority. The melodious Tuscan, once favored by the gallants and ladies of Elizabeth's court, fell into disgrace. A gentleman quoting Horace or Terence was often seen as a pompous know-it-all in good company. But seasoning his conversation with bits of French was the best way he could show off his intellect and education. 172 New standards of criticism and new styles became fashionable. The quirky originality that had distorted the verses of Donne and blemished those of Cowley faded from our poetry. Our prose became less grand, less intricately constructed, and less musically varied than in earlier times, but more clear, easier to read, and better suited for debate and storytelling. In these changes, it’s hard to miss the influence of French teaching and example. Great masters of our language, in their most dignified works, pretended to use French words when equally expressive and resonant English words were available: 173 and tragedy in rhyme was imported from France, an exotic that quickly withered and died in our own soil.

It would have been well if our writers had also copied the decorum which their great French contemporaries, with few exceptions, preserved; for the profligacy of the English plays, satires, songs, and novels of that age is a deep blot on our national fame. The evil may easily be traced to its source. The wits and the Puritans had never been on friendly terms. There was no sympathy between the two classes. They looked on the whole system of human life from different points and in different lights. The earnest of each was the jest of the other. The pleasures of each were the torments of the other. To the stern precisian even the innocent sport of the fancy seemed a crime. To light and festive natures the solemnity of the zealous brethren furnished copious matter of ridicule. From the Reformation to the civil war, almost every writer, gifted with a fine sense of the ludicrous, had taken some opportunity of assailing the straighthaired, snuffling, whining saints, who christened their children out of the Book of Nehemiah, who groaned in spirit at the sight of Jack in the Green, and who thought it impious to taste plum porridge on Christmas day. At length a time came when the laughers began to look grave in their turn. The rigid, ungainly zealots, after having furnished much good sport during two generations, rose up in arms, conquered, ruled, and, grimly smiling, trod down under their feet the whole crowd of mockers. The wounds inflicted by gay and petulant malice were retaliated with the gloomy and implacable malice peculiar to bigots who mistake their own rancour for virtue. The theatres were closed. The players were flogged. The press was put under the guardianship of austere licensers. The Muses were banished from their own favourite haunts, Cambridge and Oxford. Cowly, Crashaw, and Cleveland were ejected from their fellowships. The young candidate for academical honours was no longer required to write Ovidian epistles or Virgilian pastorals, but was strictly interrogated by a synod of lowering Supralapsarians as to the day and hour when he experienced the new birth. Such a system was of course fruitful of hypocrites. Under sober clothing and under visages composed to the expression of austerity lay hid during several years the intense desire of license and of revenge. At length that desire was gratified. The Restoration emancipated thousands of minds from a yoke which had become insupportable. The old fight recommenced, but with an animosity altogether new. It was now not a sportive combat, but a war to the death. The Roundhead had no better quarter to expect from those whom he had persecuted than a cruel slavedriver can expect from insurgent slaves still bearing the marks of his collars and his scourges.

It would have been better if our writers had also adopted the decorum that their great French contemporaries, with few exceptions, maintained; because the debauchery of the English plays, satirical works, songs, and novels of that time is a serious stain on our national reputation. The problem can easily be traced back to its source. The intellectuals and the Puritans had never gotten along. There was no understanding between the two groups. They viewed the entire system of human life from different perspectives and in different ways. What was serious to one was a joke to the other. The pleasures of one were the miseries of the other. To the strict Puritan, even innocent fun seemed like a sin. To light-hearted and festive individuals, the seriousness of the zealous believers provided plenty of material for mockery. From the Reformation to the Civil War, almost every writer with a keen sense of humor found opportunities to attack the straight-laced, whiny saints who named their children from the Book of Nehemiah, who sighed at the sight of Jack in the Green, and who deemed it sinful to have plum porridge on Christmas Day. Eventually, a time came when those who laughed began to take things seriously in return. The rigid, ungraceful zealots, after providing a lot of entertainment for two generations, rose up, conquered, ruled, and, with grim satisfaction, crushed the entire crowd of mockers. The wounds inflicted by playful and petulant malice were met with the dark and unyielding malice characteristic of bigots who confuse their own bitterness with virtue. The theaters were shut down. The actors were whipped. The press was placed under strict control of austere censors. The Muses were exiled from their beloved haunts of Cambridge and Oxford. Cowley, Crashaw, and Cleveland were expelled from their affiliations. The young student seeking academic honors was no longer required to write letters in the style of Ovid or pastoral poems like Virgil, but was rigorously questioned by a panel of stern Supralapsarians about the exact date and time of his spiritual rebirth. This kind of system, of course, produced a lot of hypocrites. Beneath their sober clothing and faces set in expressions of severity hid an intense desire for freedom and revenge for many years. Eventually, that desire was fulfilled. The Restoration freed thousands of minds from a burden that had become unbearable. The old struggle resumed, but with an entirely new hostility. This time it was not a playful contest, but a war to the death. The Roundhead could expect no mercy from those he had persecuted, just as a cruel slave driver can expect no compassion from rebellious slaves who still bear the scars of his chains and whips.

The war between wit and Puritanism soon became a war between wit and morality. The hostility excited by a grotesque caricature of virtue did not spare virtue herself. Whatever the canting Roundhead had regarded with reverence was insulted. Whatever he had proscribed was favoured. Because he had been scrupulous about trifles, all scruples were treated with derision. Because he had covered his failings with the mask of devotion, men were encouraged to obtrude with Cynic impudence all their most scandalous vices on the public eye. Because he had punished illicit love with barbarous severity, virgin purity and conjugal fidelity were made a jest. To that sanctimonious jargon which was his Shibboleth, was opposed another jargon not less absurd and much more odious. As he never opened his mouth except in scriptural phrase, the new breed of wits and fine gentlemen never opened their mouths without uttering ribaldry of which a porter would now be ashamed, and without calling on their Maker to curse them, sink them, confound them, blast them, and damn them.

The conflict between wit and Puritanism quickly turned into a battle between wit and morality. The animosity stirred up by a ridiculous caricature of virtue didn’t spare virtue itself. Everything the pretentious Roundhead held in high regard was insulted. Everything he had banned was now favored. Because he obsessed over small issues, all scruples were mocked. Because he masked his faults with a guise of devotion, people felt free to display their most scandalous vices for everyone to see. Because he harshly punished forbidden love, virginity and marital loyalty were turned into a joke. Against his sanctimonious language, which was his trademark, was another equally absurd and far more disgusting jargon. While he only spoke in scriptural phrases, the new generation of wits and gentlemen never opened their mouths without spouting off crude remarks that would embarrass a common laborer, often calling on their Creator to curse them, sink them, confound them, blast them, and damn them.

It is not strange, therefore, that our polite literature, when it revived with the revival of the old civil and ecclesiastical polity, should have been profoundly immoral. A few eminent men, who belonged to an earlier and better age, were exempt from the general contagion. The verse of Waller still breathed the sentiments which had animated a more chivalrous generation. Cowley, distinguished as a loyalist and as a man of letters, raised his voice courageously against the immorality which disgraced both letters and loyalty. A mightier poet, tried at once by pain, danger, poverty, obloquy, and blindness, meditates, undisturbed by the obscene tumult which raged all around him, a song so sublime and so holy that it would not have misbecome the lips of those ethereal Virtues whom he saw, with that inner eye which no calamity could darken, flinging down on the jasper pavement their crowns of amaranth and gold. The vigourous and fertile genius of Butler, if it did not altogether escape the prevailing infection, took the disease in a mild form. But these were men whose minds had been trained in a world which had passed away. They gave place in no long time to a younger generation of wits; and of that generation, from Dryden down to Durfey, the common characteristic was hard-hearted, shameless, swaggering licentiousness, at once inelegant and inhuman. The influence of these writers was doubtless noxious, yet less noxious than it would have been had they been less depraved. The poison which they administered was so strong that it was, in no long time, rejected with nausea. None of them understood the dangerous art of associating images of unlawful pleasure with all that is endearing and ennobling. None of them was aware that a certain decorum is essential even to voluptuousness, that drapery may be more alluring than exposure, and that the imagination may be far more powerfully moved by delicate hints which impel it to exert itself, than by gross descriptions which it takes in passively.

It's not surprising, then, that our polite literature, which revived along with the old civil and religious systems, turned out to be profoundly immoral. A few notable figures from an earlier and better era managed to escape the widespread moral decay. Waller's poetry still carried the feelings that inspired a more chivalrous generation. Cowley, recognized as a loyalist and a literary figure, bravely spoke out against the immorality that tarnished both literature and loyalty. A greater poet, tested by pain, danger, poverty, disgrace, and blindness, reflected on a song so sublime and pure that it would have suited the ethereal Virtues he envisioned, with that inner sight unaffected by any hardship, casting down their crowns of everlasting blooms and gold on the jasper floor. Butler's vigorous and creative genius, while not entirely immune to the prevailing corruption, exhibited only a mild case of it. But these were men whose minds had been shaped in a world that had vanished. Soon, they made way for a younger generation of writers, and from Dryden to Durfey, the common trait was a hard-hearted, shameless, brash sensuality, which was both unattractive and inhumane. The impact of these writers was undoubtedly harmful, yet less so than it could have been if they had been even more debased. The toxicity they spread was so potent that it was quickly expelled with disgust. None of them grasped the dangerous skill of linking images of forbidden pleasure with all that is charming and uplifting. They didn't realize that a certain decorum is crucial even in sensuality, that elegance can be more enticing than exposure, and that the imagination can be much more powerfully stirred by subtle suggestions that encourage it to engage, rather than by crude descriptions that it passively absorbs.

The spirit of the Antipuritan reaction pervades almost the whole polite literature of the reign of Charles the Second. But the very quintessence of that spirit will be found in the comic drama. The playhouses, shut by the meddling fanatic in the day of his power, were again crowded. To their old attractions new and more powerful attractions had been added. Scenery, dresses, and decorations, such as would now be thought mean or absurd, but such as would have been esteemed incredibly magnificent by those who, early in the seventeenth century, sate on the filthy benches of the Hope, or under the thatched roof of the Rose, dazzled the eyes of the multitude. The fascination of sex was called in to aid the fascination of art: and the young spectator saw, with emotions unknown to the contemporaries of Shakspeare and Johnson, tender and sprightly heroines personated by lovely women. From the day on which the theatres were reopened they became seminaries of vice; and the evil propagated itself. The profligacy of the representations soon drove away sober people. The frivolous and dissolute who remained required every year stronger and stronger stimulants. Thus the artists corrupted the spectators, and the spectators the artists, till the turpitude of the drama became such as must astonish all who are not aware that extreme relaxation is the natural effect of extreme restraint, and that an age of hypocrisy is, in the regular course of things, followed by all age of impudence.

The spirit of the Antipuritan backlash is noticeable throughout almost all the polite literature during Charles the Second's reign. However, the essence of that spirit is most evident in the comedic plays. The theaters, previously closed by the meddling zealots during their time of power, were once again filled with crowds. Alongside the old attractions, new and more enticing elements were introduced. The scenery, costumes, and decorations, which would now seem lowly or ridiculous, would have been regarded as incredibly grand by those who, early in the seventeenth century, sat on the dirty benches of the Hope or under the thatched roof of the Rose, captivating the audiences. The allure of sex was used to enhance the appeal of art, allowing young audiences to experience emotions unknown to the contemporaries of Shakespeare and Johnson, as lovely women portrayed tender and lively heroines. From the moment the theaters reopened, they became breeding grounds for vice, and this corruption spread. The scandalous performances quickly drove away respectable people. The frivolous and immoral who remained demanded stronger and stronger stimulation each year. Thus, the artists corrupted the spectators, and the spectators corrupted the artists, leading to a state of drama that would astonish anyone unaware that extreme freedom often results from extreme restriction, and that an age of hypocrisy is regularly followed by an age of shamelessness.

Nothing is more characteristic of the times than the care with which the poets contrived to put all their loosest verses into the mouths of women. The compositions in which the greatest license was taken were the epilogues. They were almost always recited by favourite actresses; and nothing charmed the depraved audience so much as to hear lines grossly indecent repeated by a beautiful girl, who was supposed to have not yet lost her innocence 174.

Nothing is more typical of the times than the attention the poets took to have all their loosest verses spoken by women. The pieces where the most freedom was used were the epilogues. They were almost always performed by favorite actresses, and nothing delighted the corrupt audience more than hearing lines that were openly indecent recited by a beautiful girl, who was thought to still be innocent 174.

Our theatre was indebted in that age for many plots and characters to Spain, to France, and to the old English masters: but whatever our dramatists touched they tainted. In their imitations the houses of Calderon's stately and highspirited Castilian gentlemen became sties of vice, Shakspeare's Viola a procuress, Moliere's Misanthrope a ravisher, Moliere's Agnes an adulteress. Nothing could be so pure or so heroic but that it became foul and ignoble by transfusion through those foul and ignoble minds.

Our theater at that time borrowed many plots and characters from Spain, France, and the old English masters. But whatever our playwrights took on, they corrupted. In their adaptations, Calderon's distinguished and spirited Castilian gentlemen turned into places of vice, Shakespeare's Viola became a broker of sex, Molière's Misanthrope a predator, and Molière's Agnes an adulteress. Nothing could be so pure or so heroic that it didn't become filthy and disgraceful when it passed through those dirty and dishonorable minds.

Such was the state of the drama; and the drama was the department of polite literature in which a poet had the best chance of obtaining a subsistence by his pen. The sale of books was so small that a man of the greatest name could hardly expect more than a pittance for the copyright of the best performance. There cannot be a stronger instance than the fate of Dryden's last production, the Fables. That volume was published when he was universally admitted to be the chief of living English poets. It contains about twelve thousand lines. The versification is admirable, the narratives and descriptions full of life. To this day Palamon and Arcite, Cymon and Iphigenia, Theodore and Honoria, are the delight both of critics and of schoolboys. The collection includes Alexander's Feast, the noblest ode in our language. For the copyright Dryden received two hundred and fifty pounds, less than in our days has sometimes been paid for two articles in a review. 175 Nor does the bargain seem to have been a hard one. For the book went off slowly; and the second edition was not required till the author had been ten years in his grave. By writing for the theatre it was possible to earn a much larger sum with much less trouble. Southern made seven hundred pounds by one play. 176 Otway was raised from beggary to temporary affluence by the success of his Don Carlos. 177 Shadwell cleared a hundred and thirty pounds by a single representation of the Squire of Alsatia. 178 The consequence was that every man who had to live by his wit wrote plays, whether he had any internal vocation to write plays or not. It was thus with Dryden. As a satirist he has rivalled Juvenal. As a didactic poet he perhaps might, with care and meditation, have rivalled Lucretius. Of lyric poets he is, if not the most sublime, the most brilliant and spiritstirring. But nature, profuse to him of many rare gifts, had withheld from him the dramatic faculty. Nevertheless all the energies of his best years were wasted on dramatic composition. He had too much judgment not to be aware that in the power of exhibiting character by means of dialogue he was deficient. That deficiency he did his best to conceal, sometimes by surprising and amusing incidents, sometimes by stately declamation, sometimes by harmonious numbers, sometimes by ribaldry but too well suited to the taste of a profane and licentious pit. Yet he never obtained any theatrical success equal to that which rewarded the exertions of some men far inferior to him in general powers. He thought himself fortunate if he cleared a hundred guineas by a play; a scanty remuneration, yet apparently larger than he could have earned in any other way by the same quantity of labour. 179

The drama was the field of literature where a poet had the best chance of making a living from writing. Book sales were so low that even the most famous authors could barely expect to earn much from the copyright of their best work. A clear example of this is the fate of Dryden's last work, the Fables. This book was released when he was widely recognized as the top living English poet. It has about twelve thousand lines, and the writing is excellent, with lively narratives and descriptions. To this day, Palamon and Arcite, Cymon and Iphigenia, Theodore and Honoria continue to please both critics and schoolboys. The collection also features Alexander's Feast, the greatest ode in our language. Dryden earned two hundred fifty pounds for the copyright, which is less than what is sometimes paid today for two articles in a magazine. 175 The deal doesn't seem harsh, as the book sold slowly, and the second edition wasn't needed until ten years after the author died. Writing for the theater offered a chance to earn a much larger sum with significantly less effort. Southern made seven hundred pounds from a single play. 176 Otway went from poverty to temporary wealth with the success of his Don Carlos. 177 Shadwell made one hundred thirty pounds from just one showing of the Squire of Alsatia. 178 As a result, every writer who needed to make a living turned to playwriting, whether they had a true passion for it or not. This was true for Dryden as well. As a satirist, he can match Juvenal. As a didactic poet, with careful thought, he might have rivaled Lucretius. Among lyric poets, he is, if not the most profound, certainly the most exciting and stirring. However, while nature blessed him with many rare talents, she did not grant him the gift for drama. Still, he wasted the best years of his life on playwriting. He was too intelligent not to realize that he was lacking in the ability to portray character through dialogue. He tried to hide this flaw with surprising and entertaining events, grand speeches, melodic lines, and crude humor that appealed to a rowdy and immoral audience. Yet he never achieved the theatrical success enjoyed by some who were far less talented than him overall. He considered himself lucky if he made a hundred guineas from a play; meager pay, but seemingly more than he could earn through any other means for the same amount of effort. 179

The recompense which the wits of that age could obtain from the public was so small, that they were under the necessity of eking out their incomes by levying contributions on the great. Every rich and goodnatured lord was pestered by authors with a mendicancy so importunate, and a flattery so abject, as may in our time seem incredible. The patron to whom a work was inscribed was expected to reward the writer with a purse of gold. The fee paid for the dedication of a book was often much larger than the sum which any publisher would give for the copyright. Books were therefore frequently printed merely that they might be dedicated. This traffic in praise produced the effect which might have been expected. Adulation pushed to the verge, sometimes of nonsense, and sometimes of impiety, was not thought to disgrace a poet. Independence, veracity, selfrespect, were things not required by the world from him. In truth, he was in morals something between a pandar and a beggar.

The payment that writers of that time could get from the public was so low that they had to supplement their incomes by asking for donations from the wealthy. Every rich and kind-hearted lord was constantly bothered by authors with a begging that seemed unbelievable by today's standards and a flattery that was extreme. The patron who received a dedicated work was expected to reward the writer with a bag of gold. The fee for dedicating a book was often much higher than what any publisher would pay for the rights. As a result, books were often published just so they could be dedicated. This trade in praise created predictable outcomes. Excessive flattery, sometimes bordering on nonsense or even blasphemy, was not seen as shameful for a poet. Independence, honesty, and self-respect were not qualities the world expected from him. In reality, he was, morally speaking, somewhat of a pimp and a beggar.

To the other vices which degraded the literary character was added, towards the close of the reign of Charles the Second, the most savage intemperance of party spirit. The wits, as a class, had been impelled by their old hatred of Puritanism to take the side of the court, and had been found useful allies. Dryden, in particular, had done good service to the government. His Absalom and Achitophel, the greatest satire of modern times had amazed the town, had made its way with unprecedented rapidity even into rural districts, and had, wherever it appeared bitterly annoyed the Exclusionists and raised the courage of the Tories. But we must not, in the admiration which we naturally feel for noble diction and versification, forget the great distinctions of good and evil. The spirit by which Dryden and several of his compeers were at this time animated against the Whigs deserves to be called fiendish. The servile Judges and Sheriffs of those evil days could not shed blood as fast as the poets cried out for it. Calls for more victims, hideous jests on hanging, bitter taunts on those who, having stood by the King in the hour of danger, now advised him to deal mercifully and generously by his vanquished enemies, were publicly recited on the stage, and, that nothing might be wanting to the guilt and the shame, were recited by women, who, having long been taught to discard all modesty, were now taught to discard all compassion. 180

To the other vices that degraded the literary world was added, towards the end of Charles the Second's reign, the most extreme and brutal partisanship. The wits, as a group, had been driven by their long-standing hatred of Puritanism to side with the court and became valuable allies. Dryden, in particular, had provided significant support to the government. His "Absalom and Achitophel," the greatest satire of modern times, stunned the town, spread rapidly even into rural areas, and wherever it was presented, it fiercely angered the Exclusionists and boosted the confidence of the Tories. However, we must not forget, amidst our admiration for beautiful language and poetry, the vital distinctions between good and evil. The intense animosity that Dryden and some of his contemporaries exhibited against the Whigs at this time deserves to be labeled as monstrous. The corrupt judges and sheriffs of those dark times couldn't execute people as quickly as the poets demanded it. Calls for more victims, horrific jokes about hangings, and harsh criticisms of those who, having supported the King during times of danger, now advised him to treat his defeated enemies with mercy and kindness, were publicly performed on stage. To add to the guilt and shame, these performances were given by women, who, having been taught to disregard modesty for a long time, were now also taught to cast aside all compassion. 180

It is a remarkable fact that, while the lighter literature of England was thus becoming a nuisance and a national disgrace, the English genius was effecting in science a revolution which will, to the end of time, be reckoned among the highest achievements of the human intellect. Bacon had sown the good seed in a sluggish soil and an ungenial season. He had not expected an early crop, and in his last testament had solemnly bequeathed his fame to the next age. During a whole generation his philosophy had, amidst tumults wars, and proscriptions, been slowly ripening in a few well constituted minds. While factions were struggling for dominion over each other, a small body of sages had turned away with benevolent disdain from the conflict, and had devoted themselves to the nobler work of extending the dominion of man over matter. As soon as tranquillity was restored, these teachers easily found attentive audience. For the discipline through which the nation had passed had brought the public mind to a temper well fitted for the reception of the Verulamian doctrine. The civil troubles had stimulated the faculties of the educated classes, and had called forth a restless activity and an insatiable curiosity, such as had not before been known among us. Yet the effect of those troubles was that schemes of political and religious reform were generally regarded with suspicion and contempt. During twenty years the chief employment of busy and ingenious men had been to frame constitutions with first magistrates, without first magistrates, with hereditary senates, with senates appointed by lot, with annual senates, with perpetual senates. In these plans nothing was omitted. All the detail, all the nomenclature, all the ceremonial of the imaginary government was fully set forth, Polemarchs and Phylarchs, Tribes and Galaxies, the Lord Archon and the Lord Strategus. Which ballot boxes were to be green and which red, which balls were to be of gold and which of silver, which magistrates were to wear hats and which black velvet caps with peaks, how the mace was to be carried and when the heralds were to uncover, these, and a hundred more such trifles, were gravely considered and arranged by men of no common capacity and learning. 181 But the time for these visions had gone by; and, if any steadfast republican still continued to amuse himself with them, fear of public derision and of a criminal information generally induced him to keep his fancies to himself. It was now unpopular and unsafe to mutter a word against the fundamental laws of the monarchy: but daring and ingenious men might indemnify themselves by treating with disdain what had lately been considered as the fundamental laws of nature. The torrent which had been dammed up in one channel rushed violently into another. The revolutionary spirit, ceasing to operate in politics, began to exert itself with unprecedented vigour and hardihood in every department of physics. The year 1660, the era of the restoration of the old constitution, is also the era from which dates the ascendency of the new philosophy. In that year the Royal Society, destined to be a chief agent in a long series of glorious and salutary reforms, began to exist. 182 In a few months experimental science became all the mode. The transfusion of blood, the ponderation of air, the fixation of mercury, succeeded to that place in the public mind which had been lately occupied by the controversies of the Rota. Dreams of perfect forms of government made way for dreams of wings with which men were to fly from the Tower to the Abbey, and of doublekeeled ships which were never to founder in the fiercest storm. All classes were hurried along by the prevailing sentiment. Cavalier and Roundhead, Churchman and Puritan, were for once allied. Divines, jurists, statesmen, nobles, princes, swelled the triumph of the Baconian philosophy. Poets sang with emulous fervour the approach of the golden age. Cowley, in lines weighty with thought and resplendent with wit, urged the chosen seed to take possession of the promised land flowing with milk and honey, that land which their great deliverer and lawgiver had seen, as from the summit of Pisgah, but had not been permitted to enter. 183 Dryden, with more zeal than knowledge, joined voice to the general acclamation to enter, and foretold things which neither he nor anybody else understood. The Royal Society, he predicted, would soon lead us to the extreme verge of the globe, and there delight us with a better view of the moon. 184 Two able and aspiring prelates, Ward, Bishop of Salisbury, and Wilkins, Bishop of Chester, were conspicuous among the leaders of the movement. Its history was eloquently written by a younger divine, who was rising to high distinction in his profession, Thomas Sprat, afterwards Bishop of Rochester. Both Chief Justice Hale and Lord Keeper Guildford stole some hours from the business of their courts to write on hydrostatics. Indeed it was under the immediate direction of Guildford that the first barometers ever exposed to sale in London were constructed. 185 Chemistry divided, for a time, with wine and love, with the stage and the gaming table, with the intrigues of a courtier and the intrigues of a demagogue, the attention of the fickle Buckingham. Rupert has the credit of having invented mezzotinto; from him is named that curious bubble of glass which has long amused children and puzzled philosophers. Charles himself had a laboratory at Whitehall, and was far more active and attentive there than at the council board. It was almost necessary to the character of a fine gentleman to have something to say about air pumps and telescopes; and even fine ladies, now and then, thought it becoming to affect a taste for science, went in coaches and six to visit the Gresham curiosities, and broke forth into cries of delight at finding that a magnet really attracted a needle, and that a microscope really made a fly loom as large as a sparrow. 186

It’s interesting to note that while England’s lighter literature was becoming a nuisance and a national embarrassment, the English intellect was bringing about a scientific revolution that will forever be considered one of humanity’s greatest achievements. Bacon had planted the seeds of knowledge in a sluggish environment and during an unwelcoming time. He didn’t expect immediate results and in his last will, he confidently passed on his legacy to future generations. For an entire generation, his philosophy matured slowly in the minds of a few thoughtful individuals amid chaos, wars, and exiles. While different factions battled for control, a small group of scholars chose to step back from the fray, dedicating themselves instead to the greater mission of mastering the natural world. Once peace returned, these thinkers easily found an eager audience. The tumult the nation endured had prepared the public’s mindset to accept Bacon's ideas. The civil disturbances had sparked a surge of curiosity and intellectual engagement among the educated classes, unlike anything before. However, the consequences of those troubles led to political and religious reforms being viewed with suspicion and disdain. For twenty years, the main focus for creative and resourceful individuals was devising constitutions—with or without chief magistrates, with hereditary senates or randomly chosen ones, along with annual or lifetime senates. Every detail was meticulously outlined, from the ceremonial roles of Polemarchs and Phylarchs to the attire of magistrates, whether in hats or black velvet caps, how the mace should be carried, and when heralds were to reveal themselves. These trivialities were seriously discussed and organized by individuals of notable skill and intellect. 181 But the time for such fantasies had passed; and if any steadfast republicans continued to entertain these ideas, the fear of public ridicule and potential prosecution generally led them to keep quiet. Criticizing the monarchy's fundamental laws was now seen as both unpopular and dangerous, but bold and creative minds found an outlet by dismissing what had recently been viewed as the very laws of nature. The energy that had been redirected from politics surged vigorously into the field of physics. The year 1660, marking the restoration of the old constitution, also marks the beginning of the new philosophy’s rise. That year saw the establishment of the Royal Society, which would become a key player in a long series of beneficial reforms. 182 Within months, experimental science became all the rage. Blood transfusion, air pressure, and mercury fixation took the spotlight previously occupied by the debates of the Rota. Ideal governmental structures gave way to dreams of wings that would allow people to fly from the Tower to the Abbey, and of ships designed to withstand even the fiercest storms. All social classes were swept up in this compelling enthusiasm. Cavaliers and Roundheads, Churchmen and Puritans found common ground for once. Clerics, legal experts, politicians, nobles, and royals all celebrated the success of Bacon’s philosophy. Poets passionately sang of the coming golden age. Cowley wrote powerful verses sparkling with wit, encouraging the chosen ones to claim the land flowing with milk and honey that their great liberator and lawgiver had viewed from afar but was not allowed to enter. 183 Dryden, with more enthusiasm than knowledge, joined the chorus, foreseeing events that he and others didn’t fully grasp. He predicted that the Royal Society would soon lead us to the ends of the Earth and provide us with a clearer view of the moon. 184 Two ambitious bishops, Ward of Salisbury and Wilkins of Chester, stood out among the movement's leaders. The story of this movement was eloquently narrated by a younger clergyman, Thomas Sprat, who would later become Bishop of Rochester and gain prominence in his field. Both Chief Justice Hale and Lord Keeper Guildford dedicated time from their judicial duties to study hydrostatics. In fact, it was under Guildford’s direct supervision that the first barometers ever sold in London were made. 185 Chemistry momentarily competed for attention with wine, love, the theater, and gambling, alongside the intrigues of courtiers and demagogues, all vying for the attention of the fickle Buckingham. Rupert is credited with inventing mezzotint; he also lent his name to that quirky bubble of glass that has entertained children and puzzled philosophers for years. King Charles himself maintained a laboratory at Whitehall and was much more engaged there than he was in council meetings. It became almost essential for a refined gentleman to have something to say about air pumps and telescopes; even distinguished ladies occasionally pretended to have an interest in science, traveling in style to see the Gresham curiosities and expressing delight at discovering that magnets could actually attract needles and that microscopes could make a fly appear as large as a sparrow. 186

In this, as in every great stir of the human mind, there was doubtless something which might well move a smile. It is the universal law that whatever pursuit, whatever doctrine, becomes fashionable, shall lose a portion of that dignity which it had possessed while it was confined to a small but earnest minority, and was loved for its own sake alone. It is true that the follies of some persons who, without any real aptitude for science, professed a passion for it, furnished matter of contemptuous mirth to a few malignant satirists who belonged to the preceding generation, and were not disposed to unlearn the lore of their youth. 187 But it is not less true that the great work of interpreting nature was performed by the English of that age as it had never before been performed in any age by any nation. The spirit of Francis Bacon was abroad, a spirit admirably compounded of audacity and sobriety. There was a strong persuasion that the whole world was full of secrets of high moment to the happiness of man, and that man had, by his Maker, been entrusted with the key which, rightly used, would give access to them. There was at the same time a conviction that in physics it was impossible to arrive at the knowledge of general laws except by the careful observation of particular facts. Deeply impressed with these great truths, the professors of the new philosophy applied themselves to their task, and, before a quarter of a century had expired, they had given ample earnest of what has since been achieved. Already a reform of agriculture had been commenced. New vegetables were cultivated. New implements of husbandry were employed. New manures were applied to the soil. 188 Evelyn had, under the formal sanction of the Royal Society, given instruction to his countrymen in planting. Temple, in his intervals of leisure, had tried many experiments in horticulture, and had proved that many delicate fruits, the natives of more favoured climates, might, with the help of art, be grown on English ground. Medicine, which in France was still in abject bondage, and afforded an inexhaustible subject of just ridicule to Moliere, had in England become an experimental and progressive science, and every day made some new advance in defiance of Hippocrates and Galen. The attention of speculative men had been, for the first time, directed to the important subject of sanitary police. The great plague of 1665 induced them to consider with care the defective architecture, draining, and ventilation of the capital. The great fire of 1666 afforded an opportunity for effecting extensive improvements. The whole matter was diligently examined by the Royal Society; and to the suggestions of that body must be partly attributed the changes which, though far short of what the public welfare required, yet made a wide difference between the new and the old London, and probably put a final close to the ravages of pestilence in our country. 189 At the same time one of the founders of the Society, Sir William Petty, created the science of political arithmetic, the humble but indispensable handmaid of political philosophy. No kingdom of nature was left unexplored. To that period belong the chemical discoveries of Boyle, and the earliest botanical researches of Sloane. It was then that Ray made a new classification of birds and fishes, and that the attention of Woodward was first drawn towards fossils and shells. One after another phantoms which had haunted the world through ages of darkness fled before the light. Astrology and alchymy became jests. Soon there was scarcely a county in which some of the Quorum did not smile contemptuously when an old woman was brought before them for riding on broomsticks or giving cattle the murrain. But it was in those noblest and most arduous departments of knowledge in which induction and mathematical demonstration cooperate for the discovery of truth, that the English genius won in that age the most memorable triumphs. John Wallis placed the whole system of statics on a new foundation. Edmund Halley investigated the properties of the atmosphere, the ebb and flow of the sea, the laws of magnetism, and the course of the comets; nor did he shrink from toil, peril and exile in the cause of science. While he, on the rock of Saint Helena, mapped the constellations of the southern hemisphere, our national observatory was rising at Greenwich: and John Flamsteed, the first Astronomer Royal, was commencing that long series of observations which is never mentioned without respect and gratitude in any part of the globe. But the glory of these men, eminent as they were, is cast into the shade by the transcendent lustre of one immortal name. In Isaac Newton two kinds of intellectual power, which have little in common, and which are not often found together in a very high degree of vigour, but which nevertheless are equally necessary in the most sublime departments of physics, were united as they have never been united before or since. There may have been minds as happily constituted as his for the cultivation of pure mathematical science: there may have been minds as happily constituted for the cultivation of science purely experimental; but in no other mind have the demonstrative faculty and the inductive faculty coexisted in such supreme excellence and perfect harmony. Perhaps in the days of Scotists and Thomists even his intellect might have run to waste, as many intellects ran to waste which were inferior only to his. Happily the spirit of the age on which his lot was cast, gave the right direction to his mind; and his mind reacted with tenfold force on the spirit of the age. In the year 1685 his fame, though splendid, was only dawning; but his genius was in the meridian. His great work, that work which effected a revolution in the most important provinces of natural philosophy, had been completed, but was not yet published, and was just about to be submitted to the consideration of the Royal Society.

In this, like in every major upheaval of human thought, there was definitely something that could easily provoke a smile. It's a universal truth that any pursuit or belief that becomes trendy loses some of the respect it once had when it was embraced by a small, passionate minority and valued for its own sake. It's true that the foolishness of some people, who claimed to love science without any real talent for it, provided material for mocking laughter for a few spiteful satirists from the previous generation, who weren’t ready to forget what they had learned in their youth. 187 But it's equally true that the great work of interpreting nature was carried out by the English of that time like never before by any nation in history. The spirit of Francis Bacon was alive, a spirit brilliantly mixed with boldness and seriousness. There was a strong belief that the world was filled with secrets crucial to human happiness, and that humanity had been given the key by its Creator, which, if used properly, would unlock them. At the same time, there was a firm conviction that in physics, understanding general laws was only possible through careful observation of specific facts. Deeply impressed by these significant truths, the professors of the new philosophy dedicated themselves to their work, and before just 25 years had passed, they had shown a clear promise of what has since been accomplished. A reform of agriculture had already begun. New vegetables were being grown. New farming tools were being used. New fertilizers were being applied to the soil. 188 Evelyn had, with the official backing of the Royal Society, instructed his fellow countrymen in planting. Temple, during his free time, conducted various experiments in gardening and proved that many delicate fruits, native to more favored climates, could be cultivated in England with the right techniques. Medicine, which in France was still in a state of miserable stagnation and provided endless material for Moliere’s ridicule, had in England become an experimental and evolving science, making daily progress against the teachings of Hippocrates and Galen. For the first time, thinkers began to focus on the vital issue of public health. The devastating plague of 1665 prompted them to carefully consider the inadequate architecture, drainage, and ventilation of the capital. The great fire of 1666 created an opportunity for significant improvements. The Royal Society diligently investigated the entire situation; the suggestions from that organization contributed partially to the changes which, while still inadequate for public welfare, greatly distinguished the new London from the old, likely putting an end to the plague's devastation in our country. 189 Meanwhile, one of the founders of the Society, Sir William Petty, established the science of political arithmetic, a humble yet essential complement to political philosophy. No natural domain was left unexplored. This era saw the chemical discoveries of Boyle, and the early botanical studies of Sloane. It was during this time that Ray developed a new classification of birds and fish, and Woodward first turned his attention to fossils and shells. One by one, the ghosts that had haunted the world throughout the ages of darkness faded away in the light. Astrology and alchemy became laughable. Soon, there was hardly a county where some members of the Quorum didn’t scoff when an old woman was brought before them for allegedly flying on broomsticks or causing sickness in cattle. However, it was in those noblest and most challenging areas of knowledge where induction and mathematical proof work together to discover truth that the English genius achieved the most notable victories in that age. John Wallis laid the foundational principles of statics anew. Edmund Halley explored the characteristics of the atmosphere, the rise and fall of the tide, magnetic laws, and the paths of comets; he didn’t shy away from hard work, risk, and exile for the sake of science. While he mapped the stars of the southern sky from the rock of Saint Helena, our national observatory was being built in Greenwich, and John Flamsteed, the first Astronomer Royal, began the long series of observations that are always mentioned with respect and gratitude worldwide. But even the glory of these men, impressive as it was, pales in comparison to the brilliant light of one immortal name. In Isaac Newton, two kinds of intellectual power, which have little in common and are rarely found together at such a high level of strength, came together as they never have before or since. There may have been minds just as well suited for pure mathematical science; there may have been minds equally capable in strictly experimental science; but no other mind has combined the capacity for demonstration and induction with such outstanding excellence and perfect balance. Perhaps during the time of the Scotists and Thomists, even his intellect might have been wasted, as many lesser minds were. Fortunately, the spirit of the age he lived in provided the right direction for his thoughts, and his intellect resonated tenfold with the spirit of the age. By 1685, his fame, though brilliant, was only just beginning, but his genius was at its peak. His major work, which brought about a revolution in the most significant areas of natural philosophy, had been completed but wasn't published yet, and was about to be presented to the Royal Society.

It is not very easy to explain why the nation which was so far before its neighbours in science should in art have been far behind them. Yet such was the fact. It is true that in architecture, an art which is half a science, an art in which none but a geometrician can excel, an art which has no standard of grace but what is directly or indirectly dependent on utility, an art of which the creations derive a part, at least, of their majesty from mere bulk, our country could boast of one truly great man, Christopher Wren; and the fire which laid London in ruins had given him an opportunity, unprecedented in modern history, of displaying his powers. The austere beauty of the Athenian portico, the gloomy sublimity of the Gothic arcade, he was like almost all his contemporaries, incapable of emulating, and perhaps incapable of appreciating; but no man born on our side of the Alps, has imitated with so much success the magnificence of the palacelike churches of Italy. Even the superb Lewis has left to posterity no work which can bear a comparison with Saint Paul's. But at the close of the reign of Charles the Second there was not a single English painter or statuary whose name is now remembered. This sterility is somewhat mysterious; for painters and statuaries were by no means a despised or an ill paid class. Their social position was at least as high as at present. Their gains, when compared with the wealth of the nation and with the remuneration of other descriptions of intellectual labour, were even larger than at present. Indeed the munificent patronage which was extended to artists drew them to our shores in multitudes. Lely, who has preserved to us the rich curls, the full lips, and the languishing eyes of the frail beauties celebrated by Hamilton, was a Westphalian. He had died in 1680, having long lived splendidly, having received the honour of knighthood, and having accumulated a good estate out of the fruits of his skill. His noble collection of drawings and pictures was, after his decease, exhibited by the royal permission in the Banqueting House at Whitehall, and was sold by auction for the almost incredible sum of twenty-six thousand pounds, a sum which bore a greater proportion to the fortunes of the rich men of that day than a hundred thousand pounds would bear to the fortunes of the rich men of our time. 190 Lely was succeeded by his countryman Godfrey Kneller, who was made first a knight and then a baronet, and who, after keeping up a sumptuous establishment, and after losing much money by unlucky speculations, was still able to bequeath a large fortune to his family. The two Vandeveldes, natives of Holland, had been tempted by English liberality to settle here, and had produced for the King and his nobles some of the finest sea pieces in the world. Another Dutchman, Simon Varelst, painted glorious sunflowers and tulips for prices such as had never before been known. Verrio, a Neapolitan, covered ceilings and staircases with Gorgons and Muses, Nymphs and Satyrs, Virtues and Vices, Gods quaffing nectar, and laurelled princes riding in triumph. The income which he derived from his performances enabled him to keep one of the most expensive tables in England. For his pieces at Windsor alone he received seven thousand pounds, a sum then sufficient to make a gentleman of moderate wishes perfectly easy for life, a sum greatly exceeding all that Dryden, during a literary life of forty years, obtained from the booksellers. 191 Verrio's assistant and successor, Lewis Laguerre, came from France. The two most celebrated sculptors of that day were also foreigners. Cibber, whose pathetic emblems of Fury and Melancholy still adorn Bedlam, was a Dane. Gibbons, to whose graceful fancy and delicate touch many of our palaces, colleges, and churches owe their finest decorations, was a Dutchman. Even the designs for the coin were made by French artists. Indeed, it was not till the reign of George the Second that our country could glory in a great painter; and George the Third was on the throne before she had reason to be proud of any of her sculptors.

It’s not easy to explain why a nation that was so advanced in science was so far behind its neighbors in art. But that was the reality. It's true that in architecture—a blend of art and science, where only a skilled geometrician can excel, and which relies on utility for its standards of beauty—our country could claim one truly great figure, Christopher Wren. The Great Fire that destroyed London provided him with an unparalleled opportunity to showcase his talents. The elegant simplicity of the Athenian portico and the profound grandeur of the Gothic arcade were beyond his reach, perhaps not even fully appreciated by him; however, no one born on our side of the Alps has matched his success in replicating the grandeur of the palatial churches of Italy. Even the talented Lewis left behind no work that compares to Saint Paul's. Yet, by the end of Charles II’s reign, there was not a single English painter or sculptor whose name is remembered today. This lack of recognition is somewhat puzzling since painters and sculptors were neither looked down upon nor poorly compensated. Their social standing was at least as respected as today, and their incomes, compared to the wealth of the nation and other intellectual professions, were even higher than now. In fact, the generous support given to artists drew many to our shores. Lely, who captured the rich curls, full lips, and alluring eyes of the beautiful subjects praised by Hamilton, was originally from Westphalia. He died in 1680 after living lavishly, earning a knighthood, and building a significant estate from his work. After his death, his impressive collection of drawings and paintings was exhibited by royal permission in the Banqueting House at Whitehall and sold at auction for an astonishing twenty-six thousand pounds, a sum that was far more significant relative to the fortunes of wealthy individuals at the time than a hundred thousand pounds would be today. 190 Lely was followed by his fellow countryman Godfrey Kneller, who was first knighted and then made a baronet. Despite running a lavish household and losing significant money on bad investments, he still left a large fortune for his family. The two Vandeveldes, originally from Holland, were lured by English hospitality to settle here and created some of the finest sea paintings for the King and his nobles. Another Dutch artist, Simon Varelst, painted stunning sunflowers and tulips for prices never seen before. Verrio, a Neapolitan, adorned ceilings and staircases with Gorgons, Muses, Nymphs, Satyrs, Virtues, Vices, Gods drinking nectar, and laurel-crowned princes in triumph. The income from his work allowed him to maintain one of the most lavish lifestyles in England. Just for his pieces at Windsor, he earned seven thousand pounds, a sum that could comfortably support a gentleman of modest means for life, and far exceeded what Dryden earned from booksellers during his forty-year literary career. 191 Verrio’s assistant and successor, Lewis Laguerre, came from France. The two most celebrated sculptors of the time were also foreigners. Cibber, whose poignant representations of Fury and Melancholy still grace Bedlam, was a Dane. Gibbons, whose elegant designs and delicate touches decorate many of our palaces, colleges, and churches, was Dutch. Even the designs for the coinage were produced by French artists. In fact, it wasn’t until the reign of George II that our country could take pride in a great painter, and it wasn’t until George III's reign that she could boast about any sculptors.

It is time that this description of the England which Charles the Second governed should draw to a close. Yet one subject of the highest moment still remains untouched. Nothing has yet been said of the great body of the people, of those who held the ploughs, who tended the oxen, who toiled at the looms of Norwich, and squared the Portland stone for Saint Paul's. Nor can very much be said. The most numerous class is precisely the class respecting which we have the most meagre information. In those times philanthropists did not yet regard it as a sacred duty, nor had demagogues yet found it a lucrative trade, to talk and write about the distress of the labourer. History was too much occupied with courts and camps to spare a line for the hut of the peasant or the garret of the mechanic. The press now often sends forth in a day a greater quantity of discussion and declamation about the condition of the working man than was published during the twenty-eight years which elapsed between the Restoration and the Revolution. But it would be a great error to infer from the increase of complaint that there has been any increase of misery.

It's time to wrap up this description of England under Charles the Second's rule. However, one important topic still needs to be addressed. So far, we haven't talked about the vast majority of the population—those who worked the fields, cared for the oxen, toiled at the looms in Norwich, and cut the Portland stone for Saint Paul's. Unfortunately, not much can be said about them. The largest social class is the one about which we have the least information. Back then, philanthropists didn't see it as their sacred duty, nor had demagogues discovered it was a profitable business to speak and write about the struggles of laborers. History was too focused on courts and military campaigns to pay attention to the peasant's hut or the mechanic's attic. Nowadays, the media often generates more discussion and debate about the working man's situation in a single day than what was published in the twenty-eight years between the Restoration and the Revolution. However, it would be a big mistake to assume that the increase in complaints means there has been a rise in suffering.

The great criterion of the state of the common people is the amount of their wages; and as four-fifths of the common people were, in the seventeenth century, employed in agriculture, it is especially important to ascertain what were then the wages of agricultural industry. On this subject we have the means of arriving at conclusions sufficiently exact for our purpose.

The main indicator of the situation of ordinary people is their wages; and since four-fifths of the common people were employed in agriculture in the seventeenth century, it's particularly important to determine what the wages for agricultural work were at that time. We have the means to reach conclusions that are accurate enough for our needs on this topic.

Sir William Petty, whose mere assertion carries great weight, informs us that a labourer was by no means in the lowest state who received for a day's work fourpence with food, or eightpence without food. Four shillings a week therefore were, according to Petty's calculation, fair agricultural wages. 192

Sir William Petty, whose opinion holds significant influence, tells us that a laborer was not considered to be in the lowest position if he earned fourpence a day with food, or eightpence a day without food. Four shillings a week, then, were seen by Petty as reasonable agricultural wages. 192

That this calculation was not remote from the truth we have abundant proof. About the beginning of the year 1685 the justices of Warwickshire, in the exercise of a power entrusted to them by an Act of Elizabeth, fixed, at their quarter sessions, a scale of wages for the county, and notified that every employer who gave more than the authorised sum, and every working man who received more, would be liable to punishment. The wages of the common agricultural labourer, from March to September, were fixed at the precise amount mentioned by Petty, namely four shillings a week without food. From September to March the wages were to be only three and sixpence a week. 193

That this calculation was not far from the truth, we have plenty of evidence. Around the start of 1685, the justices of Warwickshire, exercising the authority granted to them by an Act of Elizabeth, set a wage scale for the county during their quarterly sessions. They announced that any employer who paid more than the approved amount, and any worker who accepted more, would face penalties. The wages for common agricultural laborers, from March to September, were set at exactly the amount mentioned by Petty, which was four shillings a week without food. From September to March, the wages were to be only three and sixpence a week. 193

But in that age, as in ours, the earnings of the peasant were very different in different parts of the kingdom. The wages of Warwickshire were probably about the average, and those of the counties near the Scottish border below it: but there were more favoured districts. In the same year, 1685, a gentleman of Devonshire, named Richard Dunning, published a small tract, in which he described the condition of the poor of that county. That he understood his subject well it is impossible to doubt; for a few months later his work was reprinted, and was, by the magistrates assembled in quarter sessions at Exeter, strongly recommended to the attention of all parochial officers. According to him, the wages of the Devonshire peasant were, without food, about five shillings a week. 194

But in that time, just like today, the earnings of farmers varied greatly across different regions of the kingdom. Wages in Warwickshire were probably around the average, while those in the counties near the Scottish border were lower. However, there were also more prosperous areas. In the same year, 1685, a gentleman from Devonshire named Richard Dunning published a small pamphlet in which he detailed the situation of the poor in that county. There's no doubt he knew his topic well; just a few months later, his work was reprinted and strongly endorsed by the magistrates gathered in quarter sessions at Exeter, recommending it to all local officials. According to him, the wages of the Devonshire farmer were about five shillings a week, not including food. 194

Still better was the condition of the labourer in the neighbourhood of Bury Saint Edmund's. The magistrates of Suffolk met there in the spring of 1682 to fix a rate of wages, and resolved that, where the labourer was not boarded, he should have five shillings a week in winter, and six in summer. 195

Still better was the situation for the laborer near Bury Saint Edmund's. The magistrates of Suffolk gathered there in the spring of 1682 to set a wage rate, and decided that, when the laborer was not provided with board, he should earn five shillings a week in winter and six in summer. 195

In 1661 the justices at Chelmsford had fixed the wages of the Essex labourer, who was not boarded, at six shillings in winter and seven in summer. This seems to have been the highest remuneration given in the kingdom for agricultural labour between the Restoration and the Revolution; and it is to be observed that, in the year in which this order was made, the necessaries of life were immoderately dear. Wheat was at seventy shillings the quarter, which would even now be considered as almost a famine price. 196

In 1661, the justices at Chelmsford set the wages for unboarded laborers in Essex at six shillings in winter and seven in summer. This appears to have been the highest pay for agricultural labor in the country between the Restoration and the Revolution. It's worth noting that in the same year this decision was made, the cost of living was extremely high. Wheat was priced at seventy shillings per quarter, which would still be regarded as nearly a famine price today. 196

These facts are in perfect accordance with another fact which seems to deserve consideration. It is evident that, in a country where no man can be compelled to become a soldier, the ranks of an army cannot be filled if the government offers much less than the wages of common rustic labour. At present the pay and beer money of a private in a regiment of the line amount to seven shillings and sevenpence a week. This stipend, coupled with the hope of a pension, does not attract the English youth in sufficient numbers; and it is found necessary to supply the deficiency by enlisting largely from among the poorer population of Munster and Connaught. The pay of the private foot soldier in 1685 was only four shillings and eightpence a week; yet it is certain that the government in that year found no difficulty in obtaining many thousands of English recruits at very short notice. The pay of the private foot soldier in the army of the Commonwealth had been seven shillings a week, that is to say, as much as a corporal received under Charles the Second; 197 and seven shillings a week had been found sufficient to fill the ranks with men decidedly superior to the generality of the people. On the whole, therefore, it seems reasonable to conclude that, in the reign of Charles the Second, the ordinary wages of the peasant did not exceed four shillings a week; but that, in some parts of the kingdom, five shillings, six shillings, and, during the summer months, even seven shillings were paid. At present a district where a labouring man earns only seven shillings a week is thought to be in a state shocking to humanity. The average is very much higher; and in prosperous counties, the weekly wages of husbandmen amount to twelve, fourteen, and even sixteen shillings. The remuneration of workmen employed in manufactures has always been higher than that of the tillers of the soil. In the year 1680, a member of the House of Commons remarked that the high wages paid in this country made it impossible for our textures to maintain a competition with the produce of the Indian looms. An English mechanic, he said, instead of slaving like a native of Bengal for a piece of copper, exacted a shilling a day. 198 Other evidence is extant, which proves that a shilling a day was the pay to which the English manufacturer then thought himself entitled, but that he was often forced to work for less. The common people of that age were not in the habit of meeting for public discussion, of haranguing, or of petitioning Parliament. No newspaper pleaded their cause. It was in rude rhyme that their love and hatred, their exultation and their distress, found utterance. A great part of their history is to be learned only from their ballads. One of the most remarkable of the popular lays chaunted about the streets of Norwich and Leeds in the time of Charles the Second may still be read on the original broadside. It is the vehement and bitter cry of labour against capital. It describes the good old times when every artisan employed in the woollen manufacture lived as well as a farmer. But those times were past. Sixpence a day was now all that could be earned by hard labour at the loom. If the poor complained that they could not live on such a pittance, they were told that they were free to take it or leave it. For so miserable a recompense were the producers of wealth compelled to toil rising early and lying down late, while the master clothier, eating, sleeping, and idling, became rich by their exertions. A shilling a day, the poet declares, is what the weaver would have if justice were done. 199 We may therefore conclude that, in the generation which preceded the Revolution, a workman employed in the great staple manufacture of England thought himself fairly paid if he gained six shillings a week.

These facts align perfectly with another point that seems worth considering. It's clear that in a country where no one can be forced to become a soldier, the army won't attract recruits if the government offers significantly less than the wages of regular farm labor. Currently, a private in a line regiment makes seven shillings and sevenpence a week, which, combined with the promise of a pension, isn’t drawing enough young Englishmen. As a result, there’s a need to recruit heavily from the poorer areas of Munster and Connaught. Back in 1685, the pay for a private soldier was only four shillings and eightpence a week, yet the government had no trouble finding thousands of English recruits on short notice. During the Commonwealth, a private’s pay was seven shillings a week, the same as what a corporal received under Charles the Second; and seven shillings was deemed enough to fill the ranks with men significantly better than the average population. Therefore, it seems reasonable to conclude that during Charles the Second's reign, the typical wage for a peasant didn’t exceed four shillings a week, although in some areas of the kingdom, workers received five, six, and even seven shillings during the summer months. Nowadays, a district where a laborer earns only seven shillings a week is considered shockingly underprivileged. The average wage is much higher, with farm workers in prosperous counties earning twelve, fourteen, or even sixteen shillings weekly. Workers in manufacturing have always earned more than those in agriculture. In 1680, a member of the House of Commons pointed out that high wages in England made it impossible for our textiles to compete with products from Indian looms. He noted that an English mechanic would demand a shilling a day, instead of working like a Bengali for a mere piece of copper. Other evidence shows that a shilling a day was the minimum a British manufacturer thought he deserved, yet he often had to accept less. The common folk of that time typically did not gather to discuss public matters, make speeches, or petition Parliament. No newspapers advocated for their issues. Their emotions—love, hate, joy, and distress—were expressed through simple rhymes. Much of their history can only be uncovered through their ballads. One notable folk song sung in the streets of Norwich and Leeds during Charles the Second’s time can still be found on an original broadside. It passionately voices the laborers' struggle against capital. It recalls the good old days when every craftsman working in the wool industry lived as well as a farmer. But those days are gone. Now, sixpence a day is all that can be earned through hard work at the loom. If the poor complained about not being able to survive on such a meager wage, they were told they could either accept it or reject it. For such a pitiful reward, the creators of wealth were forced to rise early and work late, while the master clothier, enjoying life and doing little, grew rich off their labor. The poet insists that the weaver deserves a shilling a day if justice were served. We can thus conclude that in the generation leading up to the Revolution, a worker in England's main manufacturing industry considered a weekly wage of six shillings to be fair compensation.

It may here be noticed that the practice of setting children prematurely to work, a practice which the state, the legitimate protector of those who cannot protect themselves, has, in our time, wisely and humanely interdicted, prevailed in the seventeenth century to an extent which, when compared with the extent of the manufacturing system, seems almost incredible. At Norwich, the chief seat of the clothing trade, a little creature of six years old was thought fit for labour. Several writers of that time, and among them some who were considered as eminently benevolent, mention, with exultation, the fact that, in that single city, boys and girls of very tender age created wealth exceeding what was necessary for their own subsistence by twelve thousand pounds a year. 200 The more carefully we examine the history of the past, the more reason shall we find to dissent from those who imagine that our age has been fruitful of new social evils. The truth is that the evils are, with scarcely an exception, old. That which is new is the intelligence which discerns and the humanity which remedies them.

It’s worth noting that the practice of forcing children to work too young, which the state, as the rightful protector of those who can’t protect themselves, has wisely and compassionately banned in our time, was widespread in the seventeenth century to an extent that seems almost unbelievable when compared to the scale of the manufacturing system. In Norwich, the center of the clothing trade, a child as young as six years old was considered fit for labor. Several writers from that era, including some regarded as exceptionally kind-hearted, proudly noted that in that single city, boys and girls of very young ages generated wealth that exceeded what they needed for their own survival by twelve thousand pounds a year. 200 The more we delve into history, the more we’ll find reasons to disagree with those who think our time has produced new social problems. The reality is that the problems are, almost without exception, old. What’s new is the awareness that recognizes them and the compassion that seeks to address them.

When we pass from the weavers of cloth to a different class of artisans, our enquiries will still lead us to nearly the same conclusions. During several generations, the Commissioners of Greenwich Hospital have kept a register of the wages paid to different classes of workmen who have been employed in the repairs of the building. From this valuable record it appears that, in the course of a hundred and twenty years, the daily earnings of the bricklayer have risen from half a crown to four and tenpence, those of the mason from half a crown to five and threepence, those of the carpenter from half a crown to five and fivepence, and those of the plumber from three shillings to five and sixpence.

When we shift from cloth weavers to a different group of craftsmen, our inquiries will still lead us to nearly the same conclusions. For several generations, the Commissioners of Greenwich Hospital have maintained a record of the wages paid to various types of workers involved in the building repairs. From this valuable record, it shows that over the course of one hundred and twenty years, the daily earnings of the bricklayer have increased from 2 shillings and 6 pence to 4 shillings and 10 pence, those of the mason from 2 shillings and 6 pence to 5 shillings and 3 pence, those of the carpenter from 2 shillings and 6 pence to 5 shillings and 5 pence, and those of the plumber from 3 shillings to 5 shillings and 6 pence.

It seems clear, therefore, that the wages of labour, estimated in money, were, in 1685, not more than half of what they now are; and there were few articles important to the working man of which the price was not, in 1685, more than half of what it now is. Beer was undoubtedly much cheaper in that age than at present. Meat was also cheaper, but was still so dear that hundreds of thousands of families scarcely knew the taste of it. 201 In the cost of wheat there has been very little change. The average price of the quarter, during the last twelve years of Charles the Second, was fifty shillings. Bread, therefore, such as is now given to the inmates of a workhouse, was then seldom seen, even on the trencher of a yeoman or of a shopkeeper. The great majority of the nation lived almost entirely on rye, barley, and oats.

It’s pretty clear that the wages for labor, measured in money, were, in 1685, less than half of what they are today; and for most items that mattered to workers, the prices in 1685 were also more than half of what they are now. Beer was definitely much cheaper back then than it is now. Meat was also less expensive, but still so costly that hundreds of thousands of families rarely got to taste it. 201 The price of wheat hasn’t changed much. The average cost of a quarter during the last twelve years of Charles the Second was fifty shillings. So, the kind of bread that is now given to workhouse residents was rarely seen, even on the table of a farmer or shopkeeper. The majority of the population lived mainly on rye, barley, and oats.

The produce of tropical countries, the produce of the mines, the produce of machinery, was positively dearer than at present. Among the commodities for which the labourer would have had to pay higher in 1685 than his posterity now pay were sugar, salt, coals, candles, soap, shoes, stockings, and generally all articles of clothing and all articles of bedding. It may be added, that the old coats and blankets would have been, not only more costly, but less serviceable than the modern fabrics.

The goods from tropical countries, the products from mines, and the items made by machines were definitely more expensive than they are today. In 1685, a worker would have had to pay more for things like sugar, salt, coal, candles, soap, shoes, stockings, and basically all types of clothing and bedding compared to what people pay now. Additionally, the old coats and blankets would have been not only pricier but also less durable than the fabrics we have today.

It must be remembered that those labourers who were able to maintain themselves and their families by means of wages were not the most necessitous members of the community. Beneath them lay a large class which could not subsist without some aid from the parish. There can hardly be a more important test of the condition of the common people than the ratio which this class bears to the whole society. At present, the men, women, and children who receive relief appear from the official returns to be, in bad years, one tenth of the inhabitants of England, and, in good years, one thirteenth. Gregory King estimated them in his time at about a fourth; and this estimate, which all our respect for his authority will scarcely prevent us from calling extravagant, was pronounced by Davenant eminently judicious.

It's important to remember that the workers who could support themselves and their families with their wages weren't the most needy members of society. Below them was a large group that couldn't survive without some help from the parish. There’s hardly a more significant indicator of the state of the common people than the proportion this group represents in the entire community. Currently, the men, women, and children receiving assistance appear, according to official records, to make up about one-tenth of England's population in bad years, and about one-thirteenth in good years. Gregory King estimated their numbers at around a fourth during his time; and while we might consider this estimate somewhat extreme despite our respect for his authority, Davenant deemed it very wise.

We are not quite without the means of forming an estimate for ourselves. The poor rate was undoubtedly the heaviest tax borne by our ancestors in those days. It was computed, in the reign of Charles the Second, at near seven hundred thousand pounds a year, much more than the produce either of the excise or of the customs, and little less than half the entire revenue of the crown. The poor rate went on increasing rapidly, and appears to have risen in a short time to between eight and nine hundred thousand a year, that is to say, to one sixth of what it now is. The population was then less than a third of what it now is. The minimum of wages, estimated in money, was half of what it now is; and we can therefore hardly suppose that the average allowance made to a pauper can have been more than half of what it now is. It seems to follow that the proportion of the English people which received parochial relief then must have been larger than the proportion which receives relief now. It is good to speak on such questions with diffidence: but it has certainly never yet been proved that pauperism was a less heavy burden or a less serious social evil during the last quarter of the seventeenth century than it is in our own time. 202

We aren't completely without a way to form our own estimates. The poor rate was undoubtedly the toughest tax our ancestors faced back then. In the reign of Charles the Second, it was calculated to be nearly seven hundred thousand pounds a year, much more than the income from either excise or customs, and almost half of the total revenue of the crown. The poor rate kept increasing quickly and seems to have risen to between eight and nine hundred thousand a year in a short time, which is about one-sixth of what it is now. The population at that time was less than a third of what it is today. The minimum wage, in monetary terms, was half of what it is now, so we can hardly assume that the average support given to a pauper was more than half of what it is currently. It seems that the percentage of the English population receiving parochial support back then must have been higher than the proportion receiving assistance now. It's wise to speak on such matters with caution; however, it has certainly never been proven that pauperism was a lighter burden or a less serious social issue during the last quarter of the seventeenth century than it is today. 202

In one respect it must be admitted that the progress of civilization has diminished the physical comforts of a portion of the poorest class. It has already been mentioned that, before the Revolution, many thousands of square miles, now enclosed and cultivated, were marsh, forest, and heath. Of this wild land much was, by law, common, and much of what was not common by law was worth so little that the proprietors suffered it to be common in fact. In such a tract, squatters and trespassers were tolerated to an extent now unknown. The peasant who dwelt there could, at little or no charge, procure occasionally some palatable addition to his hard fare, and provide himself with fuel for the winter. He kept a flock of geese on what is now an orchard rich with apple blossoms. He snared wild fowl on the fell which has long since been drained and divided into corn-fields and turnip fields. He cut turf among the furze bushes on the moor which is now a meadow bright with clover and renowned for butter and cheese. The progress of agriculture and the increase of population necessarily deprived him of these privileges. But against this disadvantage a long list of advantages is to be set off. Of the blessings which civilisation and philosophy bring with them a large proportion is common to all ranks, and would, if withdrawn, be missed as painfully by the labourer as by the peer. The market-place which the rustic can now reach with his cart in an hour was, a hundred and sixty years ago, a day's journey from him. The street which now affords to the artisan, during the whole night, a secure, a convenient, and a brilliantly lighted walk was, a hundred and sixty years ago, so dark after sunset that he would not have been able to see his hand, so ill paved that he would have run constant risk of breaking his neck, and so ill watched that he would have been in imminent danger of being knocked down and plundered of his small earnings. Every bricklayer who falls from a scaffold, every sweeper of a crossing who is run over by a carriage, may now have his wounds dressed and his limbs set with a skill such as, a hundred and sixty years ago, all the wealth of a great lord like Ormond, or of a merchant prince like Clayton, could not have purchased. Some frightful diseases have been extirpated by science; and some have been banished by police. The term of human life has been lengthened over the whole kingdom, and especially in the towns. The year 1685 was not accounted sickly; yet in the year 1685 more than one in twenty-three of the inhabitants of the capital died. 203 At present only one inhabitant of the capital in forty dies annually. The difference in salubrity between the London of the nineteenth century and the London of the seventeenth century is very far greater than the difference between London in an ordinary year and London in a year of cholera.

In one way, it's true that the progress of civilization has reduced the physical comforts for some of the poorest people. As mentioned earlier, before the Revolution, many thousands of square miles, now fenced and farmed, were marsh, forest, and heath. Much of this wild land was, by law, common land, and much of what wasn't legally common was so undervalued that the owners allowed it to be common in practice. In these areas, squatters and trespassers faced little to no repercussions. The peasant living there could occasionally gather some tasty additions to his meager diet at little or no cost and could also collect firewood for winter. He kept a flock of geese where there is now an orchard full of apple blossoms. He hunted wild birds on the land that has long been drained and split into cornfields and turnip fields. He cut turf among the gorse bushes on the moor, which is now a meadow vibrant with clover, famous for its butter and cheese. The advancement in agriculture and rising population have, without a doubt, taken away these privileges. However, there are many advantages to balance this loss. A significant portion of the blessings brought by civilization and philosophy are shared by all social classes and would be equally missed by the laborer as by the nobleman if taken away. The marketplace that farmers can now reach with their carts in an hour was a day's journey for them 160 years ago. The street that now offers the artisan safe, convenient, and well-lit passage throughout the night was so dark after sunset 160 years back that he wouldn't have seen his own hand, so poorly paved that he risked serious injury, and so poorly guarded that he was in constant danger of being mugged and losing his meager earnings. Every bricklayer who falls from a scaffold or every person sweeping the street who gets run over by a carriage can now have their injuries treated and limbs set with a skill that, 160 years ago, even the wealthiest lord like Ormond or a merchant prince like Clayton couldn't have afforded. Some terrifying diseases have been eradicated through science; others have been eliminated by law enforcement. The lifespan has increased across the entire country, especially in the cities. The year 1685 wasn’t seen as particularly unhealthy; however, in that year, more than one in twenty-three people living in the capital died. 203 Now, only one in forty inhabitants of the capital dies each year. The difference in healthiness between 19th-century London and 17th-century London is much greater than the difference between an average year in London and a year affected by cholera.

Still more important is the benefit which all orders of society, and especially the lower orders, have derived from the mollifying influence of civilisation on the national character. The groundwork of that character has indeed been the same through many generations, in the sense in which the groundwork of the character of an individual may be said to be the same when he is a rude and thoughtless schoolboy and when he is a refined and accomplished man. It is pleasing to reflect that the public mind of England has softened while it has ripened, and that we have, in the course of ages, become, not only a wiser, but also a kinder people. There is scarcely a page of the history or lighter literature of the seventeenth century which does not contain some proof that our ancestors were less humane than their posterity. The discipline of workshops, of schools, of private families, though not more efficient than at present, was infinitely harsher. Masters, well born and bred, were in the habit of beating their servants. Pedagogues knew no way of imparting knowledge but by beating their pupils. Husbands, of decent station, were not ashamed to beat their wives. The implacability of hostile factions was such as we can scarcely conceive. Whigs were disposed to murmur because Stafford was suffered to die without seeing his bowels burned before his face. Tories reviled and insulted Russell as his coach passed from the Tower to the scaffold in Lincoln's Inn Fields. 204 As little mercy was shown by the populace to sufferers of a humbler rank. If an offender was put into the pillory, it was well if he escaped with life from the shower of brickbats and paving stones. 205 If he was tied to the cart's tail, the crowd pressed round him, imploring the hangman to give it the fellow well, and make him howl. 206 Gentlemen arranged parties of pleasure to Bridewell on court days for the purpose of seeing the wretched women who beat hemp there whipped. 207 A man pressed to death for refusing to plead, a woman burned for coining, excited less sympathy than is now felt for a galled horse or an overdriven ox. Fights compared with which a boxing match is a refined and humane spectacle were among the favourite diversions of a large part of the town. Multitudes assembled to see gladiators hack each other to pieces with deadly weapons, and shouted with delight when one of the combatants lost a finger or an eye. The prisons were hells on earth, seminaries of every crime and of every disease. At the assizes the lean and yellow culprits brought with them from their cells to the dock an atmosphere of stench and pestilence which sometimes avenged them signally on bench, bar, and jury. But on all this misery society looked with profound indifference. Nowhere could be found that sensitive and restless compassion which has, in our time, extended a powerful protection to the factory child, to the Hindoo widow, to the negro slave, which pries into the stores and watercasks of every emigrant ship, which winces at every lash laid on the back of a drunken soldier, which will not suffer the thief in the hulks to be ill fed or overworked, and which has repeatedly endeavoured to save the life even of the murderer. It is true that compassion ought, like all other feelings, to be under the government of reason, and has, for want of such government, produced some ridiculous and some deplorable effects. But the more we study the annals of the past, the more shall we rejoice that we live in a merciful age, in an age in which cruelty is abhorred, and in which pain, even when deserved, is inflicted reluctantly and from a sense of duty. Every class doubtless has gained largely by this great moral change: but the class which has gained most is the poorest, the most dependent, and the most defenceless.

Still more important is the benefit that all levels of society, especially the lower classes, have gained from the calming influence of civilization on the national character. The foundation of that character has indeed remained the same over many generations, much like how the core of an individual's character is the same when he is a rough and thoughtless schoolboy as when he becomes a refined and accomplished man. It's nice to think that the public mindset in England has softened as it matured, and that over the ages, we've not only become wiser but also kinder. There's hardly a page in the history or lighter literature of the seventeenth century that doesn't show our ancestors were less compassionate than we are today. The training in workshops, schools, and private homes, though not more effective than it is now, was incredibly harsher. Well-born masters would often beat their servants, and educators only knew how to teach through punishment. Husbands of decent status weren't embarrassed to hit their wives. The relentless hostility between opposing factions was something we can hardly imagine. Whigs were inclined to complain because Stafford was allowed to die without having his innards burned in front of him. Tories mocked and insulted Russell as his carriage moved from the Tower to the scaffold in Lincoln's Inn Fields. 204 The common people showed as little mercy to those of lower status. If someone was placed in the pillory, it was a good outcome if they escaped alive from the barrage of bricks and stones. 205 If they were tied to the back of a cart, the crowd gathered around, urging the hangman to make it good and hear the person scream. 206 Gentlemen organized outings to Bridewell on court days just to witness the miserable women being whipped for making hemp. 207 A man crushed to death for refusing to plead, a woman burned for counterfeiting, drew less sympathy than we now feel for a sore horse or an overworked ox. Fights that would make a boxing match seem like a refined and humane event were among the favorite pastimes for many in the town. Crowds gathered to watch gladiators mutilate one another with deadly weapons, cheering with excitement when one of the fighters lost a finger or an eye. Prisons were hells on earth, breeding grounds for every crime and every disease. At the assizes, the thin, yellow criminals brought with them an atmosphere of stench and disease from their cells to the dock, which sometimes inflicted harsh consequences on the judge, lawyers, and jury. Yet society viewed all this suffering with profound indifference. Nowhere could one find that sensitive and restless compassion that has, in our time, offered strong protection to factory children, to Hindu widows, to enslaved Black people, that inspects the supplies and water on every emigrant ship, that reacts to every lash struck on the back of a drunken soldier, that refuses to allow the thief in the hulks to be poorly fed or overworked, and that has tried repeatedly to save even the lives of murderers. It's true that compassion should, like all other emotions, be guided by reason, and without such guidance, it has led to some absurd and regrettable outcomes. But the more we study the history of the past, the more we should be grateful to live in a merciful time, in an age where cruelty is detested, and where pain, even when deserved, is inflicted grudgingly and out of a sense of duty. Certainly, every class has benefited from this significant moral shift, but the class that has benefited the most is the poorest, most dependent, and most defenseless.

The general effect of the evidence which has been submitted to the reader seems hardly to admit of doubt. Yet, in spite of evidence, many will still image to themselves the England of the Stuarts as a more pleasant country than the England in which we live. It may at first sight seem strange that society, while constantly moving forward with eager speed, should be constantly looking backward with tender regret. But these two propensities, inconsistent as they may appear, can easily be resolved into the same principle. Both spring from our impatience of the state in which we actually are. That impatience, while it stimulates us to surpass preceding generations, disposes us to overrate their happiness. It is, in some sense, unreasonable and ungrateful in us to be constantly discontented with a condition which is constantly improving. But, in truth, there is constant improvement precisely because there is constant discontent. If we were perfectly satisfied with the present, we should cease to contrive, to labour, and to save with a view to the future. And it is natural that, being dissatisfied with the present, we should form a too favourable estimate of the past.

The overall impact of the evidence presented to the reader seems pretty undeniable. Yet, despite the facts, many still imagine that England during the Stuart era was a nicer place than the England we live in today. At first glance, it might seem odd that society, while quickly pushing forward, is also constantly looking back with fondness. But these two tendencies, as opposing as they may seem, can easily be understood as stemming from the same principle. Both arise from our impatience with our current situation. This impatience drives us to strive to outdo previous generations while leading us to overvalue their happiness. It’s somewhat unreasonable and ungrateful for us to be perpetually dissatisfied with a situation that’s continuously getting better. However, the truth is, constant improvement happens precisely because of our ongoing discontent. If we were fully satisfied with the present, we would stop trying to innovate, work hard, and save for the future. And it makes sense that, being unhappy with the present, we tend to give the past an overly positive appraisal.

In truth we are under a deception similar to that which misleads the traveller in the Arabian desert. Beneath the caravan all is dry and bare: but far in advance, and far in the rear, is the semblance of refreshing waters. The pilgrims hasten forward and find nothing but sand where an hour before they had seen a lake. They turn their eyes and see a lake where, an hour before, they were toiling through sand. A similar illusion seems to haunt nations through every stage of the long progress from poverty and barbarism to the highest degrees of opulence and civilisation. But if we resolutely chase the mirage backward, we shall find it recede before us into the regions of fabulous antiquity. It is now the fashion to place the golden age of England in times when noblemen were destitute of comforts the want of which would be intolerable to a modern footman, when farmers and shopkeepers breakfasted on loaves the very sight of which would raise a riot in a modern workhouse, when to have a clean shirt once a week was a privilege reserved for the higher class of gentry, when men died faster in the purest country air than they now die in the most pestilential lanes of our towns, and when men died faster in the lanes of our towns than they now die on the coast of Guiana. We too shall, in our turn, be outstripped, and in our turn be envied. It may well be, in the twentieth century, that the peasant of Dorsetshire may think himself miserably paid with twenty shillings a week; that the carpenter at Greenwich may receive ten shillings a day; that labouring men may be as little used to dine without meat as they now are to eat rye bread; that sanitary police and medical discoveries may have added several more years to the average length of human life; that numerous comforts and luxuries which are now unknown, or confined to a few, may be within the reach of every diligent and thrifty working man. And yet it may then be the mode to assert that the increase of wealth and the progress of science have benefited the few at the expense of the many, and to talk of the reign of Queen Victoria as the time when England was truly merry England, when all classes were bound together by brotherly sympathy, when the rich did not grind the faces of the poor, and when the poor did not envy the splendour of the rich.

In reality, we're under a deception similar to what misleads a traveler in the Arabian desert. Below the caravan, everything is dry and empty: but far ahead and far behind, there appears to be refreshing water. The pilgrims rush forward and find nothing but sand where, an hour earlier, they thought they saw a lake. They look back and see a lake where, an hour ago, they were trudging through sand. A similar illusion seems to follow nations through each phase of their long journey from poverty and barbarism to the highest levels of wealth and civilization. But if we boldly track the mirage back, we'll find it retreating into the realm of legendary antiquity. Nowadays, it's popular to think of England's golden age as a time when noblemen lacked comforts that a modern servant would find intolerable, when farmers and shopkeepers had breakfasts consisting of loaves that would cause a riot in today’s workhouse, when having a clean shirt once a week was a privilege for the upper class, when people died more quickly in the cleanest rural air than they do now in the most polluted streets of our cities, and when mortality rates were higher in our town streets than they are now on the coast of Guiana. We too will, in our time, be surpassed and envied. It’s very possible that by the twentieth century, a peasant in Dorsetshire might think he's barely getting by on twenty shillings a week; a carpenter in Greenwich could earn ten shillings a day; laborers might be just as unaccustomed to dining without meat as they now are to eating rye bread; that advances in sanitation and medicine might add several years to the average lifespan; and that numerous comforts and luxuries currently unfamiliar or limited to a select few might be accessible to every hardworking and frugal individual. Yet, it might also be fashionable to claim that the increase in wealth and progress in science have benefited the few at the expense of the many and to talk about Queen Victoria's reign as the time when England truly was “merry England,” where all classes were united by a sense of brotherhood, where the rich didn’t exploit the poor, and where the poor didn’t envy the wealth of the rich.





CHAPTER IV.

THE death of King Charles the Second took the nation by surprise. His frame was naturally strong, and did not appear to have suffered from excess. He had always been mindful of his health even in his pleasures; and his habits were such as promise a long life and a robust old age. Indolent as he was on all occasions which required tension of the mind, he was active and persevering in bodily exercise. He had, when young, been renowned as a tennis player, 208 and was, even in the decline of life, an indefatigable walker. His ordinary pace was such that those who were admitted to the honour of his society found it difficult to keep up with him. He rose early, and generally passed three or four hours a day in the open air. He might be seen, before the dew was off the grass in St. James's Park, striding among the trees, playing with his spaniels, and flinging corn to his ducks; and these exhibitions endeared him to the common people, who always love to See the great unbend. 209

THE death of King Charles the Second surprised the nation. He had a naturally strong build and didn’t seem to suffer from excess. He was always attentive to his health, even while enjoying himself; his habits suggested a long life and a healthy old age. As lazy as he was in situations that required mental effort, he was active and persistent in physical activities. When he was young, he was famous for playing tennis, 208 and even in his later years, he was an tireless walker. His usual pace was such that those fortunate enough to be in his company found it hard to keep up. He got up early and usually spent three or four hours a day outdoors. You could see him, before the dew dried on the grass in St. James's Park, striding among the trees, playing with his spaniels, and tossing grain to his ducks; and these moments made him popular with the common people, who always appreciate seeing the great relax. 209

At length, towards the close of the year 1684, he was prevented, by a slight attack of what was supposed to be gout, from rambling as usual. He now spent his mornings in his laboratory, where he amused himself with experiments on the properties of mercury. His temper seemed to have suffered from confinement. He had no apparent cause for disquiet. His kingdom was tranquil: he was not in pressing want of money: his power was greater than it had ever been: the party which had long thwarted him had been beaten down; but the cheerfulness which had supported him against adverse fortune had vanished in this season of prosperity. A trifle now sufficed to depress those elastic spirits which had borne up against defeat, exile, and penury. His irritation frequently showed itself by looks and words such as could hardly have been expected from a man so eminently distinguished by good humour and good breeding. It was not supposed however that his constitution was seriously impaired. 210

At the end of 1684, a mild case of what was thought to be gout kept him from his usual wandering. Instead, he spent his mornings in the laboratory, entertaining himself with experiments on the properties of mercury. His mood seemed to have suffered from being cooped up. There was no obvious reason for his unease. His kingdom was peaceful, he wasn't in urgent need of money, and his power was stronger than ever. The party that had long opposed him had been defeated; yet, the cheerfulness that had helped him withstand tough times had disappeared during this period of success. It took very little to dampen the spirits that had once endured defeat, exile, and poverty. His irritation often showed through his expressions and words, which seemed surprising for a man known for his good nature and manners. However, it was believed that his health was not seriously affected. 210

His palace had seldom presented a gayer or a more scandalous appearance than on the evening of Sunday the first of February 1685. 211 Some grave persons who had gone thither, after the fashion of that age, to pay their duty to their sovereign, and who had expected that, on such a day, his court would wear a decent aspect, were struck with astonishment and horror. The great gallery of Whitehall, an admirable relic of the magnificence of the Tudors, was crowded with revellers and gamblers. The king sate there chatting and toying with three women, whose charms were the boast, and whose vices were the disgrace, of three nations. Barbara Palmer, Duchess of Cleveland, was there, no longer young, but still retaining some traces of that superb and voluptuous loveliness which twenty years before overcame the hearts of all men. There too was the Duchess of Portsmouth, whose soft and infantine features were lighted up with the vivacity of France. Hortensia Mancini, Duchess of Mazarin, and niece of the great Cardinal, completed the group. She had been early removed from her native Italy to the court where her uncle was supreme. His power and her own attractions had drawn a crowd of illustrious suitors round her. Charles himself, during his exile, had sought her hand in vain. No gift of nature or of fortune seemed to be wanting to her. Her face was beautiful with the rich beauty of the South, her understanding quick, her manners graceful, her rank exalted, her possessions immense; but her ungovernable passions had turned all these blessings into curses. She had found the misery of an ill assorted marriage intolerable, had fled from her husband, had abandoned her vast wealth, and, after having astonished Rome and Piedmont by her adventures, had fixed her abode in England. Her house was the favourite resort of men of wit and pleasure, who, for the sake of her smiles and her table, endured her frequent fits of insolence and ill humour. Rochester and Godolphin sometimes forgot the cares of state in her company. Barillon and Saint Evremond found in her drawing room consolation for their long banishment from Paris. The learning of Vossius, the wit of Waller, were daily employed to flatter and amuse her. But her diseased mind required stronger stimulants, and sought them in gallantry, in basset, and in usquebaugh. 212 While Charles. flirted with his three sultanas, Hortensia's French page, a handsome boy, whose vocal performances were the delight of Whitehall, and were rewarded by numerous presents of rich clothes, ponies, and guineas, warbled some amorous verses. 213 A party of twenty courtiers was seated at cards round a large table on which gold was heaped in mountains. 214 Even then the King had complained that he did not feel quite well. He had no appetite for his supper: his rest that night was broken; but on the following morning he rose, as usual, early.

His palace had rarely looked more lively or scandalous than on the evening of Sunday, February 1, 1685. 211 Some serious-looking individuals who had come there, as was customary at that time, to pay their respects to their king, and who expected that, on such a day, his court would have a respectable appearance, were met with shock and horror. The grand gallery of Whitehall, a stunning remnant of Tudor splendor, was packed with partygoers and gamblers. The king sat there chatting and flirting with three women whose beauty was the pride and whose sins were the shame of three nations. Barbara Palmer, Duchess of Cleveland, was there, no longer young, but still showing signs of that stunning and sensual beauty that had captured all men's hearts two decades earlier. The Duchess of Portsmouth was also present, her delicate and youthful features brightened by the liveliness of France. Hortensia Mancini, Duchess of Mazarin, and niece of the great Cardinal, completed the trio. She had been taken from her native Italy to the court where her uncle held power. His influence and her own allure had attracted a host of prominent suitors. Charles himself had sought her hand in vain during his time in exile. She seemed to lack nothing in terms of nature or fortune. Her face was beautiful with the rich allure of the South, her mind sharp, her manners elegant, her status high, her wealth vast; but her uncontrollable passions had turned all these blessings into curses. She found the misery of a mismatched marriage unbearable, fled from her husband, abandoned her immense wealth, and after astonishing Rome and Piedmont with her escapades, settled in England. Her home became the favorite hangout of witty and pleasure-seeking men, who tolerated her frequent bouts of arrogance and bad temper for the sake of her smiles and her hospitality. Rochester and Godolphin occasionally forgot their state duties in her presence. Barillon and Saint Evremond found comfort in her drawing room away from their long exile in Paris. The erudition of Vossius and the cleverness of Waller were often employed to flatter and entertain her. Yet her troubled mind craved stronger stimulation, which she sought in love affairs, gambling, and liquor. 212 While Charles flirted with his three favorites, Hortensia's French page, a handsome boy whose singing won the hearts of Whitehall, was rewarded with lavish gifts of fine clothes, ponies, and gold coins, as he serenaded them with romantic verses. 213 A group of twenty courtiers gathered around a large card table piled high with gold. 214 Even then, the King had complained that he wasn't feeling well. He had no appetite for dinner; his sleep that night was restless; but the next morning, he rose early as usual.

To that morning the contending factions in his council had, during some days, looked forward with anxiety. The struggle between Halifax and Rochester seemed to be approaching a decisive crisis. Halifax, not content with having already driven his rival from the Board of Treasury, had undertaken to prove him guilty of such dishonesty or neglect in the conduct of the finances as ought to be punished by dismission from the public service. It was even whispered that the Lord President would probably be sent to the Tower. The King had promised to enquire into the matter. The second of February had been fixed for the investigation; and several officers of the revenue had been ordered to attend with their books on that day. 215 But a great turn of fortune was at hand.

To that morning, the rival groups in his council had been anxiously anticipating this moment for several days. The battle between Halifax and Rochester seemed to be reaching a breaking point. Halifax, not satisfied with having already pushed his opponent out of the Board of Treasury, had taken it upon himself to prove that Rochester was guilty of such dishonesty or negligence in managing finances that he deserved to be removed from public service. There were even rumors that the Lord President might be sent to the Tower. The King had promised to look into the issue. February 2nd had been set for the investigation, and several revenue officers had been ordered to bring their records on that day. 215 But a major change in fortune was about to occur.

Scarcely had Charles risen from his bed when his attendants perceived that his utterance was indistinct, and that his thoughts seemed to be wandering. Several men of rank had, as usual, assembled to see their sovereign shaved and dressed. He made an effort to converse with them in his usual gay style; but his ghastly look surprised and alarmed them. Soon his face grew black; his eyes turned in his head; he uttered a cry, staggered, and fell into the arms of one of his lords. A physician who had charge of the royal retorts and crucibles happened to be present. He had no lances; but he opened a vein with a penknife. The blood flowed freely; but the King was still insensible.

Scarcely had Charles gotten out of bed when his attendants noticed that his speech was slurred and his thoughts seemed scattered. Several nobles had gathered, as usual, to watch their king get shaved and dressed. He tried to chat with them in his usual cheerful way, but his pale face startled and worried them. Soon, his complexion darkened; his eyes rolled back; he let out a cry, staggered, and collapsed into the arms of one of his lords. A physician who was in charge of the royal instruments happened to be there. He didn't have any lances, but he opened a vein with a penknife. Blood flowed freely, but the King remained unconscious.

He was laid on his bed, where, during a short time, the Duchess of Portsmouth hung over him with the familiarity of a wife. But the alarm had been given. The Queen and the Duchess of York were hastening to the room. The favourite concubine was forced to retire to her own apartments. Those apartments had been thrice pulled down and thrice rebuilt by her lover to gratify her caprice. The very furniture of the chimney was massy silver. Several fine paintings, which properly belonged to the Queen, had been transferred to the dwelling of the mistress. The sideboards were piled with richly wrought plate. In the niches stood cabinets, the masterpieces of Japanese art. On the hangings, fresh from the looms of Paris, were depicted, in tints which no English tapestry could rival, birds of gorgeous plumage, landscapes, hunting matches, the lordly terrace of Saint Germains, the statues and fountains of Versailles. 216 In the midst of this splendour, purchased by guilt and shame, the unhappy woman gave herself up to an agony of grief, which, to do her justice, was not wholly selfish.

He lay on his bed, where, for a brief moment, the Duchess of Portsmouth leaned over him with the intimacy of a wife. But the alarm had been sounded. The Queen and the Duchess of York were rushing to the room. The favored mistress had to retreat to her own quarters. Those quarters had been torn down and rebuilt three times by her lover to satisfy her whims. The very fireplace was made of solid silver. Several beautiful paintings, which rightfully belonged to the Queen, had been moved to the mistress's residence. The sideboards were stacked with intricately designed silverware. In the niches stood cabinets, showcasing the best of Japanese craftsmanship. The tapestries, freshly woven in Paris, depicted, in colors unmatched by any English textile, birds with stunning feathers, landscapes, hunting scenes, the grand terrace of Saint Germain, and the statues and fountains of Versailles. 216 Amid this opulence, bought with guilt and shame, the unfortunate woman succumbed to deep grief, which, to her credit, was not entirely selfish.

And now the gates of Whitehall, which ordinarily stood open to all comers, were closed. But persons whose faces were known were still permitted to enter. The antechambers and galleries were soon filled to overflowing; and even the sick room was crowded with peers, privy councillors, and foreign ministers. All the medical men of note in London were summoned. So high did political animosities run that the presence of some Whig physicians was regarded as an extraordinary circumstance. 217 One Roman Catholic, whose skill was then widely renowned, Doctor Thomas Short, was in attendance. Several of the prescriptions have been preserved. One of them is signed by fourteen Doctors. The patient was bled largely. Hot iron was applied to his head. A loathsome volatile salt, extracted from human skulls, was forced into his mouth. He recovered his senses; but he was evidently in a situation of extreme danger.

And now the gates of Whitehall, which usually stood open to everyone, were closed. But people whose faces were recognized were still allowed to enter. The antechambers and galleries quickly filled up; even the sick room was packed with peers, privy councillors, and foreign ministers. All the top doctors in London were called in. Political tensions were so high that the presence of some Whig doctors was seen as unusual. 217 One well-known Roman Catholic doctor, Thomas Short, was present. Several of the prescriptions have been kept. One of them is signed by fourteen doctors. The patient was bled extensively. A hot iron was applied to his head. A disgusting volatile salt, taken from human skulls, was forced into his mouth. He regained consciousness, but it was clear he was in a very precarious situation.

The Queen was for a time assiduous in her attendance. The Duke of York scarcely left his brother's bedside. The Primate and four other bishops were then in London. They remained at Whitehall all day, and took it by turns to sit up at night in the King's room. The news of his illness filled the capital with sorrow and dismay. For his easy temper and affable manners had won the affection of a large part of the nation; and those who most disliked him preferred his unprincipled levity to the stern and earnest bigotry of his brother.

The Queen was often present for a while. The Duke of York hardly left his brother's bedside. The Archbishop and four other bishops were in London at that time. They stayed at Whitehall all day and took turns staying awake at night in the King's room. The news of his illness filled the city with sadness and worry. His easygoing nature and friendly demeanor had earned him the love of many in the country; even those who disliked him preferred his carefree attitude over the strict and serious bigotry of his brother.

On the morning of Thursday the fifth of February, the London Gazette announced that His Majesty was going on well, and was thought by the physicians to be out of danger. The bells of all the churches rang merrily; and preparations for bonfires were made in the streets. But in the evening it was known that a relapse had taken place, and that the medical attendants had given up all hope. The public mind was greatly disturbed; but there was no disposition to tumult. The Duke of York, who had already taken on himself to give orders, ascertained that the City was perfectly quiet, and that he might without difficulty be proclaimed as soon as his brother should expire.

On the morning of Thursday, February 5th, the London Gazette announced that the King was improving and the doctors believed he was out of danger. Church bells rang joyfully, and preparations for bonfires were made in the streets. However, by the evening, it was reported that he had suffered a relapse, and the medical staff had lost all hope. The public was very upset, but there was no inclination for unrest. The Duke of York, who had already started issuing orders, confirmed that the City was completely calm and that he could be easily proclaimed as soon as his brother passed away.

The King was in great pain, and complained that he felt as if a fire was burning within him. Yet he bore up against his sufferings with a fortitude which did not seem to belong to his soft and luxurious nature. The sight of his misery affected his wife so much that she fainted, and was carried senseless to her chamber. The prelates who were in waiting had from the first exhorted him to prepare for his end. They now thought it their duty to address him in a still more urgent manner. William Sancroft, Archbishop of Canterbury, an honest and pious, though narrowminded, man, used great freedom. "It is time," he said, "to speak out; for, Sir, you are about to appear before a Judge who is no respecter of persons." The King answered not a word.

The King was in a lot of pain and complained that it felt like a fire was burning inside him. Yet, he endured his suffering with a strength that didn’t seem to match his soft and luxurious nature. Seeing his misery affected his wife so deeply that she fainted and had to be carried senseless to her room. The church officials who were present had initially urged him to prepare for his end. They now felt it was their duty to speak to him even more urgently. William Sancroft, the Archbishop of Canterbury, an honest and devout man, though narrow-minded, spoke very frankly. "It's time," he said, "to be honest; for, Sir, you are about to stand before a Judge who does not show favoritism." The King said nothing in response.

Thomas Ken, Bishop of Bath and Wells, then tried his powers of persuasion. He was a man of parts and learning, of quick sensibility and stainless virtue. His elaborate works have long been forgotten; but his morning and evening hymns are still repeated daily in thousands of dwellings. Though, like most of his order, zealous for monarchy, he was no sycophant. Before he became a Bishop, he had maintained the honour of his gown by refusing, when the court was at Winchester, to let Eleanor Gwynn lodge in the house which he occupied there as a prebendary. 218 The King had sense enough to respect so manly a spirit. Of all the prelates he liked Ken the best. It was to no purpose, however, that the good Bishop now put forth all his eloquence. His solemn and pathetic exhortation awed and melted the bystanders to such a degree that some among them believed him to be filled with the same spirit which, in the old time, had, by the mouths of Nathan and Elias, called sinful princes to repentance. Charles however was unmoved. He made no objection indeed when the service for the visitation of the sick was read. In reply to the pressing questions of the divines, he said that he was sorry for what he had done amiss; and he suffered the absolution to be pronounced over him according to the forms of the Church of England: but, when he was urged to declare that he died in the communion of that Church, he seemed not to hear what was said; and nothing could induce him to take the Eucharist from the hands of the Bishops. A table with bread and wine was brought to his bedside, but in vain. Sometimes he said that there was no hurry, and sometimes that he was too weak.

Thomas Ken, Bishop of Bath and Wells, then tried to persuade him. He was a skilled and knowledgeable man, sensitive and morally upright. His detailed works have been forgotten, but his morning and evening hymns are still sung daily in thousands of homes. Although he was, like many bishops, a strong supporter of the monarchy, he was not a flatterer. Before he became a bishop, he upheld the honor of his position by refusing to let Eleanor Gwynn stay in the house he occupied as a prebendary while the court was in Winchester. 218 The King respected his strong character. Out of all the bishops, he liked Ken the most. However, it was in vain that the good Bishop now used all his persuasive skills. His solemn and heartfelt speech left the onlookers in awe and moved some to believe he was filled with the same spirit that had once called sinful kings to repentance through Nathan and Elias. Charles, however, remained unmoved. He didn’t object when the service for the visitation of the sick was read. In response to the urgent questions from the clergy, he stated that he regretted his wrongdoings, and he allowed the absolution to be pronounced over him according to the rituals of the Church of England. But when he was pressed to declare that he was dying within the communion of that Church, he seemed not to hear the request, and nothing could persuade him to receive the Eucharist from the Bishops. A table with bread and wine was brought to his bedside, but it was in vain. Sometimes he said there was no hurry, and other times he claimed he was too weak.

Many attributed this apathy to contempt for divine things, and many to the stupor which often precedes death. But there were in the palace a few persons who knew better. Charles had never been a sincere member of the Established Church. His mind had long oscillated between Hobbism and Popery. When his health was good and his spirits high he was a scoffer. In his few serious moments he was a Roman Catholic. The Duke of York was aware of this, but was entirely occupied with the care of his own interests. He had ordered the outports to be closed. He had posted detachments of the Guards in different parts of the city. He had also procured the feeble signature of the dying King to an instrument by which some duties, granted only till the demise of the Crown, were let to farm for a term of three years. These things occupied the attention of James to such a degree that, though, on ordinary occasions, he was indiscreetly and unseasonably eager to bring over proselytes to his Church, he never reflected that his brother was in danger of dying without the last sacraments. This neglect was the more extraordinary because the Duchess of York had, at the request of the Queen, suggested, on the morning on which the King was taken ill, the propriety of procuring spiritual assistance. For such assistance Charles was at last indebted to an agency very different from that of his pious wife and sister-in-law. A life of frivolty and vice had not extinguished in the Duchess of Portsmouth all sentiments of religion, or all that kindness which is the glory of her sex. The French ambassador Barillon, who had come to the palace to enquire after the King, paid her a visit. He found her in an agony of sorrow. She took him into a secret room, and poured out her whole heart to him. "I have," she said, "a thing of great moment to tell you. If it were known, my head would be in danger. The King is really and truly a Catholic; but he will die without being reconciled to the Church. His bedchamber is full of Protestant clergymen. I cannot enter it without giving scandal. The Duke is thinking only of himself. Speak to him. Remind him that there is a soul at stake. He is master now. He can clear the room. Go this instant, or it will be too late."

Many people thought this indifference stemmed from disdain for sacred things, while others believed it was the lethargy that often comes before death. But a few individuals in the palace understood the truth. Charles had never truly been a genuine member of the Established Church. His beliefs had long fluctuated between materialism and Catholicism. When he was healthy and in good spirits, he was a skeptic. In his rare serious moments, he identified as a Roman Catholic. The Duke of York recognized this, but he was too focused on his own interests. He had ordered the ports to be closed. He had assigned Guard detachments throughout the city. He had also secured the weak signature of the dying King to a document allowing some duties, granted only until the crown changed, to be farmed out for three years. These matters consumed James's attention to such an extent that, despite normally being carelessly eager to convert people to his Church, he never considered that his brother might die without receiving the last sacraments. This oversight was particularly surprising because the Duchess of York had, upon the Queen's request, suggested on the morning the King fell ill that spiritual assistance should be sought. Eventually, Charles received this assistance from a source very different from his devout wife and sister-in-law. A lifestyle of triviality and misdeeds had not completely erased the Duchess of Portsmouth's religious sentiments or the kindness that is a hallmark of her gender. The French ambassador Barillon, who had come to the palace to inquire about the King, visited her. He found her in deep distress. She led him into a private room and poured out her heart to him. "I have," she said, "something very important to tell you. If it gets out, my life would be in danger. The King is genuinely a Catholic, but he will die without reconciling with the Church. His bedroom is filled with Protestant ministers. I can't go in there without causing a scandal. The Duke is only thinking about himself. Talk to him. Remind him that a soul is at risk. He is in control now. He can clear the room. Go right now, or it will be too late."

Barillon hastened to the bedchamber, took the Duke aside, and delivered the message of the mistress. The conscience of James smote him. He started as if roused from sleep, and declared that nothing should prevent him from discharging the sacred duty which had been too long delayed. Several schemes were discussed and rejected. At last the Duke commanded the crowd to stand aloof, went to the bed, stooped down, and whispered something which none of the spectators could hear, but which they supposed to be some question about affairs of state. Charles answered in an audible voice, "Yes, yes, with all my heart." None of the bystanders, except the French Ambassador, guessed that the King was declaring his wish to be admitted into the bosom of the Church of Rome.

Barillon rushed to the bedroom, took the Duke aside, and delivered the message from the mistress. James's conscience struck him hard. He jumped as if waking from a dream and insisted that nothing would stop him from fulfilling the sacred duty that had been delayed for too long. They discussed and dismissed several plans. Finally, the Duke ordered the crowd to stay back, approached the bed, leaned down, and whispered something that no one in the audience could hear, but they assumed it was some question about state matters. Charles replied loudly, "Yes, yes, with all my heart." None of the onlookers, except the French Ambassador, realized that the King was expressing his desire to be accepted into the Catholic Church.

"Shall I bring a priest?" said the Duke. "Do, brother," replied the Sick man. "For God's sake do, and lose no time. But no; you will get into trouble." "If it costs me my life," said the Duke, "I will fetch a priest."

"Should I get a priest?" asked the Duke. "Please do, brother," replied the Sick man. "For God's sake, hurry up and don’t waste any time. But no; you’ll get in trouble." "Even if it costs me my life," said the Duke, "I will go get a priest."

To find a priest, however, for such a purpose, at a moment's notice, was not easy. For, as the law then stood, the person who admitted a proselyte into the Roman Catholic Church was guilty of a capital crime. The Count of Castel Melhor, a Portuguese nobleman, who, driven by political troubles from his native land, had been hospitably received at the English court, undertook to procure a confessor. He had recourse to his countrymen who belonged to the Queen's household; but he found that none of her chaplains knew English or French enough to shrive the King. The Duke and Barillon were about to send to the Venetian Minister for a clergyman when they heard that a Benedictine monk, named John Huddleston, happened to be at Whitehall. This man had, with great risk to himself, saved the King's life after the battle of Worcester, and had, on that account, been, ever since the Restoration, a privileged person. In the sharpest proclamations which had been put forth against Popish priests, when false witnesses had inflamed the nation to fury, Huddleston had been excepted by name. 219 He readily consented to put his life a second time in peril for his prince; but there was still a difficulty. The honest monk was so illiterate that he did not know what he ought to say on an occasion of such importance. He however obtained some hints, through the intervention of Castel Melhor, from a Portuguese ecclesiastic, and, thus instructed, was brought up the back stairs by Chiffinch, a confidential servant, who, if the satires of that age are to be credited, had often introduced visitors of a very different description by the same entrance. The Duke then, in the King's name, commanded all who were present to quit the room, except Lewis Duras, Earl of Feversham, and John Granville, Earl of Bath. Both these Lords professed the Protestant religion; but James conceived that he could count on their fidelity. Feversham, a Frenchman of noble birth, and nephew of the great Turenne, held high rank in the English army, and was Chamberlain to the Queen. Bath was Groom of the Stole.

Finding a priest for this purpose on short notice was not easy. At that time, the law stated that anyone who admitted a proselyte into the Roman Catholic Church was committing a capital offense. The Count of Castel Melhor, a Portuguese nobleman who had been welcomed at the English court due to political troubles back home, took on the task of finding a confessor. He turned to his fellow countrymen in the Queen's household, but none of her chaplains spoke enough English or French to hear the King’s confession. The Duke and Barillon were about to reach out to the Venetian Minister for a clergyman when they learned that a Benedictine monk named John Huddleston was at Whitehall. This monk had once risked his life to save the King after the Battle of Worcester and had been granted special privileges since the Restoration. In the strongest proclamations against Catholic priests, where false witnesses had stirred the public into a frenzy, Huddleston had been specifically named as an exception. 219 He agreed to risk his life once more for the King, but there was still a challenge. The honest monk was so uneducated that he wasn’t sure what to say on such an important occasion. However, he received some guidance, through Castel Melhor’s help, from a Portuguese cleric. With this knowledge, he was brought up the back stairs by Chiffinch, a trusted servant, who, if the satires of that time are to be believed, had often introduced very different visitors through that same entrance. The Duke then, in the King’s name, ordered everyone present to leave the room except for Lewis Duras, the Earl of Feversham, and John Granville, the Earl of Bath. Both of these lords were Protestants, but James believed he could rely on their loyalty. Feversham, a noble Frenchman and nephew of the great Turenne, held a high rank in the English army and was the Queen’s Chamberlain. Bath served as Groom of the Stole.

The Duke's orders were obeyed; and even the physicians withdrew. The back door was then opened; and Father Huddleston entered. A cloak had been thrown over his sacred vestments; and his shaven crown was concealed by a flowing wig. "Sir," said the Duke, "this good man once saved your life. He now comes to save your soul." Charles faintly answered, "He is welcome." Huddleston went through his part better than had been expected. He knelt by the bed, listened to the confession, pronounced the absolution, and administered extreme unction. He asked if the King wished to receive the Lord's supper. "Surely," said Charles, "if I am not unworthy." The host was brought in. Charles feebly strove to rise and kneel before it. The priest made him lie still, and assured him that God would accept the humiliation of the soul, and would not require the humiliation of the body. The King found so much difficulty in swallowing the bread that it was necessary to open the door and procure a glass of water. This rite ended, the monk held up a crucifix before the penitent, charged him to fix his last thoughts on the sufferings of the Redeemer, and withdrew. The whole ceremony had occupied about three quarters of an hour; and, during that time, the courtiers who filled the outer room had communicated their suspicions to each other by whispers and significant glances. The door was at length thrown open, and the crowd again filled the chamber of death.

The Duke's orders were followed, and even the doctors stepped back. The back door was then opened, and Father Huddleston entered. He had thrown a cloak over his sacred garments, and his shaved head was hidden under a flowing wig. "Sir," said the Duke, "this good man once saved your life. He now comes to save your soul." Charles weakly replied, "He is welcome." Huddleston performed his duties better than expected. He knelt by the bed, heard the confession, granted absolution, and administered extreme unction. He asked if the King wanted to receive the Lord's Supper. "Of course," said Charles, "if I am not unworthy." The host was brought in. Charles struggled to rise and kneel before it. The priest urged him to remain still, assuring him that God would accept the humility of the soul without requiring physical humiliation. The King had such difficulty swallowing the bread that they had to open the door to get a glass of water. Once that rite was completed, the monk held up a crucifix before the penitent, urging him to focus his last thoughts on the sufferings of the Redeemer, and then he left. The whole ceremony took about three quarters of an hour; during that time, the courtiers in the outer room exchanged their suspicions with whispers and significant looks. Finally, the door was thrown open, and the crowd filled the chamber of death once more.

It was now late in the evening. The King seemed much relieved by what had passed. His natural children were brought to his bedside, the Dukes of Grafton, Southampton, and Northumberland, sons of the Duchess of Cleveland, the Duke of Saint Albans, son of Eleanor Gwynn, and the Duke of Richmond, son of the Duchess of Portsmouth. Charles blessed them all, but spoke with peculiar tenderness to Richmond. One face which should have been there was wanting. The eldest and best loved child was an exile and a wanderer. His name was not once mentioned by his father.

It was now late in the evening. The King seemed much relieved by what had happened. His acknowledged children were brought to his bedside: the Dukes of Grafton, Southampton, and Northumberland, sons of the Duchess of Cleveland; the Duke of Saint Albans, son of Eleanor Gwynn; and the Duke of Richmond, son of the Duchess of Portsmouth. Charles blessed them all but spoke with special affection to Richmond. One face that should have been there was missing. The eldest and most beloved child was an exile and a wanderer. His name was never mentioned by his father.

During the night Charles earnestly recommended the Duchess of Portsmouth and her boy to the care of James; "And do not," he good-naturedly added, "let poor Nelly starve." The Queen sent excuses for her absence by Halifax. She said that she was too much disordered to resume her post by the couch, and implored pardon for any offence which she might unwittingly have given. "She ask my pardon, poor woman!" cried Charles; "I ask hers with all my heart."

During the night, Charles sincerely asked James to take care of the Duchess of Portsmouth and her son. "And please," he added kindly, "don't let poor Nelly go hungry." The Queen sent her apologies for not being there through Halifax. She said she was feeling too unwell to return to her place by the couch and begged forgiveness for any offense she might have unintentionally caused. "She asks for my forgiveness, the poor woman!" cried Charles; "I ask for hers with all my heart."

The morning light began to peep through the windows of Whitehall; and Charles desired the attendants to pull aside the curtains, that he might have one more look at the day. He remarked that it was time to wind up a clock which stood near his bed. These little circumstances were long remembered because they proved beyond dispute that, when he declared himself a Roman Catholic, he was in full possession of his faculties. He apologised to those who had stood round him all night for the trouble which he had caused. He had been, he said, a most unconscionable time dying; but he hoped that they would excuse it. This was the last glimpse of the exquisite urbanity, so often found potent to charm away the resentment of a justly incensed nation. Soon after dawn the speech of the dying man failed. Before ten his senses were gone. Great numbers had repaired to the churches at the hour of morning service. When the prayer for the King was read, loud groans and sobs showed how deeply his people felt for him. At noon on Friday, the sixth of February, he passed away without a struggle. 220

The morning light started to shine through the windows of Whitehall, and Charles asked the attendants to pull back the curtains so he could take one last look at the day. He noted that it was time to wind up the clock that stood near his bed. These small details were remembered for a long time because they showed beyond doubt that when he declared himself a Roman Catholic, he was in full control of his faculties. He apologized to those who had been around him all night for the trouble he caused. He mentioned that he had taken an unreasonably long time to die, but he hoped they would forgive him. This was the last glimpse of the remarkable politeness that often managed to soothe the anger of a rightly aggrieved nation. Soon after dawn, the ability of the dying man to speak faded. Before ten, he had lost his senses. Many people had gathered in the churches for morning service. When the prayer for the King was read, loud groans and sobs showed how deeply his people cared for him. At noon on Friday, February sixth, he passed away without a struggle. 220

At that time the common people throughout Europe, and nowhere more than in England, were in the habit of attributing the death of princes, especially when the prince was popular and the death unexpected, to the foulest and darkest kind of assassination. Thus James the First had been accused of poisoning Prince Henry. Thus Charles the First had been accused of poisoning James the First. Thus when, in the time of the Commonwealth, the Princess Elizabeth died at Carisbrook, it was loudly asserted that Cromwell had stooped to the senseless and dastardly wickedness of mixing noxious drugs with the food of a young girl whom he had no conceivable motive to injure. 221 A few years later, the rapid decomposition of Cromwell's own corpse was ascribed by many to a deadly potion administered in his medicine. The death of Charles the Second could scarcely fail to occasion similar rumours. The public ear had been repeatedly abused by stories of Popish plots against his life. There was, therefore, in many minds, a strong predisposition to suspicion; and there were some unlucky circumstances which, to minds so predisposed, might seem to indicate that a crime had been perpetrated. The fourteen Doctors who deliberated on the King's case contradicted each other and themselves. Some of them thought that his fit was epileptic, and that he should be suffered to have his doze out. The majority pronounced him apoplectic, and tortured him during some hours like an Indian at a stake. Then it was determined to call his complaint a fever, and to administer doses of bark. One physician, however, protested against this course, and assured the Queen that his brethren would kill the King among them. Nothing better than dissension and vacillation could be expected from such a multitude of advisers. But many of the vulgar not unnaturally concluded, from the perplexity of the great masters of the healing art, that the malady had some extraordinary origin. There is reason to believe that a horrible suspicion did actually cross the mind of Short, who, though skilful in his profession, seems to have been a nervous and fanciful man, and whose perceptions were probably confused by dread of the odious imputations to which he, as a Roman Catholic, was peculiarly exposed. We cannot, therefore, wonder that wild stories without number were repeated and believed by the common people. His Majesty's tongue had swelled to the size of a neat's tongue. A cake of deleterious powder had been found in his brain. There were blue spots on his breast, There were black spots on his shoulder. Something had been, put in his snuff-box. Something had been put into his broth. Something had been put into his favourite dish of eggs and ambergrease. The Duchess of Portsmouth had poisoned him in a cup of chocolate. The Queen had poisoned him in a jar of dried pears. Such tales ought to be preserved; for they furnish us with a measure of the intelligence and virtue of the generation which eagerly devoured them. That no rumour of the same kind has ever, in the present age, found credit among us, even when lives on which great interest depended have been terminated by unforeseen attacks of disease, is to be attributed partly to the progress of medical and chemical science, but partly also, it may be hoped, to the progress which the nation has made in good sense, justice, and humanity. 222

At that time, ordinary people all over Europe, especially in England, tended to blame the deaths of princes—particularly when the prince was popular and the death was unexpected—on the most vile and sinister kinds of assassination. For example, James the First was accused of poisoning Prince Henry. Similarly, Charles the First was accused of poisoning James the First. When, during the Commonwealth, Princess Elizabeth died at Carisbrook, many loudly claimed that Cromwell had stooped to the senseless and cowardly act of mixing harmful substances with the food of a young girl whom he had no reason to harm. 221 A few years later, the quick decomposition of Cromwell's own body was attributed by many to a lethal potion he had been given in his medicine. The death of Charles the Second was bound to spark similar rumors. The public had been repeatedly misled by stories of Popish plots against his life. Therefore, many people were already suspicious, and some unfortunate circumstances might have suggested to these suspicious minds that a crime had occurred. The fourteen doctors who debated the King's condition contradicted one another and themselves. Some believed his condition was epileptic and thought he should be allowed to rest. The majority declared him apoplectic and tormented him for hours like a Native American at a stake. Eventually, they decided to label his illness as a fever and prescribed bark. However, one doctor disagreed and warned the Queen that his colleagues would end up killing the King. Nothing better than disagreement and uncertainty could be expected from such a large group of advisers. Yet many common people understandably concluded, based on the confusion among the leading medical experts, that the illness had some unusual cause. It's believed that a terrible suspicion did cross the mind of Short, who, although skilled, seemed to be a nervous and imaginative man, and his judgment was likely clouded by his fear of the terrible accusations he faced as a Roman Catholic. So it’s not surprising that countless wild stories circulated and were believed by the public. The King’s tongue had swollen to the size of a cow's tongue. A harmful powder was said to have been found in his brain. There were blue spots on his chest. There were black spots on his shoulder. Something was put in his snuff-box. Something was mixed into his broth. Something was added to his favorite dish of eggs and ambergris. The Duchess of Portsmouth supposedly poisoned him with a cup of chocolate. The Queen allegedly poisoned him with a jar of dried pears. Such stories should be preserved because they give us insight into the intelligence and character of the generation that eagerly consumed them. The fact that no rumors of this sort have gained traction in today's world—even when lives that were of significant interest have ended unexpectedly due to illness—can be partly attributed to advances in medical and chemical sciences, but hopefully also to the progress our society has made in common sense, justice, and humanity. 222

When all was over, James retired from the bedside to his closet, where, during a quarter of an hour, he remained alone. Meanwhile the Privy Councillors who were in the palace assembled. The new King came forth, and took his place at the head of the board. He commenced his administration, according to usage, by a speech to the Council. He expressed his regret for the loss which he had just sustained, and he promised to imitate the singular lenity which had distinguished the late reign. He was aware, he said, that he had been accused of a fondness for arbitrary power. But that was not the only falsehood which had been told of him. He was resolved to maintain the established government both in Church and State. The Church of England he knew to be eminently loyal. It should therefore always be his care to support and defend her. The laws of England, he also knew, were sufficient to make him as great a King as he could wish to be. He would not relinquish his own rights; but he would respect the rights of others. He had formerly risked his life in defense of his country; and he would still go as far as any man in support of her just liberties.

When everything was settled, James stepped away from the bedside to his closet, where he spent about fifteen minutes alone. Meanwhile, the Privy Councillors who were at the palace gathered. The new King appeared and took his place at the head of the board. He started his administration, as was customary, with a speech to the Council. He expressed his sorrow for the loss he had just experienced and promised to emulate the unique leniency that marked the previous reign. He acknowledged that he had been accused of having a preference for arbitrary power. But that wasn’t the only lie that had been spread about him. He was determined to uphold the established government in both Church and State. He recognized that the Church of England was exceptionally loyal, and therefore he would always prioritize its support and protection. He also understood that the laws of England would allow him to be as great a King as he desired. He would not surrender his own rights; however, he would honor the rights of others. He had previously risked his life to defend his country, and he would continue to go as far as anyone in support of her rightful freedoms.

This speech was not, like modern speeches on similar occasions, carefully prepared by the advisers of the sovereign. It was the extemporaneous expression of the new King's feelings at a moment of great excitement. The members of the Council broke forth into clamours of delight and gratitude. The Lord President, Rochester, in the name of his brethren, expressed a hope that His Majesty's most welcome declaration would be made public. The Solicitor General, Heneage Finch, offered to act as clerk. He was a zealous churchman, and, as such, was naturally desirous that there should be some permanent record of the gracious promises which had just been uttered. "Those promises," he said, "have made so deep an impression on me that I can repeat them word for word." He soon produced his report. James read it, approved of it, and ordered it to be published. At a later period he said that he had taken this step without due consideration, that his unpremeditated expressions touching the Church of England were too strong, and that Finch had, with a dexterity which at the time escaped notice, made them still stronger. 223

This speech wasn't, like modern speeches for similar events, carefully crafted by the king's advisors. It was an impromptu expression of the new King’s feelings during a moment of great excitement. The Council members erupted in cheers of joy and gratitude. The Lord President, Rochester, on behalf of his colleagues, expressed hope that the King’s warmly welcomed declaration would be made public. The Solicitor General, Heneage Finch, offered to take notes. He was a dedicated churchman and naturally wanted to ensure there was a permanent record of the gracious promises just made. "Those promises," he said, "have left such a strong impression on me that I can repeat them exactly." He quickly prepared his report. James read it, approved it, and ordered it to be published. Later, he mentioned that he had made this decision without enough thought, that his spontaneous comments about the Church of England were too strong, and that Finch had skillfully made them even stronger. 223

The King had been exhausted by long watching and by many violent emotions. He now retired to rest. The Privy Councillors, having respectfully accompanied him to his bedchamber, returned to their seats, and issued orders for the ceremony of proclamation. The Guards were under arms; the heralds appeared in their gorgeous coats; and the pageant proceeded without any obstruction. Casks of wine were broken up in the streets, and all who passed were invited to drink to the health of the new sovereign. But, though an occasional shout was raised, the people were not in a joyous mood. Tears were seen in many eyes; and it was remarked that there was scarcely a housemaid in London who had not contrived to procure some fragment of black crepe in honour of King Charles. 224

The King was worn out from staying up late and dealing with intense emotions. He headed to bed. The Privy Councillors, having respectfully escorted him to his bedroom, returned to their seats and issued orders for the proclamation ceremony. The Guards were at the ready; the heralds showed up in their elaborate uniforms; and the celebration went on smoothly. Barrels of wine were opened in the streets, and everyone passing by was invited to toast to the new king's health. However, even though there were a few shouts of enthusiasm, the crowd didn't seem very cheerful. Many people had tears in their eyes, and it was noted that nearly every housemaid in London had managed to get some piece of black crepe to honor King Charles. 224

The funeral called forth much censure. It would, indeed, hardly have been accounted worthy of a noble and opulent subject. The Tories gently blamed the new King's parsimony: the Whigs sneered at his want of natural affection; and the fiery Covenanters of Scotland exultingly proclaimed that the curse denounced of old against wicked princes had been signally fulfilled, and that the departed tyrant had been buried with the burial of an ass. 225 Yet James commenced his administration with a large measure of public good will. His speech to the Council appeared in print, and the impression which it produced was highly favourable to him. This, then, was the prince whom a faction had driven into exile and had tried to rob of his birthright, on the ground that he was a deadly enemy to the religion and laws of England. He had triumphed: he was on the throne; and his first act was to declare that he would defend the Church, and would strictly respect the rights of his people. The estimate which all parties had formed of his character, added weight to every word that fell from him. The Whigs called him haughty, implacable, obstinate, regardless of public opinion. The Tories, while they extolled his princely virtues, had often lamented his neglect of the arts which conciliate popularity. Satire itself had never represented him as a man likely to court public favour by professing what he did not feel, and by promising what he had no intention of performing. On the Sunday which followed his accession, his speech was quoted in many pulpits. "We have now for our Church," cried one loyal preacher, "the word of a King, and of a King who was never worse than his word." This pointed sentence was fast circulated through town and country, and was soon the watchword of the whole Tory party. 226

The funeral drew a lot of criticism. It really didn’t seem fitting for someone noble and wealthy. The Tories gently criticized the new King's stinginess, while the Whigs mocked his lack of genuine affection. The passionate Covenanters in Scotland proudly declared that the old curse against wicked rulers had clearly come true, and that the deceased tyrant had been buried like a donkey. 225 Yet James started his reign with a good amount of public support. His speech to the Council was published, and it received a very positive response. This was the prince whom a faction had forced into exile and attempted to take his birthright from, claiming he was a fierce opponent of the religion and laws of England. He had won: he was on the throne; and his first action was to state that he would defend the Church and respect the rights of his people. The views that all parties had of his character gave weight to every word he said. The Whigs called him arrogant, unyielding, and stubborn, indifferent to public opinion. The Tories, while praising his royal qualities, often lamented his disregard for the skills that win popularity. Even satire had never depicted him as someone likely to seek public favor by pretending to feel things he didn’t or making promises he had no intention of keeping. On the Sunday following his ascension, his speech was quoted in many churches. "We now have for our Church," exclaimed one loyal preacher, "the word of a King, and a King who never goes back on his word." This pointed phrase quickly spread through towns and countryside, soon becoming the rallying cry of the whole Tory party. 226

The great offices of state had become vacant by the demise of the crown and it was necessary for James to determine how they should be filled. Few of the members of the late cabinet had any reason to expect his favour. Sunderland, who was Secretary of State, and Godolphin, who was First Lord of the Treasury, had supported the Exclusion Bill. Halifax, who held the Privy Seal, had opposed that bill with unrivalled powers of argument and eloquence. But Halifax was the mortal enemy of despotism and of Popery. He saw with dread the progress of the French arms on the Continent and the influence of French gold in the counsels of England. Had his advice been followed, the laws would have been strictly observed: clemency would have been extended to the vanquished Whigs: the Parliament would have been convoked in due season: an attempt would have been made to reconcile our domestic factions; and the principles of the Triple Alliance would again have guided our foreign policy. He had therefore incurred the bitter animosity of James. The Lord Keeper Guildford could hardly be said to belong to either of the parties into which the court was divided. He could by no means be called a friend of liberty; and yet he had so great a reverence for the letter of the law that he was not a serviceable tool of arbitrary power. He was accordingly designated by the vehement Tories as a Trimmer, and was to James an object of aversion with which contempt was largely mingled. Ormond, who was Lord Steward of the Household and Viceroy of Ireland, then resided at Dublin. His claims on the royal gratitude were superior to those of any other subject. He had fought bravely for Charles the First: he had shared the exile of Charles the Second; and, since the Restoration, he had, in spite of many provocations, kept his loyalty unstained. Though he had been disgraced during the predominance of the Cabal, he had never gone into factious opposition, and had, in the days of the Popish Plot and the Exclusion Bill, been foremost among the supporters of the throne. He was now old, and had been recently tried by the most cruel of all calamities. He had followed to the grave a son who should have been his own chief mourner, the gallant Ossory. The eminent services, the venerable age, and the domestic misfortunes of Ormond made him an object of general interest to the nation. The Cavaliers regarded him as, both by right of seniority and by right of merit, their head; and the Whigs knew that, faithful as he had always been to the cause of monarchy, he was no friend either to Popery or to arbitrary power. But, high as he stood in the public estimation, he had little favor to expect from his new master. James, indeed, while still a subject, had urged his brother to make a complete change in the Irish administration. Charles had assented; and it had been arranged that, in a few months, there should be a new Lord Lieutenant. 227

The senior positions in the government had become vacant due to the king's death, and it was essential for James to decide how to fill them. Very few of the members of the former cabinet had any reason to think they would be favored by him. Sunderland, the Secretary of State, and Godolphin, the First Lord of the Treasury, had backed the Exclusion Bill. Halifax, who held the Privy Seal, had opposed that bill with unmatched skill in argument and eloquence. However, Halifax was a staunch enemy of tyranny and Catholicism. He feared the advancing power of the French military in Europe and the influence of French money on England's decisions. If his advice had been heeded, the laws would have been strictly enforced: mercy would have been shown to the defeated Whigs: Parliament would have been convened in a timely manner: efforts would have been made to settle our internal conflicts; and the principles of the Triple Alliance would have shaped our foreign relations again. Consequently, he had earned the deep resentment of James. The Lord Keeper Guildford could hardly be considered a member of either faction at court. He couldn't truly be called a friend of freedom, yet he had such a strong respect for the law that he was not a useful instrument of tyrannical power. As a result, he was labeled a Trimmer by the zealous Tories and was viewed by James with a mix of disgust and disdain. Ormond, the Lord Steward of the Household and Viceroy of Ireland, was living in Dublin at that time. His claims to the king's gratitude were greater than any other subject's. He had fought valiantly for Charles I, shared in Charles II's exile, and since the Restoration, he had maintained his loyalty despite many provocations. Although he had been disgraced during the dominance of the Cabal, he had never joined in any factional opposition and had been among the most loyal supporters of the crown during the Popish Plot and the Exclusion Bill. Now elderly, he had recently endured the most painful of tragedies: the loss of a son who should have been there to mourn him, the brave Ossory. Ormond's distinguished service, advanced age, and personal misfortunes made him a figure of great interest to the nation. The Cavaliers saw him as their leader by virtue of both age and merit, and the Whigs recognized that, despite his unwavering loyalty to the monarchy, he was no ally of Catholicism or tyranny. Yet, despite his high standing in public opinion, he had little favor to expect from his new master. Indeed, James had previously encouraged his brother to completely overhaul the Irish administration while still a subject. Charles agreed, and it had been decided that a new Lord Lieutenant would be appointed in a few months. 227

Rochester was the only member of the cabinet who stood high in the favour of the King. The general expectation was that he would be immediately placed at the head of affairs, and that all the other great officers of the state would be changed. This expectation proved to be well founded in part only. Rochester was declared Lord Treasurer, and thus became prime minister. Neither a Lord High Admiral nor a Board of Admiralty was appointed. The new King, who loved the details of naval business, and would have made a respectable clerk in a dockyard at Chatham, determined to be his own minister of marine. Under him the management of that important department was confided to Samuel Pepys, whose library and diary have kept his name fresh to our time. No servant of the late sovereign was publicly disgraced. Sunderland exerted so much art and address, employed so many intercessors, and was in possession of so many secrets, that he was suffered to retain his seals. Godolphin's obsequiousness, industry, experience and taciturnity, could ill be spared. As he was no longer wanted at the Treasury, he was made Chamberlain to the Queen. With these three Lords the King took counsel on all important questions. As to Halifax, Ormond, and Guildford, he determined not yet to dismiss them, but merely to humble and annoy them.

Rochester was the only member of the cabinet who was favored by the King. Everyone expected that he would soon take charge of everything, and that all the other top officials would be replaced. This expectation turned out to be partially true. Rochester was made Lord Treasurer, which meant he became prime minister. There was no Lord High Admiral or Board of Admiralty appointed. The new King, who had a passion for the details of naval business and would have made a decent clerk in a dockyard at Chatham, decided to handle the marine affairs himself. The management of this crucial department was given to Samuel Pepys, whose library and diary have kept his name well-known to this day. No official from the previous king was publicly humiliated. Sunderland was so skilled and resourceful, used so many intermediaries, and had so many secrets that he was allowed to keep his position. Godolphin's submissiveness, hard work, experience, and quiet nature were too valuable to lose. Since he was no longer needed at the Treasury, he became Chamberlain to the Queen. With these three Lords, the King sought advice on all major issues. As for Halifax, Ormond, and Guildford, he decided not to dismiss them just yet, but to lower their status and make things uncomfortable for them.

Halifax was told that he must give up the Privy seal and accept the Presidency of the Council. He submitted with extreme reluctance. For, though the President of the Council had always taken precedence of the Lord Privy Seal, the Lord Privy Seal was, in that age a much more important officer than the Lord President. Rochester had not forgotten the jest which had been made a few months before on his own removal from the Treasury, and enjoyed in his turn the pleasure of kicking his rival up stairs. The Privy Seal was delivered to Rochester's elder brother, Henry Earl of Clarendon.

Halifax was informed that he had to give up the Privy Seal and accept the Presidency of the Council. He agreed to this with great reluctance. Although the President of the Council always ranked higher than the Lord Privy Seal, the Lord Privy Seal was, at that time, a much more significant position than the Lord President. Rochester hadn’t forgotten the joke made a few months earlier about his own removal from the Treasury, and he took pleasure in pushing his rival out of the way. The Privy Seal was handed over to Rochester's older brother, Henry, Earl of Clarendon.

To Barillon James expressed the strongest dislike of Halifax. "I know him well, I never can trust him. He shall have no share in the management of public business. As to the place which I have given him, it will just serve to show how little influence he has." But to Halifax it was thought convenient to hold a very different language. "All the past is forgotten," said the King, "except the service which you did me in the debate on the Exclusion Bill." This speech has often been cited to prove that James was not so vindictive as he had been called by his enemies. It seems rather to prove that he by no means deserved the praises which have been bestowed on his sincerity by his friends. 228

To Barillon, James expressed his strong dislike for Halifax. "I know him well; I can never trust him. He won't have any role in managing public affairs. The position I've given him is just to show how little influence he has." But to Halifax, it was thought convenient to speak very differently. "All the past is forgotten," said the King, "except for the service you rendered me during the debate on the Exclusion Bill." This statement has often been cited to prove that James was not as vindictive as his enemies claimed. It seems to rather prove that he certainly did not deserve the praise for his sincerity that his friends have given him. 228

Ormond was politely informed that his services were no longer needed in Ireland, and was invited to repair to Whitehall, and to perform the functions of Lord Steward. He dutifully submitted, but did not affect to deny that the new arrangement wounded his feelings deeply. On the eve of his departure he gave a magnificent banquet at Kilmainham Hospital, then just completed, to the officers of the garrison of Dublin. After dinner he rose, filled a goblet to the brim with wine, and, holding it up, asked whether he had spilt one drop. "No, gentlemen; whatever the courtiers may say, I am not yet sunk into dotage. My hand does not fail me yet: and my hand is not steadier than my heart. To the health of King James!" Such was the last farewell of Ormond to Ireland. He left the administration in the hands of Lords Justices, and repaired to London, where he was received with unusual marks of public respect. Many persons of rank went forth to meet him on the road. A long train of eguipages followed him into Saint James's Square, where his mansion stood; and the Square was thronged by a multitude which greeted him with loud acclamations. 229

Ormond was politely informed that his services were no longer needed in Ireland and was invited to go to Whitehall to take on the role of Lord Steward. He complied, but didn’t pretend that the new arrangement didn’t hurt his feelings deeply. The night before he left, he hosted a grand banquet at Kilmainham Hospital, which had just been completed, for the officers of the Dublin garrison. After dinner, he stood up, filled a goblet to the brim with wine, and raised it, asking whether he had spilled even a drop. "No, gentlemen; despite what the courtiers might say, I haven't yet fallen into old age. My hand isn’t weak yet, and my hand isn’t steadier than my heart. To the health of King James!" That was Ormond’s final farewell to Ireland. He left the administration in the hands of the Lords Justices and went to London, where he was welcomed with unusual public respect. Many people of rank came out to greet him on the road. A long line of carriages followed him into Saint James's Square, where his mansion was located, and the Square was filled with a crowd that greeted him with loud cheers. 229

The Great Seal was left in Guildford's custody; but a marked indignity was at the same time offered to him. It was determined that another lawyer of more vigour and audacity should be called to assist in the administration. The person selected was Sir George Jeffreys, Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench. The depravity of this man has passed into a proverb. Both the great English parties have attacked his memory with emulous violence: for the Whigs considered him as their most barbarous enemy; and the Tories found it convenient to throw on him the blame of all the crimes which had sullied their triumph. A diligent and candid enquiry will show that some frightful stories which have been told concerning him are false or exaggerated. Yet the dispassionate historian will be able to make very little deduction from the vast mass of infamy with which the memory of the wicked judge has been loaded.

The Great Seal was left in Guildford's care; however, he was also subjected to a significant insult. It was decided that a more assertive and bold lawyer would be brought in to help with the administration. The chosen person was Sir George Jeffreys, Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench. This man’s corruption has become legendary. Both major English political parties have attacked his legacy with fierce intensity: the Whigs saw him as their most brutal adversary, while the Tories conveniently blamed him for all the wrongdoing that marred their victories. A thorough and honest investigation will reveal that some of the shocking tales about him are either false or exaggerated. Still, an impartial historian will be able to draw very few conclusions from the extensive reputation of infamy that the notorious judge has amassed.

He was a man of quick and vigorous parts, but constitutionally prone to insolence and to the angry passions. When just emerging from boyhood he had risen into practice at the Old Bailey bar, a bar where advocates have always used a license of tongue unknown in Westminster Hall. Here, during many years his chief business was to examine and crossexamine the most hardened miscreants of a great capital. Daily conflicts with prostitutes and thieves called out and exercised his powers so effectually that he became the most consummate bully ever known in his profession. Tenderness for others and respect for himself were feelings alike unknown to him. He acquired a boundless command of the rhetoric in which the vulgar express hatred and contempt. The profusion of maledictions and vituperative epithets which composed his vocabulary could hardly have been rivalled in the fishmarket or the beargarden. His countenance and his voice must always have been unamiable. But these natural advantages,—for such he seems to have thought them,—he had improved to such a degree that there were few who, in his paroxysms of rage, could see or hear him without emotion. Impudence and ferocity sate upon his brow. The glare of his eyes had a fascination for the unhappy victim on whom they were fixed. Yet his brow and his eye were less terrible than the savage lines of his mouth. His yell of fury, as was said by one who had often heard it, sounded like the thunder of the judgment day. These qualifications he carried, while still a young man, from the bar to the bench. He early became Common Serjeant, and then Recorder of London. As a judge at the City sessions he exhibited the same propensities which afterwards, in a higher post, gained for him an unenviable immortality. Already might be remarked in him the most odious vice which is incident to human nature, a delight in misery merely as misery. There was a fiendish exultation in the way in which he pronounced sentence on offenders. Their weeping and imploring seemed to titillate him voluptuously; and he loved to scare them into fits by dilating with luxuriant amplification on all the details of what they were to suffer. Thus, when he had an opportunity of ordering an unlucky adventuress to be whipped at the cart's tail, "Hangman," he would exclaim, "I charge you to pay particular attention to this lady! Scourge her soundly man! Scourge her till the blood runs down! It is Christmas, a cold time for Madam to strip in! See that you warm her shoulders thoroughly!" 230 He was hardly less facetious when he passed judgment on poor Lodowick Muggleton, the drunken tailor who fancied himself a prophet. "Impudent rogue!" roared Jeffreys, "thou shalt have an easy, easy, easy punishment!" One part of this easy punishment was the pillory, in which the wretched fanatic was almost killed with brickbats. 231

He was a quick and energetic man, but he had a tendency toward rudeness and anger. Just as he was leaving boyhood, he started working at the Old Bailey, a place where lawyers had more freedom with their words than in Westminster Hall. For many years, his main job was to question and cross-examine the most hardened criminals in a big city. Daily confrontations with sex workers and thieves brought out his talents so much that he became the most skilled bully in his field. He had no feelings of compassion for others or respect for himself. He gained an impressive ability to use the language of the common people to convey hatred and disdain. The sheer number of curses and harsh insults in his vocabulary could hardly be matched in a fish market or a bear garden. His face and voice were always unpleasant. But these natural traits—which he seemed to regard as strengths—he had developed to such an extent that few could see or hear him in his fits of rage without feeling something. Impudence and brutality were written all over his face. The glare in his eyes captivated the unfortunate victims he focused on. Yet his gaze and brow were less fearsome than the savage lines of his mouth. His scream of rage, as someone who had heard it often said, sounded like the thunder of judgment day. He took these qualities with him, still a young man, from the bar to the bench. He quickly became Common Serjeant and then Recorder of London. As a judge at the City sessions, he showed the same tendencies that would later earn him infamy in a higher position. Even then, one could see in him the most despicable vice typical of human nature: a delight in suffering for its own sake. There was a wicked joy in the way he delivered sentences to offenders. Their crying and pleading seemed to please him, and he enjoyed frightening them into a panic by elaborating in great detail on all they would endure. So, when he had the chance to order an unfortunate woman to be whipped at the cart's tail, he would shout, "Hangman, pay special attention to this lady! Give her a good beating! Beat her until the blood runs down! It’s Christmas, a chilly time for her to strip! Make sure to warm her shoulders well!" 230 He was hardly less amusing when he passed sentence on poor Lodowick Muggleton, the drunken tailor who thought he was a prophet. "Rude scoundrel!" bellowed Jeffreys, "you will receive an easy, easy, easy punishment!" One part of this easy punishment was the pillory, where the miserable fanatic was nearly killed by thrown bricks. 231

By this time the heart of Jeffreys had been hardened to that temper which tyrants require in their worst implements. He had hitherto looked for professional advancement to the corporation of London. He had therefore professed himself a Roundhead, and had always appeared to be in a higher state of exhilaration when he explained to Popish priests that they were to be cut down alive, and were to see their own bowels burned, than when he passed ordinary sentences of death. But, as soon as he had got all that the city could give, he made haste to sell his forehead of brass and his tongue of venom to the Court. Chiffinch, who was accustomed to act as broker in infamous contracts of more than one kind, lent his aid. He had conducted many amorous and many political intrigues; but he assuredly never rendered a more scandalous service to his masters than when he introduced Jeffreys to Whitehall. The renegade soon found a patron in the obdurate and revengeful James, but was always regarded with scorn and disgust by Charles, whose faults, great as they were, had no affinity with insolence and cruelty. "That man," said the King, "has no learning, no sense, no manners, and more impudence than ten carted street-walkers." 232 Work was to be done, however, which could be trusted to no man who reverenced law or was sensible of shame; and thus Jeffreys, at an age at which a barrister thinks himself fortunate if he is employed to conduct an important cause, was made Chief Justice of the King's Bench.

By this time, Jeffreys had become hardened to the kind of attitude that tyrants need in their worst tools. He had previously sought professional advancement from the corporation of London. He had therefore declared himself a Roundhead and always seemed more exhilarated when he told Papist priests that they were going to be cut down alive and would witness their own entrails being burned than when he handed out regular death sentences. However, as soon as he had gotten everything he could from the city, he quickly sold his brass forehead and venomous tongue to the Court. Chiffinch, who was used to acting as a broker for various infamous deals, provided his assistance. He had managed many romantic and political intrigues, but he certainly never committed a more scandalous act for his masters than when he introduced Jeffreys to Whitehall. The turncoat quickly found a patron in the unyielding and vengeful James, but was always viewed with disdain and disgust by Charles, whose faults, as great as they were, had nothing to do with rudeness and cruelty. "That man," said the King, "has no knowledge, no sense, no manners, and more audacity than ten hired streetwalkers." 232 However, there was work to be done that could not be entrusted to anyone who respected the law or felt shame; thus, Jeffreys, at an age when a barrister considers himself lucky to be involved in a significant case, was made Chief Justice of the King's Bench.

His enemies could not deny that he possessed some of the qualities of a great judge. His legal knowledge, indeed, was merely such as he had picked up in practice of no very high kind. But he had one of those happily constituted intellects which, across labyrinths of sophistry, and through masses of immaterial facts, go straight to the true point. Of his intellect, however, he seldom had the full use. Even in civil causes his malevolent and despotic temper perpetually disordered his judgment. To enter his court was to enter the den of a wild beast, which none could tame, and which was as likely to be roused to rage by caresses as by attacks. He frequently poured forth on plaintiffs and defendants, barristers and attorneys, witnesses and jurymen, torrents of frantic abuse, intermixed with oaths and curses. His looks and tones had inspired terror when he was merely a young advocate struggling into practice. Now that he was at the head of the most formidable tribunal in the realm, there were few indeed who did not tremble before him. Even when he was sober, his violence was sufficiently frightful. But in general his reason was overclouded and his evil passions stimulated by the fumes of intoxication. His evenings were ordinarily given to revelry. People who saw him only over his bottle would have supposed him to be a man gross indeed, sottish, and addicted to low company and low merriment, but social and goodhumoured. He was constantly surrounded on such occasions by buffoons selected, for the most part, from among the vilest pettifoggers who practiced before him. These men bantered and abused each other for his entertainment. He joined in their ribald talk, sang catches with them, and, when his head grew hot, hugged and kissed them in an ecstasy of drunken fondness. But though wine at first seemed to soften his heart, the effect a few hours later was very different. He often came to the judgment seat, having kept the court waiting long, and yet having but half slept off his debauch, his cheeks on fire, his eyes staring like those of a maniac. When he was in this state, his boon companions of the preceding night, if they were wise, kept out of his way: for the recollection of the familiarity to which he had admitted them inflamed his malignity; and he was sure to take every opportunity of overwhelming them with execration and invective. Not the least odious of his many odious peculiarities was the pleasure which he took in publicly browbeating and mortifying those whom, in his fits of maudlin tenderness, he had encouraged to presume on his favour.

His enemies couldn't deny that he had some of the qualities of a great judge. His legal knowledge came from the practice he had done, which wasn't very prestigious. But he had one of those minds that could navigate through complicated arguments and irrelevant facts to get straight to the heart of the matter. However, he rarely utilized his intellect to the fullest. Even in civil cases, his hostile and tyrannical temperament often clouded his judgment. Entering his courtroom was like walking into a wild beast's den—unstoppable and just as likely to get enraged by affection as by provocation. He frequently unleashed torrents of frantic abuse on plaintiffs and defendants, attorneys and witnesses, jurors and lawyers, filled with swearing and curses. His looks and voice had instilled fear when he was just a young lawyer trying to make his way. Now that he was in charge of the most powerful court in the land, very few didn’t fear him. Even when sober, his aggression was terrifying. But generally, his reasoning was clouded and his dark emotions fueled by booze. His evenings were typically spent in revelry. People who only saw him drinking would think he was a crude, drunken man who liked to hang out with lowlifes but was social and jovial. He was usually surrounded by clowns, mostly the lowest-level lawyers who practiced before him. These men would mock and insult each other for his entertainment. He joined in their crude banter, sang along, and when drunk, embraced and kissed them in a fit of boozy affection. However, while alcohol initially seemed to mellow him, the effects a few hours later were quite the opposite. He often arrived at the court after keeping everyone waiting, still hungover, his cheeks flushed and his eyes wild like a madman. In this state, if his drinking buddies from the night before were smart, they would avoid him; remembering the fondness he'd shown them only fueled his anger, and he'd seize every chance to unleash his fury and insults upon them. One of his most unpleasant traits was the enjoyment he derived from publicly belittling and humiliating those he’d previously encouraged to act too familiar with him.

The services which the government had expected from him were performed, not merely without flinching, but eagerly and triumphantly. His first exploit was the judicial murder of Algernon Sidney. What followed was in perfect harmony with this beginning. Respectable Tories lamented the disgrace which the barbarity and indecency of so great a functionary brought upon the administration of justice. But the excesses which filled such men with horror were titles to the esteem of James. Jeffreys, therefore, very soon after the death of Charles, obtained a seat in the cabinet and a peerage. This last honour was a signal mark of royal approbation. For, since the judicial system of the realm had been remodelled in the thirteenth century, no Chief Justice had been a Lord of Parliament. 233

The services the government expected from him were carried out, not just without hesitation, but with eagerness and triumph. His first act was the unjust execution of Algernon Sidney. What came next was completely in line with that start. Respectable Tories mourned the shame that the cruelty and indecency of such a high-ranking official brought to the justice system. But the extremes that horrified these men earned James’s respect. So, shortly after Charles’s death, Jeffreys quickly secured a seat in the cabinet and was granted a peerage. This last honor was a clear sign of royal approval. Since the judicial system had been revamped in the thirteenth century, no Chief Justice had been a member of Parliament. 233

Guildford now found himself superseded in all his political functions, and restricted to his business as a judge in equity. At Council he was treated by Jeffreys with marked incivility. The whole legal patronage was in the hands of the Chief Justice; and it was well known by the bar that the surest way to propitiate the Chief Justice was to treat the Lord Keeper with disrespect.

Guildford now found himself replaced in all his political roles and limited to his work as a judge in equity. At Council, Jeffreys treated him with blatant rudeness. The entire legal patronage was controlled by the Chief Justice, and it was widely understood among lawyers that the best way to win favor with the Chief Justice was to show disrespect to the Lord Keeper.

James had not been many hours King when a dispute arose between the two heads of the law. The customs had been settled on Charles for life only, and could not therefore be legally exacted by the new sovereign. Some weeks must elapse before a House of Commons could be chosen. If, in the meantime, the duties were suspended, the revenue would suffer; the regular course of trade would be interrupted; the consumer would derive no benefit, and the only gainers would be those fortunate speculators whose cargoes might happen to arrive during the interval between the demise of the crown and the meeting of the Parliament. The Treasury was besieged by merchants whose warehouses were filled with goods on which duty had been paid, and who were in grievous apprehension of being undersold and ruined. Impartial men must admit that this was one of those cases in which a government may be justified in deviating from the strictly constitutional course. But when it is necessary to deviate from the strictly constitutional course, the deviation clearly ought to be no greater than the necessity requires. Guildford felt this, and gave advice which did him honour. He proposed that the duties should be levied, but should be kept in the Exchequer apart from other sums till the Parliament should meet. In this way the King, while violating the letter of the laws, would show that he wished to conform to their spirit, Jeffreys gave very different counsel. He advised James to put forth an edict declaring it to be His Majesty's will and pleasure that the customs should continue to be paid. This advice was well suited to the King's temper. The judicious proposition of the Lord Keeper was rejected as worthy only of a Whig, or of what was still worse, a Trimmer. A proclamation, such as the Chief Justice had suggested, appeared. Some people had expected that a violent outbreak of public indignation would be the consequence; but they were deceived. The spirit of opposition had not yet revived; and the court might safely venture to take steps which, five years before, would have produced a rebellion. In the City of London, lately so turbulent, scarcely a murmur was heard. 234

James hadn't been King for long when a disagreement came up between the two heads of the law. The customs had been set for Charles for life only, so the new king couldn't legally impose them. A few weeks needed to pass before a new House of Commons could be elected. If the duties were paused in the meantime, the revenue would take a hit; trade would be disrupted; consumers wouldn't benefit at all, and the only ones who would gain would be the lucky speculators whose goods happened to arrive during the gap between the crown's end and Parliament's first meeting. Merchants were crowding the Treasury, worried about being undersold and going out of business, as their warehouses were stocked with goods taxed already. Fair-minded people would agree this was one of those situations where a government might be justified in straying from the strict constitutional path. But when it comes to straying from that path, it should only be as much as necessary. Guildford understood this and offered honorable advice. He suggested that the duties be collected but held separately in the Exchequer until Parliament convened. This way, the King could break the letter of the law while still respecting its spirit. Jeffreys had a very different recommendation. He urged James to issue a decree stating it was His Majesty's will that the customs continue to be collected. This advice suited the King's temperament well. The sensible suggestion from the Lord Keeper was dismissed as only fit for a Whig, or worse, a Trimmer. A proclamation, like the Chief Justice recommended, was issued. Some expected it would spark a strong public backlash, but they were mistaken. The spirit of opposition hadn't revived yet, and the court could safely take actions that would have led to rebellion just five years earlier. In the City of London, which had recently been so restless, there was hardly a whisper of dissent. 234

The proclamation, which announced that the customs would still be levied, announced also that a Parliament would shortly meet. It was not without many misgivings that James had determined to call the Estates of his realm together. The moment was, indeed most auspicious for a general election. Never since the accession of the House of Stuart had the constituent bodies been so favourably disposed towards the Court. But the new sovereign's mind was haunted by an apprehension not to be mentioned even at this distance of time, without shame and indignation. He was afraid that by summoning his Parliament he might incur the displeasure of the King of France.

The announcement stated that customs duties would still be collected and that a Parliament would be meeting soon. James was quite anxious about deciding to gather the Estates of his realm. This was, after all, a very good time for a general election. Never since the Stuart family came into power had the constituent bodies been so positively inclined towards the Court. However, the new king was troubled by a fear that even now feels embarrassing and infuriating to mention. He worried that by calling his Parliament, he might upset the King of France.

To the King of France it mattered little which of the two English factions triumphed at the elections: for all the Parliaments which had met since the Restoration, whatever might have been their temper as to domestic politics, had been jealous of the growing power of the House of Bourbon. On this subject there was little difference between the Whigs and the sturdy country gentlemen who formed the main strength of the Tory party. Lewis had therefore spared neither bribes nor menaces to prevent Charles from convoking the Houses; and James, who had from the first been in the secret of his brother's foreign politics, had, in becoming King of England, become also a hireling and vassal of France.

To the King of France, it didn't really matter which of the two English factions won the elections. All the Parliaments that had convened since the Restoration, no matter their stance on domestic issues, had been wary of the increasing power of the House of Bourbon. On this matter, there was little difference between the Whigs and the strong country gentlemen who made up the core of the Tory party. Lewis had therefore used both bribes and threats to stop Charles from calling the Houses; and James, who had always been aware of his brother's foreign policies, had become not only the King of England but also a servant and subordinate of France.

Rochester, Godolphin, and Sunderland, who now formed the interior cabinet, were perfectly aware that their late master had been in the habit of receiving money from the court of Versailles. They were consulted by James as to the expediency of convoking the legislature. They acknowledged the importance of keeping Lewis in good humour: but it seemed to them that the calling of a Parliament was not a matter of choice. Patient as the nation appeared to be, there were limits to its patience. The principle, that the money of the subject could not be lawfully taken by the King without the assent of the Commons, was firmly rooted in the public mind; and though, on all extraordinary emergency even Whigs might be willing to pay, during a few weeks, duties not imposed by statute, it was certain that even Tories would become refractory if such irregular taxation should continue longer than the special circumstances which alone justified it. The Houses then must meet; and since it was so, the sooner they were summoned the better. Even the short delay which would be occasioned by a reference to Versailles might produce irreparable mischief. Discontent and suspicion would spread fast through society. Halifax would complain that the fundamental principles of the constitution were violated. The Lord Keeper, like a cowardly pedantic special pleader as he was, would take the same side. What might have been done with a good grace would at last be done with a bad grace. Those very ministers whom His Majesty most wished to lower in the public estimation would gain popularity at his expense. The ill temper of the nation might seriously affect the result of the elections. These arguments were unanswerable. The King therefore notified to the country his intention of holding a Parliament. But he was painfully anxious to exculpate himself from the guilt of having acted undutifully and disrespectfully towards France. He led Barillon into a private room, and there apologised for having dared to take so important a step without the previous sanction of Lewis. "Assure your master," said James, "of my gratitude and attachment. I know that without his protection I can do nothing. I know what troubles my brother brought on himself by not adhering steadily to France. I will take good care not to let the Houses meddle with foreign affairs. If I see in them any disposition to make mischief, I will send them about their business. Explain this to my good brother. I hope that he will not take it amiss that I have acted without consulting him. He has a right to be consulted; and it is my wish to consult him about everything. But in this case the delay even of a week might have produced serious consequences."

Rochester, Godolphin, and Sunderland, who now made up the inner cabinet, knew that their former master had regularly received money from the court of Versailles. James asked them whether it would be wise to convene the legislature. They recognized the importance of keeping Lewis happy, but they felt that calling a Parliament wasn't a matter of choice. While the nation seemed patient, there were limits to that patience. The idea that the King's money could not be taken without the Commons' consent was deeply ingrained in the public mindset; and although even Whigs might be willing to pay unapproved taxes during an emergency for a short period, it was certain that Tories would rebel if such irregular taxation lasted longer than the special circumstances justified. Therefore, the Houses needed to meet, and the sooner they were called, the better. Even a slight delay caused by consulting Versailles could lead to irreparable damage. Discontent and suspicion would spread quickly through society. Halifax would argue that the fundamental principles of the constitution were being violated. The Lord Keeper, who was a cowardly, pedantic special pleader, would take the same stance. What could have been done gracefully would eventually be done begrudgingly. The very ministers whom His Majesty wanted to diminish in the public eye would gain popularity at his expense. The nation's bad mood could seriously impact the election results. These arguments were unarguable. The King therefore announced his intention to hold a Parliament. However, he was quite anxious to clear himself of any wrongdoing towards France. He took Barillon into a private room and apologized for having taken such an important step without Lewis's prior approval. "Please assure your master," James said, "of my gratitude and loyalty. I know that without his protection, I can do nothing. I understand the troubles my brother faced by not sticking closely to France. I will make sure that the Houses don't get involved in foreign affairs. If I see any inclination for them to stir up trouble, I will send them away. Explain this to my good brother. I hope he won't be upset that I acted without consulting him. He has the right to be consulted, and I wish to involve him in everything. But in this case, even a week's delay could have serious consequences."

These ignominious excuses were, on the following morning, repeated by Rochester. Barillon received them civilly. Rochester, grown bolder, proceeded to ask for money. "It will be well laid out," he said: "your master cannot employ his revenues better. Represent to him strongly how important it is that the King of England should be dependent, not on his own people, but on the friendship of France alone." 235

These embarrassing excuses were repeated by Rochester the next morning. Barillon listened politely. Feeling more confident, Rochester then asked for money. "This will be a good investment," he said. "Your master couldn't use his funds better. Make sure to stress how crucial it is for the King of England to rely solely on France for support, rather than on his own people." 235

Barillon hastened to communicate to Lewis the wishes of the English government; but Lewis had already anticipated them. His first act, after he was apprised of the death of Charles, was to collect bills of exchange on England to the amount of five hundred thousand livres, a sum equivalent to about thirty-seven thousand five hundred pounds sterling Such bills were not then to be easily procured in Paris at day's notice. In a few hours, however, the purchase was effected, and a courier started for London. 236 As soon as Barillon received the remittance, he flew to Whitehall, and communicated the welcome news. James was not ashamed to shed, or pretend to shed, tears of delight and gratitude. "Nobody but your King," he said, "does such kind, such noble things. I never can be grateful enough. Assure him that my attachment will last to the end of my days." Rochester, Sunderland, and Godolphin came, one after another, to embrace the ambassador, and to whisper to him that he had given new life to their royal master. 237

Barillon quickly informed Lewis of the English government’s wishes, but Lewis had already anticipated them. As soon as he learned of Charles’s death, his first action was to gather bills of exchange on England worth five hundred thousand livres, which is about thirty-seven thousand five hundred pounds sterling. Such bills were not easy to obtain in Paris on such short notice. However, within a few hours, the purchase was completed, and a courier was sent to London. 236 When Barillon received the funds, he rushed to Whitehall to deliver the good news. James didn’t hesitate to show, or at least pretend to show, tears of joy and gratitude. “No one but your King does such kind, noble things. I can never be grateful enough. Please tell him that my loyalty will last my whole life,” he said. Rochester, Sunderland, and Godolphin came, one after another, to embrace the ambassador and to whisper that he had given their royal master a new lease on life. 237

But though James and his three advisers were pleased with the promptitude which Lewis had shown, they were by no means satisfied with the amount of the donation. As they were afraid, however, that they might give offence by importunate mendicancy, they merely hinted their wishes. They declared that they had no intention of haggling with so generous a benefactor as the French King, and that they were willing to trust entirely to his munificence. They, at the same time, attempted to propitiate him by a large sacrifice of national honour. It was well known that one chief end of his politics was to add the Belgian provinces to his dominions. England was bound by a treaty which had been concluded with Spain when Danby was Lord Treasurer, to resist any attempt which France might make on those provinces. The three ministers informed Barillon that their master considered that treaty as no longer obligatory. It had been made, they said, by Charles: it might, perhaps, have been binding on him; but his brother did not think himself bound by it. The most Christian King might, therefore, without any fear of opposition from England, proceed to annex Brabant and Hainault to his empire. 238

But even though James and his three advisers appreciated Lewis's quick response, they were definitely not satisfied with the size of the donation. However, they were worried that they might offend him by being too pushy, so they only dropped hints about what they wanted. They stated that they had no intention of negotiating with such a generous benefactor as the French King and that they were willing to rely completely on his generosity. At the same time, they tried to win him over by making a significant sacrifice of national honor. It was well-known that one of his main political goals was to add the Belgian provinces to his territory. England was bound by a treaty made with Spain when Danby was Lord Treasurer, to resist any French attempts on those provinces. The three ministers told Barillon that their master no longer considered that treaty valid. They said it was made by Charles, and while it might have been binding on him, his brother didn’t see himself as bound by it. Therefore, the Most Christian King could annex Brabant and Hainault to his empire without fearing any opposition from England. 238

It was at the same time resolved that an extraordinary embassy should be sent to assure Lewis of the gratitude and affection of James. For this mission was selected a man who did not as yet occupy a very eminent position, but whose renown, strangely made up of infamy and glory, filled at a later period the whole civilized world.

It was also decided that a special delegation should be sent to express James's gratitude and affection to Lewis. For this mission, they chose a man who didn’t yet hold a prominent position, but whose fame, oddly combining disgrace and honor, would later fill the entire civilized world.

Soon after the Restoration, in the gay and dissolute times which have been celebrated by the lively pen of Hamilton, James, young and ardent in the pursuit of pleasure, had been attracted to Arabella Churchill, one of the maids of honour who waited on his first wife. The young lady was plain: but the taste of James was not nice: and she became his avowed mistress. She was the daughter of a poor Cavalier knight who haunted Whitehall, and made himself ridiculous by publishing a dull and affected folio, long forgotten, in praise of monarchy and monarchs. The necessities of the Churchills were pressing: their loyalty was ardent: and their only feeling about Arabella's seduction seems to have been joyful surprise that so homely a girl should have attained such high preferment.

Soon after the Restoration, during the lively and indulgent times celebrated by Hamilton's witty writing, James, young and eager for fun, became infatuated with Arabella Churchill, one of the maids of honor who served his first wife. The young woman was not particularly attractive, but James's taste was not refined, and she became his acknowledged mistress. She was the daughter of a poor Cavalier knight who lingered around Whitehall and embarrassed himself by publishing a dull and pretentious book, now largely forgotten, praising monarchy and monarchs. The Churchills were in dire need, their loyalty was strong, and their only reaction to Arabella's seduction seemed to be a pleased surprise that such an ordinary-looking girl had achieved such a high status.

Her interest was indeed of great use to her relations: but none of them was so fortunate as her eldest brother John, a fine youth, who carried a pair of colours in the foot guards. He rose fast in the court and in the army, and was early distinguished as a man of fashion and of pleasure. His stature was commanding, his face handsome, his address singularly winning, yet of such dignity that the most impertinent fops never ventured to take any liberty with him; his temper, even in the most vexatious and irritating circumstances, always under perfect command. His education had been so much neglected that he could not spell the most common words of his own language: but his acute and vigorous understanding amply supplied the place of book learning. He was not talkative: but when he was forced to speak in public, his natural eloquence moved the envy of practiced rhetoricians. 239 His courage was singularly cool and imperturbable. During many years of anxiety and peril, he never, in any emergency, lost even for a moment, the perfect use of his admirable judgment.

Her interest was definitely beneficial to her family, but none benefited as much as her oldest brother John, a handsome young man who served in the foot guards. He quickly made a name for himself in both the court and the army, becoming known early on as a man of style and enjoyment. He had a tall, impressive stature, a good-looking face, and a charming manner that was so dignified that even the most annoying fops never dared to overstep with him; his temper remained perfectly calm even in the most frustrating situations. His education had been neglected to the point where he couldn’t spell the simplest words in his own language, but his sharp and lively mind more than made up for his lack of formal schooling. He wasn’t overly talkative, but when he had to speak in public, his natural eloquence inspired envy among seasoned speakers. 239 His courage was notably steady and unflappable. Throughout many years of anxiety and danger, he never lost, even for a moment, the ability to use his excellent judgment.

In his twenty-third year he was sent with his regiment to join the French forces, then engaged in operations against Holland. His serene intrepidity distinguished him among thousands of brave soldiers. His professional skill commanded the respect of veteran officers. He was publicly thanked at the head of the army, and received many marks of esteem and confidence from Turenne, who was then at the height of military glory.

At the age of twenty-three, he was sent with his regiment to join the French forces, which were then involved in operations against Holland. His calm courage set him apart from thousands of other brave soldiers. His professional expertise earned him the respect of experienced officers. He was publicly recognized at the front of the army and received numerous signs of appreciation and trust from Turenne, who was at the peak of his military success at that time.

Unhappily the splendid qualities of John Churchill were mingled with alloy of the most sordid kind. Some propensities, which in youth are singularly ungraceful, began very early to show themselves in him. He was thrifty in his very vices, and levied ample contributions on ladies enriched by the spoils of more liberal lovers. He was, during a short time, the object of the violent but fickle fondness of the Duchess of Cleveland. On one occasion he was caught with her by the King, and was forced to leap out of the window. She rewarded this hazardous feat of gallantry with a present of five thousand pounds. With this sum the prudent young hero instantly bought an annuity of five hundred a year, well secured on landed property. 240 Already his private drawer contained a hoard of broad pieces which, fifty years later, when he was a Duke, a Prince of the Empire, and the richest subject in Europe, remained untouched. 241

Unfortunately, the impressive traits of John Churchill were mixed with qualities that were quite the opposite. Some unappealing tendencies, which are particularly unattractive in youth, began to emerge in him very early. He was careful even in his vices, and he took generous amounts from women who were enriched by the gifts of more generous lovers. For a brief time, he was the object of the intense but unreliable affection of the Duchess of Cleveland. On one occasion, the King caught him with her, and he had to jump out of the window. She rewarded this risky act of bravery with a gift of five thousand pounds. With that money, the cautious young hero immediately purchased an annuity of five hundred a year, securely based on real estate. 240 Already, his private drawer held a stash of gold coins that, fifty years later, when he was a Duke, a Prince of the Empire, and the wealthiest subject in Europe, remained untouched. 241

After the close of the war he was attached to the household of the Duke of York, accompanied his patron to the Low Countries and to Edinburgh, and was rewarded for his services with a Scotch peerage and with the command of the only regiment of dragoons which was then on the English establishment. 242 His wife had a post in the family of James's younger daughter, the Princess of Denmark.

After the war ended, he joined the household of the Duke of York, traveled with him to the Low Countries and to Edinburgh, and was rewarded for his services with a Scottish peerage and the command of the only dragoon regiment that was part of the English forces at the time. 242 His wife had a position in the family of James's younger daughter, the Princess of Denmark.

Lord Churchill was now sent as ambassador extraordinary to Versailles. He had it in charge to express the warm gratitude of the English government for the money which had been so generously bestowed. It had been originally intended that he should at the same time ask Lewis for a much larger sum; but, on full consideration, it was apprehended that such indelicate greediness might disgust the benefactor whose spontaneous liberality had been so signally displayed. Churchill was therefore directed to confine himself to thanks for what was past, and to say nothing about the future. 243

Lord Churchill was sent as an extraordinary ambassador to Versailles. His task was to express the deep gratitude of the English government for the generous financial support provided. Originally, he was also meant to request a much larger sum from Lewis, but after careful consideration, it was feared that such overt eagerness might offend the benefactor, whose spontaneous generosity had been so evident. Therefore, Churchill was instructed to focus solely on thanking for what had been received and to avoid any mention of future requests. 243

But James and his ministers, even while protesting that they did not mean to be importunate, contrived to hint, very intelligibly, what they wished and expected. In the French ambassador they had a dexterous, a zealous, and perhaps, not a disinterested intercessor. Lewis made some difficulties, probably with the design of enhancing the value of his gifts. In a very few weeks, however, Barillon received from Versailles fifteen hundred thousand livres more. This sum, equivalent to about a hundred and twelve thousand pounds sterling, he was instructed to dole out cautiously. He was authorised to furnish the English government with thirty thousand pounds, for the purpose of corrupting members of the New House of Commons. The rest he was directed to keep in reserve for some extraordinary emergency, such as a dissolution or an insurrection. 244

But James and his ministers, while claiming they didn't want to be pushy, managed to clearly suggest what they wanted and expected. They had in the French ambassador a skilled, eager, and possibly self-interested negotiator. Lewis created some hurdles, likely to increase the perceived value of his gifts. However, within a few weeks, Barillon received an additional one million five hundred thousand livres from Versailles. This amount, roughly equivalent to about one hundred twelve thousand pounds sterling, was meant to be distributed carefully. He was authorized to give the English government thirty thousand pounds to bribe members of the New House of Commons. The rest was to be kept on hand for any urgent situations, like a dissolution or an uprising. 244

The turpitude of these transactions is universally acknowledged: but their real nature seems to be often misunderstood: for though the foreign policy of the last two Kings of the House of Stuart has never, since the correspondence of Barillon was exposed to the public eye, found an apologist among us, there is still a party which labours to excuse their domestic policy. Yet it is certain that between their domestic policy and their foreign policy there was a necessary and indissoluble connection. If they had upheld, during a single year, the honour of the country abroad, they would have been compelled to change the whole system of their administration at home. To praise them for refusing to govern in conformity with the sense of Parliament, and yet to blame them for submitting to the dictation of Lewis, is inconsistent. For they had only one choice, to be dependent on Lewis, or to be dependent on Parliament.

The dishonesty of these actions is widely recognized, but their true nature often gets misinterpreted. While the foreign policy of the last two Kings of the House of Stuart has never had a defender among us since Barillon's correspondence was made public, there are still some who try to justify their domestic policy. However, it is clear that there was a necessary and inseparable link between their domestic and foreign policies. If they had upheld the country's honor abroad for even a single year, they would have had to completely change their domestic administration. It doesn’t make sense to praise them for refusing to govern according to Parliament’s wishes while condemning them for being controlled by Louis. They really only had one option: to be dependent on Louis or to be dependent on Parliament.

James, to do him justice, would gladly have found out a third way: but there was none. He became the slave of France: but it would be incorrect to represent him as a contented slave. He had spirit enough to be at times angry with himself for submitting to such thraldom, and impatient to break loose from it; and this disposition was studiously encouraged by the agents of many foreign powers.

James, to be fair, would have happily found a third option: but there wasn’t one. He became a servant of France, but it wouldn’t be right to depict him as a satisfied servant. He had enough spirit to sometimes feel angry with himself for accepting such bondage and was eager to break free from it; this feeling was actively fostered by the agents of several foreign powers.

His accession had excited hopes and fears in every continental court: and the commencement of his administration was watched by strangers with interest scarcely less deep than that which was felt by his own subjects. One government alone wished that the troubles which had, during three generations, distracted England, might be eternal. All other governments, whether republican or monarchical, whether Protestant or Roman Catholic, wished to see those troubles happily terminated.

His rise to power sparked a mix of hopes and fears in every court across the continent, and the start of his rule was closely observed by outsiders with an interest that was almost as intense as that of his own citizens. Only one government wanted the issues that had troubled England for three generations to continue indefinitely. All other governments, whether they were republican or monarchical, Protestant or Roman Catholic, wanted to see those troubles come to a positive end.

The nature of the long contest between the Stuarts and their Parliaments was indeed very imperfectly apprehended by foreign statesmen: but no statesman could fail to perceive the effect which that contest had produced on the balance of power in Europe. In ordinary circumstances, the sympathies of the courts of Vienna and Madrid would doubtless have been with a prince struggling against subjects, and especially with a Roman Catholic prince struggling against heretical subjects: but all such sympathies were now overpowered by a stronger feeling. The fear and hatred inspired by the greatness, the injustice, and the arrogance of the French King were at the height. His neighbours might well doubt whether it were more dangerous to be at war or at peace with him. For in peace he continued to plunder and to outrage them; and they had tried the chances of war against him in vain. In this perplexity they looked with intense anxiety towards England. Would she act on the principles of the Triple Alliance or on the principles of the treaty of Dover? On that issue depended the fate of all her neighbours. With her help Lewis might yet be withstood: but no help could be expected from her till she was at unity with herself. Before the strife between the throne and the Parliament began, she had been a power of the first rank: on the day on which that strife terminated she became a power of the first rank again: but while the dispute remained undecided, she was condemned to inaction and to vassalage. She had been great under the Plantagenets and Tudors: she was again great under the princes who reigned after the Revolution: but, under the Kings of the House of Stuart, she was a blank in the map of Europe. She had lost one class of energies, and had not yet acquired another. That species of force, which, in the fourteenth century had enabled her to humble France and Spain, had ceased to exist. That species of force, which, in the eighteenth century, humbled France and Spain once more, had not yet been called into action. The government was no longer a limited monarchy after the fashion of the middle ages. It had not yet become a limited monarchy after the modern fashion. With the vices of two different systems it had the strength of neither. The elements of our polity, instead of combining in harmony, counteracted and neutralised each other All was transition, conflict, and disorder. The chief business of the sovereign was to infringe the privileges of the legislature. The chief business of the legislature was to encroach on the prerogatives of the sovereign. The King readily accepted foreign aid, which relieved him from the misery of being dependent on a mutinous Parliament. The Parliament refused to the King the means of supporting the national honor abroad, from an apprehension, too well founded, that those means might be employed in order to establish despotism at home. The effect of these jealousies was that our country, with all her vast resources, was of as little weight in Christendom as the duchy of Savoy or the duchy of Lorraine, and certainly of far less weight than the small province of Holland.

The long struggle between the Stuarts and their Parliaments was poorly understood by foreign leaders, but everyone recognized how it changed the balance of power in Europe. Normally, the courts of Vienna and Madrid would have sympathized with a prince fighting against his subjects, especially if he were a Roman Catholic prince facing heretical subjects. However, those sympathies were overshadowed by a stronger sentiment: fear and hatred of the power, injustice, and arrogance of the French King, which were at an all-time high. His neighbors wondered whether it was more dangerous to be at war or at peace with him, as he continued to plunder and insult them in peacetime, and they had already experienced the futility of war against him. In this dilemma, they looked nervously to England. Would she align with the principles of the Triple Alliance or the treaty of Dover? The fate of all her neighbors depended on this decision. With her support, they could withstand Lewis; however, no assistance could be counted on from her until she found unity within herself. Before the conflict between the throne and Parliament began, she was a major power; once that conflict ended, she regained her status as a major power, but in the meantime, she was stuck in a state of inaction and subservience. She had been formidable under the Plantagenets and Tudors, and she would again be significant under the rulers who came after the Revolution, but under the Stuart Kings, she was nonexistent on the European map. She had lost one type of strength without acquiring another. The kind of power that had allowed her to subdue France and Spain in the fourteenth century was no longer present. The type of power that would undermine those same countries again in the eighteenth century had not yet been activated. The government was no longer a limited monarchy in the medieval sense, nor had it evolved into a modern limited monarchy. It combined the shortcomings of two different systems without the strength of either. The parts of the political structure, instead of working together, counteracted and neutralized each other. It was a time of transition, conflict, and disorder. The main role of the sovereign was to undermine the authority of the legislature, while the legislature’s primary task was to encroach on the King’s rights. The King readily accepted help from abroad, which spared him the trouble of relying on a rebellious Parliament. The Parliament withheld from the King the means to uphold national honor overseas, out of well-founded fear that those resources could be used to establish tyranny at home. As a result of these tensions, Britain, despite its vast resources, had as little influence in Christendom as the duchy of Savoy or Lorraine and certainly had far less impact than the small province of Holland.

France was deeply interested in prolonging this state of things. 245 All other powers were deeply interested in bringing it to a close. The general wish of Europe was that James would govern in conformity with law and with public opinion. From the Escurial itself came letters, expressing an earnest hope that the new King of England would be on good terms with his Parliament and his people. 246 From the Vatican itself came cautions against immoderate zeal for the Roman Catholic faith. Benedict Odescalchi, who filled the papal chair under the name of Innocent the Eleventh, felt, in his character of temporal sovereign, all those apprehensions with which other princes watched the progress of the French power. He had also grounds of uneasiness which were peculiar to himself. It was a happy circumstance for the Protestant religion that, at the moment when the last Roman Catholic King of England mounted the throne, the Roman Catholic Church was torn by dissension, and threatened with a new schism. A quarrel similar to that which had raged in the eleventh century between the Emperors and the Supreme Pontiffs had arisen between Lewis and Innocent. Lewis, zealous even to bigotry for the doctrines of the Church of Rome, but tenacious of his regal authority, accused the Pope of encroaching on the secular rights of the French Crown, and was in turn accused by the Pope of encroaching on the spiritual power of the keys. The King, haughty as he was, encountered a spirit even more determined than his own. Innocent was, in all private relations, the meekest and gentlest of men: but when he spoke officially from the chair of St. Peter, he spoke in the tones of Gregory the Seventh and of Sixtus the Fifth. The dispute became serious. Agents of the King were excommunicated. Adherents of the Pope were banished. The King made the champions of his authority Bishops. The Pope refused them institution. They took possession of the Episcopal palaces and revenues: but they were incompetent to perform the Episcopal functions. Before the struggle terminated, there were in France thirty prelates who could not confirm or ordain. 247

France was very invested in maintaining the current situation. 245 All other powers wanted to put an end to it. The general sentiment in Europe was that James should rule according to the law and the views of the public. Even from the Escorial came letters expressing a strong hope that the new King of England would have a good relationship with his Parliament and his people. 246 From the Vatican came warnings against excessive fervor for the Roman Catholic faith. Benedict Odescalchi, known as Innocent the Eleventh, understood all the concerns other rulers had about the rise of French power in his role as a temporal sovereign. He also had unique reasons to be worried. It was fortunate for the Protestant religion that at the moment the last Roman Catholic King of England took the throne, the Roman Catholic Church was embroiled in conflicts and was facing a potential new schism. A dispute similar to the one that had occurred in the eleventh century between the Emperors and the Supreme Pontiffs had emerged between Louis and Innocent. Louis, fervently devoted to the doctrines of the Roman Church but protective of his royal authority, accused the Pope of overstepping into the secular rights of the French Crown, while the Pope accused him of encroaching on spiritual authority. The King, proud as he was, faced a will even stronger than his own. Innocent, in all personal dealings, was the kindest and gentlest of men; however, when he spoke officially from the chair of St. Peter, he did so with the authority of Gregory the Seventh and Sixtus the Fifth. The disagreement escalated. The King’s agents were excommunicated. The Pope’s supporters were exiled. The King appointed bishops to defend his authority. The Pope denied them official recognition. They seized the bishops' palaces and income, but they were unable to perform their episcopal duties. By the end of the conflict, there were thirty bishops in France who could not confirm or ordain. 247

Had any prince then living, except Lewis, been engaged in such a dispute with the Vatican, he would have had all Protestant governments on his side. But the fear and resentment which the ambition and insolence of the French King had inspired were such that whoever had the courage manfully to oppose him was sure of public sympathy. Even Lutherans and Calvinists, who had always detested the Pope, could not refrain from wishing him success against a tyrant who aimed at universal monarchy. It was thus that, in the present century, many who regarded Pius the Seventh as Antichrist were well pleased to see Antichrist confront the gigantic power of Napoleon.

If any prince alive at that time, except Louis, had been involved in such a conflict with the Vatican, he would have had the support of all Protestant governments. But the fear and anger stirred up by the ambition and arrogance of the French King were so intense that anyone brave enough to stand up to him would definitely gain public support. Even Lutherans and Calvinists, who had always despised the Pope, couldn’t help but wish him success against a tyrant who sought universal rule. Thus, in this century, many people who viewed Pius the Seventh as Antichrist were quite pleased to see Antichrist confronting the enormous power of Napoleon.

The resentment which Innocent felt towards France disposed him to take a mild and liberal view of the affairs of England. The return of the English people to the fold of which he was the shepherd would undoubtedly have rejoiced his soul. But he was too wise a man to believe that a nation so bold and stubborn, could be brought back to the Church of Rome by the violent and unconstitutional exercise of royal authority. It was not difficult to foresee that, if James attempted to promote the interests of his religion by illegal and unpopular means, the attempt would fail; the hatred with which the heretical islanders regarded the true faith would become fiercer and stronger than ever; and an indissoluble association would be created in their minds between Protestantism and civil freedom, between Popery and arbitrary power. In the meantime the King would be an object of aversion and suspicion to his people. England would still be, as she had been under James the First, under Charles the First, and under Charles the Second, a power of the third rank; and France would domineer unchecked beyond the Alps and the Rhine. On the other hand, it was probable that James, by acting with prudence and moderation, by strictly observing the laws and by exerting himself to win the confidence of his Parliament, might be able to obtain, for the professors of his religion, a large measure of relief. Penal statutes would go first. Statutes imposing civil incapacities would soon follow. In the meantime, the English King and the English nation united might head the European coalition, and might oppose an insuperable barrier to the cupidity of Lewis.

The resentment Innocent felt towards France made him take a more tolerant and open-minded approach to England’s situation. The return of the English people to the Church he led would surely have made him happy. However, he was too smart to think that a bold and stubborn nation could be brought back to the Church of Rome through forceful and unconstitutional royal actions. It was easy to predict that if James tried to advance his religion through illegal and unpopular methods, he would fail; the hatred that the heretical islanders had for the true faith would only intensify, and they would associate Protestantism with civil freedom and Catholicism with oppressive power. Meanwhile, the King would become an object of disgust and mistrust to his people. England would remain, as it had been under James I, Charles I, and Charles II, a third-rate power, while France would dominate unchecked across the Alps and the Rhine. On the other hand, it was likely that James, by acting wisely and moderately, by strictly following the laws and working to gain the trust of his Parliament, could secure significant relief for his religion. The penal laws would be repealed first, followed soon by those limiting civil rights. In the meantime, the united English King and English nation could lead a European coalition and create a strong barrier against Louis's greed.

Innocent was confirmed in his judgment by the principal Englishmen who resided at his court. Of these the most illustrious was Philip Howard, sprung from the noblest houses of Britain, grandson, on one side, of an Earl of Arundel, on the other, of a Duke of Lennox. Philip had long been a member of the sacred college: he was commonly designated as the Cardinal of England; and he was the chief counsellor of the Holy See in matters relating to his country. He had been driven into exile by the outcry of Protestant bigots; and a member of his family, the unfortunate Stafford, had fallen a victim to their rage. But neither the Cardinal's own wrongs, nor those of his house, had so heated his mind as to make him a rash adviser. Every letter, therefore, which went from the Vatican to Whitehall, recommended patience, moderation, and respect for the prejudices of the English people. 248

Innocent's judgment was confirmed by the main Englishmen who were at his court. The most notable among them was Philip Howard, from one of Britain's most distinguished families, the grandson of an Earl of Arundel on one side and a Duke of Lennox on the other. Philip had been a member of the sacred college for a long time; he was often called the Cardinal of England and served as the primary advisor to the Holy See regarding matters related to his country. He had been forced into exile due to the protests of Protestant fanatics, and a member of his family, the unfortunate Stafford, had become a victim of their fury. However, neither the Cardinal's personal grievances nor those of his family had made him a hasty advisor. Therefore, every letter sent from the Vatican to Whitehall urged patience, moderation, and respect for the beliefs of the English people. 248

In the mind of James there was a great conflict. We should do him injustice if we supposed that a state of vassalage was agreeable to his temper. He loved authority and business. He had a high sense of his own personal dignity. Nay, he was not altogether destitute of a sentiment which bore some affinity to patriotism. It galled his soul to think that the kingdom which he ruled was of far less account in the world than many states which possessed smaller natural advantages; and he listened eagerly to foreign ministers when they urged him to assert the dignity of his rank, to place himself at the head of a great confederacy, to become the protector of injured nations, and to tame the pride of that power which held the Continent in awe. Such exhortations made his heart swell with emotions unknown to his careless and effeminate brother. But those emotions were soon subdued by a stronger feeling. A vigorous foreign policy necessarily implied a conciliatory domestic policy. It was impossible at once to confront the might of France and to trample on the liberties of England. The executive government could undertake nothing great without the support of the Commons, and could obtain their support only by acting in conformity with their opinion. Thus James found that the two things which he most desired could not be enjoyed together. His second wish was to be feared and respected abroad. But his first wish was to be absolute master at home. Between the incompatible objects on which his heart was set he, for a time, went irresolutely to and fro. The conflict in his own breast gave to his public acts a strange appearance of indecision and insincerity. Those who, without the clue, attempted to explore the maze of his politics were unable to understand how the same man could be, in the same week, so haughty and so mean. Even Lewis was perplexed by the vagaries of an ally who passed, in a few hours, from homage to defiance, and from defiance to homage. Yet, now that the whole conduct of James is before us, this inconsistency seems to admit of a simple explanation.

In James's mind, there was a huge conflict. It would be unfair to think that he was comfortable being in a subordinate position. He valued authority and was involved in his work. He had a strong sense of his own dignity. In fact, he had a sense of patriotism as well. It troubled him to realize that the kingdom he ruled was far less significant in the world than many other states that had fewer natural advantages; he listened eagerly to foreign ministers when they encouraged him to assert his rank, lead a great alliance, become the protector of oppressed nations, and challenge the power that intimidated the continent. Such encouragement filled him with emotions that his careless and softer brother never experienced. But those feelings were quickly dampened by a stronger one. A strong foreign policy required a friendly domestic policy. It was impossible to confront France's might and oppress the liberties of England at the same time. The government couldn't undertake anything significant without the backing of the Commons, which could only be obtained by aligning with their views. Thus, James realized that the two things he wanted most couldn't coexist. His second desire was to be feared and respected abroad. But his first desire was to have absolute control at home. Torn between these conflicting goals, he hesitated back and forth for a time. The inner conflict gave his public actions a strange appearance of indecision and insincerity. Those who tried to make sense of his politics without context couldn't understand how the same man could be so proud in one moment and so humble in another within the same week. Even Lewis was baffled by the unpredictability of an ally who would shift from submission to defiance and then back again in a matter of hours. Yet now that we can see all of James's actions, this inconsistency seems to have a simple explanation.

At the moment of his accession he was in doubt whether the kingdom would peaceably submit to his authority. The Exclusionists, lately so powerful, might rise in arms against him. He might be in great need of French money and French troops. He was therefore, during some days, content to be a sycophant and a mendicant. He humbly apologised for daring to call his Parliament together without the consent of the French government. He begged hard for a French subsidy. He wept with joy over the French bills of exchange. He sent to Versailles a special embassy charged with assurances of his gratitude, attachment, and submission. But scarcely had the embassy departed when his feelings underwent a change. He had been everywhere proclaimed without one riot, without one seditions outcry. From all corners of the island he received intelligence that his subjects were tranquil and obedient. His spirit rose. The degrading relation in which he stood to a foreign power seemed intolerable. He became proud, punctilious, boastful, quarrelsome. He held such high language about the dignity of his crown and the balance of power that his whole court fully expected a complete revolution in the foreign politics of the realm. He commanded Churchill to send home a minute report of the ceremonial of Versailles, in order that the honours with which the English embassy was received there might be repaid, and not more than repaid, to the representative of France at Whitehall. The news of this change was received with delight at Madrid, Vienna, and the Hague. 249 Lewis was at first merely diverted. "My good ally talks big," he said; "but he is as fond of my pistoles as ever his brother was." Soon, however, the altered demeanour of James, and the hopes with which that demeanour inspired both the branches of the House of Austria, began to call for more serious notice. A remarkable letter is still extant, in which the French King intimated a strong suspicion that he had been duped, and that the very money which he had sent to Westminster would be employed against him. 250

At the moment he took power, he was uncertain whether the kingdom would accept his authority peacefully. The Exclusionists, who had recently been very influential, might rise up against him. He might need French money and troops badly. Therefore, for several days, he acted like a sycophant and a beggar. He humbly apologized for daring to summon his Parliament without the French government's consent. He pleaded for a French subsidy. He cried tears of joy over the French bills of exchange. He sent a special delegation to Versailles, expressing his gratitude, loyalty, and submission. But hardly had the delegation left when his feelings changed. He had been proclaimed everywhere without any riots or outcries. From all corners of the island, he received news that his subjects were calm and obedient. His spirits lifted. The humiliating dependence on a foreign power felt unbearable. He became proud, exacting, boastful, and contentious. He spoke so highly about the dignity of his crown and the balance of power that his entire court expected a complete overhaul in the kingdom's foreign policy. He ordered Churchill to send a detailed report on the ceremonies at Versailles so that the honors received by the English delegation could be properly reciprocated, and even exceeded, for the French representative at Whitehall. This change in attitude was welcomed with joy in Madrid, Vienna, and The Hague. 249 Lewis initially found it amusing. "My good ally talks a big game," he said; "but he loves my coins as much as his brother did." However, soon the changed behavior of James, along with the hope it sparked in both branches of the House of Austria, began to attract serious attention. A notable letter still exists in which the French King expressed strong suspicions that he had been fooled and that the very money he had sent to Westminster would be used against him. 250

By this time England had recovered from the sadness and anxiety caused by the death of the goodnatured Charles. The Tories were loud in professions of attachment to their new master. The hatred of the Whigs was kept down by fear. That great mass which is not steadily Whig or Tory, but which inclines alternately to Whiggism and to Toryism, was still on the Tory side. The reaction which had followed the dissolution of the Oxford parliament had not yet spent its force.

By this time, England had moved past the sadness and anxiety triggered by the death of the good-natured Charles. The Tories were openly expressing their loyalty to their new leader. The Whigs kept their resentment in check out of fear. The large group that isn't firmly Whig or Tory but swings between the two was still leaning towards the Tories. The backlash that followed the dissolution of the Oxford parliament had not yet lost its momentum.

The King early put the loyalty of his Protestant friends to the proof. While he was a subject, he had been in the habit of hearing mass with closed doors in a small oratory which had been fitted up for his wife. He now ordered the doors to be thrown open, in order that all who came to pay their duty to him might see the ceremony. When the host was elevated there was a strange confusion in the antechamber. The Roman Catholics fell on their knees: the Protestants hurried out of the room. Soon a new pulpit was erected in the palace; and, during Lent, a series of sermons was preached there by Popish divines, to the great discomposure of zealous churchmen. 251

The King tested the loyalty of his Protestant friends early on. While he was still a subject, he often attended mass in a small oratory set up for his wife with the doors closed. Now, he commanded that the doors be thrown open so that everyone who came to pay their respects could witness the ceremony. When the host was raised, there was chaos in the antechamber. The Catholics knelt down, while the Protestants rushed out of the room. Soon, a new pulpit was built in the palace; during Lent, a series of sermons was delivered there by Catholic clergy, much to the distress of dedicated church members. 251

A more serious innovation followed. Passion week came; and the King determined to hear mass with the same pomp with which his predecessors had been surrounded when they repaired to the temples of the established religion. He announced his intention to the three members of the interior cabinet, and requested them to attend him. Sunderland, to whom all religions were the same, readily consented. Godolphin, as Chamberlain of the Queen, had already been in the habit of giving her his hand when she repaired to her oratory, and felt no scruple about bowing himself officially in the house of Rimmon. But Rochester was greatly disturbed. His influence in the country arose chiefly from the opinion entertained by the clergy and by the Tory gentry, that he was a zealous and uncompromising friend of the Church. His orthodoxy had been considered as fully atoning for faults which would otherwise have made him the most unpopular man in the kingdom, for boundless arrogance, for extreme violence of temper, and for manners almost brutal. 252 He feared that, by complying with the royal wishes, he should greatly lower himself in the estimation of his party. After some altercation he obtained permission to pass the holidays out of town. All the other great civil dignitaries were ordered to be at their posts on Easter Sunday. The rites of the Church of Rome were once more, after an interval of a hundred and twenty-seven years, performed at Westminster with regal splendour. The Guards were drawn out. The Knights of the Garter wore their collars. The Duke of Somerset, second in rank among the temporal nobles of the realm, carried the sword of state. A long train of great lords accompanied the King to his seat. But it was remarked that Ormond and Halifax remained in the antechamber. A few years before they had gallantly defended the cause of James against some of those who now pressed past them. Ormond had borne no share in the slaughter of Roman Catholics. Halifax had courageously pronounced Stafford not guilty. As the timeservers who had pretended to shudder at the thought of a Popish king, and who had shed without pity the innocent blood of a Popish peer, now elbowed each other to get near a Popish altar, the accomplished Trimmer might, with some justice, indulge his solitary pride in that unpopular nickname. 253

A more serious innovation followed. Passion Week arrived, and the King decided to attend mass with the same grandeur that his predecessors had enjoyed when they went to the temples of the established religion. He informed the three members of his inner cabinet and requested their presence. Sunderland, who viewed all religions equally, agreed without hesitation. Godolphin, as the Queen's Chamberlain, was already accustomed to assisting her when she visited her oratory and felt no discomfort about officially bowing in the house of Rimmon. However, Rochester was quite troubled. His influence across the country primarily stemmed from the belief among the clergy and Tory gentry that he was a fervent and unwavering supporter of the Church. His orthodoxy was seen as fully compensating for flaws that would have made him the most disliked man in the kingdom due to his overwhelming arrogance, extreme temper, and nearly brutal manners. He feared that agreeing to the King's wishes would significantly diminish his standing within his party. After some argument, he received permission to spend the holidays out of town. All the other high civil officials were instructed to be present on Easter Sunday. The rituals of the Roman Catholic Church were once again carried out at Westminster with royal grandeur after an interval of one hundred and twenty-seven years. The Guards were assembled. The Knights of the Garter wore their collars. The Duke of Somerset, second in rank among the temporal nobles of the realm, carried the sword of state. A long procession of great lords accompanied the King to his seat. However, it was noted that Ormond and Halifax remained in the antechamber. A few years earlier, they had bravely defended James's cause against some of those who now pushed past them. Ormond had not participated in the slaughter of Roman Catholics. Halifax had boldly found Stafford not guilty. As the opportunists who had feigned horror at the thought of a Catholic king, and who had callously shed the innocent blood of a Catholic peer, now jostled each other to get closer to a Catholic altar, the skilled Trimmer might justifiably take pride in his unpopular nickname.

Within a week after this ceremony James made a far greater sacrifice of his own religious prejudices than he had yet called on any of his Protestant subjects to make. He was crowned on the twenty-third of April, the feast of the patron saint of the realm. The Abbey and the Hall were splendidly decorated. The presence of the Queen and of the peeresses gave to the solemnity a charm which had been wanting to the magnificent inauguration of the late King. Yet those who remembered that inauguration pronounced that there was a great falling off. The ancient usage was that, before a coronation, the sovereign, with all his heralds, judges, councillors, lords, and great dignitaries, should ride in state from the Tower of Westminster. Of these cavalcades the last and the most glorious was that which passed through the capital while the feelings excited by the Restoration were still in full vigour. Arches of triumph overhung the road. All Cornhill, Cheapside, Saint Paul's Church Yard, Fleet Street, and the Strand, were lined with scaffolding. The whole city had thus been admitted to gaze on royalty in the most splendid and solemn form that royalty could wear. James ordered an estimate to be made of the cost of such a procession, and found that it would amount to about half as much as he proposed to expend in covering his wife with trinkets. He accordingly determined to be profuse where he ought to have been frugal, and niggardly where he might pardonably have been profuse. More than a hundred thousand pounds were laid out in dressing the Queen, and the procession from the Tower was omitted. The folly of this course is obvious. If pageantry be of any use in politics, it is of use as a means of striking the imagination of the multitude. It is surely the height of absurdity to shut out the populace from a show of which the main object is to make an impression on the populace. James would have shown a more judicious munificence and a more judicious parsimony, if he had traversed London from east to west with the accustomed pomp, and had ordered the robes of his wife to be somewhat less thickly set with pearls and diamonds. His example was, however, long followed by his successors; and sums, which, well employed, would have afforded exquisite gratification to a large part of the nation, were squandered on an exhibition to which only three or four thousand privileged persons were admitted. At length the old practice was partially revived. On the day of the coronation of Queen Victoria there was a procession in which many deficiencies might be noted, but which was seen with interest and delight by half a million of her subjects, and which undoubtedly gave far greater pleasure, and called forth far greater enthusiasm, than the more costly display which was witnessed by a select circle within the Abbey.

Within a week after this ceremony, James made a much bigger sacrifice of his own religious beliefs than he had ever asked any of his Protestant subjects to make. He was crowned on April 23rd, the feast day of the patron saint of the realm. The Abbey and the Hall were beautifully decorated. The presence of the Queen and the noblewomen added charm to the event that had been missing from the grand inauguration of the late King. However, those who remembered that inauguration felt there was a significant decline in grandeur. Traditionally, before a coronation, the sovereign, along with all his heralds, judges, advisors, lords, and high officials, would ride in a grand procession from the Tower of Westminster. The last and most spectacular of these processions took place through the capital while the excitement of the Restoration was still strong. Triumph arches decorated the roads. Cornhill, Cheapside, St. Paul's Church Yard, Fleet Street, and the Strand were lined with scaffolding. The entire city was invited to witness royalty in the most glorious and solemn way possible. James commissioned a cost estimate for such a procession and found it would be about half of what he planned to spend on decorating his wife with jewelry. He decided to be extravagant where he should have been cautious and stingy where he could have reasonably been generous. Over a hundred thousand pounds were spent on dressing the Queen, and the procession from the Tower was canceled. The foolishness of this decision is clear. If pageantry has any value in politics, it's as a way to captivate the public's imagination. It is utterly ridiculous to exclude the public from a display meant to impress them. James would have demonstrated better judgment in how he spent money if he had paraded through London from east to west with the usual grandeur and had instructed that his wife's robes be adorned with fewer pearls and diamonds. However, his example was long followed by his successors, who wasted sums of money that, if used wisely, could have brought immense joy to a large part of the nation, on a spectacle that only three or four thousand privileged individuals were allowed to see. Eventually, the old tradition was partially revived. On the day of Queen Victoria's coronation, there was a procession that had some noticeable shortcomings but was attended with interest and joy by half a million of her subjects, and it undoubtedly provided much greater pleasure and enthusiasm than the more expensive display seen by a select few inside the Abbey.

James had ordered Sancroft to abridge the ritual. The reason publicly assigned was that the day was too short for all that was to be done. But whoever examines the changes which were made will see that the real object was to remove some things highly offensive to the religious feelings of a zealous Roman Catholic. The Communion Service was not read. The ceremony of presenting the sovereign with a richly bound copy of the English Bible, and of exhorting him to prize above all earthly treasures a volume which he had been taught to regard as adulterated with false doctrine, was omitted. What remained, however, after all this curtailment, might well have raised scruples in the mind of a man who sincerely believed the Church of England to be a heretical society, within the pale of which salvation was not to be found. The King made an oblation on the altar. He appeared to join in the petitions of the Litany which was chaunted by the Bishops. He received from those false prophets the unction typical of a divine influence, and knelt with the semblance of devotion, while they called down upon him that Holy Spirit of which they were, in his estimation, the malignant and obdurate foes. Such are the inconsistencies of human nature that this man, who, from a fanatical zeal for his religion, threw away three kingdoms, yet chose to commit what was little short of an act of apostasy, rather than forego the childish pleasure of being invested with the gewgaws symbolical of kingly power. 254

James had instructed Sancroft to shorten the ceremony. The official reason given was that the day was too brief for everything that needed to happen. However, anyone who looks closely at the changes will realize that the real goal was to eliminate elements that were deeply offensive to the beliefs of a devout Roman Catholic. The Communion Service was not performed. The ritual of giving the king a beautifully bound copy of the English Bible and urging him to value it above all worldly possessions—a book he had been taught to see as tainted with false teachings—was left out. What was left, though, after all this trimming, could have easily raised doubts in the mind of someone who genuinely believed the Church of England was a heretical institution where salvation was unattainable. The King made an offering at the altar. He seemed to participate in the prayers of the Litany chanted by the Bishops. He received from those misleading figures the anointing signifying divine influence and knelt with a show of devotion while they invoked the Holy Spirit, of which he believed they were, to him, the wicked and unyielding enemies. Such are the contradictions of human nature that this man, who had sacrificed three kingdoms out of extreme zeal for his faith, chose to engage in what was nearly an act of apostasy rather than give up the trivial enjoyment of being adorned with the symbols of royal power. 254

Francis Turner, Bishop of Ely, preached. He was one of those writers who still affected the obsolete style of Archbishop Williams and Bishop Andrews. The sermon was made up of quaint conceits, such as seventy years earlier might have been admired, but such as moved the scorn of a generation accustomed to the purer eloquence of Sprat, of South, and of Tillotson. King Solomon was King James. Adonijah was Monmouth. Joab was a Rye House conspirator; Shimei, a Whig libeller; Abiathar, an honest but misguided old Cavalier. One phrase in the Book of Chronicles was construed to mean that the King was above the Parliament; and another was cited to prove that he alone ought to command the militia. Towards the close of the discourse the orator very timidly alluded to the new and embarrassing position in which the Church stood with reference to the sovereign, and reminded his hearers that the Emperor Constantius Chlorus, though not himself a Christian, had held in honour those Christians who remained true to their religion, and had treated with scorn those who sought to earn his favour by apostasy. The service in the Abbey was followed by a stately banquet in the Hall, the banquet by brilliant fireworks, and the fireworks by much bad poetry. 255

Francis Turner, Bishop of Ely, preached. He was one of those writers who still used the outdated style of Archbishop Williams and Bishop Andrews. The sermon consisted of quirky ideas that might have been admired seventy years earlier but were now met with disdain by a generation used to the clearer speech of Sprat, South, and Tillotson. King Solomon represented King James. Adonijah stood for Monmouth. Joab was likened to a Rye House conspirator; Shimei to a Whig libeler; and Abiathar to an honest but misguided old Cavalier. One phrase from the Book of Chronicles was interpreted to mean that the King was above Parliament, and another was used to argue that he alone should lead the militia. Toward the end of the sermon, the speaker nervously mentioned the new and awkward situation the Church found itself in regarding the sovereign and reminded the audience that Emperor Constantius Chlorus, although not a Christian himself, had respected those Christians who stayed true to their faith and had scorned those who tried to win his approval through apostasy. The service in the Abbey was followed by an elegant banquet in the Hall, the banquet was followed by spectacular fireworks, and the fireworks were followed by a lot of bad poetry. 255

This may be fixed upon as the moment at which the enthusiasm of the Tory party reached the zenith. Ever since the accession of the new King, addresses had been pouring in which expressed profound veneration for his person and office, and bitter detestation of the vanquished Whigs. The magistrates of Middlesex thanked God for having confounded the designs of those regicides and exclusionists who, not content with having murdered one blessed monarch, were bent on destroying the foundations of monarchy. The city of Gloucester execrated the bloodthirsty villains who had tried to deprive His Majesty of his just inheritance. The burgesses of Wigan assured their sovereign that they would defend him against all plotting Achitophels and rebellions Absaloms. The grand jury of Suffolk expressed a hope that the Parliament would proscribe all the exclusionists. Many corporations pledged themselves never to return to the House of Commons any person who had voted for taking away the birthright of James. Even the capital was profoundly obsequious. The lawyers and the traders vied with each other in servility. Inns of Court and Inns of Chancery sent up fervent professions of attachment and submission. All the great commercial societies, the East India Company, the African Company, the Turkey Company, the Muscovy Company, the Hudson's Bay Company, the Maryland Merchants, the Jamaica Merchants, the Merchant Adventurers, declared that they most cheerfully complied with the royal edict which required them still to pay custom. Bristol, the second city of the island, echoed the voice of London. But nowhere was the spirit of loyalty stronger than in the two Universities. Oxford declared that she would never swerve from those religious principles which bound her to obey the King without any restrictions or limitations. Cambridge condemned, in severe terms, the violence and treachery of those turbulent men who had maliciously endeavoured to turn the stream of succession out of the ancient channel. 256

This may be seen as the moment when the enthusiasm of the Tory party peaked. Ever since the new King took the throne, messages have been flooding in that express deep respect for him and his role, along with strong hatred for the defeated Whigs. The magistrates of Middlesex thanked God for thwarting the plans of those regicides and exclusionists who, not satisfied with having killed one beloved monarch, were intent on undermining the foundations of monarchy. The city of Gloucester condemned the bloodthirsty villains who tried to rob His Majesty of his rightful inheritance. The representatives of Wigan assured their king that they would defend him against all scheming traitors and rebellious factions. The grand jury of Suffolk expressed hope that Parliament would ban all exclusionists. Many corporations promised never to send anyone back to the House of Commons who had voted to take away James's birthright. Even the capital showed extreme loyalty. Lawyers and traders competed with each other in their display of submissiveness. The Inns of Court and Inns of Chancery sent passionate pledges of loyalty and compliance. All the major trade organizations, like the East India Company, the African Company, the Turkey Company, the Muscovy Company, the Hudson's Bay Company, the Maryland Merchants, the Jamaica Merchants, and the Merchant Adventurers declared that they fully complied with the royal decree requiring them to continue paying customs duties. Bristol, the second city of the island, echoed London’s sentiments. But nowhere was the spirit of loyalty stronger than in the two Universities. Oxford announced that she would never stray from the religious principles that bound her to obey the King without any restrictions. Cambridge harshly condemned the violence and betrayal of those tumultuous individuals who had maliciously tried to divert the line of succession from its rightful path. 256

Such addresses as these filled, during a considerable time, every number of the London Gazette. But it was not only by addressing that the Tories showed their zeal. The writs for the new Parliament had gone forth, and the country was agitated by the tumult of a general election. No election had ever taken place under circumstances so favourable to the Court. Hundreds of thousands whom the Popish plot had scared into Whiggism had been scared back by the Rye House plot into Toryism. In the counties the government could depend on an overwhelming majority of the gentlemen of three hundred a year and upwards, and on the clergy almost to a man. Those boroughs which had once been the citadels of Whiggism had recently been deprived of their charters by legal sentence, or had prevented the sentence by voluntary surrender. They had now been reconstituted in such a manner that they were certain to return members devoted to the crown. Where the townsmen could not be trusted, the freedom had been bestowed on the neighbouring squires. In some of the small western corporations, the constituent bodies were in great part composed of Captains and Lieutenants of the Guards. The returning officers were almost everywhere in the interest of the court. In every shire the Lord Lieutenant and his deputies formed a powerful, active, and vigilant committee, for the purpose of cajoling and intimidating the freeholders. The people were solemnly warned from thousands of pulpits not to vote for any Whig candidate, as they should answer it to Him who had ordained the powers that be, and who had pronounced rebellion a sin not less deadly than witchcraft. All these advantages the predominant party not only used to the utmost, but abused in so shameless a manner that grave and reflecting men, who had been true to the monarchy in peril, and who bore no love to republicans and schismatics, stood aghast, and augured from such beginnings the approach of evil times. 257

Such addresses filled every issue of the London Gazette for quite a while. But the Tories didn’t just show their enthusiasm through addressing. The writs for the new Parliament had been issued, and the country was buzzing with the chaos of a general election. No election had ever happened under conditions so favorable to the government. Hundreds of thousands, who had turned to Whiggism due to the Popish plot, were scared back to Toryism by the Rye House plot. In the counties, the government could count on a huge majority of gentlemen earning three hundred a year or more, along with almost all the clergy. The boroughs that had once been strongholds of Whiggism had recently lost their charters through legal action or had surrendered voluntarily to prevent such action. They were now restructured in a way that guaranteed they would elect representatives loyal to the crown. Where the townspeople couldn’t be trusted, the power had been given to nearby landlords. In some small western municipalities, the voting bodies mainly consisted of Captains and Lieutenants of the Guards. The returning officers almost everywhere supported the court's interests. In every county, the Lord Lieutenant and his deputies formed a powerful, active, and watchful committee to coax and intimidate the freeholders. The people were solemnly warned from thousands of pulpits not to vote for any Whig candidate, as they would have to answer to Him who has set the powers that be, and who declared rebellion a sin as grave as witchcraft. All these advantages were not only exploited to the fullest by the dominant party but were abused in such a blatant manner that serious and thoughtful people, who had remained loyal to the monarchy in tough times and had no affection for republicans and dissidents, were left shocked and predicted that such beginnings signaled the arrival of dark times. 257

Yet the Whigs, though suffering the just punishment of their errors, though defeated, disheartened, and disorganized, did not yield without an effort. They were still numerous among the traders and artisans of the towns, and among the yeomanry and peasantry of the open country. In some districts, in Dorsetshire for example, and in Somersetshire, they were the great majority of the population. In the remodelled boroughs they could do nothing: but, in every county where they had a chance, they struggled desperately. In Bedfordshire, which had lately been represented by the virtuous and unfortunate Russell, they were victorious on the show of hands, but were beaten at the poll. 258 In Essex they polled thirteen hundred votes to eighteen hundred. 259 At the election for Northamptonshire the common people were so violent in their hostility to the court candidate that a body of troops was drawn out in the marketplace of the county town, and was ordered to load with ball. 260 The history of the contest for Buckinghamshire is still more remarkable. The whig candidate, Thomas Wharton, eldest son of Philip Lord Wharton, was a man distinguished alike by dexterity and by audacity, and destined to play a conspicuous, though not always a respectable, part in the politics of several reigns. He had been one of those members of the House of Commons who had carried up the Exclusion Bill to the bar of the Lords. The court was therefore bent on throwing him out by fair or foul means. The Lord Chief Justice Jeffreys himself came down into Buckinghamshire, for the purpose of assisting a gentleman named Hacket, who stood on the high Tory interest. A stratagem was devised which, it was thought, could not fail of success. It was given out that the polling would take place at Ailesbury; and Wharton, whose skill in all the arts of electioneering was unrivalled, made his arrangements on that supposition. At a moment's warning the Sheriff adjourned the poll to Newport Pagnell. Wharton and his friends hurried thither, and found that Hacket, who was in the secret, had already secured every inn and lodging. The Whig freeholders were compelled to tie their horses to the hedges, and to sleep under the open sky in the meadows which surround the little town. It was with the greatest difficulty that refreshments could be procured at such short notice for so large a number of men and beasts, though Wharton, who was utterly regardless of money when his ambition and party spirit were roused, disbursed fifteen hundred pounds in one day, an immense outlay for those times. Injustice seems, however, to have animated the courage of the stouthearted yeomen of Bucks, the sons of the constituents of John Hampden. Not only was Wharton at the head of the poll; but he was able to spare his second votes to a man of moderate opinions, and to throw out the Chief Justice's candidate. 261

Yet the Whigs, despite facing the consequences of their mistakes, being defeated, discouraged, and disorganized, didn't give up without a fight. They still had a significant presence among traders and craftspeople in the towns, as well as among the farmers and laborers in the countryside. In some areas, like Dorsetshire and Somersetshire, they made up the majority of the population. In the newly organized boroughs, they could do nothing; however, in every county where they had the opportunity, they fought fiercely. In Bedfordshire, which had recently been represented by the honorable yet unfortunate Russell, they won on a show of hands but lost at the polls. 258 In Essex, they received thirteen hundred votes to eighteen hundred. 259 During the election for Northamptonshire, the common people were so aggressively opposed to the court candidate that troops were mobilized in the county town's marketplace and ordered to prepare their weapons. 260 The contest for Buckinghamshire is even more noteworthy. The Whig candidate, Thomas Wharton, the eldest son of Philip Lord Wharton, was known for his cleverness and boldness and was destined to play a prominent, though not always a reputable, role in the politics of several reigns. He had been among the members of the House of Commons who presented the Exclusion Bill to the House of Lords. Therefore, the court was determined to remove him by any means necessary. The Lord Chief Justice Jeffreys himself came to Buckinghamshire to help a gentleman named Hacket, who was aligned with the strong Tory interests. A scheme was devised that was believed to be foolproof. It was announced that the polling would take place at Ailesbury, and Wharton, whose electioneering skills were unmatched, made his plans based on that information. Without notice, the Sheriff moved the polling to Newport Pagnell. Wharton and his supporters hurried there, only to discover that Hacket, who was in on the plan, had already reserved every inn and lodging. The Whig freeholders had to tie their horses to the hedges and sleep under the stars in the meadows surrounding the small town. It was extremely difficult to provide food on such short notice for so many people and animals, although Wharton, who didn't care about money when fueled by ambition and party loyalty, spent fifteen hundred pounds in a single day, a huge amount for those times. However, injustice seemed to inspire the courage of the determined yeomen of Bucks, the descendants of John Hampden's constituents. Not only did Wharton lead at the polls, but he was also able to lend his second votes to a man with moderate views, successfully preventing the Chief Justice's candidate from winning. 261

In Cheshire the contest lasted six days. The Whigs polled about seventeen hundred votes, the Tories about two thousand. The common people were vehement on the Whig side, raised the cry of "Down with the Bishops," insulted the clergy in the streets of Chester, knocked down one gentleman of the Tory party, broke the windows and beat the constables. The militia was called out to quell the riot, and was kept assembled, in order to protect the festivities of the conquerors. When the poll closed, a salute of five great guns from the castle proclaimed the triumph of the Church and the Crown to the surrounding country. The bells rang. The newly elected members went in state to the City Cross, accompanied by a band of music, and by a long train of knights and squires. The procession, as it marched, sang "Joy to Great Caesar," a loyal ode, which had lately been written by Durfey, and which, though like all Durfey's writings, utterly contemptible, was, at that time, almost as popular as Lillibullero became a few years later. 262 Round the Cross the trainbands were drawn up in order: a bonfire was lighted: the Exclusion Bill was burned: and the health of King James was drunk with loud acclamations. The following day was Sunday. In the morning the militia lined the streets leading to the Cathedral. The two knights of the shire were escorted with great pomp to their choir by the magistracy of the city, heard the Dean preach a sermon, probably on the duty of passive obedience, and were afterwards feasted by the Mayor. 263

In Cheshire, the contest lasted six days. The Whigs got around seventeen hundred votes, while the Tories received about two thousand. The common people were passionate about the Whig cause, shouting "Down with the Bishops," insulting the clergy in the streets of Chester, attacking a Tory gentleman, breaking windows, and assaulting the constables. The militia was called in to control the riot and stayed on to protect the celebrations of the victors. When the polls closed, a salute of five big cannons from the castle announced the triumph of the Church and the Crown to the surrounding area. The bells rang. The newly elected members made a grand entrance to the City Cross, accompanied by a band and a long procession of knights and squires. As they marched, they sang "Joy to Great Caesar," a loyal song recently written by Durfey, which, despite being as terrible as all of Durfey's works, was surprisingly popular at that time, much like Lillibullero became a few years later. 262 Around the Cross, the trainbands were lined up in formation: a bonfire was lit: the Exclusion Bill was burned: and King James's health was toasted with loud cheers. The next day was Sunday. In the morning, the militia lined the streets leading to the Cathedral. The two knights of the shire were grandly escorted to their choir by the city officials, listened to the Dean give a sermon, likely about the duty of passive obedience, and were later treated to a feast by the Mayor. 263

In Northumberland the triumph of Sir John Fenwick, a courtier whose name afterwards obtained a melancholy celebrity, was attended by circumstances which excited interest in London, and which were thought not unworthy of being mentioned in the despatches of foreign ministers. Newcastle was lighted up with great piles of coal. The steeples sent forth a joyous peal. A copy of the Exclusion Bill, and a black box, resembling that which, according to the popular fable, contained the contract between Charles the Second and Lucy Walters, were publicly committed to the flames, with loud acclamations. 264

In Northumberland, the victory of Sir John Fenwick, a courtier who later became infamously well-known, was surrounded by events that generated excitement in London and were deemed significant enough to be included in the reports of foreign diplomats. Newcastle was illuminated with large piles of coal. The church steeples rang out with joyful bells. A copy of the Exclusion Bill and a black box, similar to the one that, according to popular legend, held the agreement between Charles the Second and Lucy Walters, were publicly thrown into the fire amid loud cheers. 264

The general result of the elections exceeded the most sanguine expectations of the court. James found with delight that it would be unnecessary for him to expend a farthing in buying votes. He Said that, with the exception of about forty members, the House of Commons was just such as he should himself have named. 265 And this House of Commons it was in his power, as the law then stood, to keep to the end of his reign.

The overall outcome of the elections surpassed even the most optimistic hopes of the court. James was pleased to discover that he wouldn’t need to spend a penny on buying votes. He said that, except for about forty members, the House of Commons was just as he would have chosen himself. 265 And with this House of Commons, he could, under the laws at the time, maintain it for the rest of his reign.

Secure of parliamentary support, he might now indulge in the luxury of revenge. His nature was not placable; and, while still a subject, he had suffered some injuries and indignities which might move even a placable nature to fierce and lasting resentment. One set of men in particular had, with a baseness and cruelty beyond all example and all description, attacked his honour and his life, the witnesses of the plot. He may well be excused for hating them; since, even at this day, the mention of their names excites the disgust and horror of all sects and parties.

Confident in his support from parliament, he could now indulge in the luxury of revenge. His nature was not one to forgive; and, even while still a subject, he had experienced injuries and humiliations that would provoke even the most forgiving person to intense and lasting anger. A particular group of people had, with a level of baseness and cruelty beyond anything imaginable, attacked his honor and his life, the witnesses of the scheme. It’s understandable for him to hate them; even today, just mentioning their names triggers disgust and horror in everyone, regardless of their background or beliefs.

Some of these wretches were already beyond the reach of human justice. Bedloe had died in his wickedness, without one sign of remorse or shame. 266 Dugdale had followed, driven mad, men said, by the Furies of an evil conscience, and with loud shrieks imploring those who stood round his bed to take away Lord Stafford. 267 Carstairs, too, was gone. His end had been all horror and despair; and, with his last breath, he had told his attendants to throw him into a ditch like a dog, for that he was not fit to sleep in a Christian burial ground. 268 But Oates and Dangerfield were still within the reach of the stern prince whom they had wronged. James, a short time before his accession, had instituted a civil suit against Oates for defamatory words; and a jury had given damages to the enormous amount of a hundred thousand pounds. 269 The defendant had been taken in execution, and was lying in prison as a debtor, without hope of release. Two bills of indictment against him for perjury had been found by the grand jury of Middlesex, a few weeks before the death of Charles. Soon after the close of the elections the trial came on.

Some of these miserable people were already beyond the reach of human justice. Bedloe had died in his wickedness, showing no signs of remorse or shame. 266 Dugdale had followed, driven mad, people said, by the Furies of a guilty conscience, and with loud screams begging those around his bed to take away Lord Stafford. 267 Carstairs was gone as well. His end was filled with horror and despair; with his last breath, he told his attendants to throw him into a ditch like a dog, as he was not worthy of resting in a Christian burial ground. 268 But Oates and Dangerfield were still within the reach of the stern prince they had wronged. James, shortly before he became king, had filed a civil suit against Oates for slander; and a jury awarded damages totaling an incredible hundred thousand pounds. 269 The defendant had been taken into custody and was lying in prison as a debtor, without hope of release. Two charges of perjury had been brought against him by the grand jury of Middlesex, just a few weeks before Charles's death. Soon after the elections, the trial began.

Among the upper and middle classes Oates had few friends left. The most respectable Whigs were now convinced that, even if his narrative had some foundation in fact, he had erected on that foundation a vast superstructure of romance. A considerable number of low fanatics, however, still regarded him as a public benefactor. These people well knew that, if he were convicted, his sentence would be one of extreme severity, and were therefore indefatigable in their endeavours to manage an escape. Though he was as yet in confinement only for debt, he was put into irons by the authorities of the King's Bench prison; and even so he was with difficulty kept in safe custody. The mastiff that guarded his door was poisoned; and, on the very night preceding the trial, a ladder of ropes was introduced into the cell.

Among the upper and middle classes, Oates had few friends left. The most respected Whigs were now convinced that, even if his story had some basis in fact, he had built a huge fantasy on that foundation. However, a good number of low-level fanatics still saw him as a hero. These people knew well that if he were found guilty, he would face a very harsh punishment, and so they worked tirelessly to arrange an escape. Although he was only in jail for debt at that point, the authorities of the King's Bench prison put him in chains; even then, keeping him safely locked up was a challenge. The mastiff that guarded his door was poisoned, and on the very night before the trial, a rope ladder was brought into the cell.

On the day in which Titus was brought to the bar, Westminster Hall was crowded with spectators, among whom were many Roman Catholics, eager to see the misery and humiliation of their persecutor. 270 A few years earlier his short neck, his legs uneven, the vulgar said, as those of a badger, his forehead low as that of a baboon, his purple cheeks, and his monstrous length of chin, had been familiar to all who frequented the courts of law. He had then been the idol of the nation. Wherever he had appeared, men had uncovered their heads to him. The lives and estates of the magnates of the realm had been at his mercy. Times had now changed; and many, who had formerly regarded him as the deliverer of his country, shuddered at the sight of those hideous features on which villany seemed to be written by the hand of God. 271

On the day Titus was brought to the bar, Westminster Hall was packed with onlookers, including many Roman Catholics, eager to witness the downfall and humiliation of their oppressor. 270 A few years earlier, his short neck, his uneven legs—which the public mockingly compared to those of a badger—his low forehead like that of a baboon, his purple cheeks, and his monstrous chin, were well-known to everyone who visited the courts. He had once been the nation's idol. Wherever he went, people would take off their hats for him. The lives and fortunes of the realm's elite were in his hands. But times had changed; many who once viewed him as the savior of the nation now recoiled at the sight of those grotesque features that seemed to bear the mark of evil. 271

It was proved, beyond all possibility of doubt, that this man had by false testimony deliberately murdered several guiltless persons. He called in vain on the most eminent members of the Parliaments which had rewarded and extolled him to give evidence in his favour. Some of those whom he had summoned absented themselves. None of them said anything tending to his vindication. One of them, the Earl of Huntingdon, bitterly reproached him with having deceived the Houses and drawn on them the guilt of shedding innocent blood. The Judges browbeat and reviled the prisoner with an intemperance which, even in the most atrocious cases, ill becomes the judicial character. He betrayed, however, no sign of fear or of shame, and faced the storm of invective which burst upon him from bar, bench, and witness box, with the insolence of despair. He was convicted on both indictments. His offence, though, in a moral light, murder of the most aggravated kind, was, in the eye of the law, merely a misdemeanour. The tribunal, however, was desirous to make his punishment more severe than that of felons or traitors, and not merely to put him to death, but to put him to death by frightful torments. He was sentenced to be stripped of his clerical habit, to be pilloried in Palace Yard, to be led round Westminster Hall with an inscription declaring his infamy over his head, to be pilloried again in front of the Royal Exchange, to be whipped from Aldgate to Newgate, and, after an interval of two days, to be whipped from Newgate to Tyburn. If, against all probability, he should happen to survive this horrible infliction, he was to be kept close prisoner during life. Five times every year he was to be brought forth from his dungeon and exposed on the pillory in different parts of the capital. 272 This rigorous sentence was rigorously executed. On the day on which Oates was pilloried in Palace Yard he was mercilessly pelted and ran some risk of being pulled in pieces. 273 But in the City his partisans mustered in great force, raised a riot, and upset the pillory. 274 They were, however, unable to rescue their favourite. It was supposed that he would try to escape the horrible doom which awaited him by swallowing poison. All that he ate and drank was therefore carefully inspected. On the following morning he was brought forth to undergo his first flogging. At an early hour an innumerable multitude filled all the streets from Aldgate to the Old Bailey. The hangman laid on the lash with such unusual severity as showed that he had received special instructions. The blood ran down in rivulets. For a time the criminal showed a strange constancy: but at last his stubborn fortitude gave way. His bellowings were frightful to hear. He swooned several times; but the scourge still continued to descend. When he was unbound, it seemed that he had borne as much as the human frame can bear without dissolution. James was entreated to remit the second flogging. His answer was short and clear: "He shall go through with it, if he has breath in his body." An attempt was made to obtain the Queen's intercession; but she indignantly refused to say a word in favour of such a wretch. After an interval of only forty-eight hours, Oates was again brought out of his dungeon. He was unable to stand, and it was necessary to drag him to Tyburn on a sledge. He seemed quite insensible; and the Tories reported that he had stupified himself with strong drink. A person who counted the stripes on the second day said that they were seventeen hundred. The bad man escaped with life, but so narrowly that his ignorant and bigoted admirers thought his recovery miraculous, and appealed to it as a proof of his innocence. The doors of the prison closed upon him. During many months he remained ironed in the darkest hole of Newgate. It was said that in his cell he gave himself up to melancholy, and sate whole days uttering deep groans, his arms folded, and his hat pulled over his eyes. It was not in England alone that these events excited strong interest. Millions of Roman Catholics, who knew nothing of our institutions or of our factions, had heard that a persecution of singular barbarity had raged in our island against the professors of the true faith, that many pious men had suffered martyrdom, and that Titus Oates had been the chief murderer. There was, therefore, great joy in distant countries when it was known that the divine justice had overtaken him. Engravings of him, looking out from the pillory, and writhing at the cart's tail, were circulated all over Europe; and epigrammatists, in many languages, made merry with the doctoral title which he pretended to have received from the University of Salamanca, and remarked that, since his forehead could not be made to blush, it was but reasonable that his back should do so. 275

It was proven, beyond any doubt, that this man had deliberately murdered several innocent people through false testimony. He called in vain for the most prominent members of the Parliaments that had praised and rewarded him to testify in his favor. Some of those he summoned stayed away. None spoke on his behalf. One of them, the Earl of Huntingdon, harshly accused him of deceiving the Houses and causing them to bear the guilt of shedding innocent blood. The judges shouted and insulted the prisoner with such temper that was uncharacteristic of the judicial role, even in the worst cases. However, he showed no sign of fear or shame and faced the storm of insults coming from the bar, bench, and witness stand with the defiance of someone who has lost all hope. He was convicted on both counts. While his crime was morally murder in the most severe form, legally it was seen as merely a misdemeanor. However, the court wanted to ensure his punishment was harsher than that of felons or traitors, seeking to execute him not just by death but through horrific tortures. He was sentenced to be stripped of his clerical clothing, to be put on display in Palace Yard, to be led around Westminster Hall with a sign declaring his shame over his head, to be displayed again in front of the Royal Exchange, to be whipped from Aldgate to Newgate, and, after a two-day pause, to be whipped from Newgate to Tyburn. If, against all odds, he survived this terrible punishment, he would be kept in solitary confinement for life. He would be brought out of his cell five times a year and displayed on the pillory in various locations in the city. 272 This harsh sentence was carried out without mercy. On the day Oates was displayed in Palace Yard, he was relentlessly pelted and feared he might be torn apart. 273 However, in the City, his supporters gathered in large numbers, incited a riot, and toppled the pillory. 274 Nevertheless, they were unable to save their favorite. It was believed he might try to escape his terrible fate by swallowing poison, so everything he ate and drank was carefully examined. The next morning, he was brought out for his first flogging. Early that day, an enormous crowd filled the streets from Aldgate to the Old Bailey. The executioner whipped him with such extraordinary severity that it was clear he had been given special orders. Blood flowed down in streams. For a time, the criminal remained strangely stoic, but eventually his stubbornness broke. His screams were horrifying to hear. He fainted several times, but the whipping continued. When they finally unbound him, it seemed he had endured as much as a human body could without falling apart. James was urged to stop the second flogging. His response was clear and direct: "He shall go through with it, if he has breath in his body." There was an attempt to get the Queen to intervene, but she angrily refused to speak a word in favor of such a scoundrel. Just forty-eight hours later, Oates was dragged out of his cell again. He was unable to stand, needing to be pulled to Tyburn on a sled. He seemed completely unaware of what was happening, and the Tories claimed he had numbed himself with alcohol. Someone who counted the lashes on the second day reported they were seventeen hundred. The wicked man survived, but barely, so much so that his ignorant and fanatical supporters thought his survival was miraculous and used it as proof of his innocence. The prison doors shut behind him. For many months, he remained shackled in the darkest corner of Newgate. It was said that in his cell, he sank into despair, spending whole days groaning deeply, arms crossed, and hat pulled over his eyes. These events drew attention not just in England but also worldwide. Millions of Roman Catholics, unaware of our institutions or factions, heard about the uniquely brutal persecution against the followers of the true faith in our island, the martyrdom of many pious men, and that Titus Oates was the chief perpetrator. Consequently, there was great joy in far-off lands when it became known that divine justice had caught up with him. Images of him, looking out from the pillory and suffering at the back of a cart, were spread all over Europe; and humorists in many languages made jokes about the doctoral title he falsely claimed to have received from the University of Salamanca, commenting that since his forehead could not blush, it was only fair for his back to do so. 275

Horrible as were the sufferings of Oates, they did not equal his crimes. The old law of England, which had been suffered to become obsolete, treated the false witness, who had caused death by means of perjury, as a murderer. 276 This was wise and righteous; for such a witness is, in truth, the worst of murderers. To the guilt of shedding innocent blood he has added the guilt of violating the most solemn engagement into which man can enter with his fellow men, and of making institutions, to which it is desirable that the public should look with respect and confidence, instruments of frightful wrong and objects of general distrust. The pain produced by ordinary murder bears no proportion to the pain produced by murder of which the courts of justice are made the agents. The mere extinction of life is a very small part of what makes an execution horrible. The prolonged mental agony of the sufferer, the shame and misery of all connected with him, the stain abiding even to the third and fourth generation, are things far more dreadful than death itself. In general it may be safely affirmed that the father of a large family would rather be bereaved of all his children by accident or by disease than lose one of them by the hands of the hangman. Murder by false testimony is therefore the most aggravated species of murder; and Oates had been guilty of many such murders. Nevertheless the punishment which was inflicted upon him cannot be justified. In sentencing him to be stripped of his ecclesiastical habit and imprisoned for life, the judges exceeded their legal power. They were undoubtedly competent to inflict whipping; nor had the law assigned a limit to the number of stripes. But the spirit of the law clearly was that no misdemeanour should be punished more severely than the most atrocious felonies. The worst felon could only be hanged. The judges, as they believed, sentenced Oates to be scourged to death. That the law was defective is not a sufficient excuse: for defective laws should be altered by the legislature, and not strained by the tribunals; and least of all should the law be strained for the purpose of inflicting torture and destroying life. That Oates was a bad man is not a sufficient excuse; for the guilty are almost always the first to suffer those hardships which are afterwards used as precedents against the innocent. Thus it was in the present case. Merciless flogging soon became an ordinary punishment for political misdemeanours of no very aggravated kind. Men were sentenced, for words spoken against the government, to pains so excruciating that they, with unfeigned earnestness, begged to be brought to trial on capital charges, and sent to the gallows. Happily the progress of this great evil was speedily stopped by the Revolution, and by that article of the Bill of Rights which condemns all cruel and unusual punishments.

As terrible as Oates' sufferings were, they didn't compare to his crimes. The old law of England, which had fallen into disuse, treated a false witness who caused death through perjury as a murderer. 276 This was wise and just; because such a witness is actually the worst kind of murderer. By shedding innocent blood, he has added to the guilt of breaking the most serious promise a person can make with others and turned institutions that should be respected and trusted into tools of horrific wrong and sources of widespread mistrust. The pain caused by typical murder is nothing compared to the pain inflicted by murder facilitated by the justice system. Simply taking a life is only a small part of what makes an execution horrifying. The prolonged mental suffering of the victim, the shame and despair experienced by all connected to him, and the stain that lingers even for generations are far more dreadful than death itself. Generally speaking, it's safe to say that a father of many children would prefer to lose all his kids to an accident or disease rather than have one of them killed by the hangman. Murder by false testimony is, therefore, the most heinous form of murder; and Oates was guilty of many such murders. Yet, the punishment he received cannot be justified. In sentencing him to be stripped of his clerical garments and to life in prison, the judges overstepped their legal authority. They were certainly allowed to impose whipping; nor did the law set a limit on the number of lashes. But the spirit of the law clearly meant that no misdemeanor should be punished more harshly than the most serious felonies. The worst felon could only be hanged. The judges, believing they were doing justice, sentenced Oates to be whipped to death. That the law was flawed is not a valid excuse: flawed laws should be changed by the legislature, not twisted by the courts; and especially not twisted for the purpose of inflicting torture and taking lives. Just because Oates was a bad person is not a valid excuse; guilty people are often the first to endure hardships that are then used as precedents against the innocent. This was precisely the case here. Ruthless flogging quickly became a routine punishment for political offenses that weren’t very serious. People were sentenced to such excruciating punishments for speaking against the government that they sincerely begged to be tried for capital crimes instead, hoping to be sent to the gallows. Thankfully, the spread of this terrible evil was quickly halted by the Revolution and the Bill of Rights, which condemns all cruel and unusual punishments.

The villany of Dangerfield had not, like that of Oates, destroyed many innocent victims; for Dangerfield had not taken up the trade of a witness till the plot had been blown upon and till juries had become incredulous. 277 He was brought to trial, not for perjury, but for the less heinous offense of libel. He had, during the agitation caused by the Exclusion Bill, put forth a narrative containing some false and odious imputations on the late and on the present King. For this publication he was now, after the lapse of five years, suddenly taken up, brought before the Privy Council, committed, tried, convicted, and sentenced to be whipped from Aldgate to Newgate and from Newgate to Tyburn. The wretched man behaved with great effrontery during the trial; but, when he heard his doom, he went into agonies of despair, gave himself up for dead, and chose a text for his funeral sermon. His forebodings were just. He was not, indeed, scourged quite so severely as Oates had been; but he had not Oates's iron strength of body and mind. After the execution Dangerfield was put into a hackney coach and was taken back to prison. As he passed the corner of Hatton Garden, a Tory gentleman of Gray's Inn, named Francis, stopped the carriage, and cried out with brutal levity, "Well, friend, have you had your heat this morning?" The bleeding prisoner, maddened by this insult, answered with a curse. Francis instantly struck him in the face with a cane which injured the eye. Dangerfield was carried dying into Newgate. This dastardly outrage roused the indignation of the bystanders. They seized Francis, and were with difficulty restrained from tearing him to pieces. The appearance of Dangerfield's body, which had been frightfully lacerated by the whip, inclined many to believe that his death was chiefly, if not wholly, caused by the stripes which he had received. The government and the Chief Justice thought it convenient to lay the whole blame on Francis, who; though he seems to have been at worst guilty only of aggravated manslaughter, was tried and executed for murder. His dying speech is one of the most curious monuments of that age. The savage spirit which had brought him to the gallows remained with him to the last. Boasts of his loyalty and abuse of the Whigs were mingled with the parting ejaculations in which he commended his soul to the divine mercy. An idle rumour had been circulated that his wife was in love with Dangerfield, who was eminently handsome and renowned for gallantry. The fatal blow, it was said, had been prompted by jealousy. The dying husband, with an earnestness, half ridiculous, half pathetic, vindicated the lady's character. She was, he said, a virtuous woman: she came of a loyal stock, and, if she had been inclined to break her marriage vow, would at least have selected a Tory and a churchman for her paramour. 278

The villainy of Dangerfield hadn't claimed as many innocent victims as Oates had, because Dangerfield didn't start acting as a witness until the plot was exposed and juries became skeptical. 277 He was put on trial not for perjury, but for the less serious crime of libel. During the unrest caused by the Exclusion Bill, he had published a story that contained some false and malicious accusations against both the late King and the current King. After a five-year delay, he was suddenly arrested, brought before the Privy Council, detained, tried, convicted, and sentenced to be whipped from Aldgate to Newgate and from Newgate to Tyburn. The miserable man acted very boldly during the trial, but when he heard his sentence, he fell into deep despair, gave himself up for dead, and even picked a text for his funeral sermon. His fears were justified. He wasn't whipped as harshly as Oates had been; however, he didn't have Oates's strong constitution and mindset. After his execution, Dangerfield was placed in a hackney coach and taken back to prison. As he passed the corner of Hatton Garden, a Tory gentleman from Gray's Inn named Francis stopped the carriage and casually shouted, "Well, buddy, did you get your beating this morning?" The injured prisoner, enraged by the insult, responded with a curse. Francis immediately struck him in the face with a cane, injuring his eye. Dangerfield was carried into Newgate, near death. This cowardly attack incited the anger of those nearby. They grabbed Francis and barely restrained themselves from tearing him apart. The sight of Dangerfield's body, which had been terribly beaten by the whip, led many to think that his death was mainly, if not entirely, caused by the lashes he received. The government and the Chief Justice thought it best to place all the blame on Francis, who, while he seemed to be at worst guilty of aggravated manslaughter, was tried and executed for murder. His dying speech is one of the most interesting legacies of that time. The savage spirit that had led him to the gallows remained with him until the end. His speeches were filled with boasts of loyalty and insults toward the Whigs, mixed with fervent declarations as he committed his soul to divine mercy. An unfounded rumor circulated that his wife was in love with Dangerfield, who was notably handsome and famous for his charm. It was said that jealousy had motivated the deadly blow. The dying husband, with a mix of ridiculousness and pathos, defended his wife's honor. He claimed she was a virtuous woman, from a loyal family, and if she had ever intended to betray her marriage vows, she would have at least chosen a Tory and a churchman as her lover. 278

About the same time a culprit, who bore very little resemblance to Oates or Dangerfield, appeared on the floor of the Court of King's Bench. No eminent chief of a party has ever passed through many years of civil and religious dissension with more innocence than Richard Baxter. He belonged to the mildest and most temperate section of the Puritan body. He was a young man when the civil war broke out. He thought that the right was on the side of the Houses; and he had no scruple about acting as chaplain to a regiment in the parliamentary army: but his clear and somewhat sceptical understanding, and his strong sense of justice, preserved him from all excesses. He exerted himself to check the fanatical violence of the soldiery. He condemned the proceedings of the High Court of Justice. In the days of the Commonwealth he had the boldness to express, on many occasions, and once even in Cromwell's presence, love and reverence for the ancient institutions of the country. While the royal family was in exile, Baxter's life was chiefly passed at Kidderminster in the assiduous discharge of parochial duties. He heartily concurred in the Restoration, and was sincerely desirous to bring about an union between Episcopalians and Presbyterians. For, with a liberty rare in his time, he considered questions of ecclesiastical polity as of small account when compared with the great principles of Christianity, and had never, even when prelacy was most odious to the ruling powers, joined in the outcry against Bishops. The attempt to reconcile the contending factions failed. Baxter cast in his lot with his proscribed friends, refused the mitre of Hereford, quitted the parsonage of Kidderminster, and gave himself up almost wholly to study. His theological writings, though too moderate to be pleasing to the bigots of any party, had an immense reputation. Zealous Churchmen called him a Roundhead; and many Nonconformists accused him of Erastianism and Arminianism. But the integrity of his heart, the purity of his life, the vigour of his faculties, and the extent of his attainments were acknowledged by the best and wisest men of every persuasion. His political opinions, in spite of the oppression which he and his brethren had suffered, were moderate. He was friendly to that small party which was hated by both Whigs and Tories. He could not, he said, join in cursing the Trimmers, when he remembered who it was that had blessed the peacemakers. 279

Around the same time, a suspect who looked very little like Oates or Dangerfield appeared in the Court of King's Bench. No prominent party leader has ever navigated years of civil and religious conflict with more innocence than Richard Baxter. He belonged to the gentlest and most moderate faction of the Puritans. He was a young man when the civil war started. He believed that the Houses were in the right and had no problem acting as a chaplain for a regiment in the parliamentary army; however, his clear, somewhat skeptical mind and strong sense of justice kept him from any extremes. He worked hard to curb the fanaticism of the soldiers. He condemned the actions of the High Court of Justice. During the Commonwealth, he boldly expressed, many times and even once in Cromwell's presence, his love and respect for the country's ancient institutions. While the royal family was in exile, Baxter spent most of his time in Kidderminster diligently carrying out his parish duties. He strongly supported the Restoration and genuinely wanted to foster unity between Episcopalians and Presbyterians. With a level of open-mindedness rare for his time, he viewed questions of church governance as less significant than the core principles of Christianity and never joined the outcry against Bishops, even when episcopacy was deeply unpopular with those in power. The attempt to reconcile the opposing factions failed. Baxter aligned himself with his persecuted friends, turned down the position of bishop in Hereford, left his parish in Kidderminster, and devoted himself almost entirely to study. His theological writings, while too moderate to please the extremists of any side, gained immense respect. Zealous church members labeled him a Roundhead, and many Nonconformists accused him of Erastianism and Arminianism. Yet, the integrity of his heart, the purity of his life, the strength of his intellect, and the breadth of his knowledge were recognized by the wisest and most respected individuals from every background. Despite the oppression he and his fellow believers faced, his political views were moderate. He was supportive of a small party that was disliked by both Whigs and Tories. He stated that he couldn't join in cursing the Trimmers when he remembered who it was that blessed the peacemakers. 279

In a Commentary on the New Testament he had complained, with some bitterness, of the persecution which the Dissenters suffered. That men who, for not using the Prayer Book, had been driven from their homes, stripped of their property, and locked up in dungeons, should dare to utter a murmur, was then thought a high crime against the State and the Church. Roger Lestrange, the champion of the government and the oracle of the clergy, sounded the note of war in the Observator. An information was filed. Baxter begged that he might be allowed some time to prepare for his defence. It was on the day on which Oates was pilloried in Palace Yard that the illustrious chief of the Puritans, oppressed by age and infirmities, came to Westminster Hall to make this request. Jeffreys burst into a storm of rage. "Not a minute," he cried, "to save his life. I can deal with saints as well as with sinners. There stands Oates on one side of the pillory; and, if Baxter stood on the other, the two greatest rogues in the kingdom would stand together."

In a commentary on the New Testament, he expressed with some bitterness the persecution that the Dissenters faced. It was considered a serious offense against the state and the church that people could complain after being driven from their homes, stripped of their possessions, and locked up in dungeons just for not using the Prayer Book. Roger Lestrange, a defender of the government and a spokesperson for the clergy, declared a call to arms in the Observator. A legal notice was filed. Baxter requested some time to prepare his defense. On the same day that Oates was pilloried in Palace Yard, the prominent leader of the Puritans, burdened by age and health issues, came to Westminster Hall to make this request. Jeffreys exploded in anger. "Not a minute," he shouted, "to save his life. I can handle saints just as well as sinners. There stands Oates on one side of the pillory; and if Baxter stood on the other, the two biggest rogues in the kingdom would be side by side."

When the trial came on at Guildhall, a crowd of those who loved and honoured Baxter filled the court. At his side stood Doctor William Bates, one of the most eminent of the Nonconformist divines. Two Whig barristers of great note, Pollexfen and Wallop, appeared for the defendant. Pollexfen had scarcely begun his address to the jury, when the Chief Justice broke forth: "Pollexfen, I know you well. I will set a mark on you. You are the patron of the faction. This is an old rogue, a schismatical knave, a hypocritical villain. He hates the Liturgy. He would have nothing but longwinded cant without book;" and then his Lordship turned up his eyes, clasped his hands, and began to sing through his nose, in imitation of what he supposed to be Baxter's style of praying "Lord, we are thy people, thy peculiar people, thy dear people." Pollexfen gently reminded the court that his late Majesty had thought Baxter deserving of a bishopric. "And what ailed the old blockhead then," cried Jeffreys, "that he did not take it?" His fury now rose almost to madness. He called Baxter a dog, and swore that it would be no more than justice to whip such a villain through the whole City.

When the trial started at Guildhall, a crowd of people who admired and respected Baxter filled the court. Beside him stood Doctor William Bates, one of the most prominent Nonconformist ministers. Two well-known Whig lawyers, Pollexfen and Wallop, represented the defendant. Pollexfen had barely started his speech to the jury when the Chief Justice interjected: "Pollexfen, I know you well. I'll make my mark on you. You are a supporter of that faction. This old rogue, this schismatic scoundrel, this hypocritical villain hates the Liturgy. He only wants endless, useless talk without any structure;" and then he turned his eyes up, clasped his hands, and began to hum in a mocking imitation of what he thought was Baxter's way of praying, "Lord, we are your people, your special people, your beloved people." Pollexfen gently reminded the court that the late King thought Baxter worthy of a bishopric. "And what was wrong with the old fool then," shouted Jeffreys, "that he didn’t accept it?" His anger now reached a near-madness. He called Baxter a dog and declared that it would be nothing less than justice to whip such a villain through the entire City.

Wallop interposed, but fared no better than his leader. "You are in all these dirty causes, Mr. Wallop," said the Judge. "Gentlemen of the long robe ought to be ashamed to assist such factious knaves." The advocate made another attempt to obtain a hearing, but to no purpose. "If you do not know your duty," said Jeffreys, "I will teach it you."

Wallop tried to intervene, but it didn't go any better for him than it did for his leader. "You're involved in all these shady dealings, Mr. Wallop," the Judge said. "People like you should be ashamed to assist such troublemakers." The lawyer made another attempt to get a chance to speak, but it was useless. "If you don't know your responsibilities," Jeffreys said, "I'll show you what they are."

Wallop sate down; and Baxter himself attempted to put in a word. But the Chief Justice drowned all expostulation in a torrent of ribaldry and invective, mingled with scraps of Hudibras. "My Lord," said the old man, "I have been much blamed by Dissenters for speaking respectfully of Bishops." "Baxter for Bishops!" cried the Judge, "that's a merry conceit indeed. I know what you mean by Bishops, rascals like yourself, Kidderminster Bishops, factious snivelling Presbyterians!" Again Baxter essayed to speak, and again Jeffreys bellowed "Richard, Richard, dost thou think we will let thee poison the court? Richard, thou art an old knave. Thou hast written books enough to load a cart, and every book as full of sedition as an egg is full of meat. By the grace of God, I'll look after thee. I see a great many of your brotherhood waiting to know what will befall their mighty Don. And there," he continued, fixing his savage eye on Bates, "there is a Doctor of the party at your elbow. But, by the grace of God Almighty, I will crush you all."

Wallop sat down, and Baxter tried to chime in. But the Chief Justice drowned out any objections with a flood of crude jokes and insults, mixed with snippets of Hudibras. "My Lord," said the old man, "I've been criticized by Dissenters for speaking respectfully about Bishops." "Baxter for Bishops!" shouted the Judge, "that's a funny idea indeed. I know what you mean by Bishops, scoundrels like you, Kidderminster Bishops, factious, whiny Presbyterians!" Baxter tried to speak again, but Jeffreys bellowed, "Richard, Richard, do you think we’re going to let you poison the court? Richard, you are an old trickster. You’ve written enough books to fill a cart, and every book is packed with sedition as an egg is packed with yolk. By the grace of God, I'll keep an eye on you. I see a lot of your fellow believers waiting to see what will happen to their great intellect. And there,” he added, staring menacingly at Bates, “there’s a Doctor from your lot right beside you. But, by the grace of Almighty God, I will crush you all."

Baxter held his peace. But one of the junior counsel for the defence made a last effort, and undertook to show that the words of which complaint was made would not bear the construction put on them by the information. With this view he began to read the context. In a moment he was roared down. "You sha'n't turn the court into a conventicle." The noise of weeping was heard from some of those who surrounded Baxter. "Snivelling calves!" said the Judge.

Baxter stayed silent. But one of the younger lawyers for the defense made a final attempt, claiming that the words in question didn’t mean what the complaint suggested. To prove his point, he started to read the surrounding context. Instantly, he was drowned out. "You’re not turning the court into a church meeting." The sound of crying came from some of Baxter's supporters. "Crying babies!" the Judge said.

Witnesses to character were in attendance, and among them were several clergymen of the Established Church. But the Chief Justice would hear nothing. "Does your Lordship think," said Baxter, "that any jury will convict a man on such a trial as this?" "I warrant you, Mr. Baxter," said Jeffreys: "don't trouble yourself about that." Jeffreys was right. The Sheriffs were the tools of the government. The jurymen, selected by the Sheriffs from among the fiercest zealots of the Tory party, conferred for a moment, and returned a verdict of Guilty. "My Lord," said Baxter, as he left the court, "there was once a Chief Justice who would have treated me very differently." He alluded to his learned and virtuous friend Sir Matthew Hale. "There is not an honest man in England," answered Jeffreys, "but looks on thee as a knave." 280

Witnesses to character were present, including several clergymen from the Established Church. But the Chief Justice ignored them. "Your Lordship really thinks," said Baxter, "that any jury will convict a man under such circumstances?" "I assure you, Mr. Baxter," replied Jeffreys, "don't worry about that." Jeffreys was correct. The Sheriffs were working for the government. The jurors, chosen by the Sheriffs from among the most extreme supporters of the Tory party, conferred briefly and returned a verdict of Guilty. "My Lord," Baxter remarked as he left the court, "there was once a Chief Justice who would have treated me very differently." He referred to his learned and honorable friend Sir Matthew Hale. "There isn’t an honest man in England," Jeffreys responded, "who doesn’t see you as a scoundrel." 280

The sentence was, for those times, a lenient one. What passed in conference among the judges cannot be certainly known. It was believed among the Nonconformists, and is highly probable, that the Chief Justice was overruled by his three brethren. He proposed, it is said, that Baxter should be whipped through London at the cart's tail. The majority thought that an eminent divine, who, a quarter of a century before, had been offered a mitre, and who was now in his seventieth year, would be sufficiently punished for a few sharp words by fine and imprisonment. 281

The sentence was pretty lenient for those times. What really happened during the judges' discussions isn't known for sure. It's believed among the Nonconformists, and it seems likely, that the Chief Justice was outvoted by the other three judges. He supposedly suggested that Baxter should be publicly whipped through London behind a cart. But the majority felt that an esteemed religious leader, who had been offered a bishopric twenty-five years earlier and was now in his seventies, would be punished enough with just a fine and imprisonment. 281

The manner in which Baxter was treated by a judge, who was a member of the cabinet and a favourite of the Sovereign, indicated, in a manner not to be mistaken, the feeling with which the government at this time regarded the Protestant Nonconformists. But already that feeling had been indicated by still stronger and more terrible signs. The Parliament of Scotland had met. James had purposely hastened the session of this body, and had postponed the session of the English Houses, in the hope that the example set at Edinburgh would produce a good effect at Westminster. For the legislature of his northern kingdom was as obsequious as those provincial Estates which Lewis the Fourteenth still suffered to play at some of their ancient functions in Britanny and Burgundy. None but an Episcopalian could sit in the Scottish Parliament, or could even vote for a member, and in Scotland an Episcopalian was always a Tory or a timeserver. From an assembly thus constituted, little opposition to the royal wishes was to be apprehended; and even the assembly thus constituted could pass no law which had not been previously approved by a committee of courtiers.

The way Baxter was treated by a judge, who was part of the cabinet and favored by the Sovereign, clearly reflected how the government felt about Protestant Nonconformists at that time. But this sentiment had already been shown through even stronger and more alarming signs. The Parliament of Scotland had convened. James had intentionally sped up the session of this body and delayed the session of the English Houses, hoping that the example set in Edinburgh would lead to favorable outcomes in Westminster. The legislature of his northern kingdom was as submissive as those provincial estates that Louis the Fourteenth still allowed to pretend to exercise some of their ancient functions in Brittany and Burgundy. Only an Episcopalian could sit in the Scottish Parliament or even vote for a member, and in Scotland, an Episcopalian was always a Tory or a opportunist. From an assembly made up like this, little resistance to the king's wishes was expected; and even such an assembly could not pass any law that hadn't been previously approved by a committee of courtiers.

All that the government asked was readily granted. In a financial point of view, indeed, the liberality of the Scottish Estates was of little consequence. They gave, however, what their scanty means permitted. They annexed in perpetuity to the crown the duties which had been granted to the late King, and which in his time had been estimated at forty thousand pounds sterling a year. They also settled on James for life an additional annual income of two hundred and sixteen thousand pounds Scots, equivalent to eighteen thousand pounds sterling. The whole Sum which they were able to bestow was about sixty thousand a year, little more than what was poured into the English Exchequer every fortnight. 282

Everything the government requested was quickly approved. From a financial perspective, the generosity of the Scottish Estates didn’t make much of a difference. However, they contributed what their limited resources allowed. They permanently attached to the crown the taxes that had been granted to the previous King, which had been valued at forty thousand pounds sterling a year during his reign. They also provided James with a lifetime annual income of two hundred and sixteen thousand pounds Scots, equivalent to eighteen thousand pounds sterling. The total amount they could offer was about sixty thousand a year, just a bit more than what was collected in the English Exchequer every two weeks. 282

Having little money to give, the Estates supplied the defect by loyal professions and barbarous statutes. The King, in a letter which was read to them at the opening of their session, called on them in vehement language to provide new penal laws against the refractory Presbyterians, and expressed his regret that business made it impossible for him to propose such laws in person from the throne. His commands were obeyed. A statute framed by his ministers was promptly passed, a statute which stands forth even among the statutes of that unhappy country at that unhappy period, preeminent in atrocity. It was enacted, in few but emphatic words, that whoever should preach in a conventicle under a roof, or should attend, either as preacher or as hearer, a conventicle in the open air, should be punished with death and confiscation of property. 283

Having little money to contribute, the Estates made up for it with loyal declarations and harsh laws. The King, in a letter read to them at the start of their session, urgently called on them to create new penalties against the defiant Presbyterians and expressed his regret that his responsibilities prevented him from proposing such laws in person from the throne. His orders were followed. A law drafted by his ministers was quickly passed, a law that stands out even among the laws of that troubled country during that troubled time, notorious for its cruelty. It was stated, in few but powerful words, that anyone who preached in a gathering indoors, or attended, whether as a speaker or as a listener, a gathering outdoors, would be punished with death and the loss of their property. 283

This law, passed at the King's instance by an assembly devoted to his will, deserves especial notice. For he has been frequently represented by ignorant writers as a prince rash, indeed, and injudicious in his choice of means, but intent on one of the noblest ends which a ruler can pursue, the establishment of entire religious liberty. Nor can it be denied that some portions of his life, when detached from the rest and superficially considered, seem to warrant this favourable view of his character.

This law, approved at the King’s request by a group committed to his wishes, deserves special attention. Many uninformed writers have portrayed him as a reckless ruler, careless in his choices, but focused on one of the highest goals a leader can strive for: complete religious freedom. It’s also true that certain parts of his life, when viewed in isolation and without deeper analysis, seem to support this positive perspective on his character.

While a subject he had been, during many years, a persecuted man; and persecution had produced its usual effect on him. His mind, dull and narrow as it was, had profited under that sharp discipline. While he was excluded from the Court, from the Admiralty, and from the Council, and was in danger of being also excluded from the throne, only because he could not help believing in transubstantiation and in the authority of the see of Rome, he made such rapid progress in the doctrines of toleration that he left Milton and Locke behind. What, he often said, could be more unjust, than to visit speculations with penalties which ought to be reserved for acts? What more impolitic than to reject the services of good soldiers, seamen, lawyers, diplomatists, financiers, because they hold unsound opinions about the number of the sacraments or the pluripresence of saints? He learned by rote those commonplaces which all sects repeat so fluently when they are enduring oppression, and forget so easily when they are able to retaliate it. Indeed he rehearsed his lesson so well, that those who chanced to hear him on this subject gave him credit for much more sense and much readier elocution than he really possessed. His professions imposed on some charitable persons, and perhaps imposed on himself. But his zeal for the rights of conscience ended with the predominance of the Whig party. When fortune changed, when he was no longer afraid that others would persecute him, when he had it in his power to persecute others, his real propensities began to show themselves. He hated the Puritan sects with a manifold hatred, theological and political, hereditary and personal. He regarded them as the foes of Heaven, as the foes of all legitimate authority in Church and State, as his great-grandmother's foes and his grandfather's, his father's and his mother's, his brother's and his own. He, who had complained so fondly of the laws against Papists, now declared himself unable to conceive how men could have the impudence to propose the repeal of the laws against Puritans. 284 He, whose favourite theme had been the injustice of requiring civil functionaries to take religious tests, established in Scotland, when he resided there as Viceroy, the most rigorous religious test that has ever been known in the empire. 285 He, who had expressed just indignation when the priests of his own faith were hanged and quartered, amused himself with hearing Covenanters shriek and seeing them writhe while their knees were beaten flat in the boots. 286 In this mood he became King; and he immediately demanded and obtained from the obsequious Estates of Scotland as the surest pledge of their loyalty, the most sanguinary law that has ever in our island been enacted against Protestant Nonconformists.

While he had been a target for many years, and persecution had the usual effects on him, his mind, dull and narrow as it was, benefited from that harsh discipline. While he was shut out from the Court, the Admiralty, and the Council, and was in danger of being excluded from the throne just because he believed in transubstantiation and the authority of the Roman see, he made such quick progress in the ideas of tolerance that he surpassed Milton and Locke. What, he often said, could be more unfair than to punish beliefs with penalties that should be reserved for actions? What could be more unwise than to dismiss the contributions of capable soldiers, sailors, lawyers, diplomats, and financiers because they held unconventional views on the number of sacraments or the presence of saints? He memorized the clichés that all groups recite smoothly when facing oppression, only to forget easily when they have the chance to retaliate. Indeed, he practiced his arguments so effectively that those who happened to hear him on this topic credited him with far more sense and eloquence than he actually had. His assertions convinced some kind-hearted individuals, and perhaps even himself. But his passion for the rights of conscience faded when the Whig party gained power. When circumstances changed, when he no longer feared persecution from others, and when he had the ability to persecute, his true inclinations began to emerge. He despised the Puritan sects with overwhelming hatred, both theological and political, inherited and personal. He saw them as enemies of Heaven, enemies of all legitimate authority in Church and State, as the foes of his great-grandmother, grandfather, father, mother, brother, and himself. He, who had so passionately complained about the laws against Catholics, now declared that he couldn’t understand how anyone could have the audacity to suggest getting rid of the laws against Puritans. 284 He, whose favorite topic had been the unfairness of requiring public officials to take religious tests, established in Scotland, during his time as Viceroy, the strictest religious test ever known in the empire. 285 He, who had expressed righteous anger when priests of his own faith were hanged and quartered, found enjoyment in listening to Covenanters scream and watching them writhe as their knees were crushed in the boots. 286 In this frame of mind, he became King; and he immediately requested and received from the obedient Estates of Scotland, as the surest sign of their loyalty, the most brutal law ever enacted on our island against Protestant Nonconformists.

With this law the whole spirit of his administration was in perfect harmony. The fiery persecution, which had raged when he ruled Scotland as vicegerent, waxed hotter than ever from the day on which he became sovereign. Those shires in which the Covenanters were most numerous were given up to the license of the army. With the army was mingled a militia, composed of the most violent and profligate of those who called themselves Episcopalians. Preeminent among the bands which oppressed and wasted these unhappy districts were the dragoons commanded by John Graham of Claverhouse. The story ran that these wicked men used in their revels to play at the torments of hell, and to call each other by the names of devils and damned souls. 287 The chief of this Tophet, a soldier of distinguished courage and professional skill, but rapacious and profane, of violent temper and of obdurate heart, has left a name which, wherever the Scottish race is settled on the face of the globe, is mentioned with a peculiar energy of hatred. To recapitulate all the crimes, by which this man, and men like him, goaded the peasantry of the Western Lowlands into madness, would be an endless task. A few instances must suffice; and all those instances shall be taken from the history of a single fortnight, that very fortnight in which the Scottish Parliament, at the urgent request of James, enacted a new law of unprecedented severity against Dissenters.

With this law, the entire spirit of his administration was in perfect harmony. The intense persecution, which had intensified when he ruled Scotland as vicegerent, grew even more severe from the moment he became king. The areas where the Covenanters were most numerous were left at the mercy of the army. Along with the army was a militia made up of the most extreme and reckless of those who called themselves Episcopalians. Leading the groups that oppressed and ravaged these unfortunate regions were the dragoons commanded by John Graham of Claverhouse. The story went that these wicked men would often mock the torments of hell in their revelries, calling each other by the names of devils and damned souls. 287 The leader of this hellish group, a soldier of notable courage and skill, but greedy and profane, with a violent temper and a hardened heart, has left a name that is mentioned with a unique intensity of hatred wherever the Scottish diaspora exists around the world. Recapping all the crimes committed by this man and others like him that drove the peasantry of the Western Lowlands to madness would be an endless task. A few examples will suffice, and all these examples will come from the history of just one fortnight, the very fortnight in which the Scottish Parliament, at James's urgent request, enacted a new law of unprecedented severity against Dissenters.

John Brown, a poor carrier of Lanarkshire, was, for his singular piety, commonly called the Christian carrier. Many years later, when Scotland enjoyed rest, prosperity, and religious freedom, old men who remembered the evil days described him as one versed in divine things, blameless in life, and so peaceable that the tyrants could find no offence in him except that he absented himself from the public worship of the Episcopalians. On the first of May he was cutting turf, when he was seized by Claverhouse's dragoons, rapidly examined, convicted of nonconformity, and sentenced to death. It is said that, even among the soldiers, it was not easy to find an executioner. For the wife of the poor man was present; she led one little child by the hand: it was easy to see that she was about to give birth to another; and even those wild and hardhearted men, who nicknamed one another Beelzebub and Apollyon, shrank from the great wickedness of butchering her husband before her face. The prisoner, meanwhile, raised above himself by the near prospect of eternity, prayed loud and fervently as one inspired, till Claverhouse, in a fury, shot him dead. It was reported by credible witnesses that the widow cried out in her agony, "Well, sir, well; the day of reckoning will come;" and that the murderer replied, "To man I can answer for what I have done; and as for God, I will take him into mine own hand." Yet it was rumoured that even on his seared conscience and adamantine heart the dying ejaculations of his victim made an impression which was never effaced. 288

John Brown, a poor carrier from Lanarkshire, was commonly known as the Christian carrier because of his remarkable piety. Many years later, when Scotland enjoyed peace, prosperity, and religious freedom, old men who remembered the hard times described him as knowledgeable about divine matters, blameless in his way of life, and so peaceful that the tyrants couldn’t find fault with him except for his absence from the public worship of the Episcopalians. On the first of May, while he was cutting turf, he was seized by Claverhouse's dragoons, quickly questioned, convicted of nonconformity, and sentenced to death. It’s said that even among the soldiers, it was hard to find someone willing to carry out the execution. The poor man's wife was there, holding one small child by the hand, and it was clear she was about to have another; even those brutal and hard-hearted men, who called each other Beelzebub and Apollyon, hesitated at the thought of murdering her husband in front of her. Meanwhile, the prisoner, uplifted by the approaching prospect of eternity, prayed loudly and passionately as if inspired, until Claverhouse, in a rage, shot him dead. Credible witnesses reported that the widow cried out in her anguish, "Well, sir, well; the day of reckoning will come;" and the murderer replied, "I can answer to man for what I’ve done; and as for God, I will take him into my own hands." Yet it was rumored that even on his hardened conscience and unyielding heart, the dying pleas of his victim left an imprint that was never erased. 288

On the fifth of May two artisans, Peter Gillies and John Bryce, were tried in Ayrshire by a military tribunal consisting of fifteen soldiers. The indictment is still extant. The prisoners were charged, not with any act of rebellion, but with holding the same pernicious doctrines which had impelled others to rebel, and with wanting only opportunity to act upon those doctrines. The proceeding was summary. In a few hours the two culprits were convicted, hanged, and flung together into a hole under the gallows. 289

On May 5th, two craftsmen, Peter Gillies and John Bryce, were tried in Ayrshire by a military tribunal made up of fifteen soldiers. The official charges are still available. The accused were not charged with any act of rebellion, but with believing the same harmful ideas that had led others to rebel, and with just waiting for the right moment to act on those beliefs. The process was quick. In just a few hours, the two were found guilty, hanged, and buried together in a hole under the gallows. 289

The eleventh of May was made remarkable by more than one great crime. Some rigid Calvinists had from the doctrine of reprobation drawn the consequence that to pray for any person who had been predestined to perdition was an act of mutiny against the eternal decrees of the Supreme Being. Three poor labouring men, deeply imbued with this unamiable divinity, were stopped by an officer in the neighbourhood of Glasgow. They were asked whether they would pray for King James the Seventh. They refused to do so except under the condition that he was one of the elect. A file of musketeers was drawn out. The prisoners knelt down; they were blindfolded; and within an hour after they had been arrested, their blood was lapped up by the dogs. 290

The eleventh of May was marked by more than one major crime. Some strict Calvinists believed that praying for anyone who was predestined for damnation was an act of rebellion against the eternal will of the Supreme Being. Three poor laborers, strongly influenced by this harsh belief, were stopped by an officer near Glasgow. They were asked if they would pray for King James the Seventh. They refused unless it was confirmed that he was among the elect. A line of musketeers was lined up. The prisoners knelt down; they were blindfolded; and within an hour of their arrest, their blood was licked up by the dogs. 290

While this was done in Clydesdale, an act not less horrible was perpetrated in Eskdale. One of the proscribed Covenanters, overcome by sickness, had found shelter in the house of a respectable widow, and had died there. The corpse was discovered by the Laird of Westerhall, a petty tyrant who had, in the days of the Covenant, professed inordinate zeal for the Presbyterian Church, who had, since the Restoration, purchased the favour of the government by apostasy, and who felt towards the party which he had deserted the implacable hatred of an apostate. This man pulled down the house of the poor woman, carried away her furniture, and, leaving her and her younger children to wander in the fields, dragged her son Andrew, who was still a lad, before Claverhouse, who happened to be marching through that part of the country. Claverhouse was just then strangely lenient. Some thought that he had not been quite himself since the death of the Christian carrier, ten days before. But Westerhall was eager to signalise his loyalty, and extorted a sullen consent. The guns were loaded, and the youth was told to pull his bonnet over his face. He refused, and stood confronting his murderers with the Bible in his hand. "I can look you in the face," he said; "I have done nothing of which I need be ashamed. But how will you look in that day when you shall be judged by what is written in this book?" He fell dead, and was buried in the moor. 291

While this happened in Clydesdale, a similarly horrible act took place in Eskdale. One of the banned Covenanters, succumbed to illness, had found refuge in the home of a respected widow and died there. The body was discovered by the Laird of Westerhall, a small-time tyrant who had, during the time of the Covenant, shown excessive zeal for the Presbyterian Church. Since the Restoration, he had gained the government's favor through betrayal and harbored a deep-seated hatred for the group he had abandoned. This man destroyed the widow's house, took her furniture, and left her and her younger children to wander in the fields. He dragged her son Andrew, who was still a boy, before Claverhouse, who was passing through that area. Claverhouse was oddly lenient at that time. Some believed he hadn’t been himself since the death of a Christian carrier ten days earlier. But Westerhall was eager to prove his loyalty and forced a reluctant agreement. The guns were loaded, and the young man was instructed to pull his cap over his face. He refused and faced his killers with the Bible in his hand. "I can look you in the face," he said; "I have done nothing I need to be ashamed of. But how will you face that day when you are judged by what is written in this book?" He fell dead and was buried in the moor. 291

On the same day two women, Margaret Maclachlin and Margaret Wilson, the former an aged widow, the latter a maiden of eighteen, suffered death for their religion in Wigtonshire. They were offered their lives if they would consent to abjure the cause of the insurgent Covenanters, and to attend the Episcopal worship. They refused; and they were sentenced to be drowned. They were carried to a spot which the Solway overflows twice a day, and were fastened to stakes fixed in the sand between high and low water mark. The elder sufferer was placed near to the advancing flood, in the hope that her last agonies might terrify the younger into submission. The sight was dreadful. But the courage of the survivor was sustained by an enthusiasm as lofty as any that is recorded in martyrology. She saw the sea draw nearer and nearer, but gave no sign of alarm. She prayed and sang verses of psalms till the waves choked her voice. After she had tasted the bitterness of death, she was, by a cruel mercy unbound and restored to life. When she came to herself, pitying friends and neighbours implored her to yield. "Dear Margaret, only say, God save the King!" The poor girl, true to her stern theology, gasped out, "May God save him, if it be God's will!" Her friends crowded round the presiding officer. "She has said it; indeed, sir, she has said it." "Will she take the abjuration?" he demanded. "Never!" she exclaimed. "I am Christ's: let me go!" And the waters closed over her for the last time. 292

On the same day, two women, Margaret Maclachlin and Margaret Wilson, one an elderly widow and the other an eighteen-year-old maiden, faced death for their faith in Wigtonshire. They were offered their lives if they would renounce the cause of the rebellious Covenanters and attend Episcopal services. They refused and were sentenced to be drowned. They were taken to a location that the Solway River floods twice a day and were tied to stakes planted in the sand between the high and low tide marks. The older woman was positioned closer to the advancing water, hoping her final moments would scare the younger one into submission. The scene was horrific. But the courage of the remaining woman was fueled by an enthusiasm as noble as any recorded in the stories of martyrs. She saw the sea rising closer and closer but showed no signs of fear. She prayed and sang psalms until the waves drowned out her voice. After she experienced the bitterness of death, she was, by a cruel twist of fate, untied and brought back to life. When she regained her senses, sympathetic friends and neighbors urged her to give in. "Dear Margaret, just say, God save the King!" The poor girl, faithful to her strict beliefs, gasped, "May God save him, if it’s God’s will!" Her friends gathered around the officer in charge. "She said it; indeed, sir, she said it." "Will she renounce?" he asked. "Never!" she shouted. "I am Christ's: let me go!" And the waters closed over her for the last time. 292

Thus was Scotland governed by that prince whom ignorant men have represented as a friend of religious liberty, whose misfortune it was to be too wise and too good for the age in which he lived. Nay, even those laws which authorised him to govern thus were in his judgment reprehensibly lenient. While his officers were committing the murders which have just been related, he was urging the Scottish Parliament to pass a new Act compared with which all former Acts might be called merciful.

Thus was Scotland governed by that prince whom uninformed people have depicted as a supporter of religious freedom, who was unfortunately too wise and too good for the time he lived in. In fact, even the laws that allowed him to rule in this way were, in his opinion, unreasonably lenient. While his officers were carrying out the murders just mentioned, he was pushing the Scottish Parliament to pass a new law that would make all previous laws seem merciful by comparison.

In England his authority, though great, was circumscribed by ancient and noble laws which even the Tories would not patiently have seen him infringe. Here he could not hurry Dissenters before military tribunals, or enjoy at Council the luxury of seeing them swoon in the boots. Here he could not drown young girls for refusing to take the abjuration, or shoot poor countrymen for doubting whether he was one of the elect. Yet even in England he continued to persecute the Puritans as far as his power extended, till events which will hereafter be related induced him to form the design of uniting Puritans and Papists in a coalition for the humiliation and spoliation of the established Church.

In England, although he had significant power, it was limited by longstanding noble laws that even the Tories wouldn't have tolerated him breaking. He couldn't rush Dissenters to military courts or enjoy the spectacle of seeing them faint in confinement during Council meetings. He couldn't drown young girls for refusing to take the abjuration or execute poor farmers for questioning whether he was one of the chosen ones. Yet, even in England, he continued to persecute the Puritans as much as he could until events, which will be discussed later, led him to plan a coalition between Puritans and Papists aimed at undermining and plundering the established Church.

One sect of Protestant Dissenters indeed he, even at this early period of his reign, regarded with some tenderness, the Society of Friends. His partiality for that singular fraternity cannot be attributed to religious sympathy; for, of all who acknowledge the divine mission of Jesus, the Roman Catholic and the Quaker differ most widely. It may seem paradoxical to say that this very circumstance constituted a tie between the Roman Catholic and the Quaker; yet such was really the case. For they deviated in opposite directions so far from what the great body of the nation regarded as right, that even liberal men generally considered them both as lying beyond the pale of the largest toleration. Thus the two extreme sects, precisely because they were extreme sects, had a common interest distinct from the interest of the intermediate sects. The Quakers were also guiltless of all offence against James and his House. They had not been in existence as a community till the war between his father and the Long Parliament was drawing towards a close. They had been cruelly persecuted by some of the revolutionary governments. They had, since the Restoration, in spite of much ill usage, submitted themselves meekly to the royal authority. For they had, though reasoning on premises which the Anglican divines regarded as heterodox, arrived, like the Anglican divines, at the conclusion, that no excess of tyranny on the part of a prince can justify active resistance on the part of a subject. No libel on the government had ever been traced to a Quaker. 293 In no conspiracy against the government had a Quaker been implicated. The society had not joined in the clamour for the Exclusion Bill, and had solemnly condemned the Rye House plot as a hellish design and a work of the devil. 294 Indeed, the friends then took very little part in civil contentions; for they were not, as now, congregated in large towns, but were generally engaged in agriculture, a pursuit from which they have been gradually driven by the vexations consequent on their strange scruple about paying tithe. They were, therefore, far removed from the scene of political strife. They also, even in domestic privacy, avoided on principle all political conversation. For such conversation was, in their opinion, unfavourable to their spirituality of mind, and tended to disturb the austere composure of their deportment. The yearly meetings of that age repeatedly admonished the brethren not to hold discourse touching affairs of state. 295 Even within the memory of persons now living those grave elders who retained the habits of an earlier generation systematically discouraged such worldly talk. 296 It was natural that James should make a wide distinction between these harmless people and those fierce and reckless sects which considered resistance to tyranny as a Christian duty which had, in Germany, France, and Holland, made war on legitimate princes, and which had, during four generations, borne peculiar enmity to the House of Stuart.

One group of Protestant Dissenters that he, even at this early stage of his reign, viewed with some compassion was the Society of Friends. His fondness for that unique community can’t be attributed to religious agreement; after all, the Roman Catholics and the Quakers differ the most among those who acknowledge Jesus’s divine mission. It might seem contradictory to say that this very difference created a bond between the Roman Catholic and the Quaker, but that was indeed the case. They strayed in opposite directions so far from what the majority of the nation considered to be right that even more open-minded people generally viewed them both as being outside the limits of the broadest tolerance. Thus, the two extreme sects, precisely because they were extremes, had a shared interest separate from the interests of the middle sects. The Quakers also had done nothing to offend James and his House. They hadn’t existed as a community until the war between his father and the Long Parliament was nearing its end. They had suffered brutal persecution from some of the revolutionary governments. Since the Restoration, despite much mistreatment, they had humbly accepted the royal authority. They had, although based on premises that Anglican leaders considered unorthodox, concluded, like the Anglican divines, that no amount of tyranny from a prince could justify active resistance from a subject. No libel against the government had ever been traced back to a Quaker. 293 No conspiracy against the government had ever involved a Quaker. The society had not participated in the outcry for the Exclusion Bill and had solemnly condemned the Rye House plot as a wicked scheme and a work of the devil. 294 In fact, the Friends at that time took very little part in civil disputes; they were not, as they are now, gathered in large towns but were mostly engaged in farming, a pursuit from which they have gradually been pushed away due to the troubles arising from their unusual scruples about paying tithes. They were, therefore, distanced from the political turmoil. Even in their private lives, they avoided discussing political matters as a matter of principle. They believed such discussions were detrimental to their spiritual state of mind and disturbed the serious demeanor they aimed for. The yearly meetings of that era consistently warned members not to engage in conversations about state affairs. 295 Even in the memory of people alive today, those serious elders who kept the habits of an earlier generation systematically discouraged such worldly discussions. 296 It was natural for James to make a clear distinction between these harmless individuals and those fierce, reckless sects that saw resistance to tyranny as a Christian duty, which had, in Germany, France, and Holland, waged war against legitimate rulers, and which had, over four generations, shown particular hostility towards the House of Stuart.

It happened, moreover, that it was possible to grant large relief to the Roman Catholic and to the Quaker without mitigating the sufferings of the Puritan sects. A law was in force which imposed severe penalties on every person who refused to take the oath of supremacy when required to do so. This law did not affect Presbyterians, Independents, or Baptists; for they were all ready to call God to witness that they renounced all spiritual connection with foreign prelates and potentates. But the Roman Catholic would not swear that the Pope had no jurisdiction in England, and the Quaker would not swear to anything. On the other hand, neither the Roman Catholic nor the Quaker was touched by the Five Mile Act, which, of all the laws in the Statute Book, was perhaps the most annoying to the Puritan Nonconformists. 297

It so happened that it was possible to give significant relief to both the Roman Catholics and the Quakers without easing the hardships faced by the Puritan groups. There was a law in place that imposed strict penalties on anyone who refused to take the oath of supremacy when asked. This law did not impact Presbyterians, Independents, or Baptists, as they were all willing to declare before God that they cut all spiritual ties with foreign bishops and rulers. However, the Roman Catholic would not swear that the Pope had no authority in England, and the Quaker refused to take any oath at all. On the other hand, neither the Roman Catholic nor the Quaker was affected by the Five Mile Act, which, of all the laws on the books, was perhaps the most frustrating for the Puritan Nonconformists. 297

The Quakers had a powerful and zealous advocate at court. Though, as a class, they mixed little with the world, and shunned politics as a pursuit dangerous to their spiritual interests, one of them, widely distinguished from the rest by station and fortune, lived in the highest circles, and had constant access to the royal ear. This was the celebrated William Penn. His father had held great naval commands, had been a Commissioner of the Admiralty, had sate in Parliament, had received the honour of knighthood, and had been encouraged to expect a peerage. The son had been liberally educated, and had been designed for the profession of arms, but had, while still young, injured his prospects and disgusted his friends by joining what was then generally considered as a gang of crazy heretics. He had been sent sometimes to the Tower, and sometimes to Newgate. He had been tried at the Old Bailey for preaching in defiance of the law. After a time, however, he had been reconciled to his family, and had succeeded in obtaining such powerful protection that, while all the gaols of England were filled with his brethren, he was permitted, during many years, to profess his opinions without molestation. Towards the close of the late reign he had obtained, in satisfaction of an old debt due to him from the crown, the grant of an immense region in North America. In this tract, then peopled only by Indian hunters, he had invited his persecuted friends to settle. His colony was still in its infancy when James mounted the throne.

The Quakers had a strong and passionate advocate in court. Although they generally kept to themselves and avoided politics to protect their spiritual well-being, one of their own, who stood out due to his status and wealth, moved in the highest social circles and had direct access to the king. This was the famous William Penn. His father had held significant naval positions, served as a Commissioner of the Admiralty, sat in Parliament, received a knighthood, and had been led to expect a peerage. The son was well-educated and was originally intended for a military career, but as a young man, he hurt his future and alienated his friends by joining what was then widely regarded as a group of deluded heretics. He had been sent to the Tower at times and to Newgate at others. He was tried at the Old Bailey for preaching against the law. Eventually, however, he reconciled with his family and managed to secure powerful protection so that, while all the jails in England were filled with his fellow Quakers, he was allowed to express his beliefs without harassment for many years. Towards the end of the previous reign, he received a huge land grant in North America as repayment for an old debt owed to him by the crown. In this territory, which was then inhabited only by Native American hunters, he invited his persecuted friends to settle. His colony was still in its early stages when James ascended the throne.

Between James and Penn there had long been a familiar acquaintance. The Quaker now became a courtier, and almost a favourite. He was every day summoned from the gallery into the closet, and sometimes had long audiences while peers were kept waiting in the antechambers. It was noised abroad that he had more real power to help and hurt than many nobles who filled high offices. He was soon surrounded by flatterers and suppliants. His house at Kensington was sometimes thronged, at his hour of rising, by more than two hundred suitors. 298 He paid dear, however, for this seeming prosperity. Even his own sect looked coldly on him, and requited his services with obloquy. He was loudly accused of being a Papist, nay, a Jesuit. Some affirmed that he had been educated at St. Omers, and others that he had been ordained at Rome. These calumnies, indeed, could find credit only with the undiscerning multitude; but with these calumnies were mingled accusations much better founded.

Between James and Penn, there had been a long-standing acquaintance. The Quaker now became a courtier and almost a favorite. He was called from the gallery into the closet every day, and sometimes had lengthy meetings while peers waited in the antechambers. It was rumored that he had more real power to help or harm than many nobles who held high offices. He was soon surrounded by flatterers and petitioners. His house in Kensington was sometimes crowded, at the time he got up, by more than two hundred suitors. 298 However, he paid a high price for this seeming success. Even his own sect looked at him with disdain and repaid his services with criticism. He was loudly accused of being a Papist, even a Jesuit. Some claimed he had studied at St. Omers, while others said he had been ordained in Rome. These slanders could only find credence with the unthinking masses; but alongside these lies were mixed accusations that were much better founded.

To speak the whole truth concerning Penn is a task which requires some courage; for he is rather a mythical than a historical person. Rival nations and hostile sects have agreed in canonising him. England is proud of his name. A great commonwealth beyond the Atlantic regards him with a reverence similar to that which the Athenians felt for Theseus, and the Romans for Quirinus. The respectable society of which he was a member honours him as an apostle. By pious men of other persuasions he is generally regarded as a bright pattern of Christian virtue. Meanwhile admirers of a very different sort have sounded his praises. The French philosophers of the eighteenth century pardoned what they regarded as his superstitious fancies in consideration of his contempt for priests, and of his cosmopolitan benevolence, impartially extended to all races and to all creeds. His name has thus become, throughout all civilised countries, a synonyme for probity and philanthropy.

To tell the whole truth about Penn takes some courage because he’s more of a myth than a historical figure. Competing nations and opposing groups have come together to revere him. England takes pride in his name. A vast community across the Atlantic holds him in the same respect that Athenians had for Theseus and Romans had for Quirinus. The esteemed society he was part of honors him as a messenger. Devout individuals from other beliefs generally see him as a shining example of Christian virtue. Meanwhile, fans of a different kind have praised him. Eighteenth-century French philosophers overlooked what they considered his superstitions because of his disdain for priests and his universal kindness, which he extended to all races and beliefs. His name has thus become synonymous with integrity and generosity in all civilized countries.

Nor is this high reputation altogether unmerited. Penn was without doubt a man of eminent virtues. He had a strong sense of religious duty and a fervent desire to promote the happiness of mankind. On one or two points of high importance, he had notions more correct than were, in his day, common even among men of enlarged minds: and as the proprietor and legislator of a province which, being almost uninhabited when it came into his possession, afforded a clear field for moral experiments, he had the rare good fortune of being able to carry his theories into practice without any compromise, and yet without any shock to existing institutions. He will always be mentioned with honour as a founder of a colony, who did not, in his dealings with a savage people, abuse the strength derived from civilisation, and as a lawgiver who, in an age of persecution, made religious liberty the cornerstone of a polity. But his writings and his life furnish abundant proofs that he was not a man of strong sense. He had no skill in reading the characters of others. His confidence in persons less virtuous than himself led him into great errors and misfortunes. His enthusiasm for one great principle sometimes impelled him to violate other great principles which he ought to have held sacred. Nor was his rectitude altogether proof against the temptations to which it was exposed in that splendid and polite, but deeply corrupted society, with which he now mingled. The whole court was in a ferment with intrigues of gallantry and intrigues of ambition. The traffic in honours, places, and pardons was incessant. It was natural that a man who was daily seen at the palace, and who was known to have free access to majesty, should be frequently importuned to use his influence for purposes which a rigid morality must condemn. The integrity of Penn had stood firm against obloquy and persecution. But now, attacked by royal smiles, by female blandishments, by the insinuating eloquence and delicate flattery of veteran diplomatists and courtiers, his resolution began to give way. Titles and phrases against which he had often borne his testimony dropped occasionally from his lips and his pen. It would be well if he had been guilty of nothing worse than such compliances with the fashions of the world. Unhappily it cannot be concealed that he bore a chief part in some transactions condemned, not merely by the rigid code of the society to which he belonged, but by the general sense of all honest men. He afterwards solemnly protested that his hands were pure from illicit gain, and that he had never received any gratuity from those whom he had obliged, though he might easily, while his influence at court lasted, have made a hundred and twenty thousand pounds. 299 To this assertion full credit is due. But bribes may be offered to vanity as well as to cupidity; and it is impossible to deny that Penn was cajoled into bearing a part in some unjustifiable transactions of which others enjoyed the profits.

Nor is this high reputation entirely unearned. Penn was undoubtedly a man of notable virtues. He had a strong sense of religious duty and a passionate desire to promote the happiness of humanity. On a few important issues, he had views that were more enlightened than what was common in his time, even among open-minded individuals. As the owner and lawmaker of a province that was nearly uninhabited when it came into his possession, he had a unique opportunity to test his ideas without compromise, and without disrupting existing institutions. He will always be remembered with honor as the founder of a colony who did not exploit the power of civilization in his dealings with indigenous people, and as a lawmaker who, during an era of persecution, made religious freedom the foundation of governance. However, his writings and his life provide ample evidence that he was not always discerning. He lacked the ability to read others' characters effectively. His trust in those less virtuous than himself led to significant mistakes and hardships. His zeal for one key principle sometimes drove him to overlook other essential principles that he should have held sacred. Furthermore, his integrity was not entirely immune to the temptations presented by the glamorous yet deeply corrupt society he was now part of. The entire court was rife with intrigues of romance and ambition. The trading of honors, positions, and pardons was constant. It was only natural that a man frequently seen at the palace, known to have direct access to royalty, would often be pressed to use his influence for purposes that strict morality would condemn. While Penn had withstood slander and persecution, he now found his resolve weakening under the influence of royal favor, feminine charms, and the persuasive eloquence and subtle flattery of experienced diplomats and courtiers. He began to occasionally use titles and phrases against which he had previously protested. It would be fortunate if he had committed no worse offenses than merely going along with societal trends. Unfortunately, it cannot be hidden that he played a prominent role in some actions condemned not just by the strict standards of his society, but by the general consensus of all honest individuals. He later solemnly proclaimed that his hands were free from illicit gain, insisting that he had never accepted any bribe from those he had helped, even though he could have easily made a considerable amount of money while his influence at court lasted. 299 This claim deserves full credit. But bribes can be aimed at vanity as well as greed, and it's undeniable that Penn was persuaded into participating in some unjust transactions from which others reaped the benefits.

The first use which he made of his credit was highly commendable. He strongly represented the sufferings of his brethren to the new King, who saw with pleasure that it was possible to grant indulgence to these quiet sectaries and to the Roman Catholics, without showing similar favour to other classes which were then under persecution. A list was framed of prisoners against whom proceedings had been instituted for not taking the oaths, or for not going to church, and of whose loyalty certificates had been produced to the government. These persons were discharged, and orders were given that no similar proceeding should be instituted till the royal pleasure should be further signified. In this way about fifteen hundred Quakers, and a still greater number of Roman Catholics, regained their liberty. 300

The first thing he did with his influence was really admirable. He made a strong case to the new King about the struggles of his fellow believers, who happily realized that it was possible to offer some leniency to these peaceful groups and to the Roman Catholics, without extending the same treatment to other groups that were being persecuted at the time. They created a list of prisoners who faced charges for not taking the oaths or not attending church, and who had provided proof of loyalty to the government. These individuals were released, and it was ordered that no similar actions should be taken until further notice from the King. As a result, about fifteen hundred Quakers and even more Roman Catholics regained their freedom. 300

And now the time had arrived when the English Parliament was to meet. The members of the House of Commons who had repaired to the capital were so numerous that there was much doubt whether their chamber, as it was then fitted up, would afford sufficient accommodation for them. They employed the days which immediately preceded the opening of the session in talking over public affairs with each other and with the agents of the government. A great meeting of the loyal party was held at the Fountain Tavern in the Strand; and Roger Lestrange, who had recently been knighted by the King, and returned to Parliament by the city of Winchester, took a leading part in their consultations. 301

And now the time had come for the English Parliament to meet. The members of the House of Commons who had come to the capital were so many that there was a lot of uncertainty about whether their chamber, as it was then set up, would have enough space for them. They spent the days leading up to the start of the session discussing public affairs with each other and with government representatives. A major gathering of the loyal party took place at the Fountain Tavern in the Strand, where Roger Lestrange, who had recently been knighted by the King and re-elected to Parliament by the city of Winchester, played a significant role in their discussions. 301

It soon appeared that a large portion of the Commons had views which did not altogether agree with those of the Court. The Tory country gentlemen were, with scarcely one exception, desirous to maintain the Test Act and the Habeas Corpus Act; and some among them talked of voting the revenue only for a term of years. But they were perfectly ready to enact severe laws against the Whigs, and would gladly have seen all the supporters of the Exclusion Bill made incapable of holding office. The King, on the other hand, desired to obtain from the Parliament a revenue for life, the admission of Roman Catholics to office, and the repeal of the Habeas Corpus Act. On these three objects his heart was set; and he was by no means disposed to accept as a substitute for them a penal law against Exclusionists. Such a law, indeed, would have been positively unpleasing to him; for one class of Exclusionists stood high in his favour, that class of which Sunderland was the representative, that class which had joined the Whigs in the days of the plot, merely because the Whigs were predominant, and which had changed with the change of fortune. James justly regarded these renegades as the most serviceable tools that he could employ. It was not from the stouthearted Cavaliers, who had been true to him in his adversity, that he could expect abject and unscrupulous obedience in his prosperity. The men who, impelled, not by zeal for liberty or for religion, but merely by selfish cupidity and selfish fear, had assisted to oppress him when he was weak, were the very men who, impelled by the same cupidity and the same fear, would assist him to oppress his people now that he was strong. 302 Though vindictive, he was not indiscriminately vindictive. Not a single instance can be mentioned in which he showed a generous compassion to those who had opposed him honestly and on public grounds. But he frequently spared and promoted those whom some vile motive had induced to injure him. For that meanness which marked them out as fit implements of tyranny was so precious in his estimation that he regarded it with some indulgence even when it was exhibited at his own expense.

It quickly became clear that a significant part of the Commons had views that didn’t completely align with those of the Court. The Tory country gentlemen were, with hardly any exceptions, eager to uphold the Test Act and the Habeas Corpus Act; some even discussed approving the revenue only for a limited number of years. However, they were fully willing to create strict laws against the Whigs and would have happily seen all supporters of the Exclusion Bill banned from holding office. The King, on the other hand, wanted to secure a lifetime revenue from Parliament, allow Roman Catholics to hold office, and repeal the Habeas Corpus Act. He was fully committed to these three goals and had no intention of settling for a penal law against Exclusionists as a substitute. In fact, such a law would have actually displeased him because one group of Exclusionists, represented by Sunderland, had his favor. This group initially teamed up with the Whigs during the plot simply because they were in power and switched sides when fortunes changed. James rightly viewed these turncoats as the most useful tools he could utilize. He couldn’t expect true loyalty from the steadfast Cavaliers who had supported him through tough times. The people who had helped oppress him when he was weak, driven not by a passion for liberty or religion but by self-serving greed and fear, would be the same ones who would aid him in oppressing his people now that he was strong. Though he was vindictive, he wasn’t indiscriminately so. There is no instance where he showed genuine compassion to those who had opposed him honestly and on principle. But he often spared and promoted those motivated by some vile intention to harm him. The meanness that marked them out as suitable tools of tyranny was so valuable in his sight that he regarded it with some leniency, even when it was demonstrated at his own expense. 302

The King's wishes were communicated through several channels to the Tory members of the Lower House. The majority was easily persuaded to forego all thoughts of a penal law against the Exclusionists, and to consent that His Majesty should have the revenue for life. But about the Test Act and the Habeas Corpus Act the emissaries of the Court could obtain no satisfactory assurances. 303

The King's wishes were shared through various channels with the Tory members of the Lower House. Most of them were quickly convinced to drop any ideas about a penal law against the Exclusionists and to agree that His Majesty should receive the revenue for life. However, the Court's envoys couldn't get any satisfactory guarantees regarding the Test Act and the Habeas Corpus Act. 303

On the nineteenth of May the session was opened. The benches of the Commons presented a singular spectacle. That great party, which, in the last three Parliaments, had been predominant, had now dwindled to a pitiable minority, and was indeed little more than a fifteenth part of the House. Of the five hundred and thirteen knights and burgesses only a hundred and thirty-five had ever sate in that place before. It is evident that a body of men so raw and inexperienced must have been, in some important qualities, far below the average of our representative assemblies. 304

On May nineteenth, the session began. The benches of the Commons showed a strange sight. That major party, which had dominated the last three Parliaments, had now shrunk to a sad minority, comprising barely one-fifteenth of the House. Out of five hundred and thirteen knights and burgesses, only one hundred and thirty-five had ever sat in that place before. It's clear that a group of men so inexperienced must have been, in some key aspects, well below the average of our representative assemblies. 304

The management of the House was confided by James to two peers of the kingdom of Scotland. One of them, Charles Middleton, Earl of Middleton, after holding high office at Edinburgh, had, shortly before the death of the late King, been sworn of the English Privy Council, and appointed one of the Secretaries of State. With him was joined Richard Graham, Viscount Preston, who had long held the post of Envoy at Versailles.

James entrusted the management of the House to two Scottish peers. One of them, Charles Middleton, Earl of Middleton, had recently held a high position in Edinburgh and, just before the late King’s death, was sworn in as a member of the English Privy Council and appointed one of the Secretaries of State. Joining him was Richard Graham, Viscount Preston, who had been serving as Envoy at Versailles for a long time.

The first business of the Commons was to elect a Speaker. Who should be the man, was a question which had been much debated in the cabinet. Guildford had recommended Sir Thomas Meres, who, like himself, ranked among the Trimmers. Jeffreys, who missed no opportunity of crossing the Lord Keeper, had pressed the claims of Sir John Trevor. Trevor had been bred half a pettifogger and half a gambler, had brought to political life sentiments and principles worthy of both his callings, had become a parasite of the Chief Justice, and could, on occasion, imitate, not unsuccessfully, the vituperative style of his patron. The minion of Jeffreys was, as might have been expected, preferred by James, was proposed by Middleton, and was chosen without opposition. 305

The first order of business for the Commons was to elect a Speaker. Who that person should be had been a hot topic in the cabinet. Guildford suggested Sir Thomas Meres, who, like him, was considered a Trimmer. Jeffreys, who always looked for ways to undermine the Lord Keeper, pushed for Sir John Trevor. Trevor had been shaped partly by his shady legal practices and partly by gambling, and he brought to his political career the attitudes and beliefs that reflected both backgrounds. He had become a sycophant to the Chief Justice and could, at times, mimic the harsh style of his boss quite well. As expected, the favorite of Jeffreys was supported by James, proposed by Middleton, and was elected without any opposition. 305

Thus far all went smoothly. But an adversary of no common prowess was watching his time. This was Edward Seymour of Berry Pomeroy Castle, member for the city of Exeter. Seymour's birth put him on a level with the noblest subjects in Europe. He was the right heir male of the body of that Duke of Somerset who had been brother-in-law of King Henry the Eighth, and Protector of the realm of England. In the limitation of the dukedom of Somerset, the elder Son of the Protector had been postponed to the younger son. From the younger son the Dukes of Somerset were descended. From the elder son was descended the family which dwelt at Berry Pomeroy. Seymour's fortune was large, and his influence in the West of England extensive. Nor was the importance derived from descent and wealth the only importance which belonged to him. He was one of the most skilful debaters and men of business in the kingdom. He had sate many years in the House of Commons, had studied all its rules and usages, and thoroughly understood its peculiar temper. He had been elected speaker in the late reign under circumstances which made that distinction peculiarly honourable. During several generations none but lawyers had been called to the chair; and he was the first country gentleman whose abilities and acquirements had enabled him to break that long prescription. He had subsequently held high political office, and had sate in the Cabinet. But his haughty and unaccommodating temper had given so much disgust that he had been forced to retire. He was a Tory and a Churchman: he had strenuously opposed the Exclusion Bill: he had been persecuted by the Whigs in the day of their prosperity; and he could therefore safely venture to hold language for which any person suspected of republicanism would have been sent to the Tower. He had long been at the head of a strong parliamentary connection, which was called the Western Alliance, and which included many gentlemen of Devonshire, Somersetshire, and Cornwall. 306

So far, everything went smoothly. But a formidable opponent was waiting for his moment. This was Edward Seymour from Berry Pomeroy Castle, a member of the city of Exeter. Seymour's lineage placed him on par with the noblest subjects in Europe. He was the rightful male heir of the Duke of Somerset who had been King Henry the Eighth's brother-in-law and Protector of England. In the succession rules of the dukedom of Somerset, the elder son of the Protector had been overlooked in favor of the younger son. The Dukes of Somerset were descended from the younger son, while the family living at Berry Pomeroy came from the elder son. Seymour was wealthy, and his influence in the West of England was significant. His importance came not only from his noble lineage and wealth. He was one of the most skilled debaters and businessmen in the kingdom. He had served many years in the House of Commons, studied all its rules and practices, and understood its unique temperament well. He had been elected speaker in the previous reign under circumstances that made that honor particularly meaningful. For several generations, only lawyers had been chosen for that role; he was the first country gentleman whose talents and knowledge had enabled him to shatter that long-standing tradition. He had later held high political office and served in the Cabinet. However, his arrogant and inflexible nature caused such dissatisfaction that he had to step down. He was a Tory and a Churchman; he had vigorously opposed the Exclusion Bill; he had been persecuted by the Whigs during their time of power; and he could therefore confidently express views that would have landed anyone suspected of republicanism in the Tower. He had long led a strong parliamentary group known as the Western Alliance, which included many gentlemen from Devonshire, Somersetshire, and Cornwall. 306

In every House of Commons, a member who unites eloquence, knowledge, and habits of business, to opulence and illustrious descent, must be highly considered. But in a House of Commons from which many of the most eminent orators and parliamentary tacticians of the age were excluded, and which was crowded with people who had never heard a debate, the influence of such a man was peculiarly formidable. Weight of moral character was indeed wanting to Edward Seymour. He was licentious, profane, corrupt, too proud to behave with common politeness, yet not too proud to pocket illicit gain. But he was so useful an ally, and so mischievous an enemy that he was frequently courted even by those who most detested him. 307

In every House of Commons, a member who combines eloquence, knowledge, and a solid work ethic with wealth and a prestigious background is highly regarded. However, in a House of Commons that excluded many of the leading speakers and political strategists of the time and was filled with people who had never witnessed a debate, the influence of such a person was particularly daunting. Edward Seymour, however, lacked a strong moral character. He was immoral, vulgar, corrupt, too arrogant to act with basic courtesy, yet not too proud to accept illegal profits. Despite this, he was such a valuable ally and such a troublesome enemy that he was often sought after even by those who despised him most. 307

He was now in bad humour with the government. His interest had been weakened in some places by the remodelling of the western boroughs: his pride had been wounded by the elevation of Trevor to the chair; and he took an early opportunity of revenging himself.

He was now in a bad mood with the government. His interest had faded in some areas due to the changes in the western boroughs; his pride was hurt by Trevor being promoted to the chair; and he quickly looked for a chance to get his revenge.

On the twenty-second of May the Commons were summoned to the bar of the Lords; and the King, seated on his throne, made a speech to both Houses. He declared himself resolved to maintain the established government in Church and State. But he weakened the effect of this declaration by addressing an extraordinary admonition to the Commons. He was apprehensive, he said, that they might be inclined to dole out money to him from time to time, in the hope that they should thus force him to call them frequently together. But he must warn them that he was not to be so dealt with, and that, if they wished him to meet them often they must use him well. As it was evident that without money the government could not be carried on, these expressions plainly implied that, if they did not give him as much money as he wished, he would take it. Strange to say, this harangue was received with loud cheers by the Tory gentlemen at the bar. Such acclamations were then usual. It has now been, during many years, the grave and decorous usage of Parliaments to hear, in respectful silence, all expressions, acceptable or unacceptable, which are uttered from the throne. 308

On May 22nd, the Commons were called to the bar of the Lords, and the King, sitting on his throne, gave a speech to both Houses. He stated that he was determined to uphold the established government in Church and State. However, he undermined the impact of this declaration by issuing a stern warning to the Commons. He expressed his concern that they might be tempted to occasionally provide him with funds, thinking that this would compel him to summon them more frequently. But he cautioned them that he would not be manipulated like that and that if they wanted him to meet with them regularly, they needed to treat him well. It was clear that without money, the government couldn't function, which meant that if they didn't give him as much money as he desired, he would take it. Surprisingly, this speech was met with loud cheers from the Tory gentlemen at the bar. Such applause was common at the time. Nowadays, it has been, for many years, the serious and respectful practice of Parliaments to listen in silence to all words spoken from the throne, whether they were agreeable or not. 308

It was then the custom that, after the King had concisely explained his reasons for calling Parliament together, the minister who held the Great Seal should, at more length, explain to the Houses the state of public affairs. Guildford, in imitation of his predecessors, Clarendon, Bridgeman, Shaftesbury, and Nottingham, had prepared an elaborate oration, but found, to his great mortification, that his services were not wanted. 309

It was the custom that, after the King briefly shared his reasons for calling Parliament, the minister with the Great Seal would provide a more detailed explanation to the Houses about the state of public affairs. Guildford, following in the footsteps of his predecessors—Clarendon, Bridgeman, Shaftesbury, and Nottingham—had prepared an elaborate speech but was greatly disappointed to find that his services were not needed. 309

As soon as the Commons had returned to their own chamber, it was proposed that they should resolve themselves into a Committee, for the purpose of settling a revenue on the King.

As soon as the Commons returned to their own chamber, it was suggested that they should form a Committee to decide on a revenue for the King.

Then Seymour stood up. How he stood, looking like what he was, the chief of a dissolute and high spirited gentry, with the artificial ringlets clustering in fashionable profusion round his shoulders, and a mingled expression of voluptuousness and disdain in his eye and on his lip, the likenesses of him which still remain enable us to imagine. It was not, the haughty Cavalier said, his wish that the Parliament should withhold from the crown the means of carrying on the government. But was there indeed a Parliament? Were there not on the benches many men who had, as all the world knew, no right to sit there, many men whose elections were tainted by corruption, many men forced by intimidation on reluctant voters, and many men returned by corporations which had no legal existence? Had not constituent bodies been remodelled, in defiance of royal charters and of immemorial prescription? Had not returning officers been everywhere the unscrupulous agents of the Court? Seeing that the very principle of representation had been thus systematically attacked, he knew not how to call the throng of gentlemen which he saw around him by the honourable name of a House of Commons. Yet never was there a time when it more concerned the public weal that the character of Parliament should stand high. Great dangers impended over the ecclesiastical and civil constitution of the realm. It was matter of vulgar notoriety, it was matter which required no proof, that the Test Act, the rampart of religion, and the Habeas Corpus Act, the rampart of liberty, were marked out for destruction. "Before we proceed to legislate on questions so momentous, let us at least ascertain whether we really are a legislature. Let our first proceeding be to enquire into the manner in which the elections have been conducted. And let us look to it that the enquiry be impartial. For, if the nation shall find that no redress is to be obtained by peaceful methods, we may perhaps ere long suffer the justice which we refuse to do." He concluded by moving that, before any supply was granted, the House would take into consideration petitions against returns, and that no member whose right to sit was disputed should be allowed to vote.

Then Seymour stood up. The way he stood, looking like what he was, the leader of a reckless and spirited gentry, with the stylish ringlets cascading in trendy abundance around his shoulders, and a mixed expression of indulgence and contempt in his eyes and on his lips, the portraits of him that still exist help us imagine. It wasn’t, the proud Cavalier stated, his desire for Parliament to withhold from the crown the means to govern. But was there really a Parliament? Were there not many men sitting on the benches who had, as everyone knew, no right to be there, many men whose elections were tainted by corruption, many men forced through intimidation onto reluctant voters, and many men chosen by corporations that had no legal standing? Had the constituent bodies not been reshaped, in defiance of royal charters and of longstanding tradition? Had returning officers not everywhere been the unscrupulous agents of the Court? Considering that the very principle of representation had been systematically undermined, he couldn’t bring himself to call the crowd of gentlemen he saw around him by the honorable name of a House of Commons. Yet never had there been a time when it was more crucial for the integrity of Parliament to be upheld. Great dangers loomed over the ecclesiastical and civil constitution of the realm. It was common knowledge, requiring no proof, that the Test Act, the fortress of religion, and the Habeas Corpus Act, the fortress of liberty, were marked for destruction. "Before we start legislating on issues so significant, let’s at least confirm whether we truly are a legislature. Let our first action be to investigate the manner in which the elections were conducted. And let’s ensure that the investigation is unbiased. Because if the nation finds that no redress can be obtained through peaceful methods, we may soon face the justice we refuse to administer." He ended by proposing that, before any funding was approved, the House should consider petitions against the returns, and that no member whose right to sit was in dispute should be allowed to vote.

Not a cheer was heard. Not a member ventured to second the motion. Indeed, Seymour had said much that no other man could have said with impunity. The proposition fell to the ground, and was not even entered on the journals. But a mighty effect had been produced. Barillon informed his master that many who had not dared to applaud that remarkable speech had cordially approved of it, that it was the universal subject of conversation throughout London, and that the impression made on the public mind seemed likely to be durable. 310

Not a cheer was heard. No one dared to support the motion. In fact, Seymour had said a lot that no one else could have said without facing backlash. The proposal was dropped and didn’t even make it into the records. However, a significant impact had been made. Barillon told his master that many who didn’t dare to applaud that memorable speech had wholeheartedly supported it, that it was the hot topic of discussion all over London, and that the impression it left on the public seemed likely to last. 310

The Commons went into committee without delay, and voted to the King, for life, the whole revenue enjoyed by his brother. 311

The Commons quickly went into committee and voted to grant the King, for life, all the revenue that his brother had enjoyed. 311

The zealous churchmen who formed the majority of the House seem to have been of opinion that the promptitude with which they had met the wish of James, touching the revenue, entitled them to expect some concession on his part. They said that much had been done to gratify him, and that they must now do something to gratify the nation. The House, therefore, resolved itself into a Grand Committee of Religion, in order to consider the best means of providing for the security of the ecclesiastical establishment. In that Committee two resolutions were unanimously adopted. The first expressed fervent attachment to the Church of England. The second called on the King to put in execution the penal laws against all persons who were not members of that Church. 312

The eager church leaders who made up the majority of the House believed that the quick response they gave to James regarding the revenue entitled them to expect some concession in return. They argued that they had done a lot to satisfy him, and now they needed to do something for the nation. Therefore, the House formed a Grand Committee of Religion to discuss the best ways to ensure the security of the church establishment. In that Committee, two resolutions were agreed upon unanimously. The first expressed strong support for the Church of England. The second urged the King to enforce the penal laws against anyone who was not a member of that Church. 312

The Whigs would doubtless have wished to see the Protestant dissenters tolerated, and the Roman Catholics alone persecuted. But the Whigs were a small and a disheartened minority. They therefore kept themselves as much as possible out of sight, dropped their party name, abstained from obtruding their peculiar opinions on a hostile audience, and steadily supported every proposition tending to disturb the harmony which as yet subsisted between the Parliament and the Court.

The Whigs surely would have preferred that Protestant dissenters be tolerated while only Roman Catholics faced persecution. However, the Whigs were a small and discouraged minority. As a result, they mostly kept to themselves, abandoned their party name, refrained from pushing their unique viewpoints on an unsupportive audience, and consistently backed any proposals that might disrupt the harmony that still existed between Parliament and the Court.

When the proceedings of the Committee of Religion were known at Whitehall, the King's anger was great. Nor can we justly blame him for resenting the conduct of the Tories If they were disposed to require the rigorous execution of the penal code, they clearly ought to have supported the Exclusion Bill. For to place a Papist on the throne, and then to insist on his persecuting to the death the teachers of that faith in which alone, on his principles, salvation could be found, was monstrous. In mitigating by a lenient administration the severity of the bloody laws of Elizabeth, the King violated no constitutional principle. He only exerted a power which has always belonged to the crown. Nay, he only did what was afterwards done by a succession of sovereigns zealous for Protestantism, by William, by Anne, and by the princes of the House of Brunswick. Had he suffered Roman Catholic priests, whose lives he could save without infringing any law, to be hanged, drawn, and quartered for discharging what he considered as their first duty, he would have drawn on himself the hatred and contempt even of those to whose prejudices he had made so shameful a concession, and, had he contented himself with granting to the members of his own Church a practical toleration by a large exercise of his unquestioned prerogative of mercy, posterity would have unanimously applauded him.

When the news about the Committee of Religion reached Whitehall, the King's anger was intense. It's hard to blame him for being upset with the Tories. If they were eager to enforce the harsh penal laws, they should have supported the Exclusion Bill. To put a Catholic on the throne and then demand that he actively persecute those who share his faith—who, according to his beliefs, could lead him to salvation—was outrageous. By easing the harshness of Elizabeth's brutal laws, the King didn't violate any constitutional principle. He was simply exercising a power that has always belonged to the crown. In fact, he did what later monarchs, who were committed to Protestantism, such as William, Anne, and the princes of the House of Brunswick, also did. If he had allowed Catholic priests—whose lives he could save without breaking any laws—to be executed in a horrific manner for fulfilling what he believed was their primary duty, he would have faced hatred and scorn, even from those to whom he had given such a disgraceful concession. If he had simply given the members of his own Church practical toleration through extensive use of his clear prerogative of mercy, future generations would have celebrated him.

The Commons probably felt on reflection that they had acted absurdly. They were also disturbed by learning that the King, to whom they looked up with superstitious reverence, was greatly provoked. They made haste, therefore, to atone for their offence. In the House, they unanimously reversed the decision which, in the Committee, they had unanimously adopted and passed a resolution importing that they relied with entire confidence on His Majesty's gracious promise to protect that religion which was dearer to them than life itself. 313

The Commons likely realized upon reflection that they had acted foolishly. They were also unsettled to learn that the King, whom they admired almost blindly, was very upset. So, they quickly moved to make amends for their mistake. In the House, they unanimously overturned the decision they had previously made in the Committee and passed a resolution stating that they fully trusted His Majesty's kind promise to safeguard the religion that meant more to them than life itself. 313

Three days later the King informed the House that his brother had left some debts, and that the stores of the navy and ordnance were nearly exhausted. It was promptly resolved that new taxes should be imposed. The person on whom devolved the task of devising ways and means was Sir Dudley North, younger brother of the Lord Keeper. Dudley North was one of the ablest men of his time. He had early in life been sent to the Levant, and had there been long engaged in mercantile pursuits. Most men would, in such a situation, have allowed their faculties to rust. For at Smyrna and Constantinople there were few books and few intelligent companions. But the young factor had one of those vigorous understandings which are independent of external aids. In his solitude he meditated deeply on the philosophy of trade, and thought out by degrees a complete and admirable theory, substantially the same with that which, a century later, was expounded by Adam Smith. After an exile of many years, Dudley North returned to England with a large fortune, and commenced business as a Turkey merchant in the City of London. His profound knowledge, both speculative and practical, of commercial matters, and the perspicuity and liveliness with which he explained his views, speedily introduced him to the notice of statesmen. The government found in him at once an enlightened adviser and an unscrupulous slave. For with his rare mental endowments were joined lax principles and an unfeeling heart. When the Tory reaction was in full progress, he had consented to be made Sheriff for the express purpose of assisting the vengeance of the court. His juries had never failed to find verdicts of Guilty; and, on a day of judicial butchery, carts, loaded with the legs and arms of quartered Whigs, were, to the great discomposure of his lady, driven to his fine house in Basinghall Street for orders. His services had been rewarded with the honour of knighthood, with an Alderman's gown, and with the office of Commissioner of the Customs. He had been brought into Parliament for Banbury, and though a new member, was the person on whom the Lord Treasurer chiefly relied for the conduct of financial business in the Lower House. 314

Three days later, the King informed the House that his brother had left some debts and that the navy and ordnance supplies were nearly gone. It was quickly decided that new taxes should be imposed. The task of figuring out ways to do this fell to Sir Dudley North, the younger brother of the Lord Keeper. Dudley North was one of the brightest minds of his time. Early in life, he had been sent to the Levant, where he spent a long time involved in trade. Most people in such a position would have let their skills diminish. In Smyrna and Constantinople, there were few books and even fewer smart companions. But the young trader had one of those strong intellects that thrive without outside help. In his isolation, he deeply contemplated the philosophy of trade and gradually developed a complete and impressive theory, which was essentially the same as that expounded by Adam Smith a century later. After many years away, Dudley North returned to England with a significant fortune and started working as a Turkey merchant in the City of London. His deep knowledge of commercial matters, both theoretical and practical, as well as the clarity and energy with which he shared his ideas, quickly attracted the attention of statesmen. The government found in him both an insightful advisor and a ruthless operative. Along with his remarkable mental strengths, he also had lax morals and a cold heart. During the height of the Tory reaction, he agreed to become Sheriff specifically to support the court's retribution. His juries never failed to deliver guilty verdicts, and on a day of judicial execution, carts loaded with the limbs of executed Whigs were, much to his wife’s dismay, brought to his impressive house on Basinghall Street for instructions. His services were rewarded with a knighthood, the robe of an Alderman, and the post of Commissioner of the Customs. He was elected to Parliament for Banbury, and even as a newcomer, he was the person the Lord Treasurer relied on the most for managing financial matters in the Lower House. 314

Though the Commons were unanimous in their resolution to grant a further supply to the crown, they were by no means agreed as to the sources from which that supply should be drawn. It was speedily determined that part of the sum which was required should be raised by laying an additional impost, for a term of eight years, on wine and vinegar: but something more than this was needed. Several absurd schemes were suggested. Many country gentlemen were disposed to put a heavy tax on all new buildings in the capital. Such a tax, it was hoped, would check the growth of a city which had long been regarded with jealousy and aversion by the rural aristocracy. Dudley North's plan was that additional duties should be imposed, for a term of eight years, on sugar and tobacco. A great clamour was raised Colonial merchants, grocers, sugar bakers and tobacconists, petitioned the House and besieged the public offices. The people of Bristol, who were deeply interested in the trade with Virginia and Jamaica, sent up a deputation which was heard at the bar of the Commons. Rochester was for a moment staggered; but North's ready wit and perfect knowledge of trade prevailed, both in the Treasury and in the Parliament, against all opposition. The old members were amazed at seeing a man who had not been a fortnight in the House, and whose life had been chiefly passed in foreign countries, assume with confidence, and discharge with ability, all the functions of a Chancellor of the Exchequer. 315

Although the Commons unanimously agreed to provide additional funding to the crown, they were far from consensus on where that funding should come from. It was quickly decided that part of the required amount would be raised by imposing an extra tax on wine and vinegar for eight years, but something more was needed. Several ridiculous proposals were put forward. Many country gentlemen wanted to impose a heavy tax on all new buildings in the capital, hoping it would slow down the expansion of a city that had long been viewed with suspicion and disdain by the rural elite. Dudley North proposed that additional duties be charged on sugar and tobacco for eight years. A huge outcry ensued; colonial merchants, grocers, sugar bakers, and tobacconists petitioned the House and pressured public offices. The people of Bristol, who were heavily invested in trade with Virginia and Jamaica, sent a delegation that was heard in front of the Commons. Rochester was briefly taken aback; however, North's quick wit and thorough understanding of trade won out in both the Treasury and Parliament, overcoming all opposition. The veteran members were astonished to see someone who had only been in the House for two weeks, and who had spent most of his life abroad, confidently take on and effectively carry out the duties of a Chancellor of the Exchequer. 315

His plan was adopted; and thus the Crown was in possession of a clear income of about nineteen hundred thousand pounds, derived from England alone. Such an income was then more than sufficient for the support of the government in time of peace. 316

His plan was approved; and so the Crown had a clear income of about nineteen hundred thousand pounds coming from England alone. This amount was more than enough to maintain the government during peacetime. 316

The Lords had, in the meantime, discussed several important questions. The Tory party had always been strong among the peers. It included the whole bench of Bishops, and had been reinforced during the four years which had elapsed since the last dissolution, by several fresh creations. Of the new nobles, the most conspicuous were the Lord Treasurer Rochester, the Lord Keeper Guildford, the Lord Chief Justice Jeffreys, the Lord Godolphin, and the Lord Churchill, who, after his return from Versailles, had been made a Baron of England.

The Lords had, in the meantime, talked about several important issues. The Tory party had always been strong among the peers. It included all the Bishops, and had been bolstered during the four years since the last dissolution by several new appointments. Among the new nobles, the most notable were Lord Treasurer Rochester, Lord Keeper Guildford, Lord Chief Justice Jeffreys, Lord Godolphin, and Lord Churchill, who, after his return from Versailles, was made a Baron of England.

The peers early took into consideration the case of four members of their body who had been impeached in the late reign, but had never been brought to trial, and had, after a long confinement, been admitted to bail by the Court of King's Bench. Three of the noblemen who were thus under recognisances were Roman Catholics. The fourth was a Protestant of great note and influence, the Earl of Danby. Since he had fallen from power and had been accused of treason by the Commons, four Parliaments had been dissolved; but he had been neither acquitted nor condemned. In 1679 the Lords had considered, with reference to his situation, the question whether an impeachment was or was not terminated by a dissolution. They had resolved, after long debate and full examination of precedents, that the impeachment was still pending. That resolution they now rescinded. A few Whig nobles protested against this step, but to little purpose. The Commons silently acquiesced in the decision of the Upper House. Danby again took his seat among his peers, and became an active and powerful member of the Tory party. 317

The peers quickly reviewed the case of four members of their group who had been impeached during the previous reign but had never been put on trial. After a long time in confinement, they were released on bail by the Court of King's Bench. Three of these nobles were Roman Catholics, while the fourth was a well-known and influential Protestant, the Earl of Danby. Since losing his position and being accused of treason by the Commons, four Parliaments had been dissolved, yet he had neither been acquitted nor condemned. In 1679, the Lords had looked into whether an impeachment would end with a dissolution. After thorough debate and careful consideration of precedents, they concluded that the impeachment was still active. They now reversed that decision. A few Whig nobles objected to this move, but it didn’t have much effect. The Commons quietly accepted the Upper House's decision. Danby returned to his seat among his peers and became an active and influential member of the Tory party. 317

The constitutional question on which the Lords thus, in the short space of six years, pronounced two diametrically opposite decisions, slept during more than a century, and was at length revived by the dissolution which took place during the long trial of Warren Hastings. It was then necessary to determine whether the rule laid down in 1679, or the opposite rule laid down in 1685, was to be accounted the law of the land. The point was long debated in both houses; and the best legal and parliamentary abilities which an age preeminently fertile both in legal and in parliamentary ability could supply were employed in the discussion. The lawyers were not unequally divided. Thurlow, Kenyon, Scott, and Erskine maintained that the dissolution had put an end to the impeachment. The contrary doctrine was held by Mansfield, Camden, Loughborough, and Grant. But among those statesmen who grounded their arguments, not on precedents and technical analogies, but on deep and broad constitutional principles, there was little difference of opinion. Pitt and Grenville, as well as Burke and Fox, held that the impeachment was still pending Both Houses by great majorities set aside the decision of 1685, and pronounced the decision of 1679 to be in conformity with the law of Parliament.

The constitutional question that the Lords pronounced two completely opposite decisions on in just six years remained dormant for over a century. It was finally brought back to life by the dissolution that occurred during the lengthy trial of Warren Hastings. It became necessary to figure out whether the rule established in 1679 or the conflicting rule set in 1685 should be considered the law of the land. This issue was debated for a long time in both houses, with the best legal and parliamentary minds of an era known for its remarkable legal and parliamentary talent engaged in the discussion. The lawyers were fairly split. Thurlow, Kenyon, Scott, and Erskine argued that the dissolution had ended the impeachment, while Mansfield, Camden, Loughborough, and Grant took the opposing view. However, among those politicians who based their arguments not on precedents and technical comparisons but on fundamental constitutional principles, there was little disagreement. Pitt and Grenville, along with Burke and Fox, believed that the impeachment was still ongoing. Both Houses, by large majorities, rejected the decision of 1685 and declared that the decision of 1679 aligned with the law of Parliament.

Of the national crimes which had been committed during the panic excited by the fictions of Oates, the most signal had been the judicial murder of Stafford. The sentence of that unhappy nobleman was now regarded by all impartial persons as unjust. The principal witness for the prosecution had been convicted of a series of foul perjuries. It was the duty of the legislature, in such circumstances, to do justice to the memory of a guiltless sufferer, and to efface an unmerited stain from a name long illustrious in our annals. A bill for reversing the attainder of Stafford was passed by the Upper House, in spite of the murmurs of a few peers who were unwilling to admit that they had shed innocent blood. The Commons read the bill twice without a division, and ordered it to be committed. But, on the day appointed for the committee, arrived news that a formidable rebellion had broken out in the West of England. It was consequently necessary to postpone much important business. The amends due to the memory of Stafford were deferred, as was supposed, only for a short time. But the misgovernment of James in a few months completely turned the tide of public feeling. During several generations the Roman Catholics were in no condition to demand reparation for injustice, and accounted themselves happy if they were permitted to live unmolested in obscurity and silence. At length, in the reign of King George the Fourth, more than a hundred and forty years after the day on which the blood of Stafford was shed on Tower Hill, the tardy expiation was accomplished. A law annulling the attainder and restoring the injured family to its ancient dignities was presented to Parliament by the ministers of the crown, was eagerly welcomed by public men of all parties, and was passed without one dissentient voice. 318

Of the national crimes committed during the panic caused by Oates's lies, the most notable was the wrongful execution of Stafford. Most fair-minded people now see the sentence of that unfortunate nobleman as unjust. The main witness for the prosecution had been found guilty of a series of serious lies. It was the legislature's responsibility, in such situations, to honor the memory of an innocent victim and remove an undeserved stain from a name that has long been respected in our history. A bill to reverse Stafford's attainder passed the Upper House, despite some peers grumbling about admitting they had shed innocent blood. The Commons read the bill twice without a debate and ordered it to be reviewed. However, on the day set for the committee, news arrived that a significant rebellion had erupted in the West of England. Therefore, it became necessary to postpone much important business. The reparations owed to Stafford's memory were put off, it was believed, only for a short time. But James's poor governance quickly changed public sentiment within a few months. For several generations, Roman Catholics were not in a position to demand justice for injustices and considered themselves fortunate if they were allowed to live quietly and without trouble. Finally, during King George the Fourth's reign, more than one hundred and forty years after Stafford's blood was spilled on Tower Hill, the long-overdue justice was achieved. A law that annulled the attainder and restored the affected family to their former status was presented to Parliament by the crown’s ministers, was warmly received by public figures from all parties, and was passed unanimously. 318

It is now necessary that I should trace the origin and progress of that rebellion by which the deliberations of the Houses were suddenly interrupted.

It’s now important for me to outline the origin and development of the rebellion that abruptly interrupted the discussions of the Houses.





CHAPTER V.

TOWARDS the close of the reign of Charles the Second, some Whigs who had been deeply implicated in the plot so fatal to their party, and who knew themselves to be marked out for destruction, had sought an asylum in the Low Countries.

TOWARDS the end of Charles the Second's reign, some Whigs who had been heavily involved in the plot that was disastrous for their party, and who realized they were targeted for destruction, had sought refuge in the Low Countries.

These refugees were in general men of fiery temper and weak judgment. They were also under the influence of that peculiar illusion which seems to belong to their situation. A politician driven into banishment by a hostile faction generally sees the society which he has quitted through a false medium. Every object is distorted and discoloured by his regrets, his longings, and his resentments. Every little discontent appears to him to portend a revolution. Every riot is a rebellion. He cannot be convinced that his country does not pine for him as much as he pines for his country. He imagines that all his old associates, who still dwell at their homes and enjoy their estates, are tormented by the same feelings which make life a burden to himself. The longer his expatriation, the greater does this hallucination become. The lapse of time, which cools the ardour of the friends whom he has left behind, inflames his. Every month his impatience to revisit his native land increases; and every month his native land remembers and misses him less. This delusion becomes almost a madness when many exiles who suffer in the same cause herd together in a foreign country. Their chief employment is to talk of what they once were, and of what they may yet be, to goad each other into animosity against the common enemy, to feed each other with extravagant hopes of victory and revenge. Thus they become ripe for enterprises which would at once be pronounced hopeless by any man whose passions had not deprived him of the power of calculating chances.

These refugees were generally hot-headed and poor at judging situations. They were also under the grip of a strange illusion that seems to come with their predicament. A politician who’s been forced into exile by an opposing group tends to view the society they’ve left in a distorted way. Everything is twisted and tainted by their regrets, desires, and resentments. Every small discontent seems to signal a looming revolution. Every protest looks like a rebellion. They can’t be convinced that their country doesn’t miss them as much as they miss their country. They think that all their former associates, who still live in their homes and enjoy their fortunes, are suffering from the same feelings that make life unbearable for them. The longer they are away, the stronger this illusion becomes. As time passes, which cools the passion of the friends they left behind, it only intensifies their own feelings. Month after month, their urgency to return to their homeland grows, while at the same time, that homeland remembers and longs for them less. This delusion turns into a kind of madness when many exiles who share the same struggles gather in a foreign land. Their main activity becomes reminiscing about who they used to be and who they could still become, pushing each other to hate their common enemy more, and feeding each other unrealistic hopes of triumph and revenge. As a result, they become ready for ventures that would seem utterly impossible to anyone whose passions hadn’t clouded their ability to think clearly.

In this mood were many of the outlaws who had assembled on the Continent. The correspondence which they kept up with England was, for the most part, such as tended to excite their feelings and to mislead their judgment. Their information concerning the temper of the public mind was chiefly derived from the worst members of the Whig party, from men who were plotters and libellers by profession, who were pursued by the officers of justice, who were forced to skulk in disguise through back streets, and who sometimes lay hid for weeks together in cocklofts and cellars. The statesmen who had formerly been the ornaments of the Country Party, the statesmen who afterwards guided the councils of the Convention, would have given advice very different from that which was given by such men as John Wildman and Henry Danvers.

Many of the outlaws gathered on the Continent were in this mindset. The communication they maintained with England usually stirred up their emotions and led them to make poor judgments. Their insights into public sentiment mainly came from the worst elements of the Whig party—people who were involved in plotting and slander by trade, who were on the run from law enforcement, forced to hide out in disguise in back alleys, and who sometimes spent weeks hiding in attics and basements. The statesmen who once shined in the Country Party and later guided the Convention's decisions would have provided advice very different from that given by men like John Wildman and Henry Danvers.

Wildman had served forty years before in the parliamentary army, but had been more distinguished there as an agitator than as a soldier, and had early quitted the profession of arms for pursuits better suited to his temper. His hatred of monarchy had induced him to engage in a long series of conspiracies, first against the Protector, and then against the Stuarts. But with Wildman's fanaticism was joined a tender care for his own safety. He had a wonderful skill in grazing the edge of treason. No man understood better how to instigate others to desperate enterprises by words which, when repeated to a jury, might seem innocent, or, at worst, ambiguous. Such was his cunning that, though always plotting, though always known to be plotting, and though long malignantly watched by a vindictive government, he eluded every danger, and died in his bed, after having seen two generations of his accomplices die on the gallows. 319 Danvers was a man of the same class, hotheaded, but fainthearted, constantly urged to the brink of danger by enthusiasm, and constantly stopped on that brink by cowardice. He had considerable influence among a portion of the Baptists, had written largely in defence of their peculiar opinions, and had drawn down on himself the severe censure of the most respectable Puritans by attempting to palliate the crimes of Matthias and John of Leyden. It is probable that, had he possessed a little courage, he would have trodden in the footsteps of the wretches whom he defended. He was, at this time, concealing himself from the officers of justice; for warrants were out against him on account of a grossly calumnious paper of which the government had discovered him to be the author. 320

Wildman had spent forty years in the parliamentary army, but he was more notable as an agitator than a soldier, and he had left military service early for pursuits that suited his temperament better. His dislike of monarchy led him to participate in a long series of conspiracies, first against the Protector and then against the Stuarts. However, alongside Wildman's fanaticism was a strong awareness of his own safety. He had a remarkable talent for skirting the edge of treason. No one knew better how to incite others to desperate acts with words that, if repeated in court, could seem innocent or, at the very least, unclear. His cunning was such that, despite always scheming, always being known for scheming, and being closely monitored by a vengeful government, he managed to avoid every threat and died peacefully in his bed after witnessing two generations of his accomplices meet their end on the gallows. 319 Danvers was a man of the same kind—hotheaded yet cowardly, often driven to the edge of danger by his enthusiasm, but consistently held back by his fear. He had significant influence among a segment of the Baptists, had written extensively to defend their unique beliefs, and had attracted severe criticism from the more respected Puritans by trying to justify the actions of Matthias and John of Leyden. It's likely that, if he had a bit of courage, he would have followed in the footsteps of those he defended. At that time, he was hiding from law enforcement, as there were warrants out for him due to a scandalous paper that the government had found out he authored. 320

It is easy to imagine what kind of intelligence and counsel men, such as have been described, were likely to send to the outlaws in the Netherlands. Of the general character of those outlaws an estimate may be formed from a few samples.

It’s easy to picture the type of intelligence and advice guys like the ones mentioned would likely give to the outlaws in the Netherlands. You can get a sense of the overall nature of those outlaws from just a few examples.

One of the most conspicuous among them was John Ayloffe, a lawyer connected by affinity with the Hydes, and through the Hydes, with James. Ayloffe had early made himself remarkable by offering a whimsical insult to the government. At a time when the ascendancy of the court of Versailles had excited general uneasiness, he had contrived to put a wooden shoe, the established type, among the English, of French tyranny, into the chair of the House of Commons. He had subsequently been concerned in the Whig plot; but there is no reason to believe that he was a party to the design of assassinating the royal brothers. He was a man of parts and courage; but his moral character did not stand high. The Puritan divines whispered that he was a careless Gallio or something worse, and that, whatever zeal he might profess for civil liberty, the Saints would do well to avoid all connection with him. 321

One of the most noticeable among them was John Ayloffe, a lawyer related by marriage to the Hydes, and through the Hydes, to James. Ayloffe had made a name for himself early on by delivering a quirky insult to the government. At a time when the dominance of the court of Versailles had stirred widespread anxiety, he managed to place a wooden shoe, the established symbol of French oppression, in the chair of the House of Commons. He had later been involved in the Whig plot; however, there’s no reason to think he was part of the plan to assassinate the royal brothers. He was a man of talent and bravery, but his moral reputation was not great. The Puritan ministers whispered that he was a careless Gallio or worse, and that, despite whatever passion he might show for civil liberty, the Saints should steer clear of any association with him. 321

Nathaniel Wade was, like Ayloffe, a lawyer. He had long resided at Bristol, and had been celebrated in his own neighbourhood as a vehement republican. At one time he had formed a project of emigrating to New Jersey, where he expected to find institutions better suited to his taste than those of England. His activity in electioneering had introduced him to the notice of some Whig nobles. They had employed him professionally, and had, at length, admitted him to their most secret counsels. He had been deeply concerned in the scheme of insurrection, and had undertaken to head a rising in his own city. He had also been privy to the more odious plot against the lives of Charles and James. But he always declared that, though privy to it, he had abhorred it, and had attempted to dissuade his associates from carrying their design into effect. For a man bred to civil pursuits, Wade seems to have had, in an unusual degree, that sort of ability and that sort of nerve which make a good soldier. Unhappily his principles and his courage proved to be not of sufficient force to support him when the fight was over, and when in a prison, he had to choose between death and infamy. 322

Nathaniel Wade was, like Ayloffe, a lawyer. He had lived in Bristol for a long time and was well-known in his community as a passionate republican. At one point, he planned to move to New Jersey, hoping to find institutions that suited him better than those in England. His active involvement in political campaigns had caught the attention of some Whig nobles. They hired him for legal work and eventually included him in their most confidential discussions. He was deeply involved in the insurrection plan and had agreed to lead a revolt in his own city. He was also aware of the more despicable plot against the lives of Charles and James. However, he always insisted that, although he knew about it, he detested the plan and tried to convince his associates not to go through with it. For someone trained in civil work, Wade seemed to possess, unusually, the type of talent and guts that make a good soldier. Unfortunately, his principles and bravery were not strong enough to uphold him when the fighting ended and he found himself in prison, facing a choice between death and disgrace. 322

Another fugitive was Richard Goodenough, who had formerly been Under Sheriff of London. On this man his party had long relied for services of no honourable kind, and especially for the selection of jurymen not likely to be troubled with scruples in political cases. He had been deeply concerned in those dark and atrocious parts of the Whig plot which had been carefully concealed from the most respectable Whigs. Nor is it possible to plead, in extenuation of his guilt, that he was misled by inordinate zeal for the public good. For it will be seen that after having disgraced a noble cause by his crimes, he betrayed it in order to escape from his well merited punishment. 323

Another fugitive was Richard Goodenough, who used to be the Under Sheriff of London. His group had long depended on him for services of questionable integrity, especially when it came to picking jurors unlikely to have scruples in political cases. He was heavily involved in the dark and heinous aspects of the Whig plot that had been kept a secret even from the most reputable Whigs. There's no way to justify his wrongdoing by claiming he was misled by excessive zeal for the public good. It will be shown that after tainting a noble cause with his crimes, he betrayed it to avoid the punishment he rightly deserved. 323

Very different was the character of Richard Rumbold. He had held a commission in Cromwell's own regiment, had guarded the scaffold before the Banqueting House on the day of the great execution, had fought at Dunbar and Worcester, and had always shown in the highest degree the qualities which distinguished the invincible army in which he served, courage of the truest temper, fiery enthusiasm, both political and religious, and with that enthusiasm, all the power of selfgovernment which is characteristic of men trained in well disciplined camps to command and to obey. When the Republican troops were disbanded, Rumbold became a maltster, and carried on his trade near Hoddesdon, in that building from which the Rye House plot derives its name. It had been suggested, though not absolutely determined, in the conferences of the most violent and unscrupulous of the malecontents, that armed men should be stationed in the Rye House to attack the Guards who were to escort Charles and James from Newmarket to London. In these conferences Rumbold had borne a part from which he would have shrunk with horror, if his clear understanding had not been overclouded, and his manly heart corrupted, by party spirit. 324

Richard Rumbold was a very different character. He had served in Cromwell's own regiment, stood guard at the scaffold before the Banqueting House on the day of the big execution, fought at Dunbar and Worcester, and consistently exhibited the qualities that set apart the unbeatable army he was part of: true courage, intense political and religious passion, and with that passion, all the self-governing abilities characteristic of men trained in well-disciplined camps to lead and follow. When the Republican troops were disbanded, Rumbold became a maltster and continued his trade near Hoddesdon, in the building that gave its name to the Rye House plot. It was suggested, though not firmly decided, in meetings of the most reckless and unscrupulous dissenters, that armed men should be stationed at the Rye House to ambush the Guards who were scheduled to escort Charles and James from Newmarket to London. In these discussions, Rumbold had taken part in a way he would have been horrified by if his clear understanding hadn't been clouded and his brave heart corrupted by party spirit. 324

A more important exile was Ford Grey, Lord Grey of Wark. He had been a zealous Exclusionist, had concurred in the design of insurrection, and had been committed to the Tower, but had succeeded in making his keepers drunk, and in effecting his escape to the Continent. His parliamentary abilities were great, and his manners pleasing: but his life had been sullied by a great domestic crime. His wife was a daughter of the noble house of Berkeley. Her sister, the Lady Henrietta Berkeley, was allowed to associate and correspond with him as with a brother by blood. A fatal attachment sprang up. The high spirit and strong passions of Lady Henrietta broke through all restraints of virtue and decorum. A scandalous elopement disclosed to the whole kingdom the shame of two illustrious families. Grey and some of the agents who had served him in his amour were brought to trial on a charge of conspiracy. A scene unparalleled in our legal history was exhibited in the Court of King's Bench. The seducer appeared with dauntless front, accompanied by his paramour. Nor did the great Whig lords flinch from their friend's side even in that extremity. Those whom he had wronged stood over against him, and were moved to transports of rage by the sight of him. The old Earl of Berkeley poured forth reproaches and curses on the wretched Henrietta. The Countess gave evidence broken by many sobs, and at length fell down in a swoon. The jury found a verdict of Guilty. When the court rose Lord Berkeley called on all his friends to help him to seize his daughter. The partisans of Grey rallied round her. Swords were drawn on both sides; a skirmish took place in Westminster Hall; and it was with difficulty that the Judges and tipstaves parted the combatants. In our time such a trial would be fatal to the character of a public man; but in that age the standard of morality among the great was so low, and party spirit was so violent, that Grey still continued to have considerable influence, though the Puritans, who formed a strong section of the Whig party, looked somewhat coldly on him. 325

A more significant exile was Ford Grey, Lord Grey of Wark. He had been a committed Exclusionist, agreed to plotting an uprising, and had been sent to the Tower, but managed to get his guards drunk and escaped to the Continent. He was a talented parliamentarian with a charming demeanor, but his life was tainted by a serious personal crime. His wife was a daughter of the noble house of Berkeley. Her sister, Lady Henrietta Berkeley, was allowed to interact and correspond with him as if he were a brother. A disastrous affection developed. Lady Henrietta's strong personality and intense passions overcame all boundaries of virtue and propriety. A scandalous elopement exposed the disgrace of two prominent families to the entire kingdom. Grey and some of the people who assisted him in this affair were tried for conspiracy. An unprecedented scene played out in the Court of King's Bench. The offender appeared unfazed, alongside his lover. The prominent Whig lords stood by their friend even in such dire circumstances. Those he had harmed confronted him, enraged by his presence. The old Earl of Berkeley unleashed a stream of accusations and curses at the unfortunate Henrietta. The Countess testified, overcome with sobs, and eventually fainted. The jury delivered a Guilty verdict. When the court adjourned, Lord Berkeley called on all his friends to help him seize his daughter. Grey's supporters rallied around her. Swords were drawn on both sides; a skirmish broke out in Westminster Hall, and it took great effort for the Judges and tipstaves to separate the fighters. In our time, such a trial would ruin a public figure's reputation; however, in that era, the moral standards among the elite were so low and party loyalty so fierce that Grey still maintained significant influence, even though the Puritans, who were a strong faction of the Whig party, viewed him somewhat disdainfully. 325

One part of the character, or rather, it may be, of the fortune, of Grey deserves notice. It was admitted that everywhere, except on the field of battle, he showed a high degree of courage. More than once, in embarrassing circumstances, when his life and liberty were at stake, the dignity of his deportment and his perfect command of all his faculties extorted praise from those who neither loved nor esteemed him. But as a soldier he incurred, less perhaps by his fault than by mischance, the degrading imputation of personal cowardice.

One aspect of Grey's character, or maybe his luck, stands out. It was acknowledged that everywhere except on the battlefield, he displayed a high level of courage. More than once, in tough situations where his life and freedom were at risk, his dignified behavior and complete control over his faculties earned him praise from those who neither liked nor respected him. However, as a soldier, he faced the unfortunate and degrading label of personal cowardice, perhaps less due to his actions and more because of bad luck.

In this respect he differed widely from his friend the Duke of Monmouth. Ardent and intrepid on the field of battle, Monmouth was everywhere else effeminate and irresolute. The accident of his birth, his personal courage, and his superficial graces, had placed him in a post for which he was altogether unfitted. After witnessing the ruin of the party of which he had been the nominal head, he had retired to Holland. The Prince and Princess of Orange had now ceased to regard him as a rival. They received him most hospitably; for they hoped that, by treating, him with kindness, they should establish a claim to the gratitude of his father. They knew that paternal affection was not yet wearied out, that letters and supplies of money still came secretly from Whitehall to Monmouth's retreat, and that Charles frowned on those who sought to pay their court to him by speaking ill of his banished son. The Duke had been encouraged to expect that, in a very short time, if he gave no new cause of displeasure, he would be recalled to his native land, and restored to all his high honours and commands. Animated by such expectations he had been the life of the Hague during the late winter. He had been the most conspicuous figure at a succession of balls in that splendid Orange Hall, which blazes on every side with the most ostentatious colouring of Jordæns and Hondthorst. 326 He had taught the English country dance to the Dutch ladies, and had in his turn learned from them to skate on the canals. The Princess had accompanied him in his expeditions on the ice; and the figure which she made there, poised on one leg, and clad in petticoats shorter than are generally worn by ladies so strictly decorous, had caused some wonder and mirth to the foreign ministers. The sullen gravity which had been characteristic of the Stadtholder's court seemed to have vanished before the influence of the fascinating Englishman. Even the stern and pensive William relaxed into good humour when his brilliant guest appeared. 327

In this regard, he was very different from his friend, the Duke of Monmouth. Brave and bold in battle, Monmouth was otherwise delicate and uncertain. The circumstances of his birth, his personal bravery, and his superficial charm had placed him in a position for which he was completely unqualified. After witnessing the downfall of the party he had nominally led, he had withdrawn to Holland. The Prince and Princess of Orange no longer viewed him as a rival. They welcomed him warmly, hoping that by treating him kindly, they could claim his father's gratitude. They knew that his father’s affection wasn’t exhausted, that letters and financial support still secretly arrived from Whitehall to Monmouth's refuge, and that Charles disapproved of those who flattered him by speaking poorly of his exiled son. The Duke had been led to believe that, if he did not give any fresh reasons for displeasure, he would soon be recalled to his homeland and restored to all his former titles and positions. Encouraged by such hopes, he had been the life of The Hague during the past winter. He was the most noticeable figure at a series of balls in that magnificent Orange Hall, which dazzles with the most lavish colors of Jordæns and Hondthorst. 326 He had taught the English country dance to the Dutch ladies and had, in turn, learned from them how to skate on the canals. The Princess had joined him on his ice adventures; and her figure there, balanced on one leg and wearing petticoats shorter than what is usually deemed appropriate for ladies, had both astonished and amused the foreign diplomats. The somber seriousness that had typically characterized the Stadtholder's court seemed to fade in the presence of the charming Englishman. Even the stern and contemplative William lightened up when his dazzling guest arrived. 327

Monmouth meanwhile carefully avoided all that could give offence in the quarter to which he looked for protection. He saw little of any Whigs, and nothing of those violent men who had been concerned in the worst part of the Whig plot. He was therefore loudly accused, by his old associates, of fickleness and ingratitude. 328

Monmouth, meanwhile, was very careful to avoid anything that might offend the group he relied on for protection. He didn’t interact much with any Whigs and stayed away from those aggressive individuals who had been involved in the worst part of the Whig conspiracy. As a result, his former allies accused him loudly of being untrustworthy and ungrateful. 328

By none of the exiles was this accusation urged with more vehemence and bitterness than by Robert Ferguson, the Judas of Dryden's great satire. Ferguson was by birth a Scot; but England had long been his residence. At the time of the Restoration, indeed, he had held a living in Kent. He had been bred a Presbyterian; but the Presbyterians had cast him out, and he had become an Independent. He had been master of an academy which the Dissenters had set up at Islington as a rival to Westminster School and the Charter House; and he had preached to large congregations at a meeting house in Moorfields. He had also published some theological treatises which may still be found in the dusty recesses of a few old libraries; but, though texts of Scripture were always on his lips, those who had pecuniary transactions with him soon found him to be a mere swindler.

None of the exiles accused with more intensity and bitterness than Robert Ferguson, the Judas of Dryden's great satire. Ferguson was originally Scottish, but he had lived in England for a long time. At the time of the Restoration, he held a position in Kent. He had been raised a Presbyterian; however, the Presbyterians had expelled him, and he became an Independent. He was the head of an academy that the Dissenters established in Islington to compete with Westminster School and the Charter House, and he preached to large crowds at a meeting house in Moorfields. He also published some theological writings that might still be found in the dusty corners of a few old libraries; but although he frequently quoted Scripture, those who had financial dealings with him quickly realized he was just a fraud.

At length he turned his attention almost entirely from theology to the worst part of politics. He belonged to the class whose office it is to render in troubled times to exasperated parties those services from which honest men shrink in disgust and prudent men in fear, the class of fanatical knaves. Violent, malignant, regardless of truth, insensible to shame, insatiable of notoriety, delighting in intrigue, in tumult, in mischief for its own sake, he toiled during many years in the darkest mines of faction. He lived among libellers and false witnesses. He was the keeper of a secret purse from which agents too vile to be acknowledged received hire, and the director of a secret press whence pamphlets, bearing no name, were daily issued. He boasted that he had contrived to scatter lampoons about the terrace of Windsor, and even to lay them under the royal pillow. In this way of life he was put to many shifts, was forced to assume many names, and at one time had four different lodgings in different corners of London. He was deeply engaged in the Rye House plot. There is, indeed, reason to believe that he was the original author of those sanguinary schemes which brought so much discredit on the whole Whig party. When the conspiracy was detected and his associates were in dismay, he bade them farewell with a laugh, and told them that they were novices, that he had been used to flight, concealment and disguise, and that he should never leave off plotting while he lived. He escaped to the Continent. But it seemed that even on the Continent he was not secure. The English envoys at foreign courts were directed to be on the watch for him. The French government offered a reward of five hundred pistoles to any who would seize him. Nor was it easy for him to escape notice; for his broad Scotch accent, his tall and lean figure, his lantern jaws, the gleam of his sharp eyes which were always overhung by his wig, his cheeks inflamed by an eruption, his shoulders deformed by a stoop, and his gait distinguished from that of other men by a peculiar shuffle, made him remarkable wherever he appeared. But, though he was, as it seemed, pursued with peculiar animosity, it was whispered that this animosity was feigned, and that the officers of justice had secret orders not to see him. That he was really a bitter malecontent can scarcely be doubted. But there is strong reason to believe that he provided for his own safety by pretending at Whitehall to be a spy on the Whigs, and by furnishing the government with just so much information as sufficed to keep up his credit. This hypothesis furnishes a simple explanation of what seemed to his associates to be his unnatural recklessness and audacity. Being himself out of danger, he always gave his vote for the most violent and perilous course, and sneered very complacently at the pusillanimity of men who, not having taken the infamous precautions on which he relied, were disposed to think twice before they placed life, and objects dearer than life, on a single hazard. 329

Eventually, he shifted his focus almost entirely from theology to the worst aspects of politics. He was part of a group that serves frustrated parties during messy times with services that honest people find repugnant and sensible people fear— the group of fanatical crooks. Violent, malicious, indifferent to truth, shameless, craving fame, and reveling in chaos and mischief, he spent many years laboring in the darkest depths of factional conflict. He lived among libelers and liars. He kept a secret fund from which agents too despicable to acknowledge received their payments, and he ran a hidden press that had nameless pamphlets being released daily. He bragged about how he had managed to spread slander around the terrace of Windsor and even place it under the royal pillow. Leading this kind of life forced him into many disguises; at one point, he had four different places to stay scattered around London. He was heavily involved in the Rye House plot. There is indeed reason to believe he was the original creator of the bloody schemes that brought so much shame to the entire Whig party. When the conspiracy was uncovered and his partners were in panic, he bid them farewell with a laugh, telling them they were amateurs, that he was used to fleeing, hiding, and disguising himself, and he would never stop scheming as long as he lived. He escaped to the Continent. However, it seemed that even there he wasn't safe. The English envoys at foreign courts were instructed to keep an eye out for him. The French government offered a reward of five hundred pistoles to anyone who could capture him. It wasn't easy for him to go unnoticed; his strong Scottish accent, tall and skinny frame, prominent jawline, glinting sharp eyes always hidden beneath his wig, flushed cheeks, stooped shoulders, and a unique shuffling gait made him stand out wherever he went. Despite appearing to be chased with unusual intensity, there were whispers that this hostility was fake and that the law officers had secret instructions to overlook him. It's hard to doubt that he was genuinely a bitter malcontent. But there's strong reason to believe he ensured his own safety by pretending to be a spy on the Whigs at Whitehall, providing the government with just enough information to maintain his standing. This idea offers a straightforward explanation for what seemed like his unusual recklessness and audacity to his associates. Since he was out of danger, he consistently voted for the most extreme and risky measures, scoffing smugly at the cowardice of men who, not having taken the infamous precautions he relied on, were inclined to hesitate before putting their lives and dearer things on the line in a single gamble. 329

As soon as he was in the Low Countries he began to form new projects against the English government, and found among his fellow emigrants men ready to listen to his evil counsels. Monmouth, however, stood obstinately aloof; and, without the help of Monmouth's immense popularity, it was impossible to effect anything. Yet such was the impatience and rashness of the exiles that they tried to find another leader. They sent an embassy to that solitary retreat on the shores of Lake Leman where Edmund Ludlow, once conspicuous among the chiefs of the parliamentary army and among the members of the High Court of Justice, had, during many years, hidden himself from the vengeance of the restored Stuarts. The stern old regicide, however, refused to quit his hermitage. His work, he said, was done. If England was still to be saved, she must be saved by younger men. 330

As soon as he arrived in the Low Countries, he started to come up with new plans against the English government and found other exiles who were willing to listen to his harmful advice. Monmouth, however, remained stubbornly distant; without his immense popularity, it was impossible to achieve anything. Yet the impatience and recklessness of the exiles drove them to seek another leader. They sent a delegation to the remote retreat by Lake Leman where Edmund Ludlow, who had once been a prominent leader of the parliamentary army and a member of the High Court of Justice, had hidden from the wrath of the restored Stuarts for many years. However, the stern old regicide refused to leave his solitude. He said his work was done, and if England was to be saved, it would need to be by younger men. 330

The unexpected demise of the crown changed the whole aspect of affairs. Any hope which the proscribed Whigs might have cherished of returning peaceably to their native land was extinguished by the death of a careless and goodnatured prince, and by the accession of a prince obstinate in all things, and especially obstinate in revenge. Ferguson was in his element. Destitute of the talents both of a writer and of a statesman, he had in a high degree the unenviable qualifications of a tempter; and now, with the malevolent activity and dexterity of an evil spirit, he ran from outlaw to outlaw, chattered in every ear, and stirred up in every bosom savage animosities and wild desires.

The sudden death of the king changed everything. Any hope the exiled Whigs had of peacefully returning to their homeland vanished with the passing of a careless and good-hearted prince, and the rise of a new prince who was stubborn in everything, especially in seeking revenge. Ferguson thrived in this chaos. Lacking the skills of both a writer and a statesman, he had an unfortunate knack for being a tempter; now, with the malicious energy and cunning of a dark spirit, he ran from one outlaw to another, whispering in everyone's ear and igniting fierce grudges and reckless ambitions in their hearts.

He no longer despaired of being able to seduce Monmouth. The situation of that unhappy young man was completely changed. While he was dancing and skating at the Hague, and expecting every day a summons to London, he was overwhelmed with misery by the tidings of his father's death and of his uncle's accession. During the night which followed the arrival of the news, those who lodged near him could distinctly hear his sobs and his piercing cries. He quitted the Hague the next day, having solemnly pledged his word both to the Prince and to the Princess of Orange not to attempt anything against the government of England, and having been supplied by them with money to meet immediate demands. 331

He no longer felt hopeless about being able to win over Monmouth. The situation for that unfortunate young man had completely changed. While he was dancing and skating in The Hague, expecting to receive a call to London any day, he was consumed by grief at the news of his father's death and his uncle's rise to power. That night, those who lived nearby could clearly hear his crying and anguished shouts. He left The Hague the next day, having made a solemn promise to both the Prince and Princess of Orange not to do anything against the government of England, and having been given money by them to cover his immediate expenses. 331

The prospect which lay before Monmouth was not a bright one. There was now no probability that he would be recalled from banishment. On the Continent his life could no longer be passed amidst the splendour and festivity of a court. His cousins at the Hague seem to have really regarded him with kindness; but they could no longer countenance him openly without serious risk of producing a rupture between England and Holland. William offered a kind and judicious suggestion. The war which was then raging in Hungary, between the Emperor and the Turks, was watched by all Europe with interest almost as great as that which the Crusades had excited five hundred years earlier. Many gallant gentlemen, both Protestant and Catholic, were fighting as volunteers in the common cause of Christendom. The Prince advised Monmouth to repair to the Imperial camp, and assured him that, if he would do so, he should not want the means of making an appearance befitting an English nobleman. 332 This counsel was excellent: but the Duke could not make up his mind. He retired to Brussels accompanied by Henrietta Wentworth, Baroness Wentworth of Nettlestede, a damsel of high rank and ample fortune, who loved him passionately, who had sacrificed for his sake her maiden honour and the hope of a splendid alliance, who had followed him into exile, and whom he believed to be his wife in the sight of heaven. Under the soothing influence of female friendship, his lacerated mind healed fast. He seemed to have found happiness in obscurity and repose, and to have forgotten that he had been the ornament of a splendid court and the head of a great party, that he had commanded armies, and that he had aspired to a throne.

The future ahead of Monmouth wasn't looking bright. There was no chance he would be brought back from exile. On the Continent, he could no longer enjoy the luxury and excitement of court life. His cousins in The Hague seemed to genuinely care for him, but they couldn't support him openly without risking a serious conflict between England and Holland. William offered a thoughtful suggestion. The war raging in Hungary, between the Emperor and the Turks, was being followed by all of Europe with interest similar to that which the Crusades had generated five hundred years earlier. Many brave gentlemen, both Protestant and Catholic, were volunteering to fight for the shared cause of Christianity. The Prince advised Monmouth to join the Imperial camp and assured him that if he did, he would have the means to maintain the appearance of an English nobleman. 332 This advice was sound, but the Duke couldn't make a decision. He went to Brussels with Henrietta Wentworth, Baroness Wentworth of Nettlestede, a woman of high status and considerable fortune, who loved him deeply, sacrificed her maiden honor and the chance of a prestigious marriage for him, followed him into exile, and whom he believed was his wife in the eyes of heaven. Under the comforting influence of her company, his troubled mind began to heal quickly. He seemed to have found joy in obscurity and peace and to have forgotten that he had once been a prominent figure at a lavish court, the leader of a powerful party, had commanded armies, and had aspired to a throne.

But he was not suffered to remain quiet. Ferguson employed all his powers of temptation. Grey, who knew not where to turn for a pistole, and was ready for any undertaking, however desperate, lent his aid. No art was spared which could draw Monmouth from retreat. To the first invitations which he received from his old associates he returned unfavourable answers. He pronounced the difficulties of a descent on England insuperable, protested that he was sick of public life, and begged to be left in the enjoyment of his newly found happiness. But he was little in the habit of resisting skilful and urgent importunity. It is said, too, that he was induced to quit his retirement by the same powerful influence which had made that retirement delightful. Lady Wentworth wished to see him a King. Her rents, her diamonds, her credit were put at his disposal. Monmouth's judgment was not convinced; but he had not the firmness to resist such solicitations. 333

But he wasn’t allowed to stay quiet. Ferguson used all his tempting powers. Grey, who didn’t know where to find a pistole and was ready for any risky venture, offered his help. No tactic was spared to pull Monmouth out of his retreat. He initially responded to invitations from his old friends with negative replies. He claimed the challenges of invading England were impossible, insisted he was tired of public life, and asked to be left alone to enjoy his newfound happiness. However, he wasn't used to resisting skilled and persistent pressure. It’s also said that he was persuaded to leave his retreat by the same powerful influence that had made it enjoyable. Lady Wentworth wanted to see him as a King. Her income, her diamonds, her influence were all at his disposal. Monmouth wasn’t convinced by her arguments, but he didn’t have the strength to resist such requests. 333

By the English exiles he was joyfully welcomed, and unanimously acknowledged as their head. But there was another class of emigrants who were not disposed to recognise his supremacy. Misgovernment, such as had never been known in the southern part of our island, had driven from Scotland to the Continent many fugitives, the intemperance of whose political and religious zeal was proportioned to the oppression which they had undergone. These men were not willing to follow an English leader. Even in destitution and exile they retained their punctilious national pride, and would not consent that their country should be, in their persons, degraded into a province. They had a captain of their own, Archibald, ninth Earl of Argyle, who, as chief of the great tribe of Campbell, was known among the population of the Highlands by the proud name of Mac Callum More. His father, the Marquess of Argyle, had been the head of the Scotch Covenanters, had greatly contributed to the ruin of Charles the First, and was not thought by the Royalists to have atoned for this offence by consenting to bestow the empty title of King, and a state prison in a palace, on Charles the Second. After the return of the royal family the Marquess was put to death. His marquisate became extinct; but his son was permitted to inherit the ancient earldom, and was still among the greatest if not the greatest, of the nobles of Scotland. The Earl's conduct during the twenty years which followed the Restoration had been, as he afterwards thought, criminally moderate. He had, on some occasions, opposed the administration which afflicted his country: but his opposition had been languid and cautious. His compliances in ecclesiastical matters had given scandal to rigid Presbyterians: and so far had he been from showing any inclination to resistance that, when the Covenanters had been persecuted into insurrection, he had brought into the field a large body of his dependents to support the government.

He was joyfully welcomed by the English exiles and unanimously recognized as their leader. However, there was another group of emigrants who were not willing to accept his authority. Mismanagement, unlike anything seen in the southern part of our island, had driven many refugees from Scotland to the Continent, their extreme political and religious fervor matching the oppression they had faced. These men were not inclined to follow an English leader. Even in hardship and exile, they held onto their strong national pride and refused to let their country be diminished to a province through them. They had their own leader, Archibald, the ninth Earl of Argyle, who, as the head of the prominent Campbell clan, was known among the Highlanders by the proud title of Mac Callum More. His father, the Marquess of Argyle, had been the leader of the Scottish Covenanters, had greatly contributed to the downfall of Charles the First, and the Royalists believed he hadn’t atoned for this by agreeing to give Charles the Second an empty title of King and a state prison within a palace. After the royal family returned, the Marquess was executed. His marquisate ended; however, his son was allowed to inherit the ancient earldom, and he remained one of the greatest, if not the greatest, nobles in Scotland. The Earl believed that his actions during the twenty years following the Restoration had been criminally moderate. He had, at times, opposed the government that was burdening his country, but his opposition was weak and cautious. His compromises in church matters had angered strict Presbyterians, and he had not shown any desire to resist; in fact, when the Covenanters were persecuted into rebellion, he had assembled a large group of his followers to support the government.

Such had been his political course until the Duke of York came down to Edinburgh armed with the whole regal authority The despotic viceroy soon found that he could not expect entire support from Argyle. Since the most powerful chief in the kingdom could not be gained, it was thought necessary that he should be destroyed. On grounds so frivolous that even the spirit of party and the spirit of chicane were ashamed of them, he was brought to trial for treason, convicted, and sentenced to death. The partisans of the Stuarts afterwards asserted that it was never meant to carry this sentence into effect, and that the only object of the prosecution was to frighten him into ceding his extensive jurisdiction in the Highlands. Whether James designed, as his enemies suspected, to commit murder, or only, as his friends affirmed, to commit extortion by threatening to commit murder, cannot now be ascertained. "I know nothing of the Scotch law," said Halifax to King Charles; "but this I know, that we should not hang a dog here on the grounds on which my Lord Argyle has been sentenced." 334

His political journey had been steady until the Duke of York arrived in Edinburgh with full royal authority. The authoritarian viceroy quickly realized he couldn't count on complete support from Argyle. Since the most influential chief in the kingdom wasn't on his side, it was deemed necessary to eliminate him. On such trivial grounds that even the spirit of partisanship and trickery were embarrassed, he was put on trial for treason, found guilty, and given a death sentence. Supporters of the Stuarts later claimed that there was never any intention to carry out this sentence, arguing that the prosecution aimed to intimidate him into giving up his vast rule in the Highlands. Whether James meant to commit murder, as his enemies suspected, or merely intended to extort him by threatening murder, as his supporters claimed, can't be determined now. "I know nothing about Scottish law," Halifax told King Charles, "but I do know that we shouldn't hang a dog based on the reasons my Lord Argyle has been sentenced." 334

Argyle escaped in disguise to England, and thence passed over to Friesland. In that secluded province his father had bought a small estate, as a place of refuge for the family in civil troubles. It was said, among the Scots that this purchase had been made in consequence of the predictions of a Celtic seer, to whom it had been revealed that Mac Callum More would one day be driven forth from the ancient mansion of his race at Inverary. 335 But it is probable that the politic Marquess had been warned rather by the signs of the times than by the visions of any prophet. In Friesland Earl Archibald resided during some time so quietly that it was not generally known whither he had fled. From his retreat he carried on a correspondence with his friends in Great Britain, was a party to the Whig conspiracy, and concerted with the chiefs of that conspiracy a plan for invading Scotland. 336 This plan had been dropped upon the detection of the Rye House plot, but became again the Subject of his thoughts after the demise of the crown.

Argyle escaped disguised to England, and then moved on to Friesland. In that quiet area, his father had bought a small estate as a safe place for the family during civil unrest. It was rumored among the Scots that this purchase was made because of the predictions of a Celtic seer, who had revealed that Mac Callum More would one day be forced out of his ancestral home in Inverary. 335 However, it’s likely that the clever Marquess was more influenced by the signs of the times than by any prophet's visions. In Friesland, Earl Archibald lived for a while so quietly that most people didn’t even know where he had gone. From his hideout, he kept in touch with his friends in Great Britain, was involved in the Whig conspiracy, and collaborated with the leaders of that conspiracy to plan an invasion of Scotland. 336 This plan was abandoned after the Rye House plot was uncovered but came back to his mind after the crown's death.

He had, during his residence on the Continent, reflected much more deeply on religious questions than in the preceding years of his life. In one respect the effect of these reflections on his mind had been pernicious. His partiality for the synodical form of church government now amounted to bigotry. When he remembered how long he had conformed to the established worship, he was overwhelmed with shame and remorse, and showed too many signs of a disposition to atone for his defection by violence and intolerance. He had however, in no long time, an opportunity of proving that the fear and love of a higher Power had nerved him for the most formidable conflicts by which human nature can be tried.

During his time in Europe, he thought much more deeply about religious issues than he had in previous years. In one way, these thoughts negatively impacted him. His preference for synodical church governance became rigid and fanatical. When he reflected on how long he had followed the established worship, he felt a wave of shame and regret, showing many signs of wanting to make up for his perceived betrayal with aggression and intolerance. However, before long, he had the chance to prove that his fear and love for a higher Power had given him the strength to face the toughest challenges that human nature can encounter.

To his companions in adversity his assistance was of the highest moment. Though proscribed and a fugitive, he was still, in some sense, the most powerful subject in the British dominions. In wealth, even before his attainder, he was probably inferior, not only to the great English nobles, but to some of the opulent esquires of Kent and Norfolk. But his patriarchal authority, an authority which no wealth could give and which no attainder could take away, made him, as a leader of an insurrection, truly formidable. No southern lord could feel any confidence that, if he ventured to resist the government, even his own gamekeepers and huntsmen would stand by him. An Earl of Bedford, an Earl of Devonshire, could not engage to bring ten men into the field. Mac Callum More, penniless and deprived of his earldom, might at any moment, raise a serious civil war. He bad only to show himself on the coast of Lorn; and an army would, in a few days, gather round him. The force which, in favourable circumstances, he could bring into the field, amounted to five thousand fighting, men, devoted to his service accustomed to the use of target and broadsword, not afraid to encounter regular troops even in the open plain, and perhaps superior to regular troops in the qualifications requisite for the defence of wild mountain passes, hidden in mist, and torn by headlong torrents. What such a force, well directed, could effect, even against veteran regiments and skilful commanders, was proved, a few years later, at Killiecrankie.

To his friends in hardship, his help was incredibly important. Even though he was an outlaw and on the run, he was, in many ways, still the most powerful subject in the British territories. Before his conviction, his wealth was probably less than that of the great English nobles and even some wealthy landowners in Kent and Norfolk. However, his patriarchal authority, which no amount of wealth could grant and no conviction could strip away, made him a genuinely formidable leader of a rebellion. No southern lord could be confident that, if he attempted to defy the government, even his own gamekeepers and hunters would support him. An Earl of Bedford or an Earl of Devonshire couldn’t guarantee bringing even ten men to fight. Mac Callum More, broke and stripped of his title, could at any moment spark a serious civil war. All he had to do was show himself on the coast of Lorn, and an army would quickly rally around him. The force he could potentially lead into battle, under the right circumstances, could reach five thousand dedicated fighters, skilled with targets and broadswords, unafraid to face regular troops even in open fields, and possibly better than regular troops when it came to defending rugged mountain paths, shrouded in mist, and battered by swift streams. What a force like this could achieve, when well-directed, even against experienced regiments and skilled commanders, was demonstrated a few years later at Killiecrankie.

But, strong as was the claim of Argyle to the confidence of the exiled Scots, there was a faction among them which regarded him with no friendly feeling, and which wished to make use of his name and influence, without entrusting to him any real power. The chief of this faction was a lowland gentleman, who had been implicated in the Whig plot, and had with difficulty eluded the vengeance of the court, Sir Patrick Hume, of Polwarth, in Berwickshire. Great doubt has been thrown on his integrity, but without sufficient reason. It must, however, be admitted that he injured his cause by perverseness as much as he could have done by treachery. He was a man incapable alike of leading and of following, conceited, captious, and wrongheaded, an endless talker, a sluggard in action against the enemy and active only against his own allies. With Hume was closely connected another Scottish exile of great note, who had many, of the same faults, Sir John Cochrane, second son of the Earl of Dundonald.

But as strong as Argyle's claim was to the trust of the exiled Scots, there was a faction among them that viewed him unfavorably and wanted to leverage his name and influence without giving him any real power. The leader of this faction was a Lowland gentleman, Sir Patrick Hume of Polwarth in Berwickshire, who had been involved in the Whig plot and had narrowly escaped the court's wrath. His integrity has been called into question, but not for valid reasons. However, it must be acknowledged that he harmed his cause just as much through stubbornness as he could have through treachery. He was a man who was incapable of both leading and following, arrogant, argumentative, and misguided; he was a constant talker, lazy when it came to fighting the enemy, and active only against his own allies. Closely connected with Hume was another notable Scottish exile with many of the same faults, Sir John Cochrane, the second son of the Earl of Dundonald.

A far higher character belonged to Andrew Fletcher of Saltoun, a man distinguished by learning and eloquence, distinguished also by courage, disinterestedness, and public spirit but of an irritable and impracticable temper. Like many of his most illustrious contemporaries, Milton for example, Harrington, Marvel, and Sidney, Fletcher had, from the misgovernment of several successive princes, conceived a strong aversion to hereditary monarchy. Yet he was no democrat. He was the head of an ancient Norman house, and was proud of his descent. He was a fine speaker and a fine writer, and was proud of his intellectual superiority. Both in his character of gentleman, and in his character of scholar, he looked down with disdain on the common people, and was so little disposed to entrust them with political power that he thought them unfit even to enjoy personal freedom. It is a curious circumstance that this man, the most honest, fearless, and uncompromising republican of his time, should have been the author of a plan for reducing a large part of the working classes of Scotland to slavery. He bore, in truth, a lively resemblance to those Roman Senators who, while they hated the name of King, guarded the privileges of their order with inflexible pride against the encroachments of the multitude, and governed their bondmen and bondwomen by means of the stocks and the scourge.

Andrew Fletcher of Saltoun had a much higher character, a man known for his intelligence and eloquence, as well as his bravery, selflessness, and civic-mindedness, but he also had an irritable and stubborn temperament. Like many other prominent figures of his time, such as Milton, Harrington, Marvel, and Sidney, Fletcher developed a strong dislike for hereditary monarchy due to the misrule of several successive kings. However, he was not a democrat. He was the leader of an ancient Norman family and took pride in his lineage. He was an excellent speaker and writer and valued his intellectual superiority. Both as a gentleman and a scholar, he looked down on the common people with disdain and was so unwilling to grant them political power that he considered them unfit even for personal freedom. It is interesting that this man, the most honest, fearless, and uncompromising republican of his era, proposed a plan to enslave a large part of the working class in Scotland. In truth, he bore a striking resemblance to those Roman Senators who, while despising the title of King, fiercely protected the privileges of their class against the advances of the masses, governing their slaves with stocks and the lash.

Amsterdam was the place where the leading emigrants, Scotch and English, assembled. Argyle repaired thither from Friesland, Monmouth from Brabant. It soon appeared that the fugitives had scarcely anything in common except hatred of James and impatience to return from banishment. The Scots were jealous of the English, the English of the Scots. Monmouth's high pretensions were offensive to Argyle, who, proud of ancient nobility and of a legitimate descent from kings, was by no means inclined to do homage to the offspring of a vagrant and ignoble love. But of all the dissensions by which the little band of outlaws was distracted the most serious was that which arose between Argyle and a portion of his own followers. Some of the Scottish exiles had, in a long course of opposition to tyranny, been excited into a morbid state of understanding and temper, which made the most just and necessary restraint insupportable to them. They knew that without Argyle they could do nothing. They ought to have known that, unless they wished to run headlong to ruin, they must either repose full confidence in their leader, or relinquish all thoughts of military enterprise. Experience has fully proved that in war every operation, from the greatest to the smallest, ought to be under the absolute direction of one mind, and that every subordinate agent, in his degree, ought to obey implicitly, strenuously, and with the show of cheerfulness, orders which he disapproves, or of which the reasons are kept secret from him. Representative assemblies, public discussions, and all the other checks by which, in civil affairs, rulers are restrained from abusing power, are out of place in a camp. Machiavel justly imputed many of the disasters of Venice and Florence to the jealousy which led those republics to interfere with every one of their generals. 337 The Dutch practice of sending to an army deputies, without whose consent no great blow could be struck, was almost equally pernicious. It is undoubtedly by no means certain that a captain, who has been entrusted with dictatorial power in the hour of peril, will quietly surrender that power in the hour of triumph; and this is one of the many considerations which ought to make men hesitate long before they resolve to vindicate public liberty by the sword. But, if they determine to try the chance of war, they will, if they are wise, entrust to their chief that plenary authority without which war cannot be well conducted. It is possible that, if they give him that authority, he may turn out a Cromwell or a Napoleon. But it is almost certain that, if they withhold from him that authority, their enterprises will end like the enterprise of Argyle.

Amsterdam was the place where the top emigrants, Scottish and English, gathered. Argyle came over from Friesland, Monmouth from Brabant. It quickly became clear that the exiles had barely anything in common apart from their hatred for James and their eagerness to return from exile. The Scots were envious of the English, and the English were envious of the Scots. Monmouth's lofty ambitions offended Argyle, who, proud of his noble heritage and legitimate descent from kings, was not willing to pay respect to the child of a wandering and lowly affair. But of all the conflicts that troubled this small group of outlaws, the most serious was the one that developed between Argyle and some of his own followers. Some of the Scottish exiles had, after a long struggle against tyranny, developed a twisted state of mind that made even the most reasonable and necessary control unbearable for them. They knew that without Argyle, they were powerless. They should have realized that, unless they wanted to rush headlong to destruction, they had to either place complete trust in their leader or abandon any thoughts of military action. Experience has shown that in war, every operation, from the biggest to the smallest, should be under the total direction of one mind, and that every subordinate, in his capacity, must obey without question, willingly, and with a show of enthusiasm, orders he may disagree with or whose reasons are kept from him. Representative assemblies, public debates, and all the other checks that, in civilian matters, prevent rulers from abusing their power, don’t belong in a military camp. Machiavelli rightly attributed many of the failures of Venice and Florence to the jealousy that made those republics interfere with each of their generals. The Dutch practice of dispatching deputies to an army, without whose permission no major action could take place, was similarly harmful. It’s certainly not guaranteed that a captain, who has been given dictatorial power in a moment of crisis, will willingly give that power back in a moment of victory; and this is one of many reasons that should make people think twice before deciding to reclaim public liberty through force. However, if they choose to take the risk of war, they should, if they’re smart, grant their leader the full authority necessary for effective military conduct. It’s possible that if they give him that authority, he could turn out to be a Cromwell or a Napoleon. But it’s almost certain that if they deny him that authority, their efforts will end like those of Argyle.

Some of the Scottish emigrants, heated with republican enthusiasm, and utterly destitute of the skill necessary to the conduct of great affairs, employed all their industry and ingenuity, not in collecting means for the attack which they were about to make on a formidable enemy, but in devising restraints on their leader's power and securities against his ambition. The selfcomplacent stupidity with which they insisted on Organising an army as if they had been organising a commonwealth would be incredible if it had not been frankly and even boastfully recorded by one of themselves. 338

Some of the Scottish emigrants, fired up with republican enthusiasm and completely lacking the skills needed to manage significant issues, focused all their effort and creativity not on gathering resources for the attack they were about to launch against a powerful enemy, but on creating limits on their leader's authority and safeguards against his ambition. The naïve arrogance with which they insisted on organizing an army as if they were setting up a commonwealth would be unbelievable if it hadn't been openly and even proudly documented by one of their own. 338

At length all differences were compromised. It was determined that an attempt should be forthwith made on the western coast of Scotland, and that it should be promptly followed by a descent on England.

Eventually, all differences were settled. It was decided that an attempt should be immediately made on the west coast of Scotland, and that it should be quickly followed by an invasion of England.

Argyle was to hold the nominal command in Scotland: but he was placed under the control of a Committee which reserved to itself all the most important parts of the military administration. This committee was empowered to determine where the expedition should land, to appoint officers, to superintend the levying of troops, to dole out provisions and ammunition. All that was left to the general was to direct the evolutions of the army in the field, and he was forced to promise that even in the field, except in the case of a surprise, he would do nothing without the assent of a council of war.

Argyle was given the nominal command in Scotland, but he was put under the control of a Committee that kept all the most important military responsibilities for itself. This committee had the authority to decide where the expedition would land, to appoint officers, to oversee troop recruitment, and to distribute supplies and ammunition. All the general was allowed to do was manage the army's movements in the field, and he had to promise that even in the field, unless there was a surprise attack, he wouldn't take any action without the agreement of a war council.

Monmouth was to command in England. His soft mind had as usual, taken an impress from the society which surrounded him. Ambitious hopes, which had seemed to be extinguished, revived in his bosom. He remembered the affection with which he had been constantly greeted by the common people in town and country, and expected that they would now rise by hundreds of thousands to welcome him. He remembered the good will which the soldiers had always borne him, and flattered himself that they would come over to him by regiments. Encouraging messages reached him in quick succession from London. He was assured that the violence and injustice with which the elections had been carried on had driven the nation mad, that the prudence of the leading Whigs had with difficulty prevented a sanguinary outbreak on the day of the coronation, and that all the great Lords who had supported the Exclusion Bill were impatient to rally round him. Wildman, who loved to talk treason in parables, sent to say that the Earl of Richmond, just two hundred years before, had landed in England with a handful of men, and had a few days later been crowned, on the field of Bosworth, with the diadem taken from the head of Richard. Danvers undertook to raise the City. The Duke was deceived into the belief that, as soon as he set up his standard, Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Hampshire, Cheshire would rise in arms. 339 He consequently became eager for the enterprise from which a few weeks before he had shrunk. His countrymen did not impose on him restrictions so elaborately absurd as those which the Scotch emigrants had devised. All that was required of him was to promise that he would not assume the regal title till his pretensions has been submitted to the judgment of a free Parliament.

Monmouth was set to lead in England. His gentle nature had, as always, been influenced by the company around him. Ambitious dreams, which seemed to have faded, reignited within him. He remembered the warmth with which he had always been received by the common people in towns and rural areas, and he expected they would now come out in droves to greet him. He recalled the goodwill from the soldiers who had always supported him and convinced himself that they would join him by the regiment. He received encouraging messages rapidly from London. He was told that the violence and unfairness of the elections had driven the nation into a frenzy, that the caution of the leading Whigs had barely prevented a bloody uprising on the day of the coronation, and that all the prominent Lords who had backed the Exclusion Bill were eager to rally around him. Wildman, who loved to hint at treason through stories, conveyed that the Earl of Richmond had landed in England two hundred years earlier with just a few men and had, days later, been crowned on the field of Bosworth with the crown taken from Richard’s head. Danvers promised to mobilize the City. The Duke was misled into believing that as soon as he raised his standard, Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Hampshire, and Cheshire would take up arms. 339 He thus became enthusiastic about an endeavor that just weeks earlier had frightened him. His countrymen did not impose on him the ridiculously complex restrictions that the Scottish emigrants had crafted. All that was asked of him was to promise that he wouldn't claim the royal title until his claims had been evaluated by a free Parliament.

It was determined that two Englishmen, Ayloffe and Rumbold, should accompany Argyle to Scotland, and that Fletcher should go with Monmouth to England. Fletcher, from the beginning, had augured ill of the enterprise: but his chivalrous spirit would not suffer him to decline a risk which his friends seemed eager to encounter. When Grey repeated with approbation what Wildman had said about Richmond and Richard, the well read and thoughtful Scot justly remarked that there was a great difference between the fifteenth century and the seventeenth. Richmond was assured of the support of barons, each of whom could bring an army of feudal retainers into the field; and Richard had not one regiment of regular soldiers. 340

It was decided that two Englishmen, Ayloffe and Rumbold, would go with Argyle to Scotland, while Fletcher would accompany Monmouth to England. From the start, Fletcher had a bad feeling about the venture, but his chivalrous nature wouldn’t allow him to back out of a challenge that his friends seemed eager to take on. When Grey echoed with approval what Wildman had said about Richmond and Richard, the well-read and thoughtful Scot pointed out that there was a significant difference between the fifteenth century and the seventeenth. Richmond had the backing of barons, each capable of bringing an army of feudal followers into battle; meanwhile, Richard didn't have a single regiment of regular soldiers. 340

The exiles were able to raise, partly from their own resources and partly from the contributions of well wishers in Holland, a sum sufficient for the two expeditions. Very little was obtained from London. Six thousand pounds had been expected thence. But instead of the money came excuses from Wildman, which ought to have opened the eyes of all who were not wilfully blind. The Duke made up the deficiency by pawning his own jewels and those of Lady Wentworth. Arms, ammunition, and provisions were bought, and several ships which lay at Amsterdam were freighted. 341

The exiles managed to gather enough money for the two expeditions, partly from their own resources and partly from donations from supporters in Holland. Very little came from London. They had expected six thousand pounds from there, but instead of the money, they received excuses from Wildman that should have alerted anyone who wasn’t ignoring the signs. The Duke covered the shortfall by pawning his own jewels and those of Lady Wentworth. They bought arms, ammunition, and supplies, and several ships docked in Amsterdam were loaded up. 341

It is remarkable that the most illustrious and the most grossly injured man among the British exiles stood far aloof from these rash counsels. John Locke hated tyranny and persecution as a philosopher; but his intellect and his temper preserved him from the violence of a partisan. He had lived on confidential terms with Shaftesbury, and had thus incurred the displeasure of the court. Locke's prudence had, however, been such that it would have been to little purpose to bring him even before the corrupt and partial tribunals of that age. In one point, however, he was vulnerable. He was a student of Christ Church in the University of Oxford. It was determined to drive from that celebrated college the greatest man of whom it could ever boast. But this was not easy. Locke had, at Oxford, abstained from expressing any opinion on the politics of the day. Spies had been set about him. Doctors of Divinity and Masters of Arts had not been ashamed to perform the vilest of all offices, that of watching the lips of a companion in order to report his words to his ruin. The conversation in the hall had been purposely turned to irritating topics, to the Exclusion Bill, and to the character of the Earl of Shaftesbury, but in vain. Locke neither broke out nor dissembled, but maintained such steady silence and composure as forced the tools of power to own with vexation that never man was so complete a master of his tongue and of his passions. When it was found that treachery could do nothing, arbitrary power was used. After vainly trying to inveigle Locke into a fault, the government resolved to punish him without one. Orders came from Whitehall that he should be ejected; and those orders the Dean and Canons made haste to obey.

It's impressive that the most renowned and severely wronged man among the British exiles stayed far removed from these reckless ideas. John Locke despised tyranny and persecution as a philosopher, but his intellect and temperament kept him from the extremes of a partisan. He had had a close relationship with Shaftesbury, which led to the court's disapproval. However, Locke's caution meant it would have been pointless to bring him before the corrupt and biased courts of that time. There was, however, one way he was vulnerable. He was a student at Christ Church in the University of Oxford. It was resolved to remove the greatest individual that college could ever claim. But this wasn't easy. Locke had refrained from expressing any political opinions while at Oxford. Spies had been placed around him. Doctors of Divinity and Masters of Arts had shamelessly taken on the most disgraceful task of listening in on a colleague to report his words for his downfall. Conversations in the hall had been deliberately steered toward contentious subjects, like the Exclusion Bill and the character of the Earl of Shaftesbury, but to no avail. Locke neither reacted nor pretended otherwise, maintaining such steady silence and composure that those in power were forced to admit, with frustration, that no one was as complete a master of their speech and emotions as he was. When it became clear that treachery was ineffective, arbitrary power was employed. After unsuccessfully trying to trap Locke into a mistake, the government decided to punish him without cause. Orders arrived from Whitehall for his expulsion, and the Dean and Canons quickly moved to carry them out.

Locke was travelling on the Continent for his health when he learned that he had been deprived of his home and of his bread without a trial or even a notice. The injustice with which he had been treated would have excused him if he had resorted to violent methods of redress. But he was not to be blinded by personal resentment he augured no good from the schemes of those who had assembled at Amsterdam; and he quietly repaired to Utrecht, where, while his partners in misfortune were planning their own destruction, he employed himself in writing his celebrated letter on Toleration. 342

Locke was traveling in Europe for his health when he found out that he had lost his home and livelihood without any trial or even a warning. The unfair treatment he received would have justified a violent response, but he refused to let personal anger cloud his judgment. He saw no positive outcome from the plans of those gathered in Amsterdam, so he calmly made his way to Utrecht. There, while his unfortunate associates were plotting their own downfall, he focused on writing his famous letter on Toleration. 342

The English government was early apprised that something was in agitation among the outlaws. An invasion of England seems not to have been at first expected; but it was apprehended that Argyle would shortly appear in arms among his clansmen. A proclamation was accordingly issued directing that Scotland should be put into a state of defence. The militia was ordered to be in readiness. All the clans hostile to the name of Campbell were set in motion. John Murray, Marquess of Athol, was appointed Lord Lieutenant of Argyleshire, and, at the head of a great body of his followers, occupied the castle of Inverary. Some suspected persons were arrested. Others were compelled to give hostages. Ships of war were sent to cruise near the isle of Bute; and part of the army of Ireland was moved to the coast of Ulster. 343

The English government was quickly informed that something was brewing among the outlaws. Initially, an invasion of England didn't seem likely, but there were concerns that Argyle would soon take up arms with his clansmen. A proclamation was issued to put Scotland on alert. The militia was instructed to be ready. All clans opposed to the Campbells were mobilized. John Murray, Marquess of Athol, was named Lord Lieutenant of Argyleshire and took command of a large group of his followers, occupying the castle of Inverary. Some individuals were arrested, while others were forced to provide hostages. Warships were sent to patrol near the isle of Bute, and part of the Irish army was moved to the coast of Ulster. 343

While these preparations were making in Scotland, James called into his closet Arnold Van Citters, who had long resided in England as Ambassador from the United Provinces, and Everard Van Dykvelt, who, after the death of Charles, had been sent by the State General on a special mission of condolence and congratulation. The King said that he had received from unquestionable sources intelligence of designs which were forming against the throne by his banished subjects in Holland. Some of the exiles were cutthroats, whom nothing but the special providence of God had prevented from committing a foul murder; and among them was the owner of the spot which had been fixed for the butchery. "Of all men living," said the King, "Argyle has the greatest means of annoying me; and of all places Holland is that whence a blow may be best aimed against me." The Dutch envoys assured his Majesty that what he had said should instantly be communicated to the government which they represented, and expressed their full confidence that every exertion would be made to satisfy him. 344

While these preparations were happening in Scotland, James called Arnold Van Citters into his private office. He had been living in England for a long time as the Ambassador from the United Provinces, along with Everard Van Dykvelt, who, after Charles's death, had been sent by the State General on a special mission to express condolences and congratulations. The King stated that he had received credible information about plans being made against the throne by his exiled subjects in Holland. Some of these exiles were ruthless criminals, who, by the special providence of God, had been prevented from committing a terrible murder; one of them was the owner of the location designated for the act. "Of all the men alive," said the King, "Argyle has the most means to trouble me; and of all places, Holland is where a strike against me could be best launched." The Dutch envoys assured his Majesty that they would immediately inform their government of his concerns and expressed their complete confidence that every effort would be made to address his worries. 344

They were justified in expressing this confidence. Both the Prince of Orange and the States General, were, at this time, most desirous that the hospitality of their country should not be abused for purposes of which the English government could justly complain. James had lately held language which encouraged the hope that he would not patiently submit to the ascendancy of France. It seemed probable that he would consent to form a close alliance with the United Provinces and the House of Austria. There was, therefore, at the Hague, an extreme anxiety to avoid all that could give him offence. The personal interest of William was also on this occasion identical with the interest of his father in law.

They were right to be confident. Both the Prince of Orange and the States General really wanted to ensure that the hospitality of their country wasn’t misused in a way that the English government could complain about. Recently, James had made statements that raised hopes he wouldn't just accept France's dominance. It seemed likely he would agree to form a close alliance with the United Provinces and the House of Austria. Because of this, there was a strong desire in The Hague to avoid anything that could upset him. William’s personal interest also aligned perfectly with that of his father-in-law in this situation.

But the case was one which required rapid and vigorous action; and the nature of the Batavian institutions made such action almost impossible. The Union of Utrecht, rudely formed, amidst the agonies of a revolution, for the purpose of meeting immediate exigencies, had never been deliberately revised and perfected in a time of tranquillity. Every one of the seven commonwealths which that Union had bound together retained almost all the rights of sovereignty, and asserted those rights punctiliously against the central government. As the federal authorities had not the means of exacting prompt obedience from the provincial authorities, so the provincial authorities had not the means of exacting prompt obedience from the municipal authorities. Holland alone contained eighteen cities, each of which was, for many purposes, an independent state, jealous of all interference from without. If the rulers of such a city received from the Hague an order which was unpleasing to them, they either neglected it altogether, or executed it languidly and tardily. In some town councils, indeed, the influence of the Prince of Orange was all powerful. But unfortunately the place where the British exiles had congregated, and where their ships had been fitted out, was the rich and populous Amsterdam; and the magistrates of Amsterdam were the heads of the faction hostile to the federal government and to the House of Nassau. The naval administration of the United Provinces was conducted by five distinct boards of Admiralty. One of those boards sate at Amsterdam, was partly nominated by the authorities of that city, and seems to have been entirely animated by their spirit.

But the situation called for quick and strong action, and the structure of the Batavian institutions made that almost impossible. The Union of Utrecht, hastily created during the turmoil of a revolution to address immediate needs, had never been thoughtfully revised and improved during a peaceful time. Each of the seven commonwealths that the Union had united held onto almost all their rights of sovereignty, and they asserted those rights strictly against the central government. The federal authorities lacked the means to enforce prompt compliance from the provincial authorities, and the provincial authorities, in turn, couldn't ensure quick obedience from the municipal authorities. Holland alone had eighteen cities, each of which operated almost like an independent state, wary of outside interference. If the leaders of a city received an order from The Hague that they didn't like, they either ignored it completely or carried it out slowly and half-heartedly. In some town councils, the influence of the Prince of Orange was very strong. But unfortunately, the place where the British exiles had gathered and from where their ships had been prepared was the wealthy and populous Amsterdam, and the magistrates of Amsterdam were leaders of the faction opposed to the federal government and the House of Nassau. The naval administration of the United Provinces was managed by five separate boards of Admiralty. One of these boards was based in Amsterdam, partly appointed by the city's authorities, and seemed to be completely driven by their interests.

All the endeavours of the federal government to effect what James desired were frustrated by the evasions of the functionaries of Amsterdam, and by the blunders of Colonel Bevil Skelton, who had just arrived at the Hague as envoy from England. Skelton had been born in Holland during the English troubles, and was therefore supposed to be peculiarly qualified for his post; 345 but he was, in truth, unfit for that and for every other diplomatic situation. Excellent judges of character pronounced him to be the most shallow, fickle, passionate, presumptuous, and garrulous of men. 346 He took no serious notice of the proceedings of the refugees till three vessels which had been equipped for the expedition to Scotland were safe out of the Zuyder Zee, till the arms, ammunition, and provisions were on board, and till the passengers had embarked. Then, instead of applying, as he should have done, to the States General, who sate close to his own door, he sent a messenger to the magistrates of Amsterdam, with a request that the suspected ships might be detained. The magistrates of Amsterdam answered that the entrance of the Zuyder Zee was out of their jurisdiction, and referred him to the federal government. It was notorious that this was a mere excuse, and that, if there had been any real wish at the Stadthouse of Amsterdam to prevent Argyle from sailing, no difficulties would have been made. Skelton now addressed himself to the States General. They showed every disposition to comply with his demand, and, as the case was urgent, departed from the course which they ordinarily observed in the transaction of business. On the same day on which he made his application to them, an order, drawn in exact conformity with his request, was despatched to the Admiralty of Amsterdam. But this order, in consequence of some misinformation, did not correctly describe the situation of the ships. They were said to be in the Texel. They were in the Vlie. The Admiralty of Amsterdam made this error a plea for doing nothing; and, before the error could be rectified, the three ships had sailed. 347

All the efforts of the federal government to achieve what James wanted were thwarted by the evasions of the officials in Amsterdam and by the mistakes of Colonel Bevil Skelton, who had just arrived in The Hague as England's envoy. Skelton was born in Holland during the English troubles, so he was thought to be particularly suited for his role; 345 but in reality, he was unfit for that position and any other diplomatic role. Experts considered him to be the most superficial, inconsistent, hot-headed, arrogant, and talkative of men. 346 He didn't take the situation seriously until three ships that had been prepared for the expedition to Scotland had safely left the Zuyder Zee, until the arms, ammunition, and provisions were loaded, and until the passengers had boarded. Then, instead of reaching out to the States General, who were close by, he sent a message to the magistrates of Amsterdam, asking them to detain the suspicious ships. The magistrates of Amsterdam replied that the entrance to the Zuyder Zee was outside their jurisdiction and referred him to the federal government. It was well-known that this was just an excuse, and that if there had been any real intention at the Stadthouse of Amsterdam to stop Argyle from leaving, there would have been no obstacles. Skelton then turned to the States General. They were willing to comply with his request, and since the situation was urgent, they deviated from their usual procedures for handling business. On the same day he made his request, an order, crafted exactly as he requested, was sent to the Admiralty of Amsterdam. However, due to some misinformation, this order did not accurately describe the location of the ships. They were said to be in the Texel, but they were actually in the Vlie. The Admiralty of Amsterdam used this mistake as an excuse to take no action; and before the mistake could be corrected, the three ships had already sailed. 347

The last hours which Argyle passed on the coast of Holland were hours of great anxiety. Near him lay a Dutch man of war whose broadside would in a moment have put an end to his expedition. Round his little fleet a boat was rowing, in which were some persons with telescopes whom he suspected to be spies. But no effectual step was taken for the purpose of detaining him; and on the afternoon of the second of May he stood out to sea before a favourable breeze.

The last hours that Argyle spent on the coast of Holland were filled with anxiety. Close by lay a Dutch warship, whose broadside could have ended his mission in an instant. Around his small fleet was a boat with some people using telescopes, who he thought might be spies. But no effective measures were taken to stop him, and on the afternoon of May 2nd, he set out to sea with a favorable breeze.

The voyage was prosperous. On the sixth the Orkneys were in sight. Argyle very unwisely anchored off Kirkwall, and allowed two of his followers to go on shore there. The Bishop ordered them to be arrested. The refugees proceeded to hold a long and animated debate on this misadventure: for, from the beginning to the end of their expedition, however languid and irresolute their conduct might be, they never in debate wanted spirit or perseverance. Some were for an attack on Kirkwall. Some were for proceeding without delay to Argyleshire. At last the Earl seized some gentlemen who lived near the coast of the island, and proposed to the Bishop an exchange of prisoners. The Bishop returned no answer; and the fleet, after losing three days, sailed away.

The voyage went well. On the sixth, the Orkneys came into view. Argyle, in a poor decision, anchored off Kirkwall and let two of his men go ashore there. The Bishop ordered their arrest. The refugees then engaged in a lengthy and lively discussion about this mishap: throughout their expedition, no matter how lackluster and indecisive their actions might have been, they always had spirit and determination in their debates. Some wanted to attack Kirkwall, while others preferred to head straight to Argyleshire without delay. Eventually, the Earl captured some gentlemen from the nearby coast of the island and proposed a prisoner exchange to the Bishop. The Bishop didn’t respond, and after wasting three days, the fleet set sail.

This delay was full of danger. It was speedily known at Edinburgh that the rebel squadron had touched at the Orkneys. Troops were instantly put in motion. When the Earl reached his own province, he found that preparations had been made to repel him. At Dunstaffnage he sent his second son Charles on Shore to call the Campbells to arms. But Charles returned with gloomy tidings. The herdsmen and fishermen were indeed ready to rally round Mac Callum More; but, of the heads of the clan, some were in confinement, and others had fled. Those gentlemen who remained at their homes were either well affected to the government or afraid of moving, and refused even to see the son of their chief. From Dunstaffnage the small armament proceeded to Campbelltown, near the southern extremity of the peninsula of Kintyre. Here the Earl published a manifesto, drawn up in Holland, under the direction of the Committee, by James Stewart, a Scotch advocate, whose pen was, a few months later, employed in a very different way. In this paper were set forth, with a strength of language sometimes approaching to scurrility, many real and some imaginary grievances. It was hinted that the late King had died by poison. A chief object of the expedition was declared to be the entire suppression, not only of Popery, but of Prelacy, which was termed the most bitter root and offspring of Popery; and all good Scotchmen were exhorted to do valiantly for the cause of their country and of their God.

This delay was filled with danger. It quickly became known in Edinburgh that the rebel squadron had made a stop in the Orkneys. Troops were immediately mobilized. When the Earl arrived in his province, he discovered that preparations had been made to oppose him. At Dunstaffnage, he sent his second son Charles ashore to gather the Campbells to arms. However, Charles returned with bleak news. The herdsmen and fishermen were indeed ready to support Mac Callum More, but some clan leaders were imprisoned and others had escaped. Those who remained at home were either supportive of the government or too scared to act, and they refused even to see the chief's son. From Dunstaffnage, the small force moved on to Campbelltown, near the southern end of the Kintyre peninsula. Here, the Earl issued a manifesto, written in Holland under the direction of the Committee, by James Stewart, a Scottish lawyer, whose writing would soon take a very different turn. This document laid out, sometimes with an almost scornful tone, numerous real and some imagined grievances. It suggested that the late King had died from poison. A main goal of the expedition was stated to be the complete eradication, not just of Catholicism, but also of Episcopacy, which was called the most bitter root and offspring of Catholicism; all good Scots were urged to fight valiantly for the cause of their country and their God.

Zealous as Argyle was for what he considered as pure religion, he did not scruple to practice one rite half Popish and half Pagan. The mysterious cross of yew, first set on fire, and then quenched in the blood of a goat, was sent forth to summon all the Campbells, from sixteen to sixty. The isthmus of Tarbet was appointed for the place of gathering. The muster, though small indeed when compared with what it would have been if the spirit and strength of the clan had been unbroken, was still formidable. The whole force assembled amounted to about eighteen hundred men. Argyle divided his mountaineers into three regiments, and proceeded to appoint officers.

As passionate as Argyle was about what he believed to be true religion, he didn’t hesitate to perform a ritual that was part Popish and part Pagan. The mysterious yew cross, which was first set on fire and then extinguished in a goat's blood, was used to summon all the Campbells, from ages sixteen to sixty. The isthmus of Tarbet was chosen as the gathering place. The turnout, while small compared to what it could have been if the clan’s spirit and strength hadn’t been broken, was still impressive. The total number of men who assembled was around eighteen hundred. Argyle divided his mountaineers into three regiments and started to appoint officers.

The bickerings which had begun in Holland had never been intermitted during the whole course of the expedition; but at Tarbet they became more violent than ever. The Committee wished to interfere even with the patriarchal dominion of the Earl over the Campbells, and would not allow him to settle the military rank of his kinsmen by his own authority. While these disputatious meddlers tried to wrest from him his power over the Highlands, they carried on their own correspondence with the Lowlands, and received and sent letters which were never communicated to the nominal General. Hume and his confederates had reserved to themselves the superintendence of the Stores, and conducted this important part of the administration of war with a laxity hardly to be distinguished from dishonesty, suffered the arms to be spoiled, wasted the provisions, and lived riotously at a time when they ought to have set to all beneath them an example of abstemiousness.

The arguments that started in Holland never stopped throughout the whole mission; however, at Tarbet, they got more intense than ever. The Committee wanted to interfere even with the Earl's authority over the Campbells and refused to let him decide his relatives' military ranks on his own. While these meddlesome individuals tried to take his power over the Highlands, they were also handling their own communications with the Lowlands and sending and receiving letters that were never shared with the official General. Hume and his allies took control of the Stores and managed this crucial aspect of the war effort with a carelessness that was barely different from dishonesty, allowing the weapons to get ruined, wasting the supplies, and living extravagantly at a time when they should have been setting an example of self-restraint for everyone below them.

The great question was whether the Highlands or the Lowlands should be the seat of war. The Earl's first object was to establish his authority over his own domains, to drive out the invading clans which had been poured from Perthshire into Argyleshire, and to take possession of the ancient seat of his family at Inverary. He might then hope to have four or five thousand claymores at his command. With such a force he would be able to defend that wild country against the whole power of the kingdom of Scotland, and would also have secured an excellent base for offensive operations. This seems to have been the wisest course open to him. Rumbold, who had been trained in an excellent military school, and who, as an Englishman, might be supposed to be an impartial umpire between the Scottish factions, did all in his power to strengthen the Earl's hands. But Hume and Cochrane were utterly impracticable. Their jealousy of Argyle was, in truth, stronger than their wish for the success of the expedition. They saw that, among his own mountains and lakes, and at the head of an army chiefly composed of his own tribe, he would be able to bear down their opposition, and to exercise the full authority of a General. They muttered that the only men who had the good cause at heart were the Lowlanders, and that the Campbells took up arms neither for liberty nor for the Church of God, but for Mac Callum More alone.

The big question was whether the Highlands or the Lowlands should be the battlefield. The Earl's main goal was to assert control over his own lands, remove the invading clans that had come from Perthshire into Argyll, and reclaim the historic seat of his family at Inveraray. After that, he could expect to have four or five thousand claymore-wielding warriors at his disposal. With such a force, he could defend that rugged territory against the entire strength of Scotland and also establish a solid base for offensive moves. This seemed to be the smartest option available to him. Rumbold, who had received excellent military training and, as an Englishman, was seen as a neutral party between the Scottish factions, did everything he could to support the Earl. However, Hume and Cochrane were completely unreasonable. Their envy of Argyle was, in reality, stronger than their desire for the success of the mission. They recognized that, with his own mountains and lakes as a backdrop, and leading an army mostly made up of his own people, the Earl could easily overpower their resistance and fully exercise his authority as a General. They grumbled that the only ones truly invested in the good cause were the Lowlanders, asserting that the Campbells were not fighting for freedom or for the Church of God, but solely for Mac Callum More.

Cochrane declared that he would go to Ayrshire if he went by himself, and with nothing but a pitchfork in his hand. Argyle, after long resistance, consented, against his better judgment, to divide his little army. He remained with Rumbold in the Highlands. Cochrane and Hume were at the head of the force which sailed to invade the Lowlands.

Cochrane said he would go to Ayrshire on his own, armed only with a pitchfork. After a lot of hesitation, Argyle reluctantly agreed to split his small army, despite knowing it might not be the best idea. He stayed in the Highlands with Rumbold, while Cochrane and Hume led the group that set sail to invade the Lowlands.

Ayrshire was Cochrane's object: but the coast of Ayrshire was guarded by English frigates; and the adventurers were under the necessity of running up the estuary of the Clyde to Greenock, then a small fishing village consisting of a single row of thatched hovels, now a great and flourishing port, of which the customs amount to more than five times the whole revenue which the Stuarts derived from the kingdom of Scotland. A party of militia lay at Greenock: but Cochrane, who wanted provisions, was determined to land. Hume objected. Cochrane was peremptory, and ordered an officer, named Elphinstone, to take twenty men in a boat to the shore. But the wrangling spirit of the leaders had infected all ranks. Elphinstone answered that he was bound to obey only reasonable commands, that he considered this command as unreasonable, and, in short, that he would not go. Major Fullarton, a brave man, esteemed by all parties, but peculiarly attached to Argyle, undertook to land with only twelve men, and did so in spite of a fire from the coast. A slight skirmish followed. The militia fell back. Cochrane entered Greenock and procured a supply of meal, but found no disposition to insurrection among the people.

Ayrshire was Cochrane's goal, but the coast was protected by English warships. The adventurers had to run up the estuary of the Clyde to Greenock, which was then a small fishing village made up of a single row of thatched huts, but is now a thriving port with customs duties exceeding five times what the Stuarts earned from the entire kingdom of Scotland. A group of militia was stationed at Greenock, but Cochrane, in need of supplies, was determined to land. Hume disagreed. Cochrane was insistent and ordered an officer named Elphinstone to take twenty men in a boat to the shore. However, the arguing between the leaders had affected everyone. Elphinstone replied that he would only obey reasonable commands, deemed this one unreasonable, and outright refused to go. Major Fullarton, a brave man respected by everyone but particularly loyal to Argyle, volunteered to land with just twelve men, managing to do so despite gunfire from the coast. A brief skirmish ensued. The militia retreated. Cochrane entered Greenock and secured some supplies, but he found no inclination for rebellion among the locals.

In fact, the state of public feeling in Scotland was not such as the exiles, misled by the infatuation common in all ages to exiles, had supposed it to be. The government was, indeed, hateful and hated. But the malecontents were divided into parties which were almost as hostile to one another as to their rulers; nor was any of those parties eager to join the invaders. Many thought that the insurrection had no chance of success. The spirit of many had been effectually broken by long and cruel oppression. There was, indeed, a class of enthusiasts who were little in the habit of calculating chances, and whom oppression had not tamed but maddened. But these men saw little difference between Argyle and James. Their wrath had been heated to such a temperature that what everybody else would have called boiling zeal seemed to them Laodicean lukewarmness. The Earl's past life had been stained by what they regarded as the vilest apostasy. The very Highlanders whom he now summoned to extirpate Prelacy he had a few years before summoned to defend it. And were slaves who knew nothing and cared nothing about religion, who were ready to fight for synodical government, for Episcopacy, for Popery, just as Mac Callum More might be pleased to command, fit allies for the people of God? The manifesto, indecent and intolerant as was its tone, was, in the view of these fanatics, a cowardly and worldly performance. A settlement such as Argyle would have made, such as was afterwards made by a mightier and happier deliverer, seemed to them not worth a struggle. They wanted not only freedom of conscience for themselves, but absolute dominion over the consciences of others; not only the Presbyterian doctrine, polity, and worship, but the Covenant in its utmost rigour. Nothing would content them but that every end for which civil society exists should be sacrificed to the ascendency of a theological system. One who believed no form of church government to be worth a breach of Christian charity, and who recommended comprehension and toleration, was in their phrase, halting between Jehovah and Baal. One who condemned such acts as the murder of Cardinal Beatoun and Archbishop Sharpe fell into the same sin for which Saul had been rejected from being King over Israel. All the rules, by which, among civilised and Christian men, the horrors of war are mitigated, were abominations in the sight of the Lord. Quarter was to be neither taken nor given. A Malay running a muck, a mad dog pursued by a crowd, were the models to be imitated by warriors fighting in just self-defence. To reasons such as guide the conduct of statesmen and generals the minds of these zealots were absolutely impervious. That a man should venture to urge such reasons was sufficient evidence that he was not one of the faithful. If the divine blessing were withheld, little would be effected by crafty politicians, by veteran captains, by cases of arms from Holland, or by regiments of unregenerate Celts from the mountains of Lorn. If, on the other hand, the Lord's time were indeed come, he could still, as of old, cause the foolish things of the world to confound the wise, and could save alike by many and by few. The broadswords of Athol and the bayonets of Claverhouse would be put to rout by weapons as insignificant as the sling of David or the pitcher of Gideon. 348

In fact, the feelings of the public in Scotland weren't what the exiles, blinded by the common delusion that often affects those in their situation, thought they were. The government was indeed despised and hated. However, the discontented factions were split into groups that were almost as antagonistic to each other as they were to their rulers; none of these groups were eager to join the invaders. Many believed that the uprising had no chance of succeeding. Years of harsh oppression had effectively crushed the spirit of many. There was, of course, a group of extremists who didn’t typically weigh their options and whose oppression had driven them to madness instead of submission. But these individuals saw little difference between Argyle and James. Their anger had intensified to such an extent that what everyone else would have called passionate zeal seemed to them like indifferent lukewarmness. The Earl's past was tainted by what they considered the worst betrayal. Just a few years earlier, he had called the very Highlanders he was now rallying to eliminate Prelacy to defend it instead. And were the enslaved, who understood nothing and cared nothing about religion, who were ready to fight for synodical governance, for Episcopacy, for Popery, just because Mac Callum More would like them to, suitable allies for the people of God? The manifesto, as inappropriate and intolerant as its tone was, seemed to these fanatics like a cowardly and worldly act. A settlement like the one Argyle would have made, or the one later achieved by a more powerful and fortunate liberator, seemed to them not worth fighting for. They wanted not only freedom of belief for themselves but total control over the beliefs of others; not just the Presbyterian doctrine, governance, and worship, but the Covenant in its most extreme form. Nothing would satisfy them except that every purpose of civil society should be sacrificed to the dominance of a theological system. Anyone who believed no form of church governance was worth breaking Christian charity was, in their words, wavering between Jehovah and Baal. Anyone who opposed actions like the murder of Cardinal Beatoun and Archbishop Sharpe committed the same sin for which Saul was rejected as King over Israel. All the rules that, among civilized and Christian people, mitigate the horrors of war were considered abominations before the Lord. No quarter was to be given or accepted. A Malay running amok, a rabid dog chased by a crowd, were the examples for warriors fighting in just self-defense. The reasoning that guides the actions of statesmen and generals was completely lost on these zealots. For a man to dare to suggest such reasoning was clear proof that he was not one of the faithful. If divine favor was withheld, little could be achieved by cunning politicians, experienced commanders, supplies from Holland, or regiments of unregenerate Celts from the mountains of Lorn. If, on the other hand, the Lord's time had truly come, He could still, as in the past, use the foolish things of the world to confound the wise and could save by many or by few. The broadswords of Athol and the bayonets of Claverhouse could be defeated by weapons as unremarkable as David's sling or Gideon's pitcher. 348

Cochrane, having found it impossible to raise the population on the south of the Clyde, rejoined Argyle, who was in the island of Bute. The Earl now again proposed to make an attempt upon Inverary. Again he encountered a pertinacious opposition. The seamen sided with Hume and Cochrane. The Highlanders were absolutely at the command of their chieftain. There was reason to fear that the two parties would come to blows; and the dread of such a disaster induced the Committee to make some concession. The castle of Ealan Ghierig, situated at the mouth of Loch Riddan, was selected to be the chief place of arms. The military stores were disembarked there. The squadron was moored close to the walls in a place where it was protected by rocks and shallows such as, it was thought, no frigate could pass. Outworks were thrown up. A battery was planted with some small guns taken from the ships. The command of the fort was most unwisely given to Elphinstone, who had already proved himself much more disposed to argue with his commanders than to fight the enemy.

Cochrane, finding it impossible to rally the people south of the Clyde, rejoined Argyle, who was on the island of Bute. The Earl proposed another attempt on Inverary. Once again, he faced stubborn opposition. The seamen backed Hume and Cochrane, while the Highlanders were completely under their chieftain's command. There was a real concern that the two groups might clash, and the fear of such a disaster led the Committee to make some concessions. The castle of Ealan Ghierig, located at the mouth of Loch Riddan, was chosen as the main arms depot. Military supplies were unloaded there. The squadron was anchored close to the walls in a spot shielded by rocks and shallows, believed to be impassable for any frigate. Defensive structures were erected, and a battery was set up with some small guns taken from the ships. Unfortunately, the command of the fort was foolishly given to Elphinstone, who had already shown a tendency to argue with his commanders rather than engage the enemy.

And now, during a few hours, there was some show of vigour. Rumbold took the castle of Ardkinglass. The Earl skirmished successfully with Athol's troops, and was about to advance on Inverary, when alarming news from the ships and factions in the Committee forced him to turn back. The King's frigates had come nearer to Ealan Ghierig than had been thought possible. The Lowland gentlemen positively refused to advance further into the Highlands. Argyle hastened back to Ealan Ghierig. There he proposed to make an attack on the frigates. His ships, indeed, were ill fitted for such an encounter. But they would have been supported by a flotilla of thirty large fishing boats, each well manned with armed Highlanders. The Committee, however, refused to listen to this plan, and effectually counteracted it by raising a mutiny among the sailors.

And now, for a few hours, there was a bit of energy. Rumbold took the castle of Ardkinglass. The Earl fought successfully against Athol's troops and was about to move forward to Inverary when alarming news from the ships and factions within the Committee forced him to turn back. The King's frigates had come closer to Ealan Ghierig than anyone thought possible. The Lowland gentlemen flat-out refused to push further into the Highlands. Argyle quickly returned to Ealan Ghierig. There, he suggested launching an attack on the frigates. His ships, however, were not well-equipped for such a confrontation. But they would have been backed by a flotilla of thirty large fishing boats, each manned by armed Highlanders. The Committee, though, refused to consider this plan and effectively undermined it by inciting a mutiny among the sailors.

All was now confusion and despondency. The provisions had been so ill managed by the Committee that there was no longer food for the troops. The Highlanders consequently deserted by hundreds; and the Earl, brokenhearted by his misfortunes, yielded to the urgency of those who still pertinaciously insisted that he should march into the Lowlands.

Everything was in chaos and despair. The supplies had been so poorly managed by the Committee that there was no food left for the troops. As a result, the Highlanders deserted in droves; and the Earl, devastated by his losses, gave in to the pressure from those who stubbornly insisted that he should march into the Lowlands.

The little army therefore hastened to the shore of Loch Long, passed that inlet by night in boats, and landed in Dumbartonshire. Hither, on the following morning, came news that the frigates had forced a passage, that all the Earl's ships had been taken, and that Elphinstone had fled from Ealan Ghierig without a blow, leaving the castle and stores to the enemy.

The small army quickly made its way to the shore of Loch Long, crossed the inlet by night in boats, and landed in Dumbartonshire. The next morning, news arrived that the frigates had made it through, that all of the Earl's ships had been captured, and that Elphinstone had retreated from Ealan Ghierig without fighting, leaving the castle and supplies to the enemy.

All that remained was to invade the Lowlands under every disadvantage. Argyle resolved to make a bold push for Glasgow. But, as soon as this resolution was announced, the very men, who had, up to that moment, been urging him to hasten into the low country, took fright, argued, remonstrated, and when argument and remonstrance proved vain, laid a scheme for seizing the boats, making their own escape, and leaving their General and his clansmen to conquer or perish unaided. This scheme failed; and the poltroons who had formed it were compelled to share with braver men the risks of the last venture.

All that was left was to invade the Lowlands under the worst conditions. Argyle decided to make a bold move for Glasgow. But as soon as he announced this plan, the very men who had been pushing him to hurry into the low country got scared, argued, protested, and when arguing and protesting didn’t work, came up with a plan to take the boats, escape on their own, and leave their General and his clansmen to either succeed or fail alone. This plan fell apart; and the cowards who created it had to share the risks of the final attempt with the braver men.

During the march through the country which lies between Loch Long and Loch Lomond, the insurgents were constantly infested by parties of militia. Some skirmishes took place, in which the Earl had the advantage; but the bands which he repelled, falling back before him, spread the tidings of his approach, and, soon after he had crossed the river Leven, he found a strong body of regular and irregular troops prepared to encounter him.

During the march through the land between Loch Long and Loch Lomond, the insurgents were consistently bothered by groups of militia. Some skirmishes occurred where the Earl had the upper hand, but the bands he pushed back, retreating ahead of him, spread the news of his approach. Soon after he crossed the River Leven, he found a strong force of regular and irregular troops ready to face him.

He was for giving battle. Ayloffe was of the same opinion. Hume, on the other hand, declared that to fight would be madness. He saw one regiment in scarlet. More might be behind. To attack such a force was to rush on certain death The best course was to remain quiet till night, and then to give the enemy the slip.

He was ready to fight. Ayloffe agreed. Hume, however, insisted that fighting would be insane. He spotted one regiment in red. There could be more waiting behind. Attacking such a force would mean rushing toward certain death. The best plan was to stay put until night and then slip away from the enemy.

A sharp altercation followed, which was with difficulty quieted by the mediation of Rumbold. It was now evening. The hostile armies encamped at no great distance from each other. The Earl ventured to propose a night attack, and was again overruled.

A heated argument broke out, which was hard to calm down thanks to Rumbold's intervention. It was now evening. The opposing armies were camped not far apart. The Earl suggested a surprise night attack, but once again, he was shot down.

Since it was determined not to fight, nothing was left but to take the step which Hume had recommended. There was a chance that, by decamping secretly, and hastening all night across heaths and morasses, the Earl might gain many miles on the enemy, and might reach Glasgow without further obstruction. The watch fires were left burning; and the march began. And now disaster followed disaster fast. The guides mistook the track across the moors, and led the army into boggy ground. Military order could not be preserved by undisciplined and disheartened soldiers under a dark sky, and on a treacherous and uneven soil. Panic after panic spread through the broken ranks. Every sight and sound was thought to indicate the approach of pursuers. Some of the officers contributed to spread the terror which it was their duty to calm. The army had become a mob; and the mob melted fast away. Great numbers fled under cover of the night. Rumbold and a few other brave men whom no danger could have scared lost their way, and were unable to rejoin the main body. When the day broke, only five hundred fugitives, wearied and dispirited, assembled at Kilpatrick.

Since it was decided not to fight, the only option was to follow the advice Hume had given. There was a chance that by sneaking away in the dark and rushing all night across moors and marshes, the Earl could put some distance between himself and the enemy and reach Glasgow without further trouble. The campfires were left burning as the march began. However, disaster quickly piled on top of disaster. The guides confused the path across the moors and led the army into boggy areas. It was impossible to maintain military order with untrained and demoralized soldiers under a dark sky on treacherous and uneven ground. Panic spread through the disorganized ranks. Every sound and sight was thought to signal the approach of pursuers. Some of the officers, instead of calming the fear, only added to it. The army had turned into a mob, and that mob quickly dissolved. Many ran away under the cover of night. Rumbold and a few other brave men, unafraid of danger, got lost and couldn’t find their way back to the main group. By dawn, only five hundred exhausted and discouraged fugitives had gathered at Kilpatrick.

All thought of prosecuting the war was at an end: and it was plain that the chiefs of the expedition would have sufficient difficulty in escaping with their lives. They fled in different directions. Hume reached the Continent in safety. Cochrane was taken and sent up to London. Argyle hoped to find a secure asylum under the roof of one of his old servants who lived near Kilpatrick. But this hope was disappointed; and he was forced to cross the Clyde. He assumed the dress of a peasant and pretended to be the guide of Major Fullarton, whose courageous fidelity was proof to all danger. The friends journeyed together through Renfrewshire as far as Inchinnan. At that place the Black Cart and the White Cart, two streams which now flow through prosperous towns, and turn the wheels of many factories, but which then held their quiet course through moors and sheepwalks, mingle before they join the Clyde. The only ford by which the travellers could cross was guarded by a party of militia. Some questions were asked. Fullarton tried to draw suspicion on himself, in order that his companion might escape unnoticed. But the minds of the questioners misgave them that the guide was not the rude clown that he seemed. They laid hands on him. He broke loose and sprang into the water, but was instantly chased. He stood at bay for a short time against five assailants. But he had no arms except his pocket pistols, and they were so wet, in consequence of his plunge, that they would not go off. He was struck to the ground with a broadsword, and secured.

All thoughts of continuing the war were over: it was clear that the leaders of the expedition would have enough trouble just getting away alive. They scattered in different directions. Hume made it safely to the Continent. Cochrane was captured and taken to London. Argyle hoped to find refuge with one of his old servants who lived near Kilpatrick. But that hope was dashed, and he had to cross the Clyde. He dressed as a peasant and pretended to be the guide of Major Fullarton, whose brave loyalty was unwavering in the face of danger. The two friends traveled together through Renfrewshire until they reached Inchinnan. There, the Black Cart and the White Cart—two streams that now flow through bustling towns and power many factories—met before joining the Clyde, having previously run quietly through moors and sheep fields. The only crossing available to them was watched over by a group of militia. Some questions were asked. Fullarton tried to attract suspicion to himself so his companion could slip away unnoticed. But the militia started to feel that the guide was not the simple peasant he appeared to be. They grabbed him. He broke free and jumped into the water but was immediately pursued. He held off five attackers for a short time. But he had no weapons except his pocket pistols, which had gotten so wet from his dive that they wouldn’t fire. He was struck down with a broadsword and captured.

He owned himself to be the Earl of Argyle, probably in the hope that his great name would excite the awe and pity of those who had seized him. And indeed they were much moved. For they were plain Scotchmen of humble rank, and, though in arms for the crown, probably cherished a preference for the Calvinistic church government and worship, and had been accustomed to reverence their captive as the head of an illustrious house and as a champion of the Protestant religion But, though they were evidently touched, and though some of them even wept, they were not disposed to relinquish a large reward and to incur the vengeance of an implacable government. They therefore conveyed their prisoner to Renfrew. The man who bore the chief part in the arrest was named Riddell. On this account the whole race of Riddells was, during more than a century, held in abhorrence by the great tribe of Campbell. Within living memory, when a Riddell visited a fair in Argyleshire, he found it necessary to assume a false name.

He admitted he was the Earl of Argyle, probably hoping his famous name would inspire awe and pity from those who had captured him. And they really were affected. They were just ordinary Scotsmen of low status, and although they were fighting for the crown, they likely preferred the Calvinistic church governance and worship, and had learned to respect their captive as the leader of a distinguished family and defender of the Protestant faith. However, even though they were clearly moved, and some of them even cried, they were not willing to give up a substantial reward or face the wrath of a relentless government. So, they took their prisoner to Renfrew. The person mainly responsible for the capture was named Riddell. Because of this, the entire Riddell family was despised by the powerful Campbell clan for more than a century. In recent memory, when a Riddell attended a fair in Argyleshire, he felt it was necessary to use a fake name.

And now commenced the brightest part of Argyle's career. His enterprise had hitherto brought on him nothing but reproach and derision. His great error was that he did not resolutely refuse to accept the name without the power of a general. Had he remained quietly at his retreat in Friesland, he would in a few years have been recalled with honour to his country, and would have been conspicuous among the ornaments and the props of constitutional monarchy. Had he conducted his expedition according to his own views, and carried with him no followers but such as were prepared implicitly to obey all his orders, he might possibly have effected something great. For what he wanted as a captain seems to have been, not courage, nor activity, nor skill, but simply authority. He should have known that of all wants this is the most fatal. Armies have triumphed under leaders who possessed no very eminent qualifications. But what army commanded by a debating club ever escaped discomfiture and disgrace?

And now began the brightest chapter of Argyle's career. His past ventures had only brought him criticism and ridicule. His biggest mistake was accepting the title without the actual power of a general. If he had stayed quietly at his place in Friesland, he would have been recalled with honor in a few years and would have stood out as a key figure in supporting constitutional monarchy. If he had led his expedition based on his own ideas and only taken followers who were ready to obey his orders without question, he might have accomplished something significant. What he lacked as a leader was not bravery, energy, or skill, but simply authority. He should have realized that this is the most critical deficiency. Armies have won under leaders with no remarkable qualifications. But what army led by a debating society has ever avoided defeat and disgrace?

The great calamity which had fallen on Argyle had this advantage, that it enabled him to show, by proofs not to be mistaken, what manner of man he was. From the day when he quitted. Friesland to the day when his followers separated at Kilpatrick, he had never been a free agent. He had borne the responsibility of a long series of measures which his judgment disapproved. Now at length he stood alone. Captivity had restored to him the noblest kind of liberty, the liberty of governing himself in all his words and actions according to his own sense of the right and of the becoming. From that moment he became as one inspired with new wisdom and virtue. His intellect seemed to be strengthened and concentrated, his moral character to be at once elevated and softened. The insolence of the conquerors spared nothing that could try the temper of a man proud of ancient nobility and of patriarchal dominion. The prisoner was dragged through Edinburgh in triumph. He walked on foot, bareheaded, up the whole length of that stately street which, overshadowed by dark and gigantic piles of stone, leads from Holyrood House to the Castle. Before him marched the hangman, bearing the ghastly instrument which was to be used at the quartering block. The victorious party had not forgotten that, thirty-five years before this time, the father of Argyle had been at the head of the faction which put Montrose to death. Before that event the houses of Graham and Campbell had borne no love to each other; and they had ever since been at deadly feud. Care was taken that the prisoner should pass through the same gate and the same streets through which Montrose had been led to the same doom. 349 When the Earl reached the Castle his legs were put in irons, and he was informed that he had but a few days to live. It had been determined not to bring him to trial for his recent offence, but to put him to death under the sentence pronounced against him several years before, a sentence so flagitiously unjust that the most servile and obdurate lawyers of that bad age could not speak of it without shame.

The great disaster that struck Argyle had one advantage: it allowed him to demonstrate, without a doubt, what kind of person he was. From the moment he left Friesland until his followers parted ways at Kilpatrick, he had never acted freely. He had shouldered the burden of a lengthy series of decisions that he disagreed with. Now, at last, he was on his own. His captivity had given him the most noble form of freedom—the freedom to govern himself fully in all his words and actions, according to his own sense of what was right and proper. From that moment on, he seemed to be filled with new wisdom and virtue. His mind appeared to be sharpened and focused, his moral character elevated yet softened. The arrogance of the conquerors left nothing untouched that could challenge the pride of a man with a noble heritage and patriarchal authority. The prisoner was paraded through Edinburgh in triumph. He walked on foot, bareheaded, along the entire length of that grand street, overshadowed by dark and massive stone buildings, leading from Holyrood House to the Castle. Ahead of him marched the executioner, carrying the grim tool that would be used at the quartering block. The victors had not forgotten that thirty-five years earlier, Argyle's father had led the faction that executed Montrose. Before that event, the Graham and Campbell families had harbored no love for one another and had been in a bitter feud ever since. Care was taken to ensure that the prisoner passed through the same gate and streets that Montrose had taken to face the same fate. 349 When the Earl reached the Castle, his legs were put in chains, and he was told he had only a few days left to live. It had been decided not to put him on trial for his recent crime, but to execute him under a sentence passed against him several years earlier—a sentence so outrageously unjust that even the most submissive and cruel lawyers of that corrupt era couldn't refer to it without feeling ashamed.

But neither the ignominious procession up the High Street, nor the near view of death, had power to disturb the gentle and majestic patience of Argyle. His fortitude was tried by a still more severe test. A paper of interrogatories was laid before him by order of the Privy Council. He replied to those questions to which he could reply without danger to any of his friends, and refused to say more. He was told that unless he returned fuller answers he should be put to the torture. James, who was doubtless sorry that he could not feast his own eyes with the sight of Argyle in the boots, sent down to Edinburgh positive orders that nothing should be omitted which could wring out of the traitor information against all who had been concerned in the treason. But menaces were vain. With torments and death in immediate prospect Mac Callum More thought far less of himself than of his poor clansmen. "I was busy this day," he wrote from his cell, "treating for them, and in some hopes. But this evening orders came that I must die upon Monday or Tuesday; and I am to be put to the torture if I answer not all questions upon oath. Yet I hope God shall support me."

But neither the humiliating march up the High Street nor the close-up view of death could shake Argyle's calm and dignified patience. His strength was tested by an even harsher challenge. A set of questions was presented to him by the Privy Council. He answered the ones he could without putting any of his friends at risk and refused to say more. He was warned that if he didn’t provide more detailed answers, he would be tortured. James, who was likely disappointed he couldn't witness Argyle suffering, sent clear orders to Edinburgh that everything possible should be done to extract information from the traitor about everyone involved in the betrayal. But threats were useless. Facing torture and death, Mac Callum More thought far more about his poor clansmen than about himself. "I was busy today," he wrote from his cell, "negotiating for them, and I had some hope. But this evening I received orders that I must die on Monday or Tuesday; and I will be tortured if I don’t answer all questions under oath. Yet I hope God will give me strength."

The torture was not inflicted. Perhaps the magnanimity of the victim had moved the conquerors to unwonted compassion. He himself remarked that at first they had been very harsh to him, but that they soon began to treat him with respect and kindness. God, he said, had melted their hearts. It is certain that he did not, to save himself from the utmost cruelty of his enemies, betray any of his friends. On the last morning of his life he wrote these words: "I have named none to their disadvantage. I thank God he hath supported me wonderfully!"

The torture didn't happen. Maybe the victim's generosity made the conquerors act with unexpected compassion. He himself noted that at first, they had been very harsh with him, but then they started treating him with respect and kindness. God, he said, had softened their hearts. It's clear that to avoid the worst cruelty from his enemies, he didn’t betray any of his friends. On the last morning of his life, he wrote these words: "I have named none to their disadvantage. I thank God he has supported me remarkably!"

He composed his own epitaph, a short poem, full of meaning and spirit, simple and forcible in style, and not contemptible in versification. In this little piece he complained that, though his enemies had repeatedly decreed his death, his friends had been still more cruel. A comment on these expressions is to be found in a letter which he addressed to a lady residing in Holland. She had furnished him with a large sum of money for his expedition, and he thought her entitled to a full explanation of the causes which had led to his failure. He acquitted his coadjutors of treachery, but described their folly, their ignorance, and their factious perverseness, in terms which their own testimony has since proved to have been richly deserved. He afterwards doubted whether he had not used language too severe to become a dying Christian, and, in a separate paper, begged his friend to suppress what he had said of these men "Only this I must acknowledge," he mildly added; "they were not governable."

He wrote his own epitaph, a short poem that was meaningful and spirited, simple and impactful in style, and not lacking in poetic form. In this piece, he expressed that while his enemies had often declared him dead, his friends had been even more cruel. A response to these sentiments can be found in a letter he sent to a woman living in Holland. She had provided him with a significant amount of money for his journey, and he believed she deserved a full explanation of the reasons behind his failure. He cleared his collaborators of any betrayal but described their foolishness, ignorance, and stubbornness in ways that their own statements have since shown to be fully justified. Later, he questioned whether he had used language that was too harsh for a dying Christian, and in a separate note, he asked his friend to keep quiet about what he had said regarding those men. "Only this I must acknowledge," he gently added; "they were not manageable."

Most of his few remaining hours were passed in devotion, and in affectionate intercourse with some members of his family. He professed no repentance on account of his last enterprise, but bewailed, with great emotion, his former compliance in spiritual things with the pleasure of the government He had, he said, been justly punished. One who had so long been guilty of cowardice and dissimulation was not worthy to be the instrument of salvation to the State and Church. Yet the cause, he frequently repeated, was the cause of God, and would assuredly triumph. "I do not," he said, "take on myself to be a prophet. But I have a strong impression on my spirit, that deliverance will come very suddenly." It is not strange that some zealous Presbyterians should have laid up his saying in their hearts, and should, at a later period, have attributed it to divine inspiration.

Most of his remaining hours were spent in prayer and meaningful time with some family members. He showed no regret for his last actions but expressed great sorrow for having once gone along with the government's wishes regarding spiritual matters. He believed he was rightly punished. Someone who had been guilty of cowardice and deceit for so long was not fit to be a savior for the State and Church. Still, he often reiterated that the cause was God's cause and would surely prevail. "I'm not claiming to be a prophet," he said, "but I have a strong feeling that deliverance will come very suddenly." It’s not surprising that some passionate Presbyterians held onto his words and later considered them to be divinely inspired.

So effectually had religious faith and hope, co-operating with natural courage and equanimity, composed his spirits, that, on the very day on which he was to die, he dined with appetite, conversed with gaiety at table, and, after his last meal, lay down, as he was wont, to take a short slumber, in order that his body and mind might be in full vigour when he should mount the scaffold. At this time one of the Lords of the Council, who had probably been bred a Presbyterian, and had been seduced by interest to join in oppressing the Church of which he had once been a member, came to the Castle with a message from his brethren, and demanded admittance to the Earl. It was answered that the Earl was asleep. The Privy Councillor thought that this was a subterfuge, and insisted on entering. The door of the cell was softly opened; and there lay Argyle, on the bed, sleeping, in his irons, the placid sleep of infancy. The conscience of the renegade smote him. He turned away sick at heart, ran out of the Castle, and took refuge in the dwelling of a lady of his family who lived hard by. There he flung himself on a couch, and gave himself up to an agony of remorse and shame. His kinswoman, alarmed by his looks and groans, thought that he had been taken with sudden illness, and begged him to drink a cup of sack. "No, no," he said; "that will do me no good." She prayed him to tell her what had disturbed him. "I have been," he said, "in Argyle's prison. I have seen him within an hour of eternity, sleeping as sweetly as ever man did. But as for me ———-"

So effectively had faith and hope, working alongside natural courage and calmness, settled his mind that, on the very day he was to die, he dined with appetite, chatted cheerfully at the table, and, after his last meal, lay down, as he usually did, to take a short nap, so that his body and mind would be refreshed when he faced the scaffold. At that time, one of the Lords of the Council, who had likely been raised a Presbyterian but was now swayed by self-interest to help oppress the Church he once belonged to, came to the Castle with a message from his fellow members and asked to see the Earl. He was told that the Earl was asleep. The Privy Councillor suspected this was an excuse and insisted on entering. The door to the cell was gently opened, and there lay Argyle on the bed, sleeping in his chains, peaceful like a child. The renegade's conscience struck him. He turned away, feeling sick with guilt, ran out of the Castle, and sought comfort in the home of a family member who lived nearby. There, he threw himself on a couch and succumbed to a wave of remorse and shame. His relative, concerned by his appearance and moans, thought he had fallen ill and urged him to drink a glass of sack. "No, no," he replied; "that won’t help me." She implored him to share what was troubling him. "I have been," he said, "in Argyle's prison. I've seen him just an hour away from eternity, sleeping as peacefully as any man could. But as for me ———-"

And now the Earl had risen from his bed, and had prepared himself for what was yet to be endured. He was first brought down the High Street to the Council House, where he was to remain during the short interval which was still to elapse before the execution. During that interval he asked for pen and ink, and wrote to his wife: "Dear heart, God is unchangeable: He hath always been good and gracious to me: and no place alters it. Forgive me all my faults; and now comfort thyself in Him, in whom only true comfort is to be found. The Lord be with thee, bless and comfort thee, my dearest. Adieu."

And now the Earl had gotten out of bed and prepared himself for what was still to come. He was first taken down the High Street to the Council House, where he would stay during the short time left before the execution. During that time, he asked for pen and ink and wrote to his wife: "Dear heart, God doesn’t change: He has always been good and gracious to me, and no place can change that. Forgive me for all my faults, and now find comfort in Him, in whom only true comfort can be found. May the Lord be with you, bless you, and comfort you, my dearest. Goodbye."

It was now time to leave the Council House. The divines who attended the prisoner were not of his own persuasion; but he listened to them with civility, and exhorted them to caution their flocks against those doctrines which all Protestant churches unite in condemning. He mounted the scaffold, where the rude old guillotine of Scotland, called the Maiden, awaited him, and addressed the people in a speech, tinctured with the peculiar phraseology of his sect, but breathing the spirit of serene piety. His enemies, he said, he forgave, as he hoped to be forgiven. Only a single acrimonious expression escaped him. One of the episcopal clergymen who attended him went to the edge of the scaffold, and called out in a loud voice, "My Lord dies a Protestant." "Yes," said the Earl, stepping forward, "and not only a Protestant, but with a heart hatred of Popery, of Prelacy, and of all superstition." He then embraced his friends, put into their hands some tokens of remembrance for his wife and children, kneeled down, laid his head on the block, prayed during a few minutes, and gave the signal to the executioner. His head was fixed on the top of the Tolbooth, where the head of Montrose had formerly decayed. 350

It was time to leave the Council House. The religious leaders who attended the prisoner weren’t from his faith, but he listened to them respectfully and urged them to warn their followers against the beliefs that all Protestant churches condemned. He climbed the scaffold, where Scotland's old guillotine, known as the Maiden, was waiting for him, and spoke to the crowd in a speech flavored with the distinctive language of his sect, yet filled with a sense of calm devotion. He said he forgave his enemies, as he hoped to be forgiven. Only one bitter remark slipped out. One of the episcopal clergymen who was with him stepped to the edge of the scaffold and shouted, "My Lord dies a Protestant." "Yes," the Earl replied, stepping forward, "and not only a Protestant, but one who harbors a strong hatred for Popery, Prelacy, and all superstition." He then hugged his friends, handed them tokens for his wife and children, knelt down, laid his head on the block, prayed for a few minutes, and gave the signal to the executioner. His head was displayed on top of the Tolbooth, where Montrose's head had once decayed. 350

The head of the brave and sincere, though not blameless Rumbold, was already on the West Port of Edinburgh. Surrounded by factious and cowardly associates, he had, through the whole campaign, behaved himself like a soldier trained in the school of the great Protector, had in council strenuously supported the authority of Argyle, and had in the field been distinguished by tranquil intrepidity. After the dispersion of the army he was set upon by a party of militia. He defended himself desperately, and would have cut his way through them, had they not hamstringed his horse. He was brought to Edinburgh mortally wounded. The wish of the government was that he should be executed in England. But he was so near death, that, if he was not hanged in Scotland, he could not be hanged at all; and the pleasure of hanging him was one which the conquerors could not bear to forego. It was indeed not to be expected that they would show much lenity to one who was regarded as the chief of the Rye House plot, and who was the owner of the building from which that plot took its name: but the insolence with which they treated the dying man seems to our more humane age almost incredible. One of the Scotch Privy Councillors told him that he was a confounded villain. "I am at peace with God," answered Rumbold, calmly; "how then can I be confounded?"

The head of the brave but not entirely blameless Rumbold was already on the West Port of Edinburgh. Surrounded by divisive and cowardly associates, he had, throughout the whole campaign, acted like a soldier trained under the great Protector, strongly supporting Argyle's authority in council, and in the field, he was noted for his calm bravery. After the army was dispersed, a group of militia attacked him. He fought back fiercely and would have fought his way through them if they hadn't hamstrung his horse. He was brought to Edinburgh gravely wounded. The government wanted him to be executed in England. But he was so close to death that if he wasn’t hanged in Scotland, he wouldn't be hanged at all; and the conquerors couldn't bear to give up the pleasure of hanging him. It was hardly surprising they wouldn’t show much mercy to someone considered the leader of the Rye House plot and the owner of the building from which that plot got its name. However, the arrogance with which they treated the dying man seems almost unbelievable to us today. One of the Scottish Privy Councillors called him a "confounded villain." "I am at peace with God," Rumbold replied calmly, "so how can I be confounded?"

He was hastily tried, convicted, and sentenced to be hanged and quartered within a few hours, near the City Cross in the High Street. Though unable to stand without the support of two men, he maintained his fortitude to the last, and under the gibbet raised his feeble voice against Popery and tyranny with such vehemence that the officers ordered the drums to strike up, lest the people should hear him. He was a friend, he said, to limited monarchy. But he never would believe that Providence had sent a few men into the world ready booted and spurred to ride, and millions ready saddled and bridled to be ridden. "I desire," he cried, "to bless and magnify God's holy name for this, that I stand here, not for any wrong that I have done, but for adhering to his cause in an evil day. If every hair of my head were a man, in this quarrel I would venture them all."

He was quickly tried, convicted, and sentenced to be hanged and quartered within just a few hours, near the City Cross in the High Street. Even though he couldn't stand without the help of two men, he held onto his courage until the end, and beneath the gallows, he loudly spoke out against Popery and tyranny with such intensity that the officers ordered the drums to play to drown him out, so the crowd wouldn't hear him. He declared that he was a supporter of limited monarchy. But he could never accept the idea that Providence had sent a few people into the world, ready to ride, while millions were waiting to be ridden. "I want," he shouted, "to bless and praise God's holy name for this, that I stand here, not for any wrong I have done, but for standing by His cause in a difficult time. If every hair on my head were a man, I would risk them all for this cause."

Both at his trial and at his execution he spoke of assassination with the abhorrence which became a good Christian and a brave soldier. He had never, he protested, on the faith of a dying man, harboured the thought of committing such villany. But he frankly owned that, in conversation with his fellow conspirators, he had mentioned his own house as a place where Charles and James might with advantage be attacked, and that much had been said on the subject, though nothing had been determined. It may at first sight seem that this acknowledgment is inconsistent with his declaration that he had always regarded assassination with horror. But the truth appears to be that he was imposed upon by a distinction which deluded many of his contemporaries. Nothing would have induced him to put poison into the food of the two princes, or to poinard them in their sleep. But to make an unexpected onset on the troop of Life Guards which surrounded the royal coach, to exchange sword cuts and pistol shots, and to take the chance of slaying or of being slain, was, in his view, a lawful military operation. Ambuscades and surprises were among the ordinary incidents of war. Every old soldier, Cavalier or Roundhead, had been engaged in such enterprises. If in the skirmish the King should fall, he would fall by fair fighting and not by murder. Precisely the same reasoning was employed, after the Revolution, by James himself and by some of his most devoted followers, to justify a wicked attempt on the life of William the Third. A band of Jacobites was commissioned to attack the Prince of Orange in his winter quarters. The meaning latent under this specious phrase was that the Prince's throat was to be cut as he went in his coach from Richmond to Kensington. It may seem strange that such fallacies, the dregs of the Jesuitical casuistry, should have had power to seduce men of heroic spirit, both Whigs and Tories, into a crime on which divine and human laws have justly set a peculiar note of infamy. But no sophism is too gross to delude minds distempered by party spirit. 351

At both his trial and execution, he spoke of assassination with the disgust expected from a good Christian and a brave soldier. He insisted, on the faith of a dying man, that he had never entertained the thought of committing such an act. However, he admitted that in conversations with his fellow conspirators, he had suggested his own house as a place where Charles and James could be attacked, and that a lot had been discussed on the topic, although nothing was decided. At first glance, it may seem that this admission contradicts his claim that he always viewed assassination with horror. But the reality is he was misled by a distinction that fooled many of his contemporaries. Nothing would have made him poison the food of the two princes or stab them in their sleep. However, launching a surprise attack on the troop of Life Guards surrounding the royal coach, engaging in sword fights and gunfire, and risking death or killing was, in his opinion, a legitimate military operation. Ambushes and surprises were standard aspects of warfare. Every seasoned soldier, whether Cavalier or Roundhead, had participated in such operations. If the King fell during the skirmish, he would fall in fair combat, not by murder. The same justification was used, after the Revolution, by James himself and some of his staunch supporters to rationalize a despicable attempt on the life of William the Third. A group of Jacobites was tasked with attacking the Prince of Orange while he was in his winter quarters. The underlying meaning of this seemingly innocent phrase was that the Prince was to be killed as he traveled in his coach from Richmond to Kensington. It might seem odd that such fallacies, remnants of Jesuitical reasoning, could sway men of heroic spirit, whether Whigs or Tories, into a crime that both divine and human laws condemn with special disgrace. But no deception is too blatant to mislead minds clouded by party bias. 351

Argyle, who survived Rumbold a few hours, left a dying testimony to the virtues of the gallant Englishman. "Poor Rumbold was a great support to me, and a brave man, and died Christianly." 352

Argyle, who outlived Rumbold by a few hours, gave a dying testament to the virtues of the brave Englishman. "Poor Rumbold was a huge support to me, a courageous man, and passed away with dignity." 352

Ayloffe showed as much contempt of death as either Argyle or Rumbold: but his end did not, like theirs, edify pious minds. Though political sympathy had drawn him towards the Puritans, he had no religious sympathy with them, and was indeed regarded by them as little better than an atheist. He belonged to that section of the Whigs which sought for models rather among the patriots of Greece and Rome than among the prophets and judges of Israel. He was taken prisoner, and carried to Glasgow. There he attempted to destroy himself with a small penknife: but though he gave himself several wounds, none of them proved mortal, and he had strength enough left to bear a journey to London. He was brought before the Privy Council, and interrogated by the King, but had too much elevation of mind to save himself by informing against others. A story was current among the Whigs that the King said, "You had better be frank with me, Mr. Ayloffe. You know that it is in my power to pardon you." Then, it was rumoured, the captive broke his sullen silence, and answered, "It may be in your power; but it is not in your nature." He was executed under his old outlawry before the gate of the Temple, and died with stoical composure. 353

Ayloffe showed as much disdain for death as Argyle or Rumbold did, but his end didn’t inspire pious minds like theirs. Even though his political beliefs aligned him with the Puritans, he didn’t share their religious views and was considered by them to be hardly better than an atheist. He belonged to a group of Whigs who looked for inspiration more in the patriots of Greece and Rome than in the prophets and judges of Israel. He was captured and taken to Glasgow. There, he tried to take his own life with a small penknife, but despite inflicting several wounds on himself, none were fatal, and he had enough strength left to endure a journey to London. He was brought before the Privy Council and questioned by the King, but he was too proud to save himself by betraying others. A story circulated among the Whigs that the King said, "You’d better be straightforward with me, Mr. Ayloffe. You know I can pardon you." Then, it was rumored that the captive broke his sullen silence and replied, "It may be in your power; but it’s not in your nature." He was executed under his previous outlaw status before the gates of the Temple and died with stoic calm. 353

In the meantime the vengeance of the conquerors was mercilessly wreaked on the people of Argyleshire. Many of the Campbells were hanged by Athol without a trial; and he was with difficulty restrained by the Privy Council from taking more lives. The country to the extent of thirty miles round Inverary was wasted. Houses were burned: the stones of mills were broken to pieces: fruit trees were cut down, and the very roots seared with fire. The nets and fishing boats, the sole means by which many inhabitants of the coast subsisted, were destroyed. More than three hundred rebels and malecontents were transported to the colonies. Many of them were also Sentenced to mutilation. On a single day the hangman of Edinburgh cut off the ears of thirty-five prisoners. Several women were sent across the Atlantic after being first branded in the cheek with a hot iron. It was even in contemplation to obtain an act of Parliament proscribing the name of Campbell, as the name of Macgregor had been proscribed eighty years before. 354

In the meantime, the conquerors ruthlessly took their revenge on the people of Argyleshire. Many Campbells were hanged by Athol without any trial, and it was a struggle for the Privy Council to stop him from taking more lives. The area within thirty miles of Inverary was devastated. Houses were burned, millstones were smashed, fruit trees were cut down, and their roots were scorched with fire. The nets and fishing boats, which were the only means of survival for many coastal residents, were destroyed. More than three hundred rebels and discontented individuals were sent to the colonies. Many were also sentenced to mutilation. On one day, the executioner in Edinburgh cut off the ears of thirty-five prisoners. Several women were sent across the Atlantic after being branded on the cheek with a hot iron. There was even a plan to pass a law banning the name Campbell, just as the name Macgregor had been banned eighty years earlier. 354

Argyle's expedition appears to have produced little sensation in the south of the island. The tidings of his landing reached London just before the English Parliament met. The King mentioned the news from the throne; and the Houses assured him that they would stand by him against every enemy. Nothing more was required of them. Over Scotland they had no authority; and a war of which the theatre was so distant, and of which the event might, almost from the first, be easily foreseen, excited only a languid interest in London.

Argyle's expedition doesn't seem to have made much of an impact in the southern part of the island. News of his landing reached London just before Parliament convened. The King brought it up from the throne, and the Houses promised they would support him against any foe. That was all that was expected from them. They had no control over Scotland; a war so far away, whose outcome could almost be predicted from the start, stirred only a mild interest in London.

But, a week before the final dispersion of Argyle's army England was agitated by the news that a more formidable invader had landed on her own shores. It had been agreed among the refugees that Monmouth should sail from Holland six days after the departure of the Scots. He had deferred his expedition a short time, probably in the hope that most of the troops in the south of the island would be moved to the north as soon as war broke out in the Highlands, and that he should find no force ready to oppose him. When at length he was desirous to proceed, the wind had become adverse and violent.

But a week before Argyle's army finally broke up, England was stirred by news that a more powerful invader had landed on her shores. The refugees had agreed that Monmouth would set sail from Holland six days after the Scots left. He had postponed his expedition briefly, probably hoping that most of the troops in the south of the island would be sent north as soon as war began in the Highlands, leaving him with no opposition. However, when he finally decided to move forward, the wind had turned against him and became rough.

While his small fleet lay tossing in the Texel, a contest was going on among the Dutch authorities. The States General and the Prince of Orange were on one side, the Town Council and Admiralty of Amsterdam on the other.

While his small fleet was struggling in the Texel, a battle was happening among the Dutch authorities. The States General and the Prince of Orange were on one side, while the Town Council and Admiralty of Amsterdam were on the other.

Skelton had delivered to the States General a list of the refugees whose residence in the United Provinces caused uneasiness to his master. The States General, anxious to grant every reasonable request which James could make, sent copies of the list to the provincial authorities. The provincial authorities sent copies to the municipal authorities. The magistrates of all the towns were directed to take such measures as might prevent the proscribed Whigs from molesting the English government. In general those directions were obeyed. At Rotterdam in particular, where the influence of William was all powerful, such activity was shown as called forth warm acknowledgments from James. But Amsterdam was the chief seat of the emigrants; and the governing body of Amsterdam would see nothing, hear nothing, know of nothing. The High Bailiff of the city, who was himself in daily communication with Ferguson, reported to the Hague that he did not know where to find a single one of the refugees; and with this excuse the federal government was forced to be content. The truth was that the English exiles were as well known at Amsterdam, and as much stared at in the streets, as if they had been Chinese. 355

Skelton had presented a list of refugees to the States General, whose presence in the United Provinces worried his king. The States General, eager to accommodate any reasonable request from James, forwarded copies of the list to the provincial authorities. The provincial authorities then sent copies to the municipal authorities. The magistrates of all the towns were instructed to take action to prevent the targeted Whigs from disturbing the English government. Generally, these instructions were followed. In Rotterdam, in particular, where William's influence was strong, there was noticeable activity that elicited warm thanks from James. However, Amsterdam was the main hub for the emigrants, and its governing body chose to ignore the situation entirely. The High Bailiff of the city, who was in regular contact with Ferguson, reported to The Hague that he couldn’t locate any of the refugees, and with this excuse, the federal government had to be satisfied. The reality was that the English exiles were as well recognized in Amsterdam and attracted as much attention in the streets as if they were Chinese. 355

A few days later, Skelton received orders from his Court to request that, in consequence of the dangers which threatened his master's throne, the three Scotch regiments in the service of the United Provinces might be sent to Great Britain without delay. He applied to the Prince of Orange; and the prince undertook to manage the matter, but predicted that Amsterdam would raise some difficulty. The prediction proved correct. The deputies of Amsterdam refused to consent, and succeeded in causing some delay. But the question was not one of those on which, by the constitution of the republic, a single city could prevent the wish of the majority from being carried into effect. The influence of William prevailed; and the troops were embarked with great expedition. 356

A few days later, Skelton got orders from his Court to ask that, due to the threats facing his master's throne, the three Scottish regiments serving the United Provinces be sent to Great Britain immediately. He reached out to the Prince of Orange, who agreed to handle it but warned that Amsterdam would likely put up some resistance. He was right. The representatives of Amsterdam refused to agree and managed to cause some delays. However, this was not the kind of issue where one city could block the majority's wishes according to the constitution of the republic. William's influence prevailed, and the troops were quickly loaded onto ships. 356

Skelton was at the same time exerting himself, not indeed very judiciously or temperately, to stop the ships which the English refugees had fitted out. He expostulated in warm terms with the Admiralty of Amsterdam. The negligence of that board, he said, had already enabled one band of rebels to invade Britain. For a second error of the same kind there could be no excuse. He peremptorily demanded that a large vessel, named the Helderenbergh, might be detained. It was pretended that this vessel was bound for the Canaries. But in truth, she had been freighted by Monmouth, carried twenty-six guns, and was loaded with arms and ammunition. The Admiralty of Amsterdam replied that the liberty of trade and navigation was not to be restrained for light reasons, and that the Helderenbergh could not be stopped without an order from the States General. Skelton, whose uniform practice seems to have been to begin at the wrong end, now had recourse to the States General. The States General gave the necessary orders. Then the Admiralty of Amsterdam pretended that there was not a sufficient naval force in the Texel to seize so large a ship as the Helderenbergh, and suffered Monmouth to sail unmolested. 357

Skelton was actively trying, though not very wisely or calmly, to stop the ships that the English refugees had outfitted. He argued passionately with the Admiralty of Amsterdam, stating that their negligence had already allowed one group of rebels to invade Britain. He insisted that there could be no excuse for a second mistake like that. He firmly demanded that a large ship called the Helderenbergh be detained. It was claimed that this vessel was headed for the Canaries, but in reality, it had been chartered by Monmouth, carried twenty-six guns, and was loaded with weapons and ammunition. The Admiralty of Amsterdam responded that the freedom of trade and navigation couldn't be restricted for trivial reasons and that the Helderenbergh couldn't be stopped without permission from the States General. Skelton, whose usual approach seemed to start from the wrong end, then turned to the States General. They issued the necessary orders. However, the Admiralty of Amsterdam then claimed they didn't have enough naval power in the Texel to seize such a large ship as the Helderenbergh, allowing Monmouth to set sail without interference. 357

The weather was bad: the voyage was long; and several English men-of-war were cruising in the channel. But Monmouth escaped both the sea and the enemy. As he passed by the cliffs of Dorsetshire, it was thought desirable to send a boat to the beach with one of the refugees named Thomas Dare. This man, though of low mind and manners, had great influence at Taunton. He was directed to hasten thither across the country, and to apprise his friends that Monmouth would soon be on English ground. 358

The weather was terrible, the journey was long, and several British warships were patrolling the channel. But Monmouth managed to avoid both the sea and the enemy. As he passed the cliffs of Dorsetshire, it was decided to send a boat to the shore with one of the refugees named Thomas Dare. This man, despite his unrefined nature, had significant influence in Taunton. He was instructed to hurry across the countryside and inform his friends that Monmouth would soon be on English soil. 358

On the morning of the eleventh of June the Helderenbergh, accompanied by two smaller vessels, appeared off the port of Lyme. That town is a small knot of steep and narrow alleys, lying on a coast wild, rocky, and beaten by a stormy sea. The place was then chiefly remarkable for a pier which, in the days of the Plantagenets, had been constructed of stones, unhewn and uncemented. This ancient work, known by the name of the Cob, enclosed the only haven where, in a space of many miles, the fishermen could take refuge from the tempests of the Channel.

On the morning of June 11th, the Helderenbergh, along with two smaller ships, showed up off the port of Lyme. That town is a small cluster of steep, narrow streets on a rugged, rocky coastline battered by a stormy sea. At that time, it was mainly known for a pier that had been built with uncut, uncemented stones during the Plantagenet era. This ancient structure, called the Cob, formed the only harbor within many miles where fishermen could find shelter from the Channel's storms.

The appearance of the three ships, foreign built and without colours, perplexed the inhabitants of Lyme; and the uneasiness increased when it was found that the Customhouse officers, who had gone on board according to usage, did not return. The town's people repaired to the cliffs, and gazed long and anxiously, but could find no solution of the mystery. At length seven boats put off from the largest of the strange vessels, and rowed to the shore. From these boats landed about eighty men, well armed and appointed. Among them were Monmouth, Grey, Fletcher, Ferguson, Wade, and Anthony Buyse, an officer who had been in the service of the Elector of Brandenburg. 359

The sight of the three ships, built overseas and flying no flags, confused the people of Lyme; their anxiety grew when the Customhouse officers, who had boarded as usual, did not come back. The townsfolk gathered at the cliffs and watched for a long time, worried, but couldn’t figure out the mystery. Finally, seven boats launched from the largest of the strange vessels and headed to the shore. About eighty men, well-armed and equipped, disembarked from these boats. Among them were Monmouth, Grey, Fletcher, Ferguson, Wade, and Anthony Buyse, an officer who had served the Elector of Brandenburg. 359

Monmouth commanded silence, kneeled down on the shore, thanked God for having preserved the friends of liberty and pure religion from the perils of the sea, and implored the divine blessing on what was yet to be done by land. He then drew his sword, and led his men over the cliffs into the town.

Monmouth requested silence, knelt on the shore, thanked God for protecting the friends of liberty and true religion from the dangers of the sea, and asked for divine blessings on what was still ahead on land. He then unsheathed his sword and led his men over the cliffs into the town.

As soon as it was known under what leader and for what purpose the expedition came, the enthusiasm of the populace burst through all restraints. The little town was in an uproar with men running to and fro, and shouting "A Monmouth! a Monmouth! the Protestant religion!" Meanwhile the ensign of the adventurers, a blue flag, was set up in the marketplace. The military stores were deposited in the town hall; and a Declaration setting forth the objects of the expedition was read from the Cross. 360

As soon as people learned who was leading the expedition and what it was for, the excitement of the crowd broke through all limits. The small town was in chaos with people running around, shouting "A Monmouth! A Monmouth! The Protestant faith!" At the same time, the adventurers raised a blue flag in the marketplace. The military supplies were stored in the town hall, and a Declaration outlining the goals of the expedition was announced from the Cross. 360

This Declaration, the masterpiece of Ferguson's genius, was not a grave manifesto such as ought to be put forth by a leader drawing the sword for a great public cause, but a libel of the lowest class, both in sentiment and language. 361 It contained undoubtedly many just charges against the government. But these charges were set forth in the prolix and inflated style of a bad pamphlet; and the paper contained other charges of which the whole disgrace falls on those who made them. The Duke of York, it was positively affirmed, had burned down London, had strangled Godfrey, had cut the throat of Essex, and had poisoned the late King. On account of those villanous and unnatural crimes, but chiefly of that execrable fact, the late horrible and barbarous parricide,—such was the copiousness and such the felicity of Ferguson's diction,—James was declared a mortal and bloody enemy, a tyrant, a murderer, and an usurper. No treaty should be made with him. The sword should not be sheathed till he had been brought to condign punishment as a traitor. The government should be settled on principles favourable to liberty. All Protestant sects should be tolerated. The forfeited charters should be restored. Parliament should be held annually, and should no longer be prorogued or dissolved by royal caprice. The only standing force should be the militia: the militia should be commanded by the Sheriffs; and the Sheriffs should be chosen by the freeholders. Finally Monmouth declared that he could prove himself to have been born in lawful wedlock, and to be, by right of blood, King of England, but that, for the present, he waived his claims, that he would leave them to the judgment of a free Parliament, and that, in the meantime, he desired to be considered only as the Captain General of the English Protestants, who were in arms against tyranny and Popery.

This Declaration, the peak of Ferguson's brilliance, wasn't a serious manifesto that a leader should present when fighting for a major public cause, but rather a low-quality attack, both in emotion and expression. 361 It definitely included many valid complaints against the government. However, these grievances were expressed in the long-winded and exaggerated manner of a poorly written pamphlet; and the document included additional accusations that reflect poorly on those who made them. It was claimed without hesitation that the Duke of York had set London on fire, had murdered Godfrey, had killed Essex, and had poisoned the former King. Due to these vile and unnatural crimes, especially that horrific act of parricide—such was Ferguson's wordiness and such was the eloquence of his language—James was labeled a deadly enemy, a tyrant, a murderer, and a usurper. No agreements should be made with him. The sword should remain drawn until he was punished as a traitor. The government should be based on principles that support liberty. All Protestant groups should be accepted. The reclaimed charters should be reinstated. Parliament should meet every year and should no longer be postponed or dissolved at the whim of the monarchy. The only standing military force should be the militia: the militia should be led by the Sheriffs; and the Sheriffs should be elected by the landowners. Finally, Monmouth stated that he could prove he was born to lawful parents and was, by right of blood, King of England, but for now, he would set aside his claims, leaving them to the judgment of a free Parliament, and in the meantime, he wanted to be recognized only as the Captain General of the English Protestants who were fighting against tyranny and Catholicism.

Disgraceful as this manifesto was to those who put it forth, it was not unskilfully framed for the purpose of stimulating the passions of the vulgar. In the West the effect was great. The gentry and clergy of that part of England were indeed, with few exceptions, Tories. But the yeomen, the traders of the towns, the peasants, and the artisans were generally animated by the old Roundhead spirit. Many of them were Dissenters, and had been goaded by petty persecution into a temper fit for desperate enterprise. The great mass of the population abhorred Popery and adored Monmouth. He was no stranger to them. His progress through Somersetshire and Devonshire in the summer of 1680 was still fresh in the memory of all men.

Disgraceful as this manifesto was to those who created it, it was well-crafted to stir the emotions of the common people. In the West, the impact was significant. The gentry and clergy in that part of England were mostly, with few exceptions, Tories. However, the yeomen, town traders, peasants, and artisans were generally inspired by the old Roundhead spirit. Many of them were Dissenters, who had been provoked by minor persecutions into a mood suitable for bold actions. The vast majority of the population detested Popery and admired Monmouth. He was familiar to them, and his journey through Somersetshire and Devonshire in the summer of 1680 was still fresh in everyone's minds.

He was on that occasion sumptuously entertained by Thomas Thynne at Longleat Hall, then, and perhaps still, the most magnificent country house in England. From Longleat to Exeter the hedges were lined with shouting spectators. The roads were strewn with boughs and flowers. The multitude, in their eagerness to see and touch their favourite, broke down the palings of parks, and besieged the mansions where he was feasted. When he reached Chard his escort consisted of five thousand horsemen. At Exeter all Devonshire had been gathered together to welcome him. One striking part of the show was a company of nine hundred young men who, clad in a white uniform, marched before him into the city. 362 The turn of fortune which had alienated the gentry from his cause had produced no effect on the common people. To them he was still the good Duke, the Protestant Duke, the rightful heir whom a vile conspiracy kept out of his own. They came to his standard in crowds. All the clerks whom he could employ were too few to take down the names of the recruits. Before he had been twenty-four hours on English ground he was at the head of fifteen hundred men. Dare arrived from Taunton with forty horsemen of no very martial appearance, and brought encouraging intelligence as to the state of public feeling in Somersetshire. As Yet all seemed to promise well. 363

He was lavishly hosted by Thomas Thynne at Longleat Hall, which was, and maybe still is, the most impressive country house in England. From Longleat to Exeter, the hedges were packed with cheering onlookers. The roads were covered with branches and flowers. The crowd, eager to see and touch their favorite, broke down the fences of parks and surrounded the mansions where he was celebrated. When he got to Chard, his escort included five thousand horsemen. At Exeter, all of Devonshire had gathered to welcome him. One notable part of the celebration was a group of nine hundred young men in white uniforms marching in front of him into the city. 362 The turn of events that had turned the gentry against his cause had no impact on the common people. To them, he was still the good Duke, the Protestant Duke, the rightful heir who was kept from his own by a wicked conspiracy. They flocked to his side in large numbers. There weren't enough clerks to write down the names of all the recruits he could gather. Within just twenty-four hours of setting foot on English soil, he was at the head of fifteen hundred men. Dare arrived from Taunton with forty horsemen who didn’t look very battle-ready, bringing positive news about public sentiment in Somersetshire. So far, everything looked promising. 363

But a force was collecting at Bridport to oppose the insurgents. On the thirteenth of June the red regiment of Dorsetshire militia came pouring into that town. The Somersetshire, or yellow regiment, of which Sir William Portman, a Tory gentleman of great note, was Colonel, was expected to arrive on the following day. 364 The Duke determined to strike an immediate blow. A detachment of his troops was preparing to march to Bridport when a disastrous event threw the whole camp into confusion.

But a force was gathering at Bridport to oppose the rebels. On June 13, the red regiment of the Dorsetshire militia arrived in town. The Somersetshire, or yellow regiment, led by Colonel Sir William Portman, a prominent Tory, was expected to arrive the next day. 364 The Duke decided to take immediate action. A group of his troops was getting ready to march to Bridport when a disastrous event threw the entire camp into chaos.

Fletcher of Saltoun had been appointed to command the cavalry under Grey. Fletcher was ill mounted; and indeed there were few chargers in the camp which had not been taken from the plough. When he was ordered to Bridport, he thought that the exigency of the case warranted him in borrowing, without asking permission, a fine horse belonging to Dare. Dare resented this liberty, and assailed Fletcher with gross abuse. Fletcher kept his temper better than any one who knew him expected. At last Dare, presuming on the patience with which his insolence had been endured, ventured to shake a switch at the high born and high spirited Scot Fletcher's blood boiled. He drew a pistol and shot Dare dead. Such sudden and violent revenge would not have been thought strange in Scotland, where the law had always been weak, where he who did not right himself by the strong hand was not likely to be righted at all, and where, consequently, human life was held almost as cheap as in the worst governed provinces of Italy. But the people of the southern part of the island were not accustomed to see deadly weapons used and blood spilled on account of a rude word or gesture, except in duel between gentlemen with equal arms. There was a general cry for vengeance on the foreigner who had murdered an Englishman. Monmouth could not resist the clamour. Fletcher, who, when his first burst of rage had spent itself, was overwhelmed with remorse and sorrow, took refuge on board of the Helderenbergh, escaped to the Continent, and repaired to Hungary, where he fought bravely against the common enemy of Christendom. 365

Fletcher of Saltoun had been put in charge of the cavalry under Grey. Fletcher's horse was poorly suited for battle, and in fact, most of the horses in the camp had been taken from farms. When he was ordered to Bridport, he felt the situation justified borrowing a fine horse that belonged to Dare, without asking for permission. Dare was furious about this and confronted Fletcher with harsh insults. Fletcher managed to control his temper better than anyone who knew him would have expected. Eventually, Dare, taking advantage of Fletcher's patience, tried to intimidate him by waving a whip. This provoked Fletcher, whose blood boiled. He pulled out a pistol and shot Dare dead. Such a quick and violent act of revenge wouldn't have seemed unusual in Scotland, where the law had always been weak, and those who didn’t take justice into their own hands were unlikely to be helped at all, making human life almost as disposable as in the most poorly governed parts of Italy. However, the people in the southern part of the island were not used to seeing deadly weapons used or bloodshed over a rude comment or gesture, unless it was in a duel between gentlemen. There was a widespread outcry for revenge against the outsider who had killed an Englishman. Monmouth couldn’t ignore the uproar. Fletcher, who was consumed by remorse and sorrow after the initial rage subsided, took refuge on the Helderenbergh, escaped to the Continent, and went to Hungary, where he fought bravely against the common enemy of Christendom. 365

Situated as the insurgents were, the loss of a man of parts and energy was not easily to be repaired. Early on the morning of the following day, the fourteenth of June, Grey, accompanied by Wade, marched with about five hundred men to attack Bridport. A confused and indecisive action took place, such as was to be expected when two bands of ploughmen, officered by country gentlemen and barristers, were opposed to each other. For a time Monmouth's men drove the militia before them. Then the militia made a stand, and Monmouth's men retreated in some confusion. Grey and his cavalry never stopped till they were safe at Lyme again: but Wade rallied the infantry and brought them off in good order. 366

Given the situation of the insurgents, losing a capable and energetic leader was hard to replace. Early the next morning, on June fourteenth, Grey, along with Wade, led about five hundred men to attack Bridport. A disorganized and hesitant battle broke out, as could be expected when two groups of farmers, led by country gentlemen and lawyers, faced off against each other. For a while, Monmouth's men pushed the militia back. Then the militia regrouped, causing Monmouth's men to retreat in some disorder. Grey and his cavalry didn't stop until they were safely back in Lyme, but Wade managed to rally the infantry and led them away in good order. 366

There was a violent outcry against Grey; and some of the adventurers pressed Monmouth to take a severe course. Monmouth, however, would not listen to this advice. His lenity has been attributed by some writers to his good nature, which undoubtedly often amounted to weakness. Others have supposed that he was unwilling to deal harshly with the only peer who served in his army. It is probable, however, that the Duke, who, though not a general of the highest order, understood war very much better than the preachers and lawyers who were always obtruding their advice on him, made allowances which people altogether inexpert in military affairs never thought of making. In justice to a man who has had few defenders, it must be observed that the task, which, throughout this campaign, was assigned to Grey, was one which, if he had been the boldest and most skilful of soldiers, he would scarcely have performed in such a manner as to gain credit. He was at the head of the cavalry. It is notorious that a horse soldier requires a longer training than a foot soldier, and that the war horse requires a longer training than his rider. Something may be done with a raw infantry which has enthusiasm and animal courage: but nothing can be more helpless than a raw cavalry, consisting of yeomen and tradesmen mounted on cart horses and post horses; and such was the cavalry which Grey commanded. The wonder is, not that his men did not stand fire with resolution, not that they did not use their weapons with vigour, but that they were able to keep their seats.

There was a strong backlash against Grey, and some of the adventurers urged Monmouth to take a tough stance. However, Monmouth refused to follow this advice. Some writers attribute his leniency to his good nature, which often bordered on weakness. Others believe he hesitated to treat harshly the only nobleman who served in his army. Still, it’s likely that the Duke, while not the best general, had a much better understanding of warfare than the preachers and lawyers who were constantly giving him unsolicited advice, and he made considerations that those who knew nothing about military matters wouldn’t think to make. To be fair to a man who has had few defenders, it's important to note that the role assigned to Grey throughout this campaign was one that even the most daring and skilled soldiers would struggle to fulfill successfully. He led the cavalry. It's well-known that mounted soldiers require more training than infantry soldiers, and that war horses need more training than their riders. You can manage with an inexperienced infantry unit that has enthusiasm and bravery, but nothing is more useless than an inexperienced cavalry made up of farmers and tradesmen riding cart horses and post horses—exactly the kind of cavalry Grey was in charge of. The surprising part isn’t that his men didn’t hold their ground bravely or use their weapons effectively, but that they were able to stay in the saddle at all.

Still recruits came in by hundreds. Arming and drilling went on all day. Meantime the news of the insurrection had spread fast and wide. On the evening on which the Duke landed, Gregory Alford, Mayor of Lyme, a zealous Tory, and a bitter persecutor of Nonconformists, sent off his servants to give the alarm to the gentry of Somersetshire and Dorsetshire, and himself took horse for the West. Late at night he stopped at Honiton, and thence despatched a few hurried lines to London with the ill tidings. 367 He then pushed on to Exeter, where he found Christopher Monk, Duke of Albemarle. This nobleman, the son and heir of George Monk, the restorer of the Stuarts, was Lord Lieutenant of Devonshire, and was then holding a muster of militia. Four thousand men of the trainbands were actually assembled under his command. He seems to have thought that, with this force, he should be able at once to crush the rebellion. He therefore marched towards Lyme.

Still, recruits were streaming in by the hundreds. Arming and drilling continued all day. Meanwhile, the news of the uprising spread quickly far and wide. On the evening the Duke landed, Gregory Alford, the Mayor of Lyme, a passionate Tory and a fierce oppressor of Nonconformists, sent his servants to alert the gentry of Somersetshire and Dorsetshire, and he himself rode out West. Late at night, he stopped in Honiton and sent a few rushed lines to London with the bad news. 367 He then pressed on to Exeter, where he found Christopher Monk, Duke of Albemarle. This nobleman, the son and heir of George Monk, who restored the Stuarts, was the Lord Lieutenant of Devonshire and was currently overseeing a militia muster. Four thousand militia men were actually assembled under his command. He seemed to think that with this force, he could quickly crush the rebellion. He then marched towards Lyme.

But when, on the afternoon of Monday the fifteenth of June, he reached Axminster, he found the insurgents drawn up there to encounter him. They presented a resolute front. Four field pieces were pointed against the royal troops. The thick hedges, which on each side overhung the narrow lanes, were lined with musketeers. Albemarle, however, was less alarmed by the preparations of the enemy than by the spirit which appeared in his own ranks. Such was Monmouth's popularity among the common people of Devonshire that, if once the trainbands had caught sight of his well known face and figure, they would have probably gone over to him in a body.

But when he arrived in Axminster on the afternoon of Monday, June fifteenth, he found the rebels gathered there to confront him. They put up a determined front. Four cannons were aimed at the royal troops. The thick hedges lining the narrow lanes were filled with musketeers. However, Albemarle was more concerned about the attitude of his own troops than the enemy's preparations. Monmouth was so popular among the common people of Devonshire that if the local militia caught sight of his familiar face and figure, they would likely have joined him en masse.

Albemarle, therefore, though he had a great superiority of force, thought it advisable to retreat. The retreat soon became a rout. The whole country was strewn with the arms and uniforms which the fugitives had thrown away; and, had Monmouth urged the pursuit with vigour, he would probably have taken Exeter without a blow. But he was satisfied with the advantage which he had gained, and thought it desirable that his recruits should be better trained before they were employed in any hazardous service. He therefore marched towards Taunton, where he arrived on the eighteenth of June, exactly a week after his landing. 368

Albemarle, despite his overwhelming force, decided it was wise to retreat. However, the retreat quickly turned into a chaotic rout. The entire area was littered with the weapons and uniforms abandoned by the fleeing soldiers; if Monmouth had pursued with more determination, he likely would have captured Exeter without resistance. But he was content with the advantage he had gained and believed it was important for his recruits to be better trained before engaging in any risky actions. So, he headed towards Taunton, arriving there on June 18, exactly one week after his landing. 368

The Court and the Parliament had been greatly moved by the news from the West. At five in the morning of Saturday the thirteenth of June, the King had received the letter which the Mayor of Lyme had despatched from Honiton. The Privy Council was instantly called together. Orders were given that the strength of every company of infantry and of every troop of cavalry should be increased. Commissions were issued for the levying of new regiments. Alford's communication was laid before the Lords; and its substance was communicated to the Commons by a message. The Commons examined the couriers who had arrived from the West, and instantly ordered a bill to be brought in for attainting Monmouth of high treason. Addresses were voted assuring the King that both his peers and his people were determined to stand by him with life and fortune against all his enemies. At the next meeting of the Houses they ordered the Declaration of the rebels to be burned by the hangman, and passed the bill of attainder through all its stages. That bill received the royal assent on the same day; and a reward of five thousand pounds was promised for the apprehension of Monmouth. 369

The Court and Parliament were deeply affected by the news from the West. At 5 a.m. on Saturday, June 13th, the King received a letter that the Mayor of Lyme had sent from Honiton. The Privy Council was quickly assembled. Orders were issued to increase the strength of every infantry company and cavalry troop. Commissions were granted to raise new regiments. Alford's communication was presented to the Lords, and its details were relayed to the Commons through a message. The Commons questioned the couriers who had arrived from the West and immediately ordered a bill to be introduced for charging Monmouth with high treason. They voted on addresses assuring the King that both his peers and his subjects were determined to support him with their lives and fortunes against all his enemies. At the next meeting of the Houses, they ordered the rebels' Declaration to be burned by the hangman and passed the attainder bill through all its stages. That bill received royal assent on the same day, and a reward of five thousand pounds was offered for the capture of Monmouth. 369

The fact that Monmouth was in arms against the government was so notorious that the bill of attainder became a law with only a faint show of opposition from one or two peers, and has seldom been severely censured even by Whig historians. Yet, when we consider how important it is that legislative and judicial functions should be kept distinct, how important it is that common fame, however strong and general, should not be received as a legal proof of guilt, how important it is to maintain the rule that no man shall be condemned to death without an opportunity of defending himself, and how easily and speedily breaches in great principles, when once made, are widened, we shall probably be disposed to think that the course taken by the Parliament was open to some objection. Neither House had before it anything which even so corrupt a judge as Jeffreys could have directed a jury to consider as proof of Monmouth's crime. The messengers examined by the Commons were not on oath, and might therefore have related mere fictions without incurring the penalties of perjury. The Lords, who might have administered an oath, appeared not to have examined any witness, and to have had no evidence before them except the letter of the Mayor of Lyme, which, in the eye of the law, was no evidence at all. Extreme danger, it is true, justifies extreme remedies. But the Act of Attainder was a remedy which could not operate till all danger was over, and which would become superfluous at the very moment at which it ceased to be null. While Monmouth was in arms it was impossible to execute him. If he should be vanquished and taken, there would be no hazard and no difficulty in trying him. It was afterwards remembered as a curious circumstance that, among zealous Tories who went up with the bill from the House of Commons to the bar of the Lords, was Sir John Fenwick, member for Northumberland. This gentleman, a few years later, had occasion to reconsider the whole subject, and then came to the conclusion that acts of attainder are altogether unjustifiable. 370

The fact that Monmouth was against the government was so well-known that the bill of attainder passed with barely any opposition from a couple of peers and has rarely been heavily criticized, even by Whig historians. However, when we think about how crucial it is to keep legislative and judicial functions separate, how vital it is that widely held beliefs, no matter how strong, should not be accepted as legal evidence of guilt, how important it is to uphold the rule that no one should be sentenced to death without the chance to defend themselves, and how easily and quickly violations of fundamental principles can expand once established, we’re likely to believe that Parliament's approach had some issues. Neither House had anything before it that even a corrupt judge like Jeffreys could have presented as evidence of Monmouth's crime. The messengers questioned by the Commons were not under oath, so they could have shared fictional stories without facing perjury charges. The Lords, who could have administered an oath, did not appear to have called any witnesses, and had no evidence other than the letter from the Mayor of Lyme, which, legally speaking, was not evidence at all. While it is true that extreme danger calls for extreme measures, the Act of Attainder was a remedy that couldn't take effect until the danger had passed, and it would become pointless the moment it was no longer void. While Monmouth was in arms, he couldn’t be executed. If he were defeated and captured, trying him would pose no risk or challenge. It was later noted as an odd detail that among the passionate Tories who brought the bill from the House of Commons to the Lords was Sir John Fenwick, the representative for Northumberland. A few years later, this gentleman had to rethink the entire issue and concluded that acts of attainder are wholly unjustifiable. 370

The Parliament gave other proofs of loyalty in this hour of peril. The Commons authorised the King to raise an extraordinary sum of four hundred thousand pounds for his present necessities, and that he might have no difficulty in finding the money, proceeded to devise new imposts. The scheme of taxing houses lately built in the capital was revived and strenuously supported by the country gentlemen. It was resolved not only that such houses should be taxed, but that a bill should be brought in prohibiting the laying of any new foundations within the bills of mortality. The resolution, however, was not carried into effect. Powerful men who had land in the suburbs and who hoped to see new streets and squares rise on their estates, exerted all their influence against the project. It was found that to adjust the details would be a work of time; and the King's wants were so pressing that he thought it necessary to quicken the movements of the House by a gentle exhortation to speed. The plan of taxing buildings was therefore relinquished; and new duties were imposed for a term of five years on foreign silks, linens, and spirits. 371

The Parliament demonstrated its loyalty during this time of crisis. The Commons allowed the King to raise an extraordinary sum of four hundred thousand pounds for his immediate needs, and to make it easier to find the money, they proposed new taxes. The idea of taxing newly built houses in the capital was revived and strongly supported by country gentlemen. It was decided that not only should these houses be taxed, but a bill should be introduced to prohibit any new foundations within the areas designated for mortality. However, this resolution was not put into action. Influential landowners in the suburbs, who hoped to see new streets and squares develop on their properties, used all their power to oppose the project. It became clear that working out the details would take time; and the King's needs were so urgent that he felt it necessary to encourage the House to act quickly. Consequently, the plan to tax buildings was abandoned, and new duties were imposed for five years on foreign silks, linens, and spirits. 371

The Tories of the Lower House proceeded to introduce what they called a bill for the preservation of the King's person and government. They proposed that it should be high treason to say that Monmouth was legitimate, to utter any words tending to bring the person or government of the sovereign into hatred or contempt, or to make any motion in Parliament for changing the order of succession. Some of these provisions excited general disgust and alarm. The Whigs, few and weak as they were, attempted to rally, and found themselves reinforced by a considerable number of moderate and sensible Cavaliers. Words, it was said, may easily be misunderstood by a dull man. They may be easily misconstrued by a knave. What was spoken metaphorically may be apprehended literally. What was spoken ludicrously may be apprehended seriously. A particle, a tense, a mood, an emphasis, may make the whole difference between guilt and innocence. The Saviour of mankind himself, in whose blameless life malice could find no acts to impeach, had been called in question for words spoken. False witnesses had suppressed a syllable which would have made it clear that those words were figurative, and had thus furnished the Sanhedrim with a pretext under which the foulest of all judicial murders had been perpetrated. With such an example on record, who could affirm that, if mere talk were made a substantive treason, the most loyal subject would be safe? These arguments produced so great an effect that in the committee amendments were introduced which greatly mitigated the severity of the bill. But the clause which made it high treason in a member of Parliament to propose the exclusion of a prince of the blood seems to have raised no debate, and was retained. That clause was indeed altogether unimportant, except as a proof of the ignorance and inexperience of the hotheaded Royalists who thronged the House of Commons. Had they learned the first rudiments of legislation, they would have known that the enactment to which they attached so much value would be superfluous while the Parliament was disposed to maintain the order of succession, and would be repealed as soon as there was a Parliament bent on changing the order of succession. 372

The Tories in the House of Commons moved to introduce what they called a bill to protect the King and his government. They suggested that it should be considered high treason to claim that Monmouth was legitimate, to say anything that could incite hatred or contempt against the King or his government, or to propose any changes to the order of succession in Parliament. Some of these proposals caused widespread disgust and concern. The Whigs, though few and weak, tried to rally support and found themselves joined by a number of moderate and sensible Cavaliers. It was noted that words can easily be misunderstood by someone simple-minded, and can be twisted by a dishonest person. What is meant metaphorically can be taken literally, and what is said jokingly can be understood seriously. A small detail like a word, tense, mood, or emphasis can completely change the perception of guilt or innocence. Even the Savior himself, whose life was without blame, had faced allegations due to his words. False witnesses omitted a word that would have clarified that those words were metaphorical, giving the Sanhedrim a basis for committing one of the worst judicial murders in history. With such an example in history, who could say that if mere speech was made a serious crime, even the most loyal subject would be safe? These arguments had such a strong impact that amendments were introduced in committee, significantly softening the harshness of the bill. However, the clause that made it high treason for a member of Parliament to suggest excluding a royal prince seemed to spark no debate and remained unchanged. This clause was largely insignificant, except as evidence of the ignorance and inexperience of the hotheaded Royalists in the Commons. If they had grasped the basics of legislation, they would have realized that the law they valued so much would be unnecessary while Parliament aimed to uphold the order of succession and would be repealed once a Parliament sought to change it. 372

The bill, as amended, was passed and carried up to the Lords, but did not become law. The King had obtained from the Parliament all the pecuniary assistance that he could expect; and he conceived that, while rebellion was actually raging, the loyal nobility and gentry would be of more use in their counties than at Westminster. He therefore hurried their deliberations to a close, and, on the second of July, dismissed them. On the same day the royal assent was given to a law reviving that censorship of the press which had terminated in 1679. This object was affected by a few words at the end of a miscellaneous statute which continued several expiring acts. The courtiers did not think that they had gained a triumph. The Whigs did not utter a murmur. Neither in the Lords nor in the Commons was there any division, or even, as far as can now be learned, any debate on a question which would, in our age, convulse the whole frame of society. In truth, the change was slight and almost imperceptible; for, since the detection of the Rye House plot, the liberty of unlicensed printing had existed only in name. During many months scarcely one Whig pamphlet had been published except by stealth; and by stealth such pamphlets might be published still. 373

The bill, after being revised, was passed and sent up to the Lords, but it didn't become law. The King had gotten from Parliament all the financial support he could expect; he figured that during the ongoing rebellion, the loyal nobility and gentry would be more helpful in their counties than at Westminster. So, he rushed their discussions to an end and dismissed them on July 2nd. On the same day, the royal assent was given to a law reinstating the censorship of the press that had ended in 1679. This was accomplished through a few words at the end of a miscellaneous statute that continued several acts that were about to expire. The courtiers didn’t feel like they had achieved a victory. The Whigs didn’t complain at all. In both the Lords and the Commons, there was no division or, as far as can be determined now, any debate on a topic that would, in our time, shake the entire society. In reality, the change was minor and almost unnoticeable; since the discovery of the Rye House plot, the freedom of unlicensed printing had really only existed in name. For many months, hardly any Whig pamphlets had been published except secretly; and such pamphlets could still be published secretly. 373

The Houses then rose. They were not prorogued, but only adjourned, in order that, when they should reassemble, they might take up their business in the exact state in which they had left it. 374

The Houses then rose. They were not dismissed, but just adjourned, so that when they came back together, they could pick up their work right where they had left off. 374

While the Parliament was devising sharp laws against Monmouth and his partisans, he found at Taunton a reception which might well encourage him to hope that his enterprise would have a prosperous issue. Taunton, like most other towns in the south of England, was, in that age, more important than at present. Those towns have not indeed declined. On the contrary, they are, with very few exceptions, larger and richer, better built and better peopled, than in the seventeenth century. But, though they have positively advanced, they have relatively gone back. They have been far outstripped in wealth and population by the great manufacturing and commercial cities of the north, cities which, in the time of the Stuarts, were but beginning to be known as seats of industry. When Monmouth marched into Taunton it was an eminently prosperous place. Its markets were plentifully supplied. It was a celebrated seat of the woollen manufacture. The people boasted that they lived in a land flowing with milk and honey. Nor was this language held only by partial natives; for every stranger who climbed the graceful tower of St. Mary Magdalene owned that he saw beneath him the most fertile of English valleys. It was a country rich with orchards and green pastures, among which were scattered, in gay abundance, manor houses, cottages, and village spires. The townsmen had long leaned towards Presbyterian divinity and Whig politics. In the great civil war Taunton had, through all vicissitudes, adhered to the Parliament, had been twice closely besieged by Goring, and had been twice defended with heroic valour by Robert Blake, afterwards the renowned Admiral of the Commonwealth. Whole streets had been burned down by the mortars and grenades of the Cavaliers. Food had been so scarce that the resolute governor had announced his intention of putting the garrison on rations of horse flesh. But the spirit of the town had never been subdued either by fire or by hunger. 375

While Parliament was crafting strict laws against Monmouth and his followers, he received a warm welcome in Taunton, which gave him hope that his venture would be successful. Taunton, like many towns in southern England at that time, was more significant than it is today. These towns haven’t exactly declined; in fact, they are generally larger, wealthier, better built, and more populated than they were in the seventeenth century. However, despite their progress, they have relatively fallen behind, as they have been greatly surpassed in wealth and population by the major manufacturing and commercial cities in the north, which were just starting to be recognized for their industrial importance during the Stuart era. When Monmouth entered Taunton, it was thriving. Its markets were well stocked, and it was known for its wool production. The locals claimed they lived in a land rich with resources. And this wasn’t just the opinion of biased residents; even visitors who climbed the elegant tower of St. Mary Magdalene acknowledged that they were overlooking one of the most fertile valleys in England. The area was lush with orchards and green fields, dotted with plenty of manor houses, cottages, and village steeples. The townspeople had long supported Presbyterianism and Whig politics. During the civil war, Taunton consistently backed Parliament through all its challenges, enduring two serious sieges by Goring, which were bravely defended by Robert Blake, who later became the famous Admiral of the Commonwealth. Entire streets had been destroyed by the bombardments and bombs of the Cavaliers, and food had become so scarce that the determined governor proposed to put the troops on rations of horse meat. Yet, the spirit of the town had never been broken by fire or hunger. 375

The Restoration had produced no effect on the temper of the Taunton men. They had still continued to celebrate the anniversary of the happy day on which the siege laid to their town by the royal army had been raised; and their stubborn attachment to the old cause had excited so much fear and resentment at Whitehall that, by a royal order, their moat had been filled up, and their wall demolished to the foundation. 376 The puritanical spirit had been kept up to the height among them by the precepts and example of one of the most celebrated of the dissenting clergy, Joseph Alleine. Alleine was the author of a tract, entitled, An Alarm to the Unconverted, which is still popular both in England and in America. From the gaol to which he was consigned by the victorious Cavaliers, he addressed to his loving friends at Taunton many epistles breathing the spirit of a truly heroic piety. His frame soon sank under the effects of study, toil, and persecution: but his memory was long cherished with exceeding love and reverence by those whom he had exhorted and catechised. 377

The Restoration had no impact on the attitude of the people of Taunton. They continued to celebrate the anniversary of the day when the royal army lifted the siege on their town; their stubborn loyalty to the old cause generated so much fear and anger at Whitehall that, by royal decree, their moat was filled in and their walls were torn down to the ground. 376 The puritanical spirit remained strong among them, fueled by the teachings and example of one of the most renowned dissenting ministers, Joseph Alleine. Alleine wrote a pamphlet titled An Alarm to the Unconverted, which is still well-known in both England and America. From the prison where he was held by the victorious Cavaliers, he sent many letters to his dear friends in Taunton, expressing a truly heroic sense of piety. His health deteriorated due to the demands of study, hard work, and persecution, but his legacy was honored with great love and respect by those he had motivated and instructed. 377

The children of the men who, forty years before, had manned the ramparts of Taunton against the Royalists, now welcomed Monmouth with transports of joy and affection. Every door and window was adorned with wreaths of flowers. No man appeared in the streets without wearing in his hat a green bough, the badge of the popular cause. Damsels of the best families in the town wove colours for the insurgents. One flag in particular was embroidered gorgeously with emblems of royal dignity, and was offered to Monmouth by a train of young girls. He received the gift with the winning courtesy which distinguished him. The lady who headed the procession presented him also with a small Bible of great price. He took it with a show of reverence. "I come," he said, "to defend the truths contained in this book, and to seal them, if it must be so, with my blood." 378

The children of the men who, forty years earlier, had defended the ramparts of Taunton against the Royalists now welcomed Monmouth with great joy and affection. Every door and window was decorated with flower wreaths. No one walked the streets without wearing a green branch in their hat, a symbol of the popular cause. Young women from the best families in town wove colors for the insurgents. One flag, in particular, was beautifully embroidered with symbols of royal dignity and was presented to Monmouth by a group of young girls. He accepted the gift with the charming courtesy he was known for. The lady leading the procession also gave him a valuable small Bible. He took it with a sense of reverence. "I come," he said, "to defend the truths contained in this book, and to seal them, if necessary, with my blood." 378

But while Monmouth enjoyed the applause of the multitude, he could not but perceive, with concern and apprehension, that the higher classes were, with scarcely an exception, hostile to his undertaking, and that no rising had taken place except in the counties where he had himself appeared. He had been assured by agents, who professed to have derived their information from Wildman, that the whole Whig aristocracy was eager to take arms. Nevertheless more than a week had now elapsed since the blue standard had been set up at Lyme. Day labourers, small farmers, shopkeepers, apprentices, dissenting preachers, had flocked to the rebel camp: but not a single peer, baronet, or knight, not a single member of the House of Commons, and scarcely any esquire of sufficient note to have ever been in the commission of the peace, had joined the invaders. Ferguson, who, ever since the death of Charles, had been Monmouth's evil angel, had a suggestion ready. The Duke had put himself into a false position by declining the royal title. Had he declared himself sovereign of England, his cause would have worn a show of legality. At present it was impossible to reconcile his Declaration with the principles of the constitution. It was clear that either Monmouth or his uncle was rightful King. Monmouth did not venture to pronounce himself the rightful King, and yet denied that his uncle was so. Those who fought for James fought for the only person who ventured to claim the throne, and were therefore clearly in their duty, according to the laws of the realm. Those who fought for Monmouth fought for some unknown polity, which was to be set up by a convention not yet in existence. None could wonder that men of high rank and ample fortune stood aloof from an enterprise which threatened with destruction that system in the permanence of which they were deeply interested. If the Duke would assert his legitimacy and assume the crown, he would at once remove this objection. The question would cease to be a question between the old constitution and a new constitution. It would be merely a question of hereditary right between two princes.

But while Monmouth enjoyed the cheers of the crowd, he couldn't help but notice, with worry and apprehension, that the upper classes were mostly against his efforts, and that no uprising had occurred except in the counties where he had personally shown up. Agents, claiming to have gotten their information from Wildman, had assured him that the entire Whig aristocracy was eager to take up arms. However, more than a week had passed since the blue flag was raised at Lyme. Day laborers, small farmers, shopkeepers, apprentices, and dissenting preachers had flocked to the rebel camp, but not a single peer, baronet, or knight, nor any member of the House of Commons, and hardly any notable squire who had ever held a position in the commission of the peace, had joined the invaders. Ferguson, who had been Monmouth's bad influence since Charles's death, had a suggestion ready. The Duke had put himself in a difficult position by refusing the royal title. If he had declared himself the sovereign of England, his cause would have seemed more legitimate. Right now, it was impossible to align his Declaration with the principles of the constitution. It was clear that either Monmouth or his uncle was the rightful King. Monmouth didn't dare to claim he was the rightful King, yet he denied that his uncle was. Those who fought for James were fighting for the only person who dared to claim the throne and were thus fulfilling their duty according to the laws of the realm. Those who fought for Monmouth were fighting for some unknown government that was to be established by a convention that didn’t even exist yet. No one could blame the high-ranking and wealthy individuals for steering clear of an initiative that threatened to destroy a system they were deeply invested in. If the Duke would assert his legitimacy and take the crown, it would immediately eliminate this objection. The issue would shift from a conflict between the old constitution and a new one to a simple matter of hereditary right between two princes.

On such grounds as these Ferguson, almost immediately after the landing, had earnestly pressed the Duke to proclaim himself King; and Grey had seconded Ferguson. Monmouth had been very willing to take this advice; but Wade and other republicans had been refractory; and their chief, with his usual pliability, had yielded to their arguments. At Taunton the subject was revived. Monmouth talked in private with the dissentients, assured them that he saw no other way of obtaining the support of any portion of the aristocracy, and succeeded in extorting their reluctant consent. On the morning of the twentieth of June he was proclaimed in the market place of Taunton. His followers repeated his new title with affectionate delight. But, as some confusion might have arisen if he had been called King James the Second, they commonly used the strange appellation of King Monmouth: and by this name their unhappy favourite was often mentioned in the western counties, within the memory of persons still living. 379

On these grounds, Ferguson quickly urged the Duke to declare himself King right after they landed, and Grey supported Ferguson's idea. Monmouth was eager to follow this advice, but Wade and other republicans were resistant, and their leader, as usual, gave in to their arguments. The topic came up again in Taunton. Monmouth spoke privately with the dissenters, explaining that he saw no other way to gain support from any part of the aristocracy, and he managed to get their hesitant agreement. On the morning of June 20th, he was proclaimed in the Taunton market square. His followers joyfully repeated his new title. However, to avoid any confusion with King James the Second, they often used the unusual title of King Monmouth, and this is how their unfortunate favorite was frequently referred to in the western counties, even within the memory of people still alive. 379

Within twenty-four hours after he had assumed the regal title, he put forth several proclamations headed with his sign manual. By one of these he set a price on the head of his rival. Another declared the Parliament then sitting at Westminster an unlawful assembly, and commanded the members to disperse. A third forbade the people to pay taxes to the usurper. A fourth pronounced Albemarle a traitor. 380

Within twenty-four hours of taking the royal title, he issued several proclamations signed by him. One of these put a bounty on his rival’s head. Another declared the Parliament meeting at Westminster to be an illegal assembly and ordered its members to disperse. A third prohibited people from paying taxes to the usurper. A fourth labeled Albemarle a traitor. 380

Albemarle transmitted these proclamations to London merely as specimens of folly and impertinence. They produced no effect, except wonder and contempt; nor had Monmouth any reason to think that the assumption of royalty had improved his position. Only a week had elapsed since he had solemnly bound himself not to take the crown till a free Parliament should have acknowledged his rights. By breaking that engagement he had incurred the imputation of levity, if not of perfidy. The class which he had hoped to conciliate still stood aloof. The reasons which prevented the great Whig lords and gentlemen from recognising him as their King were at least as strong as those which had prevented them from rallying round him as their Captain General. They disliked indeed the person, the religion, and the politics of James. But James was no longer young. His eldest daughter was justly popular. She was attached to the reformed faith. She was married to a prince who was the hereditary chief of the Protestants of the Continent, to a prince who had been bred in a republic, and whose sentiments were supposed to be such as became a constitutional King. Was it wise to incur the horrors of civil war, for the mere chance of being able to effect immediately what nature would, without bloodshed, without any violation of law, effect, in all probability, before many years should have expired? Perhaps there might be reasons for pulling down James. But what reason could be given for setting up Monmouth? To exclude a prince from the throne on account of unfitness was a course agreeable to Whig principles. But on no principle could it be proper to exclude rightful heirs, who were admitted to be, not only blameless, but eminently qualified for the highest public trust. That Monmouth was legitimate, nay, that he thought himself legitimate, intelligent men could not believe. He was therefore not merely an usurper, but an usurper of the worst sort, an impostor. If he made out any semblance of a case, he could do so only by means of forgery and perjury. All honest and sensible persons were unwilling to see a fraud which, if practiced to obtain an estate, would have been punished with the scourge and the pillory, rewarded with the English crown. To the old nobility of the realm it seemed insupportable that the bastard of Lucy Walters should be set up high above the lawful descendants of the Fitzalans and De Veres. Those who were capable of looking forward must have seen that, if Monmouth should succeed in overpowering the existing government, there would still remain a war between him and the House of Orange, a war which might last longer and produce more misery than the war of the Roses, a war which might probably break up the Protestants of Europe into hostile parties, might arm England and Holland against each other, and might make both those countries an easy prey to France. The opinion, therefore, of almost all the leading Whigs seems to have been that Monmouth's enterprise could not fail to end in some great disaster to the nation, but that, on the whole, his defeat would be a less disaster than his victory.

Albemarle sent these proclamations to London just as examples of nonsense and rudeness. They had no impact, except to elicit wonder and disdain; Monmouth had no reason to believe that acting like a king had improved his standing. Just a week had passed since he had solemnly promised not to take the crown until a free Parliament acknowledged his rights. By breaking that promise, he had earned a reputation for frivolity, if not for betrayal. The group he had hoped to win over still stayed away. The reasons that kept the powerful Whig lords and gentlemen from recognizing him as their King were at least as strong as those that had prevented them from rallying around him as their Captain General. They indeed disliked James's character, religion, and politics. But James was no longer young. His oldest daughter was quite popular. She adhered to the reformed faith. She was married to a prince who was the hereditary leader of the Protestant community on the Continent, a prince raised in a republic, whose views were believed to align with those of a constitutional King. Was it wise to provoke the horrors of civil war just for the slim chance of achieving something that nature would likely resolve, without violence or breaking any laws, probably within a few years? There might be reasons to oppose James, but what rationale could justify supporting Monmouth? Excluding a prince from the throne due to unfitness was consistent with Whig ideals. But it couldn’t be justified to exclude rightful heirs, who were recognized as not only blameless but also highly qualified for the highest public office. Intelligent people couldn’t believe that Monmouth was legitimate, or even that he thought he was. Thus, he was not just an usurper, but the worst kind of usurper, an impostor. If he could muster any semblance of a case, it would only be through forgery and perjury. All honest and reasonable people were reluctant to see a deception that, if used to obtain property, would be punished with lashes and public humiliation, rewarded with the English crown. To the old nobility, it seemed unbearable that the illegitimate son of Lucy Walters should be raised above the rightful descendants of the Fitzalans and De Veres. Those who could envision the future must have realized that even if Monmouth succeeded in overthrowing the current government, there would still be a conflict between him and the House of Orange, a conflict that could last longer and bring more suffering than the War of the Roses, a conflict that could likely divide the Protestants of Europe into rival factions, pit England and Holland against each other, and leave both nations vulnerable to France. Therefore, it seems that the majority of leading Whigs believed that Monmouth's venture would inevitably result in some major disaster for the nation, but that overall, his defeat would be a lesser disaster than his victory.

It was not only by the inaction of the Whig aristocracy that the invaders were disappointed. The wealth and power of London had sufficed in the preceding generation, and might again suffice, to turn the scale in a civil conflict. The Londoners had formerly given many proofs of their hatred of Popery and of their affection for the Protestant Duke. He had too readily believed that, as soon as he landed, there would be a rising in the capital. But, though advices came down to him that many thousands of the citizens had been enrolled as volunteers for the good cause, nothing was done. The plain truth was that the agitators who had urged him to invade England, who had promised to rise on the first signal, and who had perhaps imagined, while the danger was remote, that they should have the courage to keep their promise, lost heart when the critical time drew near. Wildman's fright was such that he seemed to have lost his understanding. The craven Danvers at first excused his inaction by saying that he would not take up arms till Monmouth was proclaimed King, and when Monmouth had been proclaimed King, turned round and declared that good republicans were absolved from all engagements to a leader who had so shamefully broken faith. In every age the vilest specimens of human nature are to be found among demagogues. 381

It wasn’t just the inaction of the Whig aristocracy that let the invaders down. The wealth and power of London had been enough in the previous generation, and could be again, to sway the outcome in a civil conflict. The people of London had previously shown numerous examples of their hatred for Catholicism and their support for the Protestant Duke. He had too easily believed that once he arrived, there would be an uprising in the capital. However, even though he received reports that many thousands of citizens had signed up as volunteers for the good cause, nothing happened. The plain truth was that the activists who had urged him to invade England, who had promised to rise at the first signal, and who perhaps thought, while the threat was distant, that they would muster the courage to keep their promise, lost their nerve as the critical moment approached. Wildman was so frightened that he seemed to lose his mind. The cowardly Danvers initially justified his inaction by saying he wouldn’t take up arms until Monmouth was declared King, and once Monmouth was proclaimed King, he turned around and declared that good republicans were released from any commitments to a leader who had so shamefully betrayed them. Throughout history, the worst examples of human nature can be found among demagogues. 381

On the day following that on which Monmouth had assumed the regal title he marched from Taunton to Bridgewater. His own spirits, it was remarked, were not high. The acclamations of the devoted thousands who surrounded him wherever he turned could not dispel the gloom which sate on his brow. Those who had seen him during his progress through Somersetshire five years before could not now observe without pity the traces of distress and anxiety on those soft and pleasing features which had won so many hearts. 382

On the day after Monmouth declared himself king, he marched from Taunton to Bridgewater. It was noted that he wasn't in high spirits. The cheers from the thousands devoted to him who surrounded him wherever he went couldn't lift the heavy gloom on his face. Those who had seen him during his journey through Somersetshire five years earlier couldn't help but feel pity for the signs of distress and anxiety on his once soft and endearing features that had captured so many hearts. 382

Ferguson was in a very different temper. With this man's knavery was strangely mingled an eccentric vanity which resembled madness. The thought that he had raised a rebellion and bestowed a crown had turned his head. He swaggered about, brandishing his naked sword, and crying to the crowd of spectators who had assembled to see the army march out of Taunton, "Look at me! You have heard of me. I am Ferguson, the famous Ferguson, the Ferguson for whose head so many hundred pounds have been offered." And this man, at once unprincipled and brainsick, had in his keeping the understanding and the conscience of the unhappy Monmouth. 383

Ferguson was in a completely different mood. His scheming was oddly mixed with an eccentric arrogance that felt crazy. The idea that he had sparked a rebellion and given someone a crown had gone to his head. He strutted around, waving his unsheathed sword, shouting to the crowd that had gathered to watch the army march out of Taunton, "Look at me! You’ve heard of me. I’m Ferguson, the famous Ferguson, the one for whose head so many hundreds of pounds have been offered." And this man, who was both unscrupulous and deranged, held the fate and conscience of the unfortunate Monmouth. 383

Bridgewater was one of the few towns which still had some Whig magistrates. The Mayor and Aldermen came in their robes to welcome the Duke, walked before him in procession to the high cross, and there proclaimed him King. His troops found excellent quarters, and were furnished with necessaries at little or no cost by the people of the town and neighbourhood. He took up his residence in the Castle, a building which had been honoured by several royal visits. In the Castle Field his army was encamped. It now consisted of about six thousand men, and might easily have been increased to double the number, but for the want of arms. The Duke had brought with him from the Continent but a scanty supply of pikes and muskets. Many of his followers had, therefore, no other weapons than such as could be fashioned out of the tools which they had used in husbandry or mining. Of these rude implements of war the most formidable was made by fastening the blade of a scythe erect on a strong pole. 384 The tithing men of the country round Taunton and Bridgewater received orders to search everywhere for scythes and to bring all that could be found to the camp. It was impossible, however, even with the help of these contrivances, to supply the demand; and great numbers who were desirous to enlist were sent away. 385

Bridgewater was one of the few towns that still had some Whig officials. The Mayor and Aldermen came in their robes to welcome the Duke, walking in procession before him to the high cross, where they proclaimed him King. His troops found great accommodations and were provided with necessities at little or no cost by the townspeople and the surrounding area. He made his home in the Castle, a building that had been graced by several royal visits. His army camped in the Castle Field. It now consisted of about six thousand men and could easily have doubled in size, except for a lack of weapons. The Duke had brought with him from the Continent only a limited supply of pikes and muskets. Many of his followers, therefore, had no weapons other than those they could make from the tools they used in farming or mining. Of these crude weapons, the most effective was created by attaching the blade of a scythe upright on a sturdy pole. 384 The tithing men from the areas around Taunton and Bridgewater were ordered to search everywhere for scythes and bring all that they could find to the camp. However, even with these makeshift solutions, it was impossible to meet the demand; many eager to enlist were turned away. 385

The foot were divided into six regiments. Many of the men had been in the militia, and still wore their uniforms, red and yellow. The cavalry were about a thousand in number; but most of them had only large colts, such as were then bred in great herds on the marshes of Somersetshire for the purpose of supplying London with coach horses and cart horses. These animals were so far from being fit for any military purpose that they had not yet learned to obey the bridle, and became ungovernable as soon as they heard a gun fired or a drum beaten. A small body guard of forty young men, well armed, and mounted at their own charge, attended Monmouth. The people of Bridgewater, who were enriched by a thriving coast trade, furnished him with a small sum of money. 386

The foot soldiers were organized into six regiments. Many of the men had previously served in the militia and still wore their red and yellow uniforms. The cavalry numbered around a thousand, but most of them only had large colts that were bred in large herds on the marshes of Somersetshire to provide London with coach and cart horses. These animals were far from suitable for any military use, as they hadn't yet learned to respond to the bridle and became uncontrollable as soon as they heard a gunshot or a drumbeat. A small bodyguard of forty young men, well-armed and mounted at their own expense, traveled with Monmouth. The people of Bridgewater, who thrived on a successful coastal trade, provided him with a small amount of money. 386

All this time the forces of the government were fast assembling. On the west of the rebel army, Albemarle still kept together a large body of Devonshire militia. On the east, the trainbands of Wiltshire had mustered under the command of Thomas Herbert, Earl of Pembroke. On the north east, Henry Somerset, Duke of Beaufort, was in arms. The power of Beaufort bore some faint resemblance to that of the great barons of the fifteenth century. He was President of Wales and Lord Lieutenant of four English counties. His official tours through the extensive region in which he represented the majesty of the throne were scarcely inferior in pomp to royal progresses. His household at Badminton was regulated after the fashion of an earlier generation. The land to a great extent round his pleasure grounds was in his own hands; and the labourers who cultivated it formed part of his family. Nine tables were every day spread under his roof for two hundred persons. A crowd of gentlemen and pages were under the orders of the steward. A whole troop of cavalry obeyed the master of the horse. The fame of the kitchen, the cellar, the kennel, and the stables was spread over all England. The gentry, many miles round, were proud of the magnificence of their great neighbour, and were at the same time charmed by his affability and good nature. He was a zealous Cavalier of the old school. At this crisis, therefore, he used his whole influence and authority in support of the crown, and occupied Bristol with the trainbands of Gloucestershire, who seem to have been better disciplined than most other troops of that description. 387

All this time, the government forces were quickly gathering. To the west of the rebel army, Albemarle still rallied a large group of Devonshire militia. To the east, the trainbands of Wiltshire had assembled under the command of Thomas Herbert, Earl of Pembroke. In the northeast, Henry Somerset, Duke of Beaufort, was ready for battle. Beaufort’s power had some faint resemblance to that of the great barons from the fifteenth century. He was the President of Wales and the Lord Lieutenant of four English counties. His official visits through the vast area he represented were almost as grand as royal tours. His household at Badminton was organized in the style of an earlier era. Much of the land surrounding his estate was owned by him, and the laborers who worked it were considered part of his family. Every day, nine tables were set under his roof for two hundred people. A crowd of gentlemen and pages served under the steward's command. A whole troop of cavalry reported to the master of the horse. The reputation of the kitchen, the wine cellar, the kennels, and the stables was known all over England. Gentry from miles around took pride in the splendor of their great neighbor, while also being charmed by his friendliness and good nature. He was a devoted Cavalier of the old school. In this critical moment, he therefore used all his influence and authority to support the crown, occupying Bristol with the trainbands of Gloucestershire, who seemed to be better trained than most other troops of that kind. 387

In the counties more remote from Somersetshire the supporters of the throne were on the alert. The militia of Sussex began to march westward, under the command of Richard, Lord Lumley, who, though he had lately been converted from the Roman Catholic religion, was still firm in his allegiance to a Roman Catholic King. James Bertie, Earl of Abingdon, called out the array of Oxfordshire. John Fell, Bishop of Oxford, who was also Dean of Christchurch, summoned the undergraduates of his University to take arms for the crown. The gownsmen crowded to give in their names. Christchurch alone furnished near a hundred pikemen and musketeers. Young noblemen and gentlemen commoners acted as officers; and the eldest son of the Lord Lieutenant was Colonel. 388

In the counties further away from Somersetshire, the supporters of the throne were on high alert. The militia of Sussex started to march westward, led by Richard, Lord Lumley, who, although he had recently converted from Roman Catholicism, remained loyal to a Roman Catholic king. James Bertie, the Earl of Abingdon, rallied the troops of Oxfordshire. John Fell, Bishop of Oxford and Dean of Christchurch, called on the undergraduates of his university to take up arms for the crown. The students quickly signed up. Christchurch alone provided nearly a hundred pikemen and musketeers. Young noblemen and common gentlemen served as officers, and the eldest son of the Lord Lieutenant held the position of Colonel. 388

But it was chiefly on the regular troops that the King relied. Churchill had been sent westward with the Blues; and Feversham was following with all the forces that could be spared from the neighbourhood of London. A courier had started for Holland with a letter directing Skelton instantly to request that the three English regiments in the Dutch service might be sent to the Thames. When the request was made, the party hostile to the House of Orange, headed by the deputies of Amsterdam, again tried to cause delay. But the energy of William, who had almost as much at stake as James, and who saw Monmouth's progress with serious uneasiness, bore down opposition, and in a few days the troops sailed. 389 The three Scotch regiments were already in England. They had arrived at Gravesend in excellent condition, and James had reviewed them on Blackheath. He repeatedly declared to the Dutch Ambassador that he had never in his life seen finer or better disciplined soldiers, and expressed the warmest gratitude to the Prince of Orange and the States for so valuable and seasonable a reinforcement This satisfaction, however, was not unmixed. Excellently as the men went through their drill, they were not untainted with Dutch politics and Dutch divinity. One of them was shot and another flogged for drinking the Duke of Monmouth's health. It was therefore not thought advisable to place them in the post of danger. They were kept in the neighbourhood of London till the end of the campaign. But their arrival enabled the King to send to the West some infantry which would otherwise have been wanted in the capital. 390

But it was mainly on the regular troops that the King depended. Churchill had been sent west with the Blues, and Feversham was following with all the forces that could be spared from the area around London. A courier had left for Holland with a letter instructing Skelton to immediately request that the three English regiments in Dutch service be sent to the Thames. When the request was made, the faction opposed to the House of Orange, led by the deputies of Amsterdam, tried once again to cause delays. However, the determination of William, who had almost as much at stake as James and who was seriously uneasy about Monmouth's advance, overcame the opposition, and within a few days the troops set sail. 389 The three Scottish regiments were already in England. They had arrived at Gravesend in excellent condition, and James had reviewed them on Blackheath. He repeatedly told the Dutch Ambassador that he had never seen finer or better disciplined soldiers and expressed deep gratitude to the Prince of Orange and the States for such a valuable and timely reinforcement. This satisfaction, however, was not without complications. Although the men performed their drills excellently, they were not free from Dutch politics and religious influences. One of them was shot and another flogged for drinking to the Duke of Monmouth's health. Therefore, it was not considered wise to place them in a position of danger. They were kept near London until the end of the campaign. However, their arrival allowed the King to send some infantry to the West that would otherwise have been needed in the capital. 390

While the government was thus preparing for a conflict with the rebels in the field, precautions of a different kind were not neglected. In London alone two hundred of those persons who were thought most likely to be at the head of a Whig movement were arrested. Among the prisoners were some merchants of great note. Every man who was obnoxious to the Court went in fear. A general gloom overhung the capital. Business languished on the Exchange; and the theatres were so generally deserted that a new opera, written by Dryden, and set off by decorations of unprecedented magnificence, was withdrawn, because the receipts would not cover the expenses of the performance. 391 The magistrates and clergy were everywhere active, the Dissenters were everywhere closely observed. In Cheshire and Shropshire a fierce persecution raged; in Northamptonshire arrests were numerous; and the gaol of Oxford was crowded with prisoners. No Puritan divine, however moderate his opinions, however guarded his conduct, could feel any confidence that he should not be torn from his family and flung into a dungeon. 392

While the government was preparing for a conflict with the rebels in the field, they also took different precautions. In London alone, two hundred people thought to be leading a Whig movement were arrested. Among the prisoners were some prominent merchants. Every man who was disliked by the Court lived in fear. A general sense of gloom hung over the capital. Business was slow on the Exchange, and the theaters were so deserted that a new opera written by Dryden, featuring unprecedented decorations, was pulled because ticket sales wouldn't cover the performance costs. 391 The magistrates and clergy were active everywhere, and the Dissenters were closely monitored. In Cheshire and Shropshire, there was severe persecution; in Northamptonshire, arrests were frequent; and the Oxford jail was overcrowded with prisoners. No Puritan minister, regardless of how moderate his views or careful his behavior, could feel confident that he wouldn't be torn from his family and thrown into a dungeon. 392

Meanwhile Monmouth advanced from Bridgewater harassed through the whole march by Churchill, who appears to have done all that, with a handful of men, it was possible for a brave and skilful officer to effect. The rebel army, much annoyed, both by the enemy and by a heavy fall of rain, halted in the evening of the twenty-second of June at Glastonbury. The houses of the little town did not afford shelter for so large a force. Some of the troops were therefore quartered in the churches, and others lighted their fires among the venerable ruins of the Abbey, once the wealthiest religious house in our island. From Glastonbury the Duke marched to Wells, and from Wells to Shepton Mallet. 393

Meanwhile, Monmouth moved from Bridgewater, constantly harassed throughout the entire march by Churchill, who seemed to do everything possible, with just a few men, that a brave and skillful officer could achieve. The rebel army, quite frustrated by both the enemy and a heavy downpour, stopped for the night on June twenty-second at Glastonbury. The homes in the small town couldn’t accommodate such a large force. So, some of the troops were housed in the churches, while others lit their fires among the ancient ruins of the Abbey, once the richest religious site in our country. From Glastonbury, the Duke marched to Wells, and then from Wells to Shepton Mallet. 393

Hitherto he seems to have wandered from place to place with no other object than that of collecting troops. It was now necessary for him to form some plan of military operations. His first scheme was to seize Bristol. Many of the chief inhabitants of that important place were Whigs. One of the ramifications of the Whig plot had extended thither. The garrison consisted only of the Gloucestershire trainbands. If Beaufort and his rustic followers could be overpowered before the regular troops arrived, the rebels would at once find themselves possessed of ample pecuniary resources; the credit of Monmouth's arms would be raised; and his friends throughout the kingdom would be encouraged to declare themselves. Bristol had fortifications which, on the north of the Avon towards Gloucestershire, were weak, but on the south towards Somersetshire were much stronger. It was therefore determined that the attack should be made on the Gloucestershire side. But for this purpose it was necessary to take a circuitous route, and to cross the Avon at Keynsham. The bridge at Keynsham had been partly demolished by the militia, and was at present impassable. A detachment was therefore sent forward to make the necessary repairs. The other troops followed more slowly, and on the evening of the twenty-fourth of June halted for repose at Pensford. At Pensford they were only five miles from the Somersetshire side of Bristol; but the Gloucestershire side, which could be reached only by going round through Keynsham, was distant a long day's march. 394

So far, he seemed to have moved from place to place with no other goal than gathering troops. Now, he needed to come up with a plan for military operations. His first idea was to take Bristol. Many of the key residents of that important city were Whigs. One part of the Whig plot had reached there. The garrison consisted only of the Gloucestershire militia. If Beaufort and his rural followers could be defeated before the regular troops arrived, the rebels would quickly find themselves with plenty of money; the reputation of Monmouth's forces would be boosted; and his supporters across the country would be inspired to take a stand. Bristol had fortifications that were weak on the north side of the Avon towards Gloucestershire, but much stronger on the south towards Somersetshire. So, it was decided that the attack would happen on the Gloucestershire side. However, to do this, they needed to take a longer route and cross the Avon at Keynsham. The bridge at Keynsham had been partially destroyed by the militia and was currently unusable. Therefore, a group was sent ahead to make the necessary repairs. The other troops moved at a slower pace, and on the evening of June twenty-fourth, they stopped to rest at Pensford. At Pensford, they were only five miles from the Somersetshire side of Bristol, but the Gloucestershire side, which could be reached only by going around through Keynsham, was a long day’s march away. 394

That night was one of great tumult and expectation in Bristol. The partisans of Monmouth knew that he was almost within sight of their city, and imagined that he would be among them before daybreak. About an hour after sunset a merchantman lying at the quay took fire. Such an occurrence, in a port crowded with shipping, could not but excite great alarm. The whole river was in commotion. The streets were crowded. Seditious cries were heard amidst the darkness and confusion. It was afterwards asserted, both by Whigs and by Tories, that the fire had been kindled by the friends of Monmouth, in the hope that the trainbands would be busied in preventing the conflagration from spreading, and that in the meantime the rebel army would make a bold push, and would enter the city on the Somersetshire side. If such was the design of the incendiaries, it completely failed. Beaufort, instead of sending his men to the quay, kept them all night drawn up under arms round the beautiful church of Saint Mary Redcliff, on the south of the Avon. He would see Bristol burnt down, he said, nay, he would burn it down himself, rather than that it should be occupied by traitors. He was able, with the help of some regular cavalry which had joined him from Chippenham a few hours before, to prevent an insurrection. It might perhaps have been beyond his power at once to overawe the malecontents within the walls and to repel an attack from without: but no such attack was made. The fire, which caused so much commotion at Bristol, was distinctly seen at Pensford. Monmouth, however, did not think it expedient to change his plan. He remained quiet till sunrise, and then marched to Keynsham. There he found the bridge repaired. He determined to let his army rest during the afternoon, and, as soon as night came, to proceed to Bristol. 395

That night was full of chaos and anticipation in Bristol. Monmouth's supporters knew he was almost in sight of their city and believed he would join them before dawn. About an hour after sunset, a merchant ship docked at the quay caught fire. In a crowded port like this, such an event caused widespread panic. The entire river stirred with activity, and the streets were packed. Voices calling for rebellion pierced through the darkness and confusion. Later, both Whigs and Tories claimed that Monmouth's allies had started the fire, hoping that the local militia would be focused on putting it out while the rebel army made a strong move to enter the city from the Somersetshire side. If that was indeed their plan, it completely failed. Beaufort, instead of sending his men to the quay, kept them on alert all night around the beautiful church of Saint Mary Redcliff, south of the Avon. He declared he'd rather see Bristol burn down himself than let it fall into the hands of traitors. With the help of some regular cavalry that had joined him from Chippenham a few hours earlier, he managed to prevent any uprising. It might have been difficult for him to control the discontent within the walls while also fending off an attack from outside, but no attack came. The fire that caused so much commotion in Bristol was clearly visible from Pensford. However, Monmouth decided not to change his plans. He stayed put until sunrise and then marched to Keynsham, where he found the bridge repaired. He decided to let his army rest during the afternoon and planned to advance toward Bristol as soon as night fell. 395

But it was too late. The King's forces were now near at hand. Colonel Oglethorpe, at the head of about a hundred men of the Life Guards, dashed into Keynsham, scattered two troops of rebel horse which ventured to oppose him, and retired after inflicting much injury and suffering little. In these circumstances it was thought necessary to relinquish the design on Bristol. 396

But it was too late. The King's forces were already close. Colonel Oglethorpe, leading around a hundred men from the Life Guards, charged into Keynsham, scattering two groups of rebel cavalry that dared to confront him, and withdrew after causing significant damage while sustaining minimal losses. Given the situation, it was decided to abandon the plan for Bristol. 396

But what was to be done? Several schemes were proposed and discussed. It was suggested that Monmouth might hasten to Gloucester, might cross the Severn there, might break down the bridge behind him, and, with his right flank protected by the river, might march through Worcestershire into Shropshire and Cheshire. He had formerly made a progress through those counties, and had been received there with as much enthusiasm as in Somersetshire and Devonshire. His presence might revive the zeal of his old friends; and his army might in a few days be swollen to double its present numbers.

But what should be done? Several plans were suggested and debated. One idea was that Monmouth could quickly head to Gloucester, cross the Severn there, destroy the bridge behind him, and, with his right side protected by the river, march through Worcestershire into Shropshire and Cheshire. He had previously traveled through those counties and was welcomed there with as much enthusiasm as in Somerset and Devon. His presence might reignite the passion of his old supporters, and his army could grow to twice its current size in just a few days.

On full consideration, however, it appeared that this plan, though specious, was impracticable. The rebels were ill shod for such work as they had lately undergone, and were exhausted by toiling, day after day, through deep mud under heavy rain. Harassed and impeded as they would be at every stage by the enemy's cavalry, they could not hope to reach Gloucester without being overtaken by the main body of the royal troops, and forced to a general action under every disadvantage.

After careful thought, it became clear that this plan, while it seemed appealing, was not realistic. The rebels were poorly equipped for the challenging work they had recently undertaken, and they were worn out from slogging through deep mud in heavy rain day after day. Being constantly harassed and slowed down by the enemy's cavalry, they couldn't expect to reach Gloucester without being caught by the main force of the royal troops, forcing them into a battle under very unfavorable conditions.

Then it was proposed to enter Wiltshire. Persons who professed to know that county well assured the Duke that he would be joined there by such strong reinforcements as would make it safe for him to give battle. 397

Then it was suggested to go into Wiltshire. People who claimed to know that county well assured the Duke that he would be joined there by such strong reinforcements that it would be safe for him to engage in battle. 397

He took this advice, and turned towards Wiltshire. He first summoned Bath. But Bath was strongly garrisoned for the King; and Feversham was fast approaching. The rebels, therefore made no attempt on the walls, but hastened to Philip's Norton, where they halted on the evening of the twenty-sixth of June.

He took this advice and headed towards Wiltshire. He first went to Bath. But Bath was heavily guarded for the King, and Feversham was quickly approaching. The rebels didn’t try to attack the walls, but instead rushed to Philip's Norton, where they stopped for the night on June 26th.

Feversham followed them thither. Early on the morning of the twenty-seventh they were alarmed by tidings that he was close at hand. They got into order, and lined the hedges leading to the town.

Feversham followed them there. Early on the morning of the twenty-seventh, they were startled by news that he was nearby. They organized themselves and lined the hedges leading to the town.

The advanced guard of the royal army soon appeared. It consisted of about five hundred men, commanded by the Duke of Grafton, a youth of bold spirit and rough manners, who was probably eager to show that he had no share in the disloyal schemes of his half brother. Grafton soon found himself in a deep lane with fences on both sides of him, from which a galling fire of musketry was kept up. Still he pushed boldly on till he came to the entrance of Philip's Norton. There his way was crossed by a barricade, from which a third fire met him full in front. His men now lost heart, and made the best of their way back. Before they got out of the lane more than a hundred of them had been killed or wounded. Grafton's retreat was intercepted by some of the rebel cavalry: but he cut his way gallantly through them, and came off safe. 398

The advance team of the royal army quickly showed up. It consisted of about five hundred men, led by the Duke of Grafton, a young man with a bold spirit and rough manners, who was likely eager to prove he had nothing to do with the disloyal plans of his half-brother. Grafton soon found himself in a narrow lane with fences on both sides, where he faced a relentless musket fire. Still, he pressed on bravely until he reached the entrance of Philip's Norton. There, a barricade blocked his path, and he was met with a heavy fire head-on. His men began to lose morale and hurried back as best they could. Before they could escape the lane, more than a hundred of them were killed or injured. Grafton's retreat was cut off by some of the rebel cavalry, but he fought his way through them gallantly and made it out safely. 398

The advanced guard, thus repulsed, fell back on the main body of the royal forces. The two armies were now face to face; and a few shots were exchanged that did little or no execution. Neither side was impatient to come to action. Feversham did not wish to fight till his artillery came up, and fell back to Bradford. Monmouth, as soon as the night closed in, quitted his position, marched southward, and by daybreak arrived at Frome, where he hoped to find reinforcements.

The advanced guard, having been pushed back, retreated to the main force of the royal troops. The two armies stood facing each other, exchanging a few shots that barely hit anything. Neither side was eager to engage. Feversham didn't want to fight until his artillery arrived, so he fell back to Bradford. Monmouth, once night fell, left his position and marched south, reaching Frome by dawn, where he hoped to find reinforcements.

Frome was as zealous in his cause as either Taunton or Bridgewater, but could do nothing to serve him. There had been a rising a few days before; and Monmouth's declaration had been posted up in the market place. But the news of this movement had been carried to the Earl of Pembroke, who lay at no great distance with the Wiltshire militia. He had instantly marched to Frome, had routed a mob of rustics who, with scythes and pitchforks, attempted to oppose him, had entered the town and had disarmed the inhabitants. No weapons, therefore, were left there; nor was Monmouth able to furnish any. 399

Frome was as committed to his cause as Taunton or Bridgewater, but he couldn't do anything to help himself. A few days earlier, there had been an uprising; Monmouth's declaration had been posted in the marketplace. However, the news of this movement reached the Earl of Pembroke, who was not far away with the Wiltshire militia. He quickly marched to Frome, defeated a crowd of locals who tried to resist him with scythes and pitchforks, entered the town, and disarmed the residents. As a result, there were no weapons left there, and Monmouth couldn't provide any. 399

The rebel army was in evil case. The march of the preceding night had been wearisome. The rain had fallen in torrents; and the roads had become mere quagmires. Nothing was heard of the promised succours from Wiltshire. One messenger brought news that Argyle's forces had been dispersed in Scotland. Another reported that Feversham, having been joined by his artillery, was about to advance. Monmouth understood war too well not to know that his followers, with all their courage and all their zeal, were no match for regular soldiers. He had till lately flattered himself with the hope that some of those regiments which he had formerly commanded would pass over to his standard: but that hope he was now compelled to relinquish. His heart failed him. He could scarcely muster firmness enough to give orders. In his misery he complained bitterly of the evil counsellors who had induced him to quit his happy retreat in Brabant. Against Wildman in particular he broke forth into violent imprecations. 400 And now an ignominious thought rose in his weak and agitated mind. He would leave to the mercy of the government the thousands who had, at his call and for his sake, abandoned their quiet fields and dwellings. He would steal away with his chief officers, would gain some seaport before his flight was suspected, would escape to the Continent, and would forget his ambition and his shame in the arms of Lady Wentworth. He seriously discussed this scheme with his leading advisers. Some of them, trembling for their necks, listened to it with approbation; but Grey, who, by the admission of his detractors, was intrepid everywhere except where swords were clashing and guns going off around him, opposed the dastardly proposition with great ardour, and implored the Duke to face every danger rather than requite with ingratitude and treachery the devoted attachment of the Western peasantry. 401

The rebel army was in a terrible situation. The march the night before had been exhausting. The rain had poured down heavily, turning the roads into muddy messes. There was no news about the promised help from Wiltshire. One messenger reported that Argyle's forces had been scattered in Scotland. Another said that Feversham, having been joined by his artillery, was about to move forward. Monmouth knew too much about war to believe that his followers, no matter how brave and eager, could stand up to regular soldiers. Until recently, he had hoped that some of the regiments he had once commanded would join him, but he now had to let that hope go. He lost confidence. He could barely gather enough resolve to give orders. In his despair, he bitterly complained about the bad advisors who had persuaded him to leave his comfortable retreat in Brabant. He especially lashed out at Wildman with intense curses. 400 And then a shameful thought occurred to his troubled mind. He considered leaving the thousands who, at his call and for his sake, had abandoned their peaceful homes and fields to the mercy of the government. He thought about sneaking away with his top officers, reaching a seaport before anyone noticed, escaping to the Continent, and burying his ambition and shame in the arms of Lady Wentworth. He actually talked through this plan with his leading advisors. Some of them, fearing for their lives, listened to it with approval; but Grey, who, his critics said, was fearless everywhere except in the midst of battle, vehemently opposed the cowardly idea and begged the Duke to confront every danger rather than repay the loyal support of the Western peasants with betrayal. 401

The scheme of flight was abandoned: but it was not now easy to form any plan for a campaign. To advance towards London would have been madness; for the road lay right across Salisbury Plain; and on that vast open space regular troops, and above all regular cavalry, would have acted with every advantage against undisciplined men. At this juncture a report reached the camp that the rustics of the marshes near Axbridge had risen in defence of the Protestant religion, had armed themselves with flails, bludgeons, and pitchforks, and were assembling by thousands at Bridgewater. Monmouth determined to return thither, and to strengthen himself with these new allies. 402

The flight plan was dropped, but it was no longer easy to come up with a strategy for the campaign. Moving towards London would have been crazy because the route went straight across Salisbury Plain, where regular troops, especially regular cavalry, would have had every advantage over untrained men. At this point, a report came into the camp that the locals from the marshes near Axbridge had risen up to defend the Protestant faith, armed with flails, clubs, and pitchforks, and were gathering by the thousands at Bridgewater. Monmouth decided to head back there to reinforce his numbers with these new allies. 402

The rebels accordingly proceeded to Wells, and arrived there in no amiable temper. They were, with few exceptions, hostile to Prelacy; and they showed their hostility in a way very little to their honour. They not only tore the lead from the roof of the magnificent Cathedral to make bullets, an act for which they might fairly plead the necessities of war, but wantonly defaced the ornaments of the building. Grey with difficulty preserved the altar from the insults of some ruffians who wished to carouse round it, by taking his stand before it with his sword drawn. 403

The rebels headed to Wells and arrived there in a very bad mood. Most of them were against Prelacy, and they expressed their anger in a way that didn’t reflect well on them. They not only removed the lead from the roof of the grand Cathedral to make bullets, which could be excused due to the needs of war, but they also unnecessarily damaged the decorations of the building. Grey barely managed to protect the altar from the abuse of some thugs who wanted to drink around it by standing in front of it with his sword drawn. 403

On Thursday, the second of July, Monmouth again entered Bridgewater, In circumstances far less cheering than those in which he had marched thence ten days before. The reinforcement which he found there was inconsiderable. The royal army was close upon him. At one moment he thought of fortifying the town; and hundreds of labourers were summoned to dig trenches and throw up mounds. Then his mind recurred to the plan of marching into Cheshire, a plan which he had rejected as impracticable when he was at Keynsham, and which assuredly was not more practicable now that he was at Bridgewater. 404

On Thursday, July 2nd, Monmouth entered Bridgewater again, but under much less favorable circumstances than when he had left ten days earlier. The reinforcements he found there were minimal. The royal army was not far behind him. For a moment, he considered fortifying the town, summoning hundreds of laborers to dig trenches and raise mounds. Then he thought about the idea of marching into Cheshire, a plan he had dismissed as unfeasible when he was in Keynsham, and which was certainly no more feasible now that he was in Bridgewater. 404

While he was thus wavering between projects equally hopeless, the King's forces came in sight. They consisted of about two thousand five hundred regular troops, and of about fifteen hundred of the Wiltshire militia. Early on the morning of Sunday, the fifth of July, they left Somerton, and pitched their tents that day about three miles from Bridgewater, on the plain of Sedgemoor.

While he was stuck between two equally hopeless plans, the King's forces appeared. They included around two thousand five hundred regular troops and about fifteen hundred from the Wiltshire militia. Early on the morning of Sunday, July 5th, they left Somerton and set up their tents that day about three miles from Bridgewater, on the Sedgemoor plain.

Dr. Peter Mew, Bishop of Winchester, accompanied them. This prelate had in his youth borne arms for Charles the First against the Parliament. Neither his years nor his profession had wholly extinguished his martial ardour; and he probably thought that the appearance of a father of the Protestant Church in the King's camp might confirm the loyalty of some honest men who were wavering between their horror of Popery and their horror of rebellion.

Dr. Peter Mew, the Bishop of Winchester, went with them. In his youth, this bishop had fought for Charles the First against Parliament. Neither his age nor his profession had completely extinguished his military spirit; he likely believed that the presence of a father of the Protestant Church in the King's camp might solidify the loyalty of some decent people who were struggling between their fear of Catholicism and their fear of rebellion.

The steeple of the parish church of Bridgewater is said to be the loftiest of Somersetshire, and commands a wide view over the surrounding country. Monmouth, accompanied by some of his officers, went up to the top of the square tower from which the spire ascends, and observed through a telescope the position of the enemy. Beneath him lay a flat expanse, now rich with cornfields and apple trees, but then, as its name imports, for the most part a dreary morass. When the rains were heavy, and the Parret and its tributary streams rose above their banks, this tract was often flooded. It was indeed anciently part of that great swamp which is renowned in our early chronicles as having arrested the progress of two successive races of invaders, which long protected the Celts against the aggressions of the kings of Wessex, and which sheltered Alfred from the pursuit of the Danes. In those remote times this region could be traversed only in boats. It was a vast pool, wherein were scattered many islets of shifting and treacherous soil, overhung with rank jungle, and swarming with deer and wild swine. Even in the days of the Tudors, the traveller whose journey lay from Ilchester to Bridgewater was forced to make a circuit of several miles in order to avoid the waters. When Monmouth looked upon Sedgemoor, it had been partially reclaimed by art, and was intersected by many deep and wide trenches which, in that country, are called rhines. In the midst of the moor rose, clustering round the towers of churches, a few villages of which the names seem to indicate that they once were surrounded by waves. In one of these villages, called Weston Zoyland, the royal cavalry lay; and Feversham had fixed his headquarters there. Many persons still living have seen the daughter of the servant girl who waited on him that day at table; and a large dish of Persian ware, which was set before him, is still carefully preserved in the neighbourhood. It is to be observed that the population of Somersetshire does not, like that of the manufacturing districts, consist of emigrants from distant places. It is by no means unusual to find farmers who cultivate the same land which their ancestors cultivated when the Plantagenets reigned in England. The Somersetshire traditions are therefore, of no small value to a historian. 405

The spire of the parish church in Bridgewater is said to be the tallest in Somerset, offering a broad view of the surrounding landscape. Monmouth, along with some of his officers, went up to the top of the square tower where the spire rises and used a telescope to observe the enemy's position. Below him lay a flat area, now lush with cornfields and apple trees, but back then, true to its name, mostly a gloomy swamp. When it rained heavily, and the Parret and its tributaries overflowed, this area often became flooded. It was historically part of a great swamp known in early chronicles for halting the advance of two consecutive waves of invaders, which helped protect the Celts from the kings of Wessex and provided refuge for Alfred from the Danes. In those ancient times, this region could only be navigated by boat. It was a vast pool filled with many shifting and treacherous islets, covered in dense jungle and teeming with deer and wild pigs. Even in the Tudor era, travelers journeying from Ilchester to Bridgewater had to take a long detour to avoid the waters. When Monmouth looked upon Sedgemoor, it had been partially reclaimed and was crossed by many deep, wide ditches, known in that area as rhines. In the middle of the moor stood a few villages clustered around church towers, whose names suggest they were once surrounded by water. In one of these villages, called Weston Zoyland, the royal cavalry was stationed while Feversham had set up his headquarters there. Many people still alive today have seen the daughter of the servant girl who waited on him at that meal; a large dish of Persian ware that was served to him is still carefully kept nearby. It's worth noting that the population of Somerset does not, like that of manufacturing regions, consist of migrants from faraway places. It's quite common to find farmers working the same land their ancestors did back when the Plantagenets ruled England. Thus, the traditions of Somerset hold considerable value for historians. 405

At a greater distance from Bridgewater lies the village of Middlezoy. In that village and its neighbourhood, the Wiltshire militia were quartered, under the command of Pembroke. On the open moor, not far from Chedzoy, were encamped several battalions of regular infantry. Monmouth looked gloomily on them. He could not but remember how, a few years before, he had, at the head of a column composed of some of those very men, driven before him in confusion the fierce enthusiasts who defended Bothwell Bridge He could distinguish among the hostile ranks that gallant band which was then called from the name of its Colonel, Dumbarton's regiment, but which has long been known as the first of the line, and which, in all the four quarters of the world, has nobly supported its early reputation. "I know those men," said Monmouth; "they will fight. If I had but them, all would go well." 406

At a greater distance from Bridgewater is the village of Middlezoy. In that village and its surroundings, the Wiltshire militia were stationed under the command of Pembroke. On the open moor, not far from Chedzoy, several battalions of regular infantry were camped. Monmouth looked at them gloomily. He couldn't help but remember how, a few years earlier, he had led a column made up of some of those very men and had driven back in confusion the fierce enthusiasts who defended Bothwell Bridge. He could spot among the enemy ranks that brave group which was then called by the name of its Colonel, Dumbarton's regiment, but which has long been known as the first of the line and which, in all corners of the world, has proudly upheld its early reputation. "I know those men," Monmouth said; "they will fight. If I just had them, everything would go well." 406

Yet the aspect of the enemy was not altogether discouraging. The three divisions of the royal army lay far apart from one another. There was all appearance of negligence and of relaxed discipline in all their movements. It was reported that they were drinking themselves drunk with the Zoyland cider. The incapacity of Feversham, who commanded in chief, was notorious. Even at this momentous crisis he thought only of eating and sleeping. Churchill was indeed a captain equal to tasks far more arduous than that of scattering a crowd of ill armed and ill trained peasants. But the genius, which, at a later period, humbled six Marshals of France, was not now in its proper place. Feversham told Churchill little, and gave him no encouragement to offer any suggestion. The lieutenant, conscious of superior abilities and science, impatient of the control of a chief whom he despised, and trembling for the fate of the army, nevertheless preserved his characteristic self-command, and dissembled his feelings so well that Feversham praised his submissive alacrity, and promised to report it to the King. 407

Yet the enemy didn't seem too intimidating. The three divisions of the royal army were spread out far from each other. Their movements showed signs of carelessness and lax discipline. Reports said they were drinking heavily with Zoyland cider. Feversham, the chief commander, was known for his incompetence. Even at this critical moment, he only seemed concerned about eating and sleeping. Churchill was truly a capable leader for challenges far greater than just scattering a group of poorly armed and poorly trained peasants. However, the genius that would later bring down six Marshals of France was not in action at this time. Feversham shared little with Churchill and didn’t encourage him to make any suggestions. The lieutenant, aware of his superior skills and knowledge, frustrated by the leadership of someone he looked down on, and worried about the fate of the army, still maintained his typical composure and hid his feelings so well that Feversham praised his obedient eagerness and promised to inform the King. 407

Monmouth, having observed the disposition of the royal forces, and having been apprised of the state in which they were, conceived that a night attack might be attended with success. He resolved to run the hazard; and preparations were instantly made.

Monmouth, after noticing the position of the royal forces and understanding their condition, thought that a night attack could be successful. He decided to take the risk, and preparations were quickly underway.

It was Sunday; and his followers, who had, for the most part, been brought up after the Puritan fashion, passed a great part of the day in religious exercises. The Castle Field, in which the army was encamped, presented a spectacle such as, since the disbanding of Cromwell's soldiers, England had never seen. The dissenting preachers who had taken arms against Popery, and some of whom had probably fought in the great civil war, prayed and preached in red coats and huge jackboots, with swords by their sides. Ferguson was one of those who harangued. He took for his text the awful imprecation by which the Israelites who dwelt beyond Jordan cleared themselves from the charge ignorantly brought against them by their brethren on the other side of the river. "The Lord God of Gods, the Lord God of Gods, he knoweth; and Israel he shall know. If it be in rebellion, or if in transgression against the Lord, save us not this day." 408

It was Sunday, and his followers, mostly raised in a Puritan way, spent much of the day engaged in religious activities. The Castle Field, where the army was camped, showcased a scene like none England had seen since Cromwell's soldiers disbanded. The dissenting preachers who had taken up arms against Catholicism, some of whom likely fought in the great civil war, prayed and preached in red coats and large jackboots, with swords at their sides. Ferguson was one of those who spoke passionately. He chose as his text the serious curse that the Israelites living beyond the Jordan used to clear themselves of the false accusations made against them by their fellow countrymen on the other side of the river. "The Lord God of Gods, the Lord God of Gods, he knows; and Israel will know. If it’s rebellion, or if it’s transgression against the Lord, don’t save us today." 408

That an attack was to be made under cover of the night was no secret in Bridgewater. The town was full of women, who had repaired thither by hundreds from the surrounding region, to see their husbands, sons, lovers, and brothers once more. There were many sad partings that day; and many parted never to meet again. 409 The report of the intended attack came to the ears of a young girl who was zealous for the King. Though of modest character, she had the courage to resolve that she would herself bear the intelligence to Feversham. She stole out of Bridgewater, and made her way to the royal camp. But that camp was not a place where female innocence could be safe. Even the officers, despising alike the irregular force to which they were opposed, and the negligent general who commanded them, had indulged largely in wine, and were ready for any excess of licentiousness and cruelty. One of them seized the unhappy maiden, refused to listen to her errand, and brutally outraged her. She fled in agonies of rage and shame, leaving the wicked army to its doom. 410

It wasn't a secret in Bridgewater that an attack was planned for the night. The town was filled with women who had come from the surrounding areas in droves to see their husbands, sons, lovers, and brothers once more. There were many emotional goodbyes that day, and many would part ways never to meet again. 409 The news of the planned attack reached a young girl who was loyal to the King. Though she was modest, she found the courage to deliver the message to Feversham herself. She slipped out of Bridgewater and made her way to the royal camp. But that camp was not safe for an innocent girl. Even the officers, who looked down on both the disorganized forces they faced and the careless general in charge, were heavily drinking and ready for any form of debauchery and cruelty. One of them grabbed the unfortunate girl, refused to listen to her purpose, and violently assaulted her. She ran away in a mix of rage and humiliation, leaving the wicked army to its fate. 410

And now the time for the great hazard drew near. The night was not ill suited for such an enterprise. The moon was indeed at the full, and the northern streamers were shining brilliantly. But the marsh fog lay so thick on Sedgemoor that no object could be discerned there at the distance of fifty paces. 411

And now the moment for the big risk was approaching. The night was actually quite fitting for such an endeavor. The moon was full, and the northern lights were shining brightly. But the fog over Sedgemoor was so thick that nothing could be seen even from fifty paces away. 411

The clock struck eleven; and the Duke with his body guard rode out of the Castle. He was not in the frame of mind which befits one who is about to strike a decisive blow. The very children who pressed to see him pass observed, and long remembered, that his look was sad and full of evil augury. His army marched by a circuitous path, near six miles in length, towards the royal encampment on Sedgemoor. Part of the route is to this day called War Lane. The foot were led by Monmouth himself. The horse were confided to Grey, in spite of the remonstrances of some who remembered the mishap at Bridport. Orders were given that strict silence should be preserved, that no drum should be beaten, and no shot fired. The word by which the insurgents were to recognise one another in the darkness was Soho. It had doubtless been selected in allusion to Soho Fields in London, where their leader's palace stood. 412

The clock struck eleven, and the Duke rode out of the Castle with his bodyguard. He wasn’t in the right mindset for someone about to deliver a decisive blow. Even the children who gathered to see him pass noticed and would long remember that his expression was sad and filled with ominous predictions. His army took a winding route, nearly six miles long, toward the royal camp on Sedgemoor. Part of the route is still called War Lane today. Monmouth himself led the foot soldiers. The horse troops were given to Grey, despite some objections from those who remembered the accident at Bridport. Orders were given for strict silence, with no drums sounded and no shots fired. The code word for the insurgents to recognize each other in the dark was Soho, likely chosen as a nod to Soho Fields in London, where their leader's palace was located. 412

At about one in the morning of Monday the sixth of July, the rebels were on the open moor. But between them and the enemy lay three broad rhines filled with water and soft mud. Two of these, called the Black Ditch and the Langmoor Rhine, Monmouth knew that he must pass. But, strange to say, the existence of a trench, called the Bussex Rhine, which immediately covered the royal encampment, had not been mentioned to him by any of his scouts.

At around 1 a.m. on Monday, July 6th, the rebels were on the open moor. However, three wide ditches filled with water and soft mud lay between them and the enemy. Monmouth knew he had to cross two of these, known as the Black Ditch and the Langmoor Rhine. Oddly enough, none of his scouts mentioned a trench called the Bussex Rhine, which was right in front of the royal camp.

The wains which carried the ammunition remained at the entrance of the moor. The horse and foot, in a long narrow column, passed the Black Ditch by a causeway. There was a similar causeway across the Langmoor Rhine: but the guide, in the fog, missed his way. There was some delay and some tumult before the error could be rectified. At length the passage was effected: but, in the confusion, a pistol went off. Some men of the Horse Guards, who were on watch, heard the report, and perceived that a great multitude was advancing through the mist. They fired their carbines, and galloped off in different directions to give the alarm. Some hastened to Weston Zoyland, where the cavalry lay. One trooper spurred to the encampment of the infantry, and cried out vehemently that the enemy was at hand. The drums of Dumbarton's regiment beat to arms; and the men got fast into their ranks. It was time; for Monmouth was already drawing up his army for action. He ordered Grey to lead the way with the cavalry, and followed himself at the head of the infantry. Grey pushed on till his progress was unexpectedly arrested by the Bussex Rhine. On the opposite side of the ditch the King's foot were hastily forming in order of battle.

The wagons carrying the ammunition stayed at the edge of the moor. The cavalry and infantry, in a long narrow column, crossed the Black Ditch via a causeway. There was a similar causeway across the Langmoor Rhine, but the guide got lost in the fog. There was some delay and commotion before the mistake could be fixed. Eventually, they managed to cross, but in the chaos, a pistol went off. Some Horse Guards on watch heard the shot and noticed a large crowd moving through the mist. They fired their carbines and raced off in different directions to raise the alarm. Some rushed to Weston Zoyland, where the cavalry was stationed. One trooper sped to the infantry camp, shouting urgently that the enemy was near. The drums of Dumbarton's regiment beat to alert, and the men quickly formed their ranks. It was crucial, as Monmouth was already organizing his army for battle. He instructed Grey to lead the cavalry and followed himself at the front of the infantry. Grey advanced until he was unexpectedly stopped by the Bussex Rhine. On the other side of the ditch, the King's infantry were quickly forming into battle lines.

"For whom are you?" called out an officer of the Foot Guards. "For the King," replied a voice from the ranks of the rebel cavalry. "For which King?" was then demanded. The answer was a shout of "King Monmouth," mingled with the war cry, which forty years before had been inscribed on the colours of the parliamentary regiments, "God with us." The royal troops instantly fired such a volley of musketry as sent the rebel horse flying in all directions. The world agreed to ascribe this ignominious rout to Grey's pusillanimity. Yet it is by no means clear that Churchill would have succeeded better at the head of men who had never before handled arms on horseback, and whose horses were unused, not only to stand fire, but to obey the rein.

"For whom are you?" shouted an officer of the Foot Guards. "For the King," answered a voice from the ranks of the rebel cavalry. "Which King?" was then asked. The reply was a shout of "King Monmouth," mixed with the battle cry that had been on the colors of the parliamentary regiments forty years earlier, "God with us." The royal troops immediately fired a volley of muskets that sent the rebel cavalry fleeing in all directions. Everyone agreed to blame this disgraceful retreat on Grey's cowardice. However, it's not at all clear that Churchill would have done any better leading men who had never before fought on horseback, and whose horses were not only untrained to withstand gunfire but also unaccustomed to responding to the reins.

A few minutes after the Duke's horse had dispersed themselves over the moor, his infantry came up running fast, and guided through the gloom by the lighted matches of Dumbarton's regiment.

A few minutes after the Duke's horse had spread out over the moor, his infantry arrived quickly, led through the darkness by the lighted matches of Dumbarton's regiment.

Monmouth was startled by finding that a broad and profound trench lay between him and the camp which he had hoped to surprise. The insurgents halted on the edge of the rhine, and fired. Part of the royal infantry on the opposite bank returned the fire. During three quarters of an hour the roar of the musketry was incessant. The Somersetshire peasants behaved themselves as if they had been veteran soldiers, save only that they levelled their pieces too high.

Monmouth was shocked to discover a deep and wide trench separating him from the camp he had intended to ambush. The insurgents stopped at the bank of the Rhine and opened fire. Some of the royal infantry on the other side shot back. For about forty-five minutes, the sound of gunfire was constant. The Somersetshire peasants acted like seasoned soldiers, except for the fact that they aimed their guns a bit too high.

But now the other divisions of the royal army were in motion. The Life Guards and Blues came pricking fast from Weston Zoyland, and scattered in an instant some of Grey's horse, who had attempted to rally. The fugitives spread a panic among their comrades in the rear, who had charge of the ammunition. The waggoners drove off at full speed, and never stopped till they were many miles from the field of battle. Monmouth had hitherto done his part like a stout and able warrior. He had been seen on foot, pike in hand, encouraging his infantry by voice and by example. But he was too well acquainted with military affairs not to know that all was over. His men had lost the advantage which surprise and darkness had given them. They were deserted by the horse and by the ammunition waggons. The King's forces were now united and in good order. Feversham had been awakened by the firing, had got out of bed, had adjusted his cravat, had looked at himself well in the glass, and had come to see what his men were doing. Meanwhile, what was of much more importance, Churchill had rapidly made an entirely new disposition of the royal infantry. The day was about to break. The event of a conflict on an open plain, by broad sunlight, could not be doubtful. Yet Monmouth should have felt that it was not for him to fly, while thousands whom affection for him had hurried to destruction were still fighting manfully in his cause. But vain hopes and the intense love of life prevailed. He saw that if he tarried the royal cavalry would soon intercept his retreat. He mounted and rode from the field.

But now the other divisions of the royal army were on the move. The Life Guards and Blues quickly came from Weston Zoyland and instantly scattered some of Grey's cavalry, who had tried to regroup. The fleeing soldiers caused panic among their comrades in the rear, who were responsible for the ammunition. The wagon drivers sped away and didn’t stop until they were many miles from the battlefield. Up until now, Monmouth had acted like a brave and capable leader. He had been seen on foot, pike in hand, encouraging his infantry both verbally and by example. But he knew military matters well enough to realize that it was all over. His men had lost the advantage that surprise and darkness had given them. They were abandoned by the cavalry and the supply wagons. The King's forces were now united and organized. Feversham had been woken by the gunfire, got out of bed, adjusted his cravat, checked himself in the mirror, and had come to see what his men were doing. Meanwhile, and more importantly, Churchill had quickly reorganized the royal infantry. The day was about to break. The outcome of a battle on an open plain in broad daylight could not be uncertain. Yet Monmouth should have felt that it was not his place to flee while thousands, who had rushed to support him out of love, were still fighting bravely for his cause. But foolish hopes and a strong desire to survive won out. He saw that if he stayed any longer, the royal cavalry would soon cut off his escape. He mounted his horse and rode away from the battlefield.

Yet his foot, though deserted, made a gallant stand. The Life Guards attacked them on the right, the Blues on the left; but the Somersetshire clowns, with their scythes and the butt ends of their muskets, faced the royal horse like old soldiers. Oglethorpe made a vigorous attempt to break them and was manfully repulsed. Sarsfield, a brave Irish officer, whose name afterwards obtained a melancholy celebrity, charged on the other flank. His men were beaten back. He was himself struck to the ground, and lay for a time as one dead. But the struggle of the hardy rustics could not last. Their powder and ball were spent. Cries were heard of "Ammunition! For God's sake ammunition!" But no ammunition was at hand. And now the King's artillery came up. It had been posted half a mile off, on the high road from Weston Zoyland to Bridgewater. So defective were then the appointments of an English army that there would have been much difficulty in dragging the great guns to the place where the battle was raging, had not the Bishop of Winchester offered his coach horses and traces for the purpose. This interference of a Christian prelate in a matter of blood has, with strange inconsistency, been condemned by some Whig writers who can see nothing criminal in the conduct of the numerous Puritan ministers then in arms against the government. Even when the guns had arrived, there was such a want of gunners that a serjeant of Dumbarton's regiment was forced to take on himself the management of several pieces. 413 The cannon, however, though ill served, brought the engagement to a speedy close. The pikes of the rebel battalions began to shake: the ranks broke; the King's cavalry charged again, and bore down everything before them; the King's infantry came pouring across the ditch. Even in that extremity the Mendip miners stood bravely to their arms, and sold their lives dearly. But the rout was in a few minutes complete. Three hundred of the soldiers had been killed or wounded. Of the rebels more than a thousand lay dead on the moor. 414

Yet his foot, though abandoned, stood strong. The Life Guards attacked them on the right, the Blues on the left; but the Somersetshire farmers, with their scythes and the butts of their muskets, faced the royal cavalry like seasoned soldiers. Oglethorpe made a strong effort to break through but was bravely pushed back. Sarsfield, a courageous Irish officer whose name later became sadly famous, charged on the other flank. His men were forced back. He was struck down and lay for a while as if dead. But the determined locals couldn’t hold out much longer. Their gunpowder and ammo were running low. Cries of "Ammunition! For God's sake, ammunition!" were heard, but none was available. Then the King's artillery arrived. It had been stationed half a mile away, on the main road from Weston Zoyland to Bridgewater. The British army was so poorly equipped at that time that it would have been very difficult to move the cannons closer to the fighting without the Bishop of Winchester offering his coach horses and harnesses for the task. This involvement of a church leader in a violent conflict has, paradoxically, been criticized by some Whig writers who see nothing wrong with the many Puritan ministers who were then fighting against the government. Even once the guns arrived, there was such a shortage of gunners that a sergeant from Dumbarton's regiment had to take on the management of several pieces. 413 The cannons, though not well operated, quickly ended the battle. The pikes of the rebel battalions began to tremble: the ranks fell apart; the King's cavalry charged again and pushed everything aside; the King's infantry came rushing across the ditch. Even in that dire situation, the Mendip miners stood bravely and fought until the end. But the rout was complete in a matter of minutes. Three hundred soldiers had been killed or wounded. More than a thousand rebels lay dead on the moor. 414

So ended the last fight deserving the name of battle, that has been fought on English ground. The impression left on the simple inhabitants of the neighbourhood was deep and lasting. That impression, indeed, has been frequently renewed. For even in our own time the plough and the spade have not seldom turned up ghastly memorials of the slaughter, skulls, and thigh bones, and strange weapons made out of implements of husbandry. Old peasants related very recently that, in their childhood, they were accustomed to play on the moor at the fight between King James's men and King Monmouth's men, and that King Monmouth's men always raised the cry of Soho. 415

So ended the last fight that could truly be called a battle, fought on English soil. The impact on the local residents was profound and enduring. That impact, in fact, has been repeatedly felt over time. Even today, plows and shovels often unearth horrifying reminders of the violence—skulls, thigh bones, and odd weapons crafted from farming tools. Older farmers shared not long ago that, as kids, they used to play on the moor at the site of the skirmish between King James's troops and King Monmouth's forces, noting that King Monmouth's men would always shout "Soho." 415

What seems most extraordinary in the battle of Sedgemoor is that the event should have been for a moment doubtful, and that the rebels should have resisted so long. That five or six thousand colliers and ploughmen should contend during an hour with half that number of regular cavalry and infantry would now be thought a miracle. Our wonder will, perhaps, be diminished when we remember that, in the time of James the Second, the discipline of the regular army was extremely lax, and that, on the other hand, the peasantry were accustomed to serve in the militia. The difference, therefore, between a regiment of the Foot Guards and a regiment of clowns just enrolled, though doubtless considerable, was by no means what it now is. Monmouth did not lead a mere mob to attack good soldiers. For his followers were not altogether without a tincture of soldiership; and Feversham's troops, when compared with English troops of our time, might almost be called a mob.

What seems most remarkable about the battle of Sedgemoor is that it was uncertain for a moment, and that the rebels held out for so long. That five or six thousand miners and farmers could go up against half that number of professional cavalry and infantry for an hour would now be considered a miracle. Our amazement might lessen when we remember that during James the Second's reign, the regular army's discipline was quite poor, while the common people were used to serving in the militia. So the gap between a regiment of the Foot Guards and a newly formed group of ordinary people, while still significant, wasn't nearly as large as it is today. Monmouth didn’t lead just a mob to attack trained soldiers. His followers had some level of military experience, and compared to modern English troops, Feversham's soldiers could almost be seen as a mob.

It was four o'clock: the sun was rising; and the routed army came pouring into the streets of Bridgewater. The uproar, the blood, the gashes, the ghastly figures which sank down and never rose again, spread horror and dismay through the town. The pursuers, too, were close behind. Those inhabitants who had favoured the insurrection expected sack and massacre, and implored the protection of their neighbours who professed the Roman Catholic religion, or had made themselves conspicuous by Tory politics; and it is acknowledged by the bitterest of Whig historians that this protection was kindly and generously given. 416

It was four o'clock: the sun was coming up, and the defeated army came rushing into the streets of Bridgewater. The chaos, the blood, the wounds, and the horrifying sights of those who collapsed and never got back up filled the town with fear and panic. The pursuers were right behind them. Those residents who had supported the uprising feared looting and slaughter, and they begged for protection from their neighbors who were Roman Catholics or had expressed Tory views; it is recognized by even the harshest Whig historians that this protection was offered kindly and generously. 416

During that day the conquerors continued to chase the fugitives. The neighbouring villagers long remembered with what a clatter of horsehoofs and what a storm of curses the whirlwind of cavalry swept by. Before evening five hundred prisoners had been crowded into the parish church of Weston Zoyland. Eighty of them were wounded; and five expired within the consecrated walls. Great numbers of labourers were impressed for the purpose of burying the slain. A few, who were notoriously partial to the vanquished side, were set apart for the hideous office of quartering the captives. The tithing men of the neighbouring parishes were busied in setting up gibbets and providing chains. All this while the bells of Weston Zoyland and Chedzoy rang joyously; and the soldiers sang and rioted on the moor amidst the corpses. For the farmers of the neighbourhood had made haste, as soon as the event of the fight was known to send hogsheads of their best cider as peace offerings to the victors. 417

During that day, the conquerors kept pursuing the fugitives. The neighboring villagers would long remember the sound of clattering horses' hooves and the storm of curses as the cavalry swept by. By evening, five hundred prisoners had been crammed into the parish church of Weston Zoyland. Eighty of them were injured, and five died within the consecrated walls. Many laborers were pressed into service to bury the dead. A few people, known for their support of the defeated side, were designated for the grim task of quartering the captives. The tithing men from the nearby parishes were busy setting up gallows and providing chains. All the while, the bells of Weston Zoyland and Chedzoy rang cheerfully, and the soldiers sang and celebrated on the moor among the corpses. The local farmers quickly sent barrels of their best cider as peace offerings to the victors. 417

Feversham passed for a goodnatured man: but he was a foreigner, ignorant of the laws and careless of the feelings of the English. He was accustomed to the military license of France, and had learned from his great kinsman, the conqueror and devastator of the Palatinate, not indeed how to conquer, but how to devastate. A considerable number of prisoners were immediately selected for execution. Among them was a youth famous for his speed. Hopes were held out to him that his life would be spared If he could run a race with one of the colts of the marsh. The space through which the man kept up with the horse is still marked by well known bounds on the moor, and is about three quarters of a mile. Feversham was not ashamed, after seeing the performance, to send the wretched performer to the gallows. The next day a long line of gibbets appeared on the road leading from Bridgewater to Weston Zoyland. On each gibbet a prisoner was suspended. Four of the sufferers were left to rot in irons. 418

Feversham was seen as a nice guy, but he was a foreigner who didn’t understand the laws and didn’t care about English feelings. He was used to the military freedom in France and had learned from his powerful relative, the conqueror and destroyer of the Palatinate, not how to win battles, but how to cause destruction. A significant number of prisoners were quickly chosen for execution. Among them was a young man known for his speed. He was promised that his life would be spared if he could outrun one of the colts from the marsh. The distance he ran alongside the horse is still marked by well-known landmarks on the moor and is about three-quarters of a mile. After witnessing the event, Feversham wasn’t embarrassed to send the unfortunate runner to the gallows. The next day, a long line of gibbets appeared along the road from Bridgewater to Weston Zoyland. A prisoner was hanging from each gibbet. Four of the victims were left to decay in chains. 418

Meanwhile Monmouth, accompanied by Grey, by Buyse, and by a few other friends, was flying from the field of battle. At Chedzoy he stopped a moment to mount a fresh horse and to hide his blue riband and his George. He then hastened towards the Bristol Channel. From the rising ground on the north of the field of battle he saw the flash and the smoke of the last volley fired by his deserted followers. Before six o'clock he was twenty miles from Sedgemoor. Some of his companions advised him to cross the water, and seek refuge in Wales; and this would undoubtedly have been his wisest course. He would have been in Wales many hours before the news of his defeat was known there; and in a country so wild and so remote from the seat of government, he might have remained long undiscovered. He determined, however, to push for Hampshire, in the hope that he might lurk in the cabins of deerstealers among the oaks of the New Forest, till means of conveyance to the Continent could be procured. He therefore, with Grey and the German, turned to the southeast. But the way was beset with dangers. The three fugitives had to traverse a country in which every one already knew the event of the battle, and in which no traveller of suspicious appearance could escape a close scrutiny. They rode on all day, shunning towns and villages. Nor was this so difficult as it may now appear. For men then living could remember the time when the wild deer ranged freely through a succession of forests from the banks of the Avon in Wiltshire to the southern coast of Hampshire. 419 At length, on Cranbourne Chase, the strength of the horses failed. They were therefore turned loose. The bridles and saddles were concealed. Monmouth and his friends procured rustic attire, disguised themselves, and proceeded on foot towards the New Forest. They passed the night in the open air: but before morning they were Surrounded on every side by toils. Lord Lumley, who lay at Ringwood with a strong body of the Sussex militia, had sent forth parties in every direction. Sir William Portman, with the Somerset militia, had formed a chain of posts from the sea to the northern extremity of Dorset. At five in the morning of the seventh, Grey, who had wandered from his friends, was seized by two of the Sussex scouts. He submitted to his fate with the calmness of one to whom suspense was more intolerable than despair. "Since we landed," he said, "I have not had one comfortable meal or one quiet night." It could hardly be doubted that the chief rebel was not far off. The pursuers redoubled their vigilance and activity. The cottages scattered over the heathy country on the boundaries of Dorsetshire and Hampshire were strictly examined by Lumley; and the clown with whom Monmouth had changed clothes was discovered. Portman came with a strong body of horse and foot to assist in the search. Attention was soon drawn to a place well fitted to shelter fugitives. It was an extensive tract of land separated by an enclosure from the open country, and divided by numerous hedges into small fields. In some of these fields the rye, the pease, and the oats were high enough to conceal a man. Others were overgrown with fern and brambles. A poor woman reported that she had seen two strangers lurking in this covert. The near prospect of reward animated the zeal of the troops. It was agreed that every man who did his duty in the search should have a share of the promised five thousand pounds. The outer fence was strictly guarded: the space within was examined with indefatigable diligence; and several dogs of quick scent were turned out among the bushes. The day closed before the work could be completed: but careful watch was kept all night. Thirty times the fugitives ventured to look through the outer hedge: but everywhere they found a sentinel on the alert: once they were seen and fired at; they then separated and concealed themselves in different hiding places.

Meanwhile, Monmouth, along with Grey, Buyse, and a few other friends, was fleeing from the battlefield. At Chedzoy, he paused briefly to mount a fresh horse and to hide his blue ribbon and his George. He then hurried towards the Bristol Channel. From the rising ground to the north of the battlefield, he saw the flash and smoke of the last volley fired by his abandoned followers. By six o'clock, he was twenty miles from Sedgemoor. Some of his companions suggested he cross the water and find refuge in Wales, which would have been his best option. He could have reached Wales hours before news of his defeat arrived there, and in such a wild and remote area, he might have stayed hidden for a long time. However, he chose to head for Hampshire, hoping he could hide out in the cabins of deer poachers among the oaks of the New Forest until he could arrange for transportation to the Continent. So, he and Grey and the German headed southeast. But the route was fraught with dangers. The three fugitives had to cross through a country where everyone already knew the outcome of the battle, and anyone with a suspicious look couldn't avoid close scrutiny. They rode on all day, avoiding towns and villages. It wasn’t as difficult as it might seem today, since people living then could remember when wild deer roamed freely through forests from the banks of the Avon in Wiltshire to the southern coast of Hampshire. 419 Eventually, on Cranbourne Chase, the horses grew too tired to continue. They were turned loose, and their bridles and saddles were hidden. Monmouth and his friends changed into rustic clothing disguises and made their way on foot toward the New Forest. They spent the night outdoors, but before dawn, they found themselves surrounded by traps. Lord Lumley, who was stationed at Ringwood with a strong group of Sussex militia, had sent out parties in every direction. Sir William Portman, with the Somerset militia, had created a chain of posts from the sea to the northern edge of Dorset. At five in the morning on the seventh, Grey, who had strayed from his friends, was captured by two Sussex scouts. He accepted his fate with the calmness of someone who found suspense harder to bear than despair. "Since we landed," he said, "I haven't had one decent meal or a single peaceful night." There was little doubt that the main rebel was not far away. The pursuers intensified their vigilance and efforts. Lumley conducted thorough searches of the cottages scattered across the moorland at the borders of Dorsetshire and Hampshire, discovering the peasant with whom Monmouth had exchanged clothes. Portman arrived with a strong force of cavalry and infantry to help with the search. Attention soon turned to a location that was ideal for hiding fugitives. It was a large area separated by an enclosure from the open countryside and divided by numerous hedges into small fields. In some of these fields, the rye, peas, and oats were high enough to conceal a person. Others were overgrown with ferns and brambles. A poor woman reported she had seen two strangers hiding in this thicket. The prospect of a reward spurred on the troops. It was agreed that every soldier who contributed to the search would earn a share of the promised five thousand pounds. The outer fence was closely guarded, and the area within was searched with tireless diligence, with several sharp-nosed dogs released among the bushes. The day ended before the work could be finished, but a careful watch was maintained all night. Thirty times the fugitives dared to peek through the outer hedge, only to find sentinels on patrol everywhere; once they were spotted and fired upon, leading them to split up and hide in different spots.

At sunrise the next morning the search recommenced, and Buyse was found. He owned that he had parted from the Duke only a few hours before. The corn and copsewood were now beaten with more care than ever. At length a gaunt figure was discovered hidden in a ditch. The pursuers sprang on their prey. Some of them were about to fire: but Portman forbade all violence. The prisoner's dress was that of a shepherd; his beard, prematurely grey, was of several days' growth. He trembled greatly, and was unable to speak. Even those who had often seen him were at first in doubt whether this were truly the brilliant and graceful Monmouth. His pockets were searched by Portman, and in them were found, among some raw pease gathered in the rage of hunger, a watch, a purse of gold, a small treatise on fortification, an album filled with songs, receipts, prayers, and charms, and the George with which, many years before, King Charles the Second had decorated his favourite son. Messengers were instantly despatched to Whitehall with the good news, and with the George as a token that the news was true. The prisoner was conveyed under a strong guard to Ringwood. 420

At sunrise the next morning, the search started up again, and Buyse was found. He admitted that he had separated from the Duke only a few hours earlier. The fields and woods were now checked more thoroughly than ever. Finally, a ragged figure was discovered hiding in a ditch. The pursuers lunged at their target. Some were about to shoot, but Portman stopped any violence. The prisoner was dressed like a shepherd; his prematurely grey beard had several days' growth. He trembled a lot and couldn’t speak. Even those who had seen him often initially doubted that this was truly the brilliant and graceful Monmouth. Portman searched his pockets and found, among some raw peas collected in desperation from hunger, a watch, a purse of gold, a small book on fortification, an album filled with songs, recipes, prayers, and charms, and the George that King Charles the Second had given to his favorite son many years earlier. Messengers were quickly sent to Whitehall with the good news, and with the George as proof that the news was genuine. The prisoner was taken under heavy guard to Ringwood. 420

And all was lost; and nothing remained but that he should prepare to meet death as became one who had thought himself not unworthy to wear the crown of William the Conqueror and of Richard the Lionhearted, of the hero of Cressy and of the hero of Agincourt. The captive might easily have called to mind other domestic examples, still better suited to his condition. Within a hundred years, two sovereigns whose blood ran in his veins, one of them a delicate woman, had been placed in the same situation in which he now stood. They had shown, in the prison and on the scaffold, virtue of which, in the season of prosperity, they had seemed incapable, and had half redeemed great crimes and errors by enduring with Christian meekness and princely dignity all that victorious enemies could inflict. Of cowardice Monmouth had never been accused; and, even had he been wanting in constitutional courage, it might have been expected that the defect would be supplied by pride and by despair. The eyes of the whole world were upon him. The latest generations would know how, in that extremity, he had borne himself. To the brave peasants of the West he owed it to show that they had not poured forth their blood for a leader unworthy of their attachment. To her who had sacrificed everything for his sake he owed it so to bear himself that, though she might weep for him, she should not blush for him. It was not for him to lament and supplicate. His reason, too, should have told him that lamentation and supplication would be unavailing. He had done that which could never be forgiven. He was in the grasp of one who never forgave.

And everything was lost; nothing was left but for him to get ready to face death like someone who believed he was worthy of wearing the crowns of William the Conqueror and Richard the Lionhearted, the hero of Cressy and the hero of Agincourt. The prisoner could easily recall other family examples that suited his situation even better. Within a hundred years, two monarchs who were related to him, one of them a fragile woman, had found themselves in the same predicament he was in now. They had displayed, in prison and on the scaffold, a strength that had seemed impossible during their times of prosperity, and had partially redeemed great crimes and mistakes by facing everything their victorious enemies could throw at them with Christian humility and royal dignity. Monmouth had never been accused of cowardice; and even if he lacked constitutional courage, it could have been expected that pride and despair would fill that gap. The eyes of the entire world were on him. Future generations would know how he conducted himself in that moment of crisis. He owed it to the brave farmers of the West to prove that they hadn’t spilled their blood for a leader who didn’t deserve their loyalty. To the woman who had sacrificed everything for him, he owed it to himself to act in a way that, although she might cry for him, she wouldn’t feel ashamed of him. It wasn’t his place to mourn and beg. His reason should have also told him that lamenting and pleading would be useless. He had committed a crime that could never be forgiven. He was in the grasp of someone who never forgave.

But the fortitude of Monmouth was not that highest sort of fortitude which is derived from reflection and from selfrespect; nor had nature given him one of those stout hearts from which neither adversity nor peril can extort any sign of weakness. His courage rose and fell with his animal spirits. It was sustained on the field of battle by the excitement of action. By the hope of victory, by the strange influence of sympathy. All such aids were now taken away. The spoiled darling of the court and of the populace, accustomed to be loved and worshipped wherever he appeared, was now surrounded by stern gaolers in whose eyes he read his doom. Yet a few hours of gloomy seclusion, and he must die a violent and shameful death. His heart sank within him. Life seemed worth purchasing by any humiliation; nor could his mind, always feeble, and now distracted by terror, perceive that humiliation must degrade, but could not save him.

But Monmouth's strength wasn't the highest kind of strength that comes from reflection and self-respect; nor was he naturally endowed with one of those strong hearts that can show no sign of weakness in the face of adversity or danger. His bravery fluctuated with his energy levels. It was fueled on the battlefield by the thrill of action, the hope of victory, and the strange power of sympathy. But all those supports were now gone. The pampered favorite of the court and the people, who was used to being adored and idolized wherever he went, was now surrounded by stern jailers, in whose eyes he saw his fate. After just a few hours of bleak isolation, he would face a violent and disgraceful death. His heart sank. Life seemed worth enduring any humiliation; yet his mind, already weak and now overwhelmed with fear, couldn't grasp that humiliation could only degrade him, not save him.

As soon as he reached Ringwood he wrote to the King. The letter was that of a man whom a craven fear had made insensible to shame. He professed in vehement terms his remorse for his treason. He affirmed that, when he promised his cousins at the Hague not to raise troubles in England, he had fully meant to keep his word. Unhappily he had afterwards been seduced from his allegiance by some horrid people who had heated his mind by calumnies and misled him by sophistry; but now he abhorred them: he abhorred himself. He begged in piteous terms that he might be admitted to the royal presence. There was a secret which he could not trust to paper, a secret which lay in a single word, and which, if he spoke that word, would secure the throne against all danger. On the following day he despatched letters, imploring the Queen Dowager and the Lord Treasurer to intercede in his behalf. 421

As soon as he got to Ringwood, he wrote to the King. The letter came from someone whose cowardice had made him numb to shame. He passionately expressed his regret for his betrayal. He insisted that when he promised his cousins at the Hague not to stir up trouble in England, he truly intended to keep that promise. Unfortunately, he had later been led astray by some horrible people who filled his mind with falsehoods and misled him with clever arguments; but now he detested them: he detested himself. He pleaded in heartbreaking terms to be allowed to see the King. There was a secret he couldn’t trust to paper, a secret that could be summed up in a single word, and if he said that word, it would protect the throne from any danger. The next day, he sent letters, begging the Queen Dowager and the Lord Treasurer to speak on his behalf. 421

When it was known in London how he had abased himself the general surprise was great; and no man was more amazed than Barillon, who had resided in England during two bloody proscriptions, and had seen numerous victims, both of the Opposition and of the Court, submit to their fate without womanish entreaties and lamentations. 422

When it became known in London how he had humiliated himself, everyone was extremely surprised; and no one was more shocked than Barillon, who had lived in England during two bloody purges and had witnessed many victims, both from the Opposition and the Court, accept their fate without any desperate pleas or crying. 422

Monmouth and Grey remained at Ringwood two days. They were then carried up to London, under the guard of a large body of regular troops and militia. In the coach with the Duke was an officer whose orders were to stab the prisoner if a rescue were attempted. At every town along the road the trainbands of the neighbourhood had been mustered under the command of the principal gentry. The march lasted three days, and terminated at Vauxhall, where a regiment, commanded by George Legge, Lord Dartmouth, was in readiness to receive the prisoners. They were put on board of a state barge, and carried down the river to Whitehall Stairs. Lumley and Portman had alternately watched the Duke day and night till they had brought him within the walls of the palace. 423

Monmouth and Grey stayed in Ringwood for two days. They were then taken to London under the protection of a large group of regular troops and militia. In the coach with the Duke was an officer whose orders were to stab the prisoner if anyone tried to rescue him. At every town along the route, the local militia had been gathered under the command of the main gentry. The journey lasted three days and ended at Vauxhall, where a regiment led by George Legge, Lord Dartmouth, was ready to receive the prisoners. They were placed on a royal barge and taken down the river to Whitehall Stairs. Lumley and Portman had alternated watching the Duke day and night until they brought him within the palace walls. 423

Both the demeanour of Monmouth and that of Grey, during the journey, filled all observers with surprise. Monmouth was altogether unnerved. Grey was not only calm but cheerful, talked pleasantly of horses, dogs, and field sports, and even made jocose allusions to the perilous situation in which he stood.

Both Monmouth and Grey's behavior during the journey surprised everyone watching. Monmouth was completely shaken. In contrast, Grey was not only calm but also cheerful, chatting happily about horses, dogs, and outdoor sports, even making joking references to the risky situation he was in.

The King cannot be blamed for determining that Monmouth should suffer death. Every man who heads a rebellion against an established government stakes his life on the event; and rebellion was the smallest part of Monmouth's crime. He had declared against his uncle a war without quarter. In the manifesto put forth at Lyme, James had been held up to execration as an incendiary, as an assassin who had strangled one innocent man and cut the throat of another, and, lastly, as the poisoner of his own brother. To spare an enemy who had not scrupled to resort to such extremities would have been an act of rare, perhaps of blamable generosity. But to see him and not to spare him was an outrage on humanity and decency. 424 This outrage the King resolved to commit. The arms of the prisoner were bound behind him with a silken cord; and, thus secured, he was ushered into the presence of the implacable kinsman whom he had wronged.

The King can't be blamed for deciding that Monmouth should be executed. Anyone who leads a rebellion against an established government risks their life in the process; and rebellion was just a small part of Monmouth's wrongdoing. He had declared a merciless war against his uncle. In the manifesto released at Lyme, James was portrayed as a dangerous instigator, a murderer who had strangled one innocent man and slit the throat of another, and, finally, as the poisoner of his own brother. To spare an enemy who didn’t hesitate to commit such extreme acts would have been an act of rare, maybe even questionable, generosity. But to confront him and not spare him was an affront to humanity and decency. 424 This offense the King decided to commit. The prisoner’s arms were bound behind him with a silk cord; and, with this restriction, he was brought into the presence of the unforgiving relative he had wronged.

Then Monmouth threw himself on the ground, and crawled to the King's feet. He wept. He tried to embrace his uncle's knees with his pinioned arms. He begged for life, only life, life at any price. He owned that he had been guilty of a great crime, but tried to throw the blame on others, particularly on Argyle, who would rather have put his legs into the boots than have saved his own life by such baseness. By the ties of kindred, by the memory of the late King, who had been the best and truest of brothers, the unhappy man adjured James to show some mercy. James gravely replied that this repentance was of the latest, that he was sorry for the misery which the prisoner had brought on himself, but that the case was not one for lenity. A Declaration, filled with atrocious calumnies, had been put forth. The regal title had been assumed. For treasons so aggravated there could be no pardon on this side of the grave. The poor terrified Duke vowed that he had never wished to take the crown, but had been led into that fatal error by others. As to the Declaration, he had not written it: he had not read it: he had signed it without looking at it: it was all the work of Ferguson, that bloody villain Ferguson. "Do you expect me to believe," said James, with contempt but too well merited, "that you set your hand to a paper of such moment without knowing what it contained?" One depth of infamy only remained; and even to that the prisoner descended. He was preeminently the champion of the Protestant religion. The interest of that religion had been his plea for conspiring against the government of his father, and for bringing on his country the miseries of civil war; yet he was not ashamed to hint that he was inclined to be reconciled to the Church of Rome. The King eagerly offered him spiritual assistance, but said nothing of pardon or respite. "Is there then no hope?" asked Monmouth. James turned away in silence. Then Monmouth strove to rally his courage, rose from his knees, and retired with a firmness which he had not shown since his overthrow. 425

Then Monmouth threw himself on the ground and crawled to the King's feet. He wept and tried to embrace his uncle's knees with his bound arms. He pleaded for his life, just his life, at any cost. He admitted he had committed a great crime but tried to shift the blame onto others, especially Argyle, who would have preferred to risk his own life than resort to such dishonor. By their family ties, by the memory of the late King, who had been the best and truest of brothers, the desperate man urged James to show some mercy. James replied seriously that this remorse was too late, that he felt sorry for the suffering the prisoner had brought upon himself, but that the situation was one that deserved no leniency. A Declaration filled with vile slanders had been issued. The royal title had been claimed. For such serious treasons, there could be no forgiveness before death. The terrified Duke insisted that he never wanted the crown, but had been led into that fatal mistake by others. As for the Declaration, he hadn’t written it, hadn’t read it, and had signed it without looking—it was all the work of Ferguson, that bloody villain Ferguson. "Do you expect me to believe," said James, with deserved contempt, "that you signed such an important document without knowing what it contained?" There was one last level of disgrace, and even to that the prisoner sunk. He was primarily the defender of the Protestant faith. The cause of that faith was his justification for conspiring against his father's government and bringing the sufferings of civil war to his country; yet he was not ashamed to suggest he was open to reconciling with the Church of Rome. The King eagerly offered him spiritual help but said nothing about forgiveness or a reprieve. "Is there no hope?" asked Monmouth. James turned away in silence. Then Monmouth tried to gather his courage, got up from his knees, and left with a firmness he hadn’t shown since his downfall. 425

Grey was introduced next. He behaved with a propriety and fortitude which moved even the stern and resentful King, frankly owned himself guilty, made no excuses, and did not once stoop to ask his life. Both the prisoners were sent to the Tower by water. There was no tumult; but many thousands of people, with anxiety and sorrow in their faces, tried to catch a glimpse of the captives. The Duke's resolution failed as soon as he had left the royal presence. On his way to his prison he bemoaned himself, accused his followers, and abjectly implored the intercession of Dartmouth. "I know, my Lord, that you loved my father. For his sake, for God's sake, try if there be any room for mercy." Dartmouth replied that the King had spoken the truth, and that a subject who assumed the regal title excluded himself from all hope of pardon. 426

Grey was introduced next. He acted with a level of respect and courage that even moved the stern and resentful King, who openly admitted his own guilt, made no excuses, and didn’t once beg for his life. Both prisoners were sent to the Tower by boat. There was no uproar; however, many thousands of people, with anxious and sorrowful expressions, tried to catch a glimpse of the captives. The Duke’s resolve crumbled as soon as he left the royal presence. On his way to prison, he lamented his situation, blamed his followers, and pitifully asked Dartmouth for help. "I know, my Lord, that you cared for my father. For his sake, for God's sake, see if there’s any chance for mercy." Dartmouth replied that the King had spoken the truth, and that a subject who claimed the royal title excluded himself from any hope of forgiveness. 426

Soon after Monmouth had been lodged in the Tower, he was informed that his wife had, by the royal command, been sent to see him. She was accompanied by the Earl of Clarendon, Keeper of the Privy Seal. Her husband received her very coldly, and addressed almost all his discourse to Clarendon whose intercession he earnestly implored. Clarendon held out no hopes; and that same evening two prelates, Turner, Bishop of Ely, and Ken, Bishop of Bath and Wells, arrived at the Tower with a solemn message from the King. It was Monday night. On Wednesday morning Monmouth was to die.

Soon after Monmouth was taken to the Tower, he was told that his wife had been sent to see him by royal order. She was with the Earl of Clarendon, the Keeper of the Privy Seal. Monmouth greeted her very coldly and directed most of his conversation to Clarendon, fervently pleading for his help. Clarendon offered no hope; that same evening, two bishops, Turner, Bishop of Ely, and Ken, Bishop of Bath and Wells, arrived at the Tower with an important message from the King. It was Monday night. Monmouth was scheduled to die on Wednesday morning.

He was greatly agitated. The blood left his cheeks; and it was some time before he could speak. Most of the short time which remained to him he wasted in vain attempts to obtain, if not a pardon, at least a respite. He wrote piteous letters to the King and to several courtiers, but in vain. Some Roman Catholic divines were sent to him from Whitehall. But they soon discovered that, though he would gladly have purchased his life by renouncing the religion of which he had professed himself in an especial manner the defender, yet, if he was to die, he would as soon die without their absolution as with it. 427

He was really upset. The color drained from his face, and it took him a while to find his voice. Most of the little time he had left was spent in futile attempts to get, if not a pardon, at least a delay. He wrote desperate letters to the King and several courtiers, but it was all for nothing. Some Catholic priests were sent to him from Whitehall. However, they quickly realized that although he would have happily given up his life by renouncing the faith he had proudly defended, if he was going to die, he would prefer to do so without their forgiveness than with it. 427

Nor were Ken and Turner much better pleased with his frame of mind. The doctrine of nonresistance was, in their view, as in the view of most of their brethren, the distinguishing badge of the Anglican Church. The two Bishops insisted on Monmouth's owning that, in drawing the sword against the government, he had committed a great sin; and, on this point, they found him obstinately heterodox. Nor was this his only heresy. He maintained that his connection with Lady Wentworth was blameless in the sight of God. He had been married, he said, when a child. He had never cared for his Duchess. The happiness which he had not found at home he had sought in a round of loose amours, condemned by religion and morality. Henrietta had reclaimed him from a life of vice. To her he had been strictly constant. They had, by common consent, offered up fervent prayers for the divine guidance. After those prayers they had found their affection for each other strengthened; and they could then no longer doubt that, in the sight of God, they were a wedded pair. The Bishops were so much scandalised by this view of the conjugal relation that they refused to administer the sacrament to the prisoner. All that they could obtain from him was a promise that, during the single night which still remained to him, he would pray to be enlightened if he were in error.

Ken and Turner were not very happy with his mindset either. In their opinion, just like most of their peers, the idea of nonresistance was the defining characteristic of the Anglican Church. The two Bishops insisted that Monmouth acknowledge that by taking up arms against the government, he had committed a serious sin, and on this matter, he was stubbornly wrong. This wasn’t his only issue, though. He argued that his relationship with Lady Wentworth was innocent in the eyes of God. He claimed he had been married as a child and had never truly cared for his Duchess. The joy he lacked at home, he sought in a series of immoral affairs, which were condemned by religion and ethics. Henrietta had saved him from a life of sin. He had remained completely devoted to her. Together, they had earnestly prayed for divine guidance, and afterward, they felt their love for each other grow stronger, leading them to believe they were married in God's eyes. The Bishops were so scandalized by this perspective on marriage that they refused to give the sacrament to him. All they could get from him was a promise that, during his last night, he would pray for enlightenment if he was mistaken.

On the Wednesday morning, at his particular request, Doctor Thomas Tenison, who then held the vicarage of Saint Martin's, and, in that important cure, had obtained the high esteem of the public, came to the Tower. From Tenison, whose opinions were known to be moderate, the Duke expected more indulgence than Ken and Turner were disposed to show. But Tenison, whatever might be his sentiments concerning nonresistance in the abstract, thought the late rebellion rash and wicked, and considered Monmouth's notion respecting marriage as a most dangerous delusion. Monmouth was obstinate. He had prayed, he said, for the divine direction. His sentiments remained unchanged; and he could not doubt that they were correct. Tenison's exhortations were in milder tone than those of the Bishops. But he, like them, thought that he should not be justified in administering the Eucharist to one whose penitence was of so unsatisfactory a nature. 428

On Wednesday morning, at his specific request, Doctor Thomas Tenison, who was the vicar of Saint Martin's and had earned a great reputation in that important role, came to the Tower. The Duke expected more leniency from Tenison, whose views were known to be moderate, than he would get from Ken and Turner. However, despite whatever he felt about nonresistance in theory, Tenison believed the recent rebellion was reckless and wrong, and he viewed Monmouth's ideas about marriage as a deeply troubling misconception. Monmouth was stubborn. He claimed he had prayed for divine guidance. His views remained the same, and he couldn’t doubt their correctness. Tenison’s advice was gentler than that of the Bishops, but like them, he felt he couldn’t justify giving the Eucharist to someone whose remorse was so lacking. 428

The hour drew near: all hope was over; and Monmouth had passed from pusillanimous fear to the apathy of despair. His children were brought to his room that he might take leave of them, and were followed by his wife. He spoke to her kindly, but without emotion. Though she was a woman of great strength of mind, and had little cause to love him, her misery was such that none of the bystanders could refrain from weeping. He alone was unmoved. 429

The time was close: all hope was gone; and Monmouth had shifted from cowardly fear to the numbness of despair. His children were brought to his room so he could say goodbye to them, followed by his wife. He spoke to her nicely, but without any feeling. Even though she was a strong-minded woman and had little reason to care for him, her sorrow was so deep that none of the onlookers could hold back their tears. He alone remained unaffected. 429

It was ten o'clock. The coach of the Lieutenant of the Tower was ready. Monmouth requested his spiritual advisers to accompany him to the place of execution; and they consented: but they told him that, in their judgment, he was about to die in a perilous state of mind, and that, if they attended him it would be their duty to exhort him to the last. As he passed along the ranks of the guards he saluted them with a smile; and he mounted the scaffold with a firm tread. Tower Hill was covered up to the chimney tops with an innumerable multitude of gazers, who, in awful silence, broken only by sighs and the noise of weeping, listened for the last accents of the darling of the people. "I shall say little," he began. "I come here, not to speak, but to die. I die a Protestant of the Church of England." The Bishops interrupted him, and told him that, unless he acknowledged resistance to be sinful, he was no member of their church He went on to speak of his Henrietta. She was, he said, a young lady of virtue and honour. He loved her to the last, and he could not die without giving utterance to his feelings The Bishops again interfered, and begged him not to use such language. Some altercation followed. The divines have been accused of dealing harshly with the dying man. But they appear to have only discharged what, in their view, was a sacred duty. Monmouth knew their principles, and, if he wished to avoid their importunity, should have dispensed with their attendance. Their general arguments against resistance had no effect on him. But when they reminded him of the ruin which he had brought on his brave and loving followers, of the blood which had been shed, of the souls which had been sent unprepared to the great account, he was touched, and said, in a softened voice, "I do own that. I am sorry that it ever happened." They prayed with him long and fervently; and he joined in their petitions till they invoked a blessing on the King. He remained silent. "Sir," said one of the Bishops, "do you not pray for the King with us?" Monmouth paused some time, and, after an internal struggle, exclaimed "Amen." But it was in vain that the prelates implored him to address to the soldiers and to the people a few words on the duty of obedience to the government. "I will make no speeches," he exclaimed. "Only ten words, my Lord." He turned away, called his servant, and put into the man's hand a toothpick case, the last token of ill starred love. "Give it," he said, "to that person." He then accosted John Ketch the executioner, a wretch who had butchered many brave and noble victims, and whose name has, during a century and a half, been vulgarly given to all who have succeeded him in his odious office. 430 "Here," said the Duke, "are six guineas for you. Do not hack me as you did my Lord Russell. I have heard that you struck him three or four times. My servant will give you some more gold if you do the work well." He then undressed, felt the edge of the axe, expressed some fear that it was not sharp enough, and laid his head on the block. The divines in the meantime continued to ejaculate with great energy: "God accept your repentance! God accept your imperfect repentance!"

It was ten o'clock. The carriage for the Lieutenant of the Tower was ready. Monmouth asked his spiritual advisers to go with him to the execution site, and they agreed; but they warned him that, in their opinion, he was going to die in a troubled state of mind, and that if they were with him, they would need to counsel him until the end. As he walked past the ranks of guards, he greeted them with a smile and climbed the scaffold steadily. Tower Hill was packed all the way up to the chimney tops with countless spectators who, in a hushed silence interrupted only by sighs and crying, listened for the final words of their beloved figure. "I won’t say much," he started. "I'm here not to speak, but to die. I die a Protestant of the Church of England." The Bishops interrupted him, telling him that unless he acknowledged resistance as a sin, he was not a member of their church. He continued to talk about his Henrietta. She was, he claimed, a young woman of virtue and honor. He loved her deeply, and he couldn’t die without expressing his feelings. The Bishops intervened once more, asking him not to use such language. A disagreement followed. The clergymen have been criticized for being harsh with the dying man. However, they seemed to believe they were fulfilling what they saw as a sacred duty. Monmouth was aware of their beliefs, and if he wanted to avoid their insistence, he should have declined their company. Their general arguments against resistance didn’t sway him. But when they reminded him of the devastation he had caused to his brave and loving followers, the blood that had been shed, and the souls that had gone to their final judgment unprepared, he was moved and said softly, "I acknowledge that. I regret that it happened." They prayed with him for a long time, and he joined in their prayers until they blessed the King. He stayed silent. "Sir," one of the Bishops said, "aren’t you going to pray for the King with us?" Monmouth hesitated for a moment, and after an internal battle, exclaimed, "Amen." But it was futile for the Bishops to urge him to say a few words to the soldiers and the crowd about the duty of obedience to the government. "I won’t make any speeches," he declared. "Just ten words, my Lord." He turned away, called his servant, and handed him a toothpick case, the last reminder of his ill-fated love. "Give this," he instructed, "to that person." He then spoke to John Ketch, the executioner, a man who had mercilessly executed many brave and noble victims, and whose name has been commonly associated with all who followed him in that dreadful job. "Here," said the Duke, "are six guineas for you. Don’t butcher me like you did my Lord Russell. I’ve heard you struck him three or four times. My servant will give you more gold if you do the job well." He then undressed, tested the sharpness of the axe, expressed some concern that it might not be sharp enough, and laid his head on the block. Meanwhile, the clergy continued to fervently pray: "God accept your repentance! God accept your imperfect repentance!"

The hangman addressed himself to his office. But he had been disconcerted by what the Duke had said. The first blow inflicted only a slight wound. The Duke struggled, rose from the block, and looked reproachfully at the executioner. The head sunk down once more. The stroke was repeated again and again; but still the neck was not severed, and the body continued to move. Yells of rage and horror rose from the crowd. Ketch flung down the axe with a curse. "I cannot do it," he said; "my heart fails me." "Take up the axe, man," cried the sheriff. "Fling him over the rails," roared the mob. At length the axe was taken up. Two more blows extinguished the last remains of life; but a knife was used to separate the head from the shoulders. The crowd was wrought up to such an ecstasy of rage that the executioner was in danger of being torn in pieces, and was conveyed away under a strong guard. 431

The hangman focused on his task. However, he was shaken by what the Duke had said. The first strike only caused a minor injury. The Duke fought back, got up from the block, and looked at the executioner with disappointment. His head dropped down again. The blow was delivered repeatedly; yet the neck remained unsevered, and the body kept moving. Shouts of anger and horror erupted from the crowd. Ketch dropped the axe with a curse. "I can't do it," he said; "I'm losing my nerve." "Pick up the axe, man," shouted the sheriff. "Throw him over the rails," roared the mob. Finally, the axe was picked up again. Two more strikes ended the last signs of life; however, a knife was used to separate the head from the shoulders. The crowd was so incensed that the executioner was at risk of being torn apart and was escorted away under heavy guard. 431

In the meantime many handkerchiefs were dipped in the Duke's blood; for by a large part of the multitude he was regarded as a martyr who had died for the Protestant religion. The head and body were placed in a coffin covered with black velvet, and were laid privately under the communion table of Saint Peter's Chapel in the Tower. Within four years the pavement of the chancel was again disturbed, and hard by the remains of Monmouth were laid the remains of Jeffreys. In truth there is no sadder spot on the earth than that little cemetery. Death is there associated, not, as in Westminster Abbey and St. Paul's, with genius and virtue, with public veneration and imperishable renown; not, as in our humblest churches and churchyards, with everything that is most endearing in social and domestic charities; but with whatever is darkest in human nature and in human destiny, with the savage triumph of implacable enemies, with the inconstancy, the ingratitude, the cowardice of friends, with all the miseries of fallen greatness and of blighted fame. Thither have been carried, through successive ages, by the rude hands of gaolers, without one mourner following, the bleeding relics of men who had been the captains of armies, the leaders of parties, the oracles of senates, and the ornaments of courts. Thither was borne, before the window where Jane Grey was praying, the mangled corpse of Guilford Dudley. Edward Seymour, Duke of Somerset, and Protector of the realm, reposes there by the brother whom he murdered. There has mouldered away the headless trunk of John Fisher, Bishop of Rochester and Cardinal of Saint Vitalis, a man worthy to have lived in a better age and to have died in a better cause. There are laid John Dudley, Duke of Northumberland, Lord High Admiral, and Thomas Cromwell, Earl of Essex, Lord High Treasurer. There, too, is another Essex, on whom nature and fortune had lavished all their bounties in vain, and whom valour, grace, genius, royal favour, popular applause, conducted to an early and ignominious doom. Not far off sleep two chiefs of the great house of Howard, Thomas, fourth Duke of Norfolk, and Philip, eleventh Earl of Arundel. Here and there, among the thick graves of unquiet and aspiring statesmen, lie more delicate sufferers; Margaret of Salisbury, the last of the proud name of Plantagenet; and those two fair Queens who perished by the jealous rage of Henry. Such was the dust with which the dust of Monmouth mingled. 432

In the meantime, many handkerchiefs were soaked in the Duke's blood because a large part of the crowd viewed him as a martyr who had died for the Protestant faith. His head and body were placed in a coffin covered in black velvet and were privately laid under the communion table of Saint Peter's Chapel in the Tower. Within four years, the pavement of the chancel was disturbed again, and near the remains of Monmouth were laid the remains of Jeffreys. In truth, there is no sadder place on earth than that little cemetery. Death there is connected, unlike in Westminster Abbey and St. Paul's to genius and virtue, public reverence, and everlasting fame; not, as in our simplest churches and graveyards, to everything that is most cherished in social and domestic kindness; but to the darkest aspects of human nature and destiny, to the brutal victory of relentless enemies, to the inconsistency, ingratitude, and cowardice of friends, and to all the miseries of fallen greatness and tarnished renown. Over the years, the bloody remains of men who had been army leaders, party heads, senate oracles, and court dignitaries have been brought there by the rough hands of jailers, without a single mourner in sight. There, the mangled body of Guilford Dudley was taken, before the window where Jane Grey was praying. Edward Seymour, Duke of Somerset and Protector of the realm, rests there beside the brother he killed. There lies the headless corpse of John Fisher, Bishop of Rochester and Cardinal of Saint Vitalis, a man deserving of a better time and cause. Also buried there are John Dudley, Duke of Northumberland, Lord High Admiral, and Thomas Cromwell, Earl of Essex, Lord High Treasurer. Additionally, there is another Essex, whom nature and fortune had wasted their gifts on in vain, whose courage, grace, brilliance, royal favor, and public acclaim led him to an early and shameful end. Not far away sleep two leaders of the prominent house of Howard, Thomas, fourth Duke of Norfolk, and Philip, eleventh Earl of Arundel. Amid the crowded graves of restless and ambitious politicians lie more fragile victims; Margaret of Salisbury, the last of the proud Plantagenets; and those two beautiful Queens who fell to the jealous wrath of Henry. Such was the dust that mingled with the dust of Monmouth. 432

Yet a few months, and the quiet village of Toddington, in Bedfordshire, witnessed a still sadder funeral. Near that village stood an ancient and stately hall, the seat of the Wentworths. The transept of the parish church had long been their burial place. To that burial place, in the spring which followed the death of Monmouth, was borne the coffin of the young Baroness Wentworth of Nettlestede. Her family reared a sumptuous mausoleum over her remains: but a less costly memorial of her was long contemplated with far deeper interest. Her name, carved by the hand of him whom she loved too well, was, a few years ago, still discernible on a tree in the adjoining park.

Yet a few months later, the quiet village of Toddington in Bedfordshire witnessed an even sadder funeral. Near that village stood an old and impressive hall, the home of the Wentworth family. The transept of the parish church had long been their burial site. To that burial site, in the spring after Monmouth's death, was carried the coffin of the young Baroness Wentworth of Nettlestede. Her family built an elaborate mausoleum over her remains; however, a less expensive memorial of her was remembered with far more depth of feeling. Her name, carved by the hand of the man she loved too much, was still visible on a tree in the nearby park just a few years ago.

It was not by Lady Wentworth alone that the memory of Monmouth was cherished with idolatrous fondness. His hold on the hearts of the people lasted till the generation which had seen him had passed away. Ribands, buckles, and other trifling articles of apparel which he had worn, were treasured up as precious relics by those who had fought under him at Sedgemoor. Old men who long survived him desired, when they were dying, that these trinkets might be buried with them. One button of gold thread which narrowly escaped this fate may still be seen at a house which overlooks the field of battle. Nay, such was the devotion of the people to their unhappy favourite that, in the face of the strongest evidence by which the fact of a death was ever verified, many continued to cherish a hope that he was still living, and that he would again appear in arms. A person, it was said, who was remarkably like Monmouth, had sacrificed himself to save the Protestant hero. The vulgar long continued, at every important crisis, to whisper that the time was at hand, and that King Monmouth would soon show himself. In 1686, a knave who had pretended to be the Duke, and had levied contributions in several villages of Wiltshire, was apprehended, and whipped from Newgate to Tyburn. In 1698, when England had long enjoyed constitutional freedom under a new dynasty, the son of an innkeeper passed himself on the yeomanry of Sussex as their beloved Monmouth, and defrauded many who were by no means of the lowest class. Five hundred pounds were collected for him. The farmers provided him with a horse. Their wives sent him baskets of chickens and ducks, and were lavish, it was said, of favours of a more tender kind; for in gallantry at least, the counterfeit was a not unworthy representative of the original. When this impostor was thrown into prison for his fraud, his followers maintained him in luxury. Several of them appeared at the bar to countenance him when he was tried at the Horsham assizes. So long did this delusion last that, when George the Third had been some years on the English throne, Voltaire thought it necessary gravely to confute the hypothesis that the man in the iron mask was the Duke of Monmouth. 433

It wasn't just Lady Wentworth who cherished the memory of Monmouth with passionate devotion. His presence lingered in the hearts of the people long after the generation that had known him had passed. Ribbons, buckles, and other small items of clothing he had worn were kept as treasured keepsakes by those who had fought with him at Sedgemoor. Old men who outlived him wished, as they were dying, that these little tokens might be buried with them. One button made of gold thread that narrowly avoided this fate can still be seen at a house overlooking the battlefield. Such was the loyalty of the people to their unfortunate hero that, despite the strongest evidence confirming his death, many continued to hope that he was still alive and would someday return in arms. It was said that someone who looked remarkably like Monmouth had sacrificed himself to save their beloved leader. The common folk continued to whisper during significant events that the moment was near, and King Monmouth would soon reappear. In 1686, a scoundrel who pretended to be the Duke and extorted money in several Wiltshire villages was caught and whipped from Newgate to Tyburn. In 1698, when England had been enjoying constitutional freedom under a new dynasty for a while, the son of an innkeeper impersonated their beloved Monmouth among the yeomanry of Sussex and swindled many people from all walks of life. They collected five hundred pounds for him. The farmers gave him a horse. Their wives sent him baskets of chickens and ducks, and were reportedly generous with more intimate favors; in terms of charm at least, the impersonator was not a bad stand-in for the original. When this fraud was imprisoned, his supporters kept him in luxury. Several appeared at his trial to support him at the Horsham assizes. This delusion lasted so long that even years after George the Third had taken the English throne, Voltaire felt it was necessary to seriously refute the idea that the man in the iron mask was the Duke of Monmouth. 433

It is, perhaps, a fact scarcely less remarkable that, to this day, the inhabitants of some parts of the West of England, when any bill affecting their interest is before the House of Lords, think themselves entitled to claim the help of the Duke of Buccleuch, the descendant of the unfortunate leader for whom their ancestors bled.

It is, perhaps, a fact that's almost as remarkable that, to this day, the people in some areas of the West of England, when any proposal that affects them is in front of the House of Lords, believe they have the right to seek the support of the Duke of Buccleuch, the descendant of the unfortunate leader for whom their ancestors sacrificed.

The history of Monmouth would alone suffice to refute the Imputation of inconstancy which is so frequently thrown on the common people. The common people are sometimes inconstant; for they are human beings. But that they are inconstant as compared with the educated classes, with aristocracies, or with princes, may be confidently denied. It would be easy to name demagogues whose popularity has remained undiminished while sovereigns and parliaments have withdrawn their confidence from a long succession of statesmen. When Swift had survived his faculties many years, the Irish populace still continued to light bonfires on his birthday, in commemoration of the services which they fancied that he had rendered to his country when his mind was in full vigour. While seven administrations were raised to power and hurled from it in consequence of court intrigues or of changes in the sentiments of the higher classes of society, the profligate Wilkes retained his hold on the selections of a rabble whom he pillaged and ridiculed. Politicians, who, in 1807, had sought to curry favour with George the Third by defending Caroline of Brunswick, were not ashamed, in 1820, to curry favour with George the Fourth by persecuting her. But in 1820, as in 1807, the whole body of working men was fanatically devoted to her cause. So it was with Monmouth. In 1680, he had been adored alike by the gentry and by the peasantry of the West. In 1685 he came again. To the gentry he had become an object of aversion: but by the peasantry he was still loved with a love strong as death, with a love not to be extinguished by misfortunes or faults, by the flight from Sedgemoor, by the letter from Ringwood, or by the tears and abject supplications at Whitehall. The charge which may with justice be brought against the common people is, not that they are inconstant, but that they almost invariably choose their favourite so ill that their constancy is a vice and not a virtue.

The history of Monmouth alone is enough to challenge the accusation of inconsistency that is often directed at the common people. The common people can be inconsistent; after all, they are human. However, the idea that they are more inconsistent than the educated classes, aristocracies, or princes can be confidently refuted. It would be easy to point out demagogues whose popularity has stayed strong while sovereigns and parliaments have lost faith in a long line of politicians. Even when Swift had lost his faculties for many years, the Irish populace continued to celebrate his birthday with bonfires, remembering the contributions they believed he had made to their country when he was sharp-minded. While seven administrations rose and fell due to court intrigue or shifts in the opinions of the upper classes, the disreputable Wilkes maintained his popularity with the masses whom he both exploited and mocked. Politicians who, in 1807, tried to gain favor with George the Third by defending Caroline of Brunswick were not hesitant, in 1820, to seek favor with George the Fourth by persecuting her. Yet in 1820, just like in 1807, the entire body of working men was passionately devoted to her cause. The same can be said of Monmouth. In 1680, he was beloved by both the gentry and the peasants of the West. By 1685, he had become despised by the gentry, but the peasants still loved him fiercely, a love that couldn't be extinguished by misfortunes or mistakes, by the escape from Sedgemoor, by the letter from Ringwood, or by the tears and desperate pleas at Whitehall. The real critique that can justly be made against the common people is not that they are inconsistent, but that they often choose their favorites so poorly that their loyalty becomes a flaw rather than a strength.

While the execution of Monmouth occupied the thoughts of the Londoners, the counties which had risen against the government were enduring all that a ferocious soldiery could inflict. Feversham had been summoned to the court, where honours and rewards which he little deserved awaited him. He was made a Knight of the Garter and Captain of the first and most lucrative troop of Life Guards: but Court and City laughed at his military exploits; and the wit of Buckingham gave forth its last feeble flash at the expense of the general who had won a battle in bed. 434 Feversham left in command at Bridgewater Colonel Percy Kirke, a military adventurer whose vices had been developed by the worst of all schools, Tangier. Kirke had during some years commanded the garrison of that town, and had been constantly employed in hostilities against tribes of foreign barbarians, ignorant of the laws which regulate the warfare of civilized and Christian nations. Within the ramparts of his fortress he was a despotic prince. The only check on his tyranny was the fear of being called to account by a distant and a careless government. He might therefore safely proceed to the most audacious excesses of rapacity, licentiousness, and cruelty. He lived with boundless dissoluteness, and procured by extortion the means of indulgence. No goods could be sold till Kirke had had the refusal of them. No question of right could be decided till Kirke had been bribed. Once, merely from a malignant whim, he staved all the wine in a vintner's cellar. On another occasion he drove all the Jews from Tangier. Two of them he sent to the Spanish Inquisition, which forthwith burned them. Under this iron domination scarce a complaint was heard; for hatred was effectually kept down by terror. Two persons who had been refractory were found murdered; and it was universally believed that they had been slain by Kirke's order. When his soldiers displeased him he flogged them with merciless severity: but he indemnified them by permitting them to sleep on watch, to reel drunk about the streets, to rob, beat, and insult the merchants and the labourers.

While everyone in London was preoccupied with Monmouth's execution, the counties that rebelled against the government faced extreme brutality from the soldiers. Feversham was called to court, where he found honors and rewards that he hardly deserved waiting for him. He was made a Knight of the Garter and Captain of the first and most profitable troop of Life Guards. However, both the Court and City mocked his military achievements, and Buckingham's wit aimed its last feeble jab at the general who had won a battle while in bed. 434 Feversham left Colonel Percy Kirke in charge at Bridgewater, a military adventurer whose worst vices were instilled by the harsh environment of Tangier. Kirke had commanded the garrison there for years and was consistently engaged in conflicts against tribes of foreign barbarians, who knew nothing of the rules governing war among civilized and Christian nations. Within the walls of his fortress, he acted like a tyrant. The only thing preventing his tyranny was the distant and indifferent government that could hold him accountable. Thus, he could engage in the most audacious acts of greed, abuse, and cruelty without fear. He lived extravagantly and gained indulgences through extortion. No goods could be sold until Kirke had the first pick. No matters of right could be settled without bribing him first. On one occasion, just out of spite, he ruined all the wine in a vintner's cellar. Another time, he expelled all the Jews from Tangier, sending two of them to the Spanish Inquisition, which promptly executed them. Under this harsh rule, complaints were rare; fear effectively suppressed any dissent. Two individuals who had defied him were found dead, and it was widely believed that Kirke had ordered their killings. When his soldiers displeased him, he punished them brutally; yet he compensated them by letting them sleep on guard duty, stumble drunk through the streets, and rob, beat, and harass merchants and laborers.

When Tangier was abandoned, Kirke returned to England. He still continued to command his old soldiers, who were designated sometimes as the First Tangier Regiment, and sometimes as Queen Catharine's Regiment. As they had been levied for the purpose of waging war on an infidel nation, they bore on their flag a Christian emblem, the Paschal Lamb. In allusion to this device, and with a bitterly ironical meaning, these men, the rudest and most ferocious in the English army, were called Kirke's Lambs. The regiment, now the second of the line, still retains this ancient badge, which is however thrown into the shade by decorations honourably earned in Egypt, in Spain, and in the heart of Asia. 435

When Tangier was abandoned, Kirke went back to England. He continued to lead his old soldiers, who were sometimes called the First Tangier Regiment and sometimes Queen Catharine's Regiment. Since they had been raised to fight against an infidel nation, their flag featured a Christian symbol, the Paschal Lamb. In reference to this symbol, and with a bitterly ironic twist, these men—the roughest and fiercest in the English army—were called Kirke's Lambs. The regiment, now the second of the line, still carries this old badge, although it is overshadowed by decorations that were honorably earned in Egypt, Spain, and the heart of Asia. 435

Such was the captain and such the soldiers who were now let loose on the people of Somersetshire. From Bridgewater Kirke marched to Taunton. He was accompanied by two carts filled with wounded rebels whose gashes had not been dressed, and by a long drove of prisoners on foot, who were chained two and two Several of these he hanged as soon as he reached Taunton, without the form of a trial. They were not suffered even to take leave of their nearest relations. The signpost of the White Hart Inn served for a gallows. It is said that the work of death went on in sight of the windows where the officers of the Tangier regiment were carousing, and that at every health a wretch was turned off. When the legs of the dying man quivered in the last agony, the colonel ordered the drums to strike up. He would give the rebels, he said music to their dancing. The tradition runs that one of the captives was not even allowed the indulgence of a speedy death. Twice he was suspended from the signpost, and twice cut down. Twice he was asked if he repented of his treason, and twice he replied that, if the thing were to do again, he would do it. Then he was tied up for the last time. So many dead bodies were quartered that the executioner stood ankle deep in blood. He was assisted by a poor man whose loyalty was suspected, and who was compelled to ransom his own life by seething the remains of his friends in pitch. The peasant who had consented to perform this hideous office afterwards returned to his plough. But a mark like that of Cain was upon him. He was known through his village by the horrible name of Tom Boilman. The rustics long continued to relate that, though he had, by his sinful and shameful deed, saved himself from the vengeance of the Lambs, he had not escaped the vengeance of a higher power. In a great storm he fled for shelter under an oak, and was there struck dead by lightning. 436

Such was the captain and such were the soldiers who were now unleashed on the people of Somersetshire. From Bridgewater, Kirke marched to Taunton. He was accompanied by two carts filled with wounded rebels whose injuries had not been treated, and by a long line of prisoners on foot, who were chained two by two. Several of these he hanged as soon as he reached Taunton, without any form of trial. They weren't even allowed to say goodbye to their closest relatives. The signpost of the White Hart Inn served as a gallows. It's said that the killings continued in view of the windows where the officers of the Tangier regiment were partying, and that with every toast, a prisoner was executed. When the legs of the dying man twitched in their last moments, the colonel ordered the drums to play. He wanted to give the rebels, he said, music for their dancing. The legend goes that one of the captives wasn’t even allowed the mercy of a quick death. Twice he was hung from the signpost, and twice cut down. Twice he was asked if he regretted his actions, and twice he replied that if he had to do it again, he would. Then he was tied up for the final time. So many dead bodies were mutilated that the executioner stood ankle-deep in blood. He was helped by a poor man whose loyalty was questioned, and who was forced to save his own life by boiling the remains of his friends in pitch. The peasant who agreed to do this horrific task later returned to his plow. But a mark like that of Cain was upon him. He was known in his village by the dreadful name of Tom Boilman. The locals long continued to say that, although he had, by his sinful and shameful act, saved himself from the wrath of the Lambs, he had not escaped the judgment of a higher power. In a great storm, he sought shelter under an oak and was struck dead by lightning. 436

The number of those who were thus butchered cannot now be ascertained. Nine were entered in the parish registers of Taunton: but those registers contained the names of such only as had Christian burial. Those who were hanged in chains, and those whose heads and limbs were sent to the neighbouring villages, must have been much more numerous. It was believed in London, at the time, that Kirke put a hundred captives to death during the week which followed the battle. 437

The exact number of people who were killed this way is unknown now. Nine were recorded in the parish registers of Taunton, but those records included only those who had a Christian burial. The people who were hanged in chains and those whose bodies were sent to nearby villages were likely many more. At that time, it was thought in London that Kirke executed a hundred captives during the week after the battle. 437

Cruelty, however, was not this man's only passion. He loved money; and was no novice in the arts of extortion. A safe conduct might be bought of him for thirty or forty pounds; and such a safe conduct, though of no value in law, enabled the purchaser to pass the post of the Lambs without molestation, to reach a seaport, and to fly to a foreign country. The ships which were bound for New England were crowded at this juncture with so many fugitives from Sedgemoor that there was great danger lest the water and provisions should fail. 438

Cruelty wasn’t this man’s only obsession. He had a love for money and was skilled in the ways of extortion. You could buy a safe passage from him for thirty or forty pounds, and although that safe passage had no legal standing, it allowed the buyer to get through the post of the Lambs without any trouble, reach a seaport, and escape to another country. At this time, the ships headed for New England were packed with so many fugitives from Sedgemoor that there was a significant risk of running out of water and provisions. 438

Kirke was also, in his own coarse and ferocious way, a man of pleasure; and nothing is more probable than that he employed his power for the purpose of gratifying his licentious appetites. It was reported that he conquered the virtue of a beautiful woman by promising to spare the life of one to whom she was strongly attached, and that, after she had yielded, he showed her suspended on the gallows the lifeless remains of him for whose sake she had sacrificed her honour. This tale an impartial judge must reject. It is unsupported by proof. The earliest authority for it is a poem written by Pomfret. The respectable historians of that age, while they speak with just severity of the crimes of Kirke, either omit all mention of this most atrocious crime, or mention it as a thing rumoured but not proved. Those who tell the story tell it with such variations as deprive it of all title to credit. Some lay the scene at Taunton, some at Exeter. Some make the heroine of the tale a maiden, some a married woman. The relation for whom the shameful ransom was paid is described by some as her father, by some as her brother, and by some as her husband. Lastly the story is one which, long before Kirke was born, had been told of many other oppressors, and had become a favourite theme of novelists and dramatists. Two politicians of the fifteenth century, Rhynsault, the favourite of Charles the Bold of Burgundy, and Oliver le Dain, the favourite of Lewis the Eleventh of France, had been accused of the same crime. Cintio had taken it for the subject of a romance. Whetstone had made out of Cintio's narrative the rude play of Promos and Cassandra; and Shakspeare had borrowed from Whetstone the plot of the noble tragicomedy of Measure for Measure. As Kirke was not the first so he was not the last, to whom this excess of wickedness was popularly imputed. During the reaction which followed the Jacobin tyranny in France, a very similar charge was brought against Joseph Lebon, one of the most odious agents of the Committee of Public Safety, and, after enquiry, was admitted even by his prosecutors to be unfounded. 439

Kirke was, in his own rough and brutal way, a pleasure seeker; and it's very likely that he used his power to satisfy his reckless desires. It was said that he broke the virtue of a beautiful woman by promising to spare the life of someone she cared about deeply, and that after she gave in, he displayed the lifeless body of the man for whom she had sacrificed her honor hanging on the gallows. An unbiased observer must dismiss this story. It lacks evidence. The earliest source for it is a poem by Pomfret. The reputable historians of that time, while they rightly criticize Kirke's crimes, either completely ignore this heinous act or mention it as a rumor without evidence. Those who recount the story tell it with so many variations that it loses all credibility. Some set the scene in Taunton, others in Exeter. Some portray the heroine as a maiden, while others make her a married woman. The loved one for whom the disgraceful ransom was paid is described by some as her father, by others as her brother, and by some as her husband. Lastly, this story is one that had been told of many other oppressors long before Kirke was born and had become a popular theme among novelists and playwrights. Two politicians from the fifteenth century, Rhynsault, a favorite of Charles the Bold of Burgundy, and Oliver le Dain, a favorite of Louis the Eleventh of France, were accused of the same crime. Cintio used it as the basis for a romance. Whetstone adapted Cintio’s narrative into the crude play Promos and Cassandra; and Shakespeare borrowed from Whetstone for the plot of the noble tragicomedy Measure for Measure. Kirke was neither the first nor the last to whom this extreme wickedness was popularly attributed. During the backlash after the Jacobin terror in France, a very similar accusation was leveled against Joseph Lebon, one of the most despised agents of the Committee of Public Safety, which after investigation, even his accusers admitted was unfounded. 439

The government was dissatisfied with Kirke, not on account of the barbarity with which he had treated his needy prisoners, but on account of the interested lenity which he had shown to rich delinquents. 440 He was soon recalled from the West. A less irregular and more cruel massacre was about to be perpetrated. The vengeance was deferred during some weeks. It was thought desirable that the Western Circuit should not begin till the other circuits had terminated. In the meantime the gaols of Somersetshire and Dorsetshire were filled with thousands of captives. The chief friend and protector of these unhappy men in their extremity was one who abhorred their religious and political opinions, one whose order they hated, and to whom they had done unprovoked wrong, Bishop Ken. That good prelate used all his influence to soften the gaolers, and retrenched from his own episcopal state that he might be able to make some addition to the coarse and scanty fare of those who had defaced his beloved Cathedral. His conduct on this occasion was of a piece with his whole life. His intellect was indeed darkened by many superstitions and prejudices: but his moral character, when impartially reviewed, sustains a comparison with any in ecclesiastical history, and seems to approach, as near as human infirmity permits, to the ideal perfection of Christian virtue. 441

The government was unhappy with Kirke, not because of the brutal way he treated his needy prisoners, but because of the leniency he showed toward wealthy offenders. 440 He was quickly called back from the West. A more organized and cruel massacre was about to take place. The punishment was postponed for a few weeks. It was deemed better that the Western Circuit should not start until the other circuits had concluded. In the meantime, the jails in Somersetshire and Dorsetshire were filled with thousands of captives. The main friend and protector of these unfortunate men in their time of need was someone who despised their religious and political beliefs, someone whose order they hated, and to whom they had done unprovoked wrong, Bishop Ken. That kind bishop used all his influence to appeal to the jailers, and cut back on his own episcopal resources so he could provide some extra help with the meager and inadequate food of those who had damaged his beloved Cathedral. His actions during this time reflected his entire life. His mind was indeed clouded by many superstitions and biases: but his moral character, when looked at fairly, stands up to comparison with any in church history, and seems to come as close as human weaknesses allow to the ideal standard of Christian virtue. 441

His labour of love was of no long duration. A rapid and effectual gaol delivery was at hand. Early in September, Jeffreys, accompanied by four other judges, set out on that circuit of which the memory will last as long as our race and language. The officers who commanded the troops in the districts through which his course lay had orders to furnish him with whatever military aid he might require. His ferocious temper needed no spur; yet a spur was applied. The health and spirits of the Lord Keeper had given way. He had been deeply mortified by the coldness of the King and by the insolence of the Chief Justice, and could find little consolation in looking back on a life, not indeed blackened by any atrocious crime, but sullied by cowardice, selfishness, and servility. So deeply was the unhappy man humbled that, when he appeared for the last time in Westminster Hall he took with him a nosegay to hide his face, because, as he afterwards owned, he could not bear the eyes of the bar and of the audience. The prospect of his approaching end seems to have inspired him with unwonted courage. He determined to discharge his conscience, requested an audience of the King, spoke earnestly of the dangers inseparable from violent and arbitrary counsels, and condemned the lawless cruelties which the soldiers had committed in Somersetshire. He soon after retired from London to die. He breathed his last a few days after the Judges set out for the West. It was immediately notified to Jeffreys that he might expect the Great Seal as the reward of faithful and vigorous service. 442

His labor of love didn't last long. A quick and effective court session was about to happen. Early in September, Jeffreys, along with four other judges, set out on a circuit that will be remembered as long as our race and language exist. The officers in charge of the troops in the areas he traveled through were ordered to provide him with any military support he needed. His fierce temper didn’t need any encouragement, but there was some anyway. The Lord Keeper’s health and spirits had declined. He was deeply hurt by the King's indifference and the Chief Justice's arrogance, and found little comfort looking back on a life that, while not tarnished by horrific crimes, was stained by cowardice, selfishness, and servility. The unfortunate man was so humbled that when he appeared for the last time in Westminster Hall, he brought a bouquet to hide his face because, as he later admitted, he couldn’t stand the gaze of the lawyers and spectators. The thought of his imminent end seemed to inspire him with unusual courage. He decided to clear his conscience, requested a meeting with the King, spoke earnestly about the dangers of violent and arbitrary decisions, and condemned the unlawful brutality the soldiers had shown in Somersetshire. Soon after, he left London to die. He passed away a few days after the Judges had set out for the West. Jeffreys was immediately informed that he could expect the Great Seal as a reward for his loyal and vigorous service. 442

At Winchester the Chief Justice first opened his commission. Hampshire had not been the theatre of war; but many of the vanquished rebels had, like their leader, fled thither. Two of them, John Hickes, a Nonconformist divine, and Richard Nelthorpe, a lawyer who had been outlawed for taking part in the Rye House plot, had sought refuge at the house of Alice, widow of John Lisle. John Lisle had sate in the Long Parliament and in the High Court of Justice, had been a commissioner of the Great Seal in the days of the Commonwealth and had been created a Lord by Cromwell. The titles given by the Protector had not been recognised by any government which had ruled England since the downfall of his house; but they appear to have been often used in conversation even by Royalists. John Lisle's widow was therefore commonly known as the Lady Alice. She was related to many respectable, and to some noble, families; and she was generally esteemed even by the Tory gentlemen of her country. For it was well known to them that she had deeply regretted some violent acts in which her husband had borne a part, that she had shed bitter tears for Charles the First, and that she had protected and relieved many Cavaliers in their distress. The same womanly kindness, which had led her to befriend the Royalists in their time of trouble, would not suffer her to refuse a meal and a hiding place to the wretched men who now entreated her to protect them. She took them into her house, set meat and drink before them, and showed them where they might take rest. The next morning her dwelling was surrounded by soldiers. Strict search was made. Hickes was found concealed in the malthouse, and Nelthorpe in the chimney. If Lady Alice knew her guests to have been concerned in the insurrection, she was undoubtedly guilty of what in strictness was a capital crime. For the law of principal and accessory, as respects high treason, then was, and is to this day, in a state disgraceful to English jurisprudence. In cases of felony, a distinction founded on justice and reason, is made between the principal and the accessory after the fact. He who conceals from justice one whom he knows to be a murderer is liable to punishment, but not to the punishment of murder. He, on the other hand, who shelters one whom he knows to be a traitor is, according to all our jurists, guilty of high treason. It is unnecessary to point out the absurdity and cruelty of a law which includes under the same definition, and visits with the same penalty, offences lying at the opposite extremes of the scale of guilt. The feeling which makes the most loyal subject shrink from the thought of giving up to a shameful death the rebel who, vanquished, hunted down, and in mortal agony, begs for a morsel of bread and a cup of water, may be a weakness; but it is surely a weakness very nearly allied to virtue, a weakness which, constituted as human beings are, we can hardly eradicate from the mind without eradicating many noble and benevolent sentiments. A wise and good ruler may not think it right to sanction this weakness; but he will generally connive at it, or punish it very tenderly. In no case will he treat it as a crime of the blackest dye. Whether Flora Macdonald was justified in concealing the attainted heir of the Stuarts, whether a brave soldier of our own time was justified in assisting the escape of Lavalette, are questions on which casuists may differ: but to class such actions with the crimes of Guy Faux and Fieschi is an outrage to humanity and common sense. Such, however, is the classification of our law. It is evident that nothing but a lenient administration could make such a state of the law endurable. And it is just to say that, during many generations, no English government, save one, has treated with rigour persons guilty merely of harbouring defeated and flying insurgents. To women especially has been granted, by a kind of tacit prescription, the right of indulging in the midst of havoc and vengeance, that compassion which is the most endearing of all their charms. Since the beginning of the great civil war, numerous rebels, some of them far more important than Hickes or Nelthorpe, have been protected from the severity of victorious governments by female adroitness and generosity. But no English ruler who has been thus baffled, the savage and implacable James alone excepted, has had the barbarity even to think of putting a lady to a cruel and shameful death for so venial and amiable a transgression.

At Winchester, the Chief Justice first began his duties. Hampshire hadn't been the battlefield, but many of the defeated rebels had fled there, just like their leader. Two of them, John Hickes, a Nonconformist preacher, and Richard Nelthorpe, a lawyer who had been banned for his involvement in the Rye House plot, sought refuge at the home of Alice, the widow of John Lisle. John Lisle had served in the Long Parliament and in the High Court of Justice, had been a commissioner of the Great Seal during the Commonwealth, and had been made a Lord by Cromwell. The titles given by the Protector had not been recognized by any subsequent government ruling England since the fall of his regime; however, they were often used in conversation, even by Royalists. John Lisle's widow was commonly referred to as Lady Alice. She was related to many respected families, some of which were noble, and she was generally well-regarded, even by the Tory gentlemen of her area. They knew she had deeply regretted some of her husband's violent actions, that she had mourned Charles the First, and that she had helped many Cavaliers in their time of need. The same kindness that led her to help the Royalists during their struggles also made it impossible for her to deny a meal and a hiding place to the desperate men who now pleaded for her protection. She welcomed them into her home, set food and drink in front of them, and showed them where they could rest. The next morning, her house was surrounded by soldiers. They conducted a thorough search. Hickes was found hiding in the malthouse, and Nelthorpe in the chimney. If Lady Alice knew that her guests were involved in the insurrection, she was surely guilty of what was technically a capital crime. For the law regarding principal and accessory in cases of high treason, then as now, was in a state disgraceful to English law. In cases of felony, a just and reasonable distinction is made between the principal and the accessory after the fact. Someone who hides a murderer from justice can be punished but not as a murderer. In contrast, someone who harbors a known traitor, according to all our legal experts, is guilty of high treason. It's unnecessary to point out the absurdity and cruelty of a law that categorizes such different offenses under the same definition and punishes them with the same severity. The feeling that makes even the most loyal subject hesitate to deliver the defeated rebel, who is hunted down and begging for a morsel of bread and a cup of water, to a shameful death may be seen as a weakness; but it is certainly a weakness closely related to virtue, a weakness that, given our human nature, is hard to eliminate without also discarding many noble and compassionate feelings. A wise and just ruler might not think it's right to condone this weakness; however, he would generally overlook it or punish it very lightly. In no case would he treat it as a grave crime. Whether Flora Macdonald was justified in hiding the discredited heir of the Stuarts, or whether a brave soldier in modern times was justified in helping Lavalette escape, are questions that may provoke debate among moralists: but to compare such actions to the crimes of Guy Fawkes and Fieschi is an affront to humanity and common sense. Nevertheless, that is how our law categorizes such actions. It's clear that only a lenient approach could make such a state of the law bearable. Moreover, it’s fair to say that for many generations, no English government, except one, has treated with severity those merely guilty of harboring defeated and fleeing insurgents. Women, especially, have been granted, by a kind of unspoken agreement, the right to express compassion amidst chaos and revenge, which is one of their most admirable traits. Since the start of the great civil war, many rebels, some far more significant than Hickes or Nelthorpe, have been shielded from the harshness of victorious governments through the resourcefulness and generosity of women. Yet, no English ruler who has faced such defiance, with the exception of the cruel and unyielding James, has had the barbarity to even think of punishing a lady with a cruel and shameful death for such a minor and admirable offense.

Odious as the law was, it was strained for the purpose of destroying Alice Lisle. She could not, according to the doctrine laid down by the highest authority, be convicted till after the conviction of the rebels whom she had harboured. 443 She was, however, set to the bar before either Hickes or Nelthorpe had been tried. It was no easy matter in such a case to obtain a verdict for the crown. The witnesses prevaricated. The jury, consisting of the principal gentlemen of Hampshire, shrank from the thought of sending a fellow creature to the stake for conduct which seemed deserving rather of praise than of blame. Jeffreys was beside himself with fury. This was the first case of treason on the circuit; and there seemed to be a strong probability that his prey would escape him. He stormed, cursed, and swore in language which no wellbred man would have used at a race or a cockfight. One witness named Dunne, partly from concern for Lady Alice, and partly from fright at the threats and maledictions of the Chief Justice, entirely lost his head, and at last stood silent. "Oh how hard the truth is," said Jeffreys, "to come out of a lying Presbyterian knave." The witness, after a pause of some minutes, stammered a few unmeaning words. "Was there ever," exclaimed the judge, with an oath, "was there ever such a villain on the face of the earth? Dost thou believe that there is a God? Dost thou believe in hell fire. Of all the witnesses that I ever met with I never saw thy fellow." Still the poor man, scared out of his senses, remained mute; and again Jeffreys burst forth. "I hope, gentlemen of the jury, that you take notice of the horrible carriage of this fellow. How can one help abhorring both these men and their religion? A Turk is a saint to such a fellow as this. A Pagan would be ashamed of such villany. Oh blessed Jesus! What a generation of vipers do we live among!" "I cannot tell what to say, my Lord," faltered Dunne. The judge again broke forth into a volley of oaths. "Was there ever," he cried, "such an impudent rascal? Hold the candle to him that we may see his brazen face. You, gentlemen, that are of counsel for the crown, see that an information for perjury be preferred against this fellow." After the witnesses had been thus handled, the Lady Alice was called on for her defence. She began by saying, what may possibly have been true, that though she knew Hickes to be in trouble when she took him in, she did not know or suspect that he had been concerned in the rebellion. He was a divine, a man of peace. It had, therefore, never occurred to her that he could have borne arms against the government; and she had supposed that he wished to conceal himself because warrants were out against him for field preaching. The Chief Justice began to storm. "But I will tell you. There is not one of those lying, snivelling, canting Presbyterians but, one way or another, had a hand in the rebellion. Presbytery has all manner of villany in it. Nothing but Presbytery could have made Dunne such a rogue. Show me a Presbyterian; and I'll show thee a lying knave." He summed up in the same style, declaimed during an hour against Whigs and Dissenters, and reminded the jury that the prisoner's husband had borne a part in the death of Charles the First, a fact which had not been proved by any testimony, and which, if it had been proved, would have been utterly irrelevant to the issue. The jury retired, and remained long in consultation. The judge grew impatient. He could not conceive, he said, how, in so plain a case, they should even have left the box. He sent a messenger to tell them that, if they did not instantly return, he would adjourn the court and lock them up all night. Thus put to the torture, they came, but came to say that they doubted whether the charge had been made out. Jeffreys expostulated with them vehemently, and, after another consultation, they gave a reluctant verdict of Guilty.

As terrible as the law was, it was manipulated to bring down Alice Lisle. According to the highest authority’s doctrine, she couldn’t be convicted until the rebels she had sheltered were convicted first. 443 However, she was put on trial before either Hickes or Nelthorpe had faced judgment. It was difficult to get a verdict for the crown in such a case. The witnesses were evasive. The jury, made up of the leading gentlemen of Hampshire, hesitated at the thought of condemning a fellow human to death for actions that seemed more deserving of praise than blame. Jeffreys was furious. This was the first treason case on the circuit, and it looked likely that his target would slip through his fingers. He raged, cursed, and used language that no gentleman would ever use at a race or a cockfight. One witness named Dunne, worried for Lady Alice and frightened by the threats and curses of the Chief Justice, completely lost his nerve and eventually went silent. "Oh, how hard it is to get the truth from a lying Presbyterian scoundrel," shouted Jeffreys. After several minutes of silence, the witness stumbled out a few meaningless words. "Has there ever been," the judge exclaimed with a curse, "such a villain on the face of the earth? Do you believe there is a God? Do you believe in hellfire? Of all the witnesses I've ever encountered, I've never seen anyone like you." Still terrified, the poor man remained silent; Jeffreys exploded again. "I hope, gentlemen of the jury, you notice how horrible this man is. How can anyone not despise these men and their religion? A Turk is a saint compared to this guy. A Pagan would be ashamed of such wickedness. Oh blessed Jesus! What a generation of snakes we live among!" "I don’t know what to say, my Lord," Dunne stammered. The judge launched into another tirade of curses. "Has there ever been," he yelled, "such a shameless rascal? Hold a candle to him so we can see his brazen face. You, gentlemen, who represent the crown, make sure that a perjury charge is filed against this man." After dealing with the witnesses in this manner, Lady Alice was called to defend herself. She started by stating, which might have been true, that even though she knew Hickes was in trouble when she took him in, she had no idea he was involved in the rebellion. He was a clergyman, a man of peace. So it never occurred to her that he could have fought against the government; she thought he was trying to hide because there were warrants out for his arrest for field preaching. The Chief Justice began to explode. "But let me tell you, not one of those lying, sniveling, sanctimonious Presbyterians didn’t have a hand in the rebellion. Presbytery is filled with all kinds of evil. Nothing but Presbytery could turn Dunne into such a rogue. Show me a Presbyterian, and I’ll show you a liar." He wrapped up in the same manner, ranting for an hour against Whigs and Dissenters, and reminded the jury that the prisoner’s husband had had a role in the death of Charles the First, a claim that had not been substantiated by any evidence, and even if it had been, would have been completely irrelevant to the case. The jury went out and took a long time to deliberate. The judge became impatient. He couldn’t understand, he said, how they could even leave the box in such a clear-cut case. He sent a messenger to inform them that if they didn’t return immediately, he would adjourn the court and keep them locked up all night. Tortured by this threat, they returned, but only to say they were uncertain whether the charge had been proven. Jeffreys vehemently argued with them, and after another deliberation, they reluctantly returned a verdict of Guilty.

On the following morning sentence was pronounced. Jeffreys gave directions that Alice Lisle should be burned alive that very afternoon. This excess of barbarity moved the pity and indignation even of the class which was most devoted to the crown. The clergy of Winchester Cathedral remonstrated with the Chief Justice, who, brutal as he was, was not mad enough to risk a quarrel on such a subject with a body so much respected by the Tory party. He consented to put off the execution five days. During that time the friends of the prisoner besought James to be merciful. Ladies of high rank interceded for her. Feversham, whose recent victory had increased his influence at court, and who, it is said, had been bribed to take the compassionate side, spoke in her favour. Clarendon, the King's brother in law, pleaded her cause. But all was vain. The utmost that could be obtained was that her sentence should be commuted from burning to beheading. She was put to death on a scaffold in the marketplace of Winchester, and underwent her fate with serene courage. 444

On the following morning, the sentence was announced. Jeffreys ordered that Alice Lisle should be burned alive that very afternoon. This cruelty moved even the people who were most loyal to the crown to feel pity and anger. The clergy of Winchester Cathedral protested to the Chief Justice, who, although brutal, wasn’t foolish enough to start a fight on such a matter with a group held in such high regard by the Tory party. He agreed to postpone the execution for five days. During that time, the prisoner's friends pleaded with James to show mercy. Women of high status advocated for her. Feversham, whose recent victory had increased his influence at court and who was rumored to have been bribed to take the sympathetic side, spoke up for her. Clarendon, the King's brother-in-law, argued on her behalf. But it was all in vain. The best they could achieve was to change her sentence from burning to beheading. She was executed on a scaffold in the marketplace of Winchester and faced her fate with calm courage. 444

In Hampshire Alice Lisle was the only victim: but, on the day following her execution, Jeffreys reached Dorchester, the principal town of the county in which Monmouth had landed; and the judicial massacre began. The court was hung, by order of the Chief Justice, with scarlet; and this innovation seemed to the multitude to indicate a bloody purpose. It was also rumoured that, when the clergyman who preached the assize sermon enforced the duty of mercy, the ferocious mouth of the Judge was distorted by an ominous grin. These things made men augur ill of what was to follow. 445

In Hampshire, Alice Lisle was the only victim. However, the day after her execution, Jeffreys arrived in Dorchester, the main town in the county where Monmouth had landed, and the judicial massacre began. The court was draped in scarlet, as ordered by the Chief Justice, and this change seemed to the crowd to suggest a violent intent. It was also rumored that when the clergyman preaching the assize sermon spoke about the importance of mercy, the Judge's fierce face twisted into an unsettling grin. These things led people to predict that bad events were ahead. 445

More than three hundred prisoners were to be tried. The work seemed heavy; but Jeffreys had a contrivance for making it light. He let it be understood that the only chance of obtaining pardon or respite was to plead guilty. Twenty-nine persons, who put themselves on their country and were convicted, were ordered to be tied up without delay. The remaining prisoners pleaded guilty by scores. Two hundred and ninety-two received sentence of death. The whole number hanged in Dorsetshire amounted to seventy-four.

More than three hundred prisoners were set to stand trial. The workload looked overwhelming, but Jeffreys had a way to make it easier. He made it clear that the only way to have a shot at getting a pardon or a break was to plead guilty. Twenty-nine individuals, who chose to put themselves on their country, were quickly sentenced. The rest of the prisoners pleaded guilty by the dozens. Two hundred and ninety-two were sentenced to death. The total number executed in Dorsetshire was seventy-four.

From Dorchester Jeffreys proceeded to Exeter. The civil war had barely grazed the frontier of Devonshire. Here, therefore, comparatively few persons were capitally punished. Somersetshire, the chief seat of the rebellion, had been reserved for the last and most fearful vengeance. In this county two hundred and thirty-three prisoners were in a few days hanged, drawn, and quartered. At every spot where two roads met, on every marketplace, on the green of every large village which had furnished Monmouth with soldiers, ironed corpses clattering in the wind, or heads and quarters stuck on poles, poisoned the air, and made the traveller sick with horror. In many parishes the peasantry could not assemble in the house of God without seeing the ghastly face of a neighbour grinning at them over the porch. The Chief Justice was all himself. His spirits rose higher and higher as the work went on. He laughed, shouted, joked, and swore in such a way that many thought him drunk from morning to night. But in him it was not easy to distinguish the madness produced by evil passions from the madness produced by brandy. A prisoner affirmed that the witnesses who appeared against him were not entitled to credit. One of them, he said, was a Papist, and another a prostitute. "Thou impudent rebel," exclaimed the Judge, "to reflect on the King's evidence! I see thee, villain, I see thee already with the halter round thy neck." Another produced testimony that he was a good Protestant. "Protestant!" said Jeffreys; "you mean Presbyterian. I'll hold you a wager of it. I can smell a Presbyterian forty miles." One wretched man moved the pity even of bitter Tories. "My Lord," they said, "this poor creature is on the parish." "Do not trouble yourselves," said the Judge, "I will ease the parish of the burden." It was not only against the prisoners that his fury broke forth. Gentlemen and noblemen of high consideration and stainless loyalty, who ventured to bring to his notice any extenuating circumstance, were almost sure to receive what he called, in the coarse dialect which he had learned in the pothouses of Whitechapel, a lick with the rough side of his tongue. Lord Stawell, a Tory peer, who could not conceal his horror at the remorseless manner in which his poor neighbours were butchered, was punished by having a corpse suspended in chains at his park gate. 446 In such spectacles originated many tales of terror, which were long told over the cider by the Christmas fires of the farmers of Somersetshire. Within the last forty years, peasants, in some districts, well knew the accursed spots, and passed them unwillingly after sunset. 447

From Dorchester, Jeffreys moved on to Exeter. The civil war had barely touched Devonshire. Because of this, relatively few people faced execution. Somerset, the main center of the rebellion, had been reserved for the last and most brutal punishment. In this county, two hundred and thirty-three prisoners were hanged, drawn, and quartered in just a few days. At every junction, in every marketplace, and on the green of every large village that had supplied soldiers to Monmouth, iron corpses rattled in the wind, or heads and limbs displayed on poles polluted the air and made travelers sick with horror. In many parishes, the peasantry couldn’t gather in the church without seeing a neighbor's ghastly face grinning at them from the porch. The Chief Justice was in his element. His spirits soared higher as the executions continued. He laughed, shouted, joked, and swore in a way that led many to think he was drunk from morning to night. Yet, it was hard to tell whether his madness came from evil passions or from alcohol. One prisoner claimed that the witnesses against him were not credible. He pointed out that one was a Papist and another a prostitute. "You impudent rebel," the Judge exclaimed, "to insult the King’s evidence! I see you, villain, already with a noose around your neck." Another prisoner provided proof that he was a good Protestant. "Protestant!" Jeffreys said; "you mean Presbyterian. I’ll bet you anything. I can smell a Presbyterian from forty miles away." One unfortunate man even evoked the pity of hard-hearted Tories. "My Lord," they said, "this poor soul is a burden to the parish." "Don't worry," the Judge replied, "I’ll relieve the parish of the burden." His wrath wasn’t just directed at the prisoners; gentlemen and nobles of high stature and pure loyalty who dared to suggest any mitigating circumstances were almost guaranteed to receive what he casually referred to, in the crude slang he picked up in Whitechapel taverns, as a tongue-lashing. Lord Stawell, a Tory peer, who couldn't hide his disgust at the relentless killing of his poor neighbors, was punished by having a corpse displayed in chains at his park gate. 446 Such displays gave rise to many terrifying tales that were long recounted over cider by Somersetshire farmers around their Christmas fires. In the last forty years, peasants in some areas were all too familiar with the accursed locations and passed them warily after sunset. 447

Jeffreys boasted that he had hanged more traitors than all his predecessors together since the Conquest. It is certain that the number of persons whom he put to death in one month, and in one shire, very much exceeded the number of all the political offenders who have been put to death in our island since the Revolution. The rebellions of 1715 and 1745 were of longer duration, of wider extent, and of more formidable aspect than that which was put down at Sedgemoor. It has not been generally thought that, either after the rebellion of 1715, or after the rebellion of 1745, the House of Hanover erred on the side of clemency. Yet all the executions of 1715 and 1745 added together will appear to have been few indeed when compared with those which disgraced the Bloody Assizes. The number of the rebels whom Jeffreys hanged on this circuit was three hundred and twenty. 448

Jeffreys bragged that he had hanged more traitors than all his predecessors combined since the Conquest. It's clear that the number of people he executed in just one month and one county greatly exceeded the total number of political offenders executed in our country since the Revolution. The rebellions of 1715 and 1745 lasted longer, were more widespread, and seemed more threatening than the one that was crushed at Sedgemoor. Generally, it hasn't been believed that, after either the 1715 or 1745 rebellion, the House of Hanover was too lenient. However, when you add up all the executions from 1715 and 1745, they seem very few compared to those that marked the Bloody Assizes. The number of rebels Jeffreys hanged during this circuit was three hundred and twenty. 448

Such havoc must have excited disgust even if the sufferers had been generally odious. But they were, for the most part, men of blameless life, and of high religious profession. They were regarded by themselves, and by a large proportion of their neighbours, not as wrongdoers, but as martyrs who sealed with blood the truth of the Protestant religion. Very few of the convicts professed any repentance for what they had done. Many, animated by the old Puritan spirit, met death, not merely with fortitude, but with exultation. It was in vain that the ministers of the Established Church lectured them on the guilt of rebellion and on the importance of priestly absolution. The claim of the King to unbounded authority in things temporal, and the claim of the clergy to the spiritual power of binding and loosing, moved the bitter scorn of the intrepid sectaries. Some of them composed hymns in the dungeon, and chaunted them on the fatal sledge. Christ, they sang while they were undressing for the butchery, would soon come to rescue Zion and to make war on Babylon, would set up his standard, would blow his trumpet, and would requite his foes tenfold for all the evil which had been inflicted on his servants. The dying words of these men were noted down: their farewell letters were kept as treasures; and, in this way, with the help of some invention and exaggeration, was formed a copious supplement to the Marian martyrology. 449

Such chaos must have stirred up disgust, even if the victims were generally despised. But most of them were upstanding individuals with a strong commitment to their faith. They saw themselves, and many of their neighbors did too, not as wrongdoers, but as martyrs who shed their blood for the truth of the Protestant faith. Very few of the condemned showed any remorse for their actions. Many, driven by the old Puritan spirit, faced death not just with courage, but with joy. It was pointless for the ministers of the Established Church to lecture them about the sin of rebellion or the necessity of priestly forgiveness. The King's demand for unlimited authority in worldly matters and the clergy's claim to the spiritual power of binding and loosing were met with scorn by the fearless dissenters. Some even wrote hymns in their cells and sang them as they faced execution. While undressing for their slaughter, they sang that Christ would soon come to save Zion, wage war on Babylon, raise his banner, sound his trumpet, and make their enemies pay tenfold for all the harm done to his followers. The last words of these men were recorded: their farewell letters were cherished as treasures; and thus, with a bit of creativity and embellishment, a rich collection of stories was added to the Marian martyrology. 449

A few eases deserve special mention. Abraham Holmes, a retired officer of the parliamentary army, and one of those zealots who would own no king but King Jesus, had been taken at Sedgemoor. His arm had been frightfully mangled and shattered in the battle; and, as no surgeon was at hand, the stout old soldier amputated it himself. He was carried up to London, and examined by the King in Council, but would make no submission. "I am an aged man," he said, "and what remains to me of life is not worth a falsehood or a baseness. I have always been a republican; and I am so still." He was sent back to the West and hanged. The people remarked with awe and wonder that the beasts which were to drag him to the gallows became restive and went back. Holmes himself doubted not that the Angel of the Lord, as in the old time, stood in the way sword in hand, invisible to human eyes, but visible to the inferior animals. "Stop, gentlemen," he cried: "let me go on foot. There is more in this than you think. Remember how the ass saw him whom the prophet could not see." He walked manfully to the gallows, harangued the people with a smile, prayed fervently that God would hasten the downfall of Antichrist and the deliverance of England, and went up the ladder with an apology for mounting so awkwardly. "You see," he said, "I have but one arm." 450

A few stories deserve special mention. Abraham Holmes, a retired officer from the parliamentary army and one of those zealots who acknowledged no king but King Jesus, was captured at Sedgemoor. His arm had been horribly mangled and shattered in battle, and since no surgeon was available, the tough old soldier amputated it himself. He was taken to London and examined by the King in Council but refused to submit. "I am an old man," he said, "and what remains of my life is not worth a lie or a disgrace. I have always been a republican, and I still am." He was sent back to the West and hanged. People remarked with awe and wonder that the animals meant to drag him to the gallows became restless and turned back. Holmes himself believed that the Angel of the Lord, just like in ancient times, stood in the way with a sword, invisible to human eyes but visible to lesser creatures. "Stop, gentlemen," he cried: "let me walk. There's more to this than you think. Remember how the donkey saw what the prophet could not." He walked bravely to the gallows, addressed the crowd with a smile, fervently prayed that God would speed up the downfall of Antichrist and the liberation of England, and climbed the ladder with an apology for going up so awkwardly. "You see," he said, "I have only one arm." 450

Not less courageously died Christopher Balttiscombe, a young Templar of good family and fortune, who, at Dorchester, an agreeable provincial town proud of its taste and refinement, was regarded by all as the model of a fine gentleman. Great interest was made to save him. It was believed through the West of England that he was engaged to a young lady of gentle blood, the sister of the Sheriff, that she threw herself at the feet of Jeffreys to beg for mercy, and that Jeffreys drove her from him with a jest so hideous that to repeat it would be an offence against decency and humanity. Her lover suffered at Lyme piously and courageously. 451

Not less bravely died Christopher Balttiscombe, a young Templar from a good family and with fortune, who, in Dorchester, a charming provincial town known for its taste and refinement, was seen by everyone as the ideal gentleman. There was a lot of effort to save him. Throughout the West of England, it was believed that he was engaged to a young woman of noble birth, the sister of the Sheriff, who threw herself at Jeffreys' feet to plead for mercy, and Jeffreys drove her away with a joke so foul that repeating it would be a violation of decency and humanity. Her lover faced his fate at Lyme with faith and bravery. 451

A still deeper interest was excited by the fate of two gallant brothers, William and Benjamin Hewling. They were young, handsome, accomplished, and well connected. Their maternal grandfather was named Kiffin. He was one of the first merchants in London, and was generally considered as the head of the Baptists. The Chief Justice behaved to William Hewling on the trial with characteristic brutality. "You have a grandfather," he said, "who deserves to be hanged as richly as you." The poor lad, who was only nineteen, suffered death with so much meekness and fortitude, that an officer of the army who attended the execution, and who had made himself remarkable by rudeness and severity, was strangely melted, and said, "I do not believe that my Lord Chief Justice himself could be proof against this." Hopes were entertained that Benjamin would be pardoned. One victim of tender years was surely enough for one house to furnish. Even Jeffreys was, or pretended to be, inclined to lenity. The truth was that one of his kinsmen, from whom he had large expectations, and whom, therefore, he could not treat as he generally treated intercessors pleaded strongly for the afflicted family. Time was allowed for a reference to London. The sister of the prisoner went to Whitehall with a petition. Many courtiers wished her success; and Churchill, among whose numerous faults cruelty had no place, obtained admittance for her. "I wish well to your suit with all my heart," he said, as they stood together in the antechamber; "but do not flatter yourself with hopes. This marble,"—and he laid his hand on the chimneypiece,—"is not harder than the King." The prediction proved true. James was inexorable. Benjamin Hewling died with dauntless courage, amidst lamentations in which the soldiers who kept guard round the gallows could not refrain from joining. 452

A deeper interest was sparked by the fate of two brave brothers, William and Benjamin Hewling. They were young, handsome, accomplished, and well-connected. Their maternal grandfather, Kiffin, was one of the first merchants in London and was generally seen as the leader of the Baptists. The Chief Justice treated William Hewling with typical brutality during the trial. "You have a grandfather," he said, "who deserves to be hanged just as much as you." The poor boy, who was only nineteen, faced death with such humility and strength that an army officer present at the execution, known for his rudeness and harshness, was unexpectedly moved and remarked, "I don’t think even my Lord Chief Justice could remain unaffected by this." People hoped that Benjamin would be pardoned. One tragic loss for a single family was surely enough. Even Jeffreys seemed, or pretended to be, inclined to mercy. The truth was that one of his relatives, from whom he stood to gain a lot, was advocating strongly for the troubled family. Time was granted for a reference to London. The prisoner’s sister went to Whitehall with a petition. Many courtiers wished her success, and Churchill, who despite his many faults was not cruel, helped her get in. "I truly hope your petition succeeds," he told her as they stood together in the antechamber; "but don’t get your hopes up. This marble,"—he placed his hand on the chimneypiece,—"is not harder than the King." His prediction came true. James was unyielding. Benjamin Hewling faced death with unwavering courage, and even the soldiers guarding the gallows could not help but join in the mourning. 452

Yet those rebels who were doomed to death were less to be pitied than some of the survivors. Several prisoners to whom Jeffreys was unable to bring home the charge of high treason were convicted of misdemeanours, and were sentenced to scourging not less terrible than that which Oates had undergone. A woman for some idle words, such as had been uttered by half the women in the districts where the war had raged, was condemned to be whipped through all the market towns in the county of Dorset. She suffered part of her punishment before Jeffreys returned to London; but, when he was no longer in the West, the gaolers, with the humane connivance of the magistrates, took on themselves the responsibility of sparing her any further torture. A still more frightful sentence was passed on a lad named Tutchin, who was tried for seditious words. He was, as usual, interrupted in his defence by ribaldry and scurrility from the judgment seat. "You are a rebel; and all your family have been rebels Since Adam. They tell me that you are a poet. I'll cap verses with you." The sentence was that the boy should be imprisoned seven years, and should, during that period, be flogged through every market town in Dorsetshire every year. The women in the galleries burst into tears. The clerk of the arraigns stood up in great disorder. "My Lord," said he, "the prisoner is very young. There are many market towns in our county. The sentence amounts to whipping once a fortnight for seven years." "If he is a young man," said Jeffreys, "he is an old rogue. Ladies, you do not know the villain as well as I do. The punishment is not half bad enough for him. All the interest in England shall not alter it." Tutchin in his despair petitioned, and probably with sincerity, that he might be hanged. Fortunately for him he was, just at this conjuncture, taken ill of the smallpox and given over. As it seemed highly improbable that the sentence would ever be executed, the Chief Justice consented to remit it, in return for a bribe which reduced the prisoner to poverty. The temper of Tutchin, not originally very mild, was exasperated to madness by what he had undergone. He lived to be known as one of the most acrimonious and pertinacious enemies of the House of Stuart and of the Tory party. 453

Yet those rebels who were sentenced to death were less deserving of pity than some of the survivors. Several prisoners whom Jeffreys couldn't convict of high treason were found guilty of lesser crimes and were sentenced to brutal floggings, no less severe than what Oates had faced. A woman, for some careless remarks similar to those made by many women in the areas where the war had taken place, was sentenced to be whipped through all the market towns in Dorset. She endured part of her punishment before Jeffreys returned to London, but once he left the West, the jailers, with the kind agreement of the magistrates, decided to spare her any further suffering. An even more horrific sentence was handed down to a young man named Tutchin, who was tried for seditious speech. As usual, he was interrupted during his defense by mockery and insults from the bench. "You are a rebel; your entire family has been rebels since Adam. They tell me you are a poet. I'll out-verse you." The sentence required the boy to be imprisoned for seven years and to be whipped through every market town in Dorset each year. The women in the gallery broke down in tears. The court clerk rose in great distress. "My Lord," he said, "the prisoner is very young. There are many market towns in our county. That means he will be whipped every two weeks for seven years." "If he is young," Jeffreys replied, "he's still a wicked boy. Ladies, you don’t know the rascal like I do. The punishment is nowhere near harsh enough for him. Nothing in England will change that." In his despair, Tutchin pleaded, probably sincerely, that he be hanged. Fortunately for him, he fell ill with smallpox and was given up for dead. Since it seemed unlikely the sentence would ever be carried out, the Chief Justice agreed to dismiss it in exchange for a bribe that left the prisoner destitute. Tutchin’s already volatile temperament was pushed to the edge by what he had suffered. He later became known as one of the most bitter and relentless foes of the House of Stuart and the Tory party. 453

The number of prisoners whom Jeffreys transported was eight hundred and forty-one. These men, more wretched than their associates who suffered death, were distributed into gangs, and bestowed on persons who enjoyed favour at court. The conditions of the gift were that the convicts should be carried beyond sea as slaves, that they should not be emancipated for ten years, and that the place of their banishment should be some West Indian island. This last article was studiously framed for the purpose of aggravating the misery of the exiles. In New England or New Jersey they would have found a population kindly disposed to them and a climate not unfavourable to their health and vigour. It was therefore determined that they should be sent to colonies where a Puritan could hope to inspire little sympathy, and where a labourer born in the temperate zone could hope to enjoy little health. Such was the state of the slave market that these bondmen, long as was the passage, and sickly as they were likely to prove, were still very valuable. It was estimated by Jeffreys that, on an average, each of them, after all charges were paid, would be worth from ten to fifteen pounds. There was therefore much angry competition for grants. Some Tories in the West conceived that they had, by their exertions and sufferings during the insurrection, earned a right to share in the profits which had been eagerly snatched up by the sycophants of Whitehall. The courtiers, however, were victorious. 454

The number of prisoners Jeffreys transported was eight hundred and forty-one. These men, more miserable than their counterparts who faced execution, were divided into groups and given to people favored by the court. The conditions of this arrangement required that the convicts be taken overseas as slaves, that they would not be freed for ten years, and that their place of exile would be a West Indian island. This last condition was deliberately set to increase the suffering of the exiles. In New England or New Jersey, they would have found a community that might have been sympathetic to them and a climate that was not harmful to their health. Thus, it was decided that they should be sent to colonies where a Puritan could expect little compassion and where a laborer from a temperate region could anticipate poor health. The state of the slave market was such that these slaves, despite the long journey and high likelihood of illness, were still considered very valuable. Jeffreys estimated that, on average, each of them would be worth between ten and fifteen pounds after all expenses were accounted for. As a result, there was fierce competition for grants. Some Tories in the West believed that their efforts and sacrifices during the uprising entitled them to a share of the profits that were quickly claimed by the flatterers of Whitehall. However, the courtiers emerged victorious. 454

The misery of the exiles fully equalled that of the negroes who are now carried from Congo to Brazil. It appears from the best information which is at present accessible that more than one fifth of those who were shipped were flung to the sharks before the end of the voyage. The human cargoes were stowed close in the holds of small vessels. So little space was allowed that the wretches, many of whom were still tormented by unhealed wounds, could not all lie down at once without lying on one another. They were never suffered to go on deck. The hatchway was constantly watched by sentinels armed with hangers and blunderbusses. In the dungeon below all was darkness, stench, lamentation, disease and death. Of ninety-nine convicts who were carried out in one vessel, twenty-two died before they reached Jamaica, although the voyage was performed with unusual speed. The survivors when they arrived at their house of bondage were mere skeletons. During some weeks coarse biscuit and fetid water had been doled out to them in such scanty measure that any one of them could easily have consumed the ration which was assigned to five. They were, therefore, in such a state that the merchant to whom they had been consigned found it expedient to fatten them before selling them. 455

The suffering of the exiles was just as terrible as that of the Black individuals who are currently being taken from Congo to Brazil. According to the best information available right now, more than one-fifth of those who were shipped were thrown overboard to the sharks before the end of the voyage. The human cargo was packed tightly in the holds of small ships. There was so little space that many of the unfortunate individuals, some of whom still suffered from untreated wounds, couldn’t lie down at the same time without lying on top of each other. They were never allowed on deck. The hatchway was constantly guarded by sentinels holding swords and guns. In the dark dungeon below, there was nothing but darkness, a horrible smell, crying, disease, and death. Out of ninety-nine convicts transported on one vessel, twenty-two died before reaching Jamaica, even though the voyage was completed unusually quickly. The survivors, when they arrived at their place of bondage, looked like nothing but skeletons. For weeks, they had been given coarse biscuits and filthy water in such small amounts that any one of them could easily have eaten the ration meant for five. They were in such bad shape that the merchant who received them found it necessary to fatten them up before selling them. 455

Meanwhile the property both of the rebels who had suffered death, and of those more unfortunate men who were withering under the tropical sun, was fought for and torn in pieces by a crowd of greedy informers. By law a subject attainted of treason forfeits all his substance; and this law was enforced after the Bloody Assizes with a rigour at once cruel and ludicrous. The brokenhearted widows and destitute orphans of the labouring men whose corpses hung at the cross roads were called upon by the agents of the Treasury to explain what had become of a basket, of a goose, of a flitch of bacon, of a keg of cider, of a sack of beans, of a truss of hay. 456 While the humbler retainers of the government were pillaging the families of the slaughtered peasants, the Chief Justice was fast accumulating a fortune out of the plunder of a higher class of Whigs. He traded largely in pardons. His most lucrative transaction of this kind was with a gentleman named Edmund Prideaux. It is certain that Prideaux had not been in arms against the government; and it is probable that his only crime was the wealth which he had inherited from his father, an eminent lawyer who had been high in office under the Protector. No exertions were spared to make out a case for the crown. Mercy was offered to some prisoners on condition that they would bear evidence against Prideaux. The unfortunate man lay long in gaol and at length, overcome by fear of the gallows, consented to pay fifteen thousand pounds for his liberation. This great sum was received by Jeffreys. He bought with it an estate, to which the people gave the name of Aceldama, from that accursed field which was purchased with the price of innocent blood. 457

Meanwhile, the property of both the rebels who had died and those unfortunate men suffering under the tropical sun was fought over and torn apart by a crowd of greedy informers. By law, a person convicted of treason loses all their possessions; and this law was enforced after the Bloody Assizes with a brutality that was both cruel and ridiculous. The heartbroken widows and destitute orphans of the laboring men whose bodies hung at the crossroads were called upon by Treasury agents to explain what had happened to a basket, a goose, a side of bacon, a keg of cider, a sack of beans, a bundle of hay. 456 While the lower-level government officials were raiding the families of the slaughtered peasants, the Chief Justice was quickly amassing a fortune from the plunder of a higher class of Whigs. He made significant profits by selling pardons. His most profitable deal of this kind was with a man named Edmund Prideaux. It is certain that Prideaux had not taken up arms against the government; and it is likely that his only crime was the wealth he inherited from his father, a well-known lawyer who had been an important official under the Protector. No efforts were spared to fabricate a case for the crown. Mercy was offered to some prisoners on the condition that they would testify against Prideaux. The unfortunate man remained in jail for a long time and, ultimately overcome by fear of the gallows, agreed to pay fifteen thousand pounds for his freedom. This large sum was received by Jeffreys. He used it to buy an estate, which the people named Aceldama, after that cursed field purchased with the price of innocent blood. 457

He was ably assisted in the work of extortion by the crew of parasites who were in the habit of drinking and laughing with him. The office of these men was to drive hard bargains with convicts under the strong terrors of death, and with parents trembling for the lives of children. A portion of the spoil was abandoned by Jeffreys to his agents. To one of his boon companions, it is said he tossed a pardon for a rich traitor across the table during a revel. It was not safe to have recourse to any intercession except that of his creatures, for he guarded his profitable monopoly of mercy with jealous care. It was even suspected that he sent some persons to the gibbet solely because they had applied for the royal clemency through channels independent of him. 458

He was effectively supported in his extortion efforts by a group of freeloaders who regularly drank and joked with him. Their job was to negotiate tough deals with convicts under the imminent threat of death, and with parents panicking over the fates of their children. Jeffreys shared part of the profits with his associates. It's said that during one of their parties, he casually tossed a pardon for a wealthy traitor across the table to one of his drinking buddies. It wasn't safe to seek any help other than from his associates, as he fiercely protected his lucrative hold on mercy. There were even suspicions that he condemned some people to execution simply because they sought royal pardon through avenues he didn't control. 458

Some courtiers nevertheless contrived to obtain a small share of this traffic. The ladies of the Queen's household distinguished themselves preeminently by rapacity and hardheartedness. Part of the disgrace which they incurred falls on their mistress: for it was solely on account of the relation in which they stood to her that they were able to enrich themselves by so odious a trade; and there can be no question that she might with a word or a look have restrained them. But in truth she encouraged them by her evil example, if not by her express approbation. She seems to have been one of that large class of persons who bear adversity better than prosperity. While her husband was a subject and an exile, shut out from public employment, and in imminent danger of being deprived of his birthright, the suavity and humility of her manners conciliated the kindness even of those who most abhorred her religion. But when her good fortune came her good nature disappeared. The meek and affable Duchess turned out an ungracious and haughty Queen. 459 The misfortunes which she subsequently endured have made her an object of some interest; but that interest would be not a little heightened if it could be shown that, in the season of her greatness, she saved, or even tried to save, one single victim from the most frightful proscription that England has ever seen. Unhappily the only request that she is known to have preferred touching the rebels was that a hundred of those who were sentenced to transportation might be given to her. 460 The profit which she cleared on the cargo, after making large allowance for those who died of hunger and fever during the passage, cannot be estimated at less than a thousand guineas. We cannot wonder that her attendants should have imitated her unprincely greediness and her unwomanly cruelty. They exacted a thousand pounds from Roger Hoare, a merchant of Bridgewater; who had contributed to the military chest of the rebel army. But the prey on which they pounced most eagerly was one which it might have been thought that even the most ungentle natures would have spared. Already some of the girls who had presented the standard to Monmouth at Taunton had cruelly expiated their offence. One of them had been thrown into prison where an infectious malady was raging. She had sickened and died there. Another had presented herself at the bar before Jeffreys to beg for mercy. "Take her, gaoler," vociferated the Judge, with one of those frowns which had often struck terror into stouter hearts than hers. She burst into tears, drew her hood over her face, followed the gaoler out of the court, fell ill of fright, and in a few hours was a corpse. Most of the young ladies, however, who had walked in the procession were still alive. Some of them were under ten years of age. All had acted under the orders of their schoolmistress, without knowing that they were committing a crime. The Queen's maids of honour asked the royal permission to wring money out of the parents of the poor children; and the permission was granted. An order was sent down to Taunton that all these little girls should be seized and imprisoned. Sir Francis Warre of Hestercombe, the Tory member for Bridgewater, was requested to undertake the office of exacting the ransom. He was charged to declare in strong language that the maids of honour would not endure delay, that they were determined to prosecute to outlawry, unless a reasonable sum were forthcoming, and that by a reasonable sum was meant seven thousand pounds. Warre excused himself from taking any part in a transaction so scandalous. The maids of honour then requested William Penn to act for them; and Penn accepted the commission. Yet it should seem that a little of the pertinacious scrupulosity which he had often shown about taking off his hat would not have been altogether out of place on this occasion. He probably silenced the remonstrances of his conscience by repeating to himself that none of the money which he extorted would go into his own pocket; that if he refused to be the agent of the ladies they would find agents less humane; that by complying he should increase his influence at the court, and that his influence at the court had already enabled him, and still might enable him, to render great services to his oppressed brethren. The maids of honour were at last forced to content themselves with less than a third part of what they had demanded. 461

Some courtiers still managed to get a small piece of this action. The ladies of the Queen's household stood out for their greed and callousness. Part of the shame they brought upon themselves reflects back on their mistress; it was only because of their connection to her that they could profit from such a vile trade, and it’s clear she could have stopped them with just a word or a glance. But honestly, she seemed to encourage them by her bad example, if not by her outright approval. She appeared to be one of those people who handle misfortune better than success. While her husband was a subject and an exile, cut off from public positions and at risk of losing his birthright, her charm and humility won over even those who most detested her faith. However, when her luck changed, her kindness vanished. The humble and friendly Duchess became an ungracious and arrogant Queen. 459 The setbacks she later faced generated some interest, but that interest would be even greater if it could be shown that during her time of glory, she saved, or even tried to save, just one victim from the most horrific persecution England has ever seen. Unfortunately, the only request she is known to have made about the rebels was that a hundred of those who were sentenced to transportation be given to her. 460 The profit she made from this shipment, accounting for those who died of hunger and disease during the journey, is estimated to be no less than a thousand guineas. It’s no surprise that her attendants would mimic her unroyal greed and her unwomanly cruelty. They extorted a thousand pounds from Roger Hoare, a merchant from Bridgewater, who supported the rebel army financially. But the target they showed the most eagerness to exploit was one that even the harshest people might have spared. Some of the girls who had presented the flag to Monmouth at Taunton had already paid dearly for their actions. One was thrown into a prison where an epidemic was spreading. She fell ill and died there. Another appeared before Jeffreys to plead for mercy. "Take her, jailer," the Judge shouted, wearing one of those intimidating frowns that had frightened even braver souls than hers. She burst into tears, covered her face with her hood, followed the jailer out of the court, became ill from fear, and within hours was dead. Most of the young ladies who had participated in the procession, however, were still alive. Some of them were under ten years old. All had acted under the orders of their teacher, unaware they were committing a crime. The Queen's maids of honor requested royal approval to extort money from the parents of the unfortunate children, and their request was granted. An order was sent to Taunton for the immediate capture and imprisonment of these little girls. Sir Francis Warre of Hestercombe, the Tory MP for Bridgewater, was asked to carry out the task of collecting the ransom. He was instructed to strongly state that the maids of honor would not tolerate delay and were determined to pursue outlawry unless a reasonable amount was paid, which they meant as seven thousand pounds. Warre refused to take part in such a scandalous affair. The maids of honor then turned to William Penn for help, and he accepted their request. Yet it seems a bit of the stubborn scruples he often exhibited about removing his hat wouldn’t have been out of place here. He likely quieted his conscience by convincing himself that none of the money he collected would go into his own pockets; that if he turned down being the ladies' agent, they would find less compassionate agents; that by complying, he would boost his influence at court, and that his influence had already allowed him to help his oppressed community and could continue to do so. In the end, the maids of honor had to settle for less than a third of what they'd originally demanded. 461

No English sovereign has ever given stronger proof of a cruel nature than James the Second. Yet his cruelty was not more odious than his mercy. Or perhaps it may be more correct to say that his mercy and his cruelty were such that each reflects infamy on the other. Our horror at the fate of the simple clowns, the young lads, the delicate women, to whom he was inexorably severe, is increased when we find to whom and for what considerations he granted his pardon.

No English king has ever shown a more cruel nature than James the Second. Yet his mercy was just as repulsive as his cruelty. Or it might be more accurate to say that his mercy and cruelty were such that each one highlights the disgrace of the other. Our horror at the fate of the naive commoners, the young men, and the gentle women, to whom he was relentlessly harsh, grows when we see to whom and for what reasons he chose to grant his pardon.

The rule by which a prince ought, after a rebellion, to be guided in selecting rebels for punishment is perfectly obvious. The ringleaders, the men of rank, fortune, and education, whose power and whose artifices have led the multitude into error, are the proper objects of severity. The deluded populace, when once the slaughter on the field of battle is over, can scarcely be treated too leniently. This rule, so evidently agreeable to justice and humanity, was not only not observed: it was inverted. While those who ought to have been spared were slaughtered by hundreds, the few who might with propriety have been left to the utmost rigour of the law were spared. This eccentric clemency has perplexed some writers, and has drawn forth ludicrous eulogies from others. It was neither at all mysterious nor at all praiseworthy. It may be distinctly traced in every case either to a sordid or to a malignant motive, either to thirst for money or to thirst for blood.

The guideline a prince should follow after a rebellion when deciding who to punish is quite clear. The leaders, the influential individuals with wealth and education, whose power and schemes have misled the masses, should face the harshest consequences. The misguided public, once the fighting is over, should be treated with leniency. This guideline, which aligns with justice and compassion, was not only ignored but turned upside down. Instead of sparing those who should have been protected, they were killed by the hundreds, while the few who could have justifiably faced the full force of the law were let off. This unusual mercy has puzzled some writers and led to ridiculous praise from others. In reality, it was neither mysterious nor commendable. It can clearly be attributed in every case to either a greedy or a cruel motive, a desire for money or a thirst for blood.

In the case of Grey there was no mitigating circumstance. His parts and knowledge, the rank which he had inherited in the state, and the high command which he had borne in the rebel army, would have pointed him out to a just government as a much fitter object of punishment than Alice Lisle, than William Hewling, than any of the hundreds of ignorant peasants whose skulls and quarters were exposed in Somersetshire. But Grey's estate was large and was strictly entailed. He had only a life interest in his property; and he could forfeit no more interest than he had. If he died, his lands at once devolved on the next heir. If he were pardoned, he would be able to pay a large ransom. He was therefore suffered to redeem himself by giving a bond for forty thousand pounds to the Lord Treasurer, and smaller sums to other courtiers. 462

In Grey's case, there were no extenuating circumstances. His abilities and knowledge, the rank he held in the state, and the high position he had occupied in the rebel army made him a much more suitable target for punishment by a fair government than Alice Lisle, William Hewling, or any of the many uneducated peasants whose bodies were displayed in Somersetshire. However, Grey's estate was substantial and strictly inherited. He only had a life interest in his property; he couldn't lose more than he owned. If he died, his lands would immediately pass to the next heir. If he was pardoned, he could afford to pay a hefty ransom. As a result, he was allowed to redeem himself by providing a bond for forty thousand pounds to the Lord Treasurer, along with smaller amounts to other courtiers. 462

Sir John Cochrane had held among the Scotch rebels the same rank which had been held by Grey in the West of England. That Cochrane should be forgiven by a prince vindictive beyond all example, seemed incredible. But Cochrane was the younger son of a rich family; it was therefore only by sparing him that money could be made out of him. His father, Lord Dundonald, offered a bribe of five thousand pounds to the priests of the royal household; and a pardon was granted. 463

Sir John Cochrane held the same position among the Scottish rebels that Grey held in the West of England. It seemed unbelievable that a prince known for his extreme vindictiveness would forgive Cochrane. However, Cochrane was the younger son of a wealthy family, so sparing him meant that money could be made from him. His father, Lord Dundonald, offered a bribe of five thousand pounds to the priests of the royal household, and a pardon was granted. 463

Samuel Storey, a noted sower of sedition, who had been Commissary to the rebel army, and who had inflamed the ignorant populace of Somersetshire by vehement harangues in which James had been described as an incendiary and a poisoner, was admitted to mercy. For Storey was able to give important assistance to Jeffreys in wringing fifteen thousand pounds out of Prideaux. 464

Samuel Storey, a well-known instigator of rebellion who had served as Commissary to the rebel army and had stirred up the uninformed people of Somersetshire with fiery speeches calling James an arsonist and a poisoner, was granted mercy. Storey was able to help Jeffreys significantly by extracting fifteen thousand pounds from Prideaux. 464

None of the traitors had less right to expect favour than Wade, Goodenough, and Ferguson. These three chiefs of the rebellion had fled together from the field of Sedgemoor, and had reached the coast in safety. But they had found a frigate cruising near the spot where they had hoped to embark. They had then separated. Wade and Goodenough were soon discovered and brought up to London. Deeply as they had been implicated in the Rye House plot, conspicuous as they had been among the chiefs of the Western insurrection, they were suffered to live, because they had it in their power to give information which enabled the King to slaughter and plunder some persons whom he hated, but to whom he had never yet been able to bring home any crime. 465

None of the traitors had any less reason to expect favor than Wade, Goodenough, and Ferguson. These three leaders of the rebellion had escaped together from the battlefield at Sedgemoor and made it to the coast safely. However, they discovered a frigate patrolling the area where they had planned to board. They then split up. Wade and Goodenough were quickly found and taken to London. Even though they were heavily involved in the Rye House plot and were prominent among the leaders of the Western uprising, they were allowed to live because they could provide information that enabled the King to execute and steal from some people he despised, but whom he had never managed to accuse of any crime. 465

How Ferguson escaped was, and still is, a mystery. Of all the enemies of the government he was, without doubt, the most deeply criminal. He was the original author of the plot for assassinating the royal brothers. He had written that Declaration which, for insolence, malignity, and mendacity, stands unrivalled even among the libels of those stormy times. He had instigated Monmouth first to invade the kingdom, and then to usurp the crown. It was reasonable to expect that a strict search would be made for the archtraitor, as he was often called; and such a search a man of so singular an aspect and dialect could scarcely have eluded. It was confidently reported in the coffee houses of London that Ferguson was taken, and this report found credit with men who had excellent opportunities of knowing the truth. The next thing that was heard of him was that he was safe on the Continent. It was strongly suspected that he had been in constant communication with the government against which he was constantly plotting, that he had, while urging his associates to every excess of rashness sent to Whitehall just so much information about their proceedings as might suffice to save his own neck, and that therefore orders had been given to let him escape. 466

How Ferguson escaped remains a mystery. Out of all the government’s enemies, he was definitely the most dangerously criminal. He was the mastermind behind the plot to assassinate the royal brothers. He wrote that Declaration which, for its arrogance, malice, and dishonesty, is unmatched even among the slanders of those turbulent times. He was the one who first urged Monmouth to invade the kingdom and then to seize the crown. It was reasonable to assume that a thorough search would be conducted for the archtraitor, as he was often called; and a man with such a unique appearance and speech could hardly have slipped through the cracks. Reports in London’s coffeehouses confidently stated that Ferguson had been captured, and this was believed by people who had good reason to know the truth. The next news of him was that he was safe on the Continent. There were strong suspicions that he had been in constant contact with the government he was always scheming against, and that while pushing his associates towards reckless actions, he had sent just enough information to Whitehall about their plans to save his own skin, leading to orders for his escape. 466

And now Jeffreys had done his work, and returned to claim his reward. He arrived at Windsor from the West, leaving carnage, mourning, and terror behind him. The hatred with which he was regarded by the people of Somersetshire has no parallel in our history. It was not to be quenched by time or by political changes, was long transmitted from generation to generation, and raged fiercely against his innocent progeny. When he had been many years dead, when his name and title were extinct, his granddaughter, the Countess of Pomfret, travelling along the western road, was insulted by the populace, and found that she could not safely venture herself among the descendants of those who had witnessed the Bloody Assizes. 467

And now Jeffreys had done his job and returned to claim his reward. He arrived at Windsor from the west, leaving destruction, grief, and fear in his wake. The hatred the people of Somersetshire had for him is unmatched in our history. It couldn’t be erased by time or political changes; it was passed down through generations and burned fiercely against his innocent descendants. Many years after his death, when his name and title were forgotten, his granddaughter, the Countess of Pomfret, traveling along the western road, was insulted by the locals and realized she couldn’t safely be among the descendants of those who had witnessed the Bloody Assizes. 467

But at the Court Jeffreys was cordially welcomed. He was a judge after his master's own heart. James had watched the circuit with interest and delight. In his drawingroom and at his table he had frequently talked of the havoc which was making among his disaffected subjects with a glee at which the foreign ministers stood aghast. With his own hand he had penned accounts of what he facetiously called his Lord Chief Justice's campaign in the West. Some hundreds of rebels, His Majesty wrote to the Hague, had been condemned. Some of them had been hanged: more should be hanged: and the rest should be sent to the plantations. It was to no purpose that Ken wrote to implore mercy for the misguided people, and described with pathetic eloquence the frightful state of his diocese. He complained that it was impossible to walk along the highways without seeing some terrible spectacle, and that the whole air of Somersetshire was tainted with death. The King read, and remained, according to the saying of Churchill, hard as the marble chimneypieces of Whitehall. At Windsor the great seal of England was put into the hands of Jeffreys and in the next London Gazette it was solemnly notified that this honour was the reward of the many eminent and faithful services which he had rendered to the crown. 468

But at the court, Jeffreys was warmly welcomed. He was a judge after his master's own heart. James had observed the circuit with interest and delight. In his drawing room and at his table, he frequently mentioned the chaos being caused among his disaffected subjects, which left the foreign ministers stunned. With his own hand, he had written accounts of what he jokingly referred to as his Lord Chief Justice's campaign in the West. Some hundreds of rebels, His Majesty wrote to The Hague, had been condemned. Some had been hanged: more should be hanged: and the rest would be sent to the plantations. It was pointless for Ken to write, pleading for mercy for the misguided people, describing in moving words the horrifying state of his diocese. He lamented that it was impossible to walk along the highways without witnessing some terrible sight, and that the whole air of Somersetshire was filled with death. The King read, and remained, according to Churchill, as unyielding as the marble chimneypieces of Whitehall. At Windsor, the great seal of England was placed in Jeffreys' hands, and in the next London Gazette, it was officially announced that this honor was the reward for the many distinguished and loyal services he had provided to the crown. 468

At a later period, when all men of all parties spoke with horror of the Bloody Assizes, the wicked Judge and the wicked King attempted to vindicate themselves by throwing the blame on each other. Jeffreys, in the Tower, protested that, in his utmost cruelty, he had not gone beyond his master's express orders, nay, that he had fallen short of them. James, at Saint Germain's would willingly have had it believed that his own inclinations had been on the side of clemency, and that unmerited obloquy had been brought on him by the violence of his minister. But neither of these hardhearted men must be absolved at the expense of the other. The plea set up for James can be proved under his own hand to be false in fact. The plea of Jeffreys, even if it be true in fact, is utterly worthless.

Later on, when people from all sides were horrified by the Bloody Assizes, the cruel Judge and the cruel King tried to clear their names by blaming each other. Jeffreys, in the Tower, insisted that, despite his extreme cruelty, he hadn’t gone beyond his master's direct orders, and in fact, he had held back. James, at Saint Germain's, would have liked everyone to believe that he had wanted to show mercy, and that he was unfairly criticized because of the actions of his minister. But neither of these cold-hearted men can be excused by blaming the other. The defense James put forward can be proven false based on his own writings. Jeffreys's defense, even if factually true, is completely worthless.

The slaughter in the West was over. The slaughter in London was about to begin. The government was peculiarly desirous to find victims among the great Whig merchants of the City. They had, in the last reign, been a formidable part of the strength of the opposition. They were wealthy; and their wealth was not, like that of many noblemen and country gentlemen, protected by entail against forfeiture. In the case of Grey and of men situated like him, it was impossible to gratify cruelty and rapacity at once; but a rich trader might be both hanged and plundered. The commercial grandees, however, though in general hostile to Popery and to arbitrary power, had yet been too scrupulous or too timid to incur the guilt of high treason. One of the most considerable among them was Henry Cornish. He had been an Alderman under the old charter of the City, and had filled the office of Sheriff when the question of the Exclusion Bill occupied the public mind. In politics he was a Whig: his religious opinions leaned towards Presbyterianism: but his temper was cautious and moderate. It is not proved by trustworthy evidence that he ever approached the verge of treason. He had, indeed, when Sheriff, been very unwilling to employ as his deputy a man so violent and unprincipled as Goodenough. When the Rye House plot was discovered, great hopes were entertained at Whitehall that Cornish would appear to have been concerned: but these hopes were disappointed. One of the conspirators, indeed, John Rumsey, was ready to swear anything: but a single witness was not sufficient; and no second witness could be found. More than two years had since elapsed. Cornish thought himself safe; but the eye of the tyrant was upon him. Goodenough, terrified by the near prospect of death, and still harbouring malice on account of the unfavourable opinion which had always been entertained of him by his old master, consented to supply the testimony which had hitherto been wanting. Cornish was arrested while transacting business on the Exchange, was hurried to gaol, was kept there some days in solitary confinement, and was brought altogether unprepared to the bar of the Old Bailey. The case against him rested wholly on the evidence of Rumsey and Goodenough. Both were, by their own confession accomplices in the plot with which they charged the prisoner. Both were impelled by the strongest pressure of hope end fear to criminate him. Evidence was produced which proved that Goodenough was also under the influence of personal enmity. Rumsey's story was inconsistent with the story which he had told when he appeared as a witness against Lord Russell. But these things were urged in vain. On the bench sate three judges who had been with Jeffreys in the West; and it was remarked by those who watched their deportment that they had come back from the carnage of Taunton in a fierce and excited state. It is indeed but too true that the taste for blood is a taste which even men not naturally cruel may, by habit, speedily acquire. The bar and the bench united to browbeat the unfortunate Whig. The jury, named by a courtly Sheriff, readily found a verdict of Guilty; and, in spite of the indignant murmurs of the public, Cornish suffered death within ten days after he had been arrested. That no circumstance of degradation might be wanting, the gibbet was set up where King Street meets Cheapside, in sight of the house where he had long lived in general respect, of the Exchange where his credit had always stood high, and of the Guildhall where he had distinguished himself as a popular leader. He died with courage and with many pious expressions, but showed, by look and gesture, such strong resentment at the barbarity and injustice with which he had been treated, that his enemies spread a calumnious report concerning him. He was drunk, they said, or out of his mind, when he was turned off. William Penn, however, who stood near the gallows, and whose prejudice were all on the side of the government, afterwards said that he could see in Cornish's deportment nothing but the natural indignation of an innocent man slain under the forms of law. The head of the murdered magistrate was placed over the Guildhall. 469

The massacre in the West was done. The massacre in London was about to start. The government was particularly eager to find victims among the wealthy Whig merchants of the City. They had been a significant part of the opposition's power in the previous reign. They were rich, and their wealth wasn't protected by entailed rights like that of many noblemen and country gentry, which meant it could be seized. In the case of Grey and others like him, it was impossible to satisfy both cruelty and greed at the same time; however, a rich trader could be both executed and robbed. The wealthy merchants, though generally opposed to Catholicism and absolute power, had been either too cautious or too fearful to commit high treason. One of the most notable among them was Henry Cornish. He had served as an Alderman under the old City charter and was Sheriff during the controversy surrounding the Exclusion Bill. Politically, he identified as a Whig; his religious views leaned towards Presbyterianism, but he was cautious and moderate by nature. There was no reliable evidence that he ever approached treason. In fact, when he was Sheriff, he was unwilling to appoint a deputy as reckless and unscrupulous as Goodenough. When the Rye House plot was uncovered, there were high hopes at Whitehall that Cornish would prove to be involved, but those hopes were dashed. One of the conspirators, John Rumsey, was ready to testify to anything, but one witness was insufficient, and no second witness could be found. More than two years had passed since then. Cornish believed he was safe, but the tyrant was watching him. Goodenough, terrified by the looming threat of death and still resentful because of the negative view his former boss held of him, agreed to provide the testimony that had previously been lacking. Cornish was arrested while conducting business on the Exchange, rushed to jail, kept in solitary confinement for several days, and brought to the Old Bailey completely unprepared. The case against him was entirely based on the testimonies of Rumsey and Goodenough. Both admitted to being accomplices in the plot they accused the defendant of. They were driven by extreme hope and fear to incriminate him. Evidence was presented showing that Goodenough was also motivated by personal animosity. Rumsey's account was inconsistent with what he had said when he testified against Lord Russell. But these points were ignored. On the bench sat three judges who had been with Jeffreys in the West, and those observing noted that they returned from the slaughter at Taunton in a fierce and agitated state. It’s sadly true that the thirst for blood is something that even normally kind individuals can quickly develop through habit. The prosecution and the judges collaborated to intimidate the unfortunate Whig. The jury, appointed by a sycophantic Sheriff, quickly delivered a verdict of Guilty; and despite the furious protests from the public, Cornish was executed within ten days after his arrest. To ensure that no element of humiliation was missing, the gallows were erected where King Street meets Cheapside, in sight of the house where he had lived in respect for many years, the Exchange where his reputation was always strong, and the Guildhall where he had made a name for himself as a popular leader. He faced death bravely and uttered many pious sentiments, but he also displayed strong resentment through his demeanor at the brutality and unfairness he had faced, prompting his enemies to spread false claims about him. They claimed he was drunk or insane when he was executed. However, William Penn, who stood near the gallows and was biased in favor of the government, later remarked that he saw nothing in Cornish’s behavior except the genuine indignation of an innocent man wrongfully killed under the law. The head of the executed magistrate was displayed above the Guildhall. 469

Black as this case was, it was not the blackest which disgraced the sessions of that autumn at the Old Bailey. Among the persons concerned in the Rye House plot was a man named James Burton. By his own confession he had been present when the design of assassination was discussed by his accomplices. When the conspiracy was detected, a reward was offered for his apprehension. He was saved from death by an ancient matron of the Baptist persuasion, named Elizabeth Gaunt. This woman, with the peculiar manners and phraseology which then distinguished her sect, had a large charity. Her life was passed in relieving the unhappy of all religious denominations, and she was well known as a constant visitor of the gaols. Her political and theological opinions, as well as her compassionate disposition, led her to do everything in her power for Burton. She procured a boat which took him to Gravesend, where he got on board of a ship bound for Amsterdam. At the moment of parting she put into his hand a sum of money which, for her means, was very large. Burton, after living some time in exile, returned to England with Monmouth, fought at Sedgemoor, fled to London, and took refuge in the house of John Fernley, a barber in Whitechapel. Fernley was very poor. He was besieged by creditors. He knew that a reward of a hundred pounds had been offered by the government for the apprehension of Burton. But the honest man was incapable of betraying one who, in extreme peril, had come under the shadow of his roof. Unhappily it was soon noised abroad that the anger of James was more strongly excited against those who harboured rebels than against the rebels themselves. He had publicly declared that of all forms of treason the hiding of traitors from his vengeance was the most unpardonable. Burton knew this. He delivered himself up to the government; and he gave information against Fernley and Elizabeth Gaunt. They were brought to trial. The villain whose life they had preserved had the heart and the forehead to appear as the principal witness against them. They were convicted. Fernley was sentenced to the gallows, Elizabeth Gaunt to the stake. Even after all the horrors of that year, many thought it impossible that these judgments should be carried into execution. But the King was without pity. Fernley was hanged. Elizabeth Gaunt was burned alive at Tyburn on the same day on which Cornish suffered death in Cheapside. She left a paper written, indeed, in no graceful style, yet such as was read by many thousands with compassion and horror. "My fault," she said, "was one which a prince might well have forgiven. I did but relieve a poor family; and lo! I must die for it." She complained of the insolence of the judges, of the ferocity of the gaoler, and of the tyranny of him, the great one of all, to whose pleasure she and so many other victims had been sacrificed. In so far as they had injured herself, she forgave them: but, in that they were implacable enemies of that good cause which would yet revive and flourish, she left them to the judgment of the King of Kings. To the last she preserved a tranquil courage, which reminded the spectators of the most heroic deaths of which they had read in Fox. William Penn, for whom exhibitions which humane men generally avoid seem to have had a strong attraction, hastened from Cheapside, where he had seen Cornish hanged, to Tyburn, in order to see Elizabeth Gaunt burned. He afterwards related that, when she calmly disposed the straw about her in such a manner as to shorten her sufferings, all the bystanders burst into tears. It was much noticed that, while the foulest judicial murder which had disgraced even those times was perpetrating, a tempest burst forth, such as had not been known since that great hurricane which had raged round the deathbed of Oliver. The oppressed Puritans reckoned up, not without a gloomy satisfaction the houses which had been blown down, and the ships which had been cast away, and derived some consolation from thinking that heaven was bearing awful testimony against the iniquity which afflicted the earth. Since that terrible day no woman has suffered death in England for any political offence. 470

As dark as this case was, it wasn't the darkest that tainted the sessions that autumn at the Old Bailey. Involved in the Rye House plot was a man named James Burton. He confessed to being present when the plan for assassination was discussed by his fellow conspirators. When the conspiracy was uncovered, a reward was offered for his capture. He was saved from execution by an elderly woman of the Baptist faith, named Elizabeth Gaunt. With her distinctive manners and speech typical of her sect, she was very charitable. She spent her life helping the unfortunate from all religious backgrounds and was well-known for frequently visiting prisons. Her political and theological beliefs, along with her compassionate nature, motivated her to do everything she could for Burton. She arranged for a boat to take him to Gravesend, where he boarded a ship bound for Amsterdam. At the moment of farewell, she gave him a significant sum of money, which was considerable for her means. After living in exile for some time, Burton returned to England with Monmouth, fought at Sedgemoor, fled to London, and took refuge in the home of John Fernley, a poor barber in Whitechapel. Fernley was struggling with debt and knew a reward of one hundred pounds had been offered by the government for Burton's capture. However, the honest man couldn't betray someone who had sought refuge under his roof in such dire circumstances. Unfortunately, it soon became known that James's wrath was greater towards those hiding rebels than towards the rebels themselves. He publicly stated that among all forms of treason, concealing traitors from his wrath was the most unforgivable. Burton was aware of this and turned himself in to the government, informing them about Fernley and Elizabeth Gaunt. They were put on trial, and the scoundrel whose life they had saved had the audacity to testify against them. They were found guilty. Fernley was sentenced to hang, and Elizabeth Gaunt was to be burned at the stake. Despite the horrors of that year, many couldn't believe these sentences would be carried out. But the King showed no mercy. Fernley was hanged, and Elizabeth Gaunt was burned alive at Tyburn on the same day Cornish was executed in Cheapside. She left behind a letter, written in a straightforward style, which many thousands read with compassion and horror. "My crime," she wrote, "was one that a prince could have easily forgiven. I only helped a poor family; yet here I am, facing death for it." She criticized the judges' arrogance, the gaoler's cruelty, and the tyranny of the powerful figure who had condemned her and many other victims. She forgave them for any personal offense but left them in the hands of the King of Kings for being relentless enemies of the righteous cause that would rise again. Until the end, she maintained a calm courage that reminded the spectators of the most heroic deaths they had read about in Fox's book. William Penn, who seemed drawn to displays that most people avoid, hurried from Cheapside, where he had witnessed Cornish's hanging, to Tyburn to see Elizabeth Gaunt burned. He later recounted that when she calmly arranged the straw around her to ease her suffering, all the onlookers burst into tears. It was noted that while the most heinous judicial murder from those times was taking place, a storm broke out unlike any seen since the great hurricane that surrounded Oliver's deathbed. The oppressed Puritans took a grim satisfaction in counting the houses that had been destroyed and the ships lost, finding some comfort in believing that heaven was sending a terrible message against the injustice that plagued the earth. Since that dreadful day, no woman has been executed in England for any political crime. 470

It was not thought that Goodenough had yet earned his pardon. The government was bent on destroying a victim of no high rank, a surgeon in the City, named Bateman. He had attended Shaftesbury professionally, and had been a zealous Exclusionist. He may possibly have been privy to the Whig plot; but it is certain that he had not been one of the leading conspirators; for, in the great mass of depositions published by the government, his name occurs only once, and then not in connection with any crime bordering on high treason. From his indictment, and from the scanty account which remains of his trial, it seems clear that he was not even accused of participating in the design of murdering the royal brothers. The malignity with which so obscure a man, guilty of so slight an offence, was hunted down, while traitors far more criminal and far more eminent were allowed to ransom themselves by giving evidence against him, seemed to require explanation; and a disgraceful explanation was found. When Oates, after his scourging, was carried into Newgate insensible, and, as all thought, in the last agony, he had been bled and his wounds had been dressed by Bateman. This was an offence not to be forgiven. Bateman was arrested and indicted. The witnesses against him were men of infamous character, men, too, who were swearing for their own lives. None of them had yet got his pardon; and it was a popular saying, that they fished for prey, like tame cormorants, with ropes round their necks. The prisoner, stupefied by illness, was unable to articulate, or to understand what passed. His son and daughter stood by him at the bar. They read as well as they could some notes which he had set down, and examined his witnesses. It was to little purpose. He was convicted, hanged, and quartered. 471

It was not believed that Goodenough had yet earned his pardon. The government was determined to target a victim of no high status, a surgeon in the City named Bateman. He had treated Shaftesbury professionally and had been a passionate Exclusionist. He might have been aware of the Whig plot, but it’s clear that he wasn’t one of the main conspirators; in the extensive depositions released by the government, his name appears only once and not in connection with any serious crime. From his indictment and the limited account of his trial that remains, it’s evident that he wasn’t even accused of being involved in the plan to murder the royal brothers. The intensity with which such an obscure man, guilty of such a minor offense, was pursued while far more serious and prominent traitors were allowed to secure their freedom by testifying against him seemed to need an explanation, and a disgraceful one was found. When Oates, after his beating, was carried into Newgate unconscious, and thought to be dying, he was treated for his wounds by Bateman. This was an unforgivable offense. Bateman was arrested and indicted. The witnesses against him were men of disreputable character, who were also testifying to save their own lives. None of them had received their pardon yet, and it was commonly said that they were fishing for prey, like tame cormorants, with ropes around their necks. The prisoner, dazed from illness, couldn't articulate or fully grasp what was happening. His son and daughter stood by him at the bar. They read as best they could from some notes he had made and questioned his witnesses. It was of little use. He was convicted, hanged, and quartered. 471

Never, not even under the tyranny of Laud, had the condition of the Puritans been so deplorable as at that time. Never had spies been so actively employed in detecting congregations. Never had magistrates, grand jurors, rectors and churchwardens been so much on the alert. Many Dissenters were cited before the ecclesiastical courts. Others found it necessary to purchase the connivance of the agents of the government by presents of hogsheads of wine, and of gloves stuffed with guineas. It was impossible for the separatists to pray together without precautions such as are employed by coiners and receivers of stolen goods. The places of meeting were frequently changed. Worship was performed sometimes just before break of day and sometimes at dead of night. Round the building where the little flock was gathered sentinels were posted to give the alarm if a stranger drew near. The minister in disguise was introduced through the garden and the back yard. In some houses there were trap doors through which, in case of danger, he might descend. Where Nonconformists lived next door to each other, the walls were often broken open, and secret passages were made from dwelling to dwelling. No psalm was sung; and many contrivances were used to prevent the voice of the preacher, in his moments of fervour, from being heard beyond the walls. Yet, with all this care, it was often found impossible to elude the vigilance of informers. In the suburbs of London, especially, the law was enforced with the utmost rigour. Several opulent gentlemen were accused of holding conventicles. Their houses were strictly searched, and distresses were levied to the amount of many thousands of pounds. The fiercer and bolder sectaries, thus driven from the shelter of roofs, met in the open air, and determined to repel force by force. A Middlesex justice who had learned that a nightly prayer meeting was held in a gravel pit about two miles from London, took with him a strong body of constables, broke in upon the assembly, and seized the preacher. But the congregation, which consisted of about two hundred men, soon rescued their pastor and put the magistrate and his officers to flight. 472 This, however, was no ordinary occurrence. In general the Puritan spirit seemed to be more effectually cowed at this conjuncture than at any moment before or since. The Tory pamphleteers boasted that not one fanatic dared to move tongue or pen in defence of his religious opinions. Dissenting ministers, however blameless in life, however eminent for learning and abilities, could not venture to walk the streets for fear of outrages, which were not only not repressed, but encouraged, by those whose duty it was to preserve the peace. Some divines of great fame were in prison. Among these was Richard Baxter. Others, who had, during a quarter of a century, borne up against oppression, now lost heart, and quitted the kingdom. Among these was John Howe. Great numbers of persons who had been accustomed to frequent conventicles repaired to the parish churches. It was remarked that the schismatics who had been terrified into this show of conformity might easily be distinguished by the difficulty which they had in finding out the collect, and by the awkward manner in which they bowed at the name of Jesus. 473

Never, not even under Laud's oppressive rule, had the situation for the Puritans been as dire as it was then. Spies had never been so actively used to detect congregations. Magistrates, grand jurors, rectors, and churchwardens were never more vigilant. Many Dissenters were summoned to the ecclesiastical courts. Others felt they had to bribe government agents with gifts of barrels of wine and gloves stuffed with guineas. It was impossible for separatists to pray together without taking precautions similar to those used by coiners and receivers of stolen goods. Meeting places changed frequently. Worship sometimes took place just before dawn and other times in the dead of night. Guards were stationed around the building where the small group gathered to sound the alarm if a stranger approached. The minister was sneaked in through the garden and back yard disguised. Some houses had trapdoors to allow him to escape in case of danger. Where Nonconformists lived next to each other, walls were often broken down to create secret passages between homes. No psalm was sung, and various methods were used to muffle the preacher’s voice during passionate moments so that it couldn’t be heard outside the walls. Yet despite all this caution, it was often impossible to avoid the watchfulness of informers. In the suburbs of London, especially, the law was enforced very strictly. Several wealthy gentlemen were accused of holding illegal meetings. Their homes were thoroughly searched, and fines were imposed, amounting to thousands of pounds. The more aggressive and defiant sectarians, driven from the safety of their homes, met in the open air and resolved to respond with force. A Middlesex justice learned that a nightly prayer meeting was taking place in a gravel pit about two miles from London; he took a strong group of constables, broke into the gathering, and arrested the preacher. However, the congregation of about two hundred men quickly rescued their pastor and drove the magistrate and his officers away. 472 This, however, was not a typical event. In general, the Puritan spirit seemed more effectively suppressed during this time than at any point before or after. Tory pamphleteers proudly claimed that not a single fanatic dared to speak or write in defense of his religious beliefs. Dissenting ministers, no matter how upright they were in their lives or how distinguished they were in their knowledge and abilities, could not risk walking the streets for fear of violence that was not only unchecked but encouraged by those who were supposed to maintain peace. Some renowned divines were imprisoned, including Richard Baxter. Others, who had resisted oppression for twenty-five years, lost heart and fled the country, among them John Howe. Many people who had been regular attendees at conventicles returned to the parish churches. It was noted that the schismatics, who had been frightened into this show of conformity, could easily be recognized by their struggle to find the prayer and the awkwardness with which they bowed at the name of Jesus. 473

Through many years the autumn of 1685 was remembered by the Nonconformists as a time of misery and terror. Yet in that autumn might be discerned the first faint indications of a great turn of fortune; and before eighteen months had elapsed, the intolerant King and the intolerant Church were eagerly bidding against each other for the support of the party which both had so deeply injured.

For many years, the autumn of 1685 was recalled by the Nonconformists as a time of suffering and fear. However, in that autumn, the first subtle signs of a significant change in fortune could be seen; and within eighteen months, the oppressive King and the oppressive Church were both eagerly competing for the loyalty of the group they had both harmed so badly.

END OF VOL. I.

END OF VOL. 1.


1 (return)
[ In this, and in the next chapter, I have very seldom thought it necessary to cite authorities: for, in these chapters, I have not detailed events minutely, or used recondite materials; and the facts which I mention are for the most part such that a person tolerably well read in English history, if not already apprised of them, will at least know where to look for evidence of them. In the subsequent chapters I shall carefully indicate the sources of my information.]

1 (return)
[ In this chapter and the next, I rarely felt the need to cite sources because I haven’t gone into detailed events or used obscure materials. The facts I mention are mostly ones that someone who is reasonably well-read in English history, if not already familiar with them, will know where to find evidence. In the following chapters, I will clearly point out the sources of my information.]

2 (return)
[ This is excellently put by Mr. Hallam in the first chapter of his Constitutional History.]

2 (return)
[ Mr. Hallam expresses this very well in the first chapter of his Constitutional History.]

3 (return)
[ See a very curious paper which Strype believed to be in Gardiner's handwriting. Ecclesiastical Memorials, Book 1., Chap. xvii.]

3 (return)
[ Check out a very interesting paper that Strype thought was written by Gardiner. Ecclesiastical Memorials, Book 1., Chap. xvii.]

4 (return)
[ These are Cranmer's own words. See the Appendix to Burnet's History of the Reformation, Part 1. Book III. No. 21. Question 9.]

4 (return)
[ These are Cranmer's own words. See the Appendix to Burnet's History of the Reformation, Part 1. Book III. No. 21. Question 9.]

5 (return)
[ The Puritan historian, Neal, after censuring the cruelty with which she treated the sect to which he belonged, concludes thus: "However, notwithstanding all these blemishes, Queen Elizabeth stands upon record as a wise and politic princess, for delivering her kingdom from the difficulties in which it was involved at her accession, for preserving the Protestant reformation against the potent attempts of the Pope, the Emperor, and King of Spain abroad, and the Queen of Scots and her Popish subjects at home.... She was the glory of the age in which she lived, and will be the admiration of posterity."—History of the Puritans, Part I. Chap. viii.]

5 (return)
[ The Puritan historian, Neal, after criticizing the cruelty with which she treated his sect, concludes: "Despite all these flaws, Queen Elizabeth is remembered as a wise and strategic ruler, for freeing her kingdom from the struggles it faced when she came to power, for protecting the Protestant reformation against the strong efforts of the Pope, the Emperor, and the King of Spain abroad, and against the Queen of Scots and her Catholic supporters at home.... She was the pride of her time and will be admired by future generations."—History of the Puritans, Part I. Chap. viii.]

6 (return)
[ On this subject, Bishop Cooper's language is remarkably clear and strong. He maintains, in his Answer to Martin Marprelate, printed in 1589, "that no form of church government is divinely ordained; that Protestant communities, in establishing different forms, have only made a legitimate use of their Christian liberty; and that episcopacy is peculiarly suited to England, because the English constitution is monarchical." All those Churches," says the Bishop, "in which the Gospell, in these daies, after great darknesse, was first renewed, and the learned men whom God sent to instruct them, I doubt not but have been directed by the Spirite of God to retaine this liberty, that, in external government and other outward orders; they might choose such as they thought in wisedome and godlinesse to be most convenient for the state of their countrey and disposition of their people. Why then should this liberty that other countreys have used under anie colour be wrested from us? I think it therefore great presumption and boldnesse that some of our nation, and those, whatever they may think of themselves, not of the greatest wisedome and skill, should take upon them to controlle the whole realme, and to binde both prince and people in respect of conscience to alter the present state, and tie themselves to a certain platforme devised by some of our neighbours, which, in the judgment of many wise and godly persons, is most unfit for the state of a Kingdome."]

6 (return)
[ On this topic, Bishop Cooper's language is remarkably clear and strong. He argues in his Answer to Martin Marprelate, published in 1589, "that no form of church government is divinely ordained; that Protestant communities, by establishing different forms, have only made a legitimate use of their Christian freedom; and that episcopacy is especially suited to England, because the English constitution is monarchical." The Bishop states, "All those Churches, where the Gospel, in these days, after great darkness, was first renewed, and the learned men whom God sent to instruct them, I have no doubt, have been guided by the Spirit of God to retain this freedom, so that in external governance and other outward orders; they could choose what they believed in wisdom and godliness to be most appropriate for the state of their country and the disposition of their people. So why then should this freedom that other countries have used be taken away from us? I consider it a great presumption and boldness that some of our nation, who, no matter what they may think of themselves, are not the most knowledgeable or skilled, should take it upon themselves to control the entire realm and bind both prince and people regarding conscience to change the current state, and limit themselves to a specific framework devised by some of our neighbors, which, in the opinion of many wise and godly individuals, is most unsuitable for the welfare of a Kingdom."]

7 (return)
[ Strype's Life of Grindal, Appendix to Book II. No. xvii.]

7 (return)
[ Strype's Life of Grindal, Appendix to Book II. No. xvii.]

8 (return)
[ Canon 55, of 1603.]

8 (return)
[ Canon 55, of 1603.]

9 (return)
[ Joseph Hall, then dean of Worcester, and afterwards bishop of Norwich, was one of the commissioners. In his life of himself, he says: "My unworthiness was named for one of the assistants of that honourable, grave, and reverend meeting." To high churchmen this humility will seem not a little out of place.]

9 (return)
[ Joseph Hall, who was the dean of Worcester and later became the bishop of Norwich, was one of the commissioners. In his autobiography, he writes: "My unworthiness was mentioned as one of the assistants of that honorable, serious, and respectable meeting." To high churchmen, this humility might seem somewhat inappropriate.]

10 (return)
[ It was by the Act of Uniformity, passed after the Restoration, that persons not episcopally ordained were, for the first time, made incapable of holding benefices. No man was more zealous for this law than Clarendon. Yet he says: "This was new; for there had been many, and at present there were some, who possessed benefices with cure of souls and other ecclesiastical promotions, who had never received orders but in France or Holland; and these men must now receive new ordination, which had been always held unlawful in the Church, or by this act of parliament must be deprived of their livelihood which they enjoyed in the most flourishing and peaceable time of the Church."]

10 (return)
[ It was through the Act of Uniformity, enacted after the Restoration, that people who weren't ordained by a bishop were, for the first time, barred from holding church positions. No one was more supportive of this law than Clarendon. Yet he stated: "This was unprecedented; there had been many, and there were still some, who held positions with the ability to care for souls and other church roles, who had never been ordained except in France or Holland; and these individuals now had to either receive new ordination, which had always been deemed unlawful in the Church, or, through this act of parliament, be stripped of their livelihoods that they enjoyed during the most prosperous and peaceful times of the Church."]

11 (return)
[ Peckard's Life of Ferrar; The Arminian Nunnery, or a Brief Description of the late erected monastical Place called the Arminian Nunnery, at Little Gidding in Huntingdonshire, 1641.]

11 (return)
[ Peckard's Life of Ferrar; The Arminian Nunnery, or a Short Description of the recently established monastery known as the Arminian Nunnery, in Little Gidding, Huntingdonshire, 1641.]

12 (return)
[ The correspondence of Wentworth seems to me fully to bear out what I have said in the text. To transcribe all the passages which have led me to the conclusion at which I have arrived, would be impossible, nor would it be easy to make a better selection than has already been made by Mr. Hallam. I may, however direct the attention of the reader particularly to the very able paper which Wentworth drew up respecting the affairs of the Palatinate. The date is March 31, 1637.]

12 (return)
[The letters from Wentworth clearly support what I've stated in the text. It would be impossible to quote all the passages that led me to my conclusion, and it would be hard to choose better ones than those already picked by Mr. Hallam. However, I would like to particularly highlight the very insightful paper that Wentworth wrote about the situation in the Palatinate. The date is March 31, 1637.]

13 (return)
[ These are Wentworth's own words. See his letter to Laud, dated Dec. 16, 1634.]

13 (return)
[ These are Wentworth's own words. Check out his letter to Laud, dated Dec. 16, 1634.]

14 (return)
[ See his report to Charles for the year 1639.]

14 (return)
[See his report to Charles for the year 1639.]

15 (return)
[ See his letter to the Earl of Northumberland, dated July 30, 1638.]

15 (return)
[See his letter to the Earl of Northumberland, dated July 30, 1638.]

16 (return)
[ How little compassion for the bear had to do with the matter is sufficiently proved by the following extract from a paper entitled A perfect Diurnal of some Passages of Parliament, and from other Parts of the Kingdom, from Monday July 24th, to Monday July 31st, 1643. "Upon the Queen's coming from Holland, she brought with her, besides a company of savage-like ruffians, a company of savage bears, to what purpose you may judge by the sequel. Those bears were left about Newark, and were brought into country towns constantly on the Lord's day to be baited, such is the religion those here related would settle amongst us; and, if any went about to hinder or but speak against their damnable profanations, they were presently noted as Roundheads and Puritans, and sure to be plundered for it. But some of Colonel Cromwell's forces coming by accident into Uppingham town, in Rutland, on the Lord's day, found these bears playing there in the usual manner, and, in the height of their sport, caused them to be seized upon, tied to a tree and shot." This was by no means a solitary instance. Colonel Pride, when Sheriff of Surrey, ordered the beasts in the bear garden of Southwark to be killed. He is represented by a loyal satirist as defending the act thus: "The first thing that is upon my spirits is the killing of the bears, for which the people hate me, and call me all the names in the rainbow. But did not David kill a bear? Did not the Lord Deputy Ireton kill a bear? Did not another lord of ours kill five bears?"-Last Speech and Dying Words of Thomas pride.]

16 (return)
[ The lack of compassion for the bear is clearly shown in the following excerpt from a paper titled *A Perfect Diurnal of Some Passages of Parliament and Other Parts of the Kingdom, from Monday, July 24th, to Monday, July 31st, 1643.* "When the Queen returned from Holland, she brought with her, along with a group of savage ruffians, a troupe of wild bears. You can imagine the reason for this as you read on. These bears were left around Newark and were regularly brought to country towns on Sundays to be baited, reflecting the kind of religion they wanted to promote among us; if anyone tried to stop or even speak out against their disgraceful acts, they were quickly labeled as Roundheads and Puritans and would surely face plundering for it. However, when some of Colonel Cromwell's troops accidentally came into Uppingham town, in Rutland, on a Sunday, they found the bears entertaining themselves in their usual way, and at the peak of their antics, they had them captured, tied to a tree, and shot." This was by no means an isolated event. Colonel Pride, while Sheriff of Surrey, ordered the bears in the Southwark bear garden to be killed. A loyal satirist depicts him defending this action by saying: "The first thing weighing on my conscience is the killing of the bears, which has made the people dislike me and label me with every insult imaginable. But didn't David kill a bear? Didn't Lord Deputy Ireton kill a bear? Didn't another one of our lords kill five bears?" -Last Speech and Dying Words of Thomas Pride.]

17 (return)
[ See Penn's New Witnesses proved Old Heretics, and Muggleton's works, passim.]

17 (return)
[See Penn's New Witnesses proved Old Heretics, and Muggleton's works, various places.]

18 (return)
[ I am happy to say, that, since this passage was written, the territories both of the Rajah of Nagpore and of the King of Oude have been added to the British dominions. (1857.)]

18 (return)
[ I'm happy to report that, since this passage was written, the territories of both the Rajah of Nagpore and the King of Oude have been incorporated into the British Empire. (1857.)]

19 (return)
[ The most sensible thing said in the House of Commons, on this subject, came from Sir William Coventry: "Our ancestors never did draw a line to circumscribe prerogative and liberty."]

19 (return)
[ The most reasonable statement made in the House of Commons on this topic came from Sir William Coventry: "Our ancestors never set a boundary to limit prerogative and liberty."]

20 (return)
[ Halifax was undoubtedly the real author of the Character of a Trimmer, which, for a time, went under the name of his kinsman, Sir William Coventry.]

20 (return)
[ Halifax was definitely the true author of the Character of a Trimmer, which, for a while, was attributed to his relative, Sir William Coventry.]

21 (return)
[ North's Examen, 231, 574.]

21 (return)
[ North's Examen, 231, 574.]

22 (return)
[ A peer who was present has described the effect of Halifax's oratory in words which I will quote, because, though they have been long in print, they are probably known to few even of the most curious and diligent readers of history. "Of powerful eloquence and great parts were the Duke's enemies who did assert the Bill; but a noble Lord appeared against it who, that day, in all the force of speech, in reason, in arguments of what could concern the public or the private interests of men, in honour, in conscience, in estate, did outdo himself and every other man; and in fine his conduct and his parts were both victorious, and by him all the wit and malice of that party was overthrown." This passage is taken from a memoir of Henry Earl of Peterborough, in a volume entitled "Succinct Genealogies, by Robert Halstead," fol. 1685. The name of Halstead is fictitious. The real authors were the Earl of Peterborough himself and his chaplain. The book is extremely rare. Only twenty-four copies were printed, two of which are now in the British Museum. Of these two one belonged to George the Fourth, and the other to Mr. Grenville.]

22 (return)
[ A peer who was there described the impact of Halifax's speeches in words I will quote, because, although they've been published for a long time, few even among the most curious and diligent history readers probably know them. "The Duke's opponents had powerful eloquence and considerable skills, but a noble Lord spoke against the Bill who that day, with all the force of his speech, reason, arguments concerning public and private interests, honor, conscience, and wealth, surpassed himself and everyone else; in short, his performance and abilities achieved victory, and he defeated all the wit and malice of that faction." This excerpt is from a memoir of Henry Earl of Peterborough, in a volume titled "Succinct Genealogies, by Robert Halstead," fol. 1685. The name Halstead is fictional. The true authors were the Earl of Peterborough himself and his chaplain. The book is extremely rare. Only twenty-four copies were printed, two of which are currently in the British Museum. Of these two, one belonged to George the Fourth and the other to Mr. Grenville.]

23 (return)
[ This is mentioned in the curious work entitled "Ragguaglio della solenne Comparsa fatta in Roma gli otto di Gennaio, 1687, dall' illustrissimo et eccellentissimo signor Conte di Castlemaine."]

23 (return)
[ This is mentioned in the interesting work titled "Ragguaglio della solenne Comparsa fatta in Roma gli otto di Gennaio, 1687, dall' illustrissimo et eccellentissimo signor Conte di Castlemaine."]

24 (return)
[ North's Examen, 69.]

24 (__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__)
[ North's Examen, 69.]

25 (return)
[ Lord Preston, who was envoy at Paris, wrote thence to Halifax as follows: "I find that your Lordship lies still under the same misfortune of being no favourite to this court; and Monsieur Barillon dare not do you the honor to shine upon you, since his master frowneth. They know very well your lordship's qualifications which make them fear and consequently hate you; and be assured, my lord, if all their strength can send you to Rufford, it shall be employed for that end. Two things, I hear, they particularly object against you, your secrecy, and your being incapable of being corrupted. Against these two things I know they have declared." The date of the letter is October 5, N. S. 1683]

25 (return)
[ Lord Preston, who was the envoy in Paris, wrote to Halifax saying: "I see that you are still facing the same issue of not being favored by this court; and Monsieur Barillon doesn’t dare to acknowledge you because his master disapproves. They are fully aware of your qualifications, which make them both fearful and resentful of you; and I assure you, my lord, that if they have the power to send you to Rufford, they will use all their strength to do so. I have heard that they specifically object to two things about you: your secrecy and your inability to be bribed. They have made their stance clear on these two points." The date of the letter is October 5, N. S. 1683]

26 (return)
[ During the interval which has elapsed since this chapter was written, England has continued to advance rapidly in material prosperity, I have left my text nearly as it originally stood; but I have added a few notes which may enable the reader to form some notion of the progress which has been made during the last nine years; and, in general, I would desire him to remember that there is scarcely a district which is not more populous, or a source of wealth which is not more productive, at present than in 1848. (1857.)]

26 (return)
[ Since this chapter was written, England has continued to grow rapidly in material wealth. I’ve kept my text mostly as it was, but I’ve added a few notes to help the reader understand the progress made over the last nine years. Generally, I want to emphasize that there’s hardly a region that isn’t more populated or a source of wealth that isn’t more productive now than it was in 1848. (1857.)]

27 (return)
[ Observations on the Bills of Mortality, by Captain John Graunt (Sir William Petty), chap. xi.]

27 (return)
[ Observations on the Bills of Mortality, by Captain John Graunt (Sir William Petty), chap. xi.]

28 (return)
[

28 (__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__)

    "She doth comprehend
     Full fifteen hundred thousand which do spend
     Their days within."

     —Great Britain's Beauty, 1671.]
"She understands that a full fifteen hundred thousand spend their days within."

 —Great Britain's Beauty, 1671.]

29 (return)
[ Isaac Vossius, De Magnitudine Urbium Sinarum, 1685. Vossius, as we learn from Saint Evremond, talked on this subject oftener and longer than fashionable circles cared to listen.]

29 (return)
[ Isaac Vossius, De Magnitudine Urbium Sinarum, 1685. According to Saint Evremond, Vossius discussed this topic more frequently and at greater length than what the trendy circles were willing to tolerate.]

30 (return)
[ King's Natural and Political Observations, 1696 This valuable treatise, which ought to be read as the author wrote it, and not as garbled by Davenant, will be found in some editions of Chalmers's Estimate.]

30 (return)
[King's Natural and Political Observations, 1696. This important work should be read as the author intended, not as altered by Davenant, and can be found in some editions of Chalmers's Estimate.]

31 (return)
[ Dalrymple's Appendix to Part II. Book I, The practice of reckoning the population by sects was long fashionable. Gulliver says of the King of Brobdignag; "He laughed at my odd arithmetic, as he was pleased to call it, in reckoning the numbers of our people by a computation drawn from the several sects among us in religion and politics."]

31 (return)
[ Dalrymple's Appendix to Part II. Book I, Counting the population by different groups was popular for a long time. Gulliver mentions the King of Brobdingnag: "He laughed at my strange math, as he liked to call it, for counting our people based on the various religious and political groups among us."]

32 (return)
[ Preface to the Population Returns of 1831.]

32 (return)
[ Preface to the Population Returns of 1831.]

33 (return)
[ Statutes 14 Car. II. c. 22.; 18 & 19 Car. II. c. 3., 29 & 30 Car. II. c. 2.]

33 (return)
[ Statutes 14 Car. II. c. 22.; 18 & 19 Car. II. c. 3., 29 & 30 Car. II. c. 2.]

34 (return)
[ Nicholson and Bourne, Discourse on the Ancient State of the Border, 1777.]

34 (return)
[ Nicholson and Bourne, Discourse on the Ancient State of the Border, 1777.]

35 (return)
[ Gray's Journal of a Tour in the Lakes, Oct. 3, 1769.]

35 (return)
[ Gray's Journal of a Tour in the Lakes, Oct. 3, 1769.]

36 (return)
[ North's Life of Guildford; Hutchinson's History of Cumberland, Parish of Brampton.]

36 (return)
[North's Life of Guildford; Hutchinson's History of Cumberland, Parish of Brampton.]

37 (return)
[ See Sir Walter Scott's Journal, Oct. 7, 1827, in his Life by Mr. Lockhart.]

37 (return)
[ See Sir Walter Scott's Journal, Oct. 7, 1827, in his Life by Mr. Lockhart.]

38 (return)
[ Dalrymple, Appendix to Part II. Book I. The returns of the hearth money lead to nearly the same conclusion. The hearths in the province of York were not a sixth of the hearths of England.]

38 (return)
[ Dalrymple, Appendix to Part II. Book I. The hearth money records indicate almost the same conclusion. The number of hearths in the province of York was not even one-sixth of the hearths in England.]

39 (return)
[ I do not, of course, pretend to strict accuracy here; but I believe that whoever will take the trouble to compare the last returns of hearth money in the reign of William the Third with the census of 1841, will come to a conclusion not very different from mine.]

39 (return)
[ I don’t, of course, claim to be perfectly accurate here; but I think that anyone who takes the time to compare the last records of hearth money during the reign of William the Third with the census of 1841 will reach a conclusion that’s not very different from mine.]

40 (return)
[ There are in the Pepysian Library some ballads of that age on the chimney money. I will give a specimen or two:

40 (return)
[ In the Pepysian Library, there are some ballads from that time about the chimney tax. I'll share a couple of examples:

   "The good old dames whenever they the chimney man espied,
   Unto their nooks they haste away, their pots and pipkins hide.
   There is not one old dame in ten, and search the nation through,
   But, if you talk of chimney men, will spare a curse or two."

   Again:

   "Like plundering soldiers they'd enter the door,
   And make a distress on the goods of the poor.
   While frighted poor children distractedly cried;
   This nothing abated their insolent pride."

   In the British Museum there are doggrel verses composed on the
   same subject and in the same spirit:

   "Or, if through poverty it be not paid
   For cruelty to tear away the single bed,
   On which the poor man rests his weary head,
   At once deprives him of his rest and bread."
   "The old ladies, whenever they spotted the chimney sweep,  
   hurried to their corners to hide their pots and pans.  
   There isn’t one old lady in ten, no matter where you look,  
   who, if you mention chimney sweeps, won’t let out a curse or two."  

   Again:  

   "Like plundering soldiers, they’d burst through the door,  
   and take whatever they could from the poor.  
   While scared poor children cried out in distress;  
   this didn’t make the invaders any less proud."  

   In the British Museum, there are doggerel verses written on the  
   same topic and in the same spirit:  

   "Or, if it’s not paid due to poverty,  
   tearing away the single bed is cruelty,  
   since it deprives the poor man of his rest and food."

I take this opportunity the first which occurs, of acknowledging most grateful the kind and liberal manner in which the Master and Vicemaster of Magdalei College, Cambridge, gave me access to the valuable collections of Pepys.]

I take this first opportunity to express my deep gratitude for the generous way in which the Master and Vice-Master of Magdalene College, Cambridge, allowed me access to the valuable collections of Pepys.

41 (return)
[ My chief authorities for this financial statement will be found in the Commons' Journal, March 1, and March 20, 1688-9.]

41 (return)
[ My main sources for this financial statement are in the Commons' Journal, March 1, and March 20, 1688-9.]

42 (return)
[ See, for example, the picture of the mound at Marlborough, in Stukeley's Dinerarium Curiosum.]

42 (return)
[ Check out the picture of the mound at Marlborough in Stukeley's Dinerarium Curiosum.]

43 (return)
[ Chamberlayne's State of England, 1684.]

43 (return)
[ Chamberlayne's State of England, 1684.]

44 (return)
[ 13 and 14 Car. II. c. 3; 15 Car. II. c. 4. Chamberlayne's State of England, 1684.]

44 (return)
[ 13 and 14 Car. II. c. 3; 15 Car. II. c. 4. Chamberlayne's State of England, 1684.]

45 (return)
[ Dryden, in his Cymon and Iphigenia, expressed, with his usual keenness and energy, the sentiments which had been fashionable among the sycophants of James the Second:—

45 (return)
[ Dryden, in his Cymon and Iphigenia, conveyed, with his typical sharpness and intensity, the feelings that were popular among the followers of James the Second:—

     "The country rings around with loud alarms,
     And raw in fields the rude militia swarms;
     Mouths without hands, maintained at vast expense,
     Stout once a month they march, a blustering band,
     And ever, but in time of need at hand.
     This was the morn when, issuing on the guard,
     Drawn up in rank and file, they stood prepared
     Of seeming arms to make a short essay.
     Then hasten to be drunk, the business of the day."]
"The country is filled with loud alarms,  
And a rough militia swarms in the fields;  
They're mouths without hands, kept up at great cost,  
Once a month they march, a noisy group,  
And always, except when there's a real need.  
This was the morning when, standing guard,  
They lined up in ranks, ready to show off  
Their fake weapons. Then they rushed to get drunk, the day's main activity."

46 (return)
[ Most of the materials which I have used for this account of the regular army will be found in the Historical Records of Regiments, published by command of King William the Fourth, and under the direction of the Adjutant General. See also Chamberlayne's State of England, 1684; Abridgment of the English Military Discipline, printed by especial command, 1688; Exercise of Foot, by their Majesties' command, 1690.]

46 (return)
[ Most of the materials I used for this account of the regular army are found in the Historical Records of Regiments, published by order of King William the Fourth and overseen by the Adjutant General. Also, see Chamberlayne's State of England, 1684; Abridgment of the English Military Discipline, printed by special order, 1688; Exercise of Foot, by their Majesties' command, 1690.]

47 (return)
[ I refer to a despatch of Bonrepaux to Seignelay, dated Feb. 8/18. 1686. It was transcribed for Mr. Fox from the French archives, during the peace of Amiens, and, with the other materials brought together by that great man, was entrusted to me by the kindness of the late Lady Holland, and of the present Lord Holland. I ought to add that, even in the midst of the troubles which have lately agitated Paris, I found no difficulty in obtaining, from the liberality of the functionaries there, extracts supplying some chasms in Mr. Fox's collection. (1848.)]

47 (return)
[ I'm referring to a dispatch from Bonrepaux to Seignelay, dated Feb. 8/18, 1686. It was copied for Mr. Fox from the French archives during the peace of Amiens and, along with other materials gathered by that great man, was kindly given to me by the late Lady Holland and the current Lord Holland. I should mention that, even amid the recent troubles in Paris, I had no trouble getting extracts from the officials there to fill in some gaps in Mr. Fox's collection. (1848.)]

48 (return)
[ My information respecting the condition of the navy, at this time, is chiefly derived from Pepys. His report, presented to Charles the Second in May, 1684, has never, I believe, been printed. The manuscript is at Magdalene College Cambridge. At Magdalene College is also a valuable manuscript containing a detailed account of the maritime establishments of the country in December 1684. Pepys's "Memoirs relating to the State of the Royal Navy for Ten Years determined December, 1688," and his diary and correspondence during his mission to Tangier, are in print. I have made large use of them. See also Sheffield's Memoirs, Teonge's Diary, Aubrey's Life of Monk, the Life of Sir Cloudesley Shovel, 1708, Commons' Journals, March 1 and March 20. 1688-9.]

48 (return)
[ Most of my information about the state of the navy at this time comes from Pepys. His report to Charles the Second in May 1684 has, I believe, never been published. The manuscript is at Magdalene College, Cambridge. There is also a valuable manuscript at Magdalene College that provides a detailed account of the country's maritime establishments from December 1684. Pepys's "Memoirs relating to the State of the Royal Navy for Ten Years ending December 1688," along with his diary and correspondence from his mission to Tangier, are available in print. I've relied heavily on them. Additionally, see Sheffield's Memoirs, Teonge's Diary, Aubrey's Life of Monk, the Life of Sir Cloudesley Shovel from 1708, and the Commons' Journals from March 1 and March 20, 1688-9.]

49 (return)
[ Chamberlayne's State of England, 1684; Commons' Journals, March 1, and March 20, 1688-9. In 1833, it was determined, after full enquiry, that a hundred and seventy thousand barrels of gunpowder should constantly be kept in store.]

49 (return)
[ Chamberlayne's State of England, 1684; Commons' Journals, March 1, and March 20, 1688-9. In 1833, it was decided, after thorough investigation, that one hundred seventy thousand barrels of gunpowder should always be kept in stock.]

50 (return)
[ It appears from the records of the Admiralty, that Flag officers were allowed half pay in 1668, Captains of first and second rates not till 1674.]

50 (return)
[ According to the Admiralty records, flag officers received half pay in 1668, while captains of first and second rates only received it starting in 1674.]

51 (return)
[ Warrant in the War Office Records; dated March 26, 1678.]

51 (return)
[ Warrant in the War Office Records; dated March 26, 1678.]

52 (return)
[ Evelyn's Diary. Jan. 27, 1682. I have seen a privy seal, dated May 17. 1683, which confirms Evelyn's testimony.]

52 (return)
[ Evelyn's Diary. Jan. 27, 1682. I have seen a private seal, dated May 17, 1683, which confirms Evelyn's account.]

53 (return)
[ James the Second sent Envoys to Spain, Sweden, and Denmark; yet in his reign the diplomatic expenditure was little more than 30,000£. a year. See the Commons' Journals, March 20, 1688-9. Chamberlayne's State of England, 1684.]

53 (return)
[ James the Second sent envoys to Spain, Sweden, and Denmark; however, during his reign, the diplomatic spending was barely over £30,000 a year. See the Commons' Journals, March 20, 1688-9. Chamberlayne's State of England, 1684.]

54 (return)
[ Carte's Life of Ormond.]

54 (return)
[ Carte's Life of Ormond.]

55 (return)
[ Pepys's Diary, Feb. 14, 1668-9.]

55 (return)
[ Pepys's Diary, Feb. 14, 1668-9.]

56 (return)
[ See the Report of the Bath and Montague case, which was decided by Lord Keeper Somers, in December, 1693.]

56 (return)
[ See the Report of the Bath and Montague case, which was decided by Lord Keeper Somers, in December, 1693.]

57 (return)
[ During three quarters of a year, beginning from Christmas, 1689, the revenues of the see of Canterbury were received by an officer appointed by the crown. That officer's accounts are now in the British Museum. (Lansdowne MSS. 885.) The gross revenue for the three quarters was not quite four thousand pounds; and the difference between the gross and the net revenue was evidently something considerable.]

57 (return)
[ For nine months, starting from Christmas 1689, the income of the Canterbury archbishopric was managed by an officer chosen by the crown. That officer's financial records are currently housed in the British Museum. (Lansdowne MSS. 885.) The total income for those nine months was just under four thousand pounds, and the gap between the total income and the actual revenue was clearly significant.]

58 (return)
[ King's Natural and Political Conclusions. Davenant on the Balance of Trade. Sir W. Temple says, "The revenues of a House of Commons have seldom exceeded four hundred thousand pounds." Memoirs, Third Part.]

58 (return)
[ King's Natural and Political Conclusions. Davenant on the Balance of Trade. Sir W. Temple states, "The income of a House of Commons has rarely gone beyond four hundred thousand pounds." Memoirs, Third Part.]

59 (return)
[ Langton's Conversations with Chief Justice Hale, 1672.]

59 (return)
[ Langton's Conversations with Chief Justice Hale, 1672.]

60 (return)
[ Commons' Journals, April 27,1689; Chamberlayne's State of England, 1684.]

60 (return)
[ Commons' Journals, April 27, 1689; Chamberlayne's State of England, 1684.]

61 (return)
[ See the Travels of the Grand Duke Cosmo.]

61 (return)
[ Check out the Travels of the Grand Duke Cosmo.]

62 (return)
[ King's Natural and Political Conclusions. Davenant on the Balance of Trade.]

62 (return)
[ King's Natural and Political Conclusions. Davenant on the Balance of Trade.]

63 (return)
[ See the Itinerarium Angliae, 1675, by John Ogilby, Cosmographer Royal. He describes great part of the land as wood, fen, heath on both sides, marsh on both sides. In some of his maps the roads through enclosed country are marked by lines, and the roads through unenclosed country by dots. The proportion of unenclosed country, which, if cultivated, must have been wretchedly cultivated, seems to have been very great. From Abingdon to Gloucester, for example, a distance of forty or fifty miles, there was not a single enclosure, and scarcely one enclosure between Biggleswade and Lincoln.]

63 (return)
[ See the Itinerarium Angliae, 1675, by John Ogilby, Cosmographer Royal. He describes much of the land as forest, marsh, and heath on both sides. In some of his maps, the roads through enclosed areas are shown with lines, and the roads through open areas with dots. The amount of open land, which, if farmed, must have been poorly managed, seems to have been quite large. For instance, from Abingdon to Gloucester, a distance of forty or fifty miles, there wasn’t a single enclosed field, and there were hardly any enclosures between Biggleswade and Lincoln.]

64 (return)
[ Large copies of these highly interesting drawings are in the noble collection bequeathed by Mr. Grenville to the British Museum. See particularly the drawings of Exeter and Northampton.]

64 (return)
[ Large copies of these fascinating drawings are part of the valuable collection left by Mr. Grenville to the British Museum. Check out especially the drawings of Exeter and Northampton.]

65 (return)
[ Evelyn's Diary, June 2, 1675.]

65 (return)
[ Evelyn's Diary, June 2, 1675.]

66 (return)
[ See White's Selborne; Bell's History of British Quadrupeds, Gentleman's Recreation, 1686; Aubrey's Natural History of Wiltshire, 1685; Morton's History of Northamptonshire, 1712; Willoughby's Ornithology, by Ray, 1678; Latham's General Synopsis of Birds; and Sir Thomas Browne's Account of Birds found in Norfolk.]

66 (return)
[ See White's Selborne; Bell's History of British Quadrupeds, Gentleman's Recreation, 1686; Aubrey's Natural History of Wiltshire, 1685; Morton's History of Northamptonshire, 1712; Willoughby's Ornithology, by Ray, 1678; Latham's General Synopsis of Birds; and Sir Thomas Browne's Account of Birds found in Norfolk.]

67 (return)
[ King's Natural and Political Conclusions. Davenant on the Balance of Trade.]

67 (return)
[ King's Natural and Political Conclusions. Davenant on the Balance of Trade.]

68 (return)
[ See the Almanacks of 1684 and 1685.]

68 (return)
[See the Almanacks of 1684 and 1685.]

69 (return)
[ See Mr. M'Culloch's Statistical Account of the British Empire, Part III. chap. i. sec. 6.]

69 (return)
[ See Mr. M'Culloch's Statistical Account of the British Empire, Part III. chap. i. sec. 6.]

70 (return)
[ King and Davenant as before The Duke of Newcastle on Horsemanship; Gentleman's Recreation, 1686. The "dappled Flanders mares" were marks of greatness in the time of Pope, and even later. The vulgar proverb, that the grey mare is the better horse, originated, I suspect, in the preference generally given to the grey mares of Flanders over the finest coach horses of England.]

70 (return)
[ King and Davenant as before The Duke of Newcastle on Horsemanship; Gentleman's Recreation, 1686. The "dappled Flanders mares" were symbols of importance during Pope's time and even afterward. The common saying that the grey mare is the better horse probably came from the general preference for the grey mares of Flanders over the best coach horses in England.]

71 (return)
[ See a curious note by Tonkin, in Lord De Dunstanville's edition of Carew's Survey of Cornwall.]

71 (return)
[ Check out a curious note by Tonkin in Lord De Dunstanville's edition of Carew's Survey of Cornwall.]

72 (return)
[ Borlase's Natural History of Cornwall, 1758. The quantity of copper now produced, I have taken from parliamentary returns. Davenant, in 1700, estimated the annual produce of all the mines of England at between seven and eight hundred thousand pounds]

72 (return)
[ Borlase's Natural History of Cornwall, 1758. The amount of copper being produced now comes from parliamentary records. Davenant, in 1700, estimated that the total annual output from all the mines in England was between seven and eight hundred thousand pounds.]

73 (return)
[ Philosophical Transactions, No. 53. Nov. 1669, No. 66. Dec. 1670, No. 103. May 1674, No 156. Feb. 1683-4]

73 (return)
[ Philosophical Transactions, No. 53. Nov. 1669, No. 66. Dec. 1670, No. 103. May 1674, No. 156. Feb. 1683-4]

74 (return)
[ Yarranton, England's Improvement by Sea and Land, 1677; Porter's Progress of the Nation. See also a remarkably perspicnous history, in small compass of the English iron works, in Mr. M'Culloch's Statistical Account of the British Empire.]

74 (return)
[ Yarranton, England's Improvement by Sea and Land, 1677; Porter's Progress of the Nation. See also a notably clear history, summarized version of the English ironworks, in Mr. M'Culloch's Statistical Account of the British Empire.]

75 (return)
[ See Chamberlayne's State of England, 1684, 1687, Angliae, Metropolis, 1691; M'Culloch's Statistical Account of the British Empire Part III. chap. ii. (edition of 1847). In 1845 the quantity of coal brought into London appeared, by the Parliamentary returns, to be 3,460,000 tons. (1848.) In 1854 the quantity of coal brought into London amounted to 4,378,000 tons. (1857.)]

75 (return)
[ See Chamberlayne's State of England, 1684, 1687, Angliae, Metropolis, 1691; M'Culloch's Statistical Account of the British Empire Part III. chap. ii. (edition of 1847). In 1845, the amount of coal brought into London, according to Parliamentary returns, was 3,460,000 tons. (1848.) In 1854, the amount of coal brought into London reached 4,378,000 tons. (1857.)]

76 (return)
[ My notion of the country gentleman of the seventeenth century has been derived from sources too numerous to be recapitulated. I must leave my description to the judgment of those who have studied the history and the lighter literature of that age.]

76 (return)
[ My idea of the country gentleman from the seventeenth century comes from too many sources to list. I’ll let my description be judged by those who have studied the history and lighter literature of that time.]

77 (return)
[ In the eighteenth century the great increase in the value of benefices produced a change. The younger sons of the nobility were allured back to the clerical profession. Warburton in a letter to Hurd, dated the 6th of July, 1762, mentions this change, which was then recent. "Our grandees have at last found their way back into the Church. I only wonder they have been so long about it. But be assured that nothing but a new religious revolution, to sweep away the fragments that Henry the Eighth left after banqueting his courtiers, will drive them out again."]

77 (return)
[ In the eighteenth century, the significant rise in the value of church positions led to a shift. The younger sons of the nobility were drawn back to the clergy. Warburton, in a letter to Hurd dated July 6, 1762, notes this recent change. "Our highborn have finally returned to the Church. I’m just surprised it took them so long. But rest assured, only a new religious upheaval, one that gets rid of the remnants Henry the Eighth left after entertaining his courtiers, will push them out again."]

78 (return)
[ See Heylin's Cyprianus Anglicus.]

78 (return)
[ See Heylin's Cyprianus Anglicus.]

79 (return)
[ Eachard, Causes of the Contempt of the Clergy; Oldham, Satire addressed to a Friend about to leave the University; Tatler, 255, 258. That the English clergy were a lowborn class, is remarked in the Travels of the Grand Duke Cosmo, Appendix A.]

79 (return)
[ Eachard, Causes of the Contempt of the Clergy; Oldham, Satire addressed to a Friend about to leave the University; Tatler, 255, 258. The English clergy being a lowborn class is noted in the Travels of the Grand Duke Cosmo, Appendix A.]

80 (return)
[ "A causidico, medicastro, ipsaque artificum farragine, ecclesiae rector aut vicarius contemnitur et fit ludibrio. Gentis et familiae nitor sacris ordinibus pollutus censetur: foeminisque natalitio insignibus unicum inculcatur saepius praeceptum, ne modestiae naufragium faciant, aut, (quod idem auribus tam delicatulis sonat,) ne clerico se nuptas dari patiantur."—Angliae Notitia, by T. Wood, of New College Oxford 1686.]

80 (return)
[ "A lawyer, a quack doctor, and various tradespeople are looked down upon by the church's leader or vicar and become the subject of ridicule. The status of one's family is considered tarnished if they enter sacred orders: women are often reminded not to embarrass themselves with inappropriate behavior or, as the delicate ears might hear, not to allow themselves to be married to a clergyman."—Angliae Notitia, by T. Wood, of New College Oxford 1686.]

81 (return)
[ Clarendon's Life, ii. 21.]

81 (return)
[ Clarendon's Life, ii. 21.]

82 (return)
[ See the injunctions of 1559, In Bishop Sparrow's Collection. Jeremy Collier, in his Essay on Pride, speaks of this injunction with a bitterness which proves that his own pride had not been effectually tamed.]

82 (return)
[ See the rules from 1559 in Bishop Sparrow's Collection. Jeremy Collier, in his Essay on Pride, discusses this rule with such bitterness that it shows his own pride hadn't been properly subdued.]

83 (return)
[ Roger and Abigail in Fletcher's Scornful Lady, Bull and the Nurse in Vanbrugh's Relapse, Smirk and Susan in Shadwell's Lancashire Witches, are instances.]

83 (return)
[ Roger and Abigail in Fletcher's Scornful Lady, Bull and the Nurse in Vanbrugh's Relapse, Smirk and Susan in Shadwell's Lancashire Witches, are examples.]

84 (return)
[ Swift's Directions to Servants. In Swift's Remarks on the Clerical Residence Bill, he describes the family of an English vicar thus: "His wife is little better than a Goody, in her birth, education, or dress..... His daughters shall go to service, or be sent apprentice to the sempstress of the next town."]

84 (return)
[ Swift's Directions to Servants. In Swift's Remarks on the Clerical Residence Bill, he describes the family of an English vicar like this: "His wife is hardly more than a housekeeper, in her background, education, or appearance..... His daughters will either go into service or be apprenticed to the seamstress in the nearest town."]

85 (return)
[ Even in Tom Jones, published two generations later. Mrs. Seagrim, the wife of a gamekeeper, and Mrs. Honour, a waitingwoman, boast of their descent from clergymen, "It is to be hoped," says Fielding, "such instances will in future ages, when some provision is made for the families of the inferior clergy, appear stranger than they can be thought at present."]

85 (return)
[ Even in Tom Jones, published two generations later, Mrs. Seagrim, the wife of a gamekeeper, and Mrs. Honour, a servant, brag about their lineage from clergymen. "It is to be hoped," Fielding says, "that such cases will seem more unusual in future ages, especially when some support is provided for the families of low-ranking clergy, than they may seem right now."]

86 (return)
[ This distinction between country clergy and town clergy is strongly marked by Eachard, and cannot but be observed by every person who has studied the ecclesiastical history of that age.]

86 (return)
[ Eachard clearly highlights the difference between rural and urban clergy, and anyone who has examined the church history of that time will surely notice it.]

87 (return)
[ Nelson's Life of Bull. As to the extreme difficulty which the country clergy found in procuring books, see the Life of Thomas Bray, the founder of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel.]

87 (return)
[ Nelson's Life of Bull. Regarding the significant challenges that rural clergy faced in obtaining books, refer to the Life of Thomas Bray, who established the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel.]

88 (return)
[ "I have frequently heard him (Dryden) own with pleasure, that if he had any talent for English prose it was owing to his having often read the writings of the great Archbishop Tillotson."—Congreve's Dedication of Dryden's Plays.]

88 (return)
[ "I’ve often heard him (Dryden) admit with enjoyment that if he had any skill in English prose, it was because he frequently read the works of the great Archbishop Tillotson."—Congreve's Dedication of Dryden's Plays.]

89 (return)
[ I have taken Davenant's estimate, which is a little lower than King's.]

89 (return)
[ I've used Davenant's estimate, which is slightly lower than King's.]

90 (return)
[ Evelvn's Diary, June 27. 1654; Pepys's Diary, June 13. 1668; Roger North's Lives of Lord Keeper Guildford, and of Sir Dudley North; Petty's Political Arithmetic. I have taken Petty's facts, but, in drawing inferences from them, I have been guided by King and Davenant, who, though not abler men than he, had the advantage of coming after him. As to the kidnapping for which Bristol was infamous, see North's Life of Guildford, 121, 216, and the harangue of Jeffreys on the subject, in the Impartial History of his Life and Death, printed with the Bloody Assizes. His style was, as usual, coarse, but I cannot reckon the reprimand which he gave to the magistrates of Bristol among his crimes.]

90 (return)
[ Evelvn's Diary, June 27, 1654; Pepys's Diary, June 13, 1668; Roger North's Lives of Lord Keeper Guildford, and of Sir Dudley North; Petty's Political Arithmetic. I have used Petty's facts, but when making conclusions from them, I've followed King and Davenant, who, while not more capable than him, benefited from having come after him. Regarding the kidnapping for which Bristol was notorious, see North's Life of Guildford, 121, 216, and Jeffreys' speech on the topic in the Impartial History of his Life and Death, published with the Bloody Assizes. His style was, as usual, crude, but I can't count the reprimand he gave to the Bristol magistrates among his offenses.]

91 (return)
[ Fuller's Worthies; Evelyn's Diary, Oct. 17,1671; Journal of T. Browne, son of Sir Thomas Browne, Jan. 1663-4; Blomefield's History of Norfolk; History of the City and County of Norwich, 2 vols. 1768.]

91 (return)
[Fuller's Worthies; Evelyn's Diary, Oct. 17, 1671; Journal of T. Browne, son of Sir Thomas Browne, Jan. 1663-4; Blomefield's History of Norfolk; History of the City and County of Norwich, 2 vols. 1768.]

92 (return)
[ The population of York appears, from the return of baptisms and burials in Drake's History, to have been about 13,000 in 1730. Exeter had only 17,000 inhabitants in 1801. The population of Worcester was numbered just before the siege in 1646. See Nash's History of Worcestershire. I have made allowance for the increase which must be supposed to have taken place in forty years. In 1740, the population of Nottingham was found, by enumeration, to be just 10,000. See Dering's History. The population of Gloucester may readily be inferred from the number of houses which King found in the returns of hearth money, and from the number of births and burials which is given in Atkyns's History. The population of Derby was 4,000 in 1712. See Wolley's MS. History, quoted in Lyson's Magna Britannia. The population of Shrewsbury was ascertained, in 1695, by actual enumeration. As to the gaieties of Shrewsbury, see Farquhar's Recruiting Officer. Farquhar's description is borne out by a ballad in the Pepysian Library, of which the burden is "Shrewsbury for me."]

92 (return)
[ The population of York was about 13,000 in 1730, according to the records of baptisms and burials in Drake's History. In 1801, Exeter had only 17,000 residents. The population of Worcester was counted just before the siege in 1646. Check Nash's History of Worcestershire for more details. I've accounted for the population growth that must have occurred over forty years. In 1740, an enumeration showed that Nottingham's population was exactly 10,000. Refer to Dering's History for that info. The population of Gloucester can be estimated from the number of houses recorded by King in the hearth money returns, as well as from the birth and burial data given in Atkyns's History. In 1712, Derby's population was 4,000. See Wolley's MS. History, mentioned in Lyson's Magna Britannia. The population of Shrewsbury was determined through actual counting in 1695. For insights into Shrewsbury's festivities, check out Farquhar's Recruiting Officer. Farquhar's description is supported by a ballad in the Pepysian Library, with the refrain "Shrewsbury for me."]

93 (return)
[ Blome's Britannia, 1673; Aikin's Country round Manchester; Manchester Directory, 1845: Baines, History of the Cotton Manufacture. The best information which I have been able to find, touching the population of Manchester in the seventeenth century is contained in a paper drawn up by the Reverend R. Parkinson, and published in the Journal of the Statistical Society for October 1842.]

93 (return)
[ Blome's Britannia, 1673; Aikin's Country around Manchester; Manchester Directory, 1845: Baines, History of the Cotton Manufacture. The most accurate information I've found about the population of Manchester in the seventeenth century comes from a paper written by Reverend R. Parkinson, published in the Journal of the Statistical Society in October 1842.]

94 (return)
[ Thoresby's Ducatus Leodensis; Whitaker's Loidis and Elmete; Wardell's Municipal History of the Borough of Leeds. (1848.) In 1851 Leeds had 172,000 Inhabitants. (1857.)]

94 (return)
[ Thoresby's Ducatus Leodensis; Whitaker's Loidis and Elmete; Wardell's Municipal History of the Borough of Leeds. (1848.) In 1851, Leeds had 172,000 residents. (1857.)]

95 (return)
[ Hunter's History of Hallamshire. (1848.) In 1851 the population of Sheffield had increased to 135,000. (1857.)]

95 (return)
[ Hunter's History of Hallamshire. (1848.) By 1851, the population of Sheffield had grown to 135,000. (1857.)]

96 (return)
[ Blome's Britannia, 1673; Dugdale's Warwickshire, North's Examen, 321; Preface to Absalom and Achitophel; Hutton's History of Birmingham; Boswell's Life of Johnson. In 1690 the burials at Birmingham were 150, the baptisms 125. I think it probable that the annual mortality was little less than one in twenty-five. In London it was considerably greater. A historian of Nottingham, half a century later, boasted of the extraordinary salubrity of his town, where the annual mortality was one in thirty. See Doring's History of Nottingham. (1848.) In 1851 the population of Birmingham had increased to 222,000. (1857.)]

96 (return)
[ Blome's Britannia, 1673; Dugdale's Warwickshire, North's Examen, 321; Preface to Absalom and Achitophel; Hutton's History of Birmingham; Boswell's Life of Johnson. In 1690, there were 150 burials in Birmingham and 125 baptisms. I think it’s likely that the annual death rate was just under one in twenty-five. In London, it was significantly higher. A historian from Nottingham, writing fifty years later, boasted about the remarkable health of his town, where the annual death rate was one in thirty. See Doring's History of Nottingham. (1848.) By 1851, Birmingham's population had risen to 222,000. (1857.)]

97 (return)
[ Blome's Britannia; Gregson's Antiquities of the County Palatine and Duchy of Lancaster, Part II.; Petition from Liverpool in the Privy Council Book, May 10, 1686. In 1690 the burials at Liverpool were 151, the baptisms 120. In 1844 the net receipt of the customs at Liverpool was 4,366,526£. 1s. 8d. (1848.) In 1851 Liverpool contained 375,000 inhabitants, (1857.)]

97 (return)
[ Blome's Britannia; Gregson's Antiquities of the County Palatine and Duchy of Lancaster, Part II.; Petition from Liverpool in the Privy Council Book, May 10, 1686. In 1690, there were 151 burials and 120 baptisms in Liverpool. In 1844, the total customs revenue collected at Liverpool was £4,366,526. 1s. 8d. (1848.) By 1851, Liverpool had a population of 375,000. (1857.)]

98 (return)
[ Atkyne's Gloucestershire.]

98 (__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__)
[Atkyne's Gloucestershire.]

99 (return)
[ Magna Britannia; Grose's Antiquities; New Brighthelmstone Directory.]

99 (return)
[ Great Britain; Grose's Antiquities; New Brighton Directory.]

100 (return)
[ Tour in Derbyshire, by Thomas Browne, son of Sir Thomas.]

100 (return)
[Tour in Derbyshire, by Thomas Browne, son of Sir Thomas.]

101 (return)
[ Memoires de Grammont; Hasted's History of Kent; Tunbridge Wells, a Comedy, 1678; Causton's Tunbridgialia, 1688; Metellus, a poem on Tunbridge Wells, 1693.]

101 (return)
[ Memoirs of Grammont; Hasted's History of Kent; Tunbridge Wells, a Comedy, 1678; Causton's Tunbridgialia, 1688; Metellus, a poem about Tunbridge Wells, 1693.]

102 (return)
[ See Wood's History of Bath, 1719; Evelyn's Diary, June 27,1654; Pepys's Diary, June 12, 1668; Stukeley's Itinerarium Curiosum; Collinson's Somersetshire; Dr. Peirce's History and Memoirs of the Bath, 1713, Book I. chap. viii. obs. 2, 1684. I have consulted several old maps and pictures of Bath, particularly one curious map which is surrounded by views of the principal buildings. It Dears the date of 1717.]

102 (return)
[ See Wood's History of Bath, 1719; Evelyn's Diary, June 27, 1654; Pepys's Diary, June 12, 1668; Stukeley's Itinerarium Curiosum; Collinson's Somersetshire; Dr. Peirce's History and Memoirs of the Bath, 1713, Book I. chap. viii. obs. 2, 1684. I have looked at several old maps and images of Bath, especially one interesting map that’s surrounded by views of the main buildings. It dates back to 1717.]

103 (return)
[ According to King 530,000. (1848.) In 1851 the population of London exceeded, 2,300,000. (1857.)]

103 (return)
[ According to King 530,000. (1848.) In 1851, the population of London surpassed 2,300,000. (1857.)]

104 (return)
[ Macpherson's History of Commerce; Chalmers's Estimate; Chamberlayne's State of England, 1684. The tonnage of the steamers belonging to the port of London was, at the end of 1847, about 60,000 tons. The customs of the port, from 1842 to 1845, very nearly averaged 11,000,000£. (1848.) In 1854 the tonnage of the steamers of the port of London amounted to 138,000 tons, without reckoning vessels of less than fifty tons. (1857.)]

104 (return)
[ Macpherson's History of Commerce; Chalmers's Estimate; Chamberlayne's State of England, 1684. By the end of 1847, the total tonnage of steamers at the port of London was around 60,000 tons. From 1842 to 1845, the customs revenue for the port was nearly 11,000,000£ on average. (1848.) In 1854, the tonnage of the steamers at the port of London rose to 138,000 tons, not including vessels under fifty tons. (1857.)]

105 (return)
[ Lyson's Environs of London. The baptisms at Chelsea, between 1680 and 1690, were only 42 a year.]

105 (return)
[ Lyson's Environs of London. The baptisms at Chelsea, from 1680 to 1690, averaged only 42 per year.]

106 (return)
[ Cowley, Discourse of Solitude.]

106 (return)
[ Cowley, Discourse of Solitude.]

107 (return)
[ The fullest and most trustworthy information about the state of the buildings of London at this time is to be derived from the maps and drawings in the British Museum and in the Pepysian Library. The badness of the bricks in the old buildings of London is particularly mentioned in the Travels of the Grand Duke Cosmo. There is an account of the works at Saint Paul's in Ward's London Spy. I am almost ashamed to quote such nauseous balderdash; but I have been forced to descend even lower, if possible, in search of materials.]

107 (return)
[ The most complete and reliable information about the state of London's buildings at this time comes from the maps and drawings in the British Museum and the Pepysian Library. The poor quality of the bricks in London's old buildings is specifically noted in the Travels of the Grand Duke Cosmo. There's a description of the work at Saint Paul's in Ward's London Spy. I feel almost embarrassed to quote such ridiculous nonsense; however, I've had to go even lower, if that's possible, in search of material.]

108 (return)
[ Evelyn's Diary, Sept. 20. 1672.]

108 (return)
[ Evelyn's Diary, Sept. 20, 1672.]

109 (return)
[ Roger North's Life of Sir Dudley North.]

109 (return)
[ Roger North's Life of Sir Dudley North.]

110 (return)
[ North's Examen. This amusing writer has preserved a specimen of the sublime raptures in which the Pindar of the City indulged:—

110 (return)
[ North's Examen. This entertaining writer has kept a sample of the amazing enthusiasm in which the city's Pindar indulged:—

     "The worshipful sir John Moor!
     After age that name adore!"]
     "The esteemed Sir John Moor!  
     After all this time, we still admire that name!"

111 (return)
[ Chamberlayne's State of England, 1684; Anglie Metropolis, 1690; Seymour's London, 1734.]

111 (return)
[ Chamberlayne's State of England, 1684; Anglie Metropolis, 1690; Seymour's London, 1734.]

112 (return)
[ North's Examen, 116; Wood, Ath. Ox. Shaftesbury; The Duke of B.'s Litany.]

112 (return)
[ North's Examen, 116; Wood, Ath. Ox. Shaftesbury; The Duke of B.'s Litany.]

113 (return)
[ Travels of the Grand Duke Cosmo.]

113 (return)
[ Travels of Grand Duke Cosmo.]

114 (return)
[ Chamberlayne's State of England, 1684; Pennant's London; Smith's Life of Nollekens.]

114 (return)
[ Chamberlayne's State of England, 1684; Pennant's London; Smith's Life of Nollekens.]

115 (return)
[ Evelyn's Diary, Oct. 10, 1683, Jan. 19, 1685-6.]

115 (return)
[ Evelyn's Diary, Oct. 10, 1683, Jan. 19, 1685-6.]

116 (return)
[ Stat. 1 Jac. II. c. 22; Evelyn's Diary, Dec, 7, 1684.]

116 (return)
[ Stat. 1 Jac. II. c. 22; Evelyn's Diary, Dec. 7, 1684.]

117 (return)
[ Old General Oglethorpe, who died in 1785, used to boast that he had shot birds here in Anne's reign. See Pennant's London, and the Gentleman's Magazine for July, 1785.]

117 (return)
[ Old General Oglethorpe, who passed away in 1785, liked to brag that he had hunted birds here during Anne's reign. Check out Pennant's London and the Gentleman's Magazine from July 1785.]

118 (return)
[ The pest field will be seen in maps of London as late as the end of George the First's reign.]

118 (return)
[ The pest field will appear in maps of London even until the end of George I's reign.]

119 (return)
[ See a very curious plan of Covent Garden made about 1690, and engraved for Smith's History of Westminster. See also Hogarth's Morning, painted while some of the houses in the Piazza were still occupied by people of fashion.]

119 (return)
[ Check out a fascinating map of Covent Garden created around 1690, which was engraved for Smith's History of Westminster. Also, take a look at Hogarth's Morning, painted while some of the houses in the Piazza were still inhabited by fashionable people.]

120 (return)
[ London Spy, Tom Brown's comical View of London and Westminster; Turner's Propositions for the employing of the Poor, 1678; Daily Courant and Daily Journal of June 7, 1733; Case of Michael v. Allestree, in 1676, 2 Levinz, p. 172. Michael had been run over by two horses which Allestree was breaking in Lincoln's Inn Fields. The declaration set forth that the defendant "porta deux chivals ungovernable en un coach, et improvide, incante, et absque debita consideratione ineptitudinis loci la eux drive pur eux faire tractable et apt pur an coach, quels chivals, pur ceo que, per leur ferocite, ne poientestre rule, curre sur le plaintiff et le noie."]

120 (return)
[ London Spy, Tom Brown's comical View of London and Westminster; Turner's proposals for employing the Poor, 1678; Daily Courant and Daily Journal of June 7, 1733; Case of Michael v. Allestree, in 1676, 2 Levinz, p. 172. Michael was run over by two horses that Allestree was training in Lincoln's Inn Fields. The declaration stated that the defendant "was driving two unmanageable horses in a coach, and carelessly, without proper consideration of the unsuitability of the place, attempted to make them manageable and suitable for a coach, which horses, due to their ferocity, could not be controlled, charged at the plaintiff and knocked him down."]

121 (return)
[ Stat. 12 Geo. I. c. 25; Commons' Journals, Feb. 25, March 2, 1725-6; London Gardener, 1712; Evening Post, March, 23, 1731. I have not been able to find this number of the Evening Post; I therefore quote it on the faith of Mr. Malcolm, who mentions it in his History of London.]

121 (return)
[Stat. 12 Geo. I. c. 25; Commons' Journals, Feb. 25, March 2, 1725-6; London Gardener, 1712; Evening Post, March 23, 1731. I haven't been able to locate this edition of the Evening Post; therefore, I reference it based on Mr. Malcolm's account in his History of London.]

122 (return)
[ Lettres sur les Anglois, written early in the reign of William the Third; Swift's City Shower; Gay's Trivia. Johnson used to relate a curious conversation which he had with his mother about giving and taking the wall.]

122 (return)
[Letters on the English, written early in the reign of William the Third; Swift's City Shower; Gay's Trivia. Johnson used to share an interesting conversation he had with his mother about giving way and taking the wall.]

123 (return)
[ Oldham's Imitation of the 3d Satire of Juvenal, 1682; Shadwell's Scourers, 1690. Many other authorities will readily occur to all who are acquainted with the popular literature of that and the succeeding generation. It may be suspected that some of the Tityre Tus, like good Cavaliers, broke Milton's windows shortly after the Restoration. I am confident that he was thinking of those pests of London when he dictated the noble lines:

123 (return)
[ Oldham's Imitation of the 3rd Satire of Juvenal, 1682; Shadwell's Scourers, 1690. Many other sources will quickly come to mind for anyone familiar with the popular literature from that time and the next generation. It might be suspected that some of the Tityre Tus, like true Cavaliers, broke Milton's windows shortly after the Restoration. I believe he was thinking of those nuisances of London when he wrote the powerful lines:

     "And in luxurious cities, when the noise
     Of riot ascends above their loftiest towers,
     And injury and outrage, and when night
     Darkens the streets, then wander forth the sons
     Of Belial, flown With innocence and wine."]
"And in opulent cities, when the sounds of chaos rise above their tallest buildings, and when harm and violence occur, and night covers the streets, that's when the sons of Belial roam, intoxicated with innocence and wine."

124 (return)
[ Seymour's London.]

124 (__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__)
[ Seymour's London.]

125 (return)
[ Angliae Metropolis, 1690, Sect. 17, entitled, "Of the new lights"; Seymour's London.]

125 (return)
[London, England, 1690, Section 17, titled "Of the New Lights"; Seymour's London.]

126 (return)
[ Stowe's Survey of London; Shadwell's Squire of Alsatia; Ward's London Spy; Stat. 8 & 9 Gul. III. cap. 27.]

126 (return)
[ Stowe's Survey of London; Shadwell's Squire of Alsatia; Ward's London Spy; Stat. 8 & 9 Gul. III. cap. 27.]

127 (return)
[ See Sir Roger North's account of the way in which Wright was made a judge, and Clarendon's account of the way in which Sir George Savile was made a peer.]

127 (return)
[ See Sir Roger North's description of how Wright became a judge, and Clarendon's description of how Sir George Savile was made a peer.]

128 (return)
[ The sources from which I have drawn my information about the state of the Court are too numerous to recapitulate. Among them are the Despatches of Barillon, Van Citters, Ronquillo, and Adda, the Travels of the Grand Duke Cosmo, the works of Roger North, the Diares of Pepys, Evelyn, and Teonge, and the Memoirs of Grammont and Reresby.]

128 (return)
[ The sources I used to gather information about the condition of the Court are far too many to list. They include the dispatches from Barillon, Van Citters, Ronquillo, and Adda, the travels of Grand Duke Cosmo, the writings of Roger North, the diaries of Pepys, Evelyn, and Teonge, and the memoirs of Grammont and Reresby.]

129 (return)
[ The chief peculiarity of this dialect was that, in a large class of words, the O was pronounced like A. Thus Lord was pronounced Lard. See Vanbrugh's Relapse. Lord Sunderland was a great master of this court tune, as Roger North calls it; and Titus Oates affected it in the hope of passing for a fine gentleman. Examen, 77, 254.]

129 (return)
[ The main feature of this dialect was that, in many words, the O sounded like A. So, Lord was pronounced Lard. See Vanbrugh's Relapse. Lord Sunderland was really good at this court style, as Roger North refers to it; and Titus Oates used it to try to appear like a gentleman. Examen, 77, 254.]

130 (return)
[ Lettres sur les Anglois; Tom Brown's Tour; Ward's London Spy; The Character of a Coffee House, 1673; Rules and Orders of the Coffee House, 1674; Coffee Houses vindicated, 1675; A Satyr against Coffee; North's Examen, 138; Life of Guildford, 152; Life of Sir Dudley North, 149; Life of Dr. Radcliffe, published by Curll in 1715. The liveliest description of Will's is in the City and Country Mouse. There is a remarkable passage about the influence of the coffee house orators in Halstead's Succinct Genealogies, printed in 1685.]

130 (return)
[ Letters on the English; Tom Brown's Tour; Ward's London Spy; The Character of a Coffee House, 1673; Rules and Orders of the Coffee House, 1674; Coffee Houses Defended, 1675; A Satire Against Coffee; North's Examination, 138; Life of Guildford, 152; Life of Sir Dudley North, 149; Life of Dr. Radcliffe, published by Curll in 1715. The most vivid description of Will's is in the City and Country Mouse. There's an interesting passage about the impact of the coffee house speakers in Halstead's Succinct Genealogies, printed in 1685.]

131 (return)
[ Century of inventions, 1663, No. 68.]

131 (return)
[ Century of inventions, 1663, No. 68.]

132 (return)
[ North's Life of Guildford, 136.]

132 (return)
[ North's Life of Guildford, 136.]

133 (return)
[ Thoresby's Diary Oct. 21,1680, Aug. 3, 1712.]

133 (return)
[ Thoresby's Diary Oct. 21, 1680, Aug. 3, 1712.]

134 (return)
[ Pepys's Diary, June 12 and 16,1668.]

134 (return)
[ Pepys's Diary, June 12 and 16, 1668.]

135 (return)
[ Ibid. Feb. 28, 1660.]

135 (return)
[ Ibid. Feb. 28, 1660.]

136 (return)
[ Thoresby's Diary, May 17,1695.]

136 (return)
[ Thoresby's Diary, May 17, 1695.]

137 (return)
[ Ibid. Dec. 27,1708.]

137 (__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__)
[ Ibid. Dec. 27, 1708.]

138 (return)
[ Tour in Derbyshire, by J. Browne, son of Sir Thomas Browne, 1662; Cotton's Angler, 1676.]

138 (return)
[ Tour in Derbyshire, by J. Browne, son of Sir Thomas Browne, 1662; Cotton's Angler, 1676.]

139 (return)
[ Correspondence of Henry Earl of Clarendon, Dec. 30, 1685, Jan. 1, 1686.]

139 (return)
[ Correspondence of Henry Earl of Clarendon, Dec. 30, 1685, Jan. 1, 1686.]

140 (return)
[ Postlethwaite's Dictionary, Roads; History of Hawkhurst, in the Bibliotheca Topographica Britannica.]

140 (return)
[ Postlethwaite's Dictionary, Roads; History of Hawkhurst, in the Bibliotheca Topographica Britannica.]

141 (return)
[ Annals of Queen Anne, 1703, Appendix, No. 3.]

141 (return)
[ Annals of Queen Anne, 1703, Appendix, No. 3.]

142 (return)
[ 15 Car. II. c. 1.]

142 (return)
[ 15 Car. II. c. 1.]

143 (return)
[ The evils of the old system are strikingly set forth in many petitions which appear in the Commons' Journal of 172 5/6. How fierce an opposition was offered to the new system may be learned from the Gentleman's Magazine of 1749.]

143 (return)
[The problems with the old system are clearly outlined in many petitions found in the Commons' Journal from 1725/6. The strong resistance to the new system can be seen in the Gentleman's Magazine from 1749.]

144 (return)
[ Postlethwaite's Dict., Roads.]

144 (__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__)
[ Postlethwaite's Dictionary, Roads.]

145 (return)
[ Loidis and Elmete; Marshall's Rural Economy of England, In 1739 Roderic Random came from Scotland to Newcastle on a packhorse.]

145 (return)
[ Loidis and Elmete; Marshall's Rural Economy of England, In 1739, Roderic Random traveled from Scotland to Newcastle on a packhorse.]

146 (return)
[ Cotton's Epistle to J. Bradshaw.]

146 (return)
[ Cotton's Letter to J. Bradshaw.]

147 (return)
[ Anthony a Wood's Life of himself.]

147 (return)
[ Anthony a Wood's Life of himself.]

148 (return)
[ Chamberlayne's State of England, 1684. See also the list of stage coaches and waggons at the end of the book, entitled Angliae Metropolis, 1690.]

148 (return)
[Chamberlayne's State of England, 1684. Also, check out the list of stage coaches and wagons at the end of the book, titled Angliae Metropolis, 1690.]

149 (return)
[ John Cresset's Reasons for suppressing Stage Coaches, 1672. These reason were afterwards inserted in a tract, entitled "The Grand Concern of England explained, 1673." Cresset's attack on stage coaches called forth some answers which I have consulted.]

149 (return)
[ John Cresset's Reasons for Suppressing Stage Coaches, 1672. These reasons were later included in a pamphlet titled "The Grand Concern of England Explained, 1673." Cresset's criticism of stage coaches prompted some responses that I have reviewed.]

150 (return)
[ Chamberlayne's State of England, 1684; North's Examen, 105; Evelyn's Diary, Oct. 9,10, 1671.]

150 (return)
[ Chamberlayne's State of England, 1684; North's Examen, 105; Evelyn's Diary, Oct. 9,10, 1671.]

151 (return)
[ See the London Gazette, May 14, 1677, August 4, 1687, Dec. 5, 1687. The last confession of Augustin King, who was the son of an eminent divine, and had been educated at Cambridge but was hanged at Colchester in March, 1688, is highly curious.]

151 (return)
[ See the London Gazette, May 14, 1677, August 4, 1687, Dec. 5, 1687. The final confession of Augustin King, son of a prominent clergyman, who was educated at Cambridge but was executed in Colchester in March, 1688, is very intriguing.]

152 (return)
[ Aimwell. Pray sir, han't I seen your face at Will's coffeehouse? Gibbet. Yes sir, and at White's too.—Beaux' Stratagem.]

152 (return)
[ Aimwell. Excuse me, sir, haven't I seen you at Will's coffeehouse? Gibbet. Yes, I have, and also at White's.—Beaux' Stratagem.]

153 (return)
[ Gent's History of York. Another marauder of the same description, named Biss, was hanged at Salisbury in 1695. In a ballad which is in the Pepysian Library, he is represented as defending himself thus before the Judge:

153 (return)
[ Gent's History of York. Another criminal of the same kind, named Biss, was hanged in Salisbury in 1695. In a ballad found in the Pepysian Library, he is shown defending himself this way before the Judge:

     "What say you now, my honoured Lord
     What harm was there in this?
     Rich, wealthy misers were abhorred
     By brave, freehearted Biss."]
     "What do you say now, my respected Lord?  
     What was wrong with this?  
     Rich, greedy misers were despised  
     By courageous, generous Biss."

154 (return)
[ Pope's Memoirs of Duval, published immediately after the execution. Oates's Eikwg basilikh, Part I.]

154 (return)
[ Pope's Memoirs of Duval, released right after the execution. Oates's Eikwg basilikh, Part I.]

155 (return)
[ See the prologue to the Canterbury Tales, Harrison's Historical Description of the Island of Great Britain, and Pepys's account of his tour in the summer of 1668. The excellence of the English inns is noticed in the Travels of the Grand Duke Cosmo.]

155 (return)
[ Check out the prologue to the Canterbury Tales, Harrison's Historical Description of the Island of Great Britain, and Pepys's account of his trip in the summer of 1668. The quality of English inns is highlighted in the Travels of the Grand Duke Cosmo.]

156 (return)
[ Stat. 12 Car. II. c. 36; Chamberlayne's State of England, 1684; Angliae Metropolis, 1690; London Gazette, June 22, 1685, August 15, 1687.]

156 (return)
[ Stat. 12 Car. II. c. 36; Chamberlayne's State of England, 1684; Angliae Metropolis, 1690; London Gazette, June 22, 1685, August 15, 1687.]

157 (return)
[ Lond. Gaz., Sept. 14, 1685.]

157 (return)
[ London Gazette, September 14, 1685.]

158 (return)
[ Smith's Current intelligence, March 30, and April 3, 1680.]

158 (return)
[ Smith's Current intelligence, March 30, and April 3, 1680.]

159 (return)
[ Anglias Metropolis, 1690.]

159 (__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__)
[ Anglias Metropolis, 1690.]

160 (return)
[ Commons' Journals, Sept. 4, 1660, March 1, 1688-9; Chamberlayne, 1684; Davenant on the Public Revenue, Discourse IV.]

160 (return)
[ Commons' Journals, Sept. 4, 1660, March 1, 1688-9; Chamberlayne, 1684; Davenant on the Public Revenue, Discourse IV.]

161 (return)
[ I have left the text as it stood in 1848. In the year 1856 the gross receipt of the Post Office was more than 2,800,000£.; and the net receipt was about 1,200,000£. The number of letters conveyed by post was 478,000,000. (1857).]

161 (return)
[ I have left the text as it stood in 1848. In 1856, the total income of the Post Office was over £2,800,000, and the net income was around £1,200,000. The number of letters delivered by post was 478,000,000. (1857).]

162 (return)
[ London Gazette, May 5, and 17, 1680.]

162 (return)
[ London Gazette, May 5, and 17, 1680.]

163 (return)
[ There is a very curious, and, I should think, unique collection of these papers in the British Museum.]

163 (return)
[ There is a very interesting and, I believe, one-of-a-kind collection of these papers in the British Museum.]

164 (return)
[ For example, there is not a word in the Gazette about the important parliamentary proceedings of November, 1685, or about the trial and acquittal of the Seven Bishops.]

164 (return)
[ For example, there isn't a single mention in the Gazette about the significant parliamentary proceedings from November 1685, or about the trial and acquittal of the Seven Bishops.]

165 (return)
[ Roger North's Life of Dr. John North. On the subject of newsletters, see the Examen, 133.]

165 (return)
[ Roger North's Life of Dr. John North. For information on newsletters, refer to the Examen, 133.]

166 (return)
[ I take this opportunity of expressing my warm gratitude to the family of my dear and honoured friend sir James Mackintosh for confiding to me the materials collected by him at a time when he meditated a work similar to that which I have undertaken. I have never seen, and I do not believe that there anywhere exists, within the same compass, so noble a collection of extracts from public and private archives The judgment with which sir James in great masses of the rudest ore of history, selected what was valuable, and rejected what was worthless, can be fully appreciated only by one who has toiled after him in the same mine.]

166 (return)
[ I want to take this chance to express my deep gratitude to the family of my dear and respected friend Sir James Mackintosh for trusting me with the materials he gathered while he was considering a project similar to the one I’m working on. I have never seen, and I don’t believe there is anywhere else, such a remarkable collection of excerpts from public and private archives within the same scope. The insight with which Sir James sifted through large amounts of the raw material of history, choosing what was valuable and discarding what was not, can only be truly appreciated by someone who has worked alongside him in the same field.]

167 (return)
[ Life of Thomas Gent. A complete list of all printing houses in 1724 will be found in Nichols's Literary Anecdotae of the eighteenth century. There had then been a great increase within a few years in the number of presses, and yet there were thirty-four counties in which there was no printer, one of those counties being Lancashire.]

167 (return)
[Life of Thomas Gent. A complete list of all printing houses in 1724 can be found in Nichols's Literary Anecdotae of the eighteenth century. There had been a significant increase in the number of presses within just a few years, yet there were still thirty-four counties without a printer, one of which was Lancashire.]

168 (return)
[ Observator, Jan. 29, and 31, 1685; Calamy's Life of Baxter; Nonconformist Memorial.]

168 (return)
[ Observer, Jan. 29, and 31, 1685; Calamy's Life of Baxter; Nonconformist Memorial.]

169 (return)
[ Cotton seems, from his Angler, to have found room for his whole library in his hall window; and Cotton was a man of letters. Even when Franklin first visited London in 1724, circulating libraries were unknown there. The crowd at the booksellers' shops in Little Britain is mentioned by Roger North in his life of his brother John.]

169 (return)
[ Cotton appears to have managed to fit his entire library in his hall window, and he was a well-read man. Even when Franklin first went to London in 1724, there were no circulating libraries there. Roger North mentions the crowd at the booksellers' shops in Little Britain in his biography of his brother John.]

170 (return)
[ One instance will suffice. Queen Mary, the daughter of James, had excellent natural abilities, had been educated by a Bishop, was fond of history and poetry and was regarded by very eminent men as a superior woman. There is, in the library at the Hague, a superb English Bible which was delivered to her when she was crowned in Westminster Abbey. In the titlepage are these words in her own hand, "This book was given the King and I, at our crownation. Marie R."]

170 (return)
[ One example will do. Queen Mary, the daughter of James, had impressive natural talents, was educated by a bishop, loved history and poetry, and was seen by highly respected figures as an exceptional woman. In the library at The Hague, there is a magnificent English Bible that was presented to her when she was crowned in Westminster Abbey. On the title page, in her own handwriting, are the words, "This book was given to the King and me at our coronation. Marie R."]

171 (return)
[ Roger North tells us that his brother John, who was Greek professor at Cambridge, complained bitterly of the general neglect of the Greek tongue among the academical clergy.]

171 (return)
[ Roger North tells us that his brother John, who was a Greek professor at Cambridge, complained a lot about how the academic clergy generally ignored the Greek language.]

172 (return)
[ Butler, in a satire of great asperity, says,

172 (return)
[ Butler, in a sharply critical satire, says,

     "For, though to smelter words of Greek
     And Latin be the rhetorique
     Of pedants counted, and vainglorious,
     To smatter French is meritorious."]
"For even though the ability to speak Greek and Latin is seen as the rhetoric of pedants and show-offs, being able to dabble in French is considered commendable."

173 (return)
[ The most offensive instance which I remember is in a poem on the coronation of Charles the Second by Dryden, who certainly could not plead poverty as an excuse for borrowing words from any foreign tongue:—

173 (return)
[ The most shocking example I remember is in a poem about the coronation of Charles the Second by Dryden, who definitely couldn’t use poverty as an excuse for borrowing words from another language:—

     "Hither in summer evenings you repair
     To taste the fraicheur of the cooler air."]
"Here on summer evenings you come
to enjoy the freshness of the cooler air."

174 (return)
[ Jeremy Collier has censured this odious practice with his usual force and keenness.]

174 (return)
[ Jeremy Collier has criticized this hateful practice with his usual intensity and sharpness.]

175 (return)
[ The contrast will be found in Sir Walter Scott's edition of Dryden.]

175 (return)
[ You can find the contrast in Sir Walter Scott's edition of Dryden.]

176 (return)
[ See the Life of Southern. by Shiels.]

176 (return)
[ See the Life of Southern by Shiels.]

177 (return)
[ See Rochester's Trial of the Poets.]

177 (return)
[ See Rochester's Trial of the Poets.]

178 (return)
[ Some Account of the English Stage.]

178 (return)
[ A Look at the English Stage.]

179 (return)
[ Life of Southern, by Shiels.]

179 (return)
[ Life of Southern, by Shiels.]

180 (return)
[ If any reader thinks my expressions too severe, I would advise him to read Dryden's Epilogue to the Duke of Guise, and to observe that it was spoken by a woman.]

180 (return)
[If any reader thinks my comments are too harsh, I suggest they read Dryden's Epilogue to the Duke of Guise and notice that it was delivered by a woman.]

181 (return)
[ See particularly Harrington's Oceana.]

181 (return)
[ Check out Harrington's Oceana for more information.]

182 (return)
[ See Sprat's History of the Royal Society.]

182 (return)
[See Sprat's History of the Royal Society.]

183 (return)
[ Cowley's Ode to the Royal Society.]

183 (return)
[ Cowley's Ode to the Royal Society.]

184 (return)
[

184 (__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__)

     "Then we upon the globe's last verge shall go,
     And view the ocean leaning  on the  sky;
     From  thence our rolling neighbours we shall know,
     And on the lunar world secretly pry.']
          —Annus Mirabilis, 164]
     "Then we will go to the edge of the world,  
     And see the ocean touching the sky;  
     From there, we will see our spinning neighbors,  
     And secretly spy on the lunar world."  
          —Annus Mirabilis, 164  

185 (return)
[ North's Life of Guildford.]

185 (return)
[ North's Life of Guildford.]

186 (return)
[ Pepys's Diary, May 30, 1667.]

186 (return)
[ Pepys's Diary, May 30, 1667.]

187 (return)
[ Butler was, I think, the only man of real genius who, between the Restoration and the Revolution showed a bitter enmity to the new philosophy, as it was then called. See the Satire on the Royal Society, and the Elephant in the Moon.]

187 (return)
[ Butler was, I believe, the only truly gifted individual who, between the Restoration and the Revolution, expressed a strong opposition to the new philosophy, as it was referred to. See the Satire on the Royal Society, and the Elephant in the Moon.]

188 (return)
[ The eagerness with which the agriculturists of that age tried experiments and introduced improvements is well described by Aubrey. See the Natural history of Wiltshire, 1685.]

188 (return)
[ The enthusiasm with which the farmers of that time conducted experiments and implemented improvements is well captured by Aubrey. See the Natural History of Wiltshire, 1685.]

189 (return)
[ Sprat's History of the Royal Society.]

189 (return)
[ Sprat's History of the Royal Society.]

190 (return)
[ Walpole's Anecdotes of Painting, London Gazette, May 31, 1683; North's Life of Guildford.]

190 (return)
[Walpole's Anecdotes of Painting, London Gazette, May 31, 1683; North's Life of Guildford.]

191 (return)
[ The great prices paid to Varelst and Verrio are mentioned in Walpole's Anecdotes of Painting.]

191 (return)
[ The high prices paid to Varelst and Verrio are noted in Walpole's Anecdotes of Painting.]

192 (return)
[ Petty's Political Arithmetic.]

192 (__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__)
[ Petty's Political Math.]

193 (return)
[ Stat 5 Eliz. c. 4; Archaeologia, vol. xi.]

193 (return)
[ Stat 5 Eliz. c. 4; Archaeologia, vol. xi.]

194 (return)
[ Plain and easy Method showing how the office of Overseer of the Poor may be managed, by Richard Dunning; 1st edition, 1685; 2d edition, 1686.]

194 (return)
[ A straightforward and simple guide on how to manage the role of Overseer of the Poor, by Richard Dunning; 1st edition, 1685; 2nd edition, 1686.]

195 (return)
[ Cullum's History of Hawsted.]

195 (return)
[ Cullum's History of Hawsted.]

196 (return)
[ Ruggles on the Poor.]

196 (return)
[ Ruggles on the Poor.]

197 (return)
[ See, in Thurloe's State Papers, the memorandum of the Dutch Deputies dated August 2-12, 1653.]

197 (return)
[See Thurloe's State Papers, the memorandum from the Dutch Deputies dated August 2-12, 1653.]

198 (return)
[ The orator was Mr. John Basset, member for Barnstaple. See Smith's Memoirs of Wool, chapter lxviii.]

198 (return)
[ The speaker was Mr. John Basset, the representative for Barnstaple. See Smith's Memoirs of Wool, chapter lxviii.]

199 (return)
[ This ballad is in the British Museum. The precise year is not given; but the Imprimatur of Roger Lestrange fixes the date sufficiently for my purpose. I will quote some of the lines. The master clothier is introduced speaking as follows:

199 (return)
[ This ballad is in the British Museum. The exact year is not provided; however, the approval from Roger Lestrange sets the date clearly enough for my needs. I will quote some lines. The master clothier is introduced speaking as follows:

     "In former ages we used to give,
     So that our workfolks like farmers did live;
     But the times are changed, we will make them know.

     "We will make them to work hard for sixpence a day,
     Though a shilling they deserve if they kind their just pay;
     If at all they murmur and say 'tis too small,
     We bid them choose whether they'll work at all.
     And thus we forgain all our wealth and estate,
     By many poor men that work early and late.
     Then hey for the clothing trade! It goes on brave;
     We scorn for to toyl and moyl, nor yet to slave.
     Our workmen do work hard, but we live at ease,
     We go when we will, and we come when we please."]
"In the past, we used to provide,
So our workers, like farmers, could thrive;
But times have changed, and they’ll know it now.

"We'll enforce hard work for just sixpence a day,
Even though a shilling is what they rightly should pay;
If they complain and say it's too low,
We tell them to choose if they want to work or go.
And so we lose all our wealth and estate,
Thanks to many poor souls who labor early and late.
So here’s to the clothing trade! It’s doing well;
We refuse to toil or labor, nor live in hell.
Our workers put in effort, but we live in comfort,
We leave when we want and come back when we want."

200 (return)
[ Chamberlayne's State of England; Petty's Political Arithmetic, chapter viii.; Dunning's Plain and Easy Method; Firmin's Proposition for the Employing of the Poor. It ought to be observed that Firmin was an eminent philanthropist.]

200 (return)
[ Chamberlayne's State of England; Petty's Political Arithmetic, chapter viii.; Dunning's Plain and Easy Method; Firmin's Proposal for Employing the Poor. It should be noted that Firmin was a prominent philanthropist.]

201 (return)
[ King in his Natural and Political Conclusions roughly estimated the common people of England at 880,000 families. Of these families 440,000, according to him ate animal food twice a week. The remaining 440,000, ate it not at all, or at most not oftener than once a week.]

201 (return)
[ King, in his Natural and Political Conclusions, roughly estimated the common people of England at 880,000 families. According to him, 440,000 of these families consumed animal food twice a week. The other 440,000 either didn't eat it at all or did so no more than once a week.]

202 (return)
[ Fourteenth Report of the Poor Law Commissioners, Appendix B. No. 2, Appendix C. No 1, 1848. Of the two estimates of the poor rate mentioned in the text one was formed by Arthur Moore, the other, some years later, by Richard Dunning. Moore's estimate will be found in Davenant's Essay on Ways and Means; Dunning's in Sir Frederic Eden's valuable work on the poor. King and Davenant estimate the paupers and beggars in 1696, at the incredible number of 1,330,000 out of a population of 5,500,000. In 1846 the number of persons who received relief appears from the official returns to have been only 1,332,089 out of a population of about 17,000,000. It ought also to be observed that, in those returns, a pauper must very often be reckoned more than once. I would advise the reader to consult De Foe's pamphlet entitled "Giving Alms no Charity," and the Greenwich tables which will be found in Mr. M'Culloch's Commercial Dictionary under the head Prices.]

202 (return)
[ Fourteenth Report of the Poor Law Commissioners, Appendix B. No. 2, Appendix C. No 1, 1848. Of the two estimates of the poor rate mentioned in the text, one was made by Arthur Moore and the other, several years later, by Richard Dunning. Moore's estimate can be found in Davenant's Essay on Ways and Means; Dunning's is in Sir Frederic Eden's important work on the poor. King and Davenant estimate the number of paupers and beggars in 1696 to be an astonishing 1,330,000 out of a population of 5,500,000. In 1846, the official records show that the number of people receiving relief was just 1,332,089 out of a population of around 17,000,000. It's also worth noting that in those records, a pauper often appears more than once. I recommend that readers check out Defoe's pamphlet titled "Giving Alms no Charity," as well as the Greenwich tables found in Mr. M'Culloch's Commercial Dictionary under the section Prices.]

203 (return)
[ The deaths were 23,222. Petty's Political Arithmetic.]

203 (return)
[ The number of deaths was 23,222. Petty's Political Arithmetic.]

204 (return)
[ Burnet, i. 560.]

204 (__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__)
[ Burnet, i. 560.]

205 (return)
[ Muggleton's Acts of the Witnesses of the Spirit.]

205 (return)
[ Muggleton's Acts of the Witnesses of the Spirit.]

206 (return)
[ Tom Brown describes such a scene in lines which I do not venture to quote.]

206 (return)
[ Tom Brown describes such a scene in lines that I don't feel comfortable quoting.]

207 (return)
[ Ward's London Spy.]

207 (__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__)
[ Ward's London Spy.]

208 (return)
[ Pepys's Diary, Dec. 28, 1663, Sept. 2, 1667.]

208 (return)
[ Pepys's Diary, Dec. 28, 1663, Sept. 2, 1667.]

209 (return)
[ Burnet, i, 606; Spectator, No. 462; Lords' Journals, October 28, 1678; Cibber's Apology.]

209 (return)
[ Burnet, i, 606; Spectator, No. 462; Lords' Journals, October 28, 1678; Cibber's Apology.]

210 (return)
[ Burnet, i. 605, 606, Welwood, North's Life of Guildford, 251.]

210 (return)
[ Burnet, i. 605, 606, Welwood, North's Life of Guildford, 251.]

211 (return)
[ I may take this opportunity of mentioning that whenever I give only one date, I follow the old style, which was, in the seventeenth century, the style of England; but I reckon the year from the first of January.]

211 (return)
[I want to take this chance to mention that whenever I only provide one date, I’m using the old style, which was the way dates were used in England in the seventeenth century; however, I count the year starting from January 1st.]

212 (return)
[ Saint Everemond, passim; Saint Real, Memoires de la Duchesse de Mazarin; Rochester's Farewell; Evelyn's Diary, Sept. 6, 1676, June 11, 1699.]

212 (return)
[Saint Everemond, various; Saint Real, Memoirs of the Duchess of Mazarin; Rochester's Farewell; Evelyn's Diary, September 6, 1676, June 11, 1699.]

213 (return)
[ Evelyn's Diary, Jan. 28, 1684-5, Saint Evremond's Letter to Dery.]

213 (return)
[ Evelyn's Diary, Jan. 28, 1684-5, Saint Evremond's Letter to Dery.]

214 (return)
[ Id., February 4, 1684-5.]

214 (return)
[ Id., February 4, 1684-5.]

215 (return)
[ Roger North's Life of Sir Dudley North, 170; The true Patriot vindicated, or a Justification of his Excellency the E-of R-; Burnet, i. 605. The Treasury Books prove that Burnet had good intelligence.]

215 (return)
[ Roger North's Life of Sir Dudley North, 170; The true Patriot vindicated, or a Justification of his Excellency the E-of R-; Burnet, i. 605. The Treasury Books prove that Burnet had good intelligence.]

216 (return)
[ Evelyn's Diary, Jan. 24, 1681-2, Oct. 4, 1683.]

216 (return)
[ Evelyn's Diary, Jan. 24, 1681-2, Oct. 4, 1683.]

217 (return)
[ Dugdale's Correspondence.]

217 (__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__)
[Dugdale's Correspondence.]

218 (return)
[ Hawkins's Life of Ken, 1713.]

218 (return)
[ Hawkins's Life of Ken, 1713.]

219 (return)
[ See the London Gazette of Nov. 21, 1678. Barillon and Burnet say that Huddleston was excepted out of all the Acts of Parliament made against priests; but this is a mistake.]

219 (return)
[ See the London Gazette of Nov. 21, 1678. Barillon and Burnet claim that Huddleston was excluded from all the laws passed against priests, but this is incorrect.]

220 (return)
[ Clark's Life of James the Second, i, 746. Orig. Mem.; Barillon's Despatch of Feb. 1-18, 1685; Van Citters's Despatches of Feb. 3-13 and Feb. 1-16. Huddleston's Narrative; Letters of Philip, second Earl of Chesterfield, 277; Sir H. Ellis's Original Letters, First Series. iii. 333: Second Series, iv 74; Chaillot MS.; Burnet, i. 606: Evelyn's Diary, Feb. 4. 1684-5: Welwood's Memoires 140; North's Life of Guildford. 252; Examen, 648; Hawkins's Life of Ken; Dryden's Threnodia Augustalis; Sir H. Halford's Essay on Deaths of Eminent Persons. See also a fragment of a letter written by the Earl of Ailesbury, which is printed in the European Magazine for April, 1795. Ailesbury calls Burnet an impostor. Yet his own narrative and Burnet's will not, to any candid and sensible reader, appear to contradict each other. I have seen in the British Museum, and also in the Library of the Royal Institution, a curious broadside containing an account of the death of Charles. It will be found in the Somers Collections. The author was evidently a zealous Roman Catholic, and must have had access to good sources of information. I strongly suspect that he had been in communication, directly or indirectly, with James himself. No name is given at length; but the initials are perfectly intelligible, except in one place. It is said that the D. of Y. was reminded of the duty which he owed to his brother by P.M.A.C.F. I must own myself quite unable to decipher the last five letters. It is some consolation that Sir Walter Scott was equally unsuccessful. (1848.) Since the first edition of this work was published, several ingenious conjectures touching these mysterious letters have been communicated to me, but I am convinced that the true solution has not yet been suggested. (1850.) I still greatly doubt whether the riddle has been solved. But the most plausible interpretation is one which, with some variations, occurred, almost at the same time, to myself and to several other persons; I am inclined to read "Pere Mansuete A Cordelier Friar." Mansuete, a Cordelier, was then James's confessor. To Mansuete therefore it peculiarly belonged to remind James of a sacred duty which had been culpably neglected. The writer of the broadside must have been unwilling to inform the world that a soul which many devout Roman Catholics had left to perish had been snatched from destruction by the courageous charity of a woman of loose character. It is therefore not unlikely that he would prefer a fiction, at once probable and edifying, to a truth which could not fail to give scandal. (1856.)——It should seem that no transactions in history ought to be more accurately known to us than those which took place round the deathbed of Charles the Second. We have several relations written by persons who were actually in his room. We have several relations written by persons who, though not themselves eyewitnesses, had the best opportunity of obtaining information from eyewitnesses. Yet whoever attempts to digest this vast mass of materials into a consistent narrative will find the task a difficult one. Indeed James and his wife, when they told the story to the nuns of Chaillot, could not agree as to some circumstances. The Queen said that, after Charles had received the last sacraments the Protestant Bishops renewed their exhortations. The King said that nothing of the kind took place. "Surely," said the Queen, "you told me so yourself." "It is impossible that I have told you so," said the King, "for nothing of the sort happened."——It is much to be regretted that Sir Henry Halford should have taken so little trouble ascertain the facts on which he pronounced judgment. He does not seem to have been aware of the existence of the narrative of James, Barillon, and Huddleston.——As this is the first occasion on which I cite the correspondence of the Dutch ministers at the English court, I ought here to mention that a series of their despatches, from the accession of James the Second to his flight, forms one of the most valuable parts of the Mackintosh collection. The subsequent despatches, down to the settlement of the government in February, 1689, I procured from the Hague. The Dutch archives have been far too little explored. They abound with information interesting in the highest degree to every Englishman. They are admirably arranged and they are in the charge of gentlemen whose courtesy, liberality and zeal for the interests of literature, cannot be too highly praised. I wish to acknowledge, in the strongest manner, my own obligations to Mr. De Jonge and to Mr. Van Zwanne.]

220 (return)
[ Clark's Life of James the Second, i, 746. Orig. Mem.; Barillon's Dispatch from Feb. 1-18, 1685; Van Citters's Dispatches from Feb. 3-13 and Feb. 1-16. Huddleston's Narrative; Letters of Philip, second Earl of Chesterfield, 277; Sir H. Ellis's Original Letters, First Series. iii. 333: Second Series, iv 74; Chaillot MS.; Burnet, i. 606: Evelyn's Diary, Feb. 4. 1684-5: Welwood's Memoirs 140; North's Life of Guildford. 252; Examen, 648; Hawkins's Life of Ken; Dryden's Threnodia Augustalis; Sir H. Halford's Essay on Deaths of Eminent Persons. Also, see a fragment of a letter written by the Earl of Ailesbury, printed in the European Magazine for April 1795. Ailesbury calls Burnet an impostor. However, to any reasonable and thoughtful reader, his narrative and Burnet’s narrative won’t seem contradictory. I’ve seen at the British Museum, and also in the Library of the Royal Institution, an interesting broadside detailing Charles’s death. It is found in the Somers Collection. The author was clearly a dedicated Roman Catholic and likely had access to reliable information. I strongly suspect he communicated, either directly or indirectly, with James himself. No full name is provided, but the initials are quite clear, except in one instance. It states that the D. of Y. was reminded of the duty he owed to his brother by P.M.A.C.F. I have to admit I can’t figure out the last five letters. It’s somewhat comforting that Sir Walter Scott had the same lack of success. (1848.) Since the initial edition of this work was published, several clever theories regarding these mysterious letters have been shared with me, but I’m convinced that the true answer hasn’t been put forward yet. (1850.) I still have serious doubts whether the riddle has been solved. However, the most likely interpretation is one that, with some variations, occurred to both myself and several other people around the same time; I’m inclined to read it as "Pere Mansuete A Cordelier Friar." Mansuete, a Cordelier, was then James’s confessor. Thus, it was particularly his role to remind James of a sacred duty that had been shamefully ignored. The writer of the broadside likely wanted to avoid revealing to the public that a soul which many devout Roman Catholics believed would be lost was saved from destruction by the courageous love of a woman of questionable character. Therefore, it's reasonable to think he would choose a fiction that was both plausible and uplifting over a truth that could surely cause scandal. (1856.) — It seems that no events in history should be more clearly known to us than those surrounding Charles the Second’s deathbed. We have several accounts written by individuals who were actually present in his room. We also have accounts from those who, while not witnesses themselves, had excellent opportunities to gather information from eyewitnesses. Yet anyone trying to compile this vast amount of material into a coherent story will find it challenging. In fact, James and his wife, when recounting the story to the nuns of Chaillot, couldn’t even agree on certain details. The Queen claimed that after Charles received the last sacraments, the Protestant Bishops continued their urgings. The King insisted that nothing of the sort happened. “Surely,” said the Queen, “you told me that yourself.” “It’s impossible I told you that,” the King replied, “because nothing like that occurred.” — It’s unfortunate that Sir Henry Halford didn’t take more care to determine the facts on which he based his judgment. He doesn’t seem to have realized the existence of narratives by James, Barillon, and Huddleston. — Since this is the first time I reference the correspondence of the Dutch ministers at the English court, I should note that a series of their dispatches from James the Second's accession to his exile forms a significant part of the Mackintosh collection. The subsequent dispatches, up to the government settlement in February 1689, I obtained from the Hague. The Dutch archives are far too underexplored. They contain highly interesting information for every Englishman. They are well-organized and are under the care of gentlemen whose courtesy, generosity, and dedication to the interests of literature cannot be praised enough. I want to express my deepest gratitude to Mr. De Jonge and Mr. Van Zwanne.]

221 (return)
[ Clarendon mentions this calumny with just scorn. "According to the charity of the time towards Cromwell, very many would have it believed to be by poison, of which there was no appearance, nor any proof ever after made."—Book xiv.]

221 (return)
[ Clarendon talks about this slander with clear disdain. "Many people at the time were eager to believe it was by poison, despite there being no evidence or proof to support that claim."—Book xiv.]

222 (return)
[ Welwood, 139 Burnet, i. 609; Sheffield's Character of Charles the Second; North's Life of Guildford, 252; Examen, 648; Revolution Politics; Higgons on Burnet. What North says of the embarrassment and vacillation of the physicians is confirmed by the despatches of Van Citters. I have been much perplexed by the strange story about Short's suspicions. I was, at one time, inclined to adopt North's solution. But, though I attach little weight to the authority of Welwood and Burnet in such a case, I cannot reject the testimony of so well informed and so unwilling a witness as Sheffield.]

222 (return)
[ Welwood, 139 Burnet, i. 609; Sheffield's Character of Charles the Second; North's Life of Guildford, 252; Examen, 648; Revolution Politics; Higgons on Burnet. What North says about the confusion and indecision of the doctors is backed up by Van Citters' reports. I've been really confused by the strange tale regarding Short's suspicions. At one point, I was tempted to go with North's explanation. But, while I think Welwood and Burnet's authority is not very strong in this situation, I can't ignore the testimony of a well-informed and reluctant witness like Sheffield.]

223 (return)
[ London Gazette, Feb. 9. 1684-5; Clarke's Life of James the Second, ii. 3; Barillon, Feb. 9-19: Evelyn's Diary, Feb. 6.]

223 (return)
[ London Gazette, Feb. 9. 1684-5; Clarke's Life of James II, ii. 3; Barillon, Feb. 9-19: Evelyn's Diary, Feb. 6.]

224 (return)
[ See the authorities cited in the last note. See also the Examen, 647; Burnet, i. 620; Higgons on Burnet.]

224 (return)
[ See the sources mentioned in the previous note. Also refer to the Examen, 647; Burnet, i. 620; Higgons on Burnet.]

225 (return)
[ London Gazette, Feb. 14, 1684-5; Evelyn's Diary of the same day; Burnet, i. 610: The Hind let loose.]

225 (return)
[ London Gazette, Feb. 14, 1684-5; Evelyn's Diary of the same day; Burnet, i. 610: The Hind let loose.]

226 (return)
[ Burnet, i. 628; Lestrange, Observator, Feb. 11, 1684.]

226 (return)
[ Burnet, i. 628; Lestrange, Observator, Feb. 11, 1684.]

227 (return)
[ The letters which passed between Rochester and Ormond on this subject will be found in the Clarendon Correspondence.]

227 (return)
[The letters exchanged between Rochester and Ormond on this topic can be found in the Clarendon Correspondence.]

228 (return)
[ The ministerial changes are announced in the London Gazette, Feb. 19, 1684-5. See Burnet, i. 621; Barillon, Feb. 9-19, 16-26; and Feb. 19,/Mar. 1.]

228 (return)
[ The changes in the ministry are announced in the London Gazette, Feb. 19, 1684-5. See Burnet, i. 621; Barillon, Feb. 9-19, 16-26; and Feb. 19/Mar. 1.]

229 (return)
[ Carte's Life of Ormond; Secret Consults of the Romish Party in Ireland, 1690; Memoirs of Ireland, 1716.]

229 (return)
[ Carte's Life of Ormond; Secret Meetings of the Catholic Party in Ireland, 1690; Memoirs of Ireland, 1716.]

230 (return)
[ Christmas Sessions Paper of 1678.]

230 (return)
[ Christmas Sessions Paper of 1678.]

231 (return)
[ The Acts of the Witnesses of the Spirit, part v chapter v. In this work Lodowick, after his fashion, revenges himself on the "bawling devil," as he calls Jeffreys, by a string of curses which Ernulphus, or Jeffreys himself, might have envied. The trial was in January, 1677.]

231 (return)
[ The Acts of the Witnesses of the Spirit, part v chapter v. In this work, Lodowick, in his usual way, gets back at the "screaming devil," as he refers to Jeffreys, with a series of curses that Ernulphus or even Jeffreys himself would have envied. The trial took place in January 1677.]

232 (return)
[ This saying is to be found in many contemporary pamphlets. Titus Oates was never tired of quoting it. See his Eikwg Basilikh.]

232 (return)
[ This saying can be found in many modern pamphlets. Titus Oates frequently quoted it. See his Eikwg Basilikh.]

233 (return)
[ The chief sources of information concerning Jeffreys are the State Trials and North's Life of Lord Guildford. Some touches of minor importance I owe to contemporary pamphlets in verse and prose. Such are the Bloody Assizes the life and Death of George Lord Jeffreys, the Panegyric on the late Lord Jeffreys, the Letter to the Lord Chancellor, Jeffreys's Elegy. See also Evelyn's Diary, Dec. 5, 1683, Oct. 31. 1685. I scarcely need advise every reader to consult Lord Campbell's excellent Life of Jeffreys.]

233 (return)
[ The main sources of information about Jeffreys are the State Trials and North's Life of Lord Guildford. I also got some details from contemporary pamphlets in both verse and prose. These include the Bloody Assizes, the life and death of George Lord Jeffreys, the Panegyric on the late Lord Jeffreys, the Letter to the Lord Chancellor, and Jeffreys's Elegy. Also, see Evelyn's Diary from Dec. 5, 1683, and Oct. 31, 1685. I hardly need to remind every reader to check out Lord Campbell's excellent Life of Jeffreys.]

234 (return)
[ London Gazette, Feb. 12, 1684-5. North's Life of Guildford, 254.]

234 (return)
[ London Gazette, Feb. 12, 1684-5. North's Life of Guildford, 254.]

235 (return)
[ The chief authority for these transactions is Barillon's despatch of February 9-19, 1685. It will be found in the Appendix to Mr. Fox's History. See also Preston's Letter to James, dated April 18-28, 1685, in Dalrymple.]

235 (return)
[ The main source for these transactions is Barillon's dispatch from February 9-19, 1685. You can find it in the Appendix of Mr. Fox's History. Also, check out Preston's letter to James, dated April 18-28, 1685, in Dalrymple.]

236 (return)
[ Lewis to Barillon, Feb. 16-26, 1685.]

236 (return)
[ Lewis to Barillon, Feb. 16-26, 1685.]

237 (return)
[ Barillon, Feb. 16-26, 1685.]

237 (return)
[ Barillon, Feb. 16-26, 1685.]

238 (return)
[ Barillon, Feb. 18-28, 1685.]

238 (return)
[ Barillon, Feb. 18-28, 1685.]

239 (return)
[ Swift who hated Marlborough, and who was little disposed to allow any merit to those whom he hated, says, in the famous letter to Crassus, "You are no ill orator in the Senate."]

239 (return)
[Swift, who despised Marlborough and wasn’t likely to acknowledge any merit in those he disliked, writes in his well-known letter to Crassus, "You’re not a bad speaker in the Senate."]

240 (return)
[ Dartmouth's note on Burnet, i. 264. Chesterfleld's Letters, Nov., 18, 1748. Chesterfield is an unexceptional witness; for the annuity was a charge on the estate of his grandfather, Halifax. I believe that there is no foundation for a disgraceful addition to the story which may be found in Pope:

240 (return)
[ Dartmouth's note on Burnet, i. 264. Chesterfield's Letters, Nov. 18, 1748. Chesterfield is a reliable source; the annuity was a financial liability on his grandfather Halifax's estate. I think there’s no basis for the scandalous addition to the story mentioned by Pope:

    "The gallant too, to whom she paid it down,
    Lived to refuse his mistress half a crown."
    Curll calls this a piece of travelling scandal.]
"The brave man, to whom she gave it, lived to turn down his mistress for half a crown." Curll refers to this as a piece of traveling scandal.

241 (return)
[ Pope in Spence's Anecdotes.]

241 (return)
[ Pope in Spence's Anecdotes.]

242 (return)
[ See the Historical Records of the first or Royal Dragoons. The appointment of Churchill to the command of this regiment was ridiculed as an instance of absurd partiality. One lampoon of that time which I do not remember to have seen in print, but of which a manuscript copy is in the British Museum, contains these lines:

242 (return)
[ See the Historical Records of the first or Royal Dragoons. Churchill’s appointment to lead this regiment was mocked as an example of ridiculous favoritism. One satirical piece from that era, which I don't recall having seen published but is available in manuscript form at the British Museum, includes these lines:

     "Let's cut our meat with spoons:
     The sense is as good
     As that Churchill should
     Be put to command the dragoons."]
     "Let's eat our meat with spoons:  
     The logic is just as good  
     As saying Churchill should  
     Be put in charge of the dragoons."

243 (return)
[ Barillon, Feb. 16-26, 1685.]

243 (return)
[ Barillon, Feb. 16-26, 1685.]

244 (return)
[ Barillon, April 6-16; Lewis to Barillon, April 14-24.]

244 (return)
[ Barillon, April 6-16; Lewis to Barillon, April 14-24.]

245 (return)
[ I might transcribe half Barillon's correspondence in proof of this proposition, but I will quote only one passage, in which the policy of the French government towards England is exhibited concisely and with perfect clearness.—— "On peut tenir pour un maxime indubitable que l'accord du Roy d'Angleterre avec son parlement, en quelque maniere qu'il se fasse, n'est pas conforme aux interets de V. M. Je me contente de penser cela sane m'en ouvrir a personne, et je cache avec soin mes sentimens a cet egard."—Barillon to Lewis, Feb. 28,/Mar. 1687. That this was the real secret of the whole policy of Lewis towards our country was perfectly understood at Vienna. The Emperor Leopold wrote thus to James, March 30,/April 9, 1689: "Galli id unum agebant, ut, perpetuas inter Serenitatem vestram et ejusdem populos fovendo simultates, reliquæ Christianæ Europe tanto securius insultarent."]

245 (return)
[ I could share half of Barillon's correspondence to support this claim, but I'll only quote one part where the French government's stance towards England is clearly and concisely laid out.—— "It can be considered an undeniable principle that the agreement between the King of England and his parliament, in whatever form it takes, is not in the best interests of Your Majesty. I keep this opinion to myself and carefully hide my feelings on the matter."—Barillon to Lewis, Feb. 28,/Mar. 1687. This was the true secret behind Lewis's entire policy towards our country, and it was fully understood in Vienna. Emperor Leopold wrote to James on March 30,/April 9, 1689: "The French were focused on fostering ongoing conflicts between Your Serenity and its people, making it all the easier for the rest of Christian Europe to invade."]

246 (return)
[ "Que sea unido con su reyno, yen todo buena intelligencia con el parlamenyo." Despatch from the King of Spain to Don Pedro Ronquillo, March 16-26, 1685. This despatch is in the archives of Samancas, which contain a great mass of papers relating to English affairs. Copies of the most interesting of those papers are in the possession of M. Guizot, and were by him lent to me. It is with peculiar pleasure that at this time, I acknowledge this mark of the friendship of so great a man. (1848.)]

246 (return)
[ "Let him be united with his kingdom, and be on good terms with the parliament." Dispatch from the King of Spain to Don Pedro Ronquillo, March 16-26, 1685. This dispatch is in the archives of Samancas, which hold a substantial collection of documents related to English matters. Copies of the most noteworthy of those documents are in the possession of M. Guizot, who lent them to me. It is with special pleasure that I acknowledge this gesture of friendship from such an esteemed individual at this time. (1848.)]

247 (return)
[ Few English readers will be desirous to go deep into the history of this quarrel. Summaries will be found in Cardinal Bausset's Life of Bossuet, and in Voltaire's Age of Lewis XIV.]

247 (return)
[ Not many English readers will want to dive deep into the history of this conflict. You can find summaries in Cardinal Bausset's Life of Bossuet and in Voltaire's Age of Louis XIV.]

248 (return)
[ Burnet, i. 661, and Letter from Rome, Dodd's Church History, part viii. book i. art. 1.]

248 (return)
[ Burnet, i. 661, and Letter from Rome, Dodd's Church History, part viii. book i. art. 1.]

249 (return)
[ Consultations of the Spanish Council of State on April 2-12 and April 16-26, In the Archives of Simancas.]

249 (return)
[ Meetings of the Spanish Council of State on April 2-12 and April 16-26, In the Archives of Simancas.]

250 (return)
[ Lewis to Barillon, May 22,/June 1, 1685; Burnet, i. 623.]

250 (return)
[ Lewis to Barillon, May 22/June 1, 1685; Burnet, i. 623.]

251 (return)
[ Life of James the Second, i. 5. Barillon, Feb. 19,/Mar. 1, 1685; Evelyn's Diary, March 5, 1685.]

251 (return)
[ Life of James the Second, i. 5. Barillon, Feb. 19,/Mar. 1, 1685; Evelyn's Diary, March 5, 1685.]

252 (return)
[

252 (__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__)

     "To those that ask boons
     He swears by God's oons
     And chides them as if they came there to steal spoons."
          Lamentable Lory, a ballad, 1684.]
     "To those who ask for favors  
     He swears by God's abundance  
     And scolds them as if they came there to steal spoons."  
          Lamentable Lory, a ballad, 1684.]

253 (return)
[ Barillon, April 20-30. 1685.]

253 (return)
[ Barillon, April 20-30, 1685.]

254 (return)
[ From Adda's despatch of Jan. 22,/Feb. 1, 1686, and from the expressions of the Pere d'Orleans (Histoire des Revolutions d'Angleterre, liv. xi.), it is clear that rigid Catholics thought the King's conduct indefensible.]

254 (return)
[From Adda's dispatch of Jan. 22/Feb. 1, 1686, and from the statements of Father d'Orleans (History of the Revolutions of England, book xi.), it's clear that staunch Catholics considered the King's actions unacceptable.]

255 (return)
[ London Gazette, Gazette de France; Life of James the Second, ii. 10; History of the Coronation of King James the Second and Queen Mary, by Francis Sandford, Lancaster Herald, fol. 1687; Evelyn's Diary, May, 21, 1685; Despatch of the Dutch Ambassadors, April 10-20, 1685; Burnet, i. 628; Eachard, iii. 734; A sermon preached before their Majesties King James the Second and Queen Mary at their Coronation in Westminster Abbey, April 23, 1695, by Francis Lord Bishop of Ely, and Lord Almoner. I have seen an Italian account of the Coronation which was published at Modena, and which is chiefly remarkable for the skill with which the writer sinks the fact that the prayers and psalms were in English, and that the Bishops were heretics.]

255 (return)
[ London Gazette, Gazette de France; Life of James the Second, ii. 10; History of the Coronation of King James the Second and Queen Mary, by Francis Sandford, Lancaster Herald, fol. 1687; Evelyn's Diary, May 21, 1685; Dispatch of the Dutch Ambassadors, April 10-20, 1685; Burnet, i. 628; Eachard, iii. 734; A sermon preached before their Majesties King James the Second and Queen Mary at their Coronation in Westminster Abbey, April 23, 1695, by Francis Lord Bishop of Ely, and Lord Almoner. I've come across an Italian account of the Coronation published in Modena, mostly notable for how well the writer hides the fact that the prayers and psalms were in English, and that the Bishops were considered heretics.]

256 (return)
[ See the London Gazette during the months of February, March, and April, 1685.]

256 (return)
[ Check the London Gazette from February, March, and April, 1685.]

257 (return)
[ It would be easy to fill a volume with what Whig historians and pamphleteers have written on this subject. I will cite only one witness, a churchman and a Tory. "Elections," says Evelyn, "were thought to be very indecently carried on in most places. God give a better issue of it than some expect!" May 10, 1685. Again he says, "The truth is there were many of the new members whose elections and returns were universally condemned." May 22.]

257 (return)
[ It would be simple to fill a book with what Whig historians and pamphleteers have said about this topic. I’ll mention just one observer, a churchman and a Tory. "Elections," says Evelyn, "were considered to be conducted very indecently in most places. May God grant a better outcome than some expect!" May 10, 1685. He further notes, "The truth is, there were many of the new members whose elections and returns were widely criticized." May 22.]

258 (return)
[ This fact I learned from a newsletter in the library of the Royal Institution. Van Citters mentions the strength of the Whig party in Bedfordshire.]

258 (return)
[ I found out about this from a newsletter in the library of the Royal Institution. Van Citters talks about the power of the Whig party in Bedfordshire.]

259 (return)
[ Bramston's Memoirs.]

259 (__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__)
[ Bramston's Memoirs.]

260 (return)
[ Reflections on a Remonstrance and Protestation of all the good Protestants of this Kingdom, 1689; Dialogue between Two Friends, 1689.]

260 (return)
[ Reflections on a Protest and Appeal from all the good Protestants of this Kingdom, 1689; Conversation between Two Friends, 1689.]

261 (return)
[ Memoirs of the Life of Thomas Marquess of Wharton, 1715.]

261 (return)
[ Memoirs of the Life of Thomas Marquess of Wharton, 1715.]

262 (return)
[ See the Guardian, No. 67; an exquisite specimen of Addison's peculiar manner. It would be difficult to find in the works of any other writer such an instance of benevolence delicately flavoured with contempt.]

262 (return)
[ Check out the Guardian, No. 67; it's a prime example of Addison's unique style. It would be hard to find in the works of any other author such a blend of kindness infused with disdain.]

263 (return)
[ The Observator, April 4, 1685.]

263 (return)
[ The Observator, April 4, 1685.]

264 (return)
[ Despatch of the Dutch Ambasadors, April 10-20, 1685.]

264 (return)
[ Dispatch of the Dutch Ambassadors, April 10-20, 1685.]

265 (return)
[ Burnet, i. 626.]

265 (__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__)
[ Burnet, i. 626.]

266 (return)
[ A faithful account of the Sickness, Death, and Burial of Captain Bedlow, 1680; Narrative of Lord Chief Justice North.]

266 (return)
[ A detailed account of the illness, death, and funeral of Captain Bedlow, 1680; Story of Lord Chief Justice North.]

267 (return)
[ Smith's Intrigues of the Popish Plot, 1685.]

267 (return)
[ Smith's Intrigues of the Popish Plot, 1685.]

268 (return)
[ Burnet, i. 439.]

268 (__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__)
[ Burnet, i. 439.]

269 (return)
[ See the proceedings in the Collection of State Trials.]

269 (return)
[ See the proceedings in the Collection of State Trials.]

270 (return)
[ Evelyn's Diary, May 7, 1685.]

270 (return)
[ Evelyn's Diary, May 7, 1685.]

271 (return)
[ There remain many pictures of Oates. The most striking descriptions of his person are in North's Examen, 225, in Dryden's Absalom and Achitophel, and In a broadside entitled, A Hue and Cry after T. O.]

271 (return)
[ There are still many images of Oates. The most vivid descriptions of his appearance can be found in North's Examen, 225, in Dryden's Absalom and Achitophel, and in a broadside titled, A Hue and Cry after T. O.]

272 (return)
[ The proceedings will be found at length in the Collection of State Trials.]

272 (return)
[ You can find the full proceedings in the Collection of State Trials.]

273 (return)
[ Gazette de France May 29,/June 9, 1685.]

273 (return)
[ Gazette de France May 29,/June 9, 1685.]

274 (return)
[ Despatch of the Dutch Ambassadors, May 19-29, 1685.]

274 (return)
[ Dispatch of the Dutch Ambassadors, May 19-29, 1685.]

275 (return)
[ Evelyn's Diary, May 22, 1685; Eachard, iii. 741; Burnet, i. 637; Observator, May 27, 1685; Oates's Eikvn, 89; Eikwn Brotoloigon, 1697; Commons' Journals of May, June, and July, 1689; Tom Brown's advice to Dr. Oates. Some interesting circumstances are mentioned in a broadside, printed for A. Brooks, Charing Cross, 1685. I have seen contemporary French and Italian pamphlets containing the history of the trial and execution. A print of Titus in the pillory was published at Milan, with the following curious inscription: "Questo e il naturale ritratto di Tito Otez, o vero Oatz, Inglese, posto in berlina, uno de' principali professor della religion protestante, acerrimo persecutore de' Cattolici, e gran spergiuro." I have also seen a Dutch engraving of his punishment, with some Latin verses, of which the following are a specimen:

275 (return)
[ Evelyn's Diary, May 22, 1685; Eachard, iii. 741; Burnet, i. 637; Observator, May 27, 1685; Oates's Eikvn, 89; Eikwn Brotoloigon, 1697; Commons' Journals of May, June, and July, 1689; Tom Brown's advice to Dr. Oates. There are some interesting details mentioned in a broadside printed for A. Brooks, Charing Cross, 1685. I've seen contemporary French and Italian pamphlets that cover the history of the trial and execution. A print of Titus in the pillory was published in Milan, with the following curious inscription: "This is the true portrait of Tito Otez, also known as Oatz, an Englishman placed in the pillory, one of the main professors of the Protestant religion, a fierce persecutor of Catholics, and a great perjurer." I've also seen a Dutch engraving of his punishment, with some Latin verses, of which the following are a specimen:

     "At Doctor fictus non fictos pertulit ictus
     A tortore datos haud molli in corpore gratos,
     Disceret ut vere scelera ob commissa rubere."
"At the doctor, the fictional characters endure the blows  
Given by a harsh torturer on their unyielding bodies,  
So that they might truly learn to blush for the crimes they've committed."

The anagram of his name, "Testis Ovat," may be found on many prints published in different countries.]

The anagram of his name, "Testis Ovat," can be found on many prints published in various countries.

276 (return)
[ Blackstone's Commentaries, Chapter of Homicide.]

276 (return)
[ Blackstone's Commentaries, Chapter on Homicide.]

277 (return)
[ According to Roger North the judges decided that Dangerfield, having been previously convicted of perjury, was incompetent to be a witness of the plot. But this is one among many instances of Roger's inaccuracy. It appears, from the report of the trial of Lord Castlemaine in June 1680, that, after much altercation between counsel, and much consultation among the judges of the different courts in Westminster Hall, Dangerfield was sworn and suffered to tell his story; but the jury very properly gave no credit to his testimony.]

277 (return)
[ According to Roger North, the judges ruled that Dangerfield, who had previously been convicted of perjury, was not qualified to be a witness in the case. However, this is just one of many examples of Roger's inaccuracies. The report from the trial of Lord Castlemaine in June 1680 reveals that, after much debate between the lawyers and extensive discussions among the judges in the various courts at Westminster Hall, Dangerfield was sworn in and allowed to present his account; however, the jury correctly did not believe his testimony.]

278 (return)
[ Dangerfield's trial was not reported; but I have seen a concise account of it in a contemporary broadside. An abstract of the evidence against Francis, and his dying speech, will be found in the Collection of State Trials. See Eachard, iii. 741. Burnet's narrative contains more mistakes than lines. See also North's Examen, 256, the sketch of Dangerfield's life in the Bloody Assizes, the Observator of July 29, 1685, and the poem entitled "Dangerfield's Ghost to Jeffreys." In the very rare volume entitled "Succinct Genealogies, by Robert Halstead," Lord Peterbough says that Dangerfield, with whom he had had some intercourse, was "a young man who appeared under a decent figure, a serious behaviour, and with words that did not seem to proceed from a common understanding."]

278 (return)
[ Dangerfield's trial wasn't reported, but I've seen a summary of it in a contemporary broadside. A summary of the evidence against Francis and his last words can be found in the Collection of State Trials. See Eachard, iii. 741. Burnet's narrative has more errors than actual content. Also, check North's Examen, 256, the outline of Dangerfield's life in the Bloody Assizes, the Observator from July 29, 1685, and the poem titled "Dangerfield's Ghost to Jeffreys." In the very rare book called "Succinct Genealogies, by Robert Halstead," Lord Peterborough mentions that Dangerfield, with whom he had interacted, was "a young man who appeared respectable, behaved seriously, and spoke in a way that suggested he was more than just ordinary."]

279 (return)
[ Baxter's preface to Sir Mathew Hale's Judgment of the Nature of True Religion, 1684.]

279 (return)
[ Baxter's preface to Sir Mathew Hale's Judgment of the Nature of True Religion, 1684.]

280 (return)
[ See the Observator of February 28, 1685, the information in the Collection of State Trials, the account of what passed in court given by Calamy, Life of Baxter, chap. xiv., and the very curious extracts from the Baxter MSS. in the Life, by Orme, published in 1830.]

280 (return)
[ See the Observator of February 28, 1685, the information in the Collection of State Trials, the account of what happened in court provided by Calamy, Life of Baxter, chap. xiv., and the very interesting excerpts from the Baxter MSS. in the Life, by Orme, published in 1830.]

281 (return)
[ Baxter MS. cited by Orme.]

281 (return)
[ Baxter MS. referenced by Orme.]

282 (return)
[ Act Parl. Car. II. March 29,1661, Jac. VII. April 28, 1685, and May 13, 1685.]

282 (return)
[ Act Parl. Car. II. March 29, 1661, Jac. VII. April 28, 1685, and May 13, 1685.]

283 (return)
[ Act Parl. Jac. VII. May 8, 1685, Observator, June 20, 1685; Lestrange evidently wished to see the precedent followed in England.]

283 (return)
[ Act Parl. Jac. VII. May 8, 1685, Observator, June 20, 1685; Lestrange clearly wanted to see this precedent followed in England.]

284 (return)
[ His own words reported by himself. Life of James the Second, i. 666. Orig. Mem.]

284 (return)
[ His own words reported by himself. Life of James the Second, i. 666. Orig. Mem.]

285 (return)
[ Act Parl. Car. II. August 31, 1681.]

285 (return)
[ Act Parl. Car. II. August 31, 1681.]

286 (return)
[ Burnet, i. 583; Wodrow, III. v. 2. Unfortunately the Acta of the Scottish Privy Council during almost the whole administration of the Duke of York are wanting. (1848.) This assertion has been met by a direct contradiction. But the fact is exactly as I have stated it. There is in he Acta of the Scottish Privy Council a hiatus extending from August 1678 to August 1682. The Duke of York began to reside in Scotland in December 1679. He left Scotland, never to return in May 1682. (1857.)]

286 (return)
[ Burnet, i. 583; Wodrow, III. v. 2. Unfortunately, the records of the Scottish Privy Council are missing for almost the entire time the Duke of York was in charge. (1848.) This claim has been directly challenged. However, the reality is exactly as I have stated. There is a gap in the records of the Scottish Privy Council that lasts from August 1678 to August 1682. The Duke of York started living in Scotland in December 1679 and left for good in May 1682. (1857.)]

287 (return)
[ Wodrow, III. ix. 6.]

287 (return)
[ Wodrow, III. ix. 6.]

288 (return)
[ Wodrow, III. ix. 6. The editor of the Oxford edition of Burnet attempts to excuse this act by alleging that Claverhouse was then employed to intercept all communication between Argyle and Monmouth, and by supposing that John Brown may have been detected in conveying intelligence between the rebel camps. Unfortunately for this hypothesis John Brown was shot on the first of May, when both Argyle and Monmouth were in Holland, and when there was no insurrection in any part of our island.]

288 (return)
[ Wodrow, III. ix. 6. The editor of the Oxford edition of Burnet tries to justify this action by claiming that Claverhouse was tasked with stopping all communication between Argyle and Monmouth, and by suggesting that John Brown may have been caught passing information between the rebel camps. Unfortunately for this theory, John Brown was shot on May 1st, when both Argyle and Monmouth were in Holland, and when there was no uprising anywhere in our country.]

289 (return)
[ Wodrow, III. ix, 6.]

289 (return)
[ Wodrow, III. ix, 6.]

290 (return)
[ Wodrow, III. ix. 6. It has been confidently asserted, by persons who have not taken the trouble to look at the authority to which I have referred, that I have grossly calumniated these unfortunate men; that I do not understand the Calvinistic theology; and that it is impossible that members of the Church of Scotland can have refused to pray for any man on the ground that he was not one of the elect.—— I can only refer to the narrative which Wodrow has inserted in his history, and which he justly calls plain and natural. That narrative is signed by two eyewitnesses, and Wodrow, before he published it, submitted it to a third eyewitness, who pronounced it strictly accurate. From that narrative I will extract the only words which bear on the point in question: "When all the three were taken, the officers consulted among themselves, and, withdrawing to the west side of the town, questioned the prisoners, particularly if they would pray for King James VII. They answered, they would pray for all within the election of grace. Balfour said Do you question the King's election? They answered, sometimes they questioned their own. Upon which he swore dreadfully, and said they should die presently, because they would not pray for Christ's vicegerent, and so without one word more, commanded Thomas Cook to go to his prayers, for he should die.—— In this narrative Wodrow saw nothing improbable; and I shall not easily be convinced that any writer now living understands the feelings and opinions of the Covenanters better than Wodrow did. (1857.)]

290 (return)
[ Wodrow, III. ix. 6. It has been confidently claimed by people who haven’t bothered to check the sources I mentioned that I have seriously misrepresented these unfortunate men; that I don’t understand Calvinistic theology; and that it’s impossible for members of the Church of Scotland to refuse to pray for someone because he wasn’t one of the elect.—— I can only point to the account that Wodrow included in his history, which he rightly describes as straightforward and honest. That account is signed by two eyewitnesses, and before Wodrow published it, he shared it with a third eyewitness who confirmed its accuracy. From that account, I will pull out the only words relevant to the issue at hand: "When all three were captured, the officers discussed among themselves, and, moving to the west side of the town, questioned the prisoners, especially about whether they would pray for King James VII. They replied that they would pray for all within the election of grace. Balfour asked, 'Do you doubt the King’s election?' They replied that sometimes they doubted their own. At this, he cursed severely and declared that they should die immediately because they wouldn’t pray for Christ’s representative, and without another word, ordered Thomas Cook to pray, for he would die.—— Wodrow found nothing implausible in this account; and I’m not easily convinced that any current writer understands the thoughts and beliefs of the Covenanters better than Wodrow did. (1857.)]

291 (return)
[ Wodrow, III. ix. 6. Cloud of Witnesses.]

291 (return)
[ Wodrow, III. ix. 6. Cloud of Witnesses.]

292 (return)
[ Wodrow, III. ix. 6. The epitaph of Margaret Wilson, in the churchyard at Wigton, is printed in the Appendix to the Cloud of Witnesses;

292 (return)
[ Wodrow, III. ix. 6. The grave marker of Margaret Wilson, in the churchyard at Wigton, is included in the Appendix to the Cloud of Witnesses;

     "Murdered for owning Christ supreme
     Head of his church, and no more crime,
     But her not owning Prelacy.
     And not abjuring Presbytery,
     Within the sea, tied to a stake,
     She suffered for Christ Jesus' sake."]
     "Killed for putting Christ first
     Leader of his church, no crime at all,
     Except for not accepting the hierarchy.
     And not renouncing the Presbyterian way,
     In the sea, tied to a post,
     She endured for the sake of Christ Jesus."

293 (return)
[ See the letter to King Charles II. prefixed to Barclay's Apology.]

293 (return)
[See the letter to King Charles II, included before Barclay's Apology.]

294 (return)
[ Sewel's History of the Quakers, book x.]

294 (return)
[ Sewel's History of the Quakers, book x.]

295 (return)
[ Minutes of Yearly Meetings, 1689, 1690.]

295 (return)
[ Minutes of Annual Meetings, 1689, 1690.]

296 (return)
[ Clarkson on Quakerism; Peculiar Customs, chapter v.]

296 (return)
[ Clarkson on Quakerism; Peculiar Customs, chapter v.]

297 (return)
[ After this passage was written, I found in the British Museum, a manuscript (Harl. MS. 7506) entitled, "An Account of the Seizures, Sequestrations, great Spoil and Havock made upon the Estates of the several Protestant Dissenters called Quakers, upon Prosecution of old Statutes made against Papist and Popish Recusants." The manuscript is marked as having belonged to James, and appears to have been given by his confidential servant, Colonel Graham, to Lord Oxford. This circumstance appears to me to confirm the view which I have taken of the King's conduct towards the Quakers.]

297 (return)
[After I wrote this, I discovered a manuscript in the British Museum (Harl. MS. 7506) titled, "An Account of the Seizures, Sequestrations, and great Spoil and Havoc made upon the Estates of various Protestant Dissenters known as Quakers, following the Prosecution of old Laws against Papists and Popish Recusants." The manuscript is marked as having belonged to James and seems to have been given by his trusted servant, Colonel Graham, to Lord Oxford. This seems to support my perspective on the King's actions towards the Quakers.]

298 (return)
[ Penn's visits to Whitehall, and levees at Kensington, are described with great vivacity, though in very bad Latin, by Gerard Croese. "Sumebat," he says, "rex sæpe secretum, non horarium, vero horarum plurium, in quo de variis rebus cum Penno serio sermonem conferebat, et interim differebat audire præcipuorum nobilium ordinem, qui hoc interim spatio in proc¦tone, in proximo, regem conventum præsto erant." Of the crowd of suitors at Penn's house. Croese says, "Visi quandoquo de hoc genere hominum non minus bis centum."—Historia Quakeriana, lib. ii. 1695.]

298 (return)
[ Penn's visits to Whitehall and the gatherings at Kensington are described vividly, though in very poor Latin, by Gerard Croese. "The king often took a private audience," he says, "not just at a set hour, but over several hours, during which he seriously discussed various matters with Penn, while also postponing hearing from the important nobles who were standing by in the nearby anteroom, ready to meet the king." Regarding the number of visitors at Penn's house, Croese notes, "There were sometimes at least two hundred of such types of people."—Historia Quakeriana, lib. ii. 1695.]

299 (return)
[ "Twenty thousand into my pocket; and a hundred thousand into my province." Penn's "Letter to Popple."]

299 (return)
[ "Twenty thousand in my pocket; and a hundred thousand for my territory." Penn's "Letter to Popple."]

300 (return)
[ These orders, signed by Sunderland, will be found in Sewel's History. They bear date April 18, 1685. They are written in a style singularly obscure and intricate: but I think that I have exhibited the meaning correctly. I have not been able to find any proof that any person, not a Roman Catholic or a Quaker, regained his freedom under these orders. See Neal's History of the Puritans, vol. ii. chap. ii.; Gerard Croese, lib. ii. Croese estimates the number of Quakers liberated at fourteen hundred and sixty.]

300 (return)
[ These orders, signed by Sunderland, can be found in Sewel's History. They are dated April 18, 1685. They are written in a surprisingly unclear and complicated style, but I believe I've captured the meaning accurately. I haven't been able to find any evidence that anyone, other than a Roman Catholic or a Quaker, regained their freedom under these orders. See Neal's History of the Puritans, vol. ii. chap. ii.; Gerard Croese, lib. ii. Croese estimates that about fourteen hundred and sixty Quakers were freed.]

301 (return)
[ Barillon, May 28,/June 7, 1685. Observator, May 27, 1685; Sir J. Reresby's Memoirs.]

301 (return)
[ Barillon, May 28,/June 7, 1685. Observator, May 27, 1685; Sir J. Reresby's Memoirs.]

302 (return)
[ Lewis wrote to Barillon about this class of Exclusionists as follows: "L'interet qu'ils auront a effacer cette tache par des services considerables les portera, aelon toutes les apparences, a le servir plus utilement que ne pourraient faire ceux qui ont toujours ete les plus attaches a sa personne." May 15-25,1685.]

302 (return)
[ Lewis wrote to Barillon about this group of Exclusionists, saying: "Their interest in removing this stain through significant services will lead them, according to all appearances, to serve him more effectively than those who have always been closest to him." May 15-25, 1685.]

303 (return)
[ Barillon, May 4-14, 1685; Sir John Reresby's Memoirs.]

303 (return)
[ Barillon, May 4-14, 1685; Sir John Reresby's Memoirs.]

304 (return)
[ Burnet, i. 626; Evelyn's Diary, May, 22, 1685.]

304 (return)
[ Burnet, i. 626; Evelyn's Diary, May 22, 1685.]

305 (return)
[ Roger North's Life of Guildford, 218; Bramston's Memoirs.]

305 (return)
[ Roger North's Life of Guildford, 218; Bramston's Memoirs.]

306 (return)
[ North's Life of Guildford, 228; News from Westminster.]

306 (return)
[ North's Life of Guildford, 228; News from Westminster.]

307 (return)
[ Burnet, i. 382; Letter from Lord Conway to Sir George Rawdon, Dec. 28, 1677. in the Rawdon Papers.]

307 (return)
[ Burnet, i. 382; Letter from Lord Conway to Sir George Rawdon, Dec. 28, 1677, in the Rawdon Papers.]

308 (return)
[ London Gazette, May 25, 1685; Evelyn's Diary, May 22, 1685.]

308 (return)
[ London Gazette, May 25, 1685; Evelyn's Diary, May 22, 1685.]

309 (return)
[ North's Life of Guildford, 256.]

309 (return)
[ North's Life of Guildford, 256.]

310 (return)
[ Burnet, i. 639; Evelyn's Diary, May 22, 1685; Barillon, May 23,/June 2, and May 25,/June 4, 1685 The silence of the journals perplexed Mr. Fox; but it is explained by the circumstance that Seymour's motion was not seconded.]

310 (return)
[ Burnet, i. 639; Evelyn's Diary, May 22, 1685; Barillon, May 23/June 2, and May 25/June 4, 1685. The lack of commentary in the journals confused Mr. Fox, but it can be understood because Seymour's motion didn’t get any support.]

311 (return)
[ Journals, May 22. Stat. Jac. II. i. 1.]

311 (return)
[ Journals, May 22. Stat. Jac. II. i. 1.]

312 (return)
[ Journals, May 26, 27. Sir J. Reresby's Memoirs.]

312 (return)
[ Journals, May 26, 27. Sir J. Reresby's Memoirs.]

313 (return)
[ Commons' Journals, May 27, 1685.]

313 (return)
[ Commons' Journals, May 27, 1685.]

314 (return)
[ Roger North's Life of Sir Dudley North; Life of Lord Guilford, 166; Mr M'Cullough's Literature of Political Economy.]

314 (return)
[ Roger North's Life of Sir Dudley North; Life of Lord Guilford, 166; Mr. M'Cullough's Literature of Political Economy.]

315 (return)
[ Life of Dudley North, 176, Lonsdale's Memoirs, Van Citters, June 12-22, 1685.]

315 (return)
[ Life of Dudley North, 176, Lonsdale's Memoirs, Van Citters, June 12-22, 1685.]

316 (return)
[ Commons' Journals, March 1, 1689.]

316 (return)
[ Commons' Journals, March 1, 1689.]

317 (return)
[ Lords' Journals, March 18, 19, 1679, May 22, 1685.]

317 (return)
[ Lords' Journals, March 18, 19, 1679, May 22, 1685.]

318 (return)
[ Stat. 5 Geo. IV. c. 46.]

318 (return)
[ Stat. 5 Geo. IV. c. 46.]

319 (return)
[ Clarendon's History of the Rebellion, book xiv.; Burnet's Own Times, i. 546, 625; Wade's and Ireton's Narratives, Lansdowne MS. 1152; West's information in the Appendix to Sprat's True Account.]

319 (return)
[ Clarendon's History of the Rebellion, book xiv.; Burnet's Own Times, i. 546, 625; Wade's and Ireton's Narratives, Lansdowne MS. 1152; West's information in the Appendix to Sprat's True Account.]

320 (return)
[ London Gazette, January, 4, 1684-5; Ferguson MS. in Eachard's History, iii. 764; Grey's Narratives; Sprat's True Account, Danvers's Treatise on Baptism; Danvers's Innocency and Truth vindicated; Crosby's History of the English Baptists.]

320 (return)
[ London Gazette, January 4, 1684-5; Ferguson MS. in Eachard's History, iii. 764; Grey's Narratives; Sprat's True Account, Danvers's Treatise on Baptism; Danvers's Innocency and Truth Vindicated; Crosby's History of the English Baptists.]

321 (return)
[ Sprat's True Account; Burnet, i. 634; Wade's Confession, Earl. MS. 6845.—— Lord Howard of Escrick accused Ayloffe of proposing to assassinate the Duke of York; but Lord Howard was an abject liar; and this story was not part of his original confession, but was added afterwards by way of supplement, and therefore deserves no credit whatever.]

321 (return)
[ Sprat's True Account; Burnet, i. 634; Wade's Confession, Earl. MS. 6845.—— Lord Howard of Escrick accused Ayloffe of suggesting he should kill the Duke of York; but Lord Howard was a total liar; and this story wasn’t in his original confession, but was added later as an afterthought, so it shouldn't be believed at all.]

322 (return)
[ Wade's Confession, Harl. MS. 6845; Lansdowne MS. 1152; Holloway's narrative in the Appendix to Sprat's True Account. Wade owned that Holloway had told nothing but truth.]

322 (return)
[ Wade's Confession, Harl. MS. 6845; Lansdowne MS. 1152; Holloway's narrative in the Appendix to Sprat's True Account. Wade admitted that Holloway had spoken nothing but the truth.]

323 (return)
[ Sprat's True Account and Appendix, passim.]

323 (return)
[ Sprat's True Account and Appendix, throughout.]

324 (return)
[ Sprat's True Account and Appendix, Proceedings against Rumbold in the Collection of State Trials; Burnet's Own Times, i. 633; Appendix to Fox's History, No. IV.]

324 (return)
[ Sprat's True Account and Appendix, Proceedings against Rumbold in the Collection of State Trials; Burnet's Own Times, i. 633; Appendix to Fox's History, No. IV.]

325 (return)
[ Grey's narrative; his trial in the Collection of State Trials; Sprat's True Account.]

325 (return)
[ Grey's story; his trial in the Collection of State Trials; Sprat's True Account.]

326 (return)
[ In the Pepysian Collection is a print representing one of the balls which About this time William and Mary gave in the Oranje Zaal.]

326 (return)
[ In the Pepysian Collection, there's a print showing one of the balls that William and Mary hosted in the Oranje Zaal around this time.]

327 (return)
[ Avaux Neg. January 25, 1685. Letter from James to the Princess of Orange dated January 1684-5, among Birch's Extracts in the British Museum.]

327 (return)
[ Avaux Neg. January 25, 1685. Letter from James to the Princess of Orange dated January 1684-5, among Birch's Extracts in the British Museum.]

328 (return)
[ Grey's Narrative; Wade's Confession, Lansdowne MS. 1152.]

328 (return)
[ Grey's Narrative; Wade's Confession, Lansdowne MS. 1152.]

329 (return)
[ Burnet, i. 542; Wood, Ath. Ox. under the name of Owen; Absalom and Achtophel, part ii.; Eachard, iii. 682, 697; Sprat's True Account, passim; Lond. Gaz. Aug. 6,1683; Nonconformist's Memorial; North's Examen, 399.]

329 (return)
[ Burnet, i. 542; Wood, Ath. Ox. under the name of Owen; Absalom and Achitophel, part ii.; Eachard, iii. 682, 697; Sprat's True Account, repeatedly; Lond. Gaz. Aug. 6, 1683; Nonconformist's Memorial; North's Examen, 399.]

330 (return)
[ Wade's Confession, Harl. MS. 6845.]

330 (return)
[ Wade's Confession, Harl. MS. 6845.]

331 (return)
[ Avaux Neg. Feb. 20, 22, 1685; Monmouth's letter to James from Ringwood.]

331 (return)
[ Avaux Neg. Feb. 20, 22, 1685; Monmouth's letter to James from Ringwood.]

332 (return)
[ Boyer's History of King William the Third, 2d edition, 1703, vol. i 160.]

332 (return)
[Boyer's History of King William the Third, 2nd edition, 1703, vol. i 160.]

333 (return)
[ Welwood's Memoirs, App. xv.; Burnet, i. 530. Grey told a somewhat different story, but he told it to save his life. The Spanish ambassador at the English court, Don Pedro de Ronquillo, in a letter to the governor of the Low Countries written about this time, sneers at Monmouth for living on the bounty of a fond woman, and hints a very unfounded suspicion that the Duke's passion was altogether interested. "Hallandose hoy tan falto de medios que ha menester trasformarse en Amor con Miledi en vista de la ecesidad de poder subsistir."—Ronquillo to Grana. Mar. 30,/Apr. 9, 1685.]

333 (return)
[ Welwood's Memoirs, App. xv.; Burnet, i. 530. Grey recounted a slightly different story, but he did that to save himself. The Spanish ambassador at the English court, Don Pedro de Ronquillo, wrote a letter to the governor of the Low Countries around this time, mocking Monmouth for depending on the generosity of a doting woman, and suggesting an unfounded suspicion that the Duke's feelings were purely self-serving. "Being so lacking in means today that he needs to transform into Love with Milady in light of the necessity to survive."—Ronquillo to Grana. Mar. 30/Apr. 9, 1685.]

334 (return)
[ Proceedings against Argyle in the Collection of State Trials, Burnet, i 521; A True and Plain Account of the Discoveries made in Scotland, 1684, The Scotch Mist Cleared; Sir George Mackenzie's Vindication, Lord Fountainhall's Chronological Notes.]

334 (return)
[ Proceedings against Argyle in the Collection of State Trials, Burnet, i 521; A True and Plain Account of the Discoveries made in Scotland, 1684, The Scotch Mist Cleared; Sir George Mackenzie's Vindication, Lord Fountainhall's Chronological Notes.]

335 (return)
[ Information of Robert Smith in the Appendix to Sprat's True Account.]

335 (return)
[ Information about Robert Smith in the Appendix to Sprat's True Account.]

336 (return)
[ True and Plain Account of the Discoveries made in Scotland.]

336 (return)
[ A True and Straightforward Account of the Discoveries Made in Scotland.]

337 (return)
[ Discorsi sopra la prima Deca di Tito Livio, lib. ii. cap. 33.]

337 (return)
[ Discourses on the First Decade of Titus Livius, book ii, chapter 33.]

338 (return)
[ See Sir Patrick Hume's Narrative, passim.]

338 (return)
[ See Sir Patrick Hume's Narrative, throughout.]

339 (return)
[ Grey's Narrative; Wade's Confession, Harl. MS. 6845.]

339 (return)
[ Grey's Narrative; Wade's Confession, Harl. MS. 6845.]

340 (return)
[ Burnet, i. 631.]

340 (__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__)
[ Burnet, i. 631.]

341 (return)
[ Grey's Narrative.]

341 (__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__)
[ Grey's Story.]

342 (return)
[ Le Clerc's Life of Locke; Lord King's Life of Locke; Lord Grenville's Oxford and Locke. Locke must not be confounded with the Anabapist Nicholas Look, whose name was spelled Locke in Grey's Confession, and who is mentioned in the Lansdowne MS. 1152, and in the Buccleuch narrative appended to Mr. Rose's dissertation. I should hardly think it necessary to make this remark, but that the similarity of the two names appears to have misled a man so well acquainted with the history of those times as Speaker Onslow. See his note on Burnet, i, 629.]

342 (return)
[ Le Clerc's Life of Locke; Lord King's Life of Locke; Lord Grenville's Oxford and Locke. Locke should not be confused with the Anabaptist Nicholas Look, whose name was spelled Locke in Grey's Confession, and who is referenced in the Lansdowne MS. 1152, as well as in the Buccleuch narrative attached to Mr. Rose's dissertation. I wouldn't normally find it necessary to mention this, but the similarity of the two names seems to have confused someone as knowledgeable about the history of that time as Speaker Onslow. See his note on Burnet, i, 629.]

343 (return)
[ Wodrow, book iii. chap. ix; London Gazette, May 11, 1685; Barillon, May 11-21.]

343 (return)
[Wodrow, book iii. chap. ix; London Gazette, May 11, 1685; Barillon, May 11-21.]

344 (return)
[ Register of the Proceedings of the States General, May 5-15, 1685.]

344 (return)
[ Register of the Proceedings of the States General, May 5-15, 1685.]

345 (return)
[ This is mentioned in his credentials, dated on the 16th of March, 1684-5.]

345 (return)
[ This is noted in his credentials, dated March 16, 1684-5.]

346 (return)
[ Bonrepaux to Seignelay, February 4-14, 1686.]

346 (return)
[ Bonrepaux to Seignelay, February 4-14, 1686.]

347 (return)
[ Avaux Neg. April 30,/May 10, May 1-11, May 5-15, 1685; Sir Patrick Hume's Narrative; Letter from The Admiralty of Amsterdam to the States General, dated June 20, 1685; Memorial of Skelton, delivered to the States General, May 10, 1685.]

347 (return)
[ Avaux Neg. April 30/May 10, May 1-11, May 5-15, 1685; Sir Patrick Hume's Narrative; Letter from the Admiralty of Amsterdam to the States General, dated June 20, 1685; Memorial of Skelton, delivered to the States General, May 10, 1685.]

348 (return)
[ If any person is inclined to suspect that I have exaggerated the absurdity and ferocity of these men, I would advise him to read two books, which will convince him that I have rather softened than overcharged the portrait, the Hind Let Loose, and Faithful Contendings Displayed.]

348 (return)
[If anyone thinks I've exaggerated the craziness and brutality of these men, I encourage them to read two books that will show I've actually toned down the depiction: *Hind Let Loose* and *Faithful Contendings Displayed.*]

349 (return)
[ A few words which were in the first five editions have been omitted in this place. Here and in another passage I had, as Mr. Aytoun has observed, mistaken the City Guards, which were commanded by an officer named Graham, for the Dragoons of Graham of Claverhouse.]

349 (return)
[ A few words that were in the first five editions have been left out here. In this part and another section, I mistakenly identified the City Guards, led by an officer named Graham, as the Dragoons of Graham of Claverhouse, as Mr. Aytoun pointed out.]

350 (return)
[ The authors from whom I have taken the history of Argyle's expedition are Sir Patrick Hume, who was an eyewitness of what he related, and Wodrow, who had access to materials of the greatest value, among which were the Earl's own papers. Wherever there is a question of veracity between Argyle and Hume, I have no doubt that Argyle's narrative ought to be followed.—— See also Burnet, i. 631, and the life of Bresson, published by Dr. Mac Crie. The account of the Scotch rebellion in the Life of James the Second, is a ridiculous romance, not written by the King himself, nor derived from his papers, but composed by a Jacobite who did not even take the trouble to look at a map of the seat of war.]

350 (return)
[ The sources I've used for the history of Argyle's expedition are Sir Patrick Hume, who witnessed the events he described, and Wodrow, who had access to highly valuable materials, including the Earl's own documents. Whenever there's a question of truth between Argyle and Hume, I believe Argyle's account should be trusted.—— See also Burnet, i. 631, and the biography of Bresson, published by Dr. Mac Crie. The account of the Scottish rebellion in the Life of James the Second is a silly story, not written by the King himself or based on his papers, but created by a Jacobite who didn't even bother to look at a map of the battlefield.]

351 (return)
[ Wodrow, III. ix 10; Western Martyrology; Burnet, i. 633; Fox's History, Appendix iv. I can find no way, except that indicated in the text, of reconciling Rumbold's denial that he had ever admitted into his mind the thought of assassination with his confession that he had himself mentioned his own house as a convenient place for an attack on the royal brothers. The distinction which I suppose him to have taken was certainly taken by another Rye House conspirator, who was, like him, an old soldier of the Commonwealth, Captain Walcot. On Walcot's trial, West, the witness for the crown, said, "Captain, you did agree to be one of those that were to fight the Guards." "What, then, was the reason." asked Chief Justice Pemberton, "that he would not kill the King?" "He said," answered West, "that it was a base thing to kill a naked man, and he would not do it."]

351 (return)
[ Wodrow, III. ix 10; Western Martyrology; Burnet, i. 633; Fox's History, Appendix iv. I can’t find any way, other than what's mentioned in the text, to explain Rumbold's claim that he never considered assassination alongside his admission that he referred to his own house as a suitable spot to attack the royal brothers. The distinction I think he made was also made by another Rye House conspirator, Captain Walcot, who, like him, was a veteran of the Commonwealth. During Walcot's trial, West, the prosecution's witness, said, "Captain, you did agree to be one of those who would confront the Guards." "So then, what was the reason," asked Chief Justice Pemberton, "that he wouldn't kill the King?" "He said," replied West, "that it was a disgraceful act to kill an unarmed man, and he wouldn’t do it."]

352 (return)
[ Wodrow, III. ix. 9.]

352 (return)
[ Wodrow, III. ix. 9.]

353 (return)
[ Wade's narrative, Harl, MS. 6845; Burnet, i. 634; Van Citters's Despatch of Oct. 30,/Nov. 9, 1685; Luttrell's Diary of the same date.]

353 (return)
[ Wade's narrative, Harl, MS. 6845; Burnet, i. 634; Van Citters's Dispatch of Oct. 30/Nov. 9, 1685; Luttrell's Diary of the same date.]

354 (return)
[ Wodrow, III, ix. 4, and III. ix. 10. Wodrow gives from the Acts of Council the names of all the prisoners who were transported, mutilated or branded.]

354 (return)
[ Wodrow, III, ix. 4, and III. ix. 10. Wodrow lists the names of all the prisoners who were transported, mutilated, or branded from the Acts of Council.]

355 (return)
[ Skelton's letter is dated the 7-17th of May 1686. It will be found, together with a letter of the Schout or High Bailiff of Amsterdam, in a little volume published a few months later, and entitled, "Histoire des Evenemens Tragiques d'Angleterre." The documents inserted in that work are, as far as I have examined them, given exactly from the Dutch archives, except that Skelton's French, which was not the purest, is slightly corrected. See also Grey's Narrative.—— Goodenough, on his examination after the battle of Sedgemoor, said, "The Schout of Amsterdam was a particular friend to this last design." Lansdowne MS. 1152.—— It is not worth while to refute those writers who represent the Prince of Orange as an accomplice in Monmouth's enterprise. The circumstance on which they chiefly rely is that the authorities of Amsterdam took no effectual steps for preventing the expedition from sailing. This circumstance is in truth the strongest proof that the expedition was not favoured by William. No person, not profoundly ignorant of the institutions and politics of Holland, would hold the Stadtholder answerable for the proceedings of the heads of the Loevestein party.]

355 (return)
[ Skelton's letter is dated May 7-17, 1686. You can find it, along with a letter from the Schout or High Bailiff of Amsterdam, in a small book published a few months later titled "Histoire des Evenemens Tragiques d'Angleterre." The documents included in that work, as far as I've checked, are taken directly from the Dutch archives, though Skelton's French, which wasn't the best, has been slightly polished. See also Grey's Narrative.—— Goodenough, during his examination after the battle of Sedgemoor, stated, "The Schout of Amsterdam was a close friend to this last plan." Lansdowne MS. 1152.—— It's not worth arguing against those writers who claim the Prince of Orange was involved in Monmouth's plot. The main evidence they rely on is that the Amsterdam authorities didn't take effective action to stop the expedition from leaving. In fact, this is the strongest indication that William did not support the expedition. No one, who truly understands the institutions and politics of Holland, would hold the Stadtholder responsible for the actions of the leaders of the Loevestein group.]

356 (return)
[ Avaux Neg. June 7-17, 8-18, 14-24, 1685, Letter of the Prince of Orange to Lord Rochester, June 9, 1685.]

356 (return)
[ Avaux Neg. June 7-17, 8-18, 14-24, 1685, Letter from the Prince of Orange to Lord Rochester, June 9, 1685.]

357 (return)
[ Van Citters, June 9-19, June 12-22,1685. The correspondence of Skelton with the States General and with the Admiralty of Amsterdam is in the archives at the Hague. Some pieces will be found in the Evenemens Tragiques d'Angleterre. See also Burnet, i. 640.]

357 (return)
[ Van Citters, June 9-19, June 12-22, 1685. The letters from Skelton to the States General and to the Admiralty of Amsterdam are stored in the archives at The Hague. Some documents can be found in Evenemens Tragiques d'Angleterre. See also Burnet, i. 640.]

358 (return)
[ Wade's Confession in the Hardwicke Papers; Harl. MS. 6845.]

358 (return)
[ Wade's Confession in the Hardwicke Papers; Harl. MS. 6845.]

359 (return)
[ See Buyse's evidence against Monmouth and Fletcher in the Collection of State Trials.]

359 (return)
[ See Buyse's evidence against Monmouth and Fletcher in the Collection of State Trials.]

360 (return)
[ Journals of the House of Commons, June 13, 1685; Harl. MS. 6845; Lansdowne MS. 1152.]

360 (return)
[ Journals of the House of Commons, June 13, 1685; Harl. MS. 6845; Lansdowne MS. 1152.]

361 (return)
[ Burnet, i. 641, Goodenough's confession in the Lansdowne MS. 1152. Copies of the Declaration, as originally printed, are very rare; but there is one in the British Museum.]

361 (return)
[ Burnet, i. 641, Goodenough's confession in the Lansdowne MS. 1152. Original copies of the Declaration are quite rare, but one is available in the British Museum.]

362 (return)
[ Historical Account of the Life and magnanimous Actions of the most illustrious Protestant Prince James, Duke of Monmouth, 1683.]

362 (return)
[ A Historical Account of the Life and Generous Actions of the Renowned Protestant Prince James, Duke of Monmouth, 1683.]

363 (return)
[ Wade's Confession, Hardwicke Papers; Axe Papers; Harl. MS. 6845.]

363 (return)
[ Wade's Confession, Hardwicke Papers; Axe Papers; Harl. MS. 6845.]

364 (return)
[ Harl. MS. 6845.]

364 (__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__)
[ Harl. MS. 6845.]

365 (return)
[ Buyse's evidence in the Collection of State Trials; Burnet i 642; Ferguson's MS. quoted by Eachard.]

365 (return)
[ Buyse's evidence in the Collection of State Trials; Burnet i 642; Ferguson's MS. quoted by Eachard.]

366 (return)
[ London Gazette, June 18, 1685; Wade's Confession, Hardwicke Papers.]

366 (return)
[ London Gazette, June 18, 1685; Wade's Confession, Hardwicke Papers.]

367 (return)
[ Lords' Journals, June 13,1685.]

367 (return)
[ Lords' Journals, June 13, 1685.]

368 (return)
[ Wade's Confession; Ferguson MS.; Axe Papers, Harl. MS. 6845, Oldmixon, 701, 702. Oldmixon, who was then a boy, lived very near the scene of these events.]

368 (return)
[ Wade's Confession; Ferguson MS.; Axe Papers, Harl. MS. 6845, Oldmixon, 701, 702. Oldmixon, who was just a kid at the time, lived really close to where all this happened.]

369 (return)
[ London Gazette, June 18, 1685; Lords' and Commons' Journals, June 13 and 15; Dutch Despatch, 16-26.]

369 (return)
[ London Gazette, June 18, 1685; Lords' and Commons' Journals, June 13 and 15; Dutch Dispatch, 16-26.]

370 (return)
[ Oldmixon is wrong in saying that Fenwick carried up the bill. It was carried up, as appears from the Journals, by Lord Ancram. See Delamere's Observations on the Attainder of the Late Duke of Monmouth.]

370 (return)
[ Oldmixon is incorrect in claiming that Fenwick brought up the bill. It was actually brought up, as shown in the Journals, by Lord Ancram. See Delamere's Observations on the Attainder of the Late Duke of Monmouth.]

371 (return)
[ Commons' Journals of June 17, 18, and 19, 1685; Reresby's Memoirs.]

371 (return)
[ Commons' Journals of June 17, 18, and 19, 1685; Reresby's Memoirs.]

372 (return)
[ Commons' Journals, June 19, 29, 1685; Lord Lonsdale's Memoirs, 8, 9, Burnet, i. 639. The bill, as amended by the committee, will be found in Mr. Fox's historical work. Appendix iii. If Burnet's account be correct, the offences which, by the amended bill, were made punishable only with civil incapacities were, by the original bill, made capital.]

372 (return)
[ Commons' Journals, June 19, 29, 1685; Lord Lonsdale's Memoirs, 8, 9, Burnet, i. 639. The bill, as revised by the committee, can be found in Mr. Fox's historical work. Appendix iii. If Burnet's account is accurate, the offenses that, according to the revised bill, were punishable only with civil penalties were, in the original bill, punishable by death.]

373 (return)
[ 1 Jac. II. c. 7; Lords' Journals, July 2, 1685.]

373 (return)
[ 1 Jac. II. c. 7; Lords' Journals, July 2, 1685.]

374 (return)
[ Lords' and Commons' Journals, July 2, 1685.]

374 (return)
[ Lords' and Commons' Journals, July 2, 1685.]

375 (return)
[ Savage's edition of Toulmin's History of Taunton.]

375 (return)
[Savage's edition of Toulmin's History of Taunton.]

376 (return)
[ Sprat's true Account; Toulmin's History of Taunton.]

376 (return)
[ Sprat's true Account; Toulmin's History of Taunton.]

377 (return)
[ Life and Death of Joseph Alleine, 1672; Nonconformists' Memorial.]

377 (return)
[ Life and Death of Joseph Alleine, 1672; Nonconformists' Memorial.]

378 (return)
[ Harl. MS. 7006; Oldmixon. 702; Eachard, iii. 763.]

378 (return)
[ Harl. MS. 7006; Oldmixon. 702; Eachard, iii. 763.]

379 (return)
[ Wade's Confession; Goodenough's Confession, Harl. MS. 1152, Oldmixon, 702. Ferguson's denial is quite undeserving of credit. A copy of the proclamation is in the Harl. MS. 7006.]

379 (return)
[ Wade's Confession; Goodenough's Confession, Harl. MS. 1152, Oldmixon, 702. Ferguson's denial isn't credible at all. A copy of the proclamation is in the Harl. MS. 7006.]

380 (return)
[ Copies of the last three proclamations are in the British Museum; Harl. MS. 7006. The first I have never seen; but it is mentioned by Wado.]

380 (return)
[ Copies of the last three proclamations are in the British Museum; Harl. MS. 7006. I've never seen the first one; however, it is referenced by Wado.]

381 (return)
[ Grey's Narrative; Ferguson's MS., Eachard, iii. 754.]

381 (return)
[ Grey's Narrative; Ferguson's MS., Eachard, iii. 754.]

382 (return)
[ Persecution Exposed, by John Whiting.]

382 (return)
[ Persecution Exposed, by John Whiting.]

383 (return)
[ Harl. MS. 6845.]

383 (__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__)
[ Harl. MS. 6845.]

384 (return)
[ One of these weapons may still be seen in the tower.]

384 (return)
[ You can still see one of these weapons in the tower.]

385 (return)
[ Grey's Narrative; Paschall's Narrative in the Appendix to Heywood's Vindication.]

385 (return)
[ Grey's Narrative; Paschall's Narrative in the Appendix to Heywood's Vindication.]

386 (return)
[ Oldmixon, 702.]

386 (__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__)
[ Oldmixon, 702.]

387 (return)
[ North's Life of Guildford, 132. Accounts of Beaufort's progress through Wales and the neighbouring counties are in the London Gazettes of July 1684. Letter of Beaufort to Clarendon, June 19, 1685.]

387 (return)
[ North's Life of Guildford, 132. Reports on Beaufort's journey through Wales and the surrounding counties can be found in the London Gazettes from July 1684. Letter from Beaufort to Clarendon, June 19, 1685.]

388 (return)
[ Bishop Fell to Clarendon, June 20; Abingdon to Clarendon, June 20, 25, 26, 1685; Lansdowne MS. 846.]

388 (return)
[ Bishop Fell to Clarendon, June 20; Abingdon to Clarendon, June 20, 25, 26, 1685; Lansdowne MS. 846.]

389 (return)
[ Avaux, July 5-15, 6-16, 1685.]

389 (return)
[ Avaux, July 5-15, 6-16, 1685.]

390 (return)
[ Van Citters, June 30,/July 10, July 3-13, 21-31,1685; Avaux Neg. July 5-15, London Gazette, July 6.]

390 (return)
[ Van Citters, June 30/July 10, July 3-13, 21-31, 1685; Avaux Neg. July 5-15, London Gazette, July 6.]

391 (return)
[ Barillon, July 6-16, 1685; Scott's preface to Albion and Albanius.]

391 (return)
[ Barillon, July 6-16, 1685; Scott's preface to Albion and Albanius.]

392 (return)
[ Abingdon to Clarendon, June 29,1685; Life of Philip Henry, by Bates.]

392 (return)
[ Abingdon to Clarendon, June 29, 1685; Life of Philip Henry, by Bates.]

393 (return)
[ London Gazette, June 22, and June 25,1685; Wade's Confession; Oldmixon, 703; Harl. MS. 6845.]

393 (return)
[ London Gazette, June 22, and June 25, 1685; Wade's Confession; Oldmixon, 703; Harl. MS. 6845.]

394 (return)
[ Wade's Confession.]

394 (__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__)
[ Wade's Confession.]

395 (return)
[ Wade's Confession; Oldmixon, 703; Harl. MS. 6845; Charge of Jeffreys to the grand jury of Bristol, Sept. 21, 1685.]

395 (return)
[ Wade's Confession; Oldmixon, 703; Harl. MS. 6845; Charge of Jeffreys to the grand jury of Bristol, Sept. 21, 1685.]

396 (return)
[ London Gazette, June 29, 1685; Wade's Confession.]

396 (return)
[ London Gazette, June 29, 1685; Wade's Confession.]

397 (return)
[ Wade's Confession.]

397 (__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__)
[ Wade's Confession.]

398 (return)
[ London Gazette, July 2,1685; Barillon, July 6-16; Wade's Confession.]

398 (return)
[ London Gazette, July 2, 1685; Barillon, July 6-16; Wade's Confession.]

399 (return)
[ London Gazette, June 29,1685; Van Citters, June 30,/July 10,]

399 (return)
[ London Gazette, June 29, 1685; Van Citters, June 30/July 10,]

400 (return)
[ Harl. MS. 6845; Wade's Confession.]

400 (return)
[ Harl. MS. 6845; Wade's Confession.]

401 (return)
[ Wade's Confession; Eachard, iii. 766.]

401 (return)
[ Wade's Confession; Eachard, iii. 766.]

402 (return)
[ Wade's Confession.]

402 (__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__)
[ Wade's Confession.]

403 (return)
[ London Gazette, July 6, 1685; Van Citters, July 3-13, Oldmixon, 703.]

403 (return)
[ London Gazette, July 6, 1685; Van Citters, July 3-13, Oldmixon, 703.]

404 (return)
[ Wade's Confession.]

404 (__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__)
[ Wade's Confession.]

405 (return)
[ Matt. West. Flor. Hist., A. D. 788; MS. Chronicle quoted by Mr. Sharon Turner in the History of the Anglo-Saxons, book IV. chap. xix; Drayton's Polyolbion, iii; Leland's Itinerary; Oldmixon, 703. Oldmixon was then at Bridgewater, and probably saw the Duke on the church tower. The dish mentioned in the text is the property of Mr. Stradling, who has taken laudable pain's to preserve the relics and traditions of the Western insurrection.]

405 (return)
[ Matt. West. Flor. Hist., A. D. 788; MS. Chronicle quoted by Mr. Sharon Turner in the History of the Anglo-Saxons, book IV. chap. xix; Drayton's Polyolbion, iii; Leland's Itinerary; Oldmixon, 703. Oldmixon was then in Bridgewater and likely saw the Duke on the church tower. The dish mentioned in the text belongs to Mr. Stradling, who has made commendable efforts to preserve the relics and traditions of the Western uprising.]

406 (return)
[ Oldmixon, 703.]

406 (__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__)
[ Oldmixon, 703.]

407 (return)
[ Churchill to Clarendon, July 4, 1685.]

407 (return)
[ Churchill to Clarendon, July 4, 1685.]

408 (return)
[ Oldmixon, 703; Observator, Aug. 1, 1685.]

408 (return)
[ Oldmixon, 703; Observator, Aug. 1, 1685.]

409 (return)
[ Paschall's Narrative in Heywood's Appendix.]

409 (return)
[ Paschall's Narrative in Heywood's Appendix.]

410 (return)
[ Kennet, ed. 1719, iii. 432. I am forced to believe that this lamentable story is true. The Bishop declares that it was communicated to him in the year 1718 by a brave officer of the Blues, who had fought at Sedgemoor, and who had himself seen the poor girl depart in an agony of distress.]

410 (return)
[ Kennet, ed. 1719, iii. 432. I have to believe that this heartbreaking story is true. The Bishop states that it was shared with him in 1718 by a courageous officer of the Blues, who fought at Sedgemoor and had personally witnessed the poor girl leave in deep distress.]

411 (return)
[ Narrative of an officer of the Horse Guards in Kennet, ed. 1718, iii. 432; MS. Journal of the Western Rebellion, kept by Mr. Edward Dummer, Dryden's Hind and Panther, part II. The lines of Dryden are remarkable:

411 (return)
[ Narrative of an officer of the Horse Guards in Kennet, ed. 1718, iii. 432; MS. Journal of the Western Rebellion, kept by Mr. Edward Dummer, Dryden's Hind and Panther, part II. The lines of Dryden are remarkable:

     "Such were the pleasing triumphs of the sky
     For James's late nocturnal victory.
     The fireworks which his angels made above.
     The pledge of his almighty patron's love,
     I saw myself the lambent easy light
     Gild the brown horror and dispel the night.
     The messenger with speed the tidings bore.
     News which three labouring nations did restore;
     But heaven's own Nuntius was arrived before.']
"Such were the delightful victories of the sky  
For James's recent nighttime win.  
The fireworks his angels created above.  
The sign of his powerful patron's love,  
I witnessed the gentle, bright light  
Illuminate the dark and chase away the night.  
The messenger quickly brought the news.  
News that three struggling nations renewed;  
But heaven's own messenger had arrived first."

412 (return)
[ It has been said by several writers, and among them by Pennant, that the district in London called Soho derived its name from the watchword of Monmouth's army at Sedgemoor. Mention of Soho Fields will be found in many books printed before the Western insurrection; for example, in Chamberlayne's State of England, 1684.]

412 (return)
[Several writers, including Pennant, have suggested that the London area known as Soho got its name from the watchword used by Monmouth's army at Sedgemoor. References to Soho Fields can be found in many books published before the Western uprising, such as Chamberlayne's State of England, 1684.]

413 (return)
[ There is a warrant of James directing that forty pounds should be paid to Sergeant Weems, of Dumbarton's regiment, "for good service in the action at Sedgemoor in firing the great guns against the rebels." Historical Record of the First or Royal Regiment of Foot.]

413 (return)
[ There is a warrant from James ordering that forty pounds be paid to Sergeant Weems of Dumbarton's regiment, "for good service in the battle at Sedgemoor by firing the big guns against the rebels." Historical Record of the First or Royal Regiment of Foot.]

414 (return)
[ James the Second's account of the battle of Sedgemoor in Lord Hardwicke's State Papers; Wade's Confession; Ferguson's MS. Narrative in Eachard, iii. 768; Narrative of an Officer of the Horse Guards in Kennet, ed. 1719, iii. 432, London Gazette, July 9, 1685; Oldmixon, 703; Paschall's Narrative; Burnet, i. 643; Evelyn's Diary, July 8; Van Citters,.July 7-17; Barillon, July 9-19; Reresby's Memoirs; the Duke of Buckingham's battle of Sedgemoor, a Farce; MS. Journal of the Western Rebellion, kept by Mr. Edward Dummer, then serving in the train of artillery employed by His Majesty for the suppression of the same. The last mentioned manuscript is in the Pepysian library, and is of the greatest value, not on account of the narrative, which contains little that is remarkable, but on account of the plans, which exhibit the battle in four or five different stages.]

414 (return)
[ James II's account of the Battle of Sedgemoor in Lord Hardwicke's State Papers; Wade's Confession; Ferguson's MS. Narrative in Eachard, iii. 768; Narrative of an Officer of the Horse Guards in Kennet, ed. 1719, iii. 432, London Gazette, July 9, 1685; Oldmixon, 703; Paschall's Narrative; Burnet, i. 643; Evelyn's Diary, July 8; Van Citters, July 7-17; Barillon, July 9-19; Reresby's Memoirs; the Duke of Buckingham's Battle of Sedgemoor, a Farce; MS. Journal of the Western Rebellion, kept by Mr. Edward Dummer, who was serving in the artillery unit employed by His Majesty to put down the rebellion. The last manuscript mentioned is in the Pepysian library and is very valuable, not because of the narrative, which is mostly unremarkable, but because of the plans that show the battle in four or five different stages.]

"The history of a battle," says the greatest of living generals, "is not unlike the history of a ball. Some individuals may recollect all the little events of which the great result is the battle won or lost, but no individual can recollect the order in which, or the exact moment at which, they occurred, which makes all the difference as to their value or importance..... Just to show you how little reliance can be placed even on what are supposed the best accounts of a battle, I mention that there are some circumstances mentioned in General—'s account which did not occur as he relates them. It is impossible to say when each important occurrence took place, or in what order."—Wellington Papers, Aug. 8, and 17, 1815.—— The battle concerning which the Duke of Wellington wrote thus was that of Waterloo, fought only a few weeks before, by broad day, under his own vigilant and experienced eye. What then must be the difficulty of compiling from twelve or thirteen narratives an account of a battle fought more than a hundred and sixty years ago in such darkness that not a man of those engaged could see fifty paces before him? The difficulty is aggravated by the circumstance that those witnesses who had the best opportunity of knowing the truth were by no means inclined to tell it. The Paper which I have placed at the head of my list of authorities was evidently drawn up with extreme partiality to Feversham. Wade was writing under the dread of the halter. Ferguson, who was seldom scrupulous about the truth of his assertions, lied on this occasion like Bobadil or Parolles. Oldmixon, who was a boy at Bridgewater when the battle was fought, and passed a great part of his subsequent life there, was so much under the influence of local passions that his local information was useless to him. His desire to magnify the valour of the Somersetshire peasants, a valour which their enemies acknowledged and which did not need to be set off by exaggeration and fiction, led him to compose an absurd romance. The eulogy which Barillon, a Frenchman accustomed to despise raw levies, pronounced on the vanquished army, is of much more value, "Son infanterie fit fort bien. On eut de la peine a les rompre, et les soldats combattoient avec les crosses de mousquet et les scies qu'ils avoient au bout de grands bastons au lieu de picques."—— Little is now to be learned by visiting the field of battle for the face of the country has been greatly changed; and the old Bussex Rhine on the banks of which the great struggle took place, has long disappeared. The rhine now called by that name is of later date, and takes a different course.—— I have derived much assistance from Mr. Roberts's account of the battle. Life of Monmouth, chap. xxii. His narrative is in the main confirmed by Dummer's plans.]

"The history of a battle," says the greatest living general, "is not unlike the history of a dance. Some people may remember all the small events that lead to the overall outcome, but no one can recall the order in which they happened or the exact moment, which makes a huge difference in their value or significance... Just to illustrate how unreliable even the best accounts of a battle can be, I mention that there are some details in General—'s account that didn't happen as he describes them. It's impossible to determine when each important event took place or in what sequence."—Wellington Papers, Aug. 8, and 17, 1815.—— The battle the Duke of Wellington was referring to was Waterloo, fought only a few weeks earlier, in broad daylight, under his watchful and experienced eye. So, you can imagine the difficulty of putting together an account of a battle fought over one hundred and sixty years ago in such darkness that no one involved could see fifty paces ahead of them. The challenge is made worse by the fact that those witnesses who had the best chance of knowing the truth were not inclined to share it. The document I’ve listed at the top of my sources was clearly written with a strong bias towards Feversham. Wade was writing out of fear of punishment. Ferguson, who usually wasn’t picky about the truth of his statements, lied on this occasion like Bobadil or Parolles. Oldmixon, who was a boy in Bridgewater when the battle occurred and spent much of his later life there, was so influenced by local feelings that his local knowledge became useless. His desire to exaggerate the bravery of the Somersetshire peasants—bravery that their enemies already recognized and didn't need embellishment—led him to create an absurd story. The praise that Barillon, a Frenchman used to looking down on amateur soldiers, gave to the defeated army is much more valuable: "Their infantry did very well. It was difficult to break them, and the soldiers fought with the butts of their muskets and the saws they had on the ends of long poles instead of pikes."—— Little can be learned by visiting the battlefield now as the landscape has changed significantly; the old Bussex Rhine, along whose banks the great struggle occurred, has long since vanished. The Rhine now called by that name is newer and flows a different way.—— I have found Mr. Roberts's account of the battle very helpful. Life of Monmouth, chap. xxii. His narrative is largely confirmed by Dummer's plans.]

415 (return)
[ I learned these things from persons living close to Sedgemoor.]

415 (return)
[ I learned these things from people living near Sedgemoor.]

416 (return)
[ Oldmixon, 704.]

416 (__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__)
[Oldmixon, 704.]

417 (return)
[ Locke's Western Rebellion Stradling's Chilton Priory.]

417 (return)
[ Locke's Western Rebellion Stradling's Chilton Priory.]

418 (return)
[ Locke's Western Rebellion Stradling's Chilton Priory; Oldmixon, 704.]

418 (return)
[ Locke's Western Rebellion Stradling's Chilton Priory; Oldmixon, 704.]

419 (return)
[ Aubrey's Natural History of Wiltshire, 1691.]

419 (return)
[Aubrey's Natural History of Wiltshire, 1691.]

420 (return)
[ Account of the manner of taking the late Duke of Monmouth, published by his Majesty's command; Gazette de France, July 18-28, 1688; Eachard, iii. 770; Burnet, i. 664, and Dartmouth's note: Van Citters, July 10-20,1688.]

420 (return)
[Account of how the late Duke of Monmouth was captured, published by order of His Majesty; Gazette de France, July 18-28, 1688; Eachard, iii. 770; Burnet, i. 664, and Dartmouth's note: Van Citters, July 10-20, 1688.]

421 (return)
[ The letter to the King was printed at the time by authority; that to the Queen Dowager will be found in Sir H. Ellis's Original Letters; that to Rochester in the Clarendon Correspondence.]

421 (return)
[ The letter to the King was officially published at the time; the one to the Queen Dowager can be found in Sir H. Ellis's Original Letters; the letter to Rochester is in the Clarendon Correspondence.]

422 (return)
[ "On trouve," he wrote, "fort a redire icy qu'il ayt fait une chose si peu ordinaire aux Anglois." July 13-23, 1685.]

422 (return)
[ "It can be noted," he wrote, "that it is quite surprising he has done something so unusual for the English." July 13-23, 1685.]

423 (return)
[ Account of the manner of taking the Duke of Monmouth; Gazette, July 16, 1685; Van Citters, July 14-24,]

423 (return)
[ Account of how the Duke of Monmouth was captured; Gazette, July 16, 1685; Van Citters, July 14-24,]

424 (return)
[ Barillon was evidently much shocked. "Ill se vient," he says, "de passer icy, une chose bien extraordinaire et fort opposee a l'usage ordinaire des autres nations" 13-23, 1685.]

424 (return)
[ Barillon was clearly quite shocked. "It is indeed extraordinary and very different from the usual customs of other nations," he says. 13-23, 1685.]

425 (return)
[ Burnet. i. 644; Evelyn's Diary, July 15; Sir J. Bramston's Memoirs; Reresby's Memoirs; James to the Prince of Orange, July 14, 1685; Barillon, July 16-26; Bucclench MS.]

425 (return)
[ Burnet. i. 644; Evelyn's Diary, July 15; Sir J. Bramston's Memoirs; Reresby's Memoirs; James to the Prince of Orange, July 14, 1685; Barillon, July 16-26; Bucclench MS.]

426 (return)
[ James to the Prince of Orange, July 14, 1685, Dutch Despatch of the same date, Dartmouth's note on Burnet, i. 646; Narcissus Luttrell's Diary, (1848) a copy of this diary, from July 1685 to Sept. 1690, is among the Mackintosh papers. To the rest I was allowed access by the kindness of the Warden of All Souls' College, where the original MS. is deposited. The delegates of the Press of the University of Oxford have since published the whole in six substantial volumes, which will, I am afraid, find little favour with readers who seek only for amusement, but which will always be useful as materials for history. (1857.)]

426 (return)
[ James to the Prince of Orange, July 14, 1685, Dutch Despatch of the same date, Dartmouth's note on Burnet, i. 646; Narcissus Luttrell's Diary, (1848) a copy of this diary, from July 1685 to Sept. 1690, is among the Mackintosh papers. I gained access to the rest thanks to the generosity of the Warden of All Souls' College, where the original manuscript is kept. The delegates of the Press of the University of Oxford have since released the entire work in six substantial volumes, which I fear will not be very popular with readers looking only for entertainment, but which will always be helpful as historical material. (1857.)]

427 (return)
[ Buccleuch MS; Life of James the Second, ii. 37, Orig. Mem., Van Citters, July 14-24, 1685; Gazette de France, August 1-11.]

427 (return)
[ Buccleuch MS; Life of James the Second, ii. 37, Orig. Mem., Van Citters, July 14-24, 1685; Gazette de France, August 1-11.]

428 (return)
[ Buccleuch MS.; Life of James the Second, ii. 37, 38, Orig. Mem., Burnet, i. 645; Tenison's account in Kennet, iii. 432, ed. 1719.]

428 (return)
[ Buccleuch MS.; Life of James the Second, ii. 37, 38, Orig. Mem., Burnet, i. 645; Tenison's account in Kennet, iii. 432, ed. 1719.]

429 (return)
[ Buccleuch MS.]

429 (__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__)
[ Buccleuch MS.]

430 (return)
[ The name of Ketch was often associated with that of Jeffreys in the lampoons of those days.

430 (return)
[ Ketch's name was commonly linked with Jeffreys in the jokes of that time.

     "While Jeffreys on the bench,
     Ketch on the gibbet sits,"
"While Jeffreys is on the bench,  
Ketch is sitting on the gallows,"

says one poet. In the year which followed Monmouth's execution Ketch was turned out of his office for insulting one of the Sheriffs, and was succeeded by a butcher named Rose. But in four months Rose himself was hanged at Tyburn, and Ketch was reinstated. Luttrell's Diary, January 20, and May 28, 1686. See a curious note by Dr. Grey, on Hudibras, part iii. canto ii. line 1534.]

says one poet. In the year after Monmouth's execution, Ketch was removed from his position for insulting one of the Sheriffs, and a butcher named Rose took over. However, just four months later, Rose was hanged at Tyburn, and Ketch was brought back to his job. Luttrell's Diary, January 20, and May 28, 1686. See an interesting note by Dr. Grey on Hudibras, part iii. canto ii. line 1534.]

431 (return)
[ Account of the execution of Monmouth, signed by the divines who attended him; Buccleuch MS; Burnet, i. 646; Van Citters, July 17-27,1685, Luttrell's Diary; Evelyn's Diary, July 15; Barillon, July 19-29.]

431 (return)
[ Report on the execution of Monmouth, signed by the ministers who were with him; Buccleuch MS; Burnet, i. 646; Van Citters, July 17-27, 1685, Luttrell's Diary; Evelyn's Diary, July 15; Barillon, July 19-29.]

432 (return)
[ I cannot refrain from expressing my disgust at the barbarous stupidity which has transformed this most interesting little church into the likeness of a meetinghouse in a manufacturing town.]

432 (return)
[ I can't help but express my disgust at the barbaric ignorance that has turned this charming little church into something resembling a meeting hall in a factory town.]

433 (return)
[ Observator, August 1, 1685; Gazette de France, Nov. 2, 1686; Letter from Humphrey Wanley, dated Aug. 25, 1698, in the Aubrey Collection; Voltaire, Dict. Phil. There are, in the Pepysian Collection, several ballads written after Monmouth's death which represent him as living, and predict his speedy return. I will give two specimens.

433 (return)
[ Observator, August 1, 1685; Gazette de France, Nov. 2, 1686; Letter from Humphrey Wanley, dated Aug. 25, 1698, in the Aubrey Collection; Voltaire, Dict. Phil. The Pepysian Collection includes several ballads written after Monmouth's death that portray him as alive and predict his quick return. I will give two examples.

     "Though this is a dismal story
     Of the fall of my design,
     Yet I'll come again in glory,
     If I live till eighty-nine:
     For I'll have a stronger army
     And of ammunition store."

     Again;

     "Then shall Monmouth in his glories
     Unto his English friends appear,
     And will stifle all such stories
     As are vended everywhere.
     "They'll see I was not so degraded,
     To be taken gathering pease,
     Or in a cock of hay up braided.
     What strange stories now are these!"]
     "Even though this is a bleak tale
     About the collapse of my plans,
     I’ll return in glory,
     If I live until eighty-nine:
     Because I’ll have a stronger army
     And enough supplies."

     Again;

     "Then Monmouth will appear in his glory
     To his English friends,
     And will put an end to all those stories
     That are spread everywhere.
     "They’ll see I wasn't so low,
     That I was caught picking peas,
     Or tangled up in a haystack.
     What bizarre stories these are!"]

434 (return)
[ London Gazette, August 3, 1685; the Battle of Sedgemoor, a Farce.]

434 (return)
[ London Gazette, August 3, 1685; the Battle of Sedgemoor, a Farce.]

435 (return)
[ Pepys's Diary, kept at Tangier; Historical Records of the Second or Queen's Royal Regiment of Foot.]

435 (return)
[Pepys's Diary, maintained in Tangier; Historical Records of the Second or Queen's Royal Regiment of Foot.]

436 (return)
[ Bloody Assizes, Burnet, i. 647; Luttrell's Diary, July 15, 1685; Locke's Western Rebellion; Toulmin's History of Taunton, edited by Savage.]

436 (return)
[ Bloody Assizes, Burnet, i. 647; Luttrell's Diary, July 15, 1685; Locke's Western Rebellion; Toulmin's History of Taunton, edited by Savage.]

437 (return)
[ Luttrell's Diary, July 15, 1685; Toulmin's Hist. of Taunton.]

437 (return)
[ Luttrell's Diary, July 15, 1685; Toulmin's History of Taunton.]

438 (return)
[ Oldmixon, 705; Life and Errors of John Dunton, chap. vii.]

438 (return)
[ Oldmixon, 705; Life and Errors of John Dunton, chap. vii.]

439 (return)
[ The silence of Whig writers so credulous and so malevolent as Oldmixon and the compilers of the Western Martyrology would alone seem to me to settle the question. It also deserves to be remarked that the story of Rhynsault is told by Steele in the Spectator, No. 491. Surely it is hardly possible to believe that, if a crime exactly resembling that of Rhynsault had been committed within living memory in England by an officer of James the Second, Steele, who was indiscreetly and unseasonably forward to display his Whiggism, would have made no allusion to that fact. For the case of Lebon, see the Moniteur, 4 Messidor, l'an 3.]

439 (return)
[ The silence of Whig writers, who were both gullible and malicious like Oldmixon and the compilers of the Western Martyrology, seems to settle the question for me. It's also worth noting that Steele tells the story of Rhynsault in the Spectator, No. 491. Surely, it's hard to believe that if a crime exactly like Rhynsault's had happened within living memory in England by an officer of James the Second, Steele, who was often overly eager to show off his Whiggism, would not have mentioned it. For the case of Lebon, see the Moniteur, 4 Messidor, l'an 3.]

440 (return)
[ Sunderland to Kirke, July 14 and 28, 1685. "His Majesty," says Sunderland, "commands me to signify to you his dislike of these proceedings, and desires you to take care that no person concerned in the rebellion be at large." It is but just to add that, in the same letter, Kirke is blamed for allowing his soldiers to live at free quarter.]

440 (return)
[ Sunderland to Kirke, July 14 and 28, 1685. "The King," Sunderland writes, "wants me to let you know that he disapproves of what has been happening and asks you to ensure that no one involved in the rebellion is left free." It's worth mentioning that, in the same letter, Kirke is criticized for permitting his soldiers to stay without paying for their lodging.]

441 (return)
[ I should be very glad if I could give credit to the popular story that Ken, immediately after the battle of Sedgemoor, represented to the chiefs of the royal army the illegality of military executions. He would, I doubt not, have exerted all his influence on the side of law and of mercy, if he had been present. But there is no trustworthy evidence that he was then in the West at all. Indeed what we know about his proceedings at this time amounts very nearly to proof of an alibi. It is certain from the Journals of the House of Lords that, on the Thursday before the battle, he was at Westminster, it is equally certain that, on the Monday after the battle, he was with Monmouth in the Tower; and, in that age, a journey from London to Bridgewater and back again was no light thing.]

441 (return)
[ I would be very happy if I could support the popular story that Ken, right after the battle of Sedgemoor, pointed out to the leaders of the royal army that military executions were illegal. I'm sure he would have used all his influence for the sake of law and mercy if he had been there. However, there is no solid evidence that he was in the West at that time. In fact, what we know about his activities during that period almost proves he has an alibi. The Journals of the House of Lords clearly indicate that, on the Thursday before the battle, he was in Westminster, and it’s also clear that, on the Monday after the battle, he was with Monmouth in the Tower; and back then, making a trip from London to Bridgewater and back was no small feat.]

442 (return)
[ North's Life of Guildford, 260, 263, 273; Mackintosh's View of the Reign of James the Second, page 16, note; Letter of Jeffreys to Sunderland, Sept. 5, 1685.]

442 (return)
[ North's Life of Guildford, 260, 263, 273; Mackintosh's View of the Reign of James the Second, page 16, note; Letter of Jeffreys to Sunderland, Sept. 5, 1685.]

443 (return)
[ See the preamble of the Act of Parliament reversing her attainder.]

443 (return)
[ See the introduction of the Act of Parliament overturning her attainder.]

444 (return)
[ Trial of Alice Lisle in the Collection of State Trials; Act of the First of William and Mary for annulling and making void the Attainder of Alice Lisle widow; Burnet, i. 649; Caveat against the Whigs.]

444 (return)
[ Trial of Alice Lisle in the Collection of State Trials; Act of the First of William and Mary to annul and void the Attainder of Alice Lisle, widow; Burnet, i. 649; Caveat against the Whigs.]

445 (return)
[ Bloody Assizes.]

445 (__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__)
[ Bloody Assizes.]

446 (return)
[ Locke's Western Rebellion.]

446 (__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__)
[Locke's Western Rebellion.]

447 (return)
[ This I can attest from my own childish recollections.]

447 (return)
[ I can confirm this from my own childhood memories.]

448 (return)
[ Lord Lonsdale says seven hundred; Burnet six hundred. I have followed the list which the Judges sent to the Treasury, and which may still be seen there in the letter book of 1685. See the Bloody Assizes, Locke's Western Rebellion; the Panegyric on Lord Jeffreys; Burnet, i. 648; Eachard, iii. 775; Oldmixon, 705.]

448 (return)
[ Lord Lonsdale claims seven hundred; Burnet claims six hundred. I have followed the list provided by the Judges to the Treasury, which can still be found in the letter book of 1685. See the Bloody Assizes, Locke's Western Rebellion; the Panegyric on Lord Jeffreys; Burnet, i. 648; Eachard, iii. 775; Oldmixon, 705.]

449 (return)
[ Some of the prayers, exhortations, and hymns of the sufferers will be found in the Bloody Assizes.]

449 (return)
[ Some of the prayers, encouragements, and songs of the people who suffered will be found in the Bloody Assizes.]

450 (return)
[ Bloody Assizes; Locke's Western Rebellion; Lord Lonsdale's Memoirs; Account of the Battle of Sedgemoor in the Hardwicke Papers. The story in the Life of James the Second, ii. 43; is not taken from the King's manuscripts, and sufficiently refutes itself.]

450 (return)
[ Bloody Assizes; Locke's Western Rebellion; Lord Lonsdale's Memoirs; Account of the Battle of Sedgemoor in the Hardwicke Papers. The story in the Life of James the Second, ii. 43; is not sourced from the King's manuscripts and clearly disproves itself.]

451 (return)
[ Bloody Assizes; Locke's Western Rebellion, Humble Petition of Widows and Fatherless Children in the West of England; Panegyric on Lord Jeffreys.]

451 (return)
[ Bloody Assizes; Locke's Western Rebellion, Humble Petition of Widows and Fatherless Children in the West of England; Tribute to Lord Jeffreys.]

452 (return)
[ As to the Hewlings, I have followed Kiffin's Memoirs, and Mr. Hewling Luson's narrative, which will be found in the second edition of the Hughes Correspondence, vol. ii. Appendix. The accounts in Locke's Western Rebellion and in the Panegyric on Jeffreys are full of errors. Great part of the account in the Bloody Assizes was written by Kiffin, and agrees word for word with his Memoirs.]

452 (return)
[Regarding the Hewlings, I have referenced Kiffin's Memoirs and Mr. Hewling Luson's narrative, which can be found in the second edition of the Hughes Correspondence, vol. ii. Appendix. The information in Locke's Western Rebellion and in the Panegyric on Jeffreys is quite inaccurate. A significant portion of the account in the Bloody Assizes was authored by Kiffin, and it matches his Memoirs exactly.]

453 (return)
[ See Tutchin's account of his own case in the Bloody Assizes.]

453 (return)
[See Tutchin's story about his own situation during the Bloody Assizes.]

454 (return)
[ Sunderland to Jeffreys, Sept. 14, 1685; Jeffreys to the King, Sept. 19, 1685, in the State Paper Office.]

454 (return)
[ Sunderland to Jeffreys, Sept. 14, 1685; Jeffreys to the King, Sept. 19, 1685, in the State Paper Office.]

455 (return)
[ The best account of the sufferings of those rebels who were sentenced to transportation is to be found in a very curious narrative written by John Coad, an honest, Godfearing carpenter who joined Monmouth, was badly wounded at Philip's Norton, was tried by Jeffreys, and was sent to Jamaica. The original manuscript was kindly lent to me by Mr. Phippard, to whom it belongs.]

455 (return)
[ The most comprehensive account of the struggles faced by those rebels who were sentenced to transportation can be found in an intriguing narrative written by John Coad, a sincere, God-fearing carpenter who joined Monmouth, suffered severe injuries at Philip's Norton, was tried by Jeffreys, and was sent to Jamaica. The original manuscript was generously lent to me by Mr. Phippard, its rightful owner.]

456 (return)
[ In the Treasury records of the autumn of 1685 are several letters directing search to be made for trifles of this sort.]

456 (return)
[ In the Treasury records of the fall of 1685, there are several letters instructing that searches be conducted for items like these.]

457 (return)
[ Commons' Journals, Oct. 9, Nov. 10, Dec 26, 1690; Oldmixon, 706. Panegyrie on Jeffreys.]

457 (return)
[Commons' Journals, Oct. 9, Nov. 10, Dec 26, 1690; Oldmixon, 706. Panegyrie on Jeffreys.]

458 (return)
[ Life and Death of Lord Jeffreys; Panegyric on Jeffreys; Kiffin's Memoirs.]

458 (return)
[ Life and Death of Lord Jeffreys; Tribute to Jeffreys; Kiffin's Memoirs.]

459 (return)
[ Burnet, i 368; Evelyn's Diary, Feb. 4, 1684-5, July 13, 1686. In one of the satires of that time are these lines:

459 (return)
[ Burnet, i 368; Evelyn's Diary, Feb. 4, 1684-5, July 13, 1686. In one of the satirical pieces from that time are these lines:

     "When Duchess, she was gentle, mild, and civil;
     When Queen, she proved a raging furious devil."]
"When she was Duchess, she was gentle, kind, and polite;  
When she became Queen, she turned into a furious devil."

460 (return)
[ Sunderland to Jeffreys, Sept. 14, 1685.]

460 (return)
[ Sunderland to Jeffreys, Sept. 14, 1685.]

461 (return)
[ Locke's Western Rebellion; Toulmin's History of Taunton, edited by Savage, Letter of the Duke of Somerset to Sir F. Warre; Letter of Sunderland to Penn, Feb. 13, 1685-6, from the State Paper Office, in the Mackintosh Collection. (1848.)—— The letter of Sunderland is as follows:—

461 (return)
[ Locke's Western Rebellion; Toulmin's History of Taunton, edited by Savage, Letter of the Duke of Somerset to Sir F. Warre; Letter of Sunderland to Penn, Feb. 13, 1685-6, from the State Paper Office, in the Mackintosh Collection. (1848.)—— The letter from Sunderland is as follows:—

    "Whitehall, Feb. 13, 1685-6.

    "Mr. Penne,

    "Her Majesty's Maids of Honour having acquainted me that they
    design to employ you and Mr. Walden in making a composition with
    the Relations of the Maids of Taunton for the high Misdemeanour
    they have been guilty of, I do at their request hereby let you
    know that His Majesty has been pleased to give their Fines to the
    said Maids of Honour, and therefore recommend it to Mr. Walden
    and you to make the most advantageous composition you can in
    their behalf."

    I am, Sir,

    "Your humble servant,

    "SUNDERLAND."
    "Whitehall, Feb. 13, 1685-6.

    "Mr. Penne,

    "Her Majesty's Maids of Honour have informed me that they plan to hire you and Mr. Walden to negotiate a settlement with the Maids of Taunton regarding the serious misconduct they have committed. At their request, I am letting you know that His Majesty has generously decided to give their fines to those Maids of Honour, and I encourage you and Mr. Walden to work out the best possible agreement on their behalf."

    I am, Sir,

    "Your humble servant,

    "SUNDERLAND."

That the person to whom this letter was addressed was William Penn the Quaker was not doubted by Sir James Mackintosh who first brought it to light, or, as far as I am aware, by any other person, till after the publication of the first part of this History. It has since been confidently asserted that the letter was addressed to a certain George Penne, who appears from an old accountbook lately discovered to have been concerned in a negotiation for the ransom of one of Monmouth's followers, named Azariah Pinney.—— If I thought that I had committed an error, I should, I hope, have the honesty to acknowledge it. But, after full consideration, I am satisfied that Sunderland's letter was addressed to William Penn.—— Much has been said about the way in which the name is spelt. The Quaker, we are told, was not Mr. Penne, but Mr. Penn. I feel assured that no person conversant with the books and manuscripts of the seventeenth century will attach any importance to this argument. It is notorious that a proper name was then thought to be well spelt if the sound were preserved. To go no further than the persons, who, in Penn's time, held the Great Seal, one of them is sometimes Hyde and sometimes Hide: another is Jefferies, Jeffries, Jeffereys, and Jeffreys: a third is Somers, Sommers, and Summers: a fourth is Wright and Wrighte; and a fifth is Cowper and Cooper. The Quaker's name was spelt in three ways. He, and his father the Admiral before him, invariably, as far as I have observed, spelt it Penn; but most people spelt it Pen; and there were some who adhered to the ancient form, Penne. For example. William the father is Penne in a letter from Disbrowe to Thurloe, dated on the 7th of December, 1654; and William the son is Penne in a newsletter of the 22nd of September, 1688, printed in the Ellis Correspondence. In Richard Ward's Life and Letters of Henry More, printed in 1710, the name of the Quaker will be found spelt in all the three ways, Penn in the index, Pen in page 197, and Penne in page 311. The name is Penne in the Commission which the Admiral carried out with him on his expedition to the West Indies. Burchett, who became Secretary to the Admiralty soon after the Revolution, and remained in office long after the accession of the House of Hannover, always, in his Naval History, wrote the name Penne. Surely it cannot be thought strange that an old-fashioned spelling, in which the Secretary of the Admiralty persisted so late as 1720, should have been used at the office of the Secretary of State in 1686. I am quite confident that, if the letter which we are considering had been of a different kind, if Mr. Penne had been informed that, in consequence of his earnest intercession, the King had been graciously pleased to grant a free pardon to the Taunton girls, and if I had attempted to deprive the Quaker of the credit of that intercession on the ground that his name was not Penne, the very persons who now complain so bitterly that I am unjust to his memory would have complained quite as bitterly, and, I must say, with much more reason.—— I think myself, therefore perfectly justified in considering the names, Penn and Penne, as the same. To which, then, of the two persons who bore that name George or William, is it probable that the letter of the Secretary of State was addressed?—— George was evidently an adventurer of a very low class. All that we learn about him from the papers of the Pinney family is that he was employed in the purchase of a pardon for the younger son of a dissenting minister. The whole sum which appears to have passed through George's hands on this occasion was sixty-five pounds. His commission on the transaction must therefore have been small. The only other information which we have about him, is that he, some time later, applied to the government for a favour which was very far from being an honour. In England the Groom Porter of the Palace had a jurisdiction over games of chance, and made some very dirty gain by issuing lottery tickets and licensing hazard tables. George appears to have petitioned for a similar privilege in the American colonies.—— William Penn was, during the reign of James the Second, the most active and powerful solicitor about the Court. I will quote the words of his admirer Crose. "Quum autem Pennus tanta gratia plurinum apud regem valeret, et per id perplures sibi amicos acquireret, illum omnes, etiam qui modo aliqua notitia erant conjuncti, quoties aliquid a rege postulandum agendumve apud regem esset, adire, ambire, orare, ut eos apud regem adjuvaret." He was overwhelmed by business of this kind, "obrutus negotiationibus curationibusque." His house and the approaches to it were every day blocked up by crowds of persons who came to request his good offices; "domus ac vestibula quotidie referta clientium et suppliccantium." From the Fountainhall papers it appears that his influence was felt even in the highlands of Scotland. We learn from himself that, at this time, he was always toiling for others, that he was a daily suitor at Whitehall, and that, if he had chosen to sell his influence, he could, in little more than three, years, have put twenty thousand pounds into his pocket, and obtained a hundred thousand more for the improvement of the colony of which he was proprietor.—— Such was the position of these two men. Which of them, then, was the more likely to be employed in the matter to which Sunderland's letter related? Was it George or William, an agent of the lowest or of the highest class? The persons interested were ladies of rank and fashion, resident at the palace. where George would hardly have been admitted into an outer room, but where William was every day in the presence chamber and was frequently called into the closet. The greatest nobles in the kingdom were zealous and active in the cause of their fair friends, nobles with whom William lived in habits of familiar intercourse, but who would hardly have thought George fit company for their grooms. The sum in question was seven thousand pounds, a sum not large when compared with the masses of wealth with which William had constantly to deal, but more than a hundred times as large as the only ransom which is known to have passed through the hands of George. These considerations would suffice to raise a strong presumption that Sunderland's letter was addressed to William, and not to George: but there is a still stronger argument behind.—— It is most important to observe that the person to whom this letter was addressed was not the first person whom the Maids of Honour had requested to act for them. They applied to him because another person to whom they had previously applied, had, after some correspondence, declined the office. From their first application we learn with certainty what sort of person they wished to employ. If their first application had been made to some obscure pettifogger or needy gambler, we should be warranted in believing that the Penne to whom their second application was made was George. If, on the other hand, their first application was made to a gentleman of the highest consideration, we can hardly be wrong in saying that the Penne to whom their second application was made must have been William. To whom, then, was their first application made? It was to Sir Francis Warre of Hestercombe, a Baronet and a Member of Parliament. The letters are still extant in which the Duke of Somerset, the proud Duke, not a man very likely to have corresponded with George Penne, pressed Sir Francis to undertake the commission. The latest of those letters is dated about three weeks before Sunderland's letter to Mr. Penne. Somerset tells Sir Francis that the town clerk of Bridgewater, whose name, I may remark in passing, is spelt sometimes Bird and sometimes Birde, had offered his services, but that those services had been declined. It is clear, therefore, that the Maids of Honour were desirous to have an agent of high station and character. And they were right. For the sum which they demanded was so large that no ordinary jobber could safely be entrusted with the care of their interests.—— As Sir Francis Warre excused himself from undertaking the negotiation, it became necessary for the Maids of Honour and their advisers to choose somebody who might supply his place; and they chose Penne. Which of the two Pennes, then, must have been their choice, George, a petty broker to whom a percentage on sixty-five pounds was an object, and whose highest ambition was to derive an infamous livelihood from cards and dice, or William, not inferior in social position to any commoner in the kingdom? Is it possible to believe that the ladies, who, in January, employed the Duke of Somerset to procure for them an agent in the first rank of the English gentry, and who did not think an attorney, though occupying a respectable post in a respectable corporation, good enough for their purpose, would, in February, have resolved to trust everything to a fellow who was as much below Bird as Bird was below Warre?—— But, it is said, Sunderland's letter is dry and distant; and he never would have written in such a style to William Penn with whom he was on friendly terms. Can it be necessary for me to reply that the official communications which a Minister of State makes to his dearest friends and nearest relations are as cold and formal as those which he makes to strangers? Will it be contended that the General Wellesley to whom the Marquis Wellesley, when Governor of India, addressed so many letters beginning with "Sir," and ending with "I have the honour to be your obedient servant,'' cannot possibly have been his Lordship's brother Arthur?—— But, it is said, Oldmixon tells a different story. According to him, a Popish lawyer named Brent, and a subordinate jobber, named Crane, were the agents in the matter of the Taunton girls. Now it is notorious that of all our historians Oldmixon is the least trustworthy. His most positive assertion would be of no value when opposed to such evidence as is furnished by Sunderland's letter, But Oldmixon asserts nothing positively. Not only does he not assert positively that Brent and Crane acted for the Maids of Honour; but he does not even assert positively that the Maids of Honour were at all concerned. He goes no further than "It was said," and "It was reported." It is plain, therefore, that he was very imperfectly informed. I do not think it impossible, however, that there may have been some foundation for the rumour which he mentions. We have seen that one busy lawyer, named Bird, volunteered to look after the interest of the Maids of Honour, and that they were forced to tell him that they did not want his services. Other persons, and among them the two whom Oldmixon names, may have tried to thrust themselves into so lucrative a job, and may, by pretending to interest at Court, have succeeded in obtaining a little money from terrified families. But nothing can be more clear than that the authorised agent of the Maids of Honour was the Mr. Penne, to whom the Secretary of State wrote; and I firmly believe that Mr. Penne to have been William the Quaker—— If it be said that it is incredible that so good a man would have been concerned in so bad an affair, I can only answer that this affair was very far indeed from being the worst in which he was concerned.—— For those reasons I leave the text, and shall leave it exactly as it originally stood. (1857.)]

That the person this letter was addressed to was William Penn the Quaker is not questioned by Sir James Mackintosh, who first brought it to light, or, as far as I know, by anyone else until after the publication of the first part of this History. It has since been confidently stated that the letter was addressed to a certain George Penne, who appears from an old account book recently discovered to have been involved in a negotiation for the ransom of one of Monmouth's followers named Azariah Pinney. If I thought I had made an error, I would hope to have the honesty to admit it. However, after careful consideration, I am convinced that Sunderland's letter was addressed to William Penn. A lot has been said about how the name is spelled. We're told the Quaker was Mr. Penn, not Mr. Penne. I’m sure that no one familiar with the books and manuscripts from the seventeenth century would find this argument significant. It's well-known that a proper name was considered correctly spelled if it sounded right. Just looking at the individuals who held the Great Seal in Penn's time, one is sometimes spelled Hyde and sometimes Hide; another is Jefferies, Jeffries, Jeffereys, and Jeffreys; a third is Somers, Sommers, and Summers; a fourth is Wright and Wrighte; and a fifth is Cowper and Cooper. The Quaker's name was spelled in three different ways. He, and his father the Admiral before him, consistently spelled it Penn, as far as I have observed, but most people spelled it Pen, and some adhered to the old form, Penne. For instance, William the father is listed as Penne in a letter from Disbrowe to Thurloe dated December 7, 1654; and William the son is Penne in a newsletter from September 22, 1688, printed in the Ellis Correspondence. In Richard Ward's Life and Letters of Henry More, published in 1710, the Quaker's name is spelled in all three ways: Penn in the index, Pen on page 197, and Penne on page 311. The name is Penne in the Commission that the Admiral took with him on his expedition to the West Indies. Burchett, who became Secretary to the Admiralty shortly after the Revolution and remained in office long after the House of Hannover came to power, always used the name Penne in his Naval History. Surely, it wouldn’t be surprising that an old-fashioned spelling, which the Secretary of the Admiralty stuck to well into 1720, was used in the office of the Secretary of State in 1686. I am confident that if the letter we are discussing had been different in nature—if Mr. Penne had been told that due to his earnest intercession the King had graciously granted a free pardon to the Taunton girls, and if I tried to deny the Quaker credit for that intercession because his name wasn’t Penne, those same people who now bitterly complain that I am unjust to his memory would have complained just as strongly and, I must say, with much more reason. Therefore, I think I am justified in considering the names Penn and Penne as essentially the same. To which of the two people named George or William is it likely that the Secretary of State's letter was sent? George was clearly a low-class adventurer. All we learn about him from the Pinney family papers is that he was involved in securing a pardon for the younger son of a dissenting minister. The total amount that passed through George's hands on this occasion was sixty-five pounds. Therefore, his cut from the transaction must have been small. The only other thing we know about him is that he later asked the government for a favor that was far from honorable. In England, the Groom Porter of the Palace had control over games of chance and made some shady profits by issuing lottery tickets and licensing hazard tables. George seems to have petitioned for a similar privilege in the American colonies. William Penn was, during the reign of James the Second, the most active and powerful advocate at Court. I’ll quote the words of his admirer Crose: "When Penn had such influence, he gained many friends at Court, and those whom he had any connection with would approach, plead, and request him to advocate for them with the King." He was overwhelmed with this kind of work, "overburdened with negotiations and responsibilities." His house and the paths leading to it were daily crowded with people seeking his help; "his house and entrance were always filled with clients and petitioners." From the Fountainhall papers, it appears his influence reached even into the Scottish highlands. We learn from him that during this time, he was constantly working for others, that he was at Whitehall every day asking for favors, and that if he had chosen to sell his influence, he could have made twenty thousand pounds for himself in just over three years and secured a hundred thousand more for the improvement of his colony. Such was the position of these two men. Who, then, was more likely to be involved with the matter that Sunderland's letter concerned? Was it George or William, a low-level agent or one of the highest class? The interested parties were ladies of rank and fashion living at the palace, where George would hardly have been allowed into an outer room, but William was every day in the presence chamber and was often called into the closet. The greatest nobles in the kingdom were enthusiastic and active in helping their fair friends, nobles with whom William maintained close relationships, but who would hardly have thought George suitable company for their attendants. The amount in question was seven thousand pounds, not a large sum compared to the vast wealth William regularly dealt with, but more than a hundred times the only ransom we know that George handled. These points strongly suggest that Sunderland's letter was addressed to William, not George; but there’s an even stronger argument to be made. It’s crucial to note that the person this letter was addressed to was not the first person the Maids of Honour had asked to help them. They reached out to him because another person they had previously approached had, after some correspondence, declined the task. From their first request, we learn with certainty what type of person they wanted to employ. If their first request had been made to some obscure petty operator or needy gambler, we would be justified in believing that the Penne they contacted afterward was George. If, on the other hand, their first request was directed to a gentleman of high standing, it’s hard to argue that the Penne they contacted later must have been William. To whom, then, was their first request made? It was to Sir Francis Warre of Hestercombe, a Baronet and a Member of Parliament. The letters still exist in which the Duke of Somerset, the proud Duke, who is not someone likely to have communicated with George Penne, urged Sir Francis to take on the task. The latest of these letters is dated about three weeks before Sunderland's letter to Mr. Penne. Somerset tells Sir Francis that the town clerk of Bridgewater, whose name I might add is sometimes spelled Bird and sometimes Birde, had offered his services, but that those were declined. It’s clear, then, that the Maids of Honour were eager to have an agent of high status and character. And they were right. Because the amount they demanded was so substantial that no ordinary jobber could be trusted with their interests. As Sir Francis Warre declined to take on the negotiation, it was necessary for the Maids of Honour and their advisers to find someone to replace him, and they chose Penne. Which of the two Pennes, then, must have been their choice—George, a petty broker for whom a cut on sixty-five pounds mattered, and whose biggest hope was to earn a shady living from gambling, or William, equally socially positioned as any commoner in the kingdom? Is it conceivable that the ladies, who in January hired the Duke of Somerset to find them someone from the top tier of the English gentry, and who thought an attorney, even one with a respectable role in a respectable corporation, wasn’t good enough for their needs, would in February decide to trust everything to someone who was as far beneath Bird as Bird was beneath Warre? But, it’s said, Sunderland's letter is formal and distant; he wouldn’t have written like that to William Penn, with whom he had friendly relations. Must I really point out that the official communications a Minister of State sends to their closest friends and family are just as cold and formal as those sent to strangers? Would anyone argue that the General Wellesley, to whom the Marquis Wellesley, when Governor of India, addressed so many letters starting with "Sir," and ending with "I have the honour to be your obedient servant," could not possibly have been his brother Arthur? But it’s said Oldmixon tells a different story. According to him, a Popish lawyer named Brent and a subordinate agent named Crane were the ones handling the matter of the Taunton girls. Now, it’s well-known that among our historians, Oldmixon is the least reliable. His most assertive claims would hold no weight against the evidence provided by Sunderland's letter. But Oldmixon makes no positive claims. Not only does he fail to assert that Brent and Crane worked for the Maids of Honour, but he doesn't even state that the Maids of Honour were involved at all. He goes no further than saying, "It was said," and "It was reported." It’s clear he was poorly informed. I don’t find it impossible, however, that there may have been some basis for the rumor he mentions. We have seen that one eager lawyer, named Bird, offered to look after the interests of the Maids of Honour and that they had to tell him they didn’t want his help. Other individuals, including those named by Oldmixon, may have attempted to insert themselves into such a lucrative position and may have, by pretending to have connections at Court, managed to extract some money from terrified families. But nothing is clearer than that the authorized agent of the Maids of Honour was the Mr. Penne whom the Secretary of State wrote to, and I firmly believe that Mr. Penne was William the Quaker. If it's said that it's unbelievable that such a good man would have been involved in such a bad deal, I can only respond that this deal was far from the worst he was involved in. For these reasons, I leave the text as it is, exactly as it was originally written. (1857.)

462 (return)
[ Burnet, i. 646, and Speaker Onslow's note; Clarendon to Rochester, May 8, 1686.]

462 (return)
[ Burnet, i. 646, and Speaker Onslow's note; Clarendon to Rochester, May 8, 1686.]

463 (return)
[ Burnet, i. 634.]

463 (__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__)
[ Burnet, i. 634.]

464 (return)
[ Calamy's Memoirs; Commons' Journals, December 26,1690; Sunderland to Jeffreys, September 14, 1685; Privy Council Book, February 26, 1685-6.]

464 (return)
[ Calamy's Memoirs; Commons' Journals, December 26, 1690; Sunderland to Jeffreys, September 14, 1685; Privy Council Book, February 26, 1685-6.]

465 (return)
[ Lansdowne MS. 1152; Harl. MS. 6845; London Gazette, July 20, 1685.]

465 (return)
[ Lansdowne MS. 1152; Harl. MS. 6845; London Gazette, July 20, 1685.]

466 (return)
[ Many writers have asserted, without the slightest foundation, that a pardon was granted to Ferguson by James. Some have been so absurd as to cite this imaginary pardon, which, if it were real would prove only that Ferguson was a court spy, in proof of the magnanimity and benignity of the prince who beheaded Alice Lisle and burned Elizabeth Gaunt. Ferguson was not only not specially pardoned, but was excluded by name from the general pardon published in the following spring. (London Gazette, March 15, 1685-6.) If, as the public suspected and as seems probable, indulgence was shown to him; it was indulgence of which James was, not without reason, ashamed, and which was, as far as possible, kept secret. The reports which were current in London at the time are mentioned in the Observator, Aug. 1,1685.—— Sir John Reresby, who ought to have been well informed, positively affirms that Ferguson was taken three days after the battle of Sedgemoor. But Sir John was certainly wrong as to the date, and may therefore have been wrong as to the whole story. From the London Gazette, and from Goodenough's confession (Lansdowne MS. 1152), it is clear that, a fortnight after the battle, Ferguson had not been caught, and was supposed to be still lurking in England.]

466 (return)
[ Many writers have claimed, without any evidence, that James granted a pardon to Ferguson. Some have even ridiculously used this imaginary pardon, which, if it were real, would only show that Ferguson was a court spy, as proof of the generosity and kindness of the prince who executed Alice Lisle and burned Elizabeth Gaunt. Ferguson was not only not specially pardoned, but he was also explicitly excluded from the general pardon published the following spring. (London Gazette, March 15, 1685-6.) If, as the public suspected and as seems likely, he did receive some leniency; it was leniency that James was rightly ashamed of, and which was kept as secret as possible. The rumors that circulated in London at the time are discussed in the Observator, Aug. 1, 1685.—— Sir John Reresby, who should have been well informed, confidently states that Ferguson was captured three days after the battle of Sedgemoor. However, Sir John was definitely mistaken about the date, and so he may have been wrong about the entire account. From the London Gazette, and from Goodenough's confession (Lansdowne MS. 1152), it is clear that, two weeks after the battle, Ferguson had not been caught and was thought to still be hiding in England.]

467 (return)
[ Granger's Biographical History.]

467 (__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__)
[ Granger's Biographical History.]

468 (return)
[ Burnet, i. 648; James to the Prince of Orange, Sept. 10, and 24, 1685; Lord Lonadale's Memoirs; London Gazette, Oct. 1, 1685.]

468 (return)
[ Burnet, i. 648; James to the Prince of Orange, Sept. 10 and 24, 1685; Lord Lonadale's Memoirs; London Gazette, Oct. 1, 1685.]

469 (return)
[ Trial of Cornish in the Collection of State Trials, Sir J. Hawles's Remarks on Mr. Cornish's Trial; Burnet, i. 651; Bloody Assizes; Stat. 1 Gul. and Mar.]

469 (return)
[ Trial of Cornish in the Collection of State Trials, Sir J. Hawles's Comments on Mr. Cornish's Trial; Burnet, i. 651; Bloody Assizes; Stat. 1 Gul. and Mar.]

470 (return)
[ Trials of Fernley and Elizabeth Gaunt, in the Collection of State Trials Burnet, i. 649; Bloody Assizes; Sir J. Bramston's Memoirs; Luttrell's Diary, Oct. 23, 1685.]

470 (return)
[ Trials of Fernley and Elizabeth Gaunt, in the Collection of State Trials Burnet, i. 649; Bloody Assizes; Sir J. Bramston's Memoirs; Luttrell's Diary, Oct. 23, 1685.]

471 (return)
[ Bateman's Trial in the Collection of State Trials; Sir John Hawles's Remarks. It is worth while to compare Thomas Lee's evidence on this occasion with his confession previously published by authority.]

471 (return)
[ Bateman's Trial in the Collection of State Trials; Sir John Hawles's Remarks. It's important to compare Thomas Lee's testimony this time with his earlier confession published by the authorities.]

472 (return)
[ Van Citters, Oct. 13-23, 1685.]

472 (return)
[ Van Citters, Oct. 13-23, 1685.]

473 (return)
[ Neal's History of the Puritans, Calamy's Account of the ejected Ministers and the Nonconformists' Memorial contain abundant proofs of the severity of this persecution. Howe's farewell letter to his flock will be found in the interesting life of that great man, by Mr. Rogers. Howe complains that he could not venture to show himself in the streets of London, and that his health had suffered from want of air and exercise. But the most vivid picture of the distress of the Nonconformists is furnished by their deadly enemy, Lestrange, in the Observators of September and October, 1685.]

473 (return)
[ Neal's History of the Puritans, Calamy's Account of the Ejected Ministers, and the Nonconformists' Memorial provide plenty of evidence about the harshness of this persecution. Howe's farewell letter to his congregation can be found in the fascinating biography of that remarkable man by Mr. Rogers. Howe expresses that he could not safely walk the streets of London, and that his health had deteriorated due to a lack of fresh air and exercise. However, the most striking depiction of the Nonconformists' suffering comes from their fierce opponent, Lestrange, in the Observators from September and October 1685.]






Download ePUB

If you like this ebook, consider a donation!