V. Feb. 24. 1. The securities for the church, which had been CHAP. devised in a meeting with the bishops at Lambeth, A.D. 1677. were embodied in two bills, of which the first applied to the succession of a Catholic prince, and proposed to enact that on the demise of a king regnant the bishops should tender a declaration against transubstantiation to the new sovereign, and at the end of fourteen days should certify into Chancery whether he had subscribed it or not. If he had not,-1. They were empowered, on every vacancy of a bishopric, to name three persons, of whom, unless the king should select one within thirty days, the first on the list should take possession of course: 2. The two archbishops were authorized to present to all benefices in the gift of the crown lying within their respective provinces: 3. The children of the king, from the age of seven to fourteen, were to be placed under the guardianship of the two primates, and of the bishops of London, Durham, and Winchester, and after that age to be attended only by persons approved by the major part of the same prelates. The other bill, under the title of an act for the more effectual conviction and prosecution of popish recusants, provided that all Catholics who should enrol themselves as recusants should pay a yearly fine of the twentieth part of their incomes, to form a fund for the support of poor converts to the Protestant faith; and should, on that condition, be exempt from all other penalties except the incapacity of executing any office civil or military, of being guardians or executors, or of entering the court without license; that laymen, the perverters of Protestants, should have the option of abjuring the realm; that "in it, unless they might have their terms in removing and filling "of places."-Temple, ii. 411. V. CHAP. clergymen, convicted of having received orders in the A.D. 1677. church of Rome, might at his majesty's pleasure be imprisoned for life, instead of suffering the punishment of treason; and that the children of Catholic parents deceased should be educated in the reformed faith.1 March 15. When these bills were transmitted to the lower house, they met with an indignant reception. The first, by admitting the possibility of a Catholic successor, tended to subvert the projects of those who sought the exclusion of the duke of York. They suddenly became supporters of the rights of the crown. The bill, they maintained, despoiled the sovereign of his ecclesiastical supremacy, and vested it in the bishops; their objections were echoed by March 27. the friends of the duke; and the house, having honoured the bill with two readings, allowed it to sleep unnoticed during the remainder of the session. The second was treated with less ceremony. Fortunately for the Catholics, it had alarmed the prejudices of the zealots, who could not be persuaded that by mitigating the severity, they might insure the exeApril 4. cution, of the penal laws. They insisted that the Catholic clergyman should continue to be subject to the penalty of death, and the Catholic layman to the forfeiture of two-thirds of his property: these were barriers to restrain the diffusion of popery erected by the wisdom of their ancestors, and to remove them would be to concur in the toleration of a false and idolatrous worship. "Is there a man in this house," 1 L. Journ. xiii. 48, et seq. Macpherson, 83. Marvell, i 313, 554, 569. Against the first of these bills James and twelve other peers entered their protests, and Lord Stafford his against the second.-Journ. 75, 92. REJECTED BY THE COMMONS. 309 V. exclaimed a voice, "that dares to open his mouth in CHAP. support of such a measure?" A pause ensued; the A.D. 1677. advocates of the bill were silent; it was accordingly rejected; and as an additional stigma, the cause of rejection, contrary to all parliamentary precedent, was entered on the journals, that the title of the bill meant one thing, and the body another. At the same time April 7. they passed and sent to the House of Lords a bill devised by themselves, "to prevent the growth of "popery," enacting that the refusal to subscribe the test against transubstantiation should be taken for a conviction of recusancy. But the Lords resented the April 13 manner in which they had been treated; and though the Commons sent two messages to call their attention May 26. to the bill, declined to give it so much as a single reading.1 2. When the king received in January a portion of his annual pension from France, the whole sum was immediately devoted to the purchase of votes in the House of Commons. The consequence was that, on questions of finance, the minister commanded a majority of about thirty voices. The additional excise, which Charles had mentioned in his speech, was voted to continue for three years, and the sum of six hundred thousand pounds was granted towards the support of the navy. The French ministers received the intelligence with some uneasiness; for they were aware of Danby's engagements to the prince of Orange, and feared that, with so large a sum of money at his disposal, he might induce the king to join the allies. 1 C. Journ. March 27, April 4. L. Journ. xiii. 114, 126. Parl. Hist. iv. 853, 861. Marvell, i. 285, 314. Both houses, however, concurred in one point respecting religion, which was the abolition of the writ de hæretico comburendo.-L. Journ. 120. V. -- CHAP. But they were undeceived by Ruvigny; and the event A.D. 1677. justified his predictions. Before the grant of the additional excise passed the house, the whole amount was appropriated to particular purposes; the receivers were instructed to pay the money to certain officers; and these were ordered to render an account of its disposal to parliament. No portion of it was suffered to pass through the hands of the treasurer.1 Feb. 22. 3. In February, the king of France, at the head of a numerous army, burst into the Spanish Netherlands, confounded his enemies by the rapidity and complexity of his movements, sat down suddenly before Valenciennes, and in a few days carried that fortress by assault. Every eye was now turned towards Flanders. March 7. The novelty of a winter campaign, the success of its commencement, and its probable consequences, created a general alarm; Solinas and Fonseca, the Spanish agents, spared neither pains nor expense to arouse the passions of the people, and to acquire friends in the parliament;2 and an address was voted by the Com March 10. 1 Dalrymple, ii. 110. C. Journ. Feb. 21, March 2, 9, II. Marvell, i. 282, 286, 294, 296, 310, 315. Danby's Letters, 309. The Commons had made the officers accountable to their house for the money; the Lords added an amendment that they should be accountable also to the House of Lords. This the Commons refused to admit, and the Lords, after several conferences, yielded, but at the same time presented an address to the king, stating that they had done so, not meaning to give up their right, but waiving it for the moment, that the public service might not be injured by the loss of the bill.-L. Journ. xiii. 118, 119. Marvell, i. 318, 322. According to Burnet (ii. 109), the clause was introduced by the country party for the express purpose of provoking a dispute between the houses. 2 The king was alarmed at the activity of these men. They informed some members of the House of Commons that he had said, "only a set of rogues could have voted such an address as that of "the 16th of March." This caused much anger in the house, and Charles seized the opportunity to arrest them, and send them out of the kingdom.-Temple, ii. 401. Marvell, i. 304. Macph. i. 83 V. March 13. April 1. April 2. mons, praying the king to take such measures as might CHAP. be necessary to preserve the Spanish Netherlands from A.D. 1677 the rapacious grasp of the French monarch. Under the influence of Danby, the Lords proposed the addition to the address of a promise of support from the parliament; but the lower house rejected the promise as March 15. superfluous, and Charles marked his sense of the re- March 17. jection by this laconic reply, that he held on that subject the same opinion as the two houses. The French army continued its victorious career. Cambray surrendered; the prince of Orange was defeated at Cassel, and the city of St. Omer opened its gates to the conquerors. The cry for war now resounded from all parts of the kingdom; a second address was voted; and to this, after a long debate, and a division in which the minister obtained a majority of nine voices, was appended the promise of support, which had been formerly negatived. The king answered that he expected something more specific, a grant of at least six hundred thousand pounds to enable him to take part in the war with any prospect of success; but the demand was eluded, under the pretence that many of the members had left town on account of the Easter holidays, and Charles having passed the money bills, adjourned the April 16. parliament for the space of five weeks.' During the recess the imperial ambassador received the sum of ten thousand, the Spanish ambassador that of twelve thousand pounds, to purchase votes in the lower house; and at the same time Courtin, the French envoy, negotiated with the enemies of the lord treasurer to oppose any grant of money to the king. The effect of all these intrigues appeared at the next meet 1 C. Journ. March 6, 15, 17, 29, April 13, 16. Marvell, i. 297, 299, 304, 316, 321, 571-596. |