VI.

embarked so eagerly, so violently, in the cause, with- CHAP. out some secret assurance of being able to bring it to A.D. 1680 a successful issue.1

10.

In the debates respecting the bill of exclusion, the Nov. 4, 8, speakers on both sides did little more than repeat the arguments which they had enforced in the last parliament. The principal novelty was an allusion to the unacknowledged claim of the duke of Monmouth. Why, it was asked, did the bill contain no provision in case the duke of York should return to the Protestant church? For what purpose had all mention of his children been so cautiously avoided? Why was not the right of succession declared to reside in them? "They talk, indeed," exclaimed Colonel Legge, afterwards earl of Dartmouth, "of another successor in "a black box; but, if that Pandora's box is to be "opened, I hope it will be in my time, and not in "that of my children, that I myself may have the "honour of drawing my sword in support of the "rightful heir." The advocates of the bill were content to reply, that as it named no one but the duke, the disability would apply solely to him; he would be dead in law; and the crown would of course descend as if he were naturally dead."

In the meantime Shaftesbury, to the surprise of the uninitiated, paid several visits in public to the duchess of Portsmouth; and yet the negotiation, which had commenced under her auspices, proceeded but slowly. Charles had descended from the demand of eight 1 C. Journ. Oct. 28, 29. Temple, ii. 532.

2 State Tracts, 85. Parl. Hist. iv. 1175, 1215. James, 601613. The bill proposed to enact that, if James survived the king, the crown should descend and be enjoyed by such person or persons successively, during the life of the said James duke of York, as would have inherited and enjoyed the same in case he were naturally dead. See it in State Tracts, ii. 91.

VI.

CHAP. hundred thousand pounds to the sum of six hundred A.D. 1680. thousand pounds; but neither party dared to place

confidence in the good faith of the other; he insisted that the parliamentary grant should precede, the Whigs that it should follow, the exclusion of the duke.' The king, at the suggestion of Halifax, sought to bring the question to an issue by a message to the House of Commons, in which he professed his readiness to concur with them in any measure of precaution which did not infringe on the lawful descent of the crown. But it was determined to pay no regard to this message, and while the committee prepared an answer, the managers added a new stimulus to the fears and prejudices of the members by the announcement of another conspiracy lately discovered in Ireland.

From the very beginning, it had acted as a drawback from the credit of the English plot, that there existed no trace of any similar design in Ireland, where the Catholics were so much more numerous, and had experienced so many more grievous and more recent causes of irritation. Ormond carefully executed the orders of the English council, though he was convinced that they were not called for by any fault of the natives. He disarmed the Catholics, suppressed all schools and convents, shut up the chapels in the principal towns, and commanded by proclamation all Catholic priests to quit the island by a certain day. Next, in obedience to new instructions, but in opposition to his own judgment, he offered rewards to informers respecting the plot, and immediately a few men of desperate fortunes and abandoned character

1 James (Memoirs), i 640, 645. Burnet, ii. 254, and note. Dalrymple, 279.

THE BILL LOST IN THE LORDS.

came forward. But they met with little credit

479

among

CHAP.

VI.

their countrymen. Most of the accused were dis- A.D. 168 missed after examination by the Irish council, and the others, who took their trials, were acquitted by Protestant juries.' The friends of the plot were not discouraged. They summoned the disgraced informers to England, sent them back with new instructions to Ireland, and now, having recalled them from their mission, exhibited them at the bar of the House of Commons, where Hetherington, Murphy, and Fitzgerald detailed the particulars of an imaginary plot in Ireland, the exact counterpart of that supposed to have been discovered in England. The moment they departed, an address complaining of evil counsellors, and begging the king to trust to his faithful Commons, was adopted, and a motion made to read the bill of exclusion the third time. The duke's friends yielded to the torrent: they did not even call for a division, and the bill passed amidst the shouts and congratulations of its advocates.2

Here, however, for some reason, of which we are ignorant, a pause of four days ensued; and the intermediate time was spent by the opposite parties in preparing for the contest in the House of Lords. Charles took a most decided part, openly soliciting Nov. 15 votes in favour of his absent brother; and the popular leaders procured numerous petitions, and were careful that Dangerfield should be in attendance. It had been artfully arranged that his charge against the duke should immediately precede the introduction of the bill of exclusion. But his testimony failed to produce the desired effect; for Lord Peter

1 Carte, ii. 477, 498, 513-516; App. 99.

2 C. Journ. Nov. 11.

VI.

CHAP. borough, who was named as a party, vindicated A.D. 1680. himself so victoriously, that even Essex, one of the opposite leaders, pronounced the informer unworthy of credit.1 When Lord Russell brought up the bill, he was accompanied by the great body of the Commons, and his announcement of its title, "to disable "James, duke of York, from succeeding to the "crown, was followed by a cheer of approbation from behind the bar. The house resolved itself into a committee, and the Commons remained to hear the debate. Essex and Shaftesbury, particularly the latter, distinguished themselves by the force and eloquence with which they urged the expediency of the measure, and were followed not only by the accustomed leaders of the party, but by the earl of Anglesey, who seems to have been intimidated by the evidence of Dangerfield, and by the earl of Sunderland, who took this opportunity to announce his apostasy. Prudence might have closed the lips of Monmouth; but he spoke boldly, and uttered sentiments which gave unpardonable offence both to his father and uncle. He should vote, he said, for the bill, because he knew of no other expedient to preserve the life of the king from the malice of the duke of York; an expression which Charles, who

2

1 In the Memoirs of James (i. 617) we are assured from his collection of letters, that the information of Dangerfield preceded the debate on the bill; and that such was the case is evident from the time at which the division took place, nine or eleven at night. It is probable that the clerk entered both the information and the debate on Lord Peterborough's guilt or innocence afterwards for his own convenience.-L. Journ. 667-670.

2 "I am assured," says Evelyn," he (Lord Sunderland) did not do "this out of inclination, or for the preservation of the Protestant re"ligion, but by mistaking the ability of the party to carry it."Evelyn, iii. 50.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE COMMONS.

481

VI.

was present, likened, in a loud whisper, to "the kiss of CHAP. "Judas." On the opposite side appeared a champion A.D. 1680. of matchless prowess, the earl of Halifax. He exposed the hypocritical ambition of Monmouth with all the powers of wit and sarcasm; he rebutted the arguments of Shaftesbury with an eloquence and energy which surpassed the most partial expectations of his friends; and he developed the arts and intrigues of the exclusionists in a manner which was keenly felt and deeply resented. At nine at night, after a debate of six hours, the house divided, and the bill was rejected, on the first reading, by a majority of sixty-three to thirty voices.1

To console themselves under this disappointment, the popular leaders resolved to hunt down those whom they considered as its principal authors. Halifax in one house, and Seymour in the other, Nov. 17. were marked out for the objects of vengeance. Against Halifax the commons presented an address, that he might be for ever removed from the royal councils and presence, not because he had so successfully opposed the bill of exclusion, but under the pretence that he had advised the late dissolution. Charles briefly replied, that whenever they could show that either Halifax, or any other of his councillors, had committed a legal offence, he would never interpose to screen him or them from punishment. Seymour, the most powerful advocate of the duke in the council, they impeached of peculation in the execution of his office of treasurer of the navy; a charge the truth or falsehood of which was never ascertained, because he 1 L. Journ. 666. James (Memoirs), i. 617, 618. Macpherson, 108, 109. Reresby, 104. Burnet, ii. 246, note a From these uthorities it appears that all the bishops present, fourteen in number, voted against the bill.