II.

CHAP. his best friends to the malice of the chancellor; and A.D. 1663. declared that unless justice were done to him within twenty-four hours, he would do that which should astonish both the king and his minister. It was with difficulty that Bristol escaped from the personal resentment of Charles. The next day he proceeded to execute his threat; and rising in the House of Lords, July 10. impeached Clarendon of high treason, and of divers heinous misdemeanours. But this pompous denouncement, when he descended into particulars, dwindled into the ridiculous charge that the chancellor had laboured both by his public conduct and private discourse to create a belief that the king was in heart a papist, and that on himself, his vigilance and authority, depended the preservation of the Protestant establishment. The judges being consulted, replied July 13. that none of the charges, if they could be proved, would amount to the guilt of high treason. The Lords adopted the opinion of the judges; and the king, issuing a warrant for the apprehension of the accuser, Bristol absconded;

August 9. put an end to the impeachment.

and did not appear at court till the fall of his adversary.1

In the summer, the cause of intolerance acquired additional strength from a partial rising of enthusiasts in the northern counties. The government had been apprized of their intentions: the duke of Buckingham, in quality of the king's lieutenant, proceeded with a detachment of guards to York, and summoned the militia; and about fifty persons were arrested in October. Yorkshire and Westmoreland, of whom several paid

1 See Clarendon, 208; Pepys, ii. 70, 90, 95; Life of James, i 427; Parl. Hist. iv. 269, 283; Lords' Journals, xi. 55, 59, 60; State Trials, 312, 318; C. Journals, 1663, June 13, 20, 26, July 1.

II.

1664.

March 16.

the forfeit of their folly with their lives. From their CHAP. situation in life it was plain that they acted under the A.D. 1663. secret guidance of others. Some professed the doctrines of the Fifth-monarchy Men; others justified themselves on the plea that the parliament had sat more than three years, and that by the Triennial Act, passed in the 16th of Charles I., in default of writs issued by the king, the freeholders were permitted to assemble of themselves for the choice of new members. When Charles opened the next session, he embraced the opportunity to suggest the repeal of an act which thus furnished a plea for seditious meetings, while the patrons of intolerance drew from the insurrection a new argument in favour of additional severities for the suppression of religious dissent. A compromise seems to have taken place. It was, April 5. indeed, enacted that parliament should never be discontinued for more than three years; but, to satisfy the king, all the compulsory clauses of the Triennial Act, which directed the keeper of the great seal to issue writs, and the sheriffs to hold elections, in defiance of the royal pleasure, were repealed; and, on the other hand, Charles reluctantly gave his consent to the Conventicle Act, which, it was hoped, would extinguish every form of heterodox worship. All meetings of more than five individuals, besides those May 17. of the family, for any religious purpose not according to the Book of Common Prayer, were declared seditious and unlawful conventicles; and it was enacted that the punishment of attendance at such meeting by any person above sixteen years of age should be, for the first offence, a fine of five pounds, or imprisonment during three months; for the second, a fine of ten pounds, or imprisonment during six months; for

II.

CHAP. the third, a fine of one hundred pounds, or transportaA.D. 1664. tion for seven years; and that if the conscience of the offender led him to transgress the law more than thrice, the fine at each repetition of the offence should be augmented by the additional sum of one hundred pounds. This act, so intolerant in its principle, and so penal in its consequences, was immediately enforced; it equally affected Catholics and every denomination of dissenters; but it was felt the most severely by the Quakers, because, while others, when they met for the purpose of worship, sought to elude detection, these religionists, under the guidance, as they thought, of the Spirit of God, deemed it their duty to assemble openly, and to set at defiance the law of man. To describe the numerous and vexatious informations, prosecutions, fines, and imprisonments which followed, would only fatigue the patience, and pain the feelings of the reader. I may, however, observe that the world had seldom witnessed a more flagrant violation of a most solemn engagement. Toleration had been offered and was accepted; the king had been restored, and the church re-established; and now that the price had been paid, the benefit was withheld; and instead of the indulgence promised in the contract,

1 Miscel. Aul. 316, 319, 330. L. Journ. 620. C. Journ. April 28, May 12, 14, 16. St. 16 Car. II. c. i. 4. Pepys, ii. 172. The Conventicle Act was limited, as an experiment, to the duration of three years. Of the tricks sometimes employed in parliament at these periods the reader may form some notion from the following instances. On the last day of the preceding session a bill for the better observance of the Sabbath was stolen off the table; and when the king came to give the royal assent, was not to be found. course it did not pass into an act. In like manner, on the last day of the present session, a proviso to the Conventicle Act respecting the Quakers was also stolen; but the former accident had awakened the vigilance of the clerk, and he discovered the theft in time to provide another copy of the proviso, and to have it passed through both houses before the king's arrival.-L. Journ. xi. 577, 619, 620.

Of

II.

was substituted a system of penalties and persecution. CHAP. The blame, however, ought not to rest with the king. A.D. 1664. He did, as far as we can judge from outward appearances, his best to fulfil his word. But the benevolent intentions of the monarch were opposed by the most powerful of his ministers; and the bigotry of these ministers was sanctioned by the prejudices and resentments of the parliament.

Charles had now reigned four years, respected and courted by his neighbours; in an evil hour he was persuaded, against his better judgment, to unsheathe the sword, and to encounter the uncertain chances of war. He had formed a correct notion of the importance of commerce to the interests of his kingdom, and was encouraged and seconded by his brother James in his attempts to improve and extend the foreign trade of the English merchants. With this view, the African Company had been established by charter; the duke accepted the office of governor; and the committee of management, of which he was chairman, constantly met in his apartments at Whitehall. The company flourished; they imported gold dust from the coast of Guinea, and supplied, at a great profit, the West India planters with slaves : but they met with formidable rivals in the Dutch traders, who, during the civil war, had erected several forts along the coast of Africa, and now employed their superior power and influence to thwart the efforts, and arrest the progress, of the English intruders. The African Company complained; their complaints were echoed by the East-India Company, whose commerce was exposed to similar impediments and injuries; and the merchants in the city called aloud for war, to protect their interests, and curb the insolence

II.

CHAP. of the Hollanders. James advocated their cause with A.D. 1664. his brother. Such, he maintained, was the commercial rivalry between the two nations, that, in the course of a few years, war would inevitably ensue. But then it would be too late. Now was the proper time, before the race of naval commanders, formed under the commonwealth, should become extinct. But Charles (and he was supported by Clarendon) rejected the advice. He had learned wisdom from the history of his father and his grandfather. They had been driven into war by the clamour of the nation; and the charges of war, in a short time, rendered them dependent on the will of the popular leaders in parliament.1

There was at this time a marked contrast between the characters of the royal brothers. Charles, though oppressed with debt, scattered his money heedlessly and profusely; James was careful to measure his expenses by the amount of his income. The king seemed to make gallantry the chief occupation of life; the duke to look upon it as an amusement; and while the one daily spent his time "sauntering" in the company of his mistresses, the other attended to his duties in the Admiralty with the exactitude of the meanest clerk on the establishment. In point of abilities, Charles was considered superior; but he wanted strength of mind to refuse an importunate suitor, or to resist the raillery and sarcasm of those whom he made his companions. James, with a judgment less correct, and with knowledge less extensive, formed his resolutions with slowness, but adhered to them with obstinacy. His word was esteemed sacred: his friends relied with confidence on his support, whatever 1 Clarendon, 196-201. Pepys, il. 173.