The History of England, from the Accession of James II Volume IV Part 32

[Footnote 167: White's Account of the Trade to the East Indies, 1691; Hamilton's New Account of the East Indies; Sir John Wyborne to Pepys from Bombay, Jan. 7. 1688.]

[Footnote 168: London Gazette, Feb. 16/26 1684.]

[Footnote 169: Hamilton's New Account of the East Indies.]

[Footnote 170: Papillon was of course reproached with his inconsistency.

Among the pamphlets of that time is one ent.i.tled "A Treatise concerning the East India Trade, wrote at the instance of Thomas Papillon, Esquire, and in his House, and printed in the year 1680, and now reprinted for the better Satisfaction of himself and others."]

[Footnote 171: Commons' Journals, June 8. 1689.]

[Footnote 172: Among the pamphlets in which Child is most fiercely attacked are Some Remarks on the Present State of the East India Company's Affairs, 1690; fierce Butler's Tale, 1691; and White's Account of the Trade to the East Indies, 1691.]

[Footnote 173: Discourse concerning the East India Trade, showing it to be unprofitable to the Kingdom, by Mr. Cary; pierce Butler's Tale, representing the State of the Wool Case, or the East India Case truly stated, 1691. Several pet.i.tions to the same effect will be found in the Journals of the House of Commons.]

[Footnote 174: Reasons against establishing an East India Company with a joint Stock, exclusive to all others, 1691.]

[Footnote 175: The engagement was printed, and has been several times reprinted. As to Skinners' Hall, see Seymour's History of London, 1734]

[Footnote 176: London Gazette, May 11. 1691; White's Account of the East India Trade.]

[Footnote 177: Commons' Journals, Oct. 28. 1691.]

[Footnote 178: Ibid. Oct. 29. 1691.]

[Footnote 179: Rowe, in the Biter, which was d.a.m.ned, and deserved to be so, introduced an old gentleman haranguing his daughter thus: "Thou hast been bred up like a virtuous and a sober maiden; and wouldest thou take the part of a profane wretch who sold his stock out of the Old East India Company?"]

[Footnote 180: Hop to the States General, Oct 30/Nov. 9 1691.]

[Footnote 181: Hop mentions the length and warmth of the debates; Nov.

12/22. 1691. See the Commons' Journals, Dec. 17. and 18.]

[Footnote 182: Commons' Journals, Feb 4. and 6. 1691.]

[Footnote 183: Ibid. Feb. 11. 1691.]

[Footnote 184: The history of this bill is to be collected from the bill itself, which is among the Archives of the Upper House, from the Journals of the two Houses during November and December 1690, and January 1691; particularly from the Commons' Journals of December 11.

and January 13. and 25., and the Lords' Journals of January 20. and 28.

See also Grey's Debates.]

[Footnote 185: The letter, dated December 1. 1691, is in the Life of James, ii. 477.]

[Footnote 186: Burnet, ii. 85.; and Burnet MS. Harl. 6584. See also a memorial signed by Holmes, but consisting of intelligence furnished by Ferguson, among the extracts from the Nairne Papers, printed by Macpherson. It bears date October 1691. "The Prince of Orange," says Holmes, "is mortally hated by the English. They see very fairly that he hath no love for them; neither doth he confide in them, but all in his Dutch... It's not doubted but the Parliament will not be for foreigners to ride them with a caveson."]

[Footnote 187: Evelyn's Diary, Jan. 24.; Hop to States General, Jan 22/Feb 1 1691; Bader to States General, Feb. 16/26]

[Footnote 188: The words of James are these; they were written in November 1692:--"Mes amis, l'annee pa.s.see, avoient dessein de me rappeler par le Parlement. La maniere etoit concertee; et Milord Churchill devoit proposer dans le Parlement de cha.s.ser tous les etrangers tant des conseils et de l'armee que du royaume. Si le Prince d'Orange avoit consenti a cette proposition ils l'auroient eu entre leurs mains. S'il l'avoit refusee, il auroit fait declarer le Parlement contre lui; et en meme temps Milord Churchill devoir se declarer avec l'armee pour le Parlement; et la flotte devoit faire de meme; et l'on devoit me rappeler. L'on avoit deja commence d'agir dans ce projet; et on avoit gagne un gros parti, quand quelques fideles sujets indiscrets, croyant me servir, et s'imaginant que ce que Milord Churchill faisoit n'etoit pas pour moi, mais pour la Princesse de Danemarck, eurent l'imprudence de decouvrir le tout a Benthing, et detournerent ainsi le coup."

A translation of this most remarkable pa.s.sage, which at once solves many interesting and perplexing problems, was published eighty years ago by Macpherson. But, strange to say, it attracted no notice, and has never, as far as I know, been mentioned by any biographer of Marlborough.

The narrative of James requires no confirmation; but it is strongly confirmed by the Burnet MS. Harl. 6584. "Marleburrough," Burnet wrote in September 1693, "set himself to decry the King's conduct and to lessen him in all his discourses, and to possess the English with an aversion to the Dutch, who, as he pretended, had a much larger share of the King's favour and confidence than they,"--the English, I suppose,--"had.

This was a point on which the English, who are too apt to despise all other nations, and to overvalue themselves, were easily enough inflamed.

So it grew to be the universal subject of discourse, and was the constant entertainment at Marleburrough's, where there was a constant randivous of the English officers." About the dismission of Marlborough, Burnet wrote at the same time: "The King said to myself upon it that he had very good reason to believe that he had made his peace with King James and was engaged in a correspondence with France. It is certain he was doing all he could to set on a faction in the army and the nation against the Dutch."

It is curious to compare this plain tale, told while the facts were recent, with the shuffling narrative which Burnet prepared for the public eye many years later, when Marlborough was closely united to the Whigs, and was rendering great and splendid services to the country.

Burnet, ii. 90.

The d.u.c.h.ess of Marlborough, in her Vindication, had the effrontery to declare that she "could never learn what cause the King a.s.signed for his displeasure." She suggests that Young's forgery may have been the cause.

Now she must have known that Young's forgery was not committed till some months after her husband's disgrace. She was indeed lamentably deficient in memory, a faculty which is proverbially said to be necessary to persons of the cla.s.s to which she belonged. Her own volume convicts her of falsehood. She gives us a letter from Mary to Anne, in which Mary says, "I need not repeat the cause my Lord Marlborough has given the King to do what he has done." These words plainly imply that Anne had been apprised of the cause. If she had not been apprised of the cause would she not have said so in her answer? But we have her answer; and it contains not a word on the subject. She was then apprised of the cause; and is it possible to believe that she kept it a secret from her adored Mrs. Freeman?]

[Footnote 189: My account of these transactions I have been forced to take from the narrative of the d.u.c.h.ess of Marlborough, a narrative which is to be read with constant suspicion, except when, as is often the case, she relates some instance of her own malignity and insolence.]

[Footnote 190: The d.u.c.h.ess of Marlborough's Vindication; Dartmouth's Note on Burnet, ii. 92.; Verses of the Night Bellman of Piccadilly and my Lord Nottingham's Order thereupon, 1691. There is a bitter lampoon on Lady Marlborough of the same date, ent.i.tled The Universal Health, a true Union to the Queen and Princess.]

[Footnote 191: It must not be supposed that Anne was a reader of Shakspeare. She had no doubt, often seen the Enchanted Island. That miserable rifacimento of the Tempest was then a favourite with the town, on account of the machinery and the decorations.]

[Footnote 192: Burnet MS. Harl. 6584.]

[Footnote 193: The history of an abortive attempt to legislate on this subject may be studied in the Commons' Journals of 1692/3.]

[Footnote 194: North's Examen,]

[Footnote 195: North's Examen; Ward's London Spy; Crosby's English Baptists, vol. iii. chap. 2.]

[Footnote 196: The history of this part of Fuller's life I have taken from his own narrative.]

[Footnote 197: Commons' Journals, Dec. 2. and 9. 1691; Grey's Debates.]

[Footnote 198: Commons' Journals, Jan. 4. 1691/2 Grey's Debates.]

[Footnote 199: Commons' Journals, Feb. 22, 23, and 24. 1691/2.]

[Footnote 200: Fuller's Original Letters of the late King James and others to his greatest Friends in England.]

[Footnote 201: Burnet, ii. 86. Burnet had evidently forgotten what the bill contained. Ralph knew nothing about it but what he had learned from Burnet. I have scarcely seen any allusion to the subject in any of the numerous Jacobite lampoons of that day. But there is a remarkable pa.s.sage in a pamphlet which appeared towards the close of William's reign, and which is ent.i.tled The Art of Governing by Parties. The writer says, "We still want an Act to ascertain some fund for the salaries of the judges; and there was a bill, since the Revolution, past both Houses of Parliament to this purpose; but whether it was for being any way defective or otherwise that His Majesty refused to a.s.sent to it, I cannot remember. But I know the reason satisfied me at that time. And I make no doubt but he'll consent to any good bill of this nature whenever 'tis offered." These words convinced me that the bill was open to some grave objection which did not appear in the t.i.tle, and which no historian had noticed. I found among the archives of the House of Lords the original parchment, endorsed with the words "Le Roy et La Royne s'aviseront." And it was clear at the first glance what the objection was.]

There is a hiatus in that part of Narcissus Luttrell's Diary which relates to this matter. "The King," he wrote, "pa.s.sed ten public bills and thirty-four private ones, and rejected that of the--"]

As to the present practice of the House of Commons in such cases, see Hatsell's valuable work, ii. 356. I quote the edition of 1818. Hatsell says that many bills which affect the interest of the Crown may be brought in without any signification of the royal consent, and that it is enough if the consent be signified on the second reading, or even later; but that, in a proceeding which affects the hereditary revenue, the consent must be signified in the earliest stage.]

[Footnote 202: The history of these ministerial arrangements I have taken chiefly from the London Gazette of March 3. and March 7. 1691/2 and from Narcissus Luttrell's Diary for that month. Two or three slight touches are from contemporary pamphlets.]

[Footnote 203: William to Melville, May 22. 1690.]

[Footnote 204: See the preface to the Leven and Melville Papers. I have given what I believe to be a true explanation of Burnet's hostility to Melville. Melville's descendant who has deserved well of all students of history by the diligence and fidelity with which he has performed his editorial duties, thinks that Burnet's judgment was blinded by zeal for Prelacy and hatred of Presbyterianism. This accusation will surprise and amuse English High Churchmen.]

[Footnote 205: Life of James, ii. 468, 469.]

[Footnote 206: Burnet, ii. 88.; Master of Stair to Breadalbane, Dee. 2.

1691.]