The History of England, from the Accession of James II Volume II Part 23

Some questions of great moment were still open to dispute. Our const.i.tution had begun to exist in times when statesmen were not much accustomed to frame exact definitions. Anomalies, therefore, inconsistent with its principles and dangerous to its very existence, had sprung up almost imperceptibly, and, not having, during many years, caused any serious inconvenience, had gradually acquired the force of prescription. The remedy for these evils was to a.s.sert the rights of the people in such language as should terminate all controversy, and to declare that no precedent could justify any violation of those rights.

When this had been done it would be impossible for our rulers to misunderstand the law: but, unless something more were done, it was by no means improbable that they might violate it. Unhappily the Church had long taught the nation that hereditary monarchy, alone among our inst.i.tutions, was divine and inviolable; that the right of the House of Commons to a share in the legislative power was a right merely human, but that the right of the King to the obedience of his people was from above; that the Great Charter was a statute which might be repealed by those who had made it, but that the rule which called the princes of the blood royal to the throne in order of succession was of celestial origin, and that any Act of Parliament inconsistent with that rule was a nullity. It is evident that, in a society in which such superst.i.tions prevail, const.i.tutional freedom must ever be insecure. A power which is regarded merely as the ordinance of man cannot be an efficient check on a power which is regarded as the ordinance of G.o.d. It is vain to hope that laws, however excellent, will permanently restrain a King who, in his own opinion, and in that of a great part of his people, has an authority infinitely higher in kind than the authority which belongs to those laws. To deprive royalty of these mysterious attributes, and to establish the principle that Kings reigned by a right in no respect differing from the right by which freeholders chose knights of the shire, or from the right by which judges granted writs of Habeas Corpus, was absolutely necessary to the security of our liberties.

Thus the Convention had two great duties to perform. The first was to clear the fundamental laws of the realm from ambiguity. The second was to eradicate from the minds, both of the governors and of the governed, the false and pernicious notion that the royal prerogative was something more sublime and holy than those fundamental laws. The former object was attained by the solemn recital and claim with which the Declaration of Right commences; the latter by the resolution which p.r.o.nounced the throne vacant, and invited William and Mary to fill it.

The change seems small. Not a single flower of the crown was touched.

Not a single new right was given to the people. The whole English law, substantive and adjective, was, in the judgment of all the greatest lawyers, of Holt and Treby, of Maynard and Somers, exactly the same after the Revolution as before it. Some controverted points had been decided according to the sense of the best jurists; and there had been a slight deviation from the ordinary course of succession. This was all; and this was enough.

As our Revolution was a vindication of ancient rights, so it was conducted with strict attention to ancient formalities. In almost every word and act may be discerned a profound reverence for the past. The Estates of the Realm deliberated in the old halls and according to the old rules. Powle was conducted to his chair between his mover and his seconder with the accustomed forms. The Serjeant with his mace brought up the messengers of the Lords to the table of the Commons; and the three obeisances were duly made. The conference was held with all the antique ceremonial. On one side of the table, in the Painted Chamber, the managers of the Lords sate covered and robed in ermine and gold. The managers of the Commons stood bareheaded on the other side. The speeches present an almost ludicrous contrast to the revolutionary oratory of every other country. Both the English parties agreed in treating with solemn respect the ancient const.i.tutional traditions of the state. The only question was, in what sense those traditions were to be understood.

The a.s.sertors of liberty said not a word about the natural equality of men and the inalienable sovereignty of the people, about Harmodius or Timoleon, Brutus the elder or Brutus the younger. When they were told that, by the English law, the crown, at the moment of a demise, must descend to the next heir, they answered that, by the English law, a living man could have no heir. When they were told that there was no precedent for declaring the throne vacant, they produced from among the records in the Tower a roll of parchment, near three hundred years old, on which, in quaint characters and barbarous Latin, it was recorded that the Estates of the Realm had declared vacant the throne of a perfidious and tyrannical Plantagenet. When at length the dispute had been accommodated, the new sovereigns were proclaimed with the old pageantry.

All the fantastic pomp of heraldry was there, Clarencieux and Norroy, Portcullis and Rouge Dragon, the trumpets, the banners, the grotesque coats embroidered with lions and lilies. The t.i.tle of King of France, a.s.sumed by the conqueror of Cressy, was not omitted in the royal style.

To us, who have lived in the year 1848, it may seem almost an abuse of terms to call a proceeding, conducted with so much deliberation, with so much sobriety, and with such minute attention to prescriptive etiquette, by the terrible name of Revolution.

And yet this revolution, of all revolutions the least violent, has been of all revolutions the most beneficent. It finally decided the great question whether the popular element which had, ever since the age of Fitzwalter and De Montfort, been found in the English polity, should be destroyed by the monarchical element, or should be suffered to develope itself freely, and to become dominant. The strife between the two principles had been long, fierce, and doubtful. It had lasted through four reigns. It had produced seditions, impeachments, rebellions, battles, sieges, proscriptions, judicial ma.s.sacres. Sometimes liberty, sometimes royalty, had seemed to be on the point of perishing. During many years one half of the energy of England had been employed in counteracting the other half. The executive power and the legislative power had so effectually impeded each other that the state had been of no account in Europe. The King at Arms, who proclaimed William and Mary before Whitehall Gate, did in truth announce that this great struggle was over; that there was entire union between the throne and the Parliament; that England, long dependent and degraded, was again a power of the first rank; that the ancient laws by which the prerogative was bounded would henceforth be held as sacred as the prerogative itself, and would be followed out to all their consequences; that the executive administration would be conducted in conformity with the sense of the representatives of the nation; and that no reform, which the two Houses should, after mature deliberation, propose, would be obstinately withstood by the sovereign. The Declaration of Right, though it made nothing law which had not been law before, contained the germ of the law which gave religious freedom to the Dissenter, of the law which secured the independence of the judges, of the law which limited the duration of Parliaments, of the law which placed the liberty of the press under the protection of juries, of the law which prohibited the slave trade, of the law which abolished the sacramental test, of the law which relieved the Roman Catholics from civil disabilities, of the law which reformed the representative system, of every good law which has been pa.s.sed during a hundred and sixty years, of every good law which may hereafter, in the course of ages, be found necessary to promote the public weal, and to satisfy the demands of public opinion.

The highest eulogy which can be p.r.o.nounced on the revolution of 1688 is this, that it was our last revolution. Several generations have now pa.s.sed away since any wise and patriotic Englishman has meditated resistance to the established government. In all honest and reflecting minds there is a conviction, daily strengthened by experience, that the means of effecting every improvement which the const.i.tution requires may be found within the const.i.tution itself.

Now, if ever, we ought to be able to appreciate the whole importance of the stand which was made by our forefathers against the House of Stuart.

All around us the world is convulsed by the agonies of great nations.

Governments which lately seemed likely to stand during ages have been on a sudden shaken and overthrown. The proudest capitals of Western Europe have streamed with civil blood. All evil pa.s.sions, the thirst of gain and the thirst of vengeance, the antipathy of cla.s.s to cla.s.s, the antipathy of race to race, have broken loose from the control of divine and human laws. Fear and anxiety have clouded the faces and depressed the hearts of millions. Trade has been suspended, and industry paralysed. The rich have become poor; and the poor have become poorer.

Doctrines hostile to all sciences, to all arts, to all industry, to all domestic charities, doctrines which, if carried into effect, would, in thirty years, undo all that thirty centuries have done for mankind, and would make the fairest provinces of France and Germany as savage as Congo or Patagonia, have been avowed from the tribune and defended by the sword. Europe has been threatened with subjugation by barbarians, compared with whom the barbarians who marched under Attila and Alboin were enlightened and humane. The truest friends of the people have with deep sorrow owned that interests more precious than any political privileges were in jeopardy, and that it might be necessary to sacrifice even liberty in order to save civilisation. Meanwhile in our island the regular course of government has never been for a day interrupted. The few bad men who longed for license and plunder have not had the courage to confront for one moment the strength of a loyal nation, rallied in firm array round a parental throne. And, if it be asked what has made us to differ from others, the answer is that we never lost what others are wildly and blindly seeking to regain. It is because we had a preserving revolution in the seventeenth century that we have not had a destroying revolution in the nineteenth. It is because we had freedom in the midst of servitude that we have order in the midst of anarchy. For the authority of law, for the security of property, for the peace of our streets, for the happiness of our houses, our grat.i.tude is due, under Him who raises and pulls down nations at his pleasure, to the Long Parliament, to the Convention, and to William of Orange.

[Footnote 1: Avaux Neg., Aug. 6/16 1685; Despatch of Citters and his colleagues, enclosing the treaty, Aug. Lewis to Barillon, Aug. 14/24.]

[Footnote 2: Instructions headed, "For my son the Prince of Wales, 1692," in the Stuart Papers.]

[Footnote 3: "The Habeas Corpus," said Johnson, the most bigoted of Tories, to Boswell, "is the single advantage which our government has over that of other countries;" and T. B. Macaulay is the most bigoted of Whigs in his own country, but left his whiggism at home when he went to India.]

[Footnote 4: See the Historical Records of Regiments, published under the supervision of the Adjutant General.]

[Footnote 5: Barillon, Dec. 3/13 1685. He had studied the subject much.

"C'est un detail," he says, "dont j'ai connoissance." it appears from the Treasury Warrant Book that the charge of the army for the year 1687 was first of January at 623,104l. 9s. 11d.]

[Footnote 6: Burnet, i. 447.]

[Footnote 7: Tillotson's Sermon, preached before the House of Commons, Nov. 5. 1678.]

[Footnote 8: Locke, First Letter on Toleration.]

[Footnote 9: Council Book. The erasure is dated Oct. 21. 1685. Halifax to Chesterfield; Barillon, Oct. 19/29.]

[Footnote 10: Barillon, Oct. 26/Nov. 5. 1685; Lewis to Barillon, Oct. 27 / Nov. 6. Nov. 6/16.]

[Footnote 11: There is a remarkable account of the first appearance of the symptoms of discontent among the Tories in a letter of Halifax to Chesterfield, written in October, 1685. Burnet, i. 684.]

[Footnote 12: The contemporary tracts in various languages on the subject of this persecution are innumerable. An eminently clear, terse, and spirited summary will be found in Voltaire's Siecle de Louis XIV.]

[Footnote 13: "Misionarios embotados," says Ronquillo. "Apostoli armati," says Innocent. There is, in the Mackintosh Collection, a remarkable letter on this subject from Ronquillo, dated March 26./April 5. 1686 See Venier, Relatione di Francia, 1689, quoted by Professor Ranke in his Romische Papste, book viii.]

[Footnote 14: "Mi dicono che tutti questi parlamentarii no hanno voluto copia, il che a.s.solutamente avra causate pessime impressioni."--Adda, Nov. 9/13. 1685. See Evelyn's Diary, Nov. 3.]

[Footnote 15: Lords' Journals, Nov. 9. 1685. "Vengo a.s.sicurato," says Adda, "che S. M. stessa abbia composto il discorso."--Despatch of Nov.

16/26 1685.]

[Footnote 16: Commons' Journals; Bramston's Memoirs; James von Leeuwen to the States General, Nov. 10/20 1685. Leeuwen was secretary of the Dutch emba.s.sy, and conducted the correspondence in the absence of Citters. As to Clarges, see Burnet, i. 98.]

[Footnote 17: Barillon, Nov. 16/26. 1685.]

[Footnote 18: Dodd's Church History, Leeuwen, Nov. 17/27 1685; Barillon, Dec. 24. 1685. Barillon says of Adda, "On l'avoit fait prevenir que la surete et l'avantage des Catholiques consistoient dans une reunion entiere de sa Majeste Britannique et de son parlement." Letters of Innocent to James, dated July 27/Aug. 8 and Sept. 23 / Oct. 3. 1685; Despatches of Adda, Nov. 9/19. and Nov. 1685. The very interesting correspondence of Adda, copied from the Papal archives, is in the British Museum; Additional MSS. No. 15395.]

[Footnote 19: The most remarkable despatch bears date the 9/19th of November 1685, and will be found in the Appendix to Mr. Fox's History.]

[Footnote 20: Commons' Journals, Nov. 12. 1685; Leeuwen, Nov.; Barillon, Nov. 16/26.; Sir John Bramston's Memoirs. The best report of the debates of the Commons in November, 1685, is one of which the history is somewhat curious. There are two ma.n.u.script copies of it in the British Museum, Harl. 7187.; Lans. 253. In these copies the names of the speakers are given at length. The author of the Life of James published in 1702 transcribed this report, but gave only the initials, of the speakers. The editors of Chandler's Debates and of the Parliamentary History guessed from these initials at the names, and sometimes guessed wrong. They ascribe to Wailer a very remarkable speech, which will hereafter be mentioned, and which was really made by Windham, member for Salisbury. It was with some concern that I found myself forced to give up the belief that the last words uttered in public by Waller were so honourable to him.]

[Footnote 21: Commons' Journals, Nov. 13. 1685; Bramston's Memoirs; Reresby's Memoirs; Barillon, Nov. 16/26.; Leeuwen, Nov. 13/23.; Memoirs of Sir Stephen Fox, 1717; The Case of the Church of England fairly stated; Burnet, i. 666. and Speaker Onslow's note.]

[Footnote 22: Commons' Journals, Nov. 1685; Harl. MS. 7187.; Lans. MS.]

[Footnote 23: The conflict of testimony on this subject is most extraordinary; and, after long consideration, I must own that the balance seems to me to be exactly poised. In the Life of James (1702), the motion is represented as a court motion. This account is confirmed by a remarkable pa.s.sage in the Stuart Papers, which was corrected by the Pretender himself. (Clarke's Life of James the Second, ii. 55.) On the other hand, Reresby, who was present, and Barillon, who ought to have been well informed, represent the motion as an opposition motion. The Harleian and Lansdowne ma.n.u.scripts differ in the single word on which the whole depends. Unfortunately Bramston was not at the House that day.

James Van Leeuwen mentions the motion and the division, but does not add a word which can throw the smallest light on the state of parties.

I must own myself unable to draw with confidence any inference from the names of the tellers, Sir Joseph Williamson and Sir Francis Russell for the majority, and Lord Ancram and Sir Henry Goodricke for the minority.

I should have thought Lord Ancram likely to go with the court, and Sir Henry Goodricke likely to go with the opposition.]

[Footnote 24: Commons' Journals, Nov. 16. 1685 Harl. MS. 7187.; Lans.

MS. 235.]

[Footnote 25: Commons' Journals, Nov. 17, 18. 1685.]

[Footnote 26: Commons' Journals, Nov. 18. 1685; Harl. MS. 7187.; Lans.

MS. 253.; Burnet, i. 667.]

[Footnote 27: Lonsdale's Memoirs. Burnet tells us (i. 667.) that a sharp debate about elections took place in the House of Commons after c.o.ke's committal. It must therefore have been on the 19th of November; for c.o.ke was committed late on the 18th, and the Parliament was prorogued on the 20th. Burnet's narrative is confirmed by the Journals, from which it appears that several elections were under discussion on the 19th.]

[Footnote 28: Burnet, i. 560.; Funeral Sermon of the Duke of Devonshire, preached by Kennet, 1708; Travels of Cosmo III. in England.]

[Footnote 29: Bramston's Memoirs. Burnet is incorrect both as to the time when the remark was made and as to the person who made it. In Halifax's Letter to a Dissenter will be found a remarkable allusion to this discussion.]

[Footnote 30: Wood, Ath. Ox.; Gooch's Funeral Sermon on Bishop Compton.]

[Footnote 31: Teonge's Diary.]

[Footnote 32: Barillon has given the best account of this debate. I will extract his report of Mordaunt's speech. "Milord Mordaunt, quoique jeune, parla avec eloquence et force. Il dit que la question n'etoit pas reduite, comme la Chambre des Communes le pretendoit, a guerir des jalousies et defiances, qui avoient lieu dans les choses incertaines; mais que ce qui ce pa.s.soit ne l'etoit pas, qu'il y avoit une armee sur pied qui subsistoit, et qui etoit remplie d'officiers Catholiques, qui ne pouvoit etre conservee que pour le renvers.e.m.e.nt des loix, et que la subsistance de l'armee, quand il n'y a aucune guerre ni au dedans ni au dehors, etoit l'etabliss.e.m.e.nt du gouvernement arbitraire, pour lequel les Anglois ont une aversion si bien fondee."]

[Footnote 33: He was very easily moved to tears. "He could not," says the author of the Panegyric, "refrain from weeping on bold affronts."