NOTES.
1 ([return])
[ NOTE A, p. 58. The articles were, that he had advised the king to govern by military power, without parliaments; that he had affirmed the king to be a papist, or popishly affected; that he had received great sums of money, for procuring the Canary patent, and other illegal patents; that he had advised and procured divers of his majesty’s subjects to be imprisoned against law, in remote islands and garrisons, thereby to prevent their having the benefit of the law; that he had procured the customs to be farmed at under rates; that he had received great sums from the vintners’ company, for allowing them to enhance the price of wines; that he had in a short time gained a greater estate than could have been supposed to arise from the profits of his offices; that he had introduced an arbitrary government into his majesty’s plantations; that he had rejected a proposal for the preservation of Nevis and St. Christopher’s, which was the occasion of great losses in those parts; that when he was in his majesty’s service beyond sea, he held a correspondence with Cromwell and his accomplices; that he advised the sale of Dunkirk; that he had unduly altered letters patent under the king’s seal; that he had unduly decided causes in council, which should have been brought before chancery; that he had issued quo warrantos against corporations, with an intention of squeezing money from them; that he had taken money for passing the bill of settlement in Ireland; that he betrayed the nation in all foreign treaties, and that he was the principal adviser of dividing the fleet in June, 1666.]
2 ([return])
[ NOTE B, p. 80. The abstract of the report of the Brook House committee (so that committee was called) was first published by Mr. Ralph (vol. i. p. 177), from Lord Halifax’s collections, to which I refer. If we peruse their apology, which we find in the subsequent page of the same author, we shall find that they acted with some malignity towards the king. They would take notice of no services performed before the first of September, 1664. But all the king’s preparations preceded that date, and, as Chancellor Clarendon told the parliament, amounted to eight hundred thousand pounds; and the computation is very probable. This sum, therefore, must be added. The committee likewise charged seven hundred thousand pounds to the king, on account of the winter and summer guards, saved during two years and ten months that the war lasted. But this seems iniquitous. For though that was an usual burden on the revenue, which was then saved, would not the diminution of the customs during the war be an equivalent to it? Besides, near three hundred and forty thousand pounds are charged for prize money, which perhaps the king thought he ought not to account for. These sums exceed the million and a half.]
3 ([return])
[ NOTE C, p. 85. Gourville has said in his Memoirs, (vol. ii. p. 14, 67,) that Charles was never sincere in the triple alliance; and that, having entertained a violent animosity against De Wit, he endeavored by this artifice to detach him from the French alliance, with a view of afterwards finding an opportunity to satiate his vengeance upon him. This account, though very little honorable to the king’s memory, seems probable from the events, as well as from the authority of the author.]