CHAPTER VIII.
COURT INTRIGUES.
Important changes occurred in the Cabinet towards the close of 1685. Halifax, President of the Council—but no favourite with the King on account of his opposition to Roman Catholicism, the repeal of the Test Act, and the Royal foreign policy—was dismissed in the month of October. In December he was succeeded by Sunderland, who, from having conformed to Roman Catholic ceremonies at the commencement of the reign, and from having encouraged his Master in anti-Protestant proceedings, had succeeded in securing and retaining his good opinion. There existed a violent Popish party at Court, consisting of the Earl of Castelmaine, husband to one of Charles’ mistresses,[152] of Henry Jermyn, created Lord Dover by James II., of the Earl of Tyrconnel, and of another Irishman, named White. These persons promoted measures as rash as they were violent, and in so doing acted in concert with a few Jesuits who dwelt in England, at the head of whom was Father Petre. The Order at that time had come into collision with the Pontiff, Innocent XI. They were now in a state of alliance with the French King, who resisted Ultramontane pretensions, rather than in a state of obedience to the occupant of St. Peter’s Chair. Then, as it has happened at other times, parties in a Church which boasts of unity, were engaged in carrying on the most opposite intrigues: the Jesuits counselling the English King to set the liberties and wishes of his subjects at defiance, and to play the despot out-and-out; while the Roman Court advised him to preserve caution, and to keep within the lines of the British Constitution. Sunderland united with the Jesuits, and the other extreme Roman Catholic politicians, in encouraging the Monarch to follow those ways which ultimately led to his downfall. The Minister, to strengthen his own position, embraced the King’s religion. He had before conformed to Catholic rites, but now he professed himself a decided convert, giving to James the credit of having effected the change. After the elevation of Sunderland came the dismissal of Rochester, who had long been a Trimmer, as well as an adviser of moderation. To recover the good opinion of the King and Queen he professed to be open to conviction, courted Popish advocates, and listened to controversies between Divines of the opposite Church—but, at last, this cunning intriguer thought it the safest plan not to go over to Rome.[153]
1686.
James, encouraged in his extreme folly, rushed headlong to utter ruin. It was not because he had become a Roman Catholic, it was not simply because he sought to promote the interests of the Church which he had espoused; it was because, in seeking to accomplish that end, he violated the Constitution of his country. His despotism, not his religion, was the immediate cause of his losing a throne. He violated the law—that most sacred palladium in the eyes of an Englishman.
Having commenced the practice of granting dispensations to certain individuals before the reign of persecution came to an end, he was sometimes found pursuing a course which placed him and some chiefs of the Church in apparently contradictory positions, whilst, notwithstanding, they were, for awhile, promoting the same end.
“You may see,” says a contemporary Diarist, “somewhat remarkable in this last week’s account—the Hierarchy so severely prosecuting the Dissenters, and the Crown’s granting dispensations to them under seal. Cross winds sometimes raise waves that break the force of one another, and the ship is thereby preserved—sometimes they presage a tempest that destroys it, when those winds centre in a dangerous quarter. The Hierarchists have not appeared in the prosecution of one Papist this Assizes, nor Sessions, upon the strictest inquiries that can be made; but they say the only way to prevent Popery is to prosecute the penal laws against the Protestant Dissenters, and, which is somewhat mysterious, the best way to prevent Popery is not to prosecute Papists.”[154]
Calamy refers to the Royal exercise of a dispensing power, and to the sending out of injunctions by the Bishops for the presentment of all such as did not receive the Lord’s Supper at Easter.[155]
JAMES’ POLICY.
In the Journal just quoted, an entry occurs a little earlier, showing the indignity with which the Monarch treated some of his suppliants, and the fruitlessness, occasionally, of their humble applications. The Anabaptists presented an address for “His Majesty’s gracious pardon,” when “they were kept long on their knees, while His Majesty showed the petition to several about him, at which they were very merry;” and the Quakers, who had petitioned for liberty, received “only a verbal order for impunity,” and were, nevertheless, still “disturbed and punished.”[156]
Such were the floating stories of treatment experienced by the persecuted sects; and, if I may be permitted further to use the MS. from which our knowledge of these impressions is derived, I will extract the following passage which vividly reflects the perplexity some Dissenters felt at this time, in consequence of endeavours made to obtain their consent to measures of toleration, including Papists as well as themselves.
“The great inquiry now is, whether persons will not only use, but thankfully accept of and vigorously endeavour after universal liberty, by taking off the penal laws, and incapacitating laws against Papists; if the Dissenters do not comply, they will incur the displeasure of the Court, and the Court will destroy them. And, on the other hand, the Church also, if these laws continue in being, or at least the Church and the Court, will unite, and thereby utterly destroy them. And if they do comply, they will first verify the imputation, the Church lays upon them, as if they favoured Popery; and say, ‘they themselves are the only pillars of the Protestant religion, you see the Dissenters betray and give it up.’ Secondly, they may probably be dragooned by the Court, when they have helped to take the laws off from the Papists, and thereby weaken the Protestant interest. Thirdly, and lastly, in time to come, the Church may call them to an account, and be severe upon them for their compliance.”[157]
James’ policy of granting indulgence reached its culminating point in the famous Declaration, published on the 4th of April, 1687.
1687.
The document presented signs of righteous toleration, and viewed superficially it exhibits a favourable contrast with the policy then pursued in France. France and England seemed bent upon adopting contrary lines of policy. When Elizabeth had supported ecclesiastical despotism, Henry IV., by the Edict of Nantes, had proclaimed himself a friend of religious liberty: now, as Louis XIV. drove from the French shores his Protestant subjects, by striving to dragoon them out of their religion, James II. talked to the English people graciously touching freedom of conscience.
But what was the real design of it all? Fully to answer this question we must carefully look at the line of policy which he previously pursued towards Popery, towards the Church of England, and towards Protestant Dissent. And here it should be premised, that the crushing of Monmouth’s rebellion in England, and of Argyle’s rebellion in Scotland, had swept away for a time all opposition to James’ title and authority,—had consolidated his power, and had encouraged him to attempt the experiment of ruling the nation as an absolute monarch: and let it also be remembered, that his despotic designs were intimately connected with his ecclesiastical polity.
His object with regard to Popery seems to have been, by a succession of bold attempts, to give it not only toleration, but an establishment in this country,—at least, an establishment upon terms of equality with the Protestant Church.[158]
JAMES’ POLICY.
The Judges, in the case of Sir Edward Hales, having decided in favour of the King’s dispensing power; and having also given it as their opinion, that the laws of England were the King’s laws, that it was an inseparable branch of his prerogative to dispense with penal statutes, and that of the reasons for doing so in particular cases he was sole Judge;—James immediately proceeded by Letters Patent, dated May the 3rd, 1686, to authorize Edward Sclater to retain his benefice, after he had, on the previous Palm Sunday, confessed his conversion to Romanism by attending Mass. He also allowed Obadiah Walker, a clergyman who had long secretly leaned to Popery, and now openly avowed his conversion, to retain his position and emoluments as Master of University College, Cambridge. By a still bolder stroke, the King dashed down the barriers which guarded admission to the Establishment, and conferred the Deanery of Christ Church upon John Massey,—a Roman Catholic priest, possessing neither learning nor ability,—who instantly decked an altar in the usual way for the celebration of Mass.
The two sees of Chester and Oxford fell vacant in 1686. James appointed to the one Thomas Cartwright, Dean of Ripon, a worthless sycophant, who might be expected to do anything to please his master; and to the other, Samuel Parker, already well known to the reader for his violent Tory and High Church publications.[159] “I wished,” says the King to the Papal Nuncio, Adda, “to appoint an avowed Catholic, but the time is not come. Parker is well inclined to us, he is one of us in feeling, and, by degrees, he will bring round his clergy.”[160]
1686.
Whilst James secured for his purpose tools of this description he did whatever he could to silence the voice of controversy against the Church of his affections. He caused the Lord Treasurer to reprove Sherlock, and to stop his pension for preaching against Popery;[161] and he wrote to Compton, the Bishop of London, commanding him to suspend the Rector of St. Giles, Dr. Sharp, who had engaged in a pulpit contest with a Roman Catholic priest. This last interference involved consequences more mischievous than itself. It had long been in the mind of the Sovereign to revive the Court of High Commission, as an efficient agent for the control of the clergy. To any one else, the Act of Charles II., confirming the abolition of that Court by the Long Parliament, would have been an insurmountable barrier, yet despising such reasons as would have guided other men, James gradually brought himself to the determination of re-establishing that odious tribunal. The lawyers told him that what he proposed would be found to be unconstitutional. His Ministers shrunk from committing themselves to so perilous an act, but Sharp’s affair fixed his decision. Compton, son of the Royalist Earl of Northampton, himself once an officer of the Guards, had with something of a soldier’s gallantry and dash, opposed the Government, from his seat in the House of Lords; and when receiving the King’s command for the suspension of Sharp, he had declined to take that step without a trial of the denounced clergyman, and had also, by mere private influence, arranged for his submitting to a period of silence. This conduct on the part of the prelate provoked the King to end his hesitation, and to revive the very Court, which had been a chief cause of his father’s ruin. The New Commission conferred an indefinite spiritual jurisdiction, in this case the more dangerous from its being indefinite.[162]
JAMES’ POLICY.
1686.
It was to cover England and Wales; it was to be for the reform of all abuses, contrary to the ecclesiastical laws of the realm. It gave authority to summon before it such ecclesiastical persons of every degree as should offend in any of the particulars mentioned, and punish them accordingly, by depriving them of their preferment, and by inflicting ecclesiastical censures and penalties. It brought within its scope suspected persons to be proceeded against, “as the nature and quality of the offence, or suspicion in that behalf” should require. It prescribed summary excommunication and deprivation for all persons, who should be obstinate or disobedient; and it brought within the control of the Commissioners, the Universities, Cathedrals, Collegiate Churches, Colleges, and all ecclesiastical Corporations whatever, with the power of obtaining and examining all kinds of documents touching those foundations. This formidable instrument was addressed to seven Commissioners, four laymen, and three Bishops. Jeffreys, now Lord Chancellor, was President, and with him were associated the Lord Treasurer, the Lord President, and the Chief Justice of the King’s Bench. The three Bishops named were Sancroft, of Canterbury; Crew, of Durham; and Sprat, of Rochester. The Primate at once saw the illegality of the measure, yet had not firmness enough to do more than excuse himself, on the ground of ill-health, from attending the Board. This engine, contrived for the widest action, was precipitately brought into play, to meet the particular emergency of Compton’s case. The Commissioners summoned him before them upon the charge, that he had not suspended the obnoxious Rector according to Royal command. First, Compton objected to the tribunal itself as illegal, an objection which the Commissioners instantly overruled. Instead of persevering in that objection, and thus commencing at once a constitutional struggle, which was both imminent and necessary, the Bishop quietly gave way, and proceeded to plead that he had, in fact, complied with His Majesty’s injunctions. To have suspended Sharp formally, he contended would have been illegal; to prevent Sharp from preaching, he represented as the only thing possible under the circumstances. This line of defence reflects no honour upon the defendant, it simply sheltered him from personal injury, without raising any question of principle. It virtually surrendered the liberties of the Church, and appears altogether unworthy of the occasion. Nor did it avail for the protection of the accused. The Commissioners pronounced him guilty, and for his “disobedience and contempt” suspended him from his Episcopal office, permitting him, however, to retain his revenues and his residence. The Bishop of Peterborough, with the Bishops of Durham and Rochester, were directed to execute the sentence.
As at St. James’, so at Whitehall, the King provided a Roman Catholic Chapel.[163] He encouraged the fitting up of a similar place of worship at the residence of an Englishman in London, who acted as Envoy for the Elector Palatine. The Benedictines established themselves at St. James’, the Franciscans in Lincoln’s Inn Fields, the Jesuits at the Savoy, and the Carmelites in the City; and Roman Catholics are accused of having seized some of the parish churches in Lancashire.[164]
JAMES’ POLICY.
The religious orders of Rome, arrayed in their distinguishing costumes, now appeared in the streets of the Metropolis,—a sight which must have shocked the old Puritans—but in such exhibitions the King greatly rejoiced, prematurely exulting “that his capital had the appearance of a Catholic city.”[165]
If the facts adduced be not sufficient to indicate the King’s intentions, any remaining doubts must be dispelled by turning to his private correspondence. The letters of the last two years of his reign serve the same purpose as the letters of Charles I. in the year 1646. They fully reveal his private designs, whatever, on certain occasions, he might publicly declare. They repeatedly refer to the “establishment” of the Catholic religion—which means, in the judgment of one of the calmest of critics, that he “meditated no less than to transfer to his own religion the privileges of an Established Church.”[166] What is now so manifest from this correspondence, Halifax, Nottingham, and Danby, perceived at the time, and though they differed from each other on many points they agreed on this.
1686.
Sunderland thoroughly engaged himself on behalf of the interests of Popery, and communicated, without reserve, the Royal intentions to Barillon, the French representative at the Court of St. James’. “This minister,” wrote Barillon to Louis XIV., “said to me, I do not know if they see things in France as they are here, but I defy those who see them near, not to know, that the King, my master, has nothing so much at heart as to establish the Catholic religion; that he cannot, even according to good sense and right reason, have any other end; that without it he will never be in safety, and always exposed to the indiscreet zeal of those who will heat the people against the Catholic religion as long as it is not fully established.”[167] Another fact at the time is significant. The oath administered to Privy Councillors included the words, “I shall to my utmost defend all jurisdictions, pre-eminencies, and authorities, granted to His Majesty, and annexed to his Crown by Act of Parliament, or otherwise, against all foreign Princes, Persons, Prelates, States, or Potentates.” But this part of the oath, it is stated, was by the Royal order expunged from the Council-book.[168] In addition to all these circumstances, James availed himself of the religious sympathies of the Irish people, to establish a Roman Catholic hierarchy amongst them, assigning to the Primate a revenue of £2,000 a year, and he authorized the clergy to wear in public the habits belonging to their order.[169]
JAMES’ POLICY.
It must be confessed that the King met with much in the preaching of the Protestant clergy to encourage his fondest hopes. A Chaplain to the Bishop of Ely maintained the immaculate holiness of the Virgin, and the necessity for seeking her intercession. Also, a Popish priest, in a sermon at Court, proclaimed himself as an ambassador sent from heaven to admonish the King to extirpate heresy, and to plant in the kingdom the true grace of God.[170]
Encouragement of another kind presented itself. Conversions to Popery became numerous. The Earl of Peterborough and the Earl of Salisbury both embraced the faith patronized by royalty; the first described as a worn-out Courtier, the second as a worn-out sensualist. Sir Ellis Leighton, brother of the good Archbishop of that name, recanted the Protestantism of his youth; and Sir Christopher Milton, a Judge, brother of John Milton, the poet, if he did not do the same thing, at any rate scrupled to communicate with the Church of England, in consequence of Popish leanings. The lady of Sir Thomas Grosvenor, “the Elizabeth Ebury, who brought the Westminster estates into his family,” and the Lady Theophila, wife of Robert Nelson, both joined the Papal communion; and Samuel Pepys, tells us in his Diary, that he did not press his wife to attend the parish church, lest she should “declare herself a Catholic.” Dryden, the poet, a man who perhaps cared little about religion, Wycherley, the licentious dramatist, Haines, an utterly worthless adventurer, and Tindal, who afterwards wrote against Christianity, also seceded from the Church of the Reformation to the Church of the Council of Trent.[171]
1687.
The fact being proved that James intended to re-establish Popery, and received encouragement to do so, little need be said respecting his purpose in reference to the Protestant Episcopal Church. It follows that he must have designed, through placing a rival and ambitious power by its side, to overthrow its supremacy, if not to destroy its existence. Such policy was alike ungrateful and treacherous. It was ungrateful—for if the Presbyterians placed Charles II. upon the throne, the Episcopalians secured the succession to James II.; and amongst the most effective supporters of his arbitrary authority were those Anglicans who had preached passive obedience and non-resistance. And it was treacherous—for repeatedly he had declared, that he would make it his endeavour to defend and support the Church of England.
JAMES’ POLICY.
Perhaps the actual discouragement which the prelates and clergy received at the hands of him who had sworn to support them, and the imminent perils which stared them in the face, roused the rather inanimate Archbishop of Canterbury to attempt some little reform in the Establishment. He, with the concurrence of the Bishops of his province, issued Articles for some better regulations in the mode of admitting candidates to the cure of souls, since many abuses and uncanonical practices had lately crept in.[172] The Articles, however, did not amount to anything remarkable, and what might be their practical effect does not appear. If preventing the introduction of Roman Catholic priests into the Church, or discouraging in it all Romanizing tendencies, came within the designs of the Primate and his brethren, no signs of it can be traced in the Articles themselves; but there were other ways in which Anglican zeal against Popery at that time made itself visible. Forbidden to preach against Popery, the clergy employed their pens. Amongst four hundred and fifty-seven controversial pamphlets which issued from the press—including those written on both sides—may be mentioned Wake’s and Dodwell’s answers to Bossuet; Clagett and Williams’ replies to Gother, author of The Papist Represented and Misrepresented; Stillingfleet’s attack upon Godden’s Dialogues; and Sherlock’s answer to Sabran, the Jesuit. Atterbury, Smalridge, Tenison, and Tillotson, also took part in the controversy. A noble set of writings, Calamy remarks, was now published by Church Divines against the errors of Rome; and he endeavours to explain the causes of that comparative silence which the Dissenters maintained upon a subject in which they were so deeply interested. It is pleaded by him, that they had written largely on the subject before, their own people were not much in danger, if they did not write, they preached upon Popery, they were satisfied to see the work well done by others, and some who wished to publish had little chance of being read, public attention being engrossed by distinguished Churchmen.[173] Some of these excuses carry a measure of force; Nonconformists had not been deficient in exposing the fallacies of Romanism, and the pulpit was now employed when the press was inactive, but other parts of the defence are more ingenious than valid; and it must be confessed, that clear and distinct argumentative attacks upon the common foe of Protestantism from the Dissenting point of view, coupled with the assertion of civil liberty on behalf of all religionists, so far as the doctrine was then understood, would have been more worthy of the Nonconformist cause at that critical juncture.
1687.
The policy of James respecting the Protestant Establishment, thus nobly resisted by some of its members, together with his policy towards Romanism, will help the reader to understand his designs upon Protestant Nonconformity. He could not but be aware of its deadly opposition to his own religion; its evangelical creed, its popular discipline, and its simple worship, must have inspired his deepest dislike; and, whatever professions of charity and forbearance he might offer at times, the same feelings which created his enmity to a Protestant Establishment, must necessarily have created in him also enmity to Protestant Dissent.
His threefold policy thus throws light upon the Declaration of Indulgence published in 1687. That Declaration could not proceed from sound views of religious freedom, or from a generous desire to relieve Protestant sufferers, it must have been designed immediately to help, and ultimately to establish, Roman Catholicism in England. According to the terms of the Declaration, the King wished that all his subjects had been members of the Catholic Church, but such not being the case, he respected the rights of conscience, promising to protect those of his subjects who belonged to the Church of England; he also resolved to suspend the laws for the punishment of Nonconformity, and therefore granted liberty of worship to all who did not encourage political disaffection. The Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance, and the Tests and Declarations, mentioned in the 25th and 30th of his brother’s reign, were to be no longer enforced; and ample pardon was extended to all Nonconformist recusants, for all acts contrary to the penal laws respecting religion.
DECLARATION OF INDULGENCE.
That James simply wished to promote his own religion, and did not care for what is meant by religious freedom, is clear from the French ambassador’s account of the liberty which the King conceded to the people of Scotland; for the diplomatist, writing to his master, states that the measure, debated for several days, created much difficulty, and that he would by no means allow to Scotch Protestants the extensive right of worship which he granted to Scotch Roman Catholics.[174] The same writer, a little earlier, told the French Sovereign that His Britannic Majesty heard with pleasure a recital of the wonderful progress with which God had blessed the efforts of the former for the conversion of the Huguenots, there being no example of a similar thing happening at any time, or in any country, with so much promptitude.[175] It is absurd to represent a man who thus approved of conversion by violence as a friend to religious liberty. It should also be remembered that there was no little duplicity involved in the conduct of the English Monarch at this time, for just after the above communication had been privately made to the Court at Versailles, he issued letters patent to the Bishops, authorizing a collection on behalf of the exiles.
How was the Declaration received?
1687.
The Catholics expressed their satisfaction with it; and whilst they gladly availed themselves of the professed benefit, they felt pleasure in seeing liberty extended to all sects without exception, by a prince of their own communion.[176] Politicians, who understood and cared for the liberties of their country, however glad they might be to see different forms of religion tolerated, could not help being alarmed by so daring an exercise of the Royal prerogative, which if conceded, would imperil the Constitution, break down the safeguards of law, and place the destinies of the nation for evil, as well as for good, in the hands of a despotic sovereign. Members of the Church of England, in this hour of its need, said kind things of the Nonconformists, whom they had persecuted before, and spoke of legal securities for freedom of worship; yet they viewed with the utmost alarm this exercise of absolute power, and saw in it only a confirmation of their worst fears, that, under a pretence of general liberty, the Monarch sought to destroy the ascendancy of Protestantism. The selfishness, which blended with their fears, and the compunctions which mingled with their alarm, did not diminish the reasonableness of their apprehension.
DECLARATION OF INDULGENCE.
Some Bishops, however, distinguished themselves by a line of conduct different from that pursued by their brethren. Durham, Rochester, Peterborough, Oxford, and Chester, being invited to meet the Lord Chancellor and the Earl of Sunderland, the latter told them how acceptable to His Majesty would be an address of thanks. Three of them at once signed such an address. Rochester hesitated, but complied; Peterborough decidedly refused. Chester reported that the four who signed altered their first paper, which gave thanks for the Declaration as a whole, into a second, which acknowledged only the King’s promise to protect the Church; and it is further reported that when the Bishop of Durham presented the document to the King, His Majesty said, “I expected this sooner from you of the Church of England, and also now, that it would have come much fuller than what it is. Can you find nothing to give thanks for, but that one clause which relates to yourselves? Have you no sense of that kindness others have received thereby? Methinks you might have given thanks, at least, for that ease and relief your Protestant brethren have received by it.”[177]
Those who prepared such cautious addresses found it difficult to obtain signatures, even when requested to sign, by diocesans favourable to the proceeding. The subject seems to have been most carefully canvassed by the superior as well as by the inferior clergy; for I find in the library of the Cambridge University a long paper, containing the reasons of the Bishops for and against subscription to an Oxford address. Amongst the reasons for subscription, as offered by the Chancellor, are these—that it might continue the King’s favour, whereas the omission might irritate the Treasury to call upon the £500 bonds of first-fruits at full worth; and that it would testify unity with and submission to the Bishops who required the address, and who, perhaps, expected it upon the canonical obedience of the clergy, there being nothing in the document præter licitum et honestum. On the other side, amongst other things, it is alleged that it would be superfluous to thank His Majesty for continuing legal rights; and it is remarked, respecting the Declaration, and the aspect of it upon the Established Episcopal Church, “As to the free exercise of our religion, it necessarily holds us among the various sects, under the Toleration, who for that favour in suspending the laws have led the way to such addresses, depending for protection upon no legal statutes, but entirely upon the sovereign pleasure and indulgence which at pleasure is revocable.”[178]
1687.
The manner in which Nonconformists received the measure requires to be more fully explained.
One class, not so fanatical as to refuse the liberty offered, objected notwithstanding, and that strongly, to the dispensing power; and, after much deliberation, they declined to present to the King any acknowledgment. This class included Richard Baxter and John Howe: Baxter refusing to join in offering thanks; Howe, wavering at first, but at last becoming so decided respecting the matter, as to move and carry a resolution against going to Court upon the occasion.
DECLARATION OF INDULGENCE.
Another class remains, including Vincent Alsop and Stephen Lobb; the former being drawn into “some high flights” of loyal flattery in return for a Royal pardon granted to his son; the latter showing himself contemptibly obsequious in his approaches to the King, and receiving in consequence the appellation of the “Jacobite Independent.” Of the favourable addresses then presented, one from the Anabaptists in and about the City of London came first:[179] One from the Presbyterians in the same neighbourhood came next. This, whilst giving thanks for the Indulgence, expressed a hope that the two Houses of Parliament would concur in the measure.[180] The Quakers said the Declaration did the less surprise them, because it was what some of them had known to be the principle of the King long before he came to the throne.[181] In some of these compositions very eulogistic terms appear. The loyal subjects of the Congregational persuasion in Ipswich, and other towns of Suffolk, displayed a curiously rhetorical style. “The shields of the earth,” said they, “belong unto God, He hath made you a covering cherub to us, under whose refreshing shadow we promise ourselves rest.”[182] The Dissenters of Malden in Essex spoke of the great service God designed to accomplish by His Majesty, “the blossoming whereof is now made visible in your celebrated wisdom, in hapning (sic) upon the most melodious harp to charm all evil spirits, that many other princes had no skill to use.”[183] Some Dissenters, in and about the City of London, exceeded their brethren in extravagance. “Your Majesty,” they declared, “hath distinguished and set the bounds of your own dominion from that of heaven itself. You have given to God and man their due, and yet preserved your own right.”[184] Who were the persons engaged in drawing up these adulatory compositions, by what kind of people, and by how many they were signed, we have no method of ascertaining; but it is more than probable, that Court agents employed the most insinuating arts to secure their production. Addresses to the King were for a twelvemonth all the fashion. They were presented by all sorts of people, who vied with each other in most absurd expressions of loyalty. The Company of Cooks were pre-eminent in their laudations, and praised the Indulgence as resembling the Almighty’s manna, which suited every man’s palate; and they declared “that men’s different gustos might as well be forced, as their different apprehensions about religion.”[185] In some cases the compliments of the subject were matched by the complaisance of the Sovereign; and in answer to a Presbyterian address he professed he had no other design than toleration, and “hoped to see the day when the people should have a Magna Charta for liberty of conscience, as well as for the protection of their property.”
1687.
The Yarmouth Congregational Church Book bears witness to the effect produced by the Declaration just afterwards:—“It was ordered by the Church, that the Meeting-house should be made clean, and shutters be made for the upper windows, which was accordingly done by many of our maid-servants.” This curious minute affords an example of busy scenes of religious zeal, such, probably, as occurred in many towns and villages. The humble conventicle was repaired, the interior was cleansed and fitted up for a public assembly, and many a heart beat with joy at signs which promised they should once more “sit under their vine and fig-tree, none daring to make them afraid.”
About the same time Evelyn remarks:—“There was a wonderful concourse of people at the Dissenters’ meeting-house in this parish, and the parish church (Deptford) left exceeding thin. What this will end in, God Almighty only knows; but it looks like confusion, which I pray God avert.”[186]
DECLARATION OF INDULGENCE.
The Dissenters generally, whilst they accepted James’ Indulgence, saw through his designs. Not only did they oppose the King’s claim to dispense with laws, but many of them also, through fear of Popery, resisted the repeal of the Test Act; choosing rather to suffer exclusion from civil offices than open a door for the admission of Papists. Some indeed, who advocated occasional conformity (that is communicating at times with Episcopalians in the celebration of the Lord’s Supper), suffered no personal inconvenience from the Test Act, and therefore advocated its continuance. Among them was Sir John Shorter, the Presbyterian Lord Mayor of London, in the year 1687; he preferred occasional attendance at Church during his mayoralty, to an acceptance of the suspected benefits offered by the Indulgence. Considering such cases, one cannot help seeing, that if such persons confined conformity to their year of office, they laid themselves open to the charge of sacrificing their principles for personal ends.
1687.
The King, at this period, regarded the famous Quaker, William Penn, as his particular friend and supporter. The Admiral, his father, had been a favourite with James when Duke of York; that favour he transferred after the Admiral’s death, to the pious son. The Royal regard—added to the Quaker’s wealth and rank, his personal character, social qualities, and active habits—made him one of the most important and influential men of his day, and the early gathering of suitors at the door of his mansion at Kensington, resembled the resort of clients to some popular Roman patrician. Penn has been charged with involving himself in dishonourable transactions with the maids of honour for the purchase of a Royal pardon for girls at Taunton, who presented a banner to Monmouth; and also with attempting to bribe the Fellows of Magdalen College, Oxford, to submit to the King in certain illegal proceedings which we shall hereafter describe. But it appears in a very high degree probable, that the Penn, who acted as a pardon-broker for the Taunton young ladies was not Penn the Quaker: and the charge against the latter, in reference to the business at Magdalen College, is not established, even after the cleverest special pleading employed for the purpose.[187] But Penn certainly did all he could to support James in his policy of Indulgence, and to persuade Nonconformists to accept its benefits. As an Englishman this excellent person could not have had a clear understanding of the constitutional question involved in the measure; as a Nonconformist he showed a want of wisdom in countenancing the dispensing power; and he is to be reckoned as one of that class whose humanity, whose benevolence, and whose desire to secure present liberty under critical circumstances, are wont to interfere with their perception of fundamental principles and of ultimate results. Nor can any one, even with the greatest admiration of his eminent virtues, and of his conscientious adherence to his religion in the midst of persecution, regard him as free from infirmities. It may be fairly suspected that, with his courteous manners, he blended, in spite of his Quaker usages, a measure of obsequiousness to Royalty, that gratified by Royal attention, this Courtier Friend felt disposed to go further than other conscientious men could do in promoting Royal designs, and that a little spice of personal vanity was sprinkled over the better qualities of this very estimable person.
WILLIAM KIFFIN.
1687.
Upon a different character from Penn, James wasted his acts in vain. William Kiffin has been mentioned already as the victim of a scandalous forgery. This and other attempts upon his safety he overcame. Indeed, he was charged with designs upon the life of Charles II., a charge too absurd to be prosecuted, yet it exposed him to some degree of temporary inconvenience. Although not himself accused of complicity in the Rye House Plot, or in the Monmouth Rebellion, his family suffered from both—a son-in-law being tried for his connection with the first, and two grandsons, handsome youths, pious, and of great promise, being executed for their share in the second. Kiffin still continued a preacher of the Gospel in the Baptist denomination, as well as a prosperous merchant in the City of London, and it is curious to notice how this twofold character is indicated in his portrait: a Puritan skull-cap covers his head, whilst long curly locks flow from under it, and a richly embroidered lace collar covers his breast, with a loose cloak gracefully wrapped round his shoulders. His wealth and position in the City, together with his influence amongst Nonconformists, rendered him a person worthy of being conciliated. Upon his coming to Court, in obedience to the Royal command, the King told him that his name had been put down as an alderman in the new Charter. “Sire,” he replied, “I am a very old man, and have withdrawn myself from all kind of business for some years past, and am incapable of doing any service in such an affair, to your Majesty or the City—besides, Sire,” he continued, the tears running down his cheeks, “the death of my grandsons gave a wound to my heart, which is still bleeding, and never will close, but in the grave.” “Mr. Kiffin,” returned James, “I shall find a balsam for that sore.” The marble-hearted[188] monarch had no conception of such deep sorrow as filled Kiffin’s breast; and Kiffin showed himself proof against all attempts upon his political and ecclesiastical integrity. He felt obliged nominally to accept the aldermanship; but, after holding it for a few months, without meddling much in civic affairs, he obtained a discharge from his troublesome office.[189]