The History of England, from the Accession of James the Second - Volume 1 by Thomas Babington Macaulay (diy ebook reader .txt) π
Excerpt from the book:
Read free book Β«The History of England, from the Accession of James the Second - Volume 1 by Thomas Babington Macaulay (diy ebook reader .txt) πΒ» - read online or download for free at americanlibrarybooks.com
Download in Format:
- Author: Thomas Babington Macaulay
Read book online Β«The History of England, from the Accession of James the Second - Volume 1 by Thomas Babington Macaulay (diy ebook reader .txt) πΒ». Author - Thomas Babington Macaulay
had cordially approved of
it, that it was the universal subject of conversation throughout
London, and that the impression made on the public mind seemed
likely to be durable.310
The Commons went into committee without delay, and voted to the
King, for life, the whole revenue enjoyed by his brother.311
The zealous churchmen who formed the majority of the House seem
to have been of opinion that the promptitude with which they had
met the wish of James, touching the revenue, entitled them to
expect some concession on his part. They said that much had been
done to gratify him, and that they must now do something to
gratify the nation. The House, therefore, resolved itself into a
Grand Committee of Religion, in order to consider the best means
of providing for the security of the ecclesiastical
establishment. In that Committee two resolutions were unanimously
adopted. The first expressed fervent attachment to the Church of
England. The second called on the King to put in execution the
penal laws against all persons who were not members of that
Church.312
The Whigs would doubtless have wished to see the Protestant
dissenters tolerated, and the Roman Catholics alone persecuted.
But the Whigs were a small and a disheartened minority. They
therefore kept themselves as much as possible out of sight,
dropped their party name, abstained from obtruding their peculiar
opinions on a hostile audience, and steadily supported every
proposition tending to disturb the harmony which as yet subsisted
between the Parliament and the Court.
When the proceedings of the Committee of Religion were known at
Whitehall, the King's anger was great. Nor can we justly blame
him for resenting the conduct of the Tories If they were disposed
to require the rigorous execution of the penal code, they clearly
ought to have supported the Exclusion Bill. For to place a Papist
on the throne, and then to insist on his persecuting to the death
the teachers of that faith in which alone, on his principles,
salvation could be found, was monstrous. In mitigating by a
lenient administration the severity of the bloody laws of
Elizabeth, the King violated no constitutional principle. He only
exerted a power which has always belonged to the crown. Nay, he
only did what was afterwards done by a succession of sovereigns
zealous for Protestantism, by William, by Anne, and by the
princes of the House of Brunswick. Had he suffered Roman Catholic
priests, whose lives he could save without infringing any law, to
be hanged, drawn, and quartered for discharging what he
considered as their first duty, he would have drawn on himself
the hatred and contempt even of those to whose prejudices he had
made so shameful a concession, and, had he contented himself with
granting to the members of his own Church a practical toleration
by a large exercise of his unquestioned prerogative of mercy,
posterity would have unanimously applauded him.
The Commons probably felt on reflection that they had acted
absurdly. They were also disturbed by learning that the King, to
whom they looked up with superstitious reverence, was greatly
provoked. They made haste, therefore, to atone for their offence.
In the House, they unanimously reversed the decision which, in
the Committee, they had unanimously adopted. and passed a
resolution importing that they relied with entire confidence on
His Majesty's gracious promise to protect that religion which was
dearer to them than life itself.313
Three days later the King informed the House that his brother had
left some debts, and that the stores of the navy and ordnance
were nearly exhausted. It was promptly resolved that new taxes
should be imposed. The person on whom devolved the task of
devising ways and means was Sir Dudley North, younger brother of
the Lord Keeper. Dudley North was one of the ablest men of his
time. He had early in life been sent to the Levant, and had there
been long engaged in mercantile pursuits. Most men would, in such
a situation, have allowed their faculties to rust. For at Smyrna
and Constantinople there were few books and few intelligent
companions. But the young factor had one of those vigorous
understandings which are independent of external aids. In his
solitude he meditated deeply on the philosophy of trade, and
thought out by degrees a complete and admirable theory,
substantially the same with that which, a century later, was
expounded by Adam Smith. After an exile of many years, Dudley
North returned to England with a large fortune, and commenced
business as a Turkey merchant in the City of London. His profound
knowledge, both speculative and practical, of commercial matters,
and the perspicuity and liveliness with which he explained his
views, speedily introduced him to the notice of statesmen. The
government found in him at once an enlightened adviser and an
unscrupulous slave. For with his rare mental endowments were
joined lax principles and an unfeeling heart. When the Tory
reaction was in full progress, he had consented to be made
Sheriff for the express purpose of assisting the vengeance of the
court. His juries had never failed to find verdicts of Guilty;
and, on a day of judicial butchery, carts, loaded with the legs
and arms of quartered Whigs, were, to the great discomposure of
his lady, driven to his fine house in Basinghall Street for
orders. His services had been rewarded with the honour of
knighthood, with an Alderman's gown, and with the office of
Commissioner of the Customs. He had been brought into Parliament
for Banbury, and though a new member, was the person on whom the
Lord Treasurer chiefly relied for the conduct of financial
business in the Lower House.314
Though the Commons were unanimous in their resolution to grant a
further supply to the crown, they were by no means agreed as to
the sources from which that supply should be drawn. It was
speedily determined that part of the sum which was required
should be raised by laying an additional impost, for a term of
eight years, on wine and vinegar: but something more than this
was needed. Several absurd schemes were suggested. Many country
gentlemen were disposed to put a heavy tax on all new buildings
in the capital. Such a tax, it was hoped, would check the growth
of a city which had long been regarded with jealousy and aversion
by the rural aristocracy. Dudley North's plan was that additional
duties should be imposed, for a term of eight years, on sugar and
tobacco. A great clamour was raised Colonial merchants, grocers,
sugar bakers and tobacconists, petitioned the House and besieged
the public offices. The people of Bristol, who were deeply
interested in the trade with Virginia and Jamaica, sent up a
deputation which was heard at the bar of the Commons. Rochester
was for a moment staggered; but North's ready wit and perfect
knowledge of trade prevailed, both in the Treasury and in the
Parliament, against all opposition. The old members were amazed
at seeing a man who had not been a fortnight in the House, and
whose life had been chiefly passed in foreign countries, assume
with confidence, and discharge with ability, all the functions of
a Chancellor of the Exchequer.315
His plan was adopted; and thus the Crown was in possession of a
clear income of about nineteen hundred thousand pounds, derived
from England alone. Such an income was then more than sufficient
for the support of the government in time of peace.316
The Lords had, in the meantime, discussed several important
questions. The Tory party had always been strong among the peers.
It included the whole bench of Bishops, and had been reinforced
during the four years which had elapsed since the last
dissolution, by several fresh creations. Of the new nobles, the
most conspicuous were the Lord Treasurer Rochester, the Lord
Keeper Guildford. the Lord Chief Justice Jeffreys, the Lord
Godolphin, and the Lord Churchill, who, after his return from
Versailles, had been made a Baron of England.
The peers early took into consideration the case of four members
of their body who had been impeached in the late reign, but had
never been brought to trial, and had, after a long confinement,
been admitted to bail by the Court of King's Bench. Three of the
noblemen who were thus under recognisances were Roman Catholics.
The fourth was a Protestant of great note and influence, the Earl
of Danby. Since he had fallen from power and had been accused of
treason by the Commons, four Parliaments had been dissolved; but
he had been neither acquitted nor condemned. In 1679 the Lords
had considered, with reference to his situation, the question
whether an impeachment was or was not terminated by a
dissolution. They had resolved, after long debate and full
examination of precedents, that the impeachment was still
pending. That resolution they now rescinded. A few Whig nobles
protested against this step, but to little purpose. The Commons
silently acquiesced in the decision of the Upper House. Danby
again took his seat among his peers, and became an active and
powerful member of the Tory party.317
The constitutional question on which the Lords thus, in the short
space of six years, pronounced two diametrically opposite
decisions, slept during more than a century, and was at length
revived by the dissolution which took place during the long trial
of Warren Hastings. It was then necessary to determine whether
the rule laid down in 1679, or the opposite rule laid down in
1685, was to be accounted the law of the land. The point was long
debated in both houses; and the best legal and parliamentary
abilities which an age preeminently fertile both in legal and in
parliamentary ability could supply were employed in the
discussion. The lawyers were not unequally divided. Thurlow,
Kenyon, Scott, and Erskine maintained that the dissolution had
put an end to the impeachment. The contrary doctrine was held by
Mansfield, Camden, Loughborough, and Grant. But among those
statesmen who grounded their arguments, not on precedents and
technical analogies, but on deep and broad constitutional
principles, there was little difference of opinion. Pitt and
Grenville, as well as Burke and Fox, held that the impeachment
was still pending Both Houses by great majorities set aside the
decision of 1685, and pronounced the decision of 1679 to be in
conformity with the law of Parliament.
Of the national crimes which had been committed during the panic
excited by the fictions of Oates, the most signal had been the
judicial murder of Stafford. The sentence of that unhappy
nobleman was now regarded by all impartial persons as unjust. The
principal witness for the prosecution had been convicted of a
series of foul perjuries. It was the duty of the legislature, in
such circumstances, to do justice to the memory of a guiltless
sufferer, and to efface
it, that it was the universal subject of conversation throughout
London, and that the impression made on the public mind seemed
likely to be durable.310
The Commons went into committee without delay, and voted to the
King, for life, the whole revenue enjoyed by his brother.311
The zealous churchmen who formed the majority of the House seem
to have been of opinion that the promptitude with which they had
met the wish of James, touching the revenue, entitled them to
expect some concession on his part. They said that much had been
done to gratify him, and that they must now do something to
gratify the nation. The House, therefore, resolved itself into a
Grand Committee of Religion, in order to consider the best means
of providing for the security of the ecclesiastical
establishment. In that Committee two resolutions were unanimously
adopted. The first expressed fervent attachment to the Church of
England. The second called on the King to put in execution the
penal laws against all persons who were not members of that
Church.312
The Whigs would doubtless have wished to see the Protestant
dissenters tolerated, and the Roman Catholics alone persecuted.
But the Whigs were a small and a disheartened minority. They
therefore kept themselves as much as possible out of sight,
dropped their party name, abstained from obtruding their peculiar
opinions on a hostile audience, and steadily supported every
proposition tending to disturb the harmony which as yet subsisted
between the Parliament and the Court.
When the proceedings of the Committee of Religion were known at
Whitehall, the King's anger was great. Nor can we justly blame
him for resenting the conduct of the Tories If they were disposed
to require the rigorous execution of the penal code, they clearly
ought to have supported the Exclusion Bill. For to place a Papist
on the throne, and then to insist on his persecuting to the death
the teachers of that faith in which alone, on his principles,
salvation could be found, was monstrous. In mitigating by a
lenient administration the severity of the bloody laws of
Elizabeth, the King violated no constitutional principle. He only
exerted a power which has always belonged to the crown. Nay, he
only did what was afterwards done by a succession of sovereigns
zealous for Protestantism, by William, by Anne, and by the
princes of the House of Brunswick. Had he suffered Roman Catholic
priests, whose lives he could save without infringing any law, to
be hanged, drawn, and quartered for discharging what he
considered as their first duty, he would have drawn on himself
the hatred and contempt even of those to whose prejudices he had
made so shameful a concession, and, had he contented himself with
granting to the members of his own Church a practical toleration
by a large exercise of his unquestioned prerogative of mercy,
posterity would have unanimously applauded him.
The Commons probably felt on reflection that they had acted
absurdly. They were also disturbed by learning that the King, to
whom they looked up with superstitious reverence, was greatly
provoked. They made haste, therefore, to atone for their offence.
In the House, they unanimously reversed the decision which, in
the Committee, they had unanimously adopted. and passed a
resolution importing that they relied with entire confidence on
His Majesty's gracious promise to protect that religion which was
dearer to them than life itself.313
Three days later the King informed the House that his brother had
left some debts, and that the stores of the navy and ordnance
were nearly exhausted. It was promptly resolved that new taxes
should be imposed. The person on whom devolved the task of
devising ways and means was Sir Dudley North, younger brother of
the Lord Keeper. Dudley North was one of the ablest men of his
time. He had early in life been sent to the Levant, and had there
been long engaged in mercantile pursuits. Most men would, in such
a situation, have allowed their faculties to rust. For at Smyrna
and Constantinople there were few books and few intelligent
companions. But the young factor had one of those vigorous
understandings which are independent of external aids. In his
solitude he meditated deeply on the philosophy of trade, and
thought out by degrees a complete and admirable theory,
substantially the same with that which, a century later, was
expounded by Adam Smith. After an exile of many years, Dudley
North returned to England with a large fortune, and commenced
business as a Turkey merchant in the City of London. His profound
knowledge, both speculative and practical, of commercial matters,
and the perspicuity and liveliness with which he explained his
views, speedily introduced him to the notice of statesmen. The
government found in him at once an enlightened adviser and an
unscrupulous slave. For with his rare mental endowments were
joined lax principles and an unfeeling heart. When the Tory
reaction was in full progress, he had consented to be made
Sheriff for the express purpose of assisting the vengeance of the
court. His juries had never failed to find verdicts of Guilty;
and, on a day of judicial butchery, carts, loaded with the legs
and arms of quartered Whigs, were, to the great discomposure of
his lady, driven to his fine house in Basinghall Street for
orders. His services had been rewarded with the honour of
knighthood, with an Alderman's gown, and with the office of
Commissioner of the Customs. He had been brought into Parliament
for Banbury, and though a new member, was the person on whom the
Lord Treasurer chiefly relied for the conduct of financial
business in the Lower House.314
Though the Commons were unanimous in their resolution to grant a
further supply to the crown, they were by no means agreed as to
the sources from which that supply should be drawn. It was
speedily determined that part of the sum which was required
should be raised by laying an additional impost, for a term of
eight years, on wine and vinegar: but something more than this
was needed. Several absurd schemes were suggested. Many country
gentlemen were disposed to put a heavy tax on all new buildings
in the capital. Such a tax, it was hoped, would check the growth
of a city which had long been regarded with jealousy and aversion
by the rural aristocracy. Dudley North's plan was that additional
duties should be imposed, for a term of eight years, on sugar and
tobacco. A great clamour was raised Colonial merchants, grocers,
sugar bakers and tobacconists, petitioned the House and besieged
the public offices. The people of Bristol, who were deeply
interested in the trade with Virginia and Jamaica, sent up a
deputation which was heard at the bar of the Commons. Rochester
was for a moment staggered; but North's ready wit and perfect
knowledge of trade prevailed, both in the Treasury and in the
Parliament, against all opposition. The old members were amazed
at seeing a man who had not been a fortnight in the House, and
whose life had been chiefly passed in foreign countries, assume
with confidence, and discharge with ability, all the functions of
a Chancellor of the Exchequer.315
His plan was adopted; and thus the Crown was in possession of a
clear income of about nineteen hundred thousand pounds, derived
from England alone. Such an income was then more than sufficient
for the support of the government in time of peace.316
The Lords had, in the meantime, discussed several important
questions. The Tory party had always been strong among the peers.
It included the whole bench of Bishops, and had been reinforced
during the four years which had elapsed since the last
dissolution, by several fresh creations. Of the new nobles, the
most conspicuous were the Lord Treasurer Rochester, the Lord
Keeper Guildford. the Lord Chief Justice Jeffreys, the Lord
Godolphin, and the Lord Churchill, who, after his return from
Versailles, had been made a Baron of England.
The peers early took into consideration the case of four members
of their body who had been impeached in the late reign, but had
never been brought to trial, and had, after a long confinement,
been admitted to bail by the Court of King's Bench. Three of the
noblemen who were thus under recognisances were Roman Catholics.
The fourth was a Protestant of great note and influence, the Earl
of Danby. Since he had fallen from power and had been accused of
treason by the Commons, four Parliaments had been dissolved; but
he had been neither acquitted nor condemned. In 1679 the Lords
had considered, with reference to his situation, the question
whether an impeachment was or was not terminated by a
dissolution. They had resolved, after long debate and full
examination of precedents, that the impeachment was still
pending. That resolution they now rescinded. A few Whig nobles
protested against this step, but to little purpose. The Commons
silently acquiesced in the decision of the Upper House. Danby
again took his seat among his peers, and became an active and
powerful member of the Tory party.317
The constitutional question on which the Lords thus, in the short
space of six years, pronounced two diametrically opposite
decisions, slept during more than a century, and was at length
revived by the dissolution which took place during the long trial
of Warren Hastings. It was then necessary to determine whether
the rule laid down in 1679, or the opposite rule laid down in
1685, was to be accounted the law of the land. The point was long
debated in both houses; and the best legal and parliamentary
abilities which an age preeminently fertile both in legal and in
parliamentary ability could supply were employed in the
discussion. The lawyers were not unequally divided. Thurlow,
Kenyon, Scott, and Erskine maintained that the dissolution had
put an end to the impeachment. The contrary doctrine was held by
Mansfield, Camden, Loughborough, and Grant. But among those
statesmen who grounded their arguments, not on precedents and
technical analogies, but on deep and broad constitutional
principles, there was little difference of opinion. Pitt and
Grenville, as well as Burke and Fox, held that the impeachment
was still pending Both Houses by great majorities set aside the
decision of 1685, and pronounced the decision of 1679 to be in
conformity with the law of Parliament.
Of the national crimes which had been committed during the panic
excited by the fictions of Oates, the most signal had been the
judicial murder of Stafford. The sentence of that unhappy
nobleman was now regarded by all impartial persons as unjust. The
principal witness for the prosecution had been convicted of a
series of foul perjuries. It was the duty of the legislature, in
such circumstances, to do justice to the memory of a guiltless
sufferer, and to efface
Free e-book: Β«The History of England, from the Accession of James the Second - Volume 1 by Thomas Babington Macaulay (diy ebook reader .txt) πΒ» - read online now on website american library books (americanlibrarybooks.com)
Similar e-books:
Comments (0)