[1669 A.D.] tion, and the preface to Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity, and the result was a persuasion that none of the reformers "had power to do what they did." He went on inquiring, and gradually gave his assent to all the Roman doctrines. It must be observed that the duke, while thus solicitous about his religion, was leading a life nearly, if not altogether, as profligate as that of his brother. All this time he continued outwardly to conform to the Church of England. At length he consulted a Jesuit named Simons, on the subject of being reconciled, expressing his hope, that on account of the singularity of his case, he might have a dispensation to continue his outward conformity to the Church of England. To his surprise, the good father assured him that the pope had not the power to grant it, "for it was an unalterable doctrine of the Catholic church, not to do evil that good might follow." The duke wrote to the pope, and the reply which he received was to the same effect. Thinking it dangerous to delay any longer, he resolved to open his mind to the king, whom he knew to be of the same way of thinking. He found his brother equally sensible with himself as to the danger of his condition. It was agreed that the royal brothers should consult with the lords Arundel of Wardour and Arlington, and Sir Thomas Clifford (all in the royal secret), on the best mode of advancing the Catholic religion in the king's dominions.

On the 25th of January, 1669, the feast of the conversion of St. Paul, the meeting was held in the duke's closet. The king spoke with great earnestness, and with tears in his eyes, describing his uneasiness at not being able to profess the faith he believed; as he knew, he said, that he should meet with great difficulties in what he proposed to do, no time was to be lost, and it should be undertaken while he and his brother were in full strength and vigour, and able to undergo any fatigue. It was resolved to apply to the French king for aid, for which purpose his ambassador was to be let into the secret, and Lord Arundel, with Sir Richard Bellings, an Irish Catholic, for his secretary, was to go to the court of France. Arundel, when at Paris, required from Louis a large sum of money, to enable the king to suppress any insurrection that might break out, offering in return to aid him in his intended invasion of Holland. Louis was willing to assent to these terms; the only question was, which should be first, the war or the king's declaration of his religion. Charles, urged by his brother, was for the last; Louis more wisely recommended the former. The year passed away in discussions: at Christmas the king received the sacrament as usual in public, but it was observed that the duke of York did not accompany him.

The Conventicle Act was now near expiring. The lord keeper and Chief Justice Hale had, with the aid of bishops Wilkins and Reynolds, and of Tillotson, Stillingfleet, Burton, and other divines, been engaged in forming a scheme of comprehension, which was communicated to Baxter, Bates, and Morton, and by them to their non-conforming brethren. Nothing could be more reasonable than the alterations proposed, and an equally rational plan was devised. But Sheldon and the other intolerants took the alarm; the commons had not abated in their hostility, and the Conventicle Act was renewed with the addition of a proviso, "that all clauses in it shall be construed most largely and beneficially for the suppressing conventicles, and for the justification and encouragement of all persons to be employed in the execution thereof." Could anything be more barbarous than this? The vile crew of informers was now unkenneled, houses were broken open, ministers and other persons were dragged to prison. Sheldon and those prelates, [According to Gardiner & Charles sold his consent to this renewal for a grant of £300,000 a year for eight years.]

[1670 A.D.] such as Ward and Lamplugh, who resembled himself, were zealous in causing the act to be enforced, and the court secretly encouraged them, in the hopes of driving the dissenters to look to a Catholic government for relief.

It is said that Buckingham was most anxious to prevent the succession of the duke of York. According to this prince's own account, his first project was to get the king to acknowledge the legitimacy of his son by Lucy Walters, whom he had created duke of Monmouth, and given him in marriage the countess of Buccleuch, the wealthiest heiress in Scotland; lords Carlisle and Ashley, he adds, had the boldness to hint to the king, that if he was desirous of doing so, it would not be difficult to procure witnesses of his marriage, but Charles replied, "that well as he loved the duke, he had rather see him hanged at Tyburn than own him for his legitimate son." To get rid of the sterile queen in some way, in order to enable the king to marry again, was the next plan. Buckingham proposed to seize her and convey her away secretly to the plantations, so that she might be no more heard of; but Charles rejected this course with horror. The next project was to deal with the queen's confessor, to induce her to go into a convent; but she had no mind to be a nun, and means, it is said, were employed to cause the pope to forbid her. Some talked of the king's taking another wife, but the public feeling was adverse to polygamy. A divorce was then proposed, and to this the king hearkened; but spiritual divorces were only from bed and board, and a precedent was wanting for the legal marriage of the innocent party. Lord Roos, therefore, whose wife was living in open adultery, got a bill to be moved in the upper house (March 5th, 1670) to enable him to marry again. The duke, seeing whither this tended, opposed it with all his might; all the bishops but Cosins and Wilkins were on his side, and all the Catholic and several Protestant peers. The king employed his influence in favour of it, and on the morning of the third reading (21st) he came and sat on the throne, saying, he was come to renew an old custom of attending at their debates, and desired them to go on as if he were not present. The bill was carried by a small majority, and became a precedent for bills of the same kind, but the king took no advantage of it. He continued for some time the practice of attending the debates; "it was as good," he said, as going to a play," and his presence was some check on the opposition.

THE SECRET TREATY OF DOVER AND THE FRENCH ALLIANCE (1670 A.D.)

In the month of May Louis took occasion of a progress he was making through his lately acquired possessions to let the duchess of Orleans cross the sea to Dover to visit her brother, over whose mind she possessed great influence. Louis hoped that she would be able to prevail with him to commence with the war against the states instead of the declaration of religion, but Charles was immoveable on this head. The famous secret treaty was now concluded. Charles was to declare himself when he judged it expedient, and then to join Louis in a war with the Dutch; Louis was to give him two millions of livres, and a force of six thousand men; all the expenses of the war by land were to be borne by Louis, and he was to pay three millions of livres annually toward the charge of the English navy; the combined fleet to be commanded by the duke of York; if the states were conquered, Charles was to have Walcheren, Sluys, and Cadsand, and the prince of Orange to be provided for. It was further agreed, that if any new rights to the Spanish monarchy should accrue to Louis (by the death of the king, a puny boy), Charles should aid him in asserting them with all his power, and to get

[1671 A.D.]

in return Ostend, Minorca, and such parts of South America as he could conquer.

Such was the conspiracy that was formed against the Protestant faith and the liberties of Europe; but many difficulties stood in the way of its success. Charles, when he reflected coolly, became aware of the Protestant spirit of his subjects: he did not venture to communicate the secret treaty to his Protestant ministers, and to blink them he let Buckingham' conclude one (the counterpart of it except as to the article of religion) with France (January 23rd, 1671). When urged by Louis to declare his religion, he hung back and made various objections, and the course of events soon caused Louis to cease from pressing him.

THE ACCESSION OF NELL GWYN; COVENTRY ACT

Charles had latterly recruited his harem from the theatre, where now, in imitation of the Continent, women performed. He had taken off no less than two actresses, the one named Moll Davies a dancer, the other the wild and witty Nell Gwyn. He soon grew tired of Davies, who had borne him a daughter, Mary Tudor, married in 1687 to Francis Ratcliffe, afterwards created earl of Derwentwater. But Nell, whom he appointed of the bedchamber to his insulted queen, retained her hold on his affections through life, and the noble house of St. Albans derive their pedigree from this union of royalty with the stage. With the aid of Shaftesbury, it is said, he seduced the daughter of a clergyman named Roberts; but her early principles retained their hold on her mind, and Burnete says that she died a sincere penitent. A further accession to the royal mistresses was Mademoiselle de Querouaille, a favourite maid of the duchess of Orleans, on whose sudden and mysterious death shortly after the interview at Dover, Charles invited her maid over to England, appointed her of the queen's bed-chamber, and added her to the roll of his mistresses. He afterwards (1672) created her duchess of Portsmouth, and Louis conferred on her the royal domain of Aubigni, which went to her son the duke of Richmond. As to Castlemain (now duchess of Cleveland), she still retained her place as a royal mistress; and if Charles was faithless to her, she was equally so to him. Her children by the king, named Fitzroy, were the dukes of Southampton and Grafton, the earl of Northumberland, and a daughter married to Sir Henry Lee of Ditchley, Oxon, afterwards earl of Litchfield.

In the debate on the supplies in the commons, it was proposed to lay a tax on the play-houses. To this it was objected, that the players were the king's servants and a part of his pleasure. Sir John Coventry asked, whether "his majesty's pleasure lay among the men or the women players?" This was reported at court, and the king, though earnestly dissuaded by the duke, resolved on a base and cowardly vengeance. The duke of Monmouth was the chief agent, with his lieutenant Sands and O'Brien, son of Lord Inchiquin; and as Coventry was returning one night (December 21st) to his lodg ings, Sands and O'Brien, with thirteen of the guards, fell on him in the Haymarket. Coventry snatched the flambeau from his servant, and with it in one hand and his sword in the other, and placing his back against the wall, he defended himself stoutly. He wounded O'Brien in the arm; but they overpowered him, threw him on the ground, and slit his nose with a penknife. They then repaired to the duke of Monmouth to boast of what they had done.

[ Gardiner 4 says that "Charles particularly enjoyed making a fool of Buckingham, who imagined himself to be exceedingly clever."]

H. W.- VOL. II. T

[1671 A.D.] When the commons re-assembled, they were outrageous at this base assault on one of their members, and they passed an act banishing the perpetrators without pardon, unless they surrendered, and making it felony, without benefit of clergy, to maim or disfigure the person. This act is named the Coventry Act.

A still more atrocious attempt had lately been made on a more illustrious person. As the duke of Ormonde was returning in the dark (December 6th) from a dinner given by the city, his coach was stopped in St. James' street, he was dragged out of it, set behind a man on horseback and fastened to him by a belt. The man urged his horse and proceeded toward Hyde Park; but on the way the duke put his foot under the rider's, and leaning to the other side they both fell to the ground; the sound of footsteps being heard, the assassin loosed the belt and fired a pair of pistols at the duke, but without effect; he then fled away and escaped. An inquiry was instituted by the house of lords, a reward of 1,000l. and a pardon to any of the party who would turn informer, was offered by the king, but to no purpose.

Some time after, a person wearing a cassock formed an acquaintance with Edwards, the keeper of the regalia in the Tower. He proposed a match between a nephew of his and Edwards' daughter. At seven in the morning of the 9th of May, the pretended clergyman came with two companions and asked to see the regalia. While they were in the room they suddenly threw a cloak over Edwards' head and then put a gag in his mouth, and when he struggled they knocked him down and wounded him in the belly. The clergyman then placed the crown under his cloak, another put the globe in his breeches, and the third began to file the sceptre in two to put it into a bag. Edwards' son happening to come by, the alarm was given; the robbers ran, and had nearly reached their horses at St. Catherine's gate, when they were secured.

From curiosity, or some other motive, the king himself attended their examination. The chief said that his name was Colonel Blood; that it was he that had seized the duke of Ormonde, with the intention of hanging him at Tyburn; that he was one of a band of three hundred sworn to avenge each other's death; that he and others had resolved to kill the king for his severity to the godly, and that he had one time taken his station among the reeds at Battersea to shoot him as he was bathing, but the awe of majesty overcame him, and he relented; the king might now take his life if he pleased, but it would be at the risk of his own; whereas if he pardoned him, he would secure the gratitude of a band of faithful and resolute spirits. Charles pardoned him, nay, more, gave him an estate of 500l. a year in Ireland, of which country he was a native, and kept him at court, where he rose to the possession of much influence: he also requested Ormonde to pardon him, saying that he had certain reasons for asking it. The duke replied that his majesty's command was a sufficient reason. What are we to infer from all this? Was Charles a coward? or was some one of those who were in his confidence the secret instigator of the attempt on the life of the duke?

The next event was the death of the duchess of York (May 31st). She died a Catholic; the secret efforts of her husband had had their effect, and she had been reconciled in the preceding month of August. Her father wrote, her brother remonstrated; but their efforts were fruitless; she received the last sacrament from the hands of a Franciscan friar. Her conversion was known, it is said, to but five persons; but the secret gradually transpired and caused the religion of the duke to be suspected. She had borne him eight children, of whom two daughters, Mary and Anne, alone survived.

[1672 A.D.]

During the last year the young prince of Orange had come over to visit his royal uncle. Charles, who had really a regard for him, wished to draw him into his projects; but he found him, as the French ambassador says, too zealous a Dutchman and Protestant to be trusted with the secret. It is curious enough that, as the prince told Burnet, the king gave him to understand that he was himself a Catholic.

THE STOP OF THE EXCHEQUER; THE DECLARATION OF INDULGENCE; THE DUTCH WAR (1672 A.D.)

The war with the states being decided on, the Cabal prepared to commence it with robbery at home and piracy abroad. To have a good supply of money to begin with, the fertile brain of Ashley,' it is said (but he always denied it), suggested to shut up the exchequer. To understand this, we must observe that since the time of Cromwell the bankers and others had been in the habit of advancing money at eight per cent. to the government, receiving in return an assignment of some branch of the revenue till principal and interest should be discharged. The new plan was to suspend all payments for twelve months, and to add the interest now due to the capital, allowing six per cent. interest on this new stock. This was approved of by the privycouncil, and the public was informed of it by proclamation (January 2nd, 1672). The consequences were, the ministers had a sum of 1,300,000l. at their disposal; many of the bankers failed; trade in general received a severe shock; numbers of windows, orphans, and other annuitants were reduced to misery.

There had been no declaration of war against the Dutch, with whom Charles was actually in alliance; but their Smyrna fleet would be coming up channel in March, and it was known to be wealthy, and it was supposed would suspect no danger. Holmes was therefore sent to intercept it; he was desired to take with him all the ships of war he should meet; but anxious to have all the glory and profit to himself, he let Sir Edward Spragge's squadron, returning from the Mediterranean, pass him by. Next morning (March 3rd) the Smyrna fleet of sixty sail came in sight. But the states had suspected the designs of their royal neighbours, and put their naval commanders on their guard. Many of these ships were well armed, and Van Nesse, who was convoying them with seven men-of-war, disposed his force so well as completely to baffle the English. Holmes being reinforced during the night, renewed the attack next day, and he succeeded in capturing one ship of war and four merchantmen, two of which were very valuable. This piratic enterprise (of which the disgrace was aggravated by its failure) was condemned both at home and abroad.

The next measure was to issue a Declaration of Indulgence (15th), in order to gain over the dissenters to the side of the court and to pave the way for a general toleration. The measure itself, which was suggested by Shaftesbury, was beneficent, had it originated in good motives; but it proceeded on the principle of an arbitrary dispensing power in the crown that might be carried to a dangerous extent. A portion of the dissenters received it with gratitude, and presented an address of thanks to the king; but the orthodox

['Gardiner 4 credits Clifford with the suggestion, since he was shortly afterward made a peer and Lord High Treasurer. Ashley was made the first earl of Shaftesbury in reward for his support of the Declaration of Indulgence. When later he joined the opposition, North says the wags called him Shiftsbury.]

This," says Hallam" was never paid till the latter part of William's reign; it may be considered as the beginning of our national debt."