CHAP. IX. 1663. House of Commons, the censures of Bristol were peculiarly directed. Coventry was not friendly to Clarendon; but there was at this time a bond of of sympathy in their being alike exposed to the censure of the Commons for the sale of offices, a practice sanctioned by custom *, but which the Parliament now investigated, and justly reprehended. At such a time Coventry was peculiarly tenacious of his parliamentary functions, and keenly suspicious of an endeavour to supplant him; and his general wish to oppose Clarendon was merged in the sense of what was more immediately due to his own interests. On the 13th of June Coventry informed the House of Commons that the King had commanded him to impart to the House "that a message was delivered to his Majesty by a person of quality from Sir Richard Temple to the effect following, that if his Majesty would take his advice and intrust him June 20. "and his friends, he would undertake his busi"ness should be effected and revenue settled.'" A committee of inquiry was appointed; and it was resolved that the King should be humbly besought to name the person who had delivered the message. 66 66 6 * Proofs are not wanting of the prevalence of the practice; among which I may cite the following extract from a letter of Garrard to Strafford, in 1637:-" I told your Lordship, in my last, that Mr. Cæsar, one of the Six Clerks, was dead. Two have offered for the place, one "8000/., the other 90007.; whereas formerly, eight or nine years since, "6000l. was but ordinarily given. At the latter end of the Earl of "Portland's time, he being Treasurer, a bill being afoot in the Star"Chamber against the Six Clerks for extorted fees, a contract was made, but not finished, with these Clerks for 15,000l. paid to his Ma'jesty; so their several bills to be taken off the file, and reversions of their places granted unto their sons, or whom else they should name, "under the broad seal of England." Strafford Letters, ii. 141. 66 66 IX. 1663. CHAP. The King told them that it was Lord Bristol, who was thereupon informed of what had passed; and it was demanded whether, in delivering a message so offensive to the independence and dignity of the Commons, he had been authorised by Sir Richard Temple. July 1. Bristol in reply craved leave that he might be admitted to explain in person. The request being complied with, he addressed the Commons at considerable length. He exculpated Temple, but confessed that he had employed his name; then tried to explain and render venial the offence of " undertaking;" then wandered from the question, and endeavoured to defend himself against the imputation of being an enemy of the Church of England, saying he was "a Catholic of the church of Rome, but not "of the court of Rome-a true Roman Catholic as "to the other world, but a true Englishman as to "this." He also adverted to another ground of prejudice against him, that he was the holder of vast grants, and had thereby contributed to the King's necessities; in reply to which he admitted that the King's gifts had been great in proportion to his merits, and that nothing he had asked for had ever been refused; and that, as for the straits the King was in, they were the consequence of "the largeness and kindness of his royal "heart." After this defence of himself and his king before a House of Commons then writhing under the generous errors of that "royal heart" in its lavish expenditure on unworthy favourites, Lord Bristol concluded with what was meant for a Regardless of declining credit, and, perhaps, made desperate by a sense of failure, Bristol determined, in the ensuing week, to strike a blow which he had long meditatedt against the power and character of Clarendon, by exhibiting against him articles of high treason in the House of Lords. This project, was previously communicated by Bristol to the King, "who took much pains," says Burnet, “in a soft and gentle manner, to dissuade him from it. But he "would not be wrought on. And he told the King plainly, that if he forsook him he would raise "such disorders that all England should feel them, 66 66 *Pepys, ii. 61. 65. CHAP. IX. 1663. CHAP. 1663. "and the King himself should not be without a large share in them."* 66 Burnet suggests that Bristol knew the secret of the King's religion; and attributes to this knowledge the boldness of Bristol and the timidity of Charles. Lord Clarendon supports this testimony by his statement, that Bristol used threatening language, saying many truths which ought to "have been more modestly and decently men"tioned," which the King heard in much confusion, and without his wonted presence of "mind;" and Bristol admits, in a letter written three years afterwards, that he was guilty of "rash "and foolish behaviour" in this his last private interview with the King.t 66 On the 10th of July Lord Bristol brought forward, in the House of Lords, his charge against Lord Clarendon of high treason and other misdemeanours. The charge set forth that Clarendon, "having arrogated to himself a superior direction "in all his Majesty's affairs, both at home and "abroad, had abused the said trust in manner fol lowing:- That he had insinuated that the King "was inclined to Popery, and had a design to alter "the established religion;-that he had said the King had given 10,000l. to remove Nicholas, a "zealous Protestant, that he might bring in Bennet, "a concealed Papist;-that several near friends "and dependents" of Clarendon "have said "aloud, that, were it not for my Lord Chan"cellor's standing in the gap, Popery would be Burnet, i. 339. + See Letter from Lord Bristol to Charles II., Vol. III. p. 441. 66 66 66 IX. 1663. "'introduced;""-that he had applied to the CHAP. Pope for a Cardinal's cap for Lord Aubigny, "promising, in case it should be obtained, exemp"tion to the Roman Catholics from the penal laws "in force against them;"- that he had concluded the King's marriage without due agreement how it should be solemnised, whereby the Queen refusing to be married by a Protestant, either the "succession should be made uncertain, or the King exposed to the suspicion of having been "married by a Romish priest;"—that he and his adherents had uttered gross scandals against the King's course of life," such as are not fit to be "mentioned, unless necessity, in the way of proof, "shall require it;"-that he had given out that the King intended to legitimise the Duke of Monmouth; - that he had persuaded the King to withdraw from Scotland the English garrisons, and demolish the forts there;- that he advised and effected the sale of Dunkirk;-that he had told the King that the House of Lords was "weak and "inconsiderable," and the House of Commons "weak and heady;"—that he had "enriched him"self and his creatures by the sale of offices';". that he had converted to his own use vast sums of money raised in Ireland; and that he procured the Customs to be farmed at low rates, and shared the profits.* *Parl. Hist. iv. 276-280. State Trials, vi. 304-312. In a letter to Lord Herbert, dated July 11., two charges are mentioned which do not appear in the printed copy ::-"That he had acted as a public "minister without order, and sent to the Governor of Bombay not to |