CHAP. IX. 1663. The effrontery with which some of these charges were advanced was equalled only by the folly. The imputing to Clarendon's advice the withdrawal of the garrisons from Scotland, a measure to which he is known to have been adverse, is one of the points, in this weak farrago of indiscriminate accusation, which lead us to doubt the accuracy of the statement in Macpherson's extracts from the autobiography of James II., that Bristol, though after the Restoration "not of the privy council, "was trusted with all the secrets as before." It is more probable that in ignorance of the under current of affairs, he should have rashly assailed Clarendon with the authorship of any measure which he perceived to be unpopular, than that he should knowingly have exposed himself to immediate confutation by such a weak and audacious falsehood. To these flimsy accusations, Lord Clarendon immediately replied, in a speech which unfortunately has not reached us. It is stated in Talbot's letter to Lord Herbert, that he "stood up and answered "to every particular of the charge, and affirmed, "that if there were one article could be proved, "(except in the sale of offices, wherein he had "acted no otherwise than his predecessors for 100 66 years, and what he could justify by law,) he "would acknowledge himself guilty of the whole "deliver it into the King's hands, or to that effect;" and also that he "had made a disadvantageous peace with Holland, for which he had "received 60,000l." We also find it stated, that he was charged with having gained 100,000l. by the sale of Dunkirk. 66 IX. 1663. charge." We learn also from his own state- CHAP. ment, that he asked if Bristol did not know these charges to be false; denied that, if proved, they would amount to high treason; and desired that the judges might be consulted on that point. The Lords referred the charge to the judges, desiring them to report whether it had been regularly and legally brought in, and whether there be treason in it or not. The judges unanimously returned an July 13. answer, that the charge had not been regularly and legally brought in, inasmuch as a charge of high treason cannot be originally exhibited to the House of Peers by any one peer against another; and that if the charges were admitted to be true, yet there is not any treason in them. The King, on the same day, in a message to the Lords told them, that in Bristol's charge "he finds many matters of fact charged, "which upon his own certain knowledge are un"true," and " many scandalous reflections upon "himself and his relations, which he looks upon as upon his person and government." The July 18. Lords resolved unanimously, that they concurred with the judges. Bristol absconded, and a proclamation was issued for his apprehension; and thus ridiculously and utterly failed this rash attempt to assail the character and power of Clarendon.† "a libel The immediate consequence of this attack was favourable to Clarendon. He regained his * Vol. III. p. 245. Parl. Hist. iv. 276-283. Lords' + Life of Clarendon, ii. 256-263. Burnet, i. 338-340. Pepys, ii. 95. State Trials, vi. 304-313. Journals. Vol. III. 245-248. IX. 1663. CHAP. influence; and the time-serving worshippers of power once more flocked round, to pay their court to him whom they had recently deserted. * But the ulterior consequences were unfavourable. When public sympathy with the present triumph is mingled with pity for past endurance of oppression, from such conjunction the recompensed sufferer may gain a rich harvest of popularity and power. But in this case there had been no previous call for sympathy. For months before this accusation, Clarendon, combining high office with parliamentary success, must, to the multitude have seemed more powerful than ever; and they must rather have wondered at the rashness of the accuser, than have pitied the minister for having been unjustly accused. This rude assault was also injurious to that stability which power derives from the belief that it is unassailable. It was better, in those times, for a minister to be above attack, than to have escaped triumphant. It was better never to have been accused, than that the public should become habituated to the sound of charges, which, granting them to be calumnious, many persons might choose to think could not be utterly without foundation. It was now a fact, that great crimes had been imputed; and thousands who would never have dared to suggest the imputation, could safely repeat it as a matter of fact. There is a vitality in a calumnious lie, scarcely to be credited by those who have witnessed its apparent annihilation. It will seem to die, and the good and * Pepys, ii. 95. IX. 1663. wise will dismiss it from their thoughts; and yet, CHAP. anon, it will revive, wearing a new but similar garb; and when men whisper, "It has been said "before," even this will be made an argument for belief; and thus the calumny, which was not able to stand alone, will give support to the equally baseless fiction of which it is the parent. Even from this futile and insane attack Clarendon's power had received a shock; and this period of his triumph was also the commencement of his fall. STAR CHAP. X. SOURCES OF ENMITY BETWEEN ENGLAND AND THE DUTCH.— 1661-1664. X. 1661. ONE of the most important events in the history of Lord Clarendon's administration, and one which conduced most directly to his fall, was the war between England and the Dutch. Whether he is justly chargeable with having promoted this war, or whether it arose from causes which he was not able to control, are questions which demand investigation. The sources of enmity between England and the Dutch were various; among which commercial jealousy was perhaps the chief. The Dutch, principally through the exercise of their native qualities of activity and perseverance, had become powerful competitors in commerce, in manufacture, in colonies, and in naval strength. Their navy in 1656 |