of Lauderdale in Scotland, that complaints, or rather apprehensions, were justified in England.

But, in one transaction of the domestic administration, the too arbitrary character of the ministerial policy did appear, in the revival of an attempt (which had been made by lord Clarendon, and then defeated by William Coventry,) to repress the free discussion of political topics. With this view, a proclamation was issued* for the suppression of coffee-houses, " because in such houses, and by the meeting of disaffected persons in them, divers false, malicious, and scandalous reports were devised and spread abroad, to the defamation of his majesty's government, and the disturbance of the quiet and peace of the realm." This ordinance was, according even to the opinion of the judges, of at least doubtful legality; and it occasioned great complaints, and probably augmented the evil; and upon a petition of the coffee-men, "who promised to be wonderful good for the future, and to take care to prevent treasonable and seditious talk in their houses," the proclamation was withdrawn.‡

About this time, Sancroft was preferred to the archbishopric of Canterbury, on the death of archbishop Sheldon. If Danby advised this selection of the dean of St. Paul's for the highest post in the church, the advice does him no dishonour. Sancroft was a zealous, conscientious man; and if he was a high-churchman§, his conduct at the Revolution showed that he did not uphold the authority of the church from wordly motives. ||

* Dec. 20. 1676. Kennet, iii. 307. Ralph, i. 297. Lingard, xiii. 8.

+ North, 138. See Burnet, ii. 90., and the notes upon him. Under this year, 1676, Burnet tells a story (p. 103.), which his autho rity is certainly not sufficient to establish. Proposals being before the council for farming the revenue of Ireland, Danby turned suddenly from one competitor to another. "The secret of this broke out," says our credulous bishop, "that he was to have great advantages by the second proposition..... Lord Widdrington did confess that he made an offer of a round sum to lord Danby, but said that he did not accept it. Lord Halifax was yet of the council: so he observed that the lord treasurer had rejected that offer very mildly, but not so as to discourage a second attempt. This nettled lord Danby, who upon this got him to be dismissed from that board." If it be true that the dismissal of Halifax was so

When at last the parliament re-assembled, Charles addressed it in a speech *, to which it was not easy to find an objection: "I come prepared,” he said, after much of exhortation to avoid differences, "to give you all the satisfaction and security in the great concerns of the protestant religion, as it is established in the church of England, that shall reasonably be asked, or can consist with Christian prudence. And I declare myself as freely, that I am ready to gratify you in a further securing of your liberty and property (if you can think you want it), by as many good laws as you shall propose, and as can consist with the safety of the government; without which, there will neither be liberty nor property left to any man.... Let all men judge who is most for arbitrary government, - they that foment such differences as tend to dissolve all parliaments; or I, who would preserve this and all parliaments from being made useless by such dissensions.”

He urged the necessity of building ships, asked for the renewal of the additional excise, and offered to prove, by ample accounts, that the revenue scarcely exceeded the ordinary expenditure. "If any of these good ends," he concluded, “ should happen to be disappointed, I call God and men to witness this day, that the misfortunes of that disappointment shall not lie at my doors."

The session commenced with a majority in both houses on the side of the government. On the first great question,—the legal existence of the parliament after the prorogation for more than a year, the minister had a majority in the house of commons of 193 to 142.† The lords not only negatived the motion of the opposition, but committed the duke of Buckingham, lord Salisbury,

caused, the fact affords a strong presumption of the innocence of Danby, who would scarcely have ventured to provoke so able and so sarcastic an enemy. Halifax was put out of the council, together with lord Holles, on the 7th of January, 1675-6.

xiii. 11.

Fifteenth session, Feb. 15. 1676-7. Parl. Hist. iv. 207. Lingard, + Parl. Hist. 834. Journ. ix. 385. February 17, 1676.

Shaftesbury, and Wharton to the Tower, for denying the legality of the parliament.

This committal is an indication of the great influence of Danby, and of the mode in which he was disposed to use it; and is assuredly one of the cases which exhibit the dangerous tendency of that indefinite privilege of parliament, which has recently excited so much of controversy. The minister, supported by a majority in the house of lords, deprived of their votes in parliament and personal liberty four members of the heuse, who had presumed to raise, in a manner perfectly regular, a great constitutional question. Here was, no doubt, an unwarrantable use of the power of a majority; but lest this arbitrary proceeding should be ascribed to the cavalier education of lord Danby, be it remembered, that the parliament of 1641 secluded* a large number of members, who refused to concur in the violent resolutions of their more numerous fellows.t

These majorities again excited the suspicion of bribery; and an historian, usually cautious, has stated, that when the king received, in January, a portion of his annual pension from France, the whole sum was immediately devoted to the purchase of votes in the bouse of commons."+

I have in vain searched for any proof of this application of the French money, or even of the bribery so generally attributed to the lord treasurer. The statement rests, generally, upon the allegations of opponents, and upon the assurances of Courtin, who succeeded Ruvigni as minister from France, and mentions that "of his certain knowledge, the money which we paid to Charles had been distributed to gain the votes he stood in need of." § This confidence of assertion, as to that

Journ. vi. 93.

+ Buckingham, Salisbury, and Wharton were released by the house, upon an ample apology, in April 1677. Shaftesbury stood out longer, and having applied in vain to the court of King's Bench, had also to apologise for that disrespect. He was discharged in Feb. 1677-8. See State Trials, vi. Dalrymple, i. 149.

Lingard, xiii. 18.

which he could not know for certain, gives no weight to the evidence: nothing could be more likely than that the French agent should be led to believe that the money received from him was used in forwarding his master's interests. But, as it appears that Chiffinch was still the receiver of the money, it is probable that he was also the paymaster; and I believe that it will be admitted, that the expenses which he defrayed were personal rather than political.

But surely the charge of bribery is not supported by the result. If it is true that, on the question of the legality of their own existence as a parliament, the greater part of the members voted with the government, it is not true (as we shall soon find), that the government had an effective majority for carrying on its business.

One gentleman, well acquainted with Danby, but not backward in imputing to him great faults, has informed us of the means used by the treasurer, without pecuniary corruption, to reconcile him to the court. A little before the meeting of parliament in February 1676-7, Danby sent for sir John Reresby, who "found him very open in his discourse upon several subjects, but for the most part lamenting that his countrymen would not allow him an opportunity to be of service to them with the king, and making many protestations that the jealousies of those who called themselves of the country party, were entirely groundless and without foundation that to his certain knowledge, the king meant no other than to preserve the religion and government by law established; and upon the whole, wished that neither himself or his posterity might prosper, if he did not speak what he really believed: that if the government was in any danger, it was most from those who pretended such a mighty zeal for it; but who, under that pretence, were endeavouring to create such discontents betwen the king and the nation, as might produce confusion in the end; and intreated me to be careful how I embarked myself with that sort of people.+ Reresby, Reresby's Memoirs, p. 36.

Reresby, p. 36.37.

who, it is observable, had been conducted to his seat by Russel and Cavendish, and who, before it had been hinted to him by Danby that the popular leaders might have at heart their private interests, "had great notions of the truth and sincerity of the country party," now refused to join in the violent measures or niggardly votes of that party. This moderation led to an interview with the king, whose disavowal of evil designs, and suggestions as to those of his opponents, made a great impression upon Reresby, while his knowledge of the indolence of Charles made him less ready to believe that he entertained any daring projects.

In this session of parliament, not only were the supplies tardily and scantily given, but the king was angrily addressed, to take a course of foreign policy inconsistent with his predilections and secret engagements.

The commons voted 584,000l. for the specific purpose of building ships†; but, in order to enforce the appropriation, directed that an account of the expenditure should be rendered to their house. This was in itself reasonable, and it is now the constant practice of parliament; but it was, at the time, an indication of jealousy and distrust.§

The house of commons very soon began to press Charles upon foreign affairs, and to regulate their financial votes by the answers which he gave. They first addressed him on the danger arising from the growth of the power of the French king, and especially from his conquests in Flanders, and praying him to

*P. 25. † Parl. Hist. 835. Journ. ix. A motion for appropriating the customs to the navy was negatived, 175 to 124. If I understand this proposition, it would have neutralised the supply.

Lingard says (xiii. 19.), that "no portion of the money was suffered to pass through the hands of the treasurer," and in p. 171 of the Hist. of England in this Collection, it is said that the lord treasurer was excluded from all participation. But it no where appears that the ordinary course of the exchequer was disturbed, or that any of the treasurer's functions were superseded; the money passed through the usual channels, but a strict account was required. The lords put in a clause, for an account to be rendered to them also, but withdrew it on a remonstrance from the commons, and at the suggestion of the king. (See Reresby, 45.)