every day less inclined to it, and has created a greater indifferency in the king than I could have imagined, which, being added to the French king's resolutions not to part with Tournay, does I confess make me despair of any accommodation. Nevertheless, I am assured, that one principal cause of this adjournment* for thirteen days, has been to see if any expedient for the peace could have been found in that time; and the effect of the adjournment has hitherto been, that nobody will now believe other than that the peace is already concluded between us and France.† The strange position of a minister in those days appears in the fact, that not only he was not the author of so important a measure as the adjournment of parliament, but he only inferred, or collected from doubtful information, the motives of that procedure. If this were consistent with the then acknowledged practice of the government, the allegation, that his measures were dictated by the king his master, was not so invalid or unconstitutional a defence as we have habitually esteemed it. Montagu, about the same time, gave further accounts of the objects of Ruvigni's mission::-"His chief errand is to let the king know, that the king of France did hope he was so firm to him, as not to be led away by the grand treasurer. He was an ambitious man, and, to keep himself with the people, would gratify their inclinations, by leading his master into an unreasonable war against France. That as for money, if he (king Charles) wanted that, he should have what he wanted from hence; his instructions are, if this does not take by the means of William Russell and other discontented people, to give a great deal of money, and cross all your measures at court." Montagu advises, that Ruvigni should be requested to retire, because the king knows he has a relation and commerce with people ill affected to the government." "Ruvigni gave it to them as a From Jan. 15. to 28. Parl. Hist. 896. + Jan. 17. 1677-8, p. 56. maxim, that they must diminish your credit before they can do any good." He then begs to know, whether the king is for war or peace, and engages, "if he hearkens to their money, to get him as much again;" but he desires to be fully informed of what passes in London, because, "believing me to be so much your lordship's servant, they will not believe me their friend."* Another letter of the same date speaks of intrigues with Colbert, who is more disposed to be liberal than his colleague Louvois. Whether from caprice, the influence, newly directed, of the duke of York, the management of Danby, the disappointment at the stoppage of the pension, or from whatever cause it might be, the counsels of Charles were at this time opposite to the interests of France, for he now concluded a league † with Holland, binding each to enforce upon France, by war, the acceptance of the terms which had been arranged with the prince of Orange. One consequence of the change which the marriage of the princess Mary occasioned in the politics of the English court, was, that the prince of Orange was no longer the rallying point for the opposition. And, in one point at the least, the destruction of the earl of Danby, the interest of Louis and that of the leaders of this party became the same. They therefore were very ready to receive, if they did not themselves originate, overtures from France, of co-operation and assisSuch overtures indeed, according to Courtin and Barillon §, had preceded the mission of Ruvigni. To some of these leaders, beyond all doubt, pecuniary aid was given; and in order to reconcile what would appear to be irreconcileable,— the respective views of the two parties as to the English troops in France, it was ingeniously suggested, that Charles's opposers in parliament might make use of his recalling them, by imputing it to a design of arming these troops to destroy the liberties of Britain ! tance. * Jan. 18. 1678, p. 59. + Laurence Hyde's Treaty. Life of Temple, i. 508.; ii. 463. Nov. 13. p. 183 Thus, at the re-assembling of parliament in January 1678, the politics of those enemies of Danby, who had imputed to him a leaning towards France, were really more French than those of the court. They, who had been declaiming against Louis, and urging their king to a war with France, were now "to work underhand to hinder an augmentation of the sum which has been offered for carrying on the war;" they promised to cause to be added to the offer of a million sterling, "such disagreeable conditions to the king of England, as they hoped would rather make him wish to re-unite himself with France than to consent to them." * And this re-union, lord Russell, lord Shaftesbury, lord Holles, and their friends, were to encourage by all means in their power; Louis co-operating with them in bringing about a dissolution of parliament. Lord Russell at this time announced to the representative of France, his intention of " supporting the affair against the treasurer." t The fruits of these intrigues, not less disgraceful than those which have stamped eternal infamy upon Charles, were soon apparent in the parliamentary proceedings. When the houses met on the 28th of January, Charles apprised them that he had made an alliance with Holland, for the protection of Flanders; that fair means having failed, he would endeavour to procure peace by force. He required the continuance of the wine and other duties, and supplies sufficient for putting ninety ships into commission, and for raising 30,000 or 40,000 The supplies to be granted for these purposes might be "appropriated as strictly as they could desire." § I know not whether this speech was drawn or advised by Danby, but there was nothing in it which he might not have penned, in perfect consistency with men. * Dalr. p. 185., from Barillon's memorial of March 14. 1678, repeating a conversation with lord Russell. In this same conversation, Russell said, "He should be very sorry to have any commerce with persons capable of being gained by money. + P. 186. 1677-8. Parl. Hist. 896. There had been only an adjournment. his English politics. The thanks which the commons returned, for information which ought to have been acceptable to them, were cold and reserved. The commons answered this speech by an address, in which they recommended a recurrence to the terms of the Pyrenean treaty *; a step which gave some colour to a suspicion, entertained by Danby himself † amongst others, that the Spaniards had their share in the corruption of the house of commons; but I rather suspect that the motion came from the French party, with the view of criminating the minister, who had proposed terms which fell very short of these. The king answered the address very angrily : his objection, that it came from one house only, was not valid, according to the usage of parliament; but he was quite justified in telling the house, "that the old promises were put to new conditions ;" and in urging that "nothing could delay or disappoint new treaties, more than the failing of the house to support those which he had made." This message produced some effect.§ The house did proceed to vote ships and men "for the support of the present alliance, made with the States-general of the United Provinces, for the preservation of the Spanish Netherlands, and lessening the power of France." They went on with the ways and means (a tax on new buildings, and a poll tax), and voted to raise 1,000,000l. " for enabling his majesty to enter into an actual war with the French king.” ¶ Notwithstanding that the king now actually sent troops to Flanders**, the commons were still distrustful, with reason, of the king; and their jealousy included not only the duke, but the treasurer, who began about this time to hear of intended attacks.†† They addressed Parl. Hist. 907. See his letter of March 4., post. Ù P. 940. **Reresby, 58. Feb. 5. Parl. Hist. 924. "March 10. His highness told me, he was informed of a design in the house of commons to fall upon him and my lord treasurer, and desired me to oppose it. My lord treasurer assured me of the same thing, and that it was to be done that very day. That among other articles they the king to declare war against France, and to recall his ambassadors from Nimeguen.* Hitherto, notwithstanding the king's rebuke, the commons had acted independently of the lords, but they now sent lord Russell to desire their concurrence.† The lords modified this warlike address: they would have left the time of the declaration to the king's discretion, and permitted the ambassadors to remain at Nimeguen. The commons rejected these amendments: the war, they said, grew necessarily out of the treaty with Holland, and they characterised as an imputation to be avoided, what was, in truth, the real purport of that treaty,that it was to bring about a peace. But their most prominent reason was, that if war were not declared immediately, the forces to be raised would remain at home," to the great danger and destruction of laws, liberties, and property." + On the avowed ground of avoiding controversy, the lords made no direct reply to these reasons; but dwelt upon the incomplete state of the alliance for carrying on the war, which required the co-operation of the emperor and Spain, as well as Holland.§ These reasons, however, were not communicated to the commons, who put the matter aside, by addressing the king for a short recess. He complied, and it lasted till the 29th of April. T laid to his charge a treaty between the king and the prince of Orange, but that, in reality, there was no such treaty, and had it been, he did not think it had been disadvantageous to England. Another of his crimes, he said, would be the advising the king to make a peace, which he never did, though it was not impossible that such a design there might be; but that if so it were, it proceeded from nothing but the king's own judgment, who was that way very much bent, if lawful it were so to say."- Reresby, p. 60. * March 15. 1678, p. 955. + Parl. Hist. p. 956. March 26., Journ. 461. Com. Journ. ix. 460. Lords', xiii. 192. March 27., p. 196. The first adjournment was from March 20. to April 11., and renewed on the 15th, upon a communication from the crown, "that the Dutch ambassador had not at present full instructions, and that the affairs concerning the alliances were not yet so ripe or fit to be imparted to both houses of parliament, as it was expected they might have been upon the last adjournment." (Journ. 464.) The message is fuller in Lords' Journ. 2.4. |