cided majority, being unable to resist a resolution against granting any further supplies before the recess. On the other hand, they carried votes for discharging the 200,000l. borrowed in the preceding session*, and successfully resisted a vote, declaring that the proceedings of the house had not, as affirmed by the lord keeper, cccasioned the peace.† By these votes, the king and his ministers were led to over-rate their strength, and to make an application in which they were entirely unsuccessful. The king in person acquainted his parliament that Spain and Holland had accepted the French terms, and that he was resolved to guarantee the peace; but that it was represented that, unless England and Holland joined in the charge of maintaining Flanders, even after the peace, the Spaniards could not support it. It was therefore necessary 66 not only to keep the navy strong at sea, but to leave the world in some assurance of our being well united at home, and thereby in as great an opinion of our conduct hereafter, as they are already of our force." He boasted of the reputation which England had obtained abroad, by "having in forty days raised an army of near 30,000 men, and prepared a navy of ninety ships, which would have been now ready at sea, if we had gone into a war." His revenue, he said, was disproportioned, not only to that of the king, his neighbour's, but even to that of the United Provinces; and proceeded thus: would see me able in any kind to influence the great conjunctures abroad, wherein the honour and safety of the nation are so much concerned, and wherein the turns are sometimes so short, as not to give me leave to call in time, either for your advice or assistances; if you would have me able but to pursue such a war as this of Algiers with honour, and, at the same time, keep such fleets about our own coasts as may give our neighbours the respect for us that has been always paid this crown; if you would have me See p. If you June 1. Journ. 486. pass any part of my life in ease or quiet, and all the rest of it in perfect confidence and kindness with you and all succeeding parliaments, you must find a way of settling for my life, not only my revenue, and the additional duties as they were at Christmas last, but of adding to them, upon some new funds, 300,000l. a year; upon which I shall consent that an act may pass for appropriating 500,000l. a year to the constant maintenance of the navy and ordnance, which I take to be the greatest safety and interest of these kingdoms.' This bold proposition was viewed by the house as a plan for making the king independent of parliament, . and for introducing a standing army. It was so ill received, as to induce secretary Williamson to acquiesce in its immediate rejection, without a division. Burnet says, that even the courtiers in parliament were against it, as tending "to make them useless;" and that it brought great unpopularity upon Danby. I confess that I have not a sufficient knowledge of the finance of this time to be able accurately to appreciate the scheme. To make a permanent provision for the navy and ordnance, was not liable to much objection ; but if the revenue, after making that appropriation, would have been such as not only to provide for the civil government and the king's household, but to leave a surplus applicable to the maintenance of an army, I must acknowledge that the attempt was alarming, and I must fairly add, audacious. This view of the speech strikes me so forcibly, that I can scarcely suspect Danby of making so false an estimate of his power as to have advised it, if the effect would have been such as I have supposed. Yet I can hardly think it possible that upon a subject of this kind even Charles II. would have acted against the opinion of the treasurer and ministers.† This unaccountable communication from Charles to June 18., p. 994. Burnet says that Danby became from this time" the most hated minister that had ever been about the king." No doubt his enemies took advantage of this false step. See an aggravated view of it in Burnet, ii. 142. his parliament was immediately followed by another, calculated to be more acceptable. Lord Danby brought a message to the lords *, that France would not evacuate the towns which she was to restore to Spain until Sweden should have been satisfied for her losses; that the Spaniards thereupon hesitated at accepting the terms; and the Dutch had inquired whether the English army was to be disbanded immediately, as "nobody could tell what end things might come to." When the lords communicated this message to the commons, that house, instead of taking any steps for keeping the army on foot, merely reminded the lords of the bill already before them for disbanding it. The lords enlarged the time to the 24th of August, and after a dispute about privilege, the commons concurred in that amendment † : and parliament was prorogued by the king, in a speech of more than usual good-humour. The commons probably took the king's message as a pretence for postponing the disbandment; but the king did really at this time instruct his plenipotentiary, sir William Temple §, to support the Dutch in their determination not to yield to the new condition imposed by France. And Temple himself tells us, that the duke of York and all the members of the foreign committee concurred in the propriety of sending him to Holland to make a treaty for carrying on a war, in case France should not consent, within a limited time, to evacuate the towns.|| when, on the point of departure, he assured his early patron, the duke of Ormond, that the king seemed more resolved than ever he thought to see him, to pursue the measures which Temple was commissioned to forward, "I have some particular reasons," he adds, "which I cannot entertain your grace with at so great a distance, to believe that he is perfectly cured of ever *June 20., p. 1004. +They dropped the bill, but put a similar provision into another. July 15., p. 1005. And See the latter part of the instructions of June 28. 1678, in the Life of Temple, ii. 412. Memoirs, il 453.; but see Life of Temple, ii. 3. hoping any thing well from France, and past the danger of being cajoled by any future offers from thence.”* Swift, professing to speak upon the authority of sir William Temple, tells us, that these particular reasons arose out of the disgust which Charles felt at the insolence of Louis, who had required him to stipulate, by a secret article in their money treaty, not to keep up more than 8,000 men of standing troops in England. I do not think Swift's authority sufficient to establish the fact; but Barillon † himself says, that having agreed with the king that the new levies should be disbanded, he had a struggle with Charles as to keeping up 3,000 of them, intended for service in Scotland. This must have been the foundation of the statement. Historians differ as to the sincerity of Charles in his warlike indications. And another question arises, whether the resolution of France in favour of Sweden, or the hard terms exacted by her representative in the private treaty, or a desire to obtain more money by a show of opposition, was the predominant motive. I confess myself unable to solve these questions; but I cannot for a moment doubt, but that Danby's vote in the foreign committee was cordially given for the mission of Temple; or that it was with views unfavourable to an agreement with France, that he had desired that Temple might be associated with him in the negotiation with Barillon. That he thought Charles sincere in his new counsels, I cannot doubt, He has already been seen writing confidentially to the prince of Orange, even on the caprices or uncertainties of his own master; and there is no reason to distrust him, when he tells the prince that it wholly depended upon him and the States, whether England would engage in the war. § But the warlike intentions of June, 1678, had always a proviso, that France persisted in her refusal to evacuate the towns; and Charles is hardly treated, when he *July 2., 1678. iv. 345. + May 28. Dalr. i. 218. is censured for endeavouring to persuade Louis to depart from this new resolution.* It was to compel that departure by concert with the States, that Temple went to the Hague †, and made the treaty of the 26th of July. The truth is, that the prince of Orange and Temple, desirous to continue the war, and to involve England in it, would have gladly seized hold of this new pretension of France as an excuse. But good faith and policy were better satisfied, by adhering to the terms upon which all parties had agreed. Nor is Charles to be blamed for his endeavours to induce Sweden to dispense with the interference of France. If with this view he suffered himself to be persuaded by the Swedish agent ‡, and promised to Sweden more than it was convenient to grant §, he was wrong, but there was no inconsistency, still less disgrace, in the attempt. Shortly after this occurrence, Temple received orders to exchange the ratifications of his treaty, and Lawrence Hyde was again sent over upon a new mission to the Dutch, whom he was instructed to assure of Charles's co-operation. Sir William Temple regarded this proceeding as contradictory to the instructions which had been brought to him by De Cros; but, if I have rightly characterised those instructions, there was no inconsistency, as the compliance of the French was still doubtful. But Hyde's mission was specially intended to counteract the insinuations propagated by De Cros as to the private intelligence between Charles and * Cont. of Mack. vii. 192. "He sent Sunderland to negotiate with the French court a compromise respecting Sweden; in other words, to dissolve the alliance made by Temple." It was not to dissolve that alliance, but to accomplish its purpose. +"Your lordship knows," says Temple to Danby on the 26th of August, "when I came away, his majesty's resolution was, to have the peace if he could, upon the evacuation of the places, and in the course of this whole matter, to follow and support Holland in the paces they should make, and not to lead them."-Temple, ii. De Cros. See the Life of Temple, ii. 11. 195. See Life of Temple, ii. 8. Danby, Aug. 22., Letters, p. 256. |