VII. 1662. in 1667; nor does even an allusion to it appear in CHAP. the reports of the debates on these articles in Parliament, at a time when the enemies of Clarendon were eagerly assailing him with every possible accusation. This proves that, at that time, no such charge could be substantiated; and we may conclude, (in spite of the clamours of the populace, ever ready to listen to a tale of peculation, and who called his splendid new mansion “Dunkirk House," that among educated persons it was considered frivolous and unfounded. 66 It might be urged in defence of the sale, that Dunkirk was a cause of great expense (the yearly amount being more than a tenth of the expenses of the state); that it gave to England no adequate return; that it was neither a strong fortress nor a good harbour; that it was not an ancient wellassured possession, but one recently obtained, of which Spain claimed the restitution as a right, and which it would be at all times difficult to defend, if, in the event of a war, either France or Spain made an effort to take it *; and, moreover, that it became a plea for maintaining a greater military force than the service of the kingdom required. The objections to the sale rest rather upon the possible harm to English trade, of which, in hostile hands, it might be made the instrument, than upon any positive present good which it conferred. Clarendon, when, in May 1662, he extolled its VII. 1662. CHAP. importance, spoke the language of an advocate intent on replying to those who murmured at the cost of our foreign possessions; and he may be accused rather of insincerity in this his previous declaration, than of having sold a place which he believed was so valuable that it ought not to be given up. Time has dissipated much of the delusion which then existed, respecting the value of possessions beyond the sea: and if, at the present day, a sea-port town on the coast of France were held by England, at the annual charge of more than a million (which is less, in proportion to the present total revenue, than the expense of Dunkirk was), it is probable that the exchange of such a burthen for a sum of money, would not be so unpopular now, as the sale of Dunkirk was then. That the sale offended the national pride, is an argument rather in sound than in reality. Measures which are consistent with the rules of morality, and the maxims of a far-sighted prudence, will not be permanently shaken by the most specious declamations upon national honour. Such a source of unpopularity would be a valid objection if the interests of the minister were alone to be considered, but not so in considering the interests of the nation. It is difficult, in regarding this transaction, to exclude the consideration of subsequent events not necessarily connected with it, and much calculated to warp our judgment. If the money obtained for Dunkirk had been well applied; if the country had been relieved by the removal of this annual VII. 1662. expense, and there had been visible improvement CHAP. in the finances; if Charles had not disgracefully sunk into the pensioned dependent of the power to which Dunkirk had been sold; if circumstances unconnected with that transaction had not brought on the country embarrassment and dishonour, and on the minister who effected it impeachment and exile, it is certain, that while the character of the transaction, and the culpability (if any) of the agents was precisely the same, the sentence of the public would have been very different. We need not regret that England does not retain a possession which, neutralising the advantages of our insular position, would, by affording a footing on the Continent, have probably drawn us still more than we have yet been drawn, into a baneful participation in continental wars,—a possession which must have been a frequent source of jealousy and dispute; and which could scarcely have been retained, but at a sacrifice of treasure and life, for which no advantage it might afford would have been an adequate compensation. CHAP. VIII. SAVOY CONFERENCE. -- UNSATISFACTORY TERMINATION. REVISION OF THE LITURGY. — ACT OF UNIFORMITY. -PERSECUTION OF THE NON-CONFORMISTS. -THEY APPEAL TO THE KING'S PROMISE TO SUSPEND THE OPERATION OF THE ACT. CLARENDON WISHES THE KING TO FULFIL HIS PROMISE.EXTENT TO WHICH CLARENDON SUPPORTED THE ACT OF UNIFORMITY.- HIS DEFENCE OF THE KING EXAMINED. HIS ASSENT AND SUBSEQUENT OPPOSITION TO THE EXERCISE OF THE KING'S DISPENSING POWER. 1661-1662. CHAP. IT is necessary to revert to those important public VIII. 1662. Conference at the Savoy. measures, under Lord Clarendon's administration, which had for their object what was called "the "settlement of religion." A revision of the Liturgy had been promised in the late Declaration; and, accordingly, a commission of divines was appointed for that purpose, consisting of twelve on each side, with nine assistants to each.* The first meeting of the Commissioners took place at the Savoy, on the 15th of April. The duration of the conference was limited to four months from the date of the commission (March 25th.); and, at the end of that period, the result *The twelve on the side of the Church of England were the Archbishop of York and eleven Bishops, of whom Sheldon, Morley, and Hinchman were the most prominent. The selection of the Presbyterian Commissioners was given by Clarendon to Calamy and Reynolds, who, together with Baxter, were the leading persons on that side. VIII. 1662. of the deliberations was to be reported to the King CHAP. in writing. A difference of opinion arose, at the commencement of this inauspicious conference, with respect to the mode of conducting the business, Sheldon, in the name of the other Bishops, stated that the conference was not of their seeking; that alterations were desired only by the Presbyterians; that to the latter it belonged to offer propositions; and that nothing could be done till all their objections to the existing law, and all their proposed alterations and additions were exhibited in writing-a stipulation in which, as Burnet intimates, there may have lurked a secret hope that apparent exorbitance on the part of the Presbyterians might become a bar to accommodation of differences. The Presbyterians, on the other hand, objected to the transaction of the business in writing; calling it "a tedious, endless, business," which would " prevent that familiarity and ac"quaintance with each others minds, which might "facilitate concord.” * The Bishops, however, insisted on the transaction of business in writing, and prevailed; but they receded from their demand that all propositions should be tendered at once; and it was agreed that the Presbyterians should first offer their "exceptions," and should propose alterations and additions afterwards. The "exceptions" were accordingly tendered on the 4th of May. The chief points objected to were-the observance of * Calamy, 158. |