THE HISTORY OF ENGLAND IN LARDNER'S CYCLOP.EDIA.
THE Seventh Volume of this work is filled with the reign of CHARLES the Second, concluding with his death and cha- racter. The occupation of so much space with so short a pe- riod, if it be persisted in, will extend the length of this history beyond that of any other work; and, as it seems to us, without any countervailing advantage of fresh facts or new sentiments, unless it he for the attack upon the honesty of the Whig Opposi- tion of CHARLES the Second's Parliaments.
In point of composition, this volume resembles its immediate predecessors • its plan being that of annals, its tone high history, its execution a mixture of commentary and grave gossip. Instead of extracting the spirit of his authorities, and presenting the reader with the results, the author gives as it were an abridgment of his studies, and that not always with judicious selection. He not only tells every thing, but often dwells at large urn trivial facts, and passes slightly over the more important events. To the history of CHARLES the Second, properly speaking, we do not per- ceive a single accession in this closely-filled volume; and from the interruptions, consequent upon the plan, the narrative of any particular event is less effective and distinct than in several other histories. But a good deal of curious personal and party information is brought together, and many minute particulars arc introduced which throw a light upon the manners of the age. Such are the two following stories.
AMBASSADORIA L CONTEST.
The question of precedence between the crowned heads of Europe, though dun debated, was still undetermined. The Emperor alone had an acknowledged title to the first place, as successor of Charlemaene and the Clews. An Am- bassador from Sweden was now about to enter London in state; and Batteville (the Spanish Ambassador) announced his purpose of taking the place of honour in the procession. D'Estrades appealed to the King, and acquainted his master with the claim made by the Spaniard. Louis instructed his Ambassador to assert, by every means, the precedence of the crown of France. Charles declined inter. feting, and prohibited his subjects by proclamation from taking any part in the apprehended contest. D'Estrades reinforced his ordinary retinue with all the Irenehmen in London, summoned on their allegiance, and with a detachment from the garrison of Boulogne, disguised in his livery. The Spaniard, with only his regular suite, posted his small hand with the eye of a soldier, and had taken the precaution of securing the harrows of his horses with iron chains, con- cealed tinder their state capnrisoning. The Swedish Ambassador, Count Brahe, landed at three in the afternoon of a flue autumn day near the Tower ; and the two Ambassador.. with their parties, instantly charged each other fur the post of honour. D'Estrades' force of horse and foot more than tripled that of his adversary ; but the Spaniards attacked sword in hand, by small parties, with so much gallantry and such perfect concert, that they fought their way to the Frerch Ambassador's carriage, cut his traces, disabled his horses, nod escorted I3atteville's carriage at the bead of the procession in triumph. D'ffas trades, in the account given by him to his toaster, ascribes his discomfiture to an English rabble hired by the Spaniard to assist in the fray. The mob cheered the Spaniards, from national prepossession or admiration of their prowess, but interkred no further.
now TO GAIN A MEMBER.
A curious illustration of the want not only of personal integrity, but of party faith, was given on the question of supply which immediately followed. The Court desired 1,200,000!. to prosecute the war, whilst the Opposition privately settled that 600,0001. only should be granted. The smaller supply would, it was expected, compel Charles to make peace. An opposition of eighty mem- bers was organized and prepared, to limit the grant to this amount ; when, to the surprise of all parties, the larger stun demanded by the Court was moved and seconded by two Opposition leaders, Garraway and Lee. Both are said to have been well'rewarded by the Court ; the share of Lee being 6,000/. • • " Ile (Sir Thomas Lee) agreed to second the motion for 1,200,0001. for 6,000/. ; which one of the clerks of the Treasury was to bring in a hackney- coach to Fleet Ditch, where Lee was to meet him in another, and on a sign given, they were to change coaches; which was executed accordingly. The coachman told."
Matter of this kind, of course, renders the volume very readable; and it possesses much interest in its subject. The reign of CHARLES is one of the most nationally disgraceful in our annals, from the personal vices of the Monarch, the disgusting profligacy which he practised and introduced into court, the manner in which lie tarnished the public honour by his foreign policy, and the still greater baseness of becoming a pensioner of Louis; whilst the public men of his time—factious, unprincipled, intriguing, and personally corrupt—were able to keep pace with their Sovereign 111 their respective spheres. Yet it is a curious object of study in itself, and as containing the development of a public condition which is still existing, and, after the failure of the Reform Bill, is likely to last for some time longer. With CHARLES first began the plan of" carrying on his Majesty's Guvernment" by systematic corruption, or, as we now call it, " patronage." Under him, that High Church of England ascendancy was distinctly established, whose effects we are now feeling in such a state of parties, as, without great vigour and prudence on the part of Ministers, is likely to fulfil ALEXANDER HAMILTON'S* prediction —that to reduce corruption and extend the right of election, would reti-
e The American Finance Minister under WaSaINGTON.
der the ,British Constitution " an impracticable government." During his reign, too, the Houses of Parliament were first regu- larly divided into the parties of Whig and Tory ; the Tories taking for their motto " things as they are," and the Whigs pro- fessing to struggle for " things as they ought to be," yet both parties modifying their principles with their places,— although the changes of the Whigs have always been more offensive than those of the Tories; partly because they disappoint expectation on attaining power, a change from bad to worse; but chiefly be- cause their motives seem of a baser kind than those of their oppo- nents. In opposition, the Tories may be actuated by anger or revenge ; but the shortcomings of the Whigs in office seem to spring from the sordid pecuniary motive of desiring to retain it.. And thought there may not, morally speaking, be much difference between the two springs of action, yet the popular voice will al- ways determine in favour of the lcs grovelling course of conduct. In addition to this, the reign of CHARLES has two topics of im- mediate relation to passing events. Of these, one is practical—the Exclusion Bill; the other is speculative, and relates to the steady under-current of political advancement that went on amongst the people. whilst surface events seemed to show that all public spirit was extinct. Oa the Restoration, the majority of the nation was drunk with loyalty ; whatever the Crown os i s advisers asked was granted. The next, or Pen4oned Parliament, was equally slavish ; the people equally submissive. When Whig- gery, with whatever objects, in the ensuing Leeislaturee, pro- fessed to advocate the cause of freedom, the peep's, after a furious outbreak of fanaticism on the Polish plot, seemed to sink into the apathy of despair, abandoning their leaders to the blosk, and submitting to the forfeiture of the charters, and to the other tyrannies which characterized the closing years cf CHARLES: yet very shortly after, the nation drove away his brother. and banished the STUARTS for ever. How is to be accounted fur? Did our firefathers require the more constant and systematic tyranny of JAMES, aggravated by his earnestness in religion and his austere manners, before they resisted? or did the people, with that instinctive judgment which Amercing rates so highly, appreciate their leaders at the right value, which time and the discovery of secret documents is enabling, posterity to form; seeing through the hollow tnotives c f SHAFTESBURY and Resseae,. and judging truly enough that they were called upon to struggle and suffer for ends unattainable with the proposed means ? The conclusions we draw from it is, that political leaders may always depend upon the spirit of the people if they will give them some-• thing definite and attainable to rte ht for ; and that Reformers need never despair, for the cause will advance in despite of aris- tocratical fears or selfishness—it may be hastened, but not stopped. But this, as we have said, is speculative: the Exclusion Bill is likely to touch us in action. According to th? election pledges of some Radical-Whigs, they will bring in a hill to exclude the King of Hanover from the British crown ; and the Tory organs have denounced the threat as treason. It eppears to us, however, that no constitutional doctrine is older, clearer, us better established, than the power of Parliament to regulate the sueeession. It was not supposed, during the debates on the celebrated Exclusion Bill, that. the advocates of it were engaged in treason, or indeed in any thing illegal; and, could the Crown lawyers have gut up a case of that kind, their career would have song closed.. If it be alleged that J Ames was a Papist, the an-weer ,is, that it was not sought to exclude him merely fir his reheion, but because his religion was held to be dangerous to the laws and liberties of the nation. There are, however, much more ancient precedents of the supremacy of Parliantelit. Or if its decisions during the lines of York and Lancaster should be put aside, as made amidst the clash of arms and only confirming the determination of an armed party, yet there is the calm opinion in its favour of one of the greatest men and most distinguished lawyers in English history. Every one knows that Sir THOMAS MORE suffered for refusing to take an oath in compliance with an act by which HENRY the Eighth's marriage with CATHERINE (we quote from Hume) " was declared unlawful, void, and of no effect," and thee marriage with Queen Annex "was established and confirmed ;" "the crown was also appointed, to descend to the issue of this marriage and lailieg them, to the King's heirs for ever." But the scruples of Moto: were only religious. " He declared "—we quote the same historian—" that he had no scruple with regard to the succession, and thought that Parliament had full power to settle it : he offered to draw an oath himself which would insure his allegiance to the heir appointed; but he refused the oath prescribed by law, because the preamble of that oath asserted the legality of the King's marriage with Anne, and thereby implied that his former marriage with Cathe- rine was unlawful and invalid." Of the honest conviction of Mom: sir doubt can be entertained, for he sacrificed his life to his opinion. But his judgment as to the powers of Parliament is clear enough, when he admits it could set aside the legitimate heir without any reason,and that in favour of a child whom MORE must have considered illegitimate. If Doctor LUSHINGTON will bring forward the subject of "exclusion," about which he talked so loudly to the electors of the Tower Hamlets, as being the boun- den duty of Parliament to consider, he cannot fail unless through his own fault. The constitutional power of Parliament to exclude the next heir to the crown—" to settle the succession," as Sir THOMAS MORE has it—is clear enough; and, according to Whip. and Whig organs during the elections, King ERNEST of Hanover is a person with whom neither law nor liberty is safe. He is far worse than the child MARV, or JAMES Duke of York : they could only be suspected — he, according to electioneering W higs, is guilty of overt acts against constitutional freedom.
Previous page
