Lord Stafford was immediately brought to the bar of the house of lords (18th). He related the various projects of the catholics for the security and advancement of their religion. As they conceived that this could only be effected by means of a toleration, he said that their last plan had been a coalition with the country-party, which was approved of both by the duke and lord Shaftesbury: but when he named the last, he was ordered to withdraw; the house would hear him no more. He was remanded to

the Tower, and that very day the order for his execution was issued to the sheriffs. These were Bethel and Cornish, two Independents, and creatures of Shaftesbury. They questioned, it is not known why, the validity of the writ, as it was the house of lords, not the king, that had sentenced him. The lords, when applied to (21st), said “the king's writ ought to be obeyed:" but not satisfied with this, the sheriffs caused the commons to be asked whether the king or even the lords can order the execution? and whether the king can remit a part, or if a part why not the whole, of the sentence? The commons got over the difficulty by saying, that "the house was content that the sheriffs should execute William, late viscount Stafford, by severing his head from his body only." We fear, to the disgrace of our nature, that the mitigation of the sentence at the request of the peers, was the motive of these political and religious fanatics for questioning the undoubted right of the crown*.

Lord Stafford was beheaded (29th) on Tower-hill. When he first appeared a few groans and yells were raised; but the general conduct of the spectators was respectful, and most of them took off their hats. He spoke at some length

Echard says that lord Russell was "one of those who, with the sheriffs, questioned the king's power in allowing that lord to be only beheaded;" and that on a similar melancholy occasion, Charles said, “My lord Russell will now see that I have a power to change his sentence." Fox expresses no doubt of the truth of this charge against lord Russell, which he ascribes to "his fear of the king's establishing a precedent of pardoning in cases of impeachment."

1680.]

EXECUTION OF STAFFORD.

197

in vindication of his innocence, and the generous populace cried out, "We believe you, my lord. God bless you, my lord!" He laid down his head, and one stroke terminated his existence.

Of lord Stafford's innocence there cannot, we think, be even the shade of a doubt on any impartial mind. But the whig party are perhaps unjustly loaded with the odium of his death; for its true cause seems to have been the prevalent delusion which darkened even the clearest understandings. The whigs were, it is well known, a minority in the house of lords, which condemned him. The chancellor and the duke of Lauderdale and other ministers of the crown, it may be observed, voted him guilty, while Hollis and Halifax voted in his favour. Four of his own kinsmen, the Howards, voted against him; but another of them, lord Arundel, though at enmity with him, voted in the minority. As for the king, he showed the utmost indifference. The duke of York did perhaps all he could for the unfortunate nobleman.

198.

CHAPTER XVI.

CHARLES II. (CONTINUED).

1681-1685.

Oxford parliament, and triumph of the court.-Execution of Oliver Plunket.-Duke of York in Scotland.-Surrender of charters.-Rye-house plot.— Trial and execution of lord Russell.-Oxford decree.-Trial and execution of Algernon Sidney.-Plans of the king;-his death and character.

THE proceedings of the commons in the present session strongly reminded men of the days of 1641. Thus they refused the king supplies unless he would assent to the exclusion-bill; they impeached four of the judges; they resolved that several persons, whom they named, ought to be removed from public employments; and that any member of their house who should accept a place, or the promise of one, should be expelled, etc. The king and his ministers became alarmed; a resolution was taken to prorogue the parliament, and it was finally dissolved (Jan. 18, 1681) and another summoned to meet two months thence at Oxford.

Oxford was selected from a recollection of the aid which the commons had derived from the city of London in 1641. A petition, signed by sixteen peers, against the holding of parliament in that city, was presented by lord Essex, but without effect. The king, to ensure his independence of the commons, entered into a new treaty with Louis for a pension for a term of three years. To this he had been strongly urged by the duke of York, who on his part was making every preparation for an appeal to arms.

When the day for the meeting of parliament drew nigh, the king set out for Oxford, guarded by a troop of horse. Most of the members who repaired thither were armed,

1681.]

PARLIAMENT AT OXFORD.

199

both themselves and their servants. Those of the city of London were followed by a train on horseback, with blue ribbons round their hats, inscribed with "No popery! no slavery!" The members returned to this parliament were in general those who had sat in the last.

The king being now in no dread of want of money, addressed the two houses (Mar. 21) in a tone of authority. He spoke in severe terms of the conduct of the late parliament, and declared that, as he would never act arbitrarily himself, he would not suffer others to do so; he expressed his rooted dislike to the exclusion-bill, but added, that he would be "ready to hearken to any expedient by which the religion might be preserved, and the monarchy not destroyed," in case of a popish successor. One of the first measures of the commons, however, was to bring in again the exclusion-bill, but the debate on it was deferred for a few days, and meantime another matter occurred to occupy their attention.

There was an Irish catholic, named Fitzharris, who by means of his cousin, a Mrs. Wall, who was in the service of the duchess of Portsmouth, had become connected with the court. He devoted himself to the discovery of the designs of the country-party, and his services were at one time rewarded by the king with a present of 250l. Probably with a view to a similar reward, Fitzharris resolved, in conjunction with one Everard, a Scotsman, to write a libel on the king and the duke of York. When it was written, Fitzharris hastened with a copy to his patroness, perhaps intending to denounce his coadjutor as the author; but the Scot had been too wily for him, having concealed sir William Waller, a magistrate, and two others, behind the hangings in the room where they were composing it. Fitzharris was therefore committed to Newgate; and now, seeing himself in real danger, he pretended that he could make important discoveries of the designs of the duke of York. The king, observing that the exclusionists were preparing to make use of him, had him removed to the

Tower, and directed the attorney-general to indict him for treason. The commons, however, believing, or pretending, that this was a continuation of the popish plot, and that the object of the crown was to deprive them of the benefit of Fitzharris's revelations, determined on impeaching him before the lords. The peers, when the impeachment was brought up, decided not to entertain it; and the commons, in a fury, voted their so doing to be a denial of justice and a violation of the constitution.

That very day (26th) the debate on the exclusion-bill came on, and one of the ministers proposed the 'expedient' at which the king had hinted. This was, that the duke should only have the title of king, and be banished to a distance of five hundred miles from England, while the princess of Orange should administer the government as regent. After a long debate, the expedient was rejected, and it was resolved to proceed with the exclusion-bill. Two days after (28th), as they were engaged in the second reading, they were suddenly summoned to the house of lords. They found the king seated on the throne, and, after a brief address, he ordered the chancellor to dissolve the parliament. He then got into his carriage and hurried away to Windsor, leaving the opponents of the court filled with rage and dismay.

By this well-timed act of resolution and dexterity Charles completely overthrew the country-party. Their conduct now appeared to most men to have been purely factious, and calculated to convert the monarchy into a republic. Loyal addresses poured in from all quarters; the pulpits everywhere resounded with declamations in favour of the duke, and against the nonconformists. The declaration which the king put forth, stating the causes which induced him to dissolve the two last parliaments, was, on the proposal of Sancroft the primate, read out in all the churches.

The first proof which the court gave of its power was an order to the attorney-general to proceed with the trial of Fitzharris. He was found guilty, and executed at Ty