LECTURES ON HISTORY.

IN

LECTURE XIX.

CHARLES II.

my last lecture, after calling your attention to the earlier part of the reign of Charles II., while the measures of his government were directed by Clarendon, I endeavoured to give you some general notion of the second part of the same reign, and more particularly of the information that might be collected respecting it, from different publications, and above all from the papers of Dalrymple.

This second part of his reign is marked by the constitutional struggle between Charles and the patriotic party, and may itself be divided into two parts.

During this first part of the struggle, that to which I have already referred, not only were the liberties of this country in a state of the most extreme peril, but, in consequence of the ambition of Louis XIV., and his connection with Charles, the liberties also of Holland, and the interests of all Europe.

I must now allude to what I consider as the remaining part of this contest between Charles and the friends of civil freedom, when the patriotic leaders had to contend, not only with the king, but also with the Duke of York, and when, on account of the arbitrary nature of the religion of the latter, they were at last driven to the resolution of endeavouring to exclude him from the throne.

During the first period of their contest with the crown, the patriotic leaders must be considered as successful. The king,

VOL. II.

B

we may remember, broke the seals of his declaration and gave way.

But during this second period, the event was otherwise; the king could neither be persuaded nor intimidated into any compliance with the wishes of his opponents; and the struggle ended at length in the execution of some of their leaders, and in the ruin of all.

Whatever difference of opinion there may be respecting their intentions and conduct during this latter period (during their struggle with the king on the subject of the exclusion of the Duke of York from the throne), there can be none respecting the merit of their exertions during the former period. Had the king then suceeded, the liberties of England might have perished.

On the whole, the contest by which the reign of Charles II. is distinguished, can be considered as inferior in interest and importance only to that which immediately preceded it, during the era of the great rebellion; and such was the necessity of resistance to the son, as well as to the father, that the same Englishmen who have loved and revered the memory of Hampden, have never ceased to venerate the virtue and respect the patriotism of Sidney and Lord Russell.

The regular historians will give you the detail of the transactions by which this period is rendered so memorable. But you must by all means continue your study of the Memoirs of Dalrymple, which contain very curious information, and will give you very important hints respecting the characters and views both of the Duke of York, the king, and the popular leaders. I had originally made large extracts to exemplify what I say, but I omit them, and depend on your consulting such original documents as I have mentioned, yourselves.

As far as principle is concerned, it is the Duke, not Charles, who appears to be the man of principle; it is he who is a bigot to his opinions, religious and political; to

Popery and arbitrary power. These, with Charles, were rather the instruments than the objects of his designs; but the duke really had opinions that were dear to him; and he thoroughly and from his heart did detest and abjure all men, principles, and parties that presumed to interfere with the powers that be, either in church or state.

When the duke speaks of the proceedings of parliament (174), his expressions are, "His Majesty was forced to prorogue them; I fear they will be very disorderly. They will leave the king nothing but the empty name of king; no more."

He and the king had now to meet the due punishment of their conduct, the just consequences of their conspiracies against the laws and constitution of their country; and their perplexities and anxieties can be no proper subject of the slightest sympathy or compassion.

But questions like those comprehended in the Exclusion. Bill (whether the regular and presumptive heir shall or shall not ascend the throne) must always be considered as the greatest calamities that can befall a nation; and their very agitation is a complete proof of criminality having existed somewhere, either in those who have administered the government, or in those who are opposed to them, and generally in the former.

Nothing can be more easy, and nothing can be more true, than to say, that all government being intended for the good of the whole, the community have a right to deviate from the line of succession when the presumptive heir is a just subject of their apprehension. But what, in the meantime, are to be the sentiments of the existing government and of that presumptive heir? What sort of acquiescence or degree of patriotism is to be expected from them? It is in vain to suppose that questions of this tremendous nature can be decided by the mere reasonableness of the case, or either settled or discussed without the imminent hazard of the peace and prosperity of the country.

The popular leaders contended for the exercise of this great right of society, for entire exclusion; the king proposed the most reasonable limitations; the question was, therefore, rendered as fit a subject for debate as it could possibly become; and as there were men of the greatest ability in the houses, no proceedings in parliament can be more interesting than these must always be to every Englishman who has reflected upon the critical nature of our own mixed and of all mixed governments.

On whatever side the question could be viewed, the difficulties were very great. The popular part of the constitution was almost as much asserted by the limitations as by the exclusion, since the right of the community to interfere and control the executive power was acknowledged in either case. In argument, however, the exclusionists had the advantage over those who were contented with limitations, because their measure was evidently in practice the only complete remedy for the evil supposed, and the only remedy which could provide at the same time (a most material consideration) for the safety of those who were to administer it.

Still it was, on the whole, impossible that the exclusion could be carried while the king proposed limitations.

The character of the king led the exclusionists to suppose that, if they remained firm, he would give way. This was their great political mistake. For once in his life as the point of duty was at least dubious, he was steady to his supposed principle; he kept his word. Had the exclusionists turned short, and accepted his limitations, he had been indeed embarrassed.

It is now clear, from Dalrymple and Macpherson, that not only the Duke of York reprobated the scheme of limitations, but that the king himself was not sincere in his offers; and this must indeed have been suspected by the popular leaders. But the truth is, that their cause (as it could not be carried without the full co-operation of the public) was from the first not a little hopeless. The nation had but just escaped from

all the sufferings of civil war, from anarchy, usurpation, and military despotism; it is naturally, from the general sobriety of its habits both of speculation and conduct, dutiful and loyal; is always very properly attached to the hereditary nature of the monarchy; nor is it ever the natural turn of men, more especially of bodies of men, or of a whole nation, to provide against future evils by extraordinary expedients, in themselves a sort of evil, in themselves exposed to objection, and in every respect difficult and disagreeable. The conduct, therefore, to be pursued by the king was plain, and the result much what might have been expected. He kept at issue with his parliaments, making to them reasonable though not sincere offers, and addressing them with temper and dignity; till at last the public, as will always be the case when there is a proper exercise of skill and prudence on the part of the sovereign, sided with him, and left the constitution (as usual) to its fate, and the patriots to their fortunes.

This is a very curious part of our history, and should be attentively considered. The king, having dissolved two parliaments rapidly, issued a declaration, which was made public and read in the churches. It contained the defence of his conduct, and his appeal to the people. It is given only in substance by the historians; in Kennet, however, the words of it appear. It is very improperly omitted by Cobbett. All the material parts are given, in the words of it, by the historian Ralph.

A very full and spirited reply was drawn up by the leaders. of the House of Commons, chiefly by Sir William Jones, under whose name it was published, and who was one of the most distinguished lawyers and speakers of the time. The substance of this reply is in Ralph, but the whole of it is in the appendix of Cobbett. It is long, and some parts of it may be read more slightly than others; but it is in general highly deserving of attention, not nly because it is necessary to the explanation of the great constitutional questions then before the public, but because it shows that the notions of