The History of England from the Accession of James II, Vol. 4

T >> Thomas Babington Macaulay >> The History of England from the Accession of James II, Vol. 4

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62

The friends of the government asserted that the marauders were
all Jacobites; and indeed there were some appearances which gave
colour to the assertion. For example, fifteen butchers, going on
a market day to buy beasts at Thame, were stopped by a large
gang, and compelled first to deliver their moneybags, and then to
drink King James's health in brandy.334 The thieves, however, to
do them justice, showed, in the exercise of their calling, no
decided preference for any political party. Some of them fell in
with Marlborough near Saint Albans, and, notwithstanding his
known hostility to the Court and his recent imprisonment,
compelled him to deliver up five hundred guineas, which he
doubtless never ceased to regret to the last moment of his long
career of prosperity and glory.335

When William, on his return from the Continent, learned to what
an extent these outrages were carried, he expressed great
indignation, and announced his resolution to put down the
malefactors with a strong hand. A veteran robber was induced to
turn informer, and to lay before the King a list of the chief
highwaymen, and a full account of their habits and of their
favourite haunts. It was said that this list contained not less
than eighty names.336 Strong parties of cavalry were sent out to
protect the roads; and this precaution, which would, in ordinary
circumstances, have excited much murmuring, seems to have been
generally approved. A fine regiment, now called the Second
Dragoon Guards, which had distinguished itself in Ireland by
activity and success in the irregular war against the Rapparees,
was selected to guard several of the great avenues of the
capital. Blackheath, Barnet, Hounslow, became places of arms.337
In a few weeks the roads were as safe as usual. The executions
were numerous for, till the evil had been suppressed, the King
resolutely refused to listen to any solicitations for mercy.338
Among those who suffered was James Whitney, the most celebrated
captain of banditti in the kingdom. He had been, during some
months, the terror of all who travelled from London either
northward or westward, and was at length with difficulty secured
after a desperate conflict in which one soldier was killed and
several wounded.339 The London Gazette announced that the famous
highwayman had been taken, and invited all persons who had been
robbed by him to repair to Newgate and to see whether they could
identify him. To identify him should have been easy; for he had a
wound in the face, and had lost a thumb.340 He, however, in the
hope of perplexing the witnesses for the Crown, expended a
hundred pounds in procuring a sumptuous embroidered suit against
the day of trial. This ingenious device was frustrated by his
hardhearted keepers. He was put to the bar in his ordinary
clothes, convicted and sentenced to death.341 He had previously
tried to ransom himself by offering to raise a fine troop of
cavalry, all highwaymen, for service in Flanders; but his offer
had been rejected.342 He had one resource still left. He declared
that he was privy to a treasonable plot. Some Jacobite lords had
promised him immense rewards if he would, at the head of his
gang, fall upon the King at a stag hunt in Windsor Forest. There
was nothing intrinsically improbable in Whitney's story. Indeed a
design very similar to that which he imputed to the malecontents
was, only three years later, actually formed by some of them, and
was all but carried into execution. But it was far better that a
few bad men should go unpunished than that all honest men should
live in fear of being falsely accused by felons sentenced to the
gallows. Chief Justice Holt advised the King to let the law take
its course. William, never much inclined to give credit to stories
about conspiracies, assented. The Captain, as he was called, was
hanged in Smithfield, and made a most penitent end.343

Meanwhile, in the midst of discontent, distress and disorder, had
begun a session of Parliament singularly eventful, a session from
which dates a new era in the history of English finance, a
session in which some grave constitutional questions, not yet
entirely set at rest, were for the first time debated.

It is much to be lamented that any account of this session which
can be framed out of the scanty and dispersed materials now
accessible must leave many things obscure. The relations of the
parliamentary factions were, during this year, in a singularly
complicated state. Each of the two Houses was divided and
subdivided by several lines. To omit minor distinctions, there
was the great line which separated the Whig party from the Tory
party; and there was the great line which separated the official
men and their friends and dependents, who were sometimes called
the Court party, from those who were sometimes nicknamed the
Grumbletonians and sometimes honoured with the appellation of the
Country party. And these two great lines were intersecting lines.
For of the servants of the Crown and of their adherents about one
half were Whigs and one half Tories. It is also to be remembered
that there was, quite distinct from the feud between Whigs and
Tories, quite distinct also from the feud between those who were
in and those who were out, a feud between the Lords as Lords and
the Commons as Commons. The spirit both of the hereditary and of
the elective chamber had been thoroughly roused in the preceding
session by the dispute about the Court of the Lord High Steward;
and they met in a pugnacious mood.

The speech which the King made at the opening of the session was
skilfully framed for the purpose of conciliating the Houses. He
came, he told them, to ask for their advice and assistance. He
congratulated them on the victory of La Hogue. He acknowledged
with much concern that the operations of the allies had been less
successful by land than by sea; but he warmly declared that, both
by land and by sea, the valour of his English subjects had been
preeminently conspicuous. The distress of his people, he said,
was his own; his interest was inseparable from theirs; it was
painful to him to call on them to make sacrifices; but from
sacrifices which were necessary to the safety of the English
nation and of the Protestant religion no good Englishman and no
good Protestant would shrink.344

The Commons thanked the King in cordial terms for his gracious
speech.345 But the Lords were in a bad humour. Two of their body,
Marlborough and Huntingdon, had, during the recess, when an
invasion and an insurrection were hourly expected, been sent to
the Tower, and were still under recognisances. Had a country
gentleman or a merchant been taken up and held to bail on even
slighter grounds at so alarming a crisis, the Lords would
assuredly not have interfered. But they were easily moved to
anger by any thing that looked like an indignity offered to their
own order. They not only crossexamined with great severity Aaron
Smith, the Solicitor of the Treasury, whose character, to say the
truth, entitled him to little indulgence, but passed; by thirty-
five votes to twenty-eight, a resolution implying a censure on
the judges of the King's Bench, men certainly not inferior in
probity, and very far superior in legal learning, to any peer of
the realm. The King thought it prudent to soothe the wounded
pride of the nobility by ordering the recognisances to be
cancelled; and with this concession the House was satisfied, to
the great vexation of the Jacobites, who had hoped that the
quarrel would be prosecuted to some fatal issue, and who, finding
themselves disappointed, vented their spleen by railing at the
tameness of the degenerate barons of England.346

Both Houses held long and earnest deliberations on the state of
the nation. The King, when he requested their advice, had,
perhaps, not foreseen that his words would be construed into an
invitation to scrutinise every part of the administration, and to
offer suggestions touching matters which parliaments have
generally thought it expedient to leave entirely to the Crown.
Some of the discontented peers proposed that a Committee, chosen
partly by the Lords and partly by the Commons, should be
authorised to inquire into the whole management of public
affairs. But it was generally apprehended that such a Committee
would become a second and more powerful Privy Council,
independent of the Crown, and unknown to the Constitution. The
motion was therefore rejected by forty-eight votes to thirty-six.
On this occasion the ministers, with scarcely an exception, voted
in the majority. A protest was signed by eighteen of the
minority, among whom were the bitterest Whigs and the bitterest
Tories in the whole peerage.347

The Houses inquired, each for itself, into the causes of the
public calamities. The Commons resolved themselves into a Grand
Committee to consider of the advice to be given to the King. From
the concise abstracts and fragments which have come down to us it
seems that, in this Committee, which continued to sit many days,
the debates wandered over a vast space. One member spoke of the
prevalence of highway robbery; another deplored the quarrel
between the Queen and the Princess, and proposed that two or
three gentlemen should be deputed to wait on Her Majesty and try
to make matters up. A third described the machinations of the
Jacobites in the preceding spring. It was notorious, he said,
that preparations had been made for a rising, and that arms and
horses had been collected; yet not a single traitor had been
brought to justice.348

The events of the war by land and sea furnished matter for
several earnest debates. Many members complained of the
preference given to aliens over Englishmen. The whole battle of
Steinkirk was fought over again; and severe reflections were
thrown on Solmes. "Let English soldiers be commanded by none but
English generals," was the almost universal cry. Seymour, who had
once been distinguished by his hatred of the foreigners, but who,
since he had been at the Board of Treasury, had reconsidered his
opinions, asked where English generals were to be found. "I have
no love for foreigners as foreigners; but we have no choice. Men
are not born generals; nay, a man may be a very valuable captain
or major, and not be equal to the conduct of an army. Nothing but
experience will form great commanders. Very few of our countrymen
have that experience; and therefore we must for the present
employ strangers." Lowther followed on the same side. "We have
had a long peace; and the consequence is that we have not a
sufficient supply of officers fit for high commands. The parks
and the camp at Hounslow were very poor military schools, when
compared with the fields of battle and the lines of
contravallation in which the great commanders of the continental
nations have learned their art." In reply to these arguments an
orator on the other side was so absurd as to declare that he
could point out ten Englishmen who, if they were in the French
service, would be made Marshals. Four or five colonels who had
been at Steinkirk took part in the debate. It was said of them
that they showed as much modesty in speech as they had shown
courage in action; and, from the very imperfect report which has
come down to us, the compliment seems to have been not
undeserved. They did not join in the vulgar cry against the
Dutch. They spoke well of the foreign officers generally, and did
full justice to the valour and conduct with which Auverquerque
had rescued the shattered remains of Mackay's division from what
seemed certain destruction. But in defence of Solmes not a word
was said. His severity, his haughty manners, and, above all, the
indifference with which he had looked on while the English, borne
down by overwhelming numbers, were fighting hand to hand with the
French household troops, had made him so odious that many members
were prepared to vote for an address requesting that he might be
removed, and that his place might be filled by Talmash, who,
since the disgrace of Marlborough, was universally allowed to be
the best officer in the army. But Talmash's friends judiciously
interfered. "I have," said one of them, "a true regard for that
gentleman; and I implore you not to do him an injury under the
notion of doing him a kindness. Consider that you are usurping
what is peculiarly the King's prerogative. You are turning
officers out and putting officers in." The debate ended without
any vote of censure on Solmes. But a hope was expressed, in
language not very parliamentary, that what had been said in the
Committee would be reported to the King, and that His Majesty
would not disregard the general wish of the representatives of
his people.349

The Commons next proceeded to inquire into the naval
administration, and very soon came to a quarrel with the Lords on
that subject. That there had been mismanagement somewhere was
but too evident. It was hardly possible to acquit both Russell
and Nottingham; and each House stood by its own member. The
Commons had, at the opening of the session, unanimously passed a
vote of thanks to Russell for his conduct at La Hogue. They now,
in the Grand Committee of Advice, took into consideration the
miscarriages which had followed the battle. A motion was made so
vaguely worded that it could hardly be said to mean any thing. It
was understood however to imply a censure on Nottingham, and was
therefore strongly opposed by his friends. On the division the
Ayes were a hundred and sixty-five, the Noes a hundred and sixty-
four.350

On the very next day Nottingham appealed to the Lords. He told
his story with all the skill of a practised orator, and with all
the authority which belongs to unblemished integrity. He then
laid on the table a great mass of papers, which he requested the
House to read and consider. The Peers seem to have examined the
papers seriously and diligently. The result of the examination
was by no means favourable to Russell. Yet it was thought unjust
to condemn him unheard; and it was difficult to devise any way in
which their Lordships could hear him. At last it was resolved to
send the papers down to the Commons with a message which imported
that, in the opinion of the Upper House, there was a case against
the Admiral which he ought to be called upon to answer. With the
papers was sent an abstract of the contents.351

The message was not very respectfully received. Russell had, at
that moment, a popularity which he little deserved, but which
will not surprise us when we remember that the public knew
nothing of his treasons, and knew that he was the only living
Englishman who had won a great battle. The abstract of the papers
was read by the clerk. Russell then spoke with great applause;
and his friends pressed for an immediate decision. Sir
Christopher Musgrave very justly observed that it was impossible
to pronounce judgment on such a pile of despatches without
perusing them; but this objection was overruled. The Whigs
regarded the accused member as one of themselves; many of the
Tories were dazzled by the splendour of his recent victory; and
neither Whigs nor Tories were disposed to show any deference for
the authority of the Peers. The House, without reading the
papers, passed an unanimous resolution expressing warm
approbation of Russell's whole conduct. The temper of the
assembly was such that some ardent Whigs thought that they might
now venture to propose a vote of censure on Nottingham by name.
But the attempt failed. "I am ready," said Lowther,--and he
doubtless expressed what many felt,--"I am ready to support any
motion that may do honour to the Admiral; but I cannot join in an
attack on the Secretary of State. For, to my knowledge, their
Majesties have no more zealous, laborious or faithful servant
than my Lord Nottingham." Finch exerted all his mellifluous
eloquence in defence of his brother, and contrived, without
directly opposing himself to the prevailing sentiment, to
insinuate that Russell's conduct had not been faultless. The vote
of censure on Nottingham was not pressed. The vote which
pronounced Russell's conduct to have been deserving of all praise
was communicated to the Lords; and the papers which they had sent
down were very unceremoniously returned.352 The Lords, much
offended, demanded a free conference. It was granted; and the
managers of the two Houses met in the Painted Chamber. Rochester,
in the name of his brethren, expressed a wish to be informed of
the grounds on which the Admiral had been declared faultless. To
this appeal the gentlemen who stood on the other side of the
table answered only that they had not been authorised to give any
explanation, but that they would report to those who had sent
them what had been said.353

By this time the Commons were thoroughly tired of the inquiry
into the conduct of the war. The members had got rid of much of
the ill humour which they had brought up with them from their
country seats by the simple process of talking it away. Burnet
hints that those arts of which Caermarthen and Trevor were the
great masters were employed for the purpose of averting votes
which would have seriously embarrassed the government. But,
though it is not improbable that a few noisy pretenders to
patriotism may have been quieted with bags of guineas, it would
be absurd to suppose that the House generally was influenced in
this manner. Whoever has seen anything of such assemblies knows
that the spirit with which they enter on long inquiries very soon
flags, and that their resentment, if not kept alive by
injudicious opposition, cools fast. In a short time every body
was sick of the Grand Committee of Advice. The debates had been
tedious and desultory. The resolutions which had been carried
were for the most part merely childish. The King was to be humbly
advised to employ men of ability and integrity. He was to be
humbly advised to employ men who would stand by him against
James. The patience of the House was wearied out by long
discussions ending in the pompous promulgation of truisms like
these. At last the explosion came. One of the grumblers called
the attention of the Grand Committee to the alarming fact that
two Dutchmen were employed in the Ordnance department, and moved
that the King should be humbly advised to dismiss them. The
motion was received with disdainful mockery. It was remarked that
the military men especially were loud in the expression of
contempt. "Do we seriously think of going to the King and
telling him that, as he has condescended to ask our advice at
this momentous crisis, we humbly advise him to turn a Dutch
storekeeper out of the Tower? Really, if we have no more
important suggestion to carry up to the throne, we may as well go
to our dinners." The members generally were of the same mind. The
chairman was voted out of the chair, and was not directed to ask
leave to sit again. The Grand Committee ceased to exist. The
resolutions which it had passed were formally reported to the
House. One of them was rejected; the others were suffered to
drop; and the Commons, after considering during several weeks
what advice they should give to the King, ended by giving him no
advice at all.354

The temper of the Lords was different. From many circumstances it
appears that there was no place where the Dutch were, at this
time, so much hated as in the Upper House. The dislike with which
an Englishman of the middle class regarded the King's foreign
friends was merely national. But the dislike with which an
English nobleman regarded them was personal. They stood between
him and Majesty. They intercepted from him the rays of royal
favour. The preference given to them wounded him both in his
interests and in his pride. His chance of the Garter was much
smaller since they had become his competitors. He might have been
Master of the Horse but for Auverquerque, Master of the Robes but
for Zulestein, Groom of the Stole but for Bentinck.355 The ill
humour of the aristocracy was inflamed by Marlborough, who, at
this time, affected the character of a patriot persecuted for
standing up against the Dutch in defence of the interests of his
native land, and who did not foresee that a day would come when
he would be accused of sacrificing the interests of his native
land to gratify the Dutch. The Peers determined to present an
address, requesting William not to place his English troops under
the command of a foreign general. They took up very seriously
that question which had moved the House of Commons to laughter,
and solemnly counselled their Sovereign not to employ foreigners
in his magazines. At Marlborough's suggestion they urged the King
to insist that the youngest English general should take
precedence of the oldest general in the service of the States
General. It was, they said, derogatory to the dignity of the
Crown, that an officer who held a commission from His Majesty
should ever be commanded by an officer who held a similar
commission from a republic. To this advice, evidently dictated by
an ignoble malevolence to Holland, William, who troubled himself
little about votes of the Upper House which were not backed by
the Lower, returned, as might have been expected, a very short
and dry answer.356

While the inquiry into the conduct of the war was pending, the
Commons resumed the consideration of an important subject which
had occupied much of their attention in the preceding year. The
Bill for the Regulation of Trials in cases of High Treason was
again brought in, but was strongly opposed by the official men,
both Whigs and Tories. Somers, now Attorney General, strongly
recommended delay. That the law, as it stood, was open to grave
objections, was not denied; but it was contended that the
proposed reform would, at that moment, produce more harm than
good. Nobody would assert that, under the existing government,
the lives of innocent subjects were in any danger. Nobody would
deny that the government itself was in great danger. Was it the
part of wise men to increase the perils of that which was already
in serious peril for the purpose of giving new security to that
which was already perfectly secure? Those who held this language
were twitted with their inconsistency, and asked why they had not
ventured to oppose the bill in the preceding session. They
answered very plausibly that the events which had taken place
during the recess had taught an important lesson to all who were
capable of learning. The country had been threatened at once with
invasion and insurrection. No rational man doubted that many
traitors had made preparations for joining the French, and had
collected arms, ammunition and horses for that purpose. Yet,
though there was abundant moral evidence against these enemies of
their country, it had not been possible to find legal evidence
against a single one of them. The law of treason might, in
theory, be harsh, and had undoubtedly, in times past, been
grossly abused. But a statesman who troubled himself less about
theory than about practice, and less about times past than about
the time present, would pronounce that law not too stringent but
too lax, and would, while the commonwealth remained in extreme
jeopardy, refuse to consent to any further relaxation. In spite
of all opposition, however, the principle of the bill was
approved by one hundred and seventy-one votes to one hundred and
fifty-two. But in the committee it was moved and carried that the
new rules of procedure should not come into operation till after
the end of the war with France. When the report was brought up
the House divided on this amendment, and ratified it by a hundred
and forty-five votes to a hundred and twenty-five. The bill was
consequently suffered to drop.357 Had it gone up to the Peers it
would in all probability have been lost after causing another
quarrel between the Houses. For the Peers were fully determined
that no such bill should pass, unless it contained a clause
altering the constitution of the Lord High Steward's Court; and a
clause altering the constitution of the Lord High Steward's Court
would have been less likely than ever to find favour with the
Commons. For in the course of this session an event took place
which proved that the great were only too well protected by the
law as it stood, and which well deserves to be recorded as a
striking illustration of the state of manners and morals in that
age.

Of all the actors who were then on the English stage the most
graceful was William Mountford. He had every physical
qualification for his calling, a noble figure, a handsome face, a
melodious voice. It was not easy to say whether he succeeded
better in heroic or in ludicrous parts. He was allowed to be both
the best Alexander and the best Sir Courtly Nice that ever trod
the boards. Queen Mary, whose knowledge was very superficial, but
who had naturally a quick perception of what was excellent in
art, admired him greatly. He was a dramatist as well as a player,
and has left us one comedy which is not contemptible.358