Ecclesiastical History of England, Volume 4—The Church of the Restoration [part 2]

[1] Burnet, Rapin, Hume, and Lingard, give numerous particulars, but the account I have presented is drawn from A True Narrative of the Horrid Plot and Conspiracy of the Popish Party against the Life of His Majesty, the Government, and the Protestant Religion, by Titus Oates himself, published 1679.

In the Dedication there is a sentiment expressed worthy of a better man. “It is a false suggestion,” says Oates, “which such tempters use, that a King that rules by will is more great and glorious than a King that rules by law:—the quality of the retinue best proves the state of the lord; the one being but a king of slaves, while the other, like God, is a king of kings and hearts.”

I have before me a narrative of “the horrid Popish plot,” by Capt. W. Bedloe, 1679; another by Miles Prance, 1679; and a collection of letters relating to it published by order of the House of Commons, 1681. Oates’ narrative, which, though dated the 27th of September, 1678, was not published until the following April, contains a digested statement, in eighty-one items, of all the particulars which he had alleged.

[2] The letters are published in the collection just named. Some are in Rapin, iii. 171.

[3] History of his Own Time, i. 434.

[4] Life of Calamy, i. 83.

[5] Defoe quoted in Knight’s Hist. of England, iv. 335.

[6] Stayley was executed November 26th, Coleman December 3rd.

[7] In the Moneys for Secret Services, published by the Camden Society, are numerous entries of sums paid to Oates and others. Curious references to Oates’ character as an impostor, may be found in Reresby’s Memoirs, 239, and North’s Lives, i. 325.

[8] State Papers, Dom. Charles II., 1678, November 1, December (without further date), and December 28. It would divert attention from the main current of this history to go fully into Oates’ plot. The historical student will find a bundle of papers bearing on the subject under date 1678, and further papers on the same subject under 1679, January to June.

[9] Lord Keeper North “was of opinion that the fiction of the Popish Plot did not arise from the accident of Tongue’s and Oates’ informations, but from a preconcerted design.” The reasons are given in a MS. of North’s, printed in Dalrymple’s Memoirs, ii. app. 320. That the plot was invented by Shaftesbury there seems no sufficient ground for believing. See Campbell’s Lives of Lord Chancellors, iv. 197.

[10] Rapin, iii. 172. Evelyn says, “For my part I look on Oates as a vain insolent man, puffed up with the favour of the Commons, for having discovered something really true, more especially as detecting the dangerous intrigue of Coleman, proved out of his own letters, and of a general design which the Jesuited party of the Papists ever had and still have, to ruin the Church of England.”—Diary, ii. 140.

[11] Commons’ Journals, October 28. “The Oath of Supremacy was already taken by the Commons, though not by the Lords; and it is a great mistake to imagine that Catholics were legally capable of sitting in the Lower House before the Act of 1679” (1678).—Hallam’s Const. Hist., ii. 121.

[12] Burnet, Hist. of his Own Times, i. 436.

[13] Journals, Nov. 21 and 30; Lingard, xii. 151, 152. Reresby says, (Memoirs, 230), “In April, 1680, I went to London to solicit some business at Court, but the application of all men being to the Duke, who quite engrossed the King to himself, His Highness had but little leisure to give ear to, or assist his friends.”

[14] North’s Lives, i. 340.

[15] Sir Thomas Browne’s Works, i. 241. This relates to a second election for Norwich in the month of May, the first having been set aside. It illustrates both the excitement and the custom of the times. The general election took place in February.

[16] Evelyn’s Diary, ii. 136.

[17] Quoted in D’Oyley’s Life of Sancroft, i. 165–176.

[18] Life of James II., i. 539.

[19] Wilkins, iv. 606.

[20] Ibid., iv. 600.

[21] Wilkins, iv. 605; Sancroft’s Life by D’Oyley, i. 186.

[22] Wilkins, iv. 607.

[23] Tanner MSS., 32, 208; Life of Sancroft, i. 204. D’Oyley conjecturally assigns this document to the reign of Charles, but he is not sure it may not belong to the reign of James.

[24] Sir W. Temple, in his Memoirs, part iii., gives an account of the plan and working of this Council. His object was to enable the Crown to manage the Commons, by making the Crown, as far as possible, independent of the Commons. After noticing the wealth of the Council in revenues of land or offices as amounting to £300,000 per annum, whilst that of the House of Commons seldom exceeded £400,000, he adds, “And authority is observed much to follow land, and, at the worst, such a Council might, out of their own stock, and upon a pinch, furnish the King so far as to relieve some great necessity of the Crown.”—Temple’s Works, vol. i. 414. He says (436) he told the Duke of York, “he might always reckon upon me as a legal man, and one that would always follow the Crown as became me.” These passages seem to be overlooked by some historians, in estimating the nature and objects of Temple’s scheme.

[25] April 30, 1679.—Parl. Hist. iv. 1128.

[26] The Habeas Corpus Act was passed during the spring of 1679.

[27] Burnet’s Hist. of his Own Time, i. 475.

[28] “The information of Dangerfield, delivered at the bar of the Commons, the 26th of October, 1680.” Lords’ Journals, Nov. 15, 1680. State Trials. Burnet, i. 475 and 637. Lingard, xii. 227, et seq. Dangerfield died from a blow, struck whilst he was being whipped.

[29] Dated August 25. Received September 1.—State Papers.

[30] Parl. Hist. iv. 1162, et seq. Again let me refer the reader to Fox, Hist. of James ii., p. 311, for some admirable remarks on this whole question, politically considered.

[31] Sommers’ Tracts i. 97.

[32] Parl. Hist. iv. 1197, et seq.; Rapin, iii. 198, et seq.

[33] Reresby’s Memoirs, 234. He says that the speech of Halifax, “so all confessed, influenced the House, and persuaded them to throw out the Bill.” The debate took place on the 15th of November.

[34] Rogers’ Life of Howe, 181.

[35] Calamy’s Life of Baxter, 354.

[36] Rogers’ Life of Howe, 183.

[37] Ibid., 187.

[38] “Tillotson’s conduct on this occasion places his amiable character in the fairest light. One can hardly regret that he committed a fault for which he so nobly atoned, and which has furnished us with so impressive an example of ingenuousness, candour, and humility.”—Rogers’ Life of Howe, 190.

[39] There were two Bishop Lloyds at the time; one of Norwich, the other of St. Asaph, consecrated October 3, 1680. It was most likely the latter. We shall meet with him as one of the seven Bishops committed to the Tower in 1688.

[40] Life of Howe, 191, 192.

[41] Kennet quoted in Neal, iv. 496.

[42] Dec. 30, 1680. “The Commons have before them a Bill of comprehension and a Bill for indulgence. The latter is proposed very full and clear, requiring nothing but subscription to Thirty-six Articles, and taking a test against Popery. This hath been read twice, and is before the Committee. The former moreover requires the use of Common Prayer, and, I think, as proposed even relapses almost all other things that almost anybody scruples. This has been read twice and passed the Committee. Opinions about these Bills are various. All that I have heard of, who desire comprehension, desire indulgence also for others, though multitudes desire indulgence that most fervently oppose comprehension. This begets great misunderstandings.”—Entring Book, Morice MSS., Dr. Williams’ Library.

On the 24th of December a clergyman was charged before the House of Commons with saying that the Presbyterians were such as the very devil blushed at, and were as bad as Jesuits, and otherwise denying the Popish plot, throwing the same on Protestants. It was resolved that he should be impeached.—Journals.

[43] Both read the first time Dec. 16.—Journals. The Bill for toleration was read a second time Dec. 24.

[44] The Lords desired the concurrence of the Commons in the amendments which they had made to this relief Bill Jan. 3. See Journals of both Houses.

[45] Burnet (i. 495) says the Clerk of the Crown withdrew it from the table by the King’s particular order.

[46] Journals, Jan. 10, 1681. Eachard, Rapin, Burnet, and Calamy quote or mention two resolutions on this subject, as passed at the same time by the Commons—the first, that the Act of Elizabeth and James against Popish recusants ought not to be extended against Protestant Dissenters—the second, that which has just been noticed. It is the only one respecting toleration, recorded in the Journals for that day.

[47] I have, in the history of this whole affair, followed the Journals; and they show the inaccuracy, more or less of Burnet, Eachard, and Neal. Even what Sir William Jones says in his Vindication (Parl. Hist. iv. Appendix) is scarcely consistent with the records of the Houses.

[48] “The Court was at Christ Church, and the Commons sat in the schools, but were very much straitened for room, there being a very great concourse of members.” “Many of the discontented members, of both Houses, came armed, and more than usually attended; and it was affirmed there was a design to have seized the King, and to have restrained him till he had granted their petitions.”—Reresby’s Memoirs, 243, 245.

[49] March 24, Parl. Hist. iv. 1308.

[50] Lords’ Journals, March 26.

[51] Reresby’s Memoirs, 290.

[52] Lingard, xii. 281.

[53] Burnet, i. 500; D’Oyley’s Life of Sancroft, i. 252. The King’s letter to Sancroft is dated April 11, 1681.

[54] Address from the University of Cambridge. Wilkins, iv. 607; State Papers, Charles II. Dom. 1681, May 16. I have pretty closely adhered to the words used in the addresses.

[55] Bishop of Winchester’s Vindication, 394, 410. This work was published in 1683, but the author says that it was written a year before. Probably the above passage may belong to 1681.

[56] Preface to The Happy Future State of England, published 1688.

[57] The Conformist’s Plea for Nonconformists, 7.

[58] The Conformist’s Plea for the Nonconformists, 34. The Life of Julian the Apostate also made a great noise at that time.

[59] State Papers, Dom. Charles II., 1677.

[60] There is a remarkable absence of information in Sir Joseph Williamson’s papers of this date, preserved in the Record Office. Several letters, written at this time by the informer Bowen, of Yarmouth, upon local matters, contain no allusion to the Nonconformists there. The Histories of Nonconformists silently bear witness to this fact. Neal, Crosby, and Sewel, under these years, say little or nothing of persecution. It must not, however, be inferred that it was then unknown, for it is stated in the Church Book of Guildhall-street Chapel, Canterbury, that Mr. Durant, the pastor, and some of his congregation, in 1679, “fled for refuge to Holland, and some forsook the Church and fell off—Timpson’s Church Hist. of Kent, 307.

[61] Rogers’ Life of Howe, 180.

[62] Burnet’s Hist. of his Own Times, i. 267, 268, 476.

[63] Earl Russell’s Life of Lord William Russell, 159.

[64] Macaulay describes the manner in which Halifax endeavoured to vindicate his trimming. Hist., i. 254. The following quotation from Halifax is characteristic:—

“Why,” he asks, “after we have played the fool with throwing Whig and Tory at one another, as boys do snowballs, should we grow angry at a new name, which by its signification might do as much to put us into our wits, as the other has done to put us out of them. This innocent word Trimmer signifies no more than this, that if men are together in a boat, and one part of the company would weigh it down on one side, another would make it lean as much the contrary; it happens that there is a third opinion of those who conceive it would do as well if the boat went even, without endangering the passengers. Now ’tis hard to imagine by what figure in language, or by what rule in sense, this comes to be a fault, and it is much more a wonder it should be thought a heresy.” By a common fallacy, Halifax applies what is true of one thing to another thing very different. Too many miserably act respecting religion on the same principle as Halifax adopted in relation to politics.

[65] Burnet, i. 266.

[66] Memoirs of Count de Grammont, vol. ii. 112; Clarendon, 503.

[67] Lives, ii. 57.

[68] Burnet, i. 482.

[69] Printed document. State Papers, Dom., 1681, Sept. 2.

[70] State Papers, Dom. Charles II., 1681, Aug. 25, Sept. 2. There are several very curious papers relative to Oates, which I have copied, but have not space to insert.

The Prevaricator at Cambridge at the commencement of 1680, referred to the plot. The reference seems to have been very brief and unimportant, but it gave concern in high quarters. A letter was written to the Vice-Chancellor, by direction of the Bishop of London, complaining of the Prevaricator turning the plot into ridicule, that it would be brought before Parliament “to the reproach of the government of the Universities, if not to strike at the Universities themselves, unless it be timely prevented by a severe animadversion.”—Cambridge Portfolio, 242.

[71] Life of Baxter, 349. The book is dated 1680, and the author, Lewis du Moulin, recanted his reflections on the Divines of the Church of England, the same year.

[72] Burnet, i. 461.

[73] There is a letter from the Lieutenant of the Tower in the Record Office, Dom. Charles II., August 5, 1681, in which the writer describes how the prisoner was to be conveyed to Oxford “in a coach with ten or twelve of the warders on horseback, with carabines.”

[74] Burnet, i. 505. Colledge was tried on the 17th and 18th of August. The trial is reported at full length in a folio pamphlet of 102 pages published by authority, 1681. Colledge defended himself, examined witnesses and made speeches. It is plain that under the circumstances, with such judges, the poor fellow stood no chance.

[75] September 1, 1681, Oxon. Letter from Thomas Hyde states that just before the execution of Colledge, he had denied having written certain letters, but that when he heard these letters had been intercepted, he acknowledged them.

There are several letters respecting Colledge; amongst other papers is the following:—September 30, 1681. “Deposition of Benjamin Wyche of the parish of Saint Andrew’s, Holborn, London, Apothecary. This deponent saith that being in Richards’ coffee-house near Temple Bar, soon after His Majesty had dissolved the Parliament sitting at Westminster, amongst other company in the room, Mr. Colledge was one whom (upon discourse of the Parliament being then dissolved) he this deponent, heard uttering these words, ‘Well I see what it will come to, we must e’en draw our swords, and fight it out again,’ or words to that effect.—Ben Wyche.”

“Jurat coram me.—L. Jenkins.”

[76] The first letter is dated Sept. 21. In the second letter, in the same bundle, the day of the month is not given. The letter is numbered 164. Another paper in the Record Office, dated August 20, 1681, reports that the Countess of Rochester said “Colledge was a Papist to her knowledge, and had been so for a long time.” There are other statements to the same effect. Thomas Hyde (September 1, 1681) writing from Oxford, says that Colledge would not acknowledge what religion he was of, but that “he was of the Anabaptists.”

[77] It is added “this fanatic’s name was formerly Bishop, but being a hater of bishops changed his name into Marten; and because he is by that name known for a notorious villain he hath changed it again.”—Dom. Charles II.

[78] Ibid., August 27, 24.

[79] The confession, of which a portion is missing, bears date August 24, 1681. State Papers, Dom. Charles II. The dying speech is in MS. in the same collection dated August 31. It was published as a distinct tract, 1681; also it is printed in The Dying Speeches and Behaviour of several State Prisoners. Ed. 1720. The reason for his being called the Protestant Joiner he thus describes:—“The Duke of Monmouth called me to him, and told me he had heard a good report of me, and that I was an honest man, and one that may be trusted: and they did not know but their enemies, the Papists, might have some design to serve them as they did in King James’s time by gunpowder, or any other way; and the Duke with several Lords and Commons did desire me to use my utmost skill in searching all places suspected by them, which I did perform: and from thence I had as I think, the popular name of The Protestant Joiner, because they had entrusted me, before any man in England to do that office.”—Dying Speeches, 387.

[80] There is amongst the State Papers, one dated November 26, 1681, Dom. Charles II., by George Evans, who complains that there was a bonfire on Cornhill, and that gentlemen were stopped in their coaches and required to drink Lord Shaftesbury’s health. This was on the occasion of the Grand Jury ignoring the bill against him. There are a number of documents relating to Shaftesbury under the year 1681.

[81] Campbell’s Lives of the Chancellors, iv. 229. Lord Campbell has not done justice to Shaftesbury. It should be remarked to Shaftesbury’s honour, Earl Russell says, “that though in the secret of every party, he never betrayed any one: and that the purity of his administration of justice is allowed even by his enemies.”—Life of Lord William Russell, 61.

[82] From a mass of illustrations I select the following in reference to the last point:—

Dom. Charles II., 1681, Sept. 9. “I was interrupted,” says the Archdeacon of Durham, “in the execution of my office, as I was officiating in my own church, by a very bold and insolent fanatic, who though indicted at our last assizes, escaped punishment—to the great contempt, I hear, of God’s house and service—I am sure to the great trouble of the clergy, who fear it may go very hard with them, in the execution of their offices, when so great a violence offered to the Archdeacon should go unpunished. Since a Churchman can expect to meet with no more favour from a lay judicatory, I am forced to fly to the ecclesiastical courts, where this person stands presented, for disturbing the minister in time of Divine service, and I think no ecclesiastical judge can be of the same mind with the jury, that what was done between the Nicene Creed and the sermon, was not done in time of Divine service, upon which point he was found not guilty, to the admiration [wonder] of those that understood the rubric.”

John Strode, of Rye, writes, September 13, “that the new Mayor chosen by the fanatics refused to grant warrants according to the Act of Parliament, pretending some frivolous thing.”

[83] November 7, 1681.

[84] Dom. Charles II., 1681, November 15. I find, dated November 25, “The names of such Nonconformists who being presented in the Attorney-General’s name, are actually served with subpœnas returnable on Monday last:—

“Sir,

“There are two informations filed against every one of the above-named Nonconformist ministers, i.e., one on the Statute for not repairing to Church, upon which they forfeit £20 per mensem. This information is laid for twenty months. The other is on the Oxford Act, prohibiting Nonconformist ministers, &c., to reside within five miles of any corporation, upon the penalty of £40. So that the penalties against the persons above-named, if recovered, and not remitted, will amount to the sum of £4,840.

“Yours,

“Wm. Shermar”

[85] The Minutes of Council show that the Mayors of Plymouth and Reading were directed to put the Oxford Act in execution against the preachers in Conventicles.—December 2. The constables of the East Riding of Yorkshire refused to disturb meetings.—State Papers, bundle 260, No. 474. The magistrates at Hickes’ Hall complain that the laws respecting Conventicles had been long silent.—December 10.

[86] Echard, Neal, iv. 507.

[87] Calamy’s Continuation, 137.

[88] State Papers, Dec. 19.

[89] State Papers, 1682, February 15.

[90] Calamy’s Continuation, 139.

[91] I copied these extracts many years ago from the old Church books, now unfortunately lost. In the State Paper Office, under date of the 2nd February, 1682, there is a long report of the political sentiments of people in different parts of Norfolk, in which report,—besides mention of the Anabaptists and the Quakers worshipping under one roof, and of a clergyman in the Commission of the Peace, an itinerant Justice, “who rides all the circuit, and makes disturbances wherever he comes by his pragmaticalness and unskilfulness in the laws”—a reference is made to Dr. Collinges, a very respectable Presbyterian minister at Norwich, and it is suggested, “were he removed, it is probable many of that sect would fall off.”

[92] Morice MSS., Entring Book, i., 1682, November 21.

[93] December 30.

[94] December 14.

[95] November 30, December 7.

[96] December 14, February 6, 1682–3. “On Monday, in the Common Pleas, some citizens were cited, because they did not receive the sacrament at Easter by their minister, the Churchwardens saying they believed that they did not receive it then. But because the process saith not what Easter it was, and because there was no sacrament at their church the last Easter; and further, because the Churchwardens do but believe they did not receive it, therefore a prohibition was granted unless cause be shown to the contrary.”

The Countess of Aylesbury was informed against for being at a Conventicle.—March 15, 1684.

[97] December 14, 1682; March, 1683.

[98] Much trouble and suffering arose from fear; and many congregations, after apprehending disturbance, were allowed to worship in peace. This I learn from the Entring Book, 1683, January, in the Morice MSS. (in Dr. Williams’ Library,) from which the passage in the text is taken.

[99] State Papers, Dom. Charles II., February 21, 1682.

[100] The Presbyterians are reckoned altogether at 5,420; the Baptists, &c., at 4,250.

[101] State Papers, Dom. Charles II., 1682, June 2, 16, 20. On the 9th of December, the following queries were submitted to Secretary Jenkins:—

“Whether, at a time when the Dissenters in shoals transport themselves beyond sea, to the apparent throwing up of many farms throughout England, and a dearth of servants, it may not be thought reasonable to prohibit such a transportation occasioned by a sullen humour?

“2. Whether, at this time, when the Dissenters calumniate the Government with a connivance at debaucheries, while themselves are vigorously prosecuted about matters of religion, it may not be thought reasonable to revive His Majesty’s proclamation against profane cursing and swearing and other debaucheries?

“3. Whether the prosecution against Dissenters ought not to be prosecuted to excommunication, for not coming to church and receiving the Sacrament, in Corporations especially,—thereby to incapacitate them from being elected, or electors of, members of Parliament?”

[102] There are many documents connected with this subject amongst the State Papers, 1680, January to June.

[103] State Papers, Dom., 1682, September 11, 13, 16. There is also a letter describing the Duke’s visit to Chichester, and the insults offered to the Bishop’s chaplain. February 24, 1683.

[104] It is said (Sept. 18) the Duke had not the encouragement which Dissenters expected.

[105] L’Estrange was a censor of the press. In the Record Office, Dom. Charles II., may be found Williamson’s authority to “Roger L’Estrange, surveyor of the press, to act as one of his deputies in the licensing of books,” dated Whitehall, February 5, 1674–5.

In 1684 L’Estrange commenced a periodical entitled The Observator, which he carried on until 1687. He there upholds the Royal dispensing power, and ridicules Protestant excitements, the right to liberty of conscience, the Long Parliament, and Nonconformists of all kinds, pronouncing Dissent a political schism. He published the paper irregularly, sometimes twice, sometimes thrice a week. It is written after the manner of a dialogue between The Observator and its opponents. I have met with three or four large volumes of the publication, in the library of Trinity College, Cambridge. They justify the strong language I have used.

[106] State Trials, 1683. The judgment was that the franchise and liberty of the City of London should be taken and seized into the King’s hands.

[107] The Act for annulling Russell’s attainder, in the first year of William and Mary, justly declared that “he was, by undue and illegal return of jurors, having been refused his lawful challenge to the said jurors, for want of freehold, and by partial and unjust constructions of law, wrongfully convicted, attainted, and executed for high treason.”

[108] The charges against Russell and Sidney, of being engaged in negotiations with the French Court, and of the latter receiving pay from that quarter, belong to the political history of England. I must refer the reader to Hallam, Mackintosh, and especially to Earl Russell’s Life of Lord William Russell. Supposing that Sidney accepted money from France, I am not at all disposed to regard his conduct so leniently as do the first two of the above-named writers; but, after pondering what Earl Russell says, I feel some doubt respecting the truth of Barillon’s reports, and the accuracy of his accounts. As to Lord William Russell’s conduct, his biographer says it “was not criminal, but it would be difficult to acquit him of the charge of imprudence.”—p. 107.

[109] “Much discourse hath been about the apparition of Lord William Russell’s ghost in Southampton square, July 27 (1683), about twelve o’clock at night.”—Entring Book, Morice MSS., Dr. Williams’ Library. The above notice of Russell’s execution is almost entirely drawn up from Earl Russell’s life of this illustrious person, 337, et seq.

[110] Tillotson’s Life, 109.

[111] Collier, ii. 903. Filmer’s writings were most in vogue with the partisans of despotism. See Hallam’s Const. Hist., ii. 156, on the subject.