FOOTNOTES:
[1] For the early life of the Prince of Orange, see The Life of William III. 8vo., Lond., 1703; The Hist. of King William III., 3 vols. 8vo., 1703; The Life of William, Prince of Orange, 8vo., Lond., 1688.
[2] Own Times, ii. 305, i. 689.
[3] Own Times, i. 691.
[4] Burnet evidently wished to make William appear as much of a Churchman as possible.
[5] These anecdotes are found in a MS. Life of Hooper, by Prouse. See Life of Ken, by a Layman, 101–3.
[6] Hawkins’ Life of Ken, 7. In the Life of Ken, by a Layman, 105, we are told that William was much offended at the marriage of Count Zulestein with a lady whom he had seduced—which marriage is represented as brought about by Ken, to William’s displeasure. Macaulay, who examined William’s correspondence with Bentinck, on the contrary, informs us of his vexation at learning that one of his household, after ruining a girl of good reputation, refused to marry her. Which is right?
[7] Dalrymple’s Memoirs, i. 183.
[8] Clarendon Correspondence, ii. 484.
[9] Calamy’s Hist. Account, i. 147. He describes the prophetic dream of a Quaker respecting the Revolution, i. 148. Sewell, in his Hist. of the Quakers, ii. 353, speaks of a prophetic letter (containing, I presume, an account of that dream), written by a Quaker at London to his friend, as a forgery.
[10] Dalrymple, iii. appen. part i. 228.
[11] Ibid., 238.
[12] See curious correspondence in Dalrymple, iii. appen. i. 240. Throughout the business it was “diamond cut diamond.”
[13] Patrick’s Works, ix. (autobiography) 513.
[14] Macpherson’s Hist., i. 510.
[15] Gutch’s Collectanea Curiosa, i. 393–397.
[16] My friend, the Rev. D. Hewitt, of Exeter, informs me: “I find the Mayor of Exeter for the year 1688 was a Jefford, or Gifford, as it is sometimes spelt. He had acquired a fortune in business as a dyer. In religion he was a Presbyterian. He was made Mayor by Order of the Privy Council, when James II. required many Corporations to surrender their charters. The King’s mandamus to his ‘trusty and well-beloved,’ commanding them to remove the then present Mayor (J. Snell) and other members of the Corporation, and to elect and admit ‘our well-beloved Thomas Jefford’ to be Mayor, is dated 28th of November, 1687. Jenkins, our local historian, says, ‘that not only the Mayor, but the other members of the newly-created Chamber, were Presbyterians. When the Corporation sent up an address to the King, congratulating him on the birth of a Prince, the Mayor received the honour of knighthood. When the King turned penitent, as you are aware, one of the fruits of his repentance was the restoration of their charters to corporate towns, and this caused Sir Thomas to descend from his corporate dignity, and return into an obscurity where, thus far, I have not been able to trace him. Perhaps the well-known fact that the Mayor was a Presbyterian, might have something to do with the Bishop’s allusion to the Conventicle.”
[17] Aug. 16, 1688. Bodleian, Tanner MSS., xxviii.
[18] Tanner MSS., 28, 113, printed in Gutch’s Collectanea, i. 404.
[19] July 27, 1688. Wilkin’s Concilia, iv. 618.
[20] D’Oyley’s Life of Sancroft, i. 326–8. I am very sceptical about this report.
[21] London Gazette, 2384.
[22] Trelawny wrote an obsequious letter (21st of May, 1686) to the Earl of Sunderland, stating that he had reproved a clergyman for an impudent sermon with innuendoes, that though not absolutely in fear, yet they were not wholly free from some apprehensions of Popery. Trelawny himself, in this letter, declares that His Majesty was so careful of the interests of the Church of England, that though the “foolish heates” of some of its members had given him just provocation, he had curtailed none of its liberties. The Bishop complains of his Episcopal income being desperately poor. Facsimiles of National MSS., iv. 92.
[23] Clarendon Correspondence. Lord Dartmouth says, “Not long before his (Bishop Morley’s) death (for he then kept his chamber), my father carried me with him to Farnham Castle. I was not above twelve years old, but remember the Bishop talked much of the Duke, and concluded with desiring my father to tell him from him, that if ever he depended upon the doctrine of non-resistance, he would find himself deceived, for there were very few of that opinion, though there were not many of the Church of England that thought proper to contradict it in terms, but was very sure they would in practice. My father told me he had frequently put King James in mind of Morley’s last message to him, though to very little purpose; for all the answer was, that the Bishop was a very good man, but grown old and timorous.” Dalrymple, iii. appen. 289.
[24] Life of Ken, by a Layman, 317.
[25] Clarendon Correspondence.
[26] Gazette, 2386.
[27] Tanner MSS. D’Oyley’s Life of Sancroft, i. 339–344.
[28] D’Oyley, i. 345.
For the King.
O Almighty God, the blessed and only Potentate, we offer up our humble supplications and prayers to Thy Divine goodness, beseeching Thee in this time of danger to save and protect our most Gracious King. Give Thy Holy Angels charge over him; preserve his Royal Person in health and safety; inspire him with wisdom and justice in all his counsels; prosper all his undertakings for Thy honour and service with good success; fill his princely heart with a fatherly care of all his people; and give all his subjects grace always to bear faith and true allegiance to his Majesty, that both King and people, joining together to promote Thy glory, and conscientiously discharging their duties in their several stations, may all give Thee thanks and praise for Thy most mighty protection, and for all other Thy great mercies vouchsafed to us, through Jesus Christ Thy Son our Saviour. Amen.
For Repentance.
Almighty God and most merciful Father, we miserable sinners do here humbly acknowledge before Thee, that we are unworthy of the least of all Thy mercies. We confess, O Lord, in the bitterness of our souls, that we have grievously sinned against Thee; that all orders of men amongst us have transgressed Thy righteous laws; that we have hitherto rendered both Thy mercies and Thy judgments ineffectual to our amendment. It is of Thy mere mercy, O Lord, that we are not consumed; for which our souls do magnify and bless Thy name. O God, who hast hitherto spared us, to the end that Thy goodness might lead us to repentance, let it be Thy good pleasure to give unto us all that godly sorrow which worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of; that Thou mayest turn from Thy heavy displeasure against us; and mayest rejoice over us to do us good, through the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ our Lord and only Saviour. Amen.
There is a third prayer, for Unity. The three were ordered by His Majesty to be printed.
[30] Macpherson (Hist. i. 518) succinctly and completely refutes the assertion.
[31] Gutch, i. 414.
[32] Tanner MSS., vol. xxviii. 153. There is another letter on the same subject, vol. xxvii. 5.
[33] Dalrymple, i. 210.
[34] Ibid., i. 211. Reresby, who sympathized with James, remarks, respecting the invasion: “Neither the gentry, nor the commonalty were under any concern about it: said they, ‘The Prince comes only to maintain the Protestant religion—he will do no harm to England.’” p. 358.
[35] D’Oyley, i. 355.
[36] Compton’s own account. Gulch, i. 443.
[37] The following passage in a memorandum, written by Trelawny, Bishop of Exeter, shows how anxious one at least of these Bishops was afterwards to deny that they had anything to do with bringing William over to England:—“Having in a discourse with Mr. Francis Robartes, a little time after the coronation of King William, resented to him the impudence of the person, whoever he was, that insinuated in the Prince of Orange’s Declaration, as if the Bishops had invited him to come over, &c., which I verily believe to be utterly false; he replied, ‘I took an occasion to discourse Will Harbord about the particular, and asked him whether it was true; his answer was, No, damn ’em, they were not so honest, but I caus’d it to be put in, to raise a jealousy and hatred on both sides, that the King, believing it, might never forgive them, and they, fearing that he did believe, might be push’d for their own safety to wish and help on his ruin.’”—First Report of the Royal Commission on Hist. MSS., 52.
There is also “Draft of a letter to the Bishop of Worcester, dated 25th Jan., 1716, denying that the Prince of Orange was invited by the Bishops; and another, dated 26th Feb., asking the Bishop of Worcester to draw up a paper showing that the Bishops did not invite, &c., &c., ‘tho’ we thought ourselves obliged to accept of the deliverance.’”—See same Report.
[38] Whether or not on this occasion a paper was introduced by Sancroft of the land demanded by the King, certainly such a paper is in existence, bearing date the day of this meeting. “Whereas there hath been of late a general apprehension, that His Highness the Prince of Orange hath an intention to invade this kingdom in hostile manner; and (as ’tis said) makes this one reason of his attempt, that he hath been thereunto invited by several English Lords, both temporal and spiritual; I William, Archbishop of Cant., do for my own discharge profess and declare That I never gave him any such invitation by word or writing or otherwise, nor do I know, nor can believe, that any of my reverend brethren, the Bishops, have in any such wise invited him. And all this I aver upon my word, and in confirmation [for which word in MS. attestation is substituted] thereof have subscribed my name, here at Lambeth, this 3rd day of November, 1688, W. C.” Gutch, ii. 366.
[39] The following paragraph, omitted by D’Oyley, occurs in the original document: “Here also something was added which I (the Bp. of Rochester) do not distinctly remember. I think it was to this effect, that this way of men’s being so called to purge themselves might be a thing of very tender concernment to the liberties and properties of the subject, especially of the Peers, and therefore we begged His Majesty would require no more of us in particular, but would rest contented with publishing this our declaration of our innocency.” Tanner MSS.
[40] Gutch, i. 426–440.
[41] Smiles’ Huguenots, 232.
[42] Smiles’ Huguenots, 256.
[43] Rapin, iii. 285.
[44] Macaulay, iii. 226. Dr. Stanley, whose words I have quoted, refers to M’Cormick’s preface to Carstairs. State Papers, Lectures on the Church of Scotland, 116.
[45] Burnet, i. 789.
[46] “The crimson and gold purse and pincushion, which she is said to have worn at her girdle on that occasion, and her chain and locket, are still preserved in the family.”
“Before this,” adds my informant, “one of the ‘Taunton maids,’ who assisted in working a banner for Monmouth, was sent away, to be hidden from Judge Jeffreys and his creatures, who where hunting up all they could lay hands upon to extort fines from; and our ancestors having an estate near, and perhaps connections at Taunton, the girl was sent to Totnes to them, and was hidden in the roof of their house for some time. The place could only be reached by a ladder, which was removed when not wanted. There the poor girl’s food was taken to her at night, and her presence was only known to the heads of the family. The house stood where the entrance to the Priory now is.”
[47] Harl. Miscell., i. 449.
“But being soon undeceived on our landing, we found the benefit of their provision; and instead of ‘Votre serviteur, Monsieur,’ they were entertained with ‘Mynheer, can ye Dutch spraken,’ upon which they ran away from the house, but the Lady Carey and a few old servants.”
[48] “A farmer, named Searle, had holdings at this time, under the Dean and Chapter of Exeter, in the parish of Staverton. One of his grandsons died at an advanced age about seven years ago. He used to state that when he was a boy there lived an old man at Staverton, over ninety years of age, who told him that he, and others, were sent by his master, Mr. Searle’s grandfather, to the high road, with cartloads of apples, that the Prince’s troops might help themselves.
“Macaulay mentions the fact that Sir Edward Seymour was the first person of importance who joined the Prince at Exeter. It is however believed that the two had met privately, before Sir Edward publicly gave in his adhesion. A cottage still exists near Longcombe, on the borders of the parish of Berry Pomeroy, adjoining Totnes, still known as ‘Parliament House,’ where the Prince is said to have held a Council. The cottage is situated on the property of Sir Edward, in a retired spot, and not above two miles from the line of march from Brixham to Newton.” MS. Information.
[49] Le Neve’s Archbishops, 269.
[50] Quoted in Smiles’ Huguenots, 256.
[51] I give this story as it is found in the Harleian Miscellany, and Murch’s Hist. of the Presbyterian Churches. Ferguson was first a Presbyterian, then an Independent, and for some time he acted as assistant to Dr. Owen. Calamy, chiefly on the authority of Burnet, gives him a bad character, and this is endorsed in Palmer’s Nonconf. Memorial, and by Wilson in his Dissenting Churches, i. 284.
It is said that there are letters in existence which authorize a different idea of Ferguson than the current one. However this may be, there can, I apprehend, be no doubt of his eccentricity and violence, and of his taking the side of the Jacobite plotters after the Revolution, as he had taken the opposite side before. See his own extraordinary letter to Secretary Trenchard. Ralph (ii. 524) gives a full account of it.
[52] Dalrymple, i. 225.
[53] Note in Wilson’s Life of Defoe, i. 110.
[54] Tanner MSS., xxviii. 311. Dec. 29, 1688.
[55] Ken’s Life, by a Layman, 324.
[56] See Gazette, Nov.
[57] Life of James II., ii. 209–212.
[58] Sprat’s History of the Desertion, 62. Macpherson mentions a meeting held the same evening by the friends of the Prince of Orange, at which Compton was present. Hist. of Great Britain, i. 530. Original Papers, i. 281. Reresby is referred to as an authority, but I can find nothing about this circumstance in his Diary.
[59] Farnham Castle, Nov. 25, 1688. Tanner MSS., xxviii.
[60] Ralph, i. 1073.
[61] Gazettes under dates.
[62] Clarendon’s Diary, Dec. 3; ii. 214.
[63] Ibid., Dec. 5, 6.
[64] Reresby, 363, 364.
[65] Burnet, i. 793.
[66] Life of William III., 1703.
[67] Ralph, i. 1051.
[68] Burnet, i. 793.
[69] See Sprat’s History of the Desertion.
[70] Wilson’s Life of De Foe, i. 159.
[71] Tour through Great Britain, ii. 64–70. The excitement extended into Essex.
“Dec. 12. We were in a fright at Coxall (Coggeshall) in the night, and in many places, by reason of lies that were raised about some Irish soldiers that were coming, they said.” Buftons Diary, Dale’s Annals of Coggeshall, 269.
[72] Thoresby’s Diary, i. 188–191.
[73] Diary and Correspondence, ii. 506.
[74] These notes are preserved amongst the Tanner MSS., xxviii. 285, 286.
[75] Dalrymple, i. 248. Memoirs of James II., ii. 270.
[76] Account of the Life of Symon Patrick, Works, ix. 514. The Dean says it was the 17th, but this is incorrect; it must have been the 18th.
[77] This account is taken from a Diary in what is called the Historical Register Entering Book, vol. ii. 383. Morice MSS., Dr. Williams’ Library.
[78] Ralph, i. 1073.
[79] Diary and Correspondence, ii. 235.
[80] Ibid., ii. 234.
[81] Stuart Papers, quoted in D’Oyley, i. 410.
[82] Diary and Correspondence, ii. 237.
[83] Ibid., ii. 238.
[84] Diary and Correspondence, Jan. 3, 1689. Vol. ii. 240.
[85] D’Oyley’s Life of Sancroft, i. 415.
[86] “It is most certain that in the Palace of Lambeth, there were meetings of the Bishops and several of the Clergy, both before and after the Archbishop’s suspension, frequently held; so as they were even publicly taken notice of by their enemies, who, in derision, were wont to call them the Lambeth Club, and the Holy Jacobite Club.” Lansd. MSS. Kennet’s Coll., 987, 151.
[87] D’Oyley’s Life of Sancroft, i. 424.
[88] Diary, Jan. 15, 1689.
[89] Diary and Correspondence, ii. 247.
[90] Patrick’s Life. Works, ix. 515.
[91] Hunter’s Life of Heywood, 358.
[92] Life of Philip Henry, 187.
[93] Parl. Hist., v. 24.
[94] Ralph, ii. 28. They were the Bishops of London, Rochester, Norwich, Ely, Chichester, Gloucester, Bath and Wells, Peterborough, Lincoln, Bristol, and St. Asaph.
[95] Quoted in Lathbury’s Hist. of Convocation, 317.
[96] Journals of Lords. Compare Clarendon’s Diary and Correspondence, ii. 257.
[97] Parl. Hist., v. 51.
[98] The thanks were conveyed to the two Archbishops, who acknowledged them, repeating expressions of attachment to Protestantism, which they again pronounced “absolutely irreconcilable both to Popery and arbitrary power.” Gutch, i. 447.
[99] Parl. Hist., v. 59.
[100] Dalrymple, i. 267.
[101] Parl. Hist., v. 75.
[102] Burnet, i. 818.
[103] Dalrymple, i. 269.
[104] Hallam’s Const. Hist., ii. 256.
[105] It is not my province to discuss the political aspect of the Revolution; but I hope I shall be forgiven for quoting the following passage by a distinguished Frenchmen, M. d’Pressense; it is gratifying to all Englishmen and Americans:—“I call restorative the Government of a William III., or the Presidency of a Washington, because these great, good men have established society on respect for right, and have given to it for safeguard a well-regulated liberty, that is to say, a liberty which regulates itself: but I call, on the contrary, anarchical and destructive, every arbitrary régime, whether it be democratic or monarchical, and I find it so much the more dangerous the more skilfully it has organised the country of which it disposes at its pleasure.”
[106] Burke’s Reflections on the Revolution in France. Works, v. 103.
[107] Parl. Hist., v. iii.
[108] Parl. Hist., v. 111–113.
[109] Church of the Restoration, ii. 42.
[110] Burnet, i. 803.
[111] Hist. of his Own Time, ii. 8.
[112] Birch’s Life of Tillotson, 330.
[113] Parl. Hist., v. 129–131. Feb. 20.
[114] Ralph, ii. 63.
[115] Memoirs of Sir John Reresby, 398. It must be remembered that his sympathies were with James.
[116] Clarke’s Memoirs of the Wesley Family, i. 320.
[117] See Commons’ Journals, March 7, April 1, and Parl. Hist., v. 137.
[118] Lords’ Journals, March 16.
[119] Journals, March 23.
[120] Burnet, ii. 9, 10.
[121] Commons’ Journals, April 13.
[122] Reresby, 401. March 28.
[123] Life of Kettlewell, 217, 218.
[124] Parl. Hist., v. 199–206.
[125] Macaulay, iv. 121. Stanley’s Memorials of Westminster Abbey, &c., 94, and Bufton’s Diary in Dale’s Annals of Coggleshall, 270.
[126] See Church of the Restoration, ii. 145.
[127] Autobiography, 516.
[128] Somer’s Tracts (old edition), i. 380. There is a scheme of Comprehension by altering the Prayer-Book in several ways amongst the Tanner MSS., 290, 242, without date. Also another for indulgence that Dissenters be registered, and make a declaration that their Nonconformity is simply on account of conscience, and in no way through crossness, worldly interest, or design to disturb the peace of Church or State. As for such as lead loose lives, and are openly profane, the Magistrate may require their conformity until, in the judgment of charity, they may be comprehended within the number of conscientious Dissenters. Tanner MSS., 80, 108.
[129] March 23. MSS. Journal (Historical Register, Entering Book, ii.), Dr. Williams’ Library.
[130] Burnet, ii. 10. Soon after this, the Dissenting Diarist reports (Entering Book, ii. 511) a “variety of debates in the House of Lords for Comprehension and Indulgence. The Bishop of Lincoln would by no means let the surplice be laid aside, for the Church had established it, and the taking of it away would be a reflection upon the Church, as if it had erred in establishing it. The Archbishop of York said he thought the Dissenters were no Christians, for they refused to receive the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, and the Sacrament of Baptism, in such manner as it had been used in this and other Christian Churches, nobody knows how long; and therefore were not to be comprehended or indulged.”
[131] See Lords’ Journal.
[132] Entering Book, April 13. The following entry appears on the 20th:—“The Lords have sent down their Bill for uniting Protestant subjects to the Commons, and the Commons have yet before them a Bill of their own, both for the uniting of Protestant subjects and for giving indulgence to those that cannot be comprehended. The Commons’ Bill for ease and indulgence was on Monday, the 15th, ordered to be read a second time this day fortnight.”
[133] April 13. Parl. Hist., v. 217. The following passage occurs in the Entering Book, 217, Wednesday, May 15:—“Commons proceeded upon their Indulgence and Toleration Bill for Dissenters. The anti-interest seemed to be that day very calm and mild; and Sir Thomas Clarges took notice that the Lords’ Bill for Indulgence seemed very grateful to those whom it most concerned, and he was very well content it might pass. Yet he thought fit the House of Commons’ own Indulgence Bill should also be committed, and both of the Bills being committed, they might take anything that was good out of their own Bill and insert it into the Lords’ Bill. Of this opinion was Mr. Sacheverel.” It is added, “The Commons’ Bill has one excellent passage in it that is not in the Lords’ Bill, i.e. it repeals all the penal statutes against the Protestant Dissenters, when the Lords’ Bill does only suspend them, and restrain them to that matter of meetings alone, but leaves them in force upon all other accounts.”