ever, to have been satisfied with victory, and not to have sought vengeance: but giving way to his own resentment, as well as to the suggestions of the court-party, so long oppressed by the whigs, he belied his habitual moderation by severe retaliation. One College was convicted and hung at Oxford on an absurd accusation; and the charter of the city of London was forfeited, because the grand jury threw out a bill charging Shaftesbury with high-treason. This severity and the violation of the forms of law led to the formation of the

1683.

A.D. Ryehouse Plot. The principal leaders in this attempt were the Duke of Monmouth, who aspired to the throne; Shaftesbury, who had been recently tried for projecting a rebellion, but acquitted through want of proof; Algernon Sidney, a republican in feeling and upon principle; the Earl of Essex; and Lord William Russell, an amiable and virtuous nobleman, who, remaining attached to the established constitution, looked only to the exclusion of the Duke of York and the reformation of the national grievances. They all differed in their views, motives, and object, but united in the scheme of promoting a general insurrection; a proceeding which some of them, in their republican fervour, regarded as not only necessary, but even legitimate. They were betrayed by one of their subordinate confederates; Essex died by his own hand in prison; Russell and Sidney perished on the scaffold; Shaftesbury escaped to the continent, and ended his days in exile; and Monmouth was pardoned, but banished from the kingdom. Henceforward everything yielded to the authority of the king and of his brother, who, restored to his post of high admiral, exercised an all-prevailing influence. When he felt his end approaching, the king, at his brother's desire, solemnly acknowledged himself to be an adherent of the church of Rome, the rites of which were administered to him by a priest of the name of Huddlestone. Charles died on the 6th of February 1685, in the fifty-fifth year of his age, having reigned thirty-six years, reckoning from his father's death, or twenty-four from the time of his own restoration. His brother, the Duke of York, tranquilly succeeded to the vacant throne.

EXERCISES.

1. When was Charles II. proclaimed king? Who was made a duke for helping him to the throne? What were the first proceedings of the government? What was the nature of the act of uniformity? How did parliament behave to the king? How did he behave to the nation? What happened to the city of London?

2. What was the thoughtless remark on which the king acted in Scot land? What was the conduct of James Sharpe when he was sent to London? What did the presbyterians of Scotland do? What happened to Sir James Turner? What occurred at Rullion Green? Describe the conduct of the Scottish government to the covenanting prisoners. Who was mur dered by the covenanters ?

3. Who formed the Cabal? What caused the recommencement of parliamentary resistance? What was the conduct of Charles in relation to the Triple Alliance? What was the Test Act? What course did the king follow as to Louis the Fourteenth ?

4. What alienated the affections of the people from the court? What was the character of Lord Shaftesbury? Who was Titus Oates? Give an account of what was done about the popish plot.

5. What plot was formed against the Duke of York? In what temper did the parliament end? For what object was a bill of exclusion introduced in the Commons? What other measures did the new parliament take against the king? What party names had their origin at this period?

6. What resolution did the king come to on the subject of parliaments? Who were the leaders of the plot against him? What was the result of it? What did Charles do when he felt his end approaching? When did he die?

CHAPTER XXVII.

JAMES II. TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE REVOLUTION, A. D. 1685-1688.

James II.-Rebellions of Argyle and Monmouth-The Bloody AssizeJames's despotic Measures-Illegal Suspension of the Test Act-The Dispensing Power-Attack upon the Church-Proceedings of the High Commission-Declaration of Indulgence-The Universities-ScotlandSecond Declaration of Indulgence-Remonstrance of the Bishops.

1. THE first acts of the new king's reign indicated moderation and wisdom: his application to business, his economy, and his promises to respect the laws and religion of the state, imposed silence on his enemies. The new parliament testified their confidence in the monarch, and granted him the same revenue as had been enjoyed by his predecessor. It was at this time that the Dukes of Argyle and Monmouth, who had been banished in the preceding reign, returned for the purpose of raising an insurrection. Argyle landed in Scotland, where, supported by his numerous vassals and connexions, he flattered himself with the prospect of a general rising: Monmouth landed in the west of England, where his mere presence and the popularity of his name were deemed sufficient to effect a

revolution. But the hopes of both were disappointed. James, assisted by the parliaments of the two kingdoms, took the most vigorous measures. Argyle was defeated at Dumbarton, Monmouth at Sedgemoor, and both were taken prisoners. Monmouth's youth and amiable qualities, as well as his descent from the late king, held out hopes of pardon; but James was inexorable, and they were both executed, the one at Edinburgh and the other at London. This severity, more just than necessary, was perhaps still more contrary to sound policy than to humanity. And yet it was but the prelude to more barbarous executions. James would not pardon any of the participators in this rebellion, and two men, whose names have been branded with eternal infamy, Colonel Kirke, and Judge Jeffreys, afterwards rewarded with the title of chancellor, seconded his thirst for vengeance with frightful eagerness. The memory of this period, known as the Bloody Assize, is still fresh among the descendants of Jeffreys' victims, and local traditions still point to the scenes of many of the foulest atrocities of this month of terror. There are spots which even now the peasantry fear to pass after sunset.

Very early in his reign the king became unpopular and suspected by his subjects on account of his favour for the Roman-catholics, which he began to exhibit by relieving them. from the laws that had been enacted against them. It must not be supposed, however, that his toleration of, or even partiality for, the members of his own church caused the calamities under which he suffered. He was a Roman-catholic when he ascended the throne, and yet he was welcomed by the very people who afterwards acted against him. His brother had been opposed in parliament; but the first parliament of King James was the most loyal that had met since the days of Elizabeth. They showed an unusual degree of confidence in voting to him for life a revenue equivalent to what his brother enjoyed at the time of his death, and immediately at his desire adding farther taxes for the support of a navy. They must naturally have expected that the king would insist on following the observances of his own religion, and also that he would endeavour to procure toleration for all its followers. It was not so much the things he desired as the way in which he endeavoured to accomplish them that frightened the people. In fact, he attempted all along to be what no king could be consistently with the law of England-a despotic monarch, whose will was law. Before his parliament met, and of course

before they could grant supplies, he insisted on levying cus toms duties by his own prerogative. His ministers recommended him merely to charge the amount against the merchants in the meantime, and not forcibly to levy the money till he had the authority of parliament; but he would not listen to a proposal which seemed to place a limit on his power. Then when he met the parliament, he told them pretty plainly, that so long as they agreed to do what he desired he would consult them, but no longer.

The king had little cause indeed to complain of the parliament, for their very first act was to settle tonnage, poundage, and other duties on him for life. But when they reassembled towards the end of the year, and James claimed the power of keeping Romish officers in his service, they ventured to dissent from his views, and were dismissed in anger. The king had declared that the conduct of the militia at the time of Monmouth's insurrection had shown that they were not to be depended upon; that he had therefore been obliged to employ regular troops; and that having benefited by their services, he neither could nor would part with them. To strengthen his position he procured from the judges a solemn confirmation of the power he claimed. This arose on a feigned action brought against Sir E. Hales, a recent convert to popery, for a penalty incurred by accepting a military command without taking the oath prescribed by the test act. Hales pleaded a dispensation, which the judges held to be lawful; but their judgment was as hurtful to James as the decision in favour of ship-money had been to his father.

No

2. The test act passed in 1673, besides the oaths of supremacy and others, required that every holder of office in the country should abjure the doctrine of transubstantiation. This was of course intended to prevent Roman-catholics from holding office; but the people began to see with alarm that, without getting the act repealed by parliament, the king gave several Roman-catholics commissions in the army. king of England had possessed the power of making laws; but it was part of the royal prerogative to pardon those who were guilty of transgressing the laws. Through means of this power the king thought he might virtually abolish the test act, by pardoning all Roman-catholics who held offices without complying with the test. At the same time, as he was the head of the church, he might appoint Roman-catholics to ecclesiastical offices, and might pardon them for any breaches

of the law which they committed in holding such offices. It was necessary, however, that he should get the courts of law to co-operate in his projects, and the lawyers generally held that the power of pardoning was merely intended for mitigating the harshness of the law in individual cases, and not for abrogating it altogether. Some of the judges said that they would not join in the king's proposal, and as he had unfortunately the power of displacing them, he said, "I am, determined to have twelve judges who are all of my mind in this matter." To this, Jones, one of the independent judges, answered, "Your majesty may find twelve judges of your mind, but hardly twelve lawyers.'

The first efforts made to transfer the benefices of the Church of England to Roman-catholics were confined to clergymen who changed their faith in subserviency to the king. James granted warrants to enable these clergymen to enjoy their benefices, although they had changed their religion. But he was resolved to do more in ecclesiastical matters than he could accomplish in politics. According to the constitution, as the ecclesiastical part of it had been fixed at the Reformation, the king was the temporal head of the church. It was difficult to say what precise power this gave him, but he was resolved to try if it might not enable him to hand over the church establishment with all its wealth and power to his own religion, which he counted the only true one. For this purpose he appointed a court of ecclesiastical commissioners, and at the head of a tribunal which was to deal with the clergy and religion, he placed Jeffreys, now lord chancellor, a man with so little religion that he could scarcely speak without blaspheming, and with so little decorum, that he hurt his health by attempting, when intoxicated, to climb naked to the top of a lamp-post in the open street to drink the king's health. Mr Macaulay says, "The words in which the jurisdiction of these officers was described were loose, and might be stretched to any extent. All colleges and grammar-schools, even those founded by the liberality of private benefactors, were placed under the authority of the new board. All who depended for bread on situations in the church or in academical institutions, from the primate down to the youngest curate, from the vicechancellors of Oxford and Cambridge down to the humblest pedagogue who taught Corderius, were at the royal mercy. If any one of those many thousands was suspected of doing or saying anything distasteful to the government, the commis