The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1838-07-13 00:00:00

THE REVOLUTION OF 1688.

(Continued from the Standard of Tuesday.)
But there was yet another innovation needed to render
the privileges of the Commons efficient as a check upon the
executive power. It was of little service for them to hold
the strings of the national purse, or to prescribe the uses to
which the national revenue should be applied, without being
enabled to ascertain whether their bounty had in truth been
applied to the assigned purpose. In 1666 the- ill success of
the Dutch war, after the lavish grants of parliament, begot
a suspicion in the public mind, that, in spite of the stringent
clauses to which we have already adverted, some, if not the
greater part, of the moneys voted for carrying on the war,
had been otherwise employed. Under this impression, the
Commons appointed a committee to examine and report
upon the accounts of the officers of the navy and ordnance,
which the King directed should be submitted to their in-
spection. But this committee was found of very' little ser-
vice, probably because it did not possess the power of admi-
nistering an oath. A bill was therefore introduced into the
Commons, and which ultimately passed into a law, appointing
certain individuals commissioners for inquiring into the de-
tails of the public expenditure, and requiring them annually
to report the result of their investigations to both houses of
parliament. Clarendon informs us that he had most strongly
counselled the King never to consent to any measure of this
kind; and Mr. Wingrove Cooke's honest and patriotic friend,
Lord Ashley, is known to have tendered the same advice.
Our knowledge of Charles's character justifies us in suppo-
sing that it was some urgent necessity, real or apparent,
which forbade his refusal to assent to this bill, for it is indeed
impossible to conceive any measure more repugnant to his
natural disposition. Inheriting the high notions of his fa-
mily respecting kingly dignity, it was offensive to his feelings
that subjects should venture to arrogate to themselves the
right of examining his officers, and inquiring into the appli-
cation of his revenue. It wounded his pride as well as
thwarted his designs; it degraded him iu his own estimation
to the level of a Venetian doge or a IJutch stadtholder—
robbed him of the essential attributes, the accustomed power,
of royalty. On figne occasion he expressed his feelings on
this subject to Lord Essex; he said that he did not wish to
be like the grand seignor, surrounded with mutes and bags
of bowstrings, to strangle men at his pleasure, " but he did
think be was not a king so long as a company of fellows
were looking into all his actions, and examining all his mi-
nisters, as well as all his accounts." Essex might have re-
plied in the words which Scott has placed in the mouth of
Buckingham in reference to a different subject, " Spoken
like a royal king, sir; but, pardon me, not like a King of
England."

11. However we may lament the spirit of intemperance
and faction which the Long Parliament of 1740 displayed
throughout the greater part of their career, we must still ad-
mit that they were eminently distinguished by a zealous at-
tachment to those privileges of the House of Commons,
which render it so valuable a branch of our constitutional
government. But their successors, in 1661, were in no way
inferior to them in this respect. At no period of our history
were those privileges more boldly asserted or more vigorously
en forced. To this period may be assigned the origin of that
great doctrine so eminently characteristic of our constitu-
tion—the doctrine of ministerial responsibility—that doc-
trine which, by rendering the, advisers of the Sovereign ac-
countable to parliament for the justice and policy of all the
measures emanating from the crown, has secured the na-
tional liberties without inducing that confusion and disorder
which the personal responsibility of the Sovereign would
necessarily occasion. Never was the privilege of impeach-
ment so frequently exercised as by this parliament; indeed,
S 3 much so, that a writer on our constitution observes, that
in many cases it is difficult to suspect them of having in view
more than the mere assertion of their right.
The first instance in which a minister of tne crown became
the object of impeachment in this parliament was in the
case of the chancellor, the famous Earl of Clarendon. This
impeachment was the work of the tory party, and from the
articles of charge upon which it was founded, we may derive
some information respecting the principles and views of that
party in those times. The chief offences with which Claren-
don was charged were, that he had advised the King to
govern by military power without parliament ; that he had
introduced an arbitrary government into the plantations;
that he had procured many of the King's subjects to be im-
prisoned against law in remote islands and garrisons, to pre-
vent their having the benefit of the law ; and that he had,
advised the sale of Dunkirk. However, viewing this sub-
ject with the calm partiality which the remoteness of the
times enables us to exercise, we may question the policy of
thus driving from the cabinet the least corrupt and most en-
lightened of the statesmen that then surrounded the throne;
however we may condemn the factious spirit frequentlyhe-
trayed during the progress of this impeachment, or be inclined
to consider as unfounded many of the charges brought against
the chancellor; we must remember that it is not in reference
to the motives of individuals that this event is to be viewed.
It is remarkable, as an instance of a House of Com-
mons whose principles' and feelings alike disposed them
to support the throne and its councillors dragging to the bar
of public justice a minister of that crown, simply because he
had, in their view, proved himself the friend of arbitrary and
unconstitutional government. Let the detractors of this par-
liament say what they may—stigmatise it with every epithet
the dictionary of party abuse may furnish—this fact stands
upon record ; and the inferences which this fact affords,
though they may be denied, cannot be really disproved.
Hear a competent witness speak to the results of Clarendon's
impeachment, "The most fatal blow," says James 11. in his
memoirs, "the King gave himself to his power was, when he
sought aid from the House of Commons to destroy the Earl
of Clarendon; by that he put that House again in mind of
their impeaching privilege, which had been wrested out of
their hands by the restoration; and when ministers found
they were likely to be left to the censure of the parliament it
made them have a greater attention to court an interest there
than to pursue that of their princes, from whom they hoped
not for so sure a support." In the year 1675—that unhappy
year when the disgraceful cabal ministry were in full feather
—actuated by the same attachment to‘constitutional freedom,
with a boldness which the magnitude of the danger demanded,
the Commons addressed the throne, denouncing the " evil
counsellors" with which it was surrounded, and to whose
pernicious policy they imputed the corruption which pervaded
the whole government. They charged the cruel and blood-
thirsty Lauderdale with having asserted that "the King's
edicts were of equal authority to laws," and prayed the King
to remove him from his councils and presence, for having
avowed doctrines so irreconcilable with the existence of a
limited monarchy. They impeached the Duke of Bucking.
ham ; nor was Lord Arlington permitted to escape. We may
record, in a word, the result of this proceeding. Buckingham
and Arlington were dismissed the cabinet, and Lauderdale,
for whom the King had an especial regard, was compelled to
confine his attention solely to the affairs of Scotland. We
may, therefore, number amongst the achievements of the tory
parliament that it destroyed that base and unprincipled
ministry whose existence was so disgraceful to the King. and
whose policy proved so injurious to the country. Their name
has passed into our language as a svnonyme of mean and
despicable conspiracy. The impeachment of Thomas Os-
borne, Earl of Danby, next deserves our attention. This
minister bad always distinguished himself by his zealous
opposition to the French interest; and we owe to him the
marriage of the Princess Mary with the Prince of Orange,
from which such important consequences flowed in aftertimes.
It was to this that he owed his fall. At Louis's instigation,
Montagu, the English ambassador to France, laid before the
House of Commons a despatch he had received from Denby,
instructing him to propose that Charles should remain neuter
in the war between France and the Dutch, on consideration
of a certain sum. To this despatch was subjoined a post-
script, written and signed by the King himself, stating it was
by his orders the despatch was written. Danby had therefore
for his defence the plea that be had only obeyed the orders of

his master; and there can be no doubt that this was strictly
true. In impeaching him, therefore, with the full knowledge
of this fact, the commons virtually denied, that the express
command of the' Sovereign justified a minister in pursuing a
policy degrading or injurious to his country. The House of
Commons displayed also a very reasonable jealousy of any
interference of the crown with the f. eedom of elections.
Shaftesbury, when chancellor, issued writs during a proroga-
tion of the house, for supplying some vacancies which had
occurred—the usual course being for the speaker to issue his
warrant to the clerk of the crown, by whom the writs are
prepared, and• forwarded to the chancellor for the purpose of
being sealed. Shaftesbury was induced to take this unusual
course, in order to get some creatures of his own returned.
The House of Commons, however, resolved that all elections
in pursuance of such writs were void. We may, perhaps,
as well notice in this place, just to show how little they were
entitled to the epithet of " courtly," that when they were
informed of the intended marriage of the Duke of York with
a Modenese princess they addressed the crown, praying that
the duke might not be married to any person not of the pro-
testant faith. Upon this the King prorogued them for a
week, and upon their re-assembling informed them that the
marriage was already completed. Upon which they resolved
that, unless the obstinacy
.of the Dutch should require it, they
would entertain the question of a supply until the kingdom
was secured from the dangers of popery. They then agreed
upon another address against the marriage, to which the
King replied by a prorogation.
111. Two years after the restoration, Charles attempted to
assume a power entirely inconsistent with the character of a
constitutional sovereign. He issued a proclamation dispen-
sing with the penalties to which certain acts of parliament
had subjected those who did not conform to the established
church. In this proclamation, as well as in the speech from
the throne at the opening of the next session of parliament,
he insinuated a right of suspending the execution of all eccle-
siastical laws, by virtue of his authority as supreme head of
the church. This bold assumption of legislative power met
with a spirited resistance from the tory commons, who ad-
dressed the King in a firm but respectful tone, assuring him
that ecclesiastical laws " could not be dispensed with but by
act of parliament."—( Comm. foam. 27th Feb. 1662.) The
King did not then persist in the attempt. Ten years after-
wards, however, prompted by the evil genius of Shaftesbury,
he issued a proclamation conceived in a still bolder spirit,
by which he suspended all penal laws against recusants and
non-conformists, in mentioning this proclamation in his
speech to parliament, the King declared, in very positive
terms, his determination to abide by it. " I will deal very
plainly with you," he said; " I am resolved to stick to my
declaration." The commons were not daunted by this angry
language. By a large majority they agreed to an address,
remonstrating with him upon his conduct; upon which he
replied, that he claimed no right which was no warranted by
law. They. still persisted in their opposition, and the King,
after in vain appealing to the lords for their assistance, ter-
minated the controversy by cancelling the declaration. •
IV. The tory party have always displayed the greatest
jealousy of a standing army. This spirit betrayed itself during
the parliament of 1661 in a very remarkable mner. At the
eO
time when a Dutch fleet had sailed up the Thames, and
threatened the metropolis itself, the King hastily assembled
a large army, and immediately convoked the parliament,
which then stood prorogued to a later day. Upon their meet-
ing, and previously to the King delivering his speech, the
commons voted an address, praying that when a peace should
be concluded the newly-riled forces might be disbanded ;
upon which Charles forthwith prorogued them. In 1673 they
voted the standing army "to be a grievance." Five years
after this, the King having send down a message to the house,
asking for supplies for the maintenance of the army, the
commons directly voted that the greater part of the forces
should be at once disbanded; and afterwards resolved that
they would entertain no new motion for a supply that session.
The jealousy which the tories have in every period of their
history displayed upon this point has arisen, " partly froin a
regard," Mr. Hallam is good enough to admit, " to the
ancient usage of the constitution ; partly, no doubt," he is
pleased to add, " from a factious or disaffected spirit." The
liberality of this sentiment is in every respect worthy of a
" liberal."

V. In reference to their policy with respect to the establish-
ed church, we cannot consider the parliament as meriting the
severe censure passed on it by the whig writers. The act of
uniformity, which they have regarded as the very climax of
intolerance, was, in truth, a measure rendered absolutely
necessary by the times; to it we are indebted for the very
existence of our church. It would have been a glaring ab-
surdity, not to say a prolific source of dissension and scandal,
had the pulpits of the church continued to be filled by those
who had declared her corrupt in her doctrines, idolatrous in
her worship, and superstitious in her ceremonies. We do
not deny that there were in this act, as in others passed by
this parliament in relation to the church, some provisions
which the enlightened of modern times would be disposed to
condemn; provisions conceived in a narrow and illiberal
spirit, but a spirit belonging to the age, and not peculiar to
the church. In truth, toeration was in those days rather the
Shibboleth of party, the war-cry of faction, than a principle
to be carried out into practical operation. After all, the
struggle was for supremacy; nothing less would have con-
tented either the churchman or the dissenter; and, virtually,
the question which the parliament had to decide was, to
which of the two that supremacy should be awarded. Well
and wisely for themselves and for posterity did they deter-
mine this question. But this House of Commons afforded
very striking proofs that their zeal for the church was tem-
pered"with discretion. In an act passed in the first session,
for the purpose of restoring to the spiritual courts certain
powers which the usurpation bad wrested from them, a clause
was inserted declaring that •nothing in that act contained
should be construed as reviving the obnoxious court of high
commission, which had caused so much scandal to the church
in the reign of Charles I.; nor as confirming the canons of
1640, which had proved no less mischievous. We may re-
gard in an equally favourable light the discontinuance of the
practice formerly pursued of taxing the clergy by means of
the convocation. It was during this parliament that the
alteration was effected, and the clergy have ever since been
taxed by the commons, in the same manner as the rest of the
community.
Whatever the established church had to apprehend from
presbyterian or independent, still greater was the danger with
which she was threatened from the insiduous hostility of the
catholic party. In this juncture it was to the wisdom and
virtue of the tory commons that she was indebted for her
safety. To that wisdom and to that virtue we owe our
liberties, our laws, possibly our existence, as an independent
people. The test act, that bulwark of the protestant faith,
was the great work of this parliament. Carried in the teeth
of a powerful and united faction, who were supported by the
Roman catholic party, and headed by the King and the heir
apparent, this wise and vigorous measure may he regarded as
a sufficient refutation of the calumnies so unsparingly heaped
upon the memory of the " courtly, pensioned parliament."
Beneficial as it proved in its ultimate effects, its immediate
consequences were eminently advantageous. It drove the
Duke of York from the admiralty, compelled Clifford to re-
sign the high treasurer's staff, and taught the King that it was
by force and violence alone he could hope to accomplish his
design, and to establish the catholic faith on the ruins of the
protestant church.
We have now, we trust, redeemed our pledge. We have
shown that the tory parliament ,of 1661, upon whose wads
the whig historians have poured the vials of their wrath,
asserted and established the chief of those principles which
have been denominated "the principles of the revolution."
We say established, and we say so advisedly. We say esta-
blished, because it was their influence which, surviving ten
years of faction and oppression, at last precipitated the tyrant
from his throne. For what was the plea by which, during
the very agony of the revolution, its authors justified the
expulsion of the King? They contended that James had
endeavouired to subvert the protestant faith, and the laws
and liberties of his subjects. And in what acts was this
endeavour manifested? In his attempt to suspend laws, and
the execution of laws; in his levying and appropriating
money in other manner than was directed by parliament;
in maintaining a standing army; in violating the freedom of
elections, and in re-establishing a court which parliament
had expressly abolished; in short, in trampling upon those
very principles which were established, as we have already
seen, by the tory Tiarliament of 1661. We say, then, that to
this parliament we owe whatever benefits the revolution has
produced. Had they not established these principles the
expulsion of James would have been no more a justifiable
act than was the deposition of his father The grand dis-
tinction, putting aside the motives of the parties, between
the revolution, fitly called the rebellion, of 1640, and the
revoluti.on of 1688. was, that in the one case the King exer-
cised powers which,- as a prudent man, he should not have
exercised ; in the other case, the King violated the laws
and priuciples of the constitution of the country, and endea-
voured to convert a free government into an absolute des-
potism.
- •

We are happy in the opportunity that has been afforded
us of rescuing (as we trust to have done) the memory of this
parliament from the obloquy and contempt in which faction
bad involved it, and, by recording the services it has ren-
dered to the cause of 'oar constitution, of displaying it iu its
true character—as the friend of rational freedom, and of the
good order by which that freedom is preserved and extended.