The History of England, from the Accession of James the Second - Volume 1, Thomas Babington Macaulay [ebook pc reader txt] 📗

the Whigs in the days

of the plot, merely because the Whigs were predominant, and which

had changed with the change of fortune. James justly regarded

these renegades as the most serviceable tools that he could

employ. It was not from the stouthearted Cavaliers, who had been

true to him in his adversity, that he could expect abject and

unscrupulous obedience in his prosperity. The men who, impelled,

not by zeal for liberty or for religion, but merely by selfish

cupidity and selfish fear, had assisted to oppress him when he

was weak, were the very men who, impelled by the same cupidity

and the same fear, would assist him to oppress his people now

that he was strong.302 Though vindictive, he was not

indiscriminately vindictive. Not a single instance can be

mentioned in which he showed a generous compassion to those who

had opposed him honestly and on public grounds. But he frequently

spared and promoted those whom some vile motive had induced to

injure him. For that meanness which marked them out as fit

implements of tyranny was so precious in his estimation that he

regarded it with some indulgence even when it was exhibited at

his own expense.


The King's wishes were communicated through several channels to

the Tory members of the Lower House. The majority was easily

persuaded to forego all thoughts of a penal law against the

Exclusionists, and to consent that His Majesty should have the

revenue for life. But about the Test Act and the Habeas Corpus

Act the emissaries of the Court could obtain no satisfactory

assurances.303


On the nineteenth of May the session was opened. The benches of

the Commons presented a singular spectacle. That great party,

which, in the last three Parliaments, had been predominant, had

now dwindled to a pitiable minority, and was indeed little more

than a fifteenth part of the House. Of the five hundred and

thirteen knights and burgesses only a hundred and thirty-five had

ever sate in that place before. It is evident that a body of men

so raw and inexperienced must have been, in some important

qualities, far below the average of our representative

assemblies.304


The management of the House was confided by James to two peers of

the kingdom of Scotland. One of them, Charles Middleton, Earl of

Middleton, after holding high office at Edinburgh, had, shortly

before the death of the late King, been sworn of the English

Privy Council, and appointed one of the Secretaries of State.

With him was joined Richard Graham, Viscount Preston, who had

long held the post of Envoy at Versailles.


The first business of the Commons was to elect a Speaker. Who

should be the man, was a question which had been much debated in

the cabinet. Guildford had recommended Sir Thomas Meres, who,

like himself, ranked among the Trimmers. Jeffreys, who missed no

opportunity of crossing the Lord Keeper, had pressed the claims

of Sir John Trevor. Trevor had been bred half a pettifogger and

half a gambler, had brought to political life sentiments and

principles worthy of both his callings, had become a parasite of

the Chief Justice, and could, on occasion, imitate, not

unsuccessfully, the vituperative style of his patron. The minion

of Jeffreys was, as might have been expected, preferred by James,

was proposed by Middleton, and was chosen without opposition.305


Thus far all went smoothly. But an adversary of no common prowess

was watching his time. This was Edward Seymour of Berry Pomeroy

Castle, member for the city of Exeter. Seymour's birth put him on

a level with the noblest subjects in Europe. He was the right

heir male of the body of that Duke of Somerset who had been

brother-in-law of King Henry the Eighth, and Protector of the

realm of England. In the limitation of the dukedom of Somerset,

the elder Son of the Protector had been postponed to the younger

son. From the younger son the Dukes of Somerset were descended.

From the elder son was descended the family which dwelt at Berry

Pomeroy. Seymour's fortune was large, and his influence in the

West of England extensive. Nor was the importance derived from

descent and wealth the only importance which belonged to him. He

was one of the most skilful debaters and men of business in the

kingdom. He had sate many years in the House of Commons, had

studied all its rules and usages, and thoroughly understood its

peculiar temper. He had been elected speaker in the late reign

under circumstances which made that distinction peculiarly

honourable. During several generations none but lawyers had been

called to the chair; and he was the first country gentleman whose

abilities and acquirements had enabled him to break that long

prescription. He had subsequently held high political office, and

had sate in the Cabinet. But his haughty and unaccommodating

temper had given so much disgust that he had been forced to

retire. He was a Tory and a Churchman: he had strenuously opposed

the Exclusion Bill: he had been persecuted by the Whigs in the

day of their prosperity; and he could therefore safely venture to

hold language for which any person suspected of republicanism

would have been sent to the Tower. He had long been at the head

of a strong parliamentary connection, which was called the

Western Alliance, and which included many gentlemen of

Devonshire, Somersetshire, and Cornwall.306


In every House of Commons, a member who unites eloquence,

knowledge, and habits of business, to opulence and illustrious

descent, must be highly considered. But in a House of Commons

from which many of the most eminent orators and parliamentary

tacticians of the age were excluded, and which was crowded with

people who had never heard a debate, the influence of such a man

was peculiarly formidable. Weight of moral character was indeed

wanting to Edward Seymour. He was licentious, profane, corrupt,

too proud to behave with common politeness, yet not too proud to

pocket illicit gain. But he was so useful an ally, and so

mischievous an enemy that he was frequently courted even by those

who most detested him.307


He was now in bad humour with the government. His interest had

been weakened in some places by the remodelling of the western

boroughs: his pride had been wounded by the elevation of Trevor

to the chair; and he took an early opportunity of revenging

himself.


On the twenty-second of May the Commons were summoned to the bar

of the Lords; and the King, seated on his throne, made a speech

to both Houses. He declared himself resolved to maintain the

established government in Church and State. But he weakened the

effect of this declaration by addressing an extraordinary

admonition to the Commons. He was apprehensive, he said, that

they might be inclined to dole out money to him from time to

time, in the hope that they should thus force him to call them

frequently together. But he must warn them that he was not to be

so dealt with, and that, if they wished him to meet them often

they must use him well. As it was evident that without money the

government could not be carried on, these expressions plainly

implied that, if they did not give him as much money as he

wished, he would take it. Strange to say, this harangue was

received with loud cheers by the Tory gentlemen at the bar. Such

acclamations were then usual. It has now been, during many years,

the grave and decorous usage of Parliaments to hear, in

respectful silence, all expressions, acceptable or unacceptable,

which are uttered from the throne.308


It was then the custom that, after the King had concisely

explained his reasons for calling Parliament together, the

minister who held the Great Seal should, at more length, explain

to the Houses the state of public affairs. Guildford, in

imitation of his predecessors, Clarendon, Bridgeman, Shaftesbury,

and Nottingham, had prepared an elaborate oration, but found, to

his great mortification, that his services were not wanted.309


As soon as the Commons had returned to their own chamber, it was

proposed that they should resolve themselves into a Committee,

for the purpose of settling a revenue on the King.


Then Seymour stood up. How he stood, looking like what he was,

the chief of a dissolute and high spirited gentry, with the

artificial ringlets clustering in fashionable profusion round his

shoulders, and a mingled expression of voluptuousness and disdain

in his eye and on his lip, the likenesses of him which still

remain enable us to imagine. It was not, the haughty Cavalier

said, his wish that the Parliament should withhold from the crown

the means of carrying on the government. But was there indeed a

Parliament? Were there not on the benches many men who had, as

all the world knew, no right to sit there, many men whose

elections were tainted by corruption, many men forced by

intimidation on reluctant voters, and many men returned by

corporations which had no legal existence? Had not constituent

bodies been remodelled, in defiance of royal charters and of

immemorial prescription? Had not returning officers been

everywhere the unscrupulous agents of the Court? Seeing that the

very principle of representation had been thus systematically

attacked, he knew not how to call the throng of gentlemen which

he saw around him by the honourable name of a House of Commons.

Yet never was there a time when it more concerned the public weal

that the character of Parliament should stand high. Great dangers

impended over the ecclesiastical and civil constitution of the

realm. It was matter of vulgar notoriety, it was matter which

required no proof, that the Test Act, the rampart of religion,

and the Habeas Corpus Act, the rampart of liberty, were marked

out for destruction. "Before we proceed to legislate on questions

so momentous, let us at least ascertain whether we really are a

legislature. Let our first proceeding be to enquire into the

manner in which the elections have been conducted. And let us

look to it that the enquiry be impartial. For, if the nation

shall find that no redress is to be obtained by peaceful methods,

we may perhaps ere long suffer the justice which we refuse to

do." He concluded by moving that, before any supply was granted,

the House would take into consideration petitions against

returns, and that no member whose right to sit was disputed

should be allowed to vote.


Not a cheer was heard. Not a member ventured to second the

motion. Indeed, Seymour had said much that no other man could

have said with impunity. The proposition fell to the ground, and

was not even entered on the journals. But a mighty effect had

been produced. Barillon informed his master that many who had not

dared to applaud that remarkable speech