66 CHARACTER OF WILLIAM. [1689. deep cough." * This prince had no power of subduing men to his will by rhetorical arts. He was a master of seven languages, speaking "Dutch, French, English, and German, equally well," as Burnet records. But his possession of this necessary accomplishment of a prince did not lead him to the ambition of employing words to conceal his thoughts. "He spoke little and very slowly, and most commonly with a disgusting dryness," says Burnet. “He speaks well, and to the point," says one of the French negotiators of the peace of Ryswick. He came amongst courtiers who recollected the charm of the manners of Charles the Second-that fascinating gossip which always evaded "the point "-and in a few weeks they talked of "the morose temper of the prince of Orange." Under this frigid demeanour superficial observers could comprehend nothing of the marvellous energy of this man of action; and they descanted upon "the slothful, sickly temper of the new king." § Though "he had a memory that amazed all about him," his great abilities were not generally recognised, for he had few of the showy qualities which pass for genius. Men of that time had not studied the science of Lavater and Spurzheim, yet they had a notion that "foreheads villainous low" were symbols of imbecility; and when they looked upon the "large front" of this cautious undemonstrative stranger, they might perchance have thought that there was something in him, and that there was meaning in the silent eloquence of his "bright and sparkling eyes." There was no vivacity in the man" solemn and serious, seldom cheerful, and but with a few," says Burnet. Yet he managed to use his talents, such as they were, not for display but for service. In war he carried the hearts of all along with him by his fire and his daring. In negotiation he accomplished the most difficult objects by his perseverance, and, above all, by his truthfulness. Tallard, the ambassador from Louis XIV., writes to his master: "He is honourable in all he does; his conduct is sincere. . . . If he once enters into a treaty with your majesty, he will scrupulously adhere to it." || The same impartial observer bears testimony to his sagacity: "He is very quick-sighted, and has a correct judgment, and will soon perceive that we are trifling with him if we protract matters too much.". "Few men had stronger passions," according to Burnet; but "few men had the art of concealing and governing passion more than he had." He disarmed the hostility of factions by his seeming imperturbability. "The wishes of the king are checked," writes Tallard, "and it is only by his extreme patience, and by incessantly applying remedies to everything, that he succeeds in a part of what he desires."** And yet from the depths of this seemingly impassive nature breaks out the secret agony of his real sensitiveness, told only to his friend Heinsius: "Matters in Parliament here are taking a turn which drives me mad."++ Such was the man who was called to rule over England, in times when a statesman not to be treacherous, unpatriotic, corrupt, was a rare distinction. “He is generally hated by all the great men, and the whole of the nobility," says the French ambassador, after William had been ten years on the throne.‡‡ But Tallard adds: "It is not the same with the people, who are very favourably * Burnet, "Own Time," vol. iv. p. 547. + Ibid. § Ibid. March 29. Grimblot "Letters of William and Louis," vol. ii. p. 48 and 56. ** Ibid. vol. ii. p. 233. ++ Ibid. vol. i. p. 355. 1689.] THE KING'S MINISTERS. 67 inclined towards him, yet less so than at the beginning." What this prince had done for England, from the beginning to the end, to raise her in the scale. of nations, to save her from foreign domination, to keep her safe from domestic tvranny, to uphold that liberty of conscience which is the basis of true Protestantism, to make constitutional government a reality in spite of the low ambition of ignorant factions,—this, the people of that generation could not wholly appreciate, however they might feel that it was good for them to be under a ruler who knew that he had a work to do in the world, and who did it. "Innumerable were the crowds who solicited for and expected offices," says a bystander in 1689, who saw the progress of the game.* "The pas ture was not large enough for the flock," writes an anonymous historian of the next generation. In those days statesmen were justly open to the reproach of seeking high place out of the lust of gain, rather than for the gratification of an honourable ambition. The official salaries were extravagantly large. It was no part of the policy of the aristocratic movers in the settlement of 1689 to disturb the lavish bounties of the Stuarts to their obsequious servants. But the people felt these burdens. In 1690, Sir Charles Sedley, in a debate on the Supply, said of William, "He is a brave and generous prince, but he is a young king, encompassed and hemmed in by a company of crafty old courtiers. To say no more, some have places of 3000l., some of 60007., and others of 8600l. per annum." In the lower offices of the household and of the revenue, the pay was disproportionately large, and the perquisites still larger. The coach and six horses of the Comptroller of the Customs was a deep offence to the country gentlemen. § We may readily imagine that in such a total change as that of 1689, there was a scramble for office, in which the real principles of public men were severely tested. The king-called to the succour of England by the united voice of men of all parties, and placed upon the throne with the partial approbation of many who were opposed to the principles of his most ardent supporters,ventured upon an experiment in government, which to us would be perfectly unintelligible if we were to judge of it by the practice of modern times. He desired to govern by a balance of parties; he sought to carry that desire into effect by choosing his ministers from parties whose principles were diametrically opposed, each to the other To comprehend why it was thought possible to twist such a rope of sand into a state-cable, we must bear in mind that, under the system which had passed away, of governing as much as possible without parliaments, an administration was merely composed of men who were thought qualified to serve the king in their respective offices, without any common agreement upon particular measures. An active king, such as Charles I. and James II., was in many respects his own administrator. William III. was willing to give the same personal superintendence to the conduct of that great policy, whose advancement had chiefly moved him to contend for the English throne. He would himself conduct the foreign relations of the country, for which duty, indeed, he was more fitted than any But his confidential advisers in domestic politics should be officers man. * Evelyn, "Diary," February 21. Ralph, "History," vol. ii. p. 57-1746. "Parliamentary History," vol. v. col. 562. § Ibid. col. 670. 68 THE KING'S DUTCH FRIENDS. [1689who had influence with the two great parties in the State, and with the subdivisions of the Whig and Tory factions. There was Halifax, who was known as the Trimmer,-one who was selected to tender the crown to William and Mary, but who had taken no part in the first steps which deprived James of the crown. There was Danby, who had been impeached under Charles II. for his arbitrary and corrupt practices, and who had only given a modified support to the present change of government. There was Nottingham, whose nomination to office was a propitiation to the High Church party. There was Shrewsbury, who had borne a distinguished part in the battle which had resulted in the great victory of the Whigs. But the Revolution was the triumph of Whig principles; and thus it was natural, in the hour of triumph, after some concessions to open adversaries or doubtful friends, that the Whigs should have the larger share of the spoils. The Great Seal was put in Commission. The great office of Lord High Treasurer was not filled up, but Commissioners of the Treasury were appointed. In the same way the duties of Lord High Admiral were entrusted to a Board. These arrangements for Commissions were considered as politic devices "to gratify the more." One signal benefit of the great change was manifested to the nation-there would be no attempt to suppress public opinion by the agency of corruption on the judgment seat: "Nothing gave a more general satisfaction than the naming of the judges. The king ordered every privy counsellor to bring a list of twelve; and out of these, twelve very learned and worthy judges were chosen."+ Somers, to whose eloquence and sagacity the success of the Revolution was so much indebted, was named Solicitor-General. In the spirit of that mean dislike of foreigners which characterises the vulgar Englishman, a writer of our own day thus records one of the complaints against the arrangements of 1689: "Three of the king's Dutch followers, Bentinck, Auverquerque, and Zuylistein, were placed by him about his person, with a disdain, not of the prejudices, but of the feelings of the nation, which might have recalled to mind his Norman predecessor." There were others about William's person, who were amongst the most true-hearted of Englishmen. The duke of Devonshire was Lord Steward; the earl of Dorset was Lord Chamberlain; Sidney, the brother of the republican Algernon, was a gentleman of the bed-chamber. Yet William is held to have outraged the national feeling because he gave one place, not of politica! importance, but of necessary companionship, to Bentinck, the friend of his youth-the man who had nursed him in sickness, who had stood by him in battle; because he gave another to Auverquerque, who had saved his life by personal intrepidity in the field of St. Dennis, in 1678; and another to Zuylistein, whose father had earned a debt of gratitude from the saviour of Holland, by perishing in his cause, when Luxemburg stormed his quarters in 1672. We doubt if the people-not the mere place-hunters-were so unreasonable as to expect that their deliverer, as they called him, should be isolated amongst strangers; should have wholly to make new friends; should cast aside all memories of old affections; should forget all the associations of that lite of toil and danger which he had endured from his twenty-second Evelyn, "Diary," March 8. Burnet, vol. iv. p. 7. Continuation of Mackintosh's "History," by William Wallace, vol. viii. p. 300. 1689.] THE CONVENTION DECLARED A PARLIAMENT. 69 year to this his thirty-ninth. They could not surely forget that William was Stadtholder of Holland, as well as King of England; that the interests of both countries were the same; that the first magistrate of each of the two free states of Europe was embarked in a contest against the absolute monarch who aimed at universal dominion; that for the proper conduct of this great enterprise, it were well that he should have some few faithful friends, to whom he could pour out his heart without dread of fickleness and faithlessness. Yet against such popular prejudices it is hard to contend. William must have felt that the mere circumstance of his being a foreigner was a serious impediment to his power of doing his duty efficiently; and thus, amidst undeserved suspicions, and causeless jealousies, he pined for that happier state from which he had been called; he felt the want of that admiration which surrounded him at the Hague; he intensely longed for the return of the tranquillity that he had thrown away when he quitted his quiet home at Loo. Arms of William III. King William opened the Parliament on the 18th of February. He addressed the two Houses in a very brief speech, composed of the plainest words: "I have lately told you how sensible I am of your kindness, and how much I value the confidence you have reposed in me. And I am come hither to assure you, that I shall never do anything that may justly lessen your good opinion of me." The chief point of the speech was a recommendation "to consider of the most effectual ways of preventing the inconveniences which may arise by delays; and to judge what forms may be most proper, to bring those things to pass for the good of the nation, which I am confident are in all your minds, and which I, on my part, shall be always ready to promote." The possible delays to which the king alluded grew out of the agitation of the question, whether the Convention which had altered the Succession could continue to sit as a Parliament. The Lords immediately passed a Bill "for removing and preventing all questions and disputes touching the assembly and sitting of this present Parliament," in which it was declared that the Convention which assembled on the 22nd of January are the two Houses of Parliament, as if they had been summoned according to the usual form." But in the Commons the question was debated with great violence, upon what were maintained as constitutional principles. There had been two months of excitement since James had quitted the kingdom; and the inevitable re-action of opinion made many eager to unsettle the Settlement. Old Serjeant Maynard maintained that this was not a time to stand upon forms. great danger in sending out writs at this time, if you consider what a ferment the nation is in. I think the Clergy are out of their wits." The outrages that James had attempted upon the national religion were by many forgotten. The dread of Popery was extinguished in the dread of Dissent. This was the first move of a powerful faction when they agitated the question whether the Convention were a Parliament; thus to postpone the formal adhesion of the Church and the Laity to the new sovereign, and to delay the grant of supplies, at a time of impending danger on every side. The state of the parliamentary "There is a 70 OATH OF ALLEGIANCE-NONJURORS. (1689 constituencies—a state that remained unaltered for nearly a century and ahalf-presented a wide field for intrigue and corruption. The real opinion of the people upon such a vital question as that of uncompromising fealty to a new dynasty could not be fairly arrived at, when Cornwall, with its twentyfive thousand householders, returned one-third more members than Yorkshire with its hundred thousand; and when Sussex, another great seat of decayed boroughs, returned nearly four times as many members as Middlesex and London. In this question of the legality of the Parliament, the constituencies were not however called upon to decide. The Bill was passed; and it was accompanied with a clause that no person should sit and vote in either House of Parliament without taking the prescribed oath to be faithful and bear true allegiance to king William and queen Mary, according to the form prescribed in the Declaration of Rights.* The 1st of March was the day after which no seat could be taken in Parliament unless allegiance had thus been previously sworn. The archbishop of Canterbury and seven other spiritual peers absented themselves, as well as various lay peers. In the Commons the absentees were not so proportionately numerous. The Jacobite party sustained a defeat; but the example of the prelates operated upon many of the inferior Clergy, when the time arrived in which they also were to declare in the most solemn manner their adherence to the new government. An oath, in place of the old oath of allegiance and supremacy, was to be taken by all lay persons holding offices, and by all in possession of any benefice or other ecclesiastical preferment. Those churchmen who did not take this oath on or before the 1st of August were to be suspended; and if at the end of six months they continued to refuse, were to be deprived.† About four hundred refused the oath, and, losing their benefices, were, during three reigns, a constant source of irritation and alarm, under the name, familiarised to us by our lighter as well as graver literature, of Nonjurors. Whatever opinions may be entertained of the wisdom of this resistance, we must, in this case, as in the previous cases of the Episcopalians ejected by the Long Parliament, and of the Puritans ejected after the Restoration, respect the selfdenial of those who suffered for conscience sake. Their devotion to the principle of hereditary right might be a weakness, but it was not a crime. The policy of their deprivation was very questionable. Those who took the oaths, and satisfied their principles by intriguing and preaching against the government de facto, were really more dangerous than the eminent divines, such as Ken, and Sherlock, and Leslie, who openly refused to support it by their declared allegiance. Violent and factious men might bring contempt on the name of Nonjurors; but many of the less distinguished among them set about getting their bread by the honest exercise of their talents and learning. If some became fawning domestic chaplains to plotting Jacobite lords, others kept themselves above want by literary labours, however humble. John Blackbourn, the ejected incumbent of two livings, earned his bread as corrector of the press for William Bowyer.‡ In this first Session of the first Parliament of the Revolution, amidst signal manifestations of a narrow and a factious spirit, we have abundant evidence * 1 Gul. & Mar. c. 1. +1 Gul. & Mar. c. 8. Nichols' "Literary Anecdotes," vol. iii. p. 252. |