76

THE FIRST MUTINY ACT.

[1689 for the common defence of the Protestant Religion, and for the reducing of Ireland. And whereas no man may be forejudged of life or limb or subjected to any kind of punishment by martial law, or in any other manner than by the judgment of his peers and according to the known and established laws of this realm. Yet nevertheless it being requisite for retaining such forces as are or shall be raised during this exigence of affairs in their duty, an exact discipline be observed. And that soldiers who shall mutiny or stir up sedition, or shall desert their majesties' service be brought to a more exemplary and speedy punishment than the usual forms of Law will allow." The Mutiny Act was limited to a duration of six months. It was necessarily renewed, again and again, during the reign of William. A standing army became an integral part of the government of this country, whether during peace or during war. But Parliament always held its effectual control over the executive, so as to prevent any abuse of military power, by never passing a Mutiny Bill for a longer term than a year. For one hundred and sixty-nine years the statute-book has continued to have its "Act for punishing Mutiny and Desertion ;" and in the Act of the 21st of Victoria, as in the Act of the 1st of William and Mary, it is still recited that the raising or keeping a Standing Army, unless it be with the consent of Parliament, is against law; that a body of forces is necessary for the safety of the kingdom; that no man can be punished except by the laws of the realm; yet nevertheless &c. &c. This Act, now swollen to a hundred and seven Clauses, is to continue in force for one year, at dates commencing and ending according to the distribution of the forces, whether in Great Britain or Ireland, or in the numerous stations in every region of the globe where the British flag now floats. Under the two constitutional principles, therefore, of an appropriation of the supply, and the passing of an annual Mutiny Bill, the power of the Crown cannot be maintained without the co-ordinate power of Parliament. The sovereign cannot raise an army, or pay an army, without the consent of Parliament. The annual assembly of Parliament is therefore absolutely essential to the conduct of the government; and if evil times should ever by possibility arise in which the Crown and the Parliament should be at issue, the maintenance of an army would be an act of pure despotism on the part of the executive power, only to be met by an equally unconstitutional assumption of executive power on the part of the legislature.

The position of the new government was necessarily a dangerous one. Triumphant as had been the first days of the Revolution, it was inevitable, especially whilst there was a civil war in Ireland, and whilst Scotland was distracted by party-strife, that plots should be formed in England for bringing back king James. William had notified to Parliament that he had caused several persons to be apprehended, on credible information that they were conspiring against the government; and he asked for advice under the difficulty of his unwillingness to act against law on the one hand, or to suffer dangerous men to avail themselves of the privileges of the Habeas Corpus Act on the other hand. The Lords, in an excess of loyal devotion, recommended the king to take extraordinary care of the public safety, by securing all disaffected persons. The Commons, much more wisely, passed a Bill for

* 1 Gul. & Mar. c. 5.

1689.] SUSPENSION OF HABEAS CORPUS-BILL OF INDEMNITY.

77

the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act till the 17th of April. This Act was twice renewed during the Session.* If William thus thought it necessary to strengthen his hands against existing dangers, he desired, as all highminded possessors of power in troublous times should desire, that in a great degree there should be oblivion for past political offences. The cruel chancellor Jeffries; the corrupt chief-justice Wright; other unjust judges and agents of despotism, were in confinement. Many who had been manifest enemies of public liberty dreaded that the day of retribution was at hand. "The hottest of the Whigs," according to Burnet, would not forward this honest design of the king. "They thought it best to keep many under the lash; they intended severe revenge for the blood that had been shed, and for the many unjust things that had been done in the end of king Charles's reign." They carried their opposition to the king by indirect means, rather than by sweeping exceptions to a general amnesty. "They proceeded so slowly in that matter, that the Bill could not be brought to ripeness during this Session." The people admired the mildness of the king's temper. The factious politicians got up an imputation against him, that he desired "to make use of a set of prerogative men, as soon as he legally could.” †

The terms of the Coronation Oath, which for many years in the memory of some living was a fatal stumbling-block in the great healing measure of Roman Catholic relief, were debated in the first Parliament of William and Mary, as if the difficulty was foreseen that did arise under a very different condition of society. The ancient oath was declared to be "framed ir doubtful words and expressions with relation to ancient laws and constitutions at this time unknown." This part of the preamble of the Act had especially reference to ecclesiastical laws. Those words of the new oath which were the subject of debate run thus: The archbishop or bishop is to ask the sovereign, "Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the laws of God, the free profession of the Gospel, and the Protestant reformed religion established by law?" And the sovereign promises so to do. It was moved "that the king, in the oath, swear to maintain the Protestant religion, as it is, or shall be, established by law." Those who contended for the introduction of the words "shall be," amongst whom was Somers, were in a minority. They desired that no such construction should be put upon the words "is established by law," as should lead a conscientious ruler to imagine that he was to sanction no legislative change that might affect the existing condition of the Church. The historian of this period says: "Every person who has read these debates must be fully convinced that the statesmen who framed the Coronation Oath did not mean to bind the king in his legislative capacity."§ It is indeed true that the apprehension that the words "established by law" would make the laws unalterable, was felt as an absurdity by the soundest heads in that Parliament. "Not able to alter laws as occasion requires!" indignantly exclaimed sir Robert Cotton. They looked only to such alterations as might widen the limits of the Church by a liberal comprehension of Protestant Dissenters. Sir George Treby seems, if we rightly understand his words, to have looked further. "When we are dead

* 1 Gul. & Mar. c. 2, c. 7, and c. 77. 1 Gul. & Mar. c. 6.

Burnet, "Own Time," vol. iv. p. 26.

§ Macaulay, vol. iii. p. 117.

78

THE CORONATION OATH AND CORONATION-WAR.

[1689. and gone, all these debates will be in the air, and a greater scruple remain.” * One greater scruple was that which harassed the mind of George III. Happily the question is set at rest by the common sense of our own times.

The Coronation of king William and queen Mary took place on the 11th of April, according to the ancient ceremonials. The archbishop of Canterbury was absent. The bishop of London supplied his place. Burnet, now bishop of Salisbury, preached, "with great applause," says Evelyn. The Members of the Lower House had especial places of honour; they were feasted in the Exchequer-chamber, and had each a gold coronation medal. The honest citizens rang their bells and made their bonfires. The Jacobites circulated their doggrel against "the dainty fine king;" and the Dutch guards who kept the ground were abused as foreign mercenaries. The House of Commons, two days after the Coronation, went up with a congratulatory address to the king and queen. But, eleven days later, the House presented an address of far greater import-declaring that they would support the crown in a war against the French king. The seconder of the address maintained "that it is of absolute necessity to declare war against the most Christian Turk, who ravages all Christendom, and makes war more barbarously than the Turks themselves." To Louis was attributed, in the address, "the present invasion of the kingdom of Ireland, and supporting your majesty's rebellious subjects there." William, in his answer, said, "I look upon the war to be so much already declared by France against England, that it is not so properly an act of choice, as an inevitable necessity, in our defence." The spirit of the king leapt up at this hearty support of the Commons in the great contest for which he had been long preparing. He is reported to have exclaimed to one of his intimates-" This is the first day of my reign!"

* "Parliamentary History," vol. v. col. 210.

Willian
R.

King James lands at Kinsale-Schemes of Tyrconnel-Condition of the Protestants in Ireland— James enters Dublin-Siege of Londonderry-The Siege raised-The Revolution in Scotland-The Highlanders-Dundee Battle of Killiecrankie-Death of Dundee.

"WONDERFUL uncertainty where king James was, whether in France or Ireland," writes Evelyn on the 29th of March. James had landed at the port of Kinsale on the 12th of March. There was no uncertainty when, on the 22d, the House of Commons had voted a Supply for six months "towards the reducing of Ireland," and a member of the government had said, "the French king has carried king James into Ireland." What then passed in Parliament was very imperfectly known to the public. The debates, in the state in which thay have come down to us, were merely the brief notes of members for their private use. Even the Votes were unpublished. There was a great debate on a motion for printing the Votes, on the 9th of March. From this debate it appeared that members were in the habit of communicating the results of their proceedings to the constituencies. "It will only save the gentlemen the trouble of writing to their corporations," said Sir Thomas Lee. "You are told," says Sir Henry Capel, "of the Roll of the 9th of Henry

80

JAMES IN IRELAND-TYRCONNEL.

[1689. IV. that nothing is to be taken notice of in Parliament but what you communicate to the king. At that time there were no coffee-houses and no printing. If you could keep your votes out of coffee-houses, and suppress the licentiousness of printing," you might oppose printing your votes, "otherwise you make secrets here of what all the world knows." There were men who had the sagacity to see that concealment only produced the propagation of falsehood. "I would not have L'Estrange and Nevil Payne," says Mr. Arnold, "write false news beyond sea. I desire the truth to be known, and am for printing the votes." * The House decided against the printing. The majority thought that the Clerks of the House, who were suspected of sending the Votes to coffee-houses, should be prevented from thus committing "a great crime;" and that it was for the honour of the House not to print them. We can thus understand Mr. Evelyn's uncertainty in a world of contradictory rumours. In the midst of the popular ignorance of facts there was one consolation. They could freely abuse their rulers. "The new king being much blamed for neglecting Ireland, now like to be ruined by the lord Tyrconnel and his Popish party, too strong for the Protestants," writes Evelyn, in the hour of his uncertainty. The new king was betrayed, as he was doomed to be on many future occasions. The prince of Orange, under the advice of Irish noblemen and gentlemen, had during the interregnum opened a negotiation with Tyrconnel. Richard Hamilton, the brother of that wit of the court of Charles II., who wrote the most profligate Memoirs in the purest French, had come from Ireland to fight for king James against the prince of Orange, but was chosen to return to Ireland to arrange with Tyrconnel to preserve Ireland for king William. The son of sir William Temple gave a pledge that Hamilton would be faithful. Hamilton went to Tyrconnel and plotted with him how the Protestants could be best crushed, and James seated in Ireland as its Papist king. The too sensitive young Temple, when he found that his friend had abused his confidence, drowned himself. "He was so deeply oppressed with grief that he plunged himself out of a boat into the Thames, laden with weights to sink him." The schemes of Tyrconnel succeeded. He persuaded lord Mountjoy to set out on a mission to James at St. Germain's, to represent to him "the moral impossibility of holding out against the power of England." He sent with him another envoy, chief baron Rice, "to give a quite different account to the king." Mountjoy was put into the Bastille. Tyrconnel had a clear course for his operations. "Accordingly this lord's back was no sooner turned but he began by degrees to pull off the mask. He caused all the Protestants in Dublin to surrender their arms; he began to augment the standing forces; and with as much prudence as dexterity soon put the kingdom in a tolerable state of defence." Such is the explanation of the alleged neglect, not given by a partizan of king William, but by the compiler of the Life of James II. from his own Memoirs.‡

James had quitted France with this remarkable wish of the great

L'Estrange was the Censor of the press under Charles II. and editor of the "Public Intelligencer." Nevil Payne was an agent of James in Scotland, who was in correspondence with the English Jacobites.

+ Alexander Cunningham-"History of Great Britain," vol. i p. 126.

"Life of James II." vol. ii. p. 320.