CAMEO X. Death of Condé. 1686. the sick room. The old Elector-Archbishop of Cologne, who had always been subservient to him, died on the 1st of July, 1688. His chief minister, Cardinal Furstenburg, had always been a creature of Louis and had filled up the Chapter as far as possible with Canons of the same politics, but a mere majority did not suffice for an election unless it consisted of two-thirds of the number. The Imperialist party proposed for election Prince Clement of Bavaria, who was only seventeen years old, and thus could not be canonically elected. Nine canons voted for him, fourteen for Furstenburg, and thus the election was referred to Rome, where such was Innocent XI.'s feelings against France that he annulled the election of Furstenberg and granted all the dispensations needed for Clement of Bavaria. Louis really had valid cause of complaint now, and he sent a manifesto to Rome to be read to the Pope by Cardinal d'Estrées. The parliament of Paris, such as it was, supported the King. So did the French clergy, who were indignant that in consequence of the still unsettled question as to the régale, the Pope refused bulls of institution to the Bishops appointed by the King in the disputed provinces. An appeal from the Pope to a general council was actually drawn up, and the French troops were sent to seize the ancient papal city of Avignon, on the 7th of October, 1688. This may be taken as the culminating act of Louis's absolutism, and from this period, when the sufferings from the persecution of the Huguenots were at their height, the star of the French monarchy began to wane. The war could no longer be prevented. It was said that Louvois, who was superintendent of the buildings at Trianon, had put in a window which the King so disapproved as to administer a sharp rebuke. "He shall have something instead of wars to think about," said Louvois. And the miserable Palatinate was again invaded, and Philipsburg besieged by the Dauphin and taken, so that news came to Paris on All Saints' Day, 1688, in the middle of Mass. THERE is a curious parallel between the two attempts to bring Eng-| land back to communion with Rome. In each case there was a futile attempt to exclude the hereditary Sovereign, whose hands were thereby only strengthened, and in each the advances to the Pope were received with coolness on account of political combinations. What Lady Jane Grey's claim had been to Mary Tudor, that of Monmouth was to James II., and even as Paul IV. regarded Mary and England as appendages of Philip, the oppressor of Italy, so in the eyes of Innocent XI., James was the devoted ally of Louis XIV., the object of his dread and distrust. The Jesuit influence ruled in France through Père la Chaise, Louis's Confessor; and in England James was equally led by Edward Petre, a devoted Jesuit belonging to an old noble Roman Catholic family. Like Mary I., James took adherence to the legal line of succession as a token that arbitrary power would be endured; and like Louis XIV., he seemed to suppose that personal immorality was atoned for by exertions in the cause of his Church. However, in justice to Father Petre, it must be said that by him the chief scandal of James's life was protested against and mitigated. James had neither the ability, acuteness, nor charm of his elder brother, though he was more industrious and conscientious. He was unable to discern the signs of the times and to steer his course accordingly, his character was stern and obstinate, his manners grave and unbending, and though the old free and familiar customs of living in public were continued, he was probably the only Stewart who did not know how to be gracious. Of the strength of the nation's attachment to the Church of England and of their horror and dread of Popery he had CAMEO XI. Romish Influence. 1685. no idea, and he further believed that there was no oppression to which the loyalty of the clergy and the doctrine of passive resistance would not lead them quietly to submit. Among his brother's papers, James had found one, written in Charles's own hand on the controversy between the Churches. This in his eyes, was conclusive. He showed it to Archbishop Sancroft, who was struck dumb at the duplicity and hypocrisy it revealed in the late master to whom he had so often administered the Holy Communion. It was printed and distributed right and left, and the best mode of winning the royal favour was to profess to be convinced thereby. The Earl of Perth and his brother Lord Melfort actually did so, and embraced the King's faith, Melfort thus winning a confidence which he used sincerely, but fatally. The Earl of Sunderland, a greedy, unprincipled man, likewise assured the King that he was secretly of the same Church, though not as yet openly, and in the meantime he received £6,000 a year from Louis for keeping up French interests at Court! Father Petre, the Jesuits and the new converts were all for the strongest measures, urged on by the French, but the old Roman Catholic English aristocracy, such as Lord Powys and Lord Bellasis, knew that the only hope was in moderation. The Pope himself was of the same mind, Bishop Leyburn, his Vicar Apostolic, was a Dominican, a sensible and cautious man; and the Nuncio, Count d'Adda, was also anxious to prevent any violent measures, nor did he assume his office publicly but passed for a visitor. On his part James sent Lord Castlemaine as ambassador to Rome, but with orders always to consult the General of the Jesuits and the French Ambassador before entering into any engagements; and Innocent XI. was said to be seized with a violent fit of coughing whenever the English ambassador had an interview with him. What James was unprepared for was Tory resistance. He thought the party would endure anything from the Crown, and was astonished when his brothers-in-law, Lords Clarendon and Rochester, and all the Tory party with them, showed themselves resolved to resist attacks on the Church and encroachments of power. It seems strange that Jesuit sagacity should have been so much at fault as not to perceive that the only chance of winning their way was by avoiding illegality and violence. If James had been content to act constitutionally instead of again combining religious and political feeling in opposition to him, he would probably have lived and died on the throne, and their cause would have made much silent progress, but they seem to have been entirely ignorant of the English character, and to have disregarded those who could have shown them that the methods to which they urged the King were those most likely to arouse opposition. All moderate counsels they took as manifestations of that Jansenist spirit which they hated above all and even imputed to Pope Innocent himself. In Ireland, Ormond was recalled, and two Lords Justices, the Scotch Lord Granard and the Primate, Michael Boyle, were appointed; but the former displeased the Church people, the latter the sects. And the army was in the hands of Colonel Talbot, who was gradually dismissing the English element, under pretence of their having sympathized with Monmouth; and as a mark of favour he was created Earl of Tyrconnel. James did not venture at once to place the vice-royalty in his hands, but sent as Lord Lieutenant, his brother-in-law, Lord Clarendon; who did not remain long in that post. His promotion of Roman Catholics to be judges and magistrates caused much offence and distrust; but he was too much of an Englishman to carry out all James's intentions, so that in 1687, he was displaced in favour of Tyrconnel. There was a cry of dismay from all the Protestant population, and 1,500 families actually quitted the island, some to join the other refugees in Holland, and others, of the recent settlers, to return to their original English homes, where some of them showed themselves to have acquired very troublesome, idle, and even knavish habits. Tyrconnel belonged to one of those old English families of "the Pale," which had become thoroughly Irish; and he was a rude, vulgar soldier, commonly known as "lying Dick Talbot," and hitherto a kind of bravo of the two royal Stewarts, a Roman Catholic by profession, but making no secret of his actual unbelief. With his vice-royalty the tables began to be turned, by appointments of Romanists to every vacant office possible, and by making vacancies if possible. Bishoprics were not filled up on death, and their revenues were assigned to Roman Catholics; the Protestant clergy could not get the payment of tithes enforced, and justice had become as unattainable for a Protestant as formerly for his opponent. Still, James, as an Englishman, had an instinct of maintaining the national supremacy, and therefore would not let Tyrconnel summon a Parliament, which he knew would be not merely Roman Catholic, but altogether anti-English. All the time, Tyrconnel was in the pay of Louis XIV., and had engaged that if James left only the two princesses as heirs, he would bring Ireland over to the allegiance of France. As soon as the rebellion was over, James forced from the judges an opinion that a dispensing power was inherent in the Crown, and he then relaxed the Test Act, so as to make persons who would not communicate in the Church of England able to accept office in the State and in corporations. Also he gave general indulgence to nonattendants at parish churches. Dissenters as well as Roman Catholics profited by this toleration; but the former were by no means grateful for the relief, being certain that it was only the first step towards the full establishment of the Popery they hated. In Scotland, the killing Time was at an end; but neither the Scottish nor the English Parliament would repeal the Test Act. Even the Presbyterians scented danger, and the Bishops in Scotland made CAMEO XI Tyrconnel in Ireland. 1687. CAMEO XI. The Court of High Commission. 1696. strenuous opposition, and as they had been appointed by the Crown, James considered himself to have the power of depriving two of them, Bruce, Bishop of Dunkeld, and Cairncross, Archbishop of Glasgow. The next act of James was to re-establish that Court of High Commission, which had taken cognizance of ecclesiastical offences as representing the sovereign headship of the Church, which had been one of the chief grievances complained of and abolished in the time of Charles I. It had been hated when used by conscientious men on behalf of the English Church. Now it was reinstated by a member of an alien communion evidently for the sake, not of purifying, but of oppressing. The Archbishop, Sancroft, was named for it, but never took his seat, and there were also the Bishops of Durham and Rochester (Crewe and Sprat) who were both thought to have been talked over by the King, and, moreover, the Lord Chancellor Jeffreys. The first victim was Dr. Sharp, for his violent language called the Reviling Parson. He was Dean of Norwich, and Rector of St. Giles's in London, where he preached a sermon against Popery. James sent orders to the Bishop of London to suspend him. Henry Compton, Bishop of London, was a Tory, a man of high birth, brother to the Earl of Norwich, and had been tutor to the two princesses. He had, in the House of Lords, strongly opposed the legality of the King's power of dispensing, and he now refused to suspend Dr. Sharp, on the ground that no man can be punished without being heard in his own defence. On this, Compton himself was summoned before the Court. He pleaded that only his Metropolitan and the other suffragans had a right to try him, that he was a peer, and subject only to the laws of the country, and that he had forbidden Sharp to preach. Nevertheless, the King arbitrarily suspended him, to the alarm and displeasure of all the country. Lord Rochester, who was a younger son of the first Lord Clarendon, and therefore a brother-in-law of James, objected to this flagrant injustice, and likewise refused to be converted to the Romish Church. In consequence, he was dismissed from the Council, but amply provided for by a charge upon Lord Grey's estate. A clergyman named Johnson, who had been chaplain to Lord Russell, had in the last reign, written an attack on James, called, Julian the Apostate. He was in prison, whence he wrote a letter to the soldiers in the great camp on Hounslow Heath, adjuring them not to be made the tools of a tyrant, bent on exterminating the Protestant faith. For this the Court condemned him to be stripped of his gown, to be whipped through London, and to stand in the pillory. Certainly such an exhortation to soldiers had a flavour of mutiny about it. And James set great store by the men whom he kept encamped at Hounslow, thirteen thousand in number, under the command of two Roman Catholics, Feversham and Dumbarton. |