sought to retaliate by forgeries, similar to those employed against them, the other that it was a trick to draw the Duke of York into some act which might increase the popular prejudice, and give arguments in favor of the Bill of Exclusion.

10. The Addressers and Abhorrers, the immediate predecessors of the Whigs and Tories. 1579. Charles to deprive Shaftesbury of part of his power of annoyance, removed him from the office of president. In revenge the Earl got up an extraordinary demonstration of hostility to the Romanists, on the anniversary of the accession of Elizabeth, Nov. 17. A figure of the dead body of Godfrey, Jesuits, priests, bishops, cardinals, the pope and the devil, were moved on in procession, in the presence of two hundred thousand spectators, and then the whole committed to the flames. Shaftesbury next sent for Monmouth to England, and sought to raise a popular feeling in favor of his pretensions to the throne, as the only means of saving England from French invaders and popish rebels. He also despatched agents throughout the country, to solicit subscriptions to petitions or addresses praying the king for a speedy meeting of parliament. The people were urged to petition, on the ground that the ascendancy of popery and the establishment of despotism, would assuredly follow the cessation of parliament. Grand juries set the example, and most of the counties and large towns followed. Charles was alarmed, and anticipating insurrection, put trusty garrisons in Portsmouth, Sheerness, Hull, and other places, and then issued a proclamation addressed to all magistrates threatening with rigorous punishment, all who should subscribe petitions. contrary to the known laws of the land. This proclamation produced a reaction, and multitudes afraid of a second revolution, came forward with addresses, expressing their abhorrence of the practice of the petitioners. The two parties came thus to obtain the names of Addressers and Abhorrers, which subsequently were changed for Whig and Tory. Shaftesbury had yet another scheme to stir the public mind. Before the meeting of parliament in 1680, he and twelve other peers, accompanied by Oates, presented at the bar of the King's Bench, the Duke of York as a popish recusant; the application was got rid of by the sudden dismissal of the grand jury.

11. Charles's third parliament in which Viscount Stafford is convicted. 1680. Immediately on the opening of the session, Oct. 21, Dangerfield appeared at the bar of the House, to accuse the Duke of York of being privy to his imposition of a Presbyterion plot, of having instructed him to forge the papers, and of having presented him with twenty guineas, with a promise of more. Lord Russell then moved that the

S

House should effectually prevent a popish successor. Two days later, the dying deposition of Bedloe to the truth of his former testimony was read to the House, when a vote was taken, that a bill be introduced to disable the Duke of York from succeeding to the crown. The bill passed but was lost in the Lords after a debate of six hours. Shaftesbury next proposed to the House a bill of divorce, but Charles declared he would not consent to disgrace an unoffending woman. To maintain the influence of the anti-popery party, it was now resolved to bring one of the popish lords, then in the Tower, to trial. Lord Stafford was therefore brought before his peers, and charged by Dugdale, who was supported by Oates and others of the brood, with consenting to the king's death, and with offering £500 for his assassination: Oates moreover swore positively that he saw him receive a patent appointing him paymaster of the Catholic army. Stafford made a good defence, but it was useless; he was found guilty and executed in three weeks. The king believed him to be innocent, yet ventured not to spare his life. In this parliament, the "Abhorrers" met with considerable disquietude. Several members of the House were expelled, and those who had been most conspicuous, were forced up from the country to the bar of the House, and committed to prison. An impeachment was voted against chief-justice North, for drawing up the proclamation against petitioning for a parliament, and afterwards against justice Scroggs for discharging the grand jury when the Duke of York was presented for recusancy. Ultimately, the Commons resolved that unless the Duke were excluded from the succession, they could not conscientiously vote any supply. This with other violent resolutions determined the king to dissolve the parliament, Jan. 18, 1681, after a sitting of three months.

12. Charles's fourth or Oxford Parliament: Regency Bill. 1681. The popular leaders were disconcerted that Oxford had been chosen for the place of meeting, for it deprived them of the support of their numerous adherents in the capital, and removed them to a place where they had scarcely a single friend. The measure was condemned in pamphlets, and some of the peers presented a strong petition against it. Shaftesbury and other chiefs of his party proceeded armed to Oxford, and attended by armed men wearing ribbons, on which were the words "No popery, no slavery". Charles in meeting the Houses, March, 21, assumed a high tone, for he had just concluded another pension treaty with Louis, and was therefore the more independent of his parliament. The Houses were informed that the king would consent to reasonable security for religion, in the event of a Catholic successor to the throne, but he would not be frightened

into the subversion of the government. Halifax had suggested a Regency Bill, as a substitute for the bill of exclusion. This was now brought forward. It proposed to satisfy the anti-popery party by enacting-that James should be banished five hundred miles from the British dominions: that on the death of Charles, James might assume the title of king, but the powers of government should fall to a regency, to the princess of Orange first, then the Lady Anne, then any legitimate son of James, educated in the Protestant faith and that all Catholics of considerable property be banished, their children being taken from them, to be brought up in the established church. After a debate of two days the bill was rejected, and a resolution passed to bring in again the exclusion bill. It so happened that a quarrel arose between the two Houses, the Lords having rejected an impeachment brought to them from the Commons, of Fitz Harris, one of that vile brood which marked the period, men ready to swear to a plot on either side. Charles dexterously made an advantage of this dissension, and going unexpectedly to the House, told them that no good was to be expected, seeing they had already began to differ, and immediately dissolved the parliament, March 28. In this abrupt manner terminated Charles's last parliament, after a sitting of but one week, and without the transaction of any

business.

SECTION VII. ARBITRARY RULE PROVOKES

POLITICAL PLOTS.

1. Reaction, and government prosecutions of the popular party, 1681-82. In a short time from the dissolution of the parliament, the king published a declaration justifying himself, both with regard to that and the parliament which preceded it, on the ground that they had refused to accept reasonable offers; had committed Englishmen illegally; had charged men of foul offence, without hearing proof against, or defence in favor of them; had threatened persons who lent money to the king; had suspended the execution of penal statutes; and had endeavoured to create a quarrel between the two Houses, by attempting to disturb a prosecution which the king had ordered. This declaration was read in all the churches, and people began to feel that all the fault had not been on one side. The popular leaders in defence put forth "A just and moderate Vindication", it however failed to produce much effect. The tide had turned, and Charles received addresses from all parts of the kingdom, congratulating him on his deliverance from the republicans, and expressing attachment to his person and confidence in his government; many of them nevertheless reminded the king of his

promise to call frequent parliaments, and govern according to the laws.

Fitz Harris, respecting whom the Houses had differed at Oxford, was proceeded against for accusing various persons of a design to kill the king. He was executed along with Plunket, the titular archbishop of Armagh, accused of being connected with the plot in Ireland. Plunket was the last victim of the popish plot imposture; Hallam says he was an innocent and worthy person, as Charles the " good-natured" well knew, and yet with "detestable wickedness" he was sacrificed, that the court might secure itself against the suspicion of popery. The next case was that of Stephen College, the "Protestant joiner", a man of little education, but one who could harangue a mob with effect. Being charged with appearing in arms against the king, he was tried and acquitted at the Old Bailey, but being put on his trial again at Oxford, was found guilty and executed. The trial of College was remarkable for a split among the leaders of the "plot" witnesses; the evidence of Dugdale and his party was contradicted by Oates and his party, for which Titus lost his pension. Another noticeable point was the "gross irregularity" practised towards the prisoner, by taking away the written instructions he had given to his counsel before the trial, in order to learn the grounds of his defence.

Shaftesbury was the next to feel the result of the reaction which had set in. He was accused of suborning persons to give false testimony against the queen, the Duke of York, and the lord-lieutenant and chancellor of Ireland. Being committed to the Tower, the Earl petitioned to be allowed to repair to his plantation in Carolina, this was refused. An indictment preferred against him for high treason, was rejected by the jury. But among his papers was found the plan of a treasonable conspiracy, and another document containing a list of his friends and opponents in every county, under two heads-"worthy men" and men worthy" (of being hanged). These papers were published, and procured for the king, further demonstrations of attachment and confidence. Charles took advantage of this, and fell with great severity on the "worthy men", putting them to fines, distraints, and imprisonments, the majority of them being protestant dissenters. The Duke of Monmouth was arrested at Stafford, for "passing through the kingdom with multitudes of riotous persons", and was put to bail in £10,000. Shaftesbury, conscious of having sinned past forgiveness, plotted with Walcot, Rumsey, and others to raise the city, but the result of the contest for the appointment of sheriffs alarmed him, and he withdrew to Amsterdam, where he died in two months.

2. Attack on the Charters of corporate towns. 1683. Shaftesbury and others had been acquitted by juries, the choice of which was in the sheriffs, and as long as they were devoted to the popular party, the court had no hope of a verdict against any of the popular leaders, or their followers. It was therefore determined to attack the privileges of the city of London, by a writ of quo warranto, which would lead to an enquiry, by what warrant the city claimed to exercise its rights and privileges. After proceedings for eighteen months in the King's Bench, judgment was given, declaring London to have forfeited its charter, on the ground that the city had imposed an illegal tax on merchandise, and had circulated a libel on the king, charging him with interrupting the making of provisions for the preservation of himself and his Protestant subjects, by the prorogation of parliament. The common council petitioned, and obtained the restoration of its former franchises, but as a measure of precaution, the king retained a veto on the appointment of the lord-mayor, sheriff, and other influential city officers. This led to the selection of men friendly to the court, and deprived the popular party of its stronghold. The fate of London alarmed other corporations, and they made their peace in large numbers by a voluntary surrender. Others were proceeded against by quo warranto, or frightened by the authority of the judges of assize. It is said of Jeffreys on the north circuit in 1684, that he "made all the charters, like the walls of Jericho, fall down before him, and returned laden with surrenders, the spoils of towns". In the new charters, the governing power of the corporation was under the influence of the crown, as was also that of returning members to parliament, the choice of them being confined to persons attached to the court.

3. The Rye House and Revolutionary Plots. 1633. Shaftesbury, before his flight to Holland, had formed plans of insurrectionary movements with men of desperate fortunes, as Walcot, formerly an officer under Cromwell, Rumsey, a military adventurer, and Ferguson a Scotch Independent minister. After the death of their chief, they proposed to themselves an insurrection in the City, and the assassination of Charles and his brother the Duke. The assassination it was thought could be accomplished at a farm called the Rye House, belonging to Rumbold one of the party. Communication was opened between the Rye House party and the discontented among the Whig leaders -Monmouth, Essex, Grey, Russell, Sydney, and Hampden. The Whig party rejected the idea of assassination, and aimed at a simultaneous rising in the City, the Whig counties, and in Scotland, for the purpose of forcing a change in the governm