as was expected, was violent against it. He was A.D. 1664. at the time confined by a severe fit of the gout, and the cabinet councils were consequently held at his house. But his zealous bigotry and his dislike of the authors of this bill lent him strength."On the day appointed for the second reading," he says, "with pain and difficulty he was in his place in the house."

This was upon the second day of debate. The lord treasurer had already spoken against it, and the lord privy seal had abandoned it in despair; but Ashley was still earnest in its support. "Lord Ashley," says Clarendon, "adhered firmly to his point, spake often and with great sharpness of wit, and had a cadence in his words and pronunciation that drew attention. He said, 'It was the king's misfortune, that a matter of so great concernment to him, and in support of such a prerogative as would be found to be inherent in him without any declaration of parliament, should be supported only by such weak men as himself who served his majesty at a distance, while the great officers of the crown thought fit to oppose it." " By this prerogative Lord Ashley could only have meant the power to remit penalties, which is undoubtedly inherent in the crown,

A.D. 1664. and which would of course have enabled the king to attain the same object, but by more circuitous and obnoxious means. Clarendon answered him with a violence of which he was afterwards ashamed; and although the bill might possibly have passed the lords, yet, as it was sure of defeat in the commons, it was abandoned.

A.D. 1665.

Meeting of

ment at Ox

ford.

This abortive attempt was of course injurious to the cause it was intended to support, although the strenuous opposition offered to it by the Duke of York might alone have shown the people that it was favourable neither to the establishment of popery nor the protection of absolute power.]

On the 9th of October 1665, the parliament the parlia- met at Oxford, the plague raging at that time in London. The king, in his speech, demanded a new supply for carrying on the war; and, to enforce the demand, the Lord Chancellor Clarendon delivered a long speech at the conclusion of the king's, in which he enumerated the many injuries and affronts which England had received from the Dutch. He called them "an ungrateful state," and said, "they had a dialect of rudeness so peculiar to their language, that it was high time for all kings and princes to oblige them to

*Lords' Journals.

some reformation, if they intended to hold cor- A.D. 1665. respondence or commerce with them." Lord Clarendon, however, delivered this speech ex officio; for he was believed to be averse to the war. The general scheme of power was still carrying on at home; and a design was laid to impose an oath on the whole nation, "that they would not endeavour any alteration of government, either in church or state; which was tacitly owning the present form to exist jure divino."*

The nonconformist ministers were looked upon as the most obnoxious set of men to the public; and they might be easily represented as the most dangerous, in consequence of the power which the sectaries had lately enjoyed. It was, therefore, thought that the best method of paving the way for the general introduction of the oath was to begin with the dissenting ministers.

Upon some severe expressions in the speech delivered by Lord Clarendon, October the 9th, against the nonconformists, the commons immediately passed, and sent up to the lords, the five-mile Five-mile bill; by which no nonconformist minister could dwell in, or come within five miles of, any corporation, or any other place where he had been minister

* A Letter from a Person of Quality.

Act.

A.D. 1665. or had preached after the act of oblivion, unless he took the oath, as mentioned in the corporation act; to which were added these words: "and that I will not, at any time, endeavour any alteration of government either in church or state." By this dangerous oath, the king and his administration were to be left to act without control; and the people, being bound to an implicit obedience, must submit with patience.

Opposed by Lord Ashley and others.

Lord Ashley, and his friend the Earl of Southampton,* opposed the bill in a strenuous manner; and showed, that the oath was in itself unjustifiable, that it sprang from bad designs, and must produce the most fatal consequences to the liberty of the subject: but, notwithstanding the opposition made by them, and by some other lords, the bill passed into an act. After the commons had despatched it, they brought in another, to oblige every subject to take the same oath. This bill was thrown out of the upper house by a majority of three votes only.68

* Echard.

68 This majority," says Mr. Ralph, " had the merit of saving their country from the greatest ignominy which could have befallen it,—that of riveting as well as forging its own chains." Mr. Locke, in his "Letter from a Person of Quality," remarks,

Lord Ashley, notwithstanding the vigour with A.D. 1665. which he acted in parliament, was at this time in a very bad state of health; for the bruise in his side, occasioned by his being overturned in Holland, 1660, was become an incurable abscess: and, in the beginning of the summer of 1666, upon the single advice of Mr. Locke, who was then accidentally introduced to his acquaintance, he underwent an hazardous operation, which saved his life. His breast was opened, the matter discharged, and an orifice was ever after kept open by a silver pipe; an instrument which became famous in the writings of several authors some years after, who never failed to reproach him with this infirmity.

France.

The war with Holland was, in a great measure, Design of owing to the intrigues and influence of the French king, who acted his part in this respect with great sagacity. He had formed a design for

"The providence by which it was thrown out was very remarkable: for Mr. Peregrine Bertie being newly chosen, was that morning introduced into the house by his brother the now Earl of Lindsey and Sir Thomas Osborne, now lord treasurer, who all three gave their votes against the bill; and the numbers were so even upon that division, that their three voices carried the question against it."-Locke's Works, 4to edit. vol. iv p. 541.