speech delivered by the keeper might be printed A.D. 1670. along with his majesty's: but it was not done; perhaps, because the court was unwilling to expose the fallaciousness of it to the public, or to be bound down to act even on the defensive against France.

Though the greatness of France was used as an argument for getting a larger supply, it is certain that the English court had entered into a firm union with her, and had mutually and privately resolved upon a war against the Dutch. The parliament, not penetrating the design, was intent upon raising such a sum as should answer the exigencies represented. In order to this, a bill passed through the house of commons, for "an additional imposition on several foreign commodities, and for the encouragement of several commodities and manufactures of this kingdom." By Bill for this, among other things, a tax was to be laid on sugar. sugars imported, and a grant of the tax, which, as it was computed, would amount to near one million two hundred thousand pounds a-year, was made to the king for nine years.

Lord Ashley, who knew the secret intentions of the court, endeavoured to defeat by art what he could not prevent by his advice. He engaged,

taxing

Petition to

the lords against it.

A.D. 1670. therefore, a friend of his, Sir Peter Colleton, to procure a petition from the planters of Barbadoes to the house of lords, for an abatement of the tax upon their chief commodity. They petitioned accordingly, and represented that the sugars would hardly yield so much to the planters as by the bill they should be obliged to pay to the king. The bill was referred to a committee, in which Lord Ashley was the chairman, and a very active

A.D. 1671.
Report of

the com-
mittee
upon it.

Dispute between the houses.

one.

He made a report to the house on the 8th of April 1671, that, having heard merchants and other persons concerned, the committee had made some alterations and amendments in the bill; and, among others, one was for reducing the tax upon sugars, to which the house agreed. The commons resented the lords' intermeddling with any bill for raising money; and the lords unanimously resolved to insist on their privilege of abating any impositions, though they did not begin them.

Many conferences passed between the houses; and the disputes were carried to such an height, that, on the 22nd of April, the king prorogued the parliament to the 16th of April in the next year; and thus this supply was lost, which was intended

*Lords' Journals.

as a fund to begin the war. Lord Ashley thought A.D.1671. that the court would not venture to engage in one without a proper supply, or the sanction of parliament; and he knew that the parliament would not readily enter into a war which was so generally repugnant to the sense of the nation.

Address in

favour of

manufac

tures.

When Lord Ashley made the foregoing report, he likewise reported an opinion of the committee English that an address should be presented to the king, that he would be pleased to encourage, by his example, the constant wearing of the manufactures of his own kingdom, and to discountenance such persons, men or women, in court, as should wear any manufactures made in foreign countries; to which the lords agreed, and, at a conference, desired the commons would join therein. Lord Ashley thus endeavoured to restrain and prevent, under the sense and influence of parliament, that expensive luxury in apparel which had been introduced from France, and which was becoming an epidemical evil. The house of commons joined with the lords in the address; to which, some time afterwards, (the day the parliament was prorogued,) the king gave an answer, * "that he had, in his own person, as little used foreign manufactures as

* Lords' Journals.

A.D. 1671. any; that he would speak to the queen, and women about the court; and would comply with their desire in discountenancing such persons as should wear foreign commodities." This answer showed that he was not perfectly pleased with the address, and undoubtedly it was disagreeable to the French faction in the court.

Parliament prorogued contrary to Lord Ashley's advice.

As by these steps it appeared that Lord Ashley was not in the confidence of the ruling party at court, the prorogation of the parliament was another proof of it; for this was contrary to his

*

advice, as was the treaty with France. The

prorogation was from April the 22nd, 1671, to the 16th of April 1672, and afterwards, at several times, to the 4th of February 1672-3; so that it continued a year and nine months. This long recess was designed to gain time for entering into the war with Holland, and that the blow might be struck before the parliament could take any measures to prevent it.

The junto imputed the loss of the subsidy bill to Lord Ashley, and represented him to the

This appears by the answer of the Duke of Buckingham to the eleventh question

proposed to him in the house of commons.

85 But not to him alone. When Buckingham soon afterwards

the exche

king as very troublesome to them in their trans- A.D. 1671. actions. To pursue, however, more effectually the designs of the French treaty, a method was found out to supply the loss of that bill; which was, by putting a stop to the payments out of Shutting up the exchequer, and securing all the money that quer, had been advanced upon the credit of any funds. This transaction was owing to the same counsels that promoted the war, and was calculated for the same destructive purposes.

The declaration for this stop, to which the great seal was affixed by the Lord Keeper Bridgeman, was published January the 2nd, 1671-2. The fatal consequences attending this infamous act of power are too well known to be

complained to the king of the loss of a command that had been promised him, "the king told him, after having heard him peaceably, that he saw well he had forgot the millions he had been the cause of his losing in the last session of parliament, and that, though the affection he had for him had blotted out this offence, he could not help sensibly feeling the effects of it."-Dalrymple.

The new ministers quickly found an alteration in the manners of their master now that he had induced them to join with him in his guilt. The secret treaty Charles thought had bound them as his slaves, and he now began to threaten them when they hesitated to fulfil his commands. Both Buckingham and Ashley were severely chidden upon this occasion, and they endured the reprimand with exemplary meekness.-Ibid.