he thought it his duty to have care, in his place and station, of those he was convinced were the people of God and feared him, though of different persuasions, he knew nothing else but liberty and indulgence which could possibly secure the protestant religion in England.-As for the toleration of popery, he could confidently say, that the papists had no advantage in the least by this declaration that they did not as fully enjoy, and with less noise, by the favour of all the bishops; and that it was the vanity of the lord keeper, that they were named at all, for the whole advantage was to the dissenting protestants, which were the only men disturbed before."† sons (to which the reader is referred) in matters of religion." Whitehall, Nov. 17, 1672. "His majesty, reflecting upon the age and infirmities of Sir Orlando Bridgeman, lord keeper of the great seal of England, hath thought fit to admit of his resignation thereof, with all demonstration, on his majesty's part, of his kindness and esteem of the said lord keeper's merit towards him; and his majesty, willing to gratify the uninterrupted good services of the Earl of Shaftesbury, chancellor of the By this expression it is † A Letter from a Person of Quality. Locke's Posthumous Works. A. D. 1671-2. A. D. 1671-2. The reasons which Lord Shaftesbury gave to Mr. Locke for his conduct in this instance are well worthy of insertion; they contain much manly argument and much flimsy sophistry. It was an object worthy of an enlightened statesman, attempted to be brought about by most unconstitutional means. Where he advocates the object, he delivers sentiments now no longer disputed, but very far in advance of the age in which he lived; where he defends the means, he sinks with his subject, and copies the common-places of the court. "The Lord Shaftesbury, with whom I had more freedom, I with great assurance asked, 'what he meant by the declaration? for it seemed to me (as I then told him) that it assumed a power to repeal and suspend all our laws, to destroy the church, to overthrow the protestant religion, and to tolerate popery.' He replied all angry, that he wondered at my objection, there not being one of these in the case; for the king assumed no power of repealing laws, or suspending them, contrary to the will of his parliament or people. Not to argue with me at that time. the power of the king's supremacy, which was of another nature than that he had in civils, and had been exercised without exception in this very 1671-2. case by his father, grandfather, and Queen Eliza- A.D. beth, under the great seal, to foreign protestants become subjects of England: not to instance the suspending the execution of the two acts of navigation and trade, during both this and the last Dutch war, in the same words, and upon the same necessity; and as yet without clamour that ever we heard. But to pass by all, that this was certain, a government could not be supposed, whether monarchical or of any other sort, without a standing supreme executive power fully enabled to mitigate or wholly to suspend the execution of any penal law in the intervals of the legislative power; which when assembled, there was no doubt but, wherever there lies a negative in passing a law, there the address or sense known of either of them to the contrary-as, for instance, of either of our two houses of parliament in Englandought to determine that indulgence, and restore the law to its full execution. For, without this, the laws were to no purpose made if the prince could annul them at pleasure: and so, on the other hand, without a power always in being of dispensing upon occasion, was to suppose a constitution extremely imperfect and impracticable; and to cure those with a legislative power always A. D. 1671-2. in being is, when considered, no other than a perfect tyranny.'" This reasoning shows that Mr. Locke's view was perfectly correct. According to it, the king had only to dissolve his parliament, and he might repeal every penal law in the statute-book. The earl then applies himself to the object of the declaration; and after the passage quoted in the text, Mr. Locke continues, “And yet he confessed to me, that it was his opinion, and always had been, that the papists ought to have no other pressure laid upon them but to be made incapable of office, court, or arms, and to pay so much as might bring them at least to a balance with the protestants for those chargeable offices they were liable unto. And he concluded with this, that he desired me seriously to weigh whether liberty and property were likely to be maintained long in a country like ours, where trade is so absolutely necessary to the very being as well as prosperity of it; and, in this age of the world, if articles of faith and matters of religion should become the only accessible ways to our civil rights." Sir Thomas Clifford's remarks in relation to this indulgence have at least the merit of can dour. He told Mr. Locke in express terms, "that the king, if he would be firm to himself, might settle what religion he pleased, and carry the government to what height he would." A. D. 1671-2. This indulgence was agreed to by Charles only as a means of obtaining money without the aid of parliament. It was a direct breach of his private policy. This, however, the opposition of the parliament remedied for him. Colbert writes to his master, "I found the King of England, the Duke of York, and my Lord Arlington, all well disposed not to lose any time in the execution of the things that have been promised. There is nothing however yet determined for the principal point, and they don't even pretend to fix it till they return to London and see what may follow from the severity with which the king designs to make the last act of parliament against the meetings of the sectaries be observed; and he hopes that their disobedience will give him the easier means of increasing the force of his troops, and coming speedily to the end he proposes."+] On the 17th of March 1671-2, two days after against the War de clared Dutch. |
