Page:Cassell's Illustrated History of England vol 3.djvu/517

] There, indeed, lay the gist and mischief of the whole matter. Charles eared little what other privileges they enjoyed so that he could deprive them of their most important privilege—their independence, and make them not only slavish institutions, but instruments for the general enslavement of the country. "In the course of time," says the same historian, "several boroughs, by the exercise of those exclusive privileges, which had been conferred on them by ancient grants from the crown, bad grown into nests or asylums of public malefactors, and on that account were presented as nuisances by the grand juries of the county assizes." An excellent reason why those "several boroughs" should have been reformed; but none whatever, why all boroughs should by force be compelled to surrender their independence to a despotic monarch. The great instrument in this sweeping usurpation, was the lord chief justice Jeffreys, a man admirably calculated for the work by his power of coaxing, jeering, brow-beating, and terrifying the reluctant corporations. Before he set out on his summer circuit this year, Charles presented him with a ring from his own finger, as a mark of his especial esteem, at the same time giving him a very necessary piece of advice, chief justice as he was, to beware of drinking too much, as the weather would be hot. The ring was called Jeffreys' blood-stone, being presented to him just after the execution of Sir Thomas Armstrong.

Though blood had ceased to flow, persecution of the whigs had not ceased. Sir Samuel Barnadiston, the foreman of the grand jury which had ignored the bill against lord Shaftesbury, was not forgotten. He was tried for a libel, and fined ten thousand pounds, and ordered to find security for his good behaviour during life. Williams, the speaker of the house of commons, was prosecuted for merely having discharged the duties of his office, in signing the votes; Braddon and Speke were tried and punished severely for slandering the king and duke by charging them with the murder of Essex. And James now indulged his spleen against the great Titus Oates for his proceedings against the catholics, and his endeavour to exclude James from the succession. The pretence seized upon was, that Oates and Dutton Colt had declared that the duke of York was a traitor, and that before he should come to the succession, he should be banished or hanged, the hanging being the fittest. Jeffreys, who tried them, had a particular pleasure in sentencing Oates, who, in the days of his popularity, had hit the rascally lawyer hard. In 1680 Jeffreys had fallen under the censure of parliament for interfering in its concerns, and they had not only brought him to his knees at their bar, but had compelled him to resign the recordership of London. On the trial of College, the protestant joiner, Oates had appealed to Jeffreys, then serjeant Jeffreys, to confirm a part of his evidence. Jeffreys indignantly said he did not intend becoming evidence for a man like him; whereupon Oates coolly replied, "I don't desire Sir George Jeffreys to become an evidence for me; I have had credit in parliaments, and Sir George had disgrace in one of them."

Jeffreys was stunned by this repartee, and merely replied, "Your servant, doctor; you are a witty man and a philosopher." But now the tide had turned; Jeffreys had the witty man at his mercy, and he fined him and Colt one hundred thousand pounds, or imprisonment till paid, which meant so long as they lived.

Tardy justice was at length also done to the remaining catholic peers who were in the Tower. Lord Stafford had fallen the victim of protestant terrors during the ascendancy of the whigs; lord Fetre died, worn out by his confinement, but the lords Powis, Arundell, and Bellasis, after lying five years, were brought up by writ of habeas corpus, and were discharged on each entering into recognisances of ten thousand pounds for himself, and five thousand pounds each for four sureties, to appear at the bar of the house if called for. The judges, now that the duke of York, the catholic prince, was in power, could admit that these victims of a political faction "ought in justice and conscience to have been admitted to bail long ago." Danby, too, was liberated on the same terms, though he never could be forgiven by the king or duke for his patronage of Oates, and his zeal in hunting out the plot.

The influence of James was every day more manifest. Charles restored James to his former status, by placing him at the head of the admiralty; and, to avoid subjecting him to the penalties of the test act, signed all the papers himself which required the signature of the lord high admiral. Seeing that this was received with perfect complacency, he went a step further, and in defiance of the test act, he introduced James again into the council. This, indeed, excited some murmurs, even the tories being scandalised at his thus coolly setting aside an act of parliament.

No sooner was James reinstated in the council, than he planned yet more daring changes. Under the plea of relieving the dissenters, which he afterwards carried so far in his own reign, he sought to relieve the catholics from their penalties. "What his regard was for the dissenters has been sufficiently shown by their cruel persecution in England, and by his own especial oppression of the covenanters in Scotland.

One morning, however, Jeffreys, who had lately been admitted to the council, appeared at the board with an immense bundle of papers and parchments, and informed the king that they were the rolls of the names of the recusants that he had collected during his late circuit. He declared that the gaols were crammed with them, and that their case deserved the serious attention of the king. Lord-keeper North, who saw instantly the drift of the motion, and who had a profound jealousy of Jeffreys, who, he knew, was anxiously looking for the seals, asked whether all the names in the list belonged to persons who were in prison? Jeffreys replied no, for the prisons could not hold all the persons convicted of recusancy. North then observed, that besides catholics there were vast numbers of nonconformists and other persons included in those lists, who were professed enemies of the king, and of church and state, and that it would be far easier and safer to grant particular pardons to catholics, than thus at once to set at liberty all the elements of commotion in the kingdom. The blow was struck. Strong as was the government then, it dared not give a measure of exemption exclusively to the catholics. The scheme, it was obviously seen, was transparent, and there was a significant silence. Neither Halifax, Rochester, nor the more protestant members had occasion to open their mouths, the council passed to other business.