Page:Cassell's Illustrated History of England vol 4.djvu/115

] which the others said, Amen. This very justly occasioned a loud outcry; for it was, in fact, fully approving and justifying the deed. A warrant was issued for their apprehension, and Snatt and Cook were taken and cast into prison, but Collier, who was well accustomed to hiding, was not to be found; but still he was near enough to hear all that was said against him, and to answer the charge that he advocated assassination. This he denied, and probably denied honestly; but certainly his act favoured a directly contrary opinion. There was a multitude of replies to his defence, amongst others one from the two archbishops, and by twelve bishops, the whole number then in London, including even Crewe of Durham and Sprat of Rochester. They very justly remarked that the prisoners had expressed no sorrow or repentance for their great crime against the monarch and the state; that Parkyns had been actively engaged in the business of the assassination if Friend had not, and yet he had expressed no penitence or contrition for the deed; that to absolve such men was directly contrary to the canons and creed of the church, was a gross abuse of the power conferred on his ministers by Christ, and was an apparent proof that the divines who absolved them from all their sins did not number assassination amongst sins. Collier rejoined, endeavouring to defend himself by quotations, the acts of councils, and the writings of the fathers. Not being forthcoming, he was outlawed.

The last prisoners tried were Cranburne, Lowick, Rookwood, and Cook. They were tried under the new act, and had counsel, but were all convicted and condemned. Porter, De la Rue, Fisher, Goodman, Bertram, Harris, and Pendergrast were evidence against them. Lowick protested in strong terms his entire innocence, and there was made much interest in his favour as a mild, good-natured, inoffensive man, but without avail. Cook was the son of Sir Miles Cook. Goodman charged him with having been present at two meetings at the King's Head tavern, Leadenhall Street, with Fenwick, Friend, Parkyns, and the lords Montgomery and Aylesbury; but the landlord contradicted this evidence, and this probably saved his life, for, though condemned, his sentence was mitigated to banishment. The others were executed. All died denying any orders from James for their proceedings, and the writer of James's Memoirs repeats this assertion. He declares that, though applied to several times, he always discouraged any schemes of assassination; but he does not deny that he did authorise the attempt to seize and carry off William, in confirmation of which the minute of a warrant dated 1698 has been found by M. Mazure ordering such an attempt. The reader, however,weighing all the circumstances of the case—the avowal of Charnock, the wording of the commission issued to Barclay, the knowledge of the duke of Berwick of the whole plan of assassination, the waiting of James at Calais, and his return in dejection and despair to St. Germains as soon as the failure of the attempt became known—will have no difficulty in deciding how far the denials of James and his adherents are worthy of credit. The association into which the commons had entered for the defence of the king had not yet been made law, but they now brought in a bill for that purpose. Out of the five hundred and thirteen members of the commons, four hundred had signed it; but on its reaching the lords exception was made by the tories to the words "rightful and lawful sovereign" as applied to William. Even Nottingham, who had so long and faithfully served William, declared that he could not accept them; that William was king de facto he admitted, but not king by rightful succession. He was supported by Rochester, Normandy, and others; but on the duke of Leeds proposing that the words "rightful and lawful" should be altered to "having right by law," and no other person having such right, singularly enough the tories acquiesced in the change, though it would not be easy for minds in general to perceive a distinction betwixt being a rightful and lawful sovereign and a sovereign who had a full and, indeed, exclusive right by law. The commons retained their own form and the lords theirs. The bill of the commons was passed on the 4th of April. It provided that all such persons as refused the oaths to his majesty should be liable to the forfeitures and penalties of papist recusants; that all who questioned William's being "a lawful and rightful sovereign" should be subject to heavy penalties; that no person refusing to sign this association should be capable of holding any office, civil or military; of sitting in parliament, or being admitted into the service of the prince or princess of Denmark. All magistrates, of course, were included in the requirements, and some who refused to sign were dismissed. The lords were to use their own form, and with this understanding it passed their house without delay. The bishops drew up a form for themselves, and, according to Burnet, not above a hundred clergymen all over England refused to sign. The people everywhere signed the bond with almost universal enthusiasm, even in the most papist districts, as Lancashire and Cheshire.

Before this remarkable session closed, a bill was brought in to check the corruption of elections. It was now become common for moneyed men to go down to country boroughs and buy their way into parliament by liberal distribution of their gold. It was, therefore, proposed to introduce a property qualification for members of parliament; that a member for a county should be required to possess five hundred pounds a year in land, and a member for a town three hundred pounds a year in land. It was even proposed to adopt the ballot, but that was rejected. The bill itself was carried through both houses, but William declined to ratify it. The towns abounded with whigs, and had stood stoutly by him, and it appeared to be a sweeping infringement on their privileges to debar them from electing men in whom they had confidence because they were not landed proprietors, though they might otherwise be wealthy as well as duly qualified for such duties. William did not consider the corruption so extensive as to warrant the shutting out all but landowners from parliament.

He ratified, however, another bill intended for the benefit of the landed gentry. This was for the establishment of Hugh Chamberlayne's land-bank. Unsound and delusive as the principles of this scheme were, it had the great attraction to the landowners of offering them extensive accommodation and a fancied accession of wealth, and to William the further advance of a large sum for his wars. The bank of England had only furnished him with one million at eight per cent.; this land-bank was to lend him two millions and a half at seven per cent. It was ratified by William, and the parliament was prorogued the same day, April the 27th.