Page:Cassell's Illustrated History of England vol 4.djvu/18

4 Charles II.'s reign. The house passed the bill without a division, and it received the royal assent on the tenth day after the accession.

A clause in this bill provided that, after the 1st of March, no person could sit or vote in either house until he had taken the new oath of allegiance to their majesties. Great excitement was occasioned by this oath. It was hoped by the tories and high church there would be found a sufficient number of persons of influence who would refuse the oath, so as to render the seat of the new monarchs unstable, and open the way to the return of James. Care was taken to consult the prejudices of the adherents to the old notions of right divine as much as possible, and the words "rightful and lawful sovereigns," after much deliberation, were omitted; but this did not prevent many refusing it. As the day approached for taking the oath, the capital was full of rumours. It was said that the duke of Grafton had escaped to France in order to reconcile himself to his uncle; and numerous other persons were supposed to have followed his example. When the day arrived, however, Grafton was one of the first to present himself; and the number of the lords who declined it, amongst them the earls of Clarendon, Lichfield, and Exeter, with the archbishop of Canterbury, and some of the bishops, was small. Of the bishops, five were of those who refused to obey the commands of James to publish his indulgence, and had been sent to the Tower. Rochester, the brother of Clarendon, was expected to refuse the oath, as he had adhered to James after Clarendon had abandoned him; but Clarendon's income was secure from his estate. Rochester had a pension of four thousand pounds a year, which he would lose if he refused the oath—a strong argument, which seems to have proved convincing, for he took the oath. Four hundred of the lower house had taken the oath on the 2nd of March, and amongst them Seymour, who had led the tory opposition; but when the oath was extended to the clergy and other individuals in office, above four hundred of the clergy, including some of the most distinguished dignitaries, refused it; and thus began the great schism of the non-jurors, who long continued to figure as the unswerving advocates of the right divine.

The next great question was that of the revenue. The parliaments of Charles and James had been exceedingly munificent in their grants of income. In the heat of their loyalty on the restoration, the commons forgot all the salutary fears of their predecessors, and gave up every point for which they had contended with Charles I. Tonnage and poundage were granted for life, and afterwards confirmed to James. They settled on these monarchs half of the excise in perpetuity, and half for life. The fixed revenue of Charles and James had been one million two hundred thousand pounds, but the actual revenue had been a great deal more. It was now found by examination of the accounts that James had been in the annual receipt of no less than two millions, of which ninety thousand pounds had been expended in secret service money. William had, since arriving at Whitehall, been in the habit of collecting and applying this magnificent revenue as chief of the state; and seemed to expect that it would be now settled on him. The first question discussed was, whether an income granted to a monarch for life could be received legally by his successor in case of his abdication so long as he lived. Many of the chief lawyers contended that he could; that the revenue was granted to the monarch in his political capacity, and not to the man, and that, therefore, the prince who came to discharge his official duties so long as he lived was rightfully in receipt of it. But the more common-sense opinion prevailed, that the prince who superseded another by the call of the nation must receive all his rights as well as his call from the nation. The house therefore passed to the question of the amount of the revenue, and they did not appear very much disposed to use the same lavish folly towards William as they had done towards the late monarchs. Instead of granting him a life revenue, they granted him one million two hundred thousand pounds, the sum allowed to Charles II., but only for three years, one half of which was to be appropriated to the civil list, the other half to the public defences. William was sensibly chagrined by this caution, and complained much of want of confidence in him, and of unusual parsimony. He presented a claim of seven hundred thousand pounds from the Dutch, the cost of the expedition which had placed him on the throne. If the commons had wholly refused this "little account" from the Dutch, it could not have been much wondered at; for when men attempt a great and profitable enterprise, it is only reasonable that they should pay for it. Had it failed the Dutch could have made no claim on England; and, because it had succeeded, could that be truly said to have established a right to repayment? The act was voluntary, and the result was likely to be especially beneficial in the increased trade with England, and the defences of their swamps by Englishmen and English money. Just as well might England have presented a bill for the far greater sums sent afterwards to Holland in defence of Holland. The commons, however, consented to pay six hundred thousand pounds, and William received the sum for his careful countrymen with a very ill grace. The commons did not the less displease him by reducing his demand for the navy from one million one hundred thousand pounds to seven hundred thousand pounds, and by granting the supply for the army for only six months; Sir Edward Seymour all the time warning them that it was the foolish liberality of Charles II.'s parliament which enabled him to enslave the nation as he had done.

One thing which did William great credit, however, was the recommendation to the commons to abolish the abominable hearth-tax. As he had advanced from Torbay to London, the people had importuned him on all sides to set aside this detestable tax, which had been fanned out to rapacious collectors, who treated the people with every species of insult, cruelty, and violence in enforcing payment of it. It was a most unequal tax, which fell with disproportionate weight on the very poor; for as it was levied, not by the value of the property, but by the number of chimneys, the peasant in many cases paid nearly as much as a man of really great substance; and where the money was not ready when called for, the tax-gatherers forced open even bedrooms, and sold the very bed from beneath the sick, and the table at which the family sat. William was much impressed by its injustice, and, at his special desire, the act was repealed.