Title: His Majesties Declaration Defended
Author: Dryden, John, 1631-1700
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.


*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "His Majesties Declaration Defended" ***


The Augustan Reprint Society


John Dryden
His Majesties Declaration Defended
(1681)


With an Introduction by
Godfrey Davies


Publication Number 23
(Series IV, No. 4)


Los Angeles
William Andrews Clark Memorial Library
University of California
1950


GENERAL EDITORS
H. Richard Archer, Clark Memorial Library
Richard C. Boys, University Of Michigan
Edward Niles Hooker, University Of California, Los Angeles
H.T. Swedenberg, Jr., University Of California, Los Angeles

ASSISTANT EDITORS
W. Earl Britton, University of Michigan
John Loftis, University of California, Los Angeles

ADVISORY EDITORS
Emmett L. Avery, State College of Washington
Benjamin Boyce, University of Nebraska
Louis I. Bredvold, University of Michigan
Cleanth Brooks, Yale University
James L. Clifford, Columbia University
Arthur Friedman, University of Chicago
Samuel H. Monk, University of Minnesota
Ernest Mossner, University of Texas
James Sutherland, Queen Mary College, London



INTRODUCTION


Wherever English literature is studied, John Dryden is recognized as the
author of some of the greatest political satires in the language. Until
recently the fact has been overlooked that before he wrote the first of
these satires, _Absalom and Achitophel_, he had entered the political
arena with the prose tract here reproduced. The proof that the
Historiographer Royal contributed to the anti-Whig propaganda of the
spring of 1681 depends partly on contemporary or near-contemporary
statements but principally on internal evidence. An article by Professor
Roswell G. Ham (_The Review of English Studies_, XI (1935), 284-98; Hugh
Macdonald, _John Dryden, A Bibliography_, p. 167) demonstrated Dryden's
authorship so satisfactorily that it is unnecessary to set forth here
the arguments that established this thesis. The time when Dryden was
composing his defence of the royal _Declaration_ is approximately fixed
from the reference to it on June 22, 1681, in _The Observator_, which
had noted the Whig pamphlet Dryden was answering under the date of May
26.

The bitter controversy into which Dryden thrust himself was the
culmination of eleven years' political strife. In 1670, by the secret
Treaty of Dover, Charles II and Louis XIV agreed that the English king
should declare himself a Roman Catholic, and receive from his brother of
France the equivalent of 80,000 pounds sterling and, in case of a
Protestant rebellion, 6000 French soldiers. In addition, the two kings
were pledged to undertake a war for the partition of the United
Provinces. In the words of the late Lord Acton this treaty is "the solid
substance of the phantom which is called the Popish Plot." (_Lectures on
Modern History_ (1930), p. 211) The attempt to carry out the second part
of the treaty was made in 1672, when England and France attacked the
United Provinces which made a successful defence, aided by a coalition
including the Emperor, Elector of Brandenburg, and King of Spain. The
unpopularity of the war compelled Charles II to make peace in 1674.
Meanwhile the King had taken a step to put into operation the first part
of the Treaty of Dover by issuing a Declaration of Indulgence relieving
Catholics and Dissenters alike from the penal laws. He was forced,
however, to withdraw it and to give his assent to the Test Act which
excluded from all public offices those unwilling to take the sacraments
according to the rites of the Church of England. Henceforth Charles II
abandoned all hope of restoring Catholicism, though his brother and
heir, James, Duke of York, already a convert, remained resolute to
secure at least toleration for his co-religionists. But many Englishmen
continued to suspect the royal policy.

Roman Catholicism was feared and hated by many Englishmen for two
distinct reasons. The first was based on bigotry, nourished by memories
of the Marian persecution, the papal bull dethroning Elizabeth, Guy
Fawkes' Plot, and by apprehensions that a Catholic could not be a loyal
subject so long as he recognized the temporal power of the Pope. The
second was political and assumed that Catholicism was the natural
support of absolutism. As Shaftesbury, the leader of the opposition,
stated, popery and slavery went hand in hand. Such fears were deepened
as the general purport of the Treaty of Dover became known.

Into this atmosphere charged with suspicion was interjected the Popish
Plot, said by Titus Oates and his fellow perjurers to be designed to
murder Charles II and place James on the throne. From September 1678,
when Oates began his series of revelations until the end of March 1681,
when the King dissolved at Oxford the third Parliament elected under the
Protestant furore excited by the Plot, Shaftesbury and his followers had
the upper hand. The King was obliged to propose concessions to the
popular will and to offer to agree to limitations on the authority of a
popish successor. But Shaftesbury was bent on passing the Exclusion
Bill, which excluded James from the throne and substituted the King's
illegitimate son, Monmouth. Here he made a fatal blunder because he
alienated churchmen who believed in the divine right of kings, all whose
sense of decency was outraged by the prospect of a bastard's elevation
to the throne, and the supporters of William of Orange, husband of
Mary, the elder daughter of James, and the great opponent of Louis XIV.
Also, when it became obvious that the King would not agree to a change
in the succession, many feared another civil war with all its attendant
dangers of a second military domination. Moreover, the lies of Oates and
his imitators were becoming discredited.

Though a reaction against the Whigs was beginning, propaganda was needed
to disabuse the public of two anxieties--that there was still a danger
that Roman Catholicism might be restored and that the three dissolutions
might foreshadow a return to unparliamentary government such as Charles
I had established from 1629 to 1640, also after three dissolutions. The
royal party was at first on the defensive. Their propaganda began with a
proclamation issued on April 8 and ordered to be read in all churches.
In the proclamation the King posed as the champion of law and order
against a disloyal faction trying to overthrow the constitution. It was
read in churches on April 17 and, according to Luttrell's _Brief
Historical Relation_ (I, 77), "in many places was not very pleasing, but
afforded matter of sport to some persons." Among several replies was one
entitled _A Letter from a Person of Quality to his Friend_. Clearly
there was need to answer this pamphlet and to state more fully the case
against the Whigs. This task was undertaken by two of the greatest
writers of English prose--George Savile, then Earl, later Marquis of
Halifax, and John Dryden. Halifax, in the tract lately identified as his
by Hugh Macdonald (Cambridge, 1940), _Observations upon a late
Libel_--though he might scarify an individual opponent like Shaftesbury
or pour ridicule upon a sentence from _A Letter_, set himself the task
of answering the Whig case as a whole. The text he dilated upon was:
"there seemeth to be no other Rule allowed by one sort of Men, than that
they cannot Err, and the King cannot be in the Right." With superb irony
and wit he demonstrated how inconsistent such an attitude was with the
constitution of that day.

Dryden's tract, _His Majesties Declaration Defended_ is, like the one
he is answering, in the form of a letter to a friend who has asked the
writer's opinion of the _Declaration_ and the answer to it. "I shall
obey you the more willingly," Dryden responds, "because I know you are a
lover of the Peace and Quietness of your Country; which the Author of
this seditious Pamphlet, is endeavouring to disturb." He writes to show
the "goodness and equity" of the Prince, because once they are
understood, the faction will lose its power and the well-meaning but
misled crowd will be no longer deceived by "the specious names of
Religion and Liberty." After these introductory paragraphs Dryden began
to reply to the pamphlet point by point. His method is to quote or, more
strictly, partly to quote and partly to paraphrase, a sentence and then
refute its argument. In so doing he is following the method of the
author of _A Letter_. Accordingly, to understand and judge the fairness
of Dryden's refutation, it is well first to read _His Majesties
Declaration_, then _A Letter_, and finally Dryden. The first has not
been reprinted in full but a substantial extract may be found in
Echard's _History of England_ (III, 624-6) and in Arthur Bryant's _The
Letters of Charles II_ (pp. 319-22), the second is available in a not
uncommon folio, _State Tracts: being a Collection of several Treatises
... privately printed in the Reign of K. Charles II_ (1689), and the
third is here reproduced for the first time. After the perusal of these
three tracts, the student may well turn to _Absalom and Achitophel_, and
find instruction in comparing the prose and the verse. He may reach the
conclusion that while both were written to win converts to the royal
cause, the first was designed to weaken the Whig party and the second to
take advantage of a tide that had turned to ruin the Whig leaders. (For
a fuller discussion of the relationship of Dryden's tract and his poem
see the writer's article, "The Conclusion of Dryden's Absalom and
Achitophel" in the _Huntington Library Quarterly_, X (1946-7), 69-82.)
In addition to its historical interest Dryden's tract is a fine specimen
of his masculine, vigorous style so well suited to controversial
writing.

I desire to thank Mr. James M. Osborn, Yale University, for helpful
suggestions in the preparation of this introduction.

This facsimile has been made from the copy in the William Andrews Clark
Memorial Library.


_Godfrey Davies_
_The Huntington Library_



His Majesties

DECLARATION

DEFENDED:

In a _LETTER_ to a Friend.

BEING AN

_ANSWER_

TO A

_Seditious Pamphlet_,

CALLED

_A LETTER from a Person of Quality
to his Friend_:

CONCERNING

The Kings late Declaration touching the Reasons
which moved him to Dissolve

THE TWO LAST

_PARLIAMENTS_

AT

_WESTMINSTER_ and _OXFORD_.


_LONDON:_
Printed for _T. Davies, 1681_.



THE
Kings Declaration
DEFENDED.


Sir,

Since you are pleas'd to require my Opinion of the Kings Declaration,
and the Answer to it, which you write me word was sent you lately, I
shall obey you the more willingly, because I know you are a lover of the
Peace and Quietness of your Country; which the Author of this seditious
Pamphlet, is endeavouring to disturb. Be pleas'd to understand then,
that before the Declaration was yet published, and while it was only the
common news, that such an one there was intended, to justifie the
Dissolution of the two last Parliaments; it was generally agreed by the
heads of the discontented Party, that this Declaration must be answer'd,
and that with all the ingredients of malice which the ablest amongst
them could squeeze into it. Accordingly, upon the first appearance of it
in Print, five several Pens of their _Cabal_ were set to work; and the
product of each having been examin'd, a certain person of Quality
appears to have carried the majority of Votes, and to be chosen like a
new _Matthias_, to succeed in the place of their deceas'd _Judas_.

He seems to be a man cut out to carry on vigorously the designs of the
Phanatique Party, which are manifestly in this Paper, to hinder the
King, from making any good impression on his Subjects, by giving them
all possible satisfaction.

And the reason of this undertaking is manifest, for if once the goodness
and equity of the Prince comes to be truly understood by the People, the
Authority of the Faction is extinguish'd; and the well meaning crowd who
are misled, will no longer gape after the specious names of Religion and
Liberty; much like the folly of the _Jews_, expecting a _Messiah_ still
to come, whose History has been written sixteen hundred years ago.

Thus much in general: I will now confider the Cavils of my Author
against the Declaration.

He tells us, in the first place, _That the Declaration seems to him as a
forerunner of another Parliament to be speedily call'd:_ And indeed to
any man in his right sences, it can seem no other; for 'tis the business
of its three last Paragraphs to inform the People, that no
irregularities in Parliament can make the King out of love with them:
but that he looks upon them as the best means for healing the distempers
of the publick, and for preservation of the Monarchy.

Now if this seems clearly to be the Kings intention, I would ask what
need there was of the late Petition from the City, for another
Parliament; unless they had rather seem to extort it from his Majesty,
than to have it pass for his own gracious action? The truth is, there
were many of the Loyal Party absent at that Common Council: and the
whole strength of the other Faction was united; for it is the common
failing of honest men to trust too much in the goodness of their cause;
and to manage it too negligently. But there is a necessity incumbent on
such as oppose the establish'd Government, to make up with diligence,
what they want in the justice of their undertaking. This was the true
and only reason why the majority of Votes was for the Petition: but if
the business had not been carried by this surprise, My Lord Mayor might
have only been troubled to have carried the Addresses of _Southwark_,
&c. of another nature: without his offering them with one hand, and the
City Petition with the other; like the Childrens play of, This Mill
grinds Pepper and Spice; that Mill grinds Ratts and Mice.

In the next place he informs us, _That if has been long the practice of
the Popish and Arbitrary Party, that the King should call, frequent,
short, and useless Parliaments, tell the Gentry, grown weary of the
great expences of Elections, should sit at home, and trouble themselves
no more but leave the People expos'd to the practices of them, and of
their Party; who if they carry one House of Commons for their turn, will
make us Slaves and Papists by a Law_.

_Popish_ and _Arbitrary_, are words that sound high amongst the
multitude; and all men are branded by those names, who are not for
setting up Fanaticism and a Common-wealth. To call short and useless
Parliaments, can be no intention of the Government; because from such
means the great end of Settlement cannot be expected. But no Physician
can command his Physick to perform the effects for which he has
prescrib'd it: yet if it fail the first or second time, he will not in
prudence lay aside his Art, and despair of his Patient: but reiterate
his Medicines till he effect the cure. For, the King, as he declares
himself, is not willing to have too hard an Opinion of the
Representatives of the Commons, but hopes that time may open their eyes,
and that their next meeting may perfect the Settlement of Church and
State. With what impudence can our Author say, _That an House of Commons
can possibly be so pack'd, as to make us Slaves and Papists by a Law?_
for my part I should as soon suspect they would make themselves
Arbitrary, which God forbid that any Englishman in his right sences
should believe. But this supposition of our Author, is to lay a most
scandalous imputation upon the Gentry of _England_; besides, what it
tacitly insinuates, that the House of Peers and his Majesty, (without
whom it could not pass into a Law,) would suffer it. Yet without such
Artifices, as I said before, the Fanatique cause could not possibly
subsist: fear of Popery and Arbitrary power must be kept up; or the St.
_Georges_ of their side, would have no Dragon to encounter; yet they
will never persuade a reasonable man, that a King, who in his younger
years, when he had all the Temptations of power to pursue such a Design,
yet attempted it not, should now, in the maturity of his Judgment, and
when he sees the manifest aversion of his Subjects to admit of such a
change, undertake a work of so much difficulty, destructive to the
Monarchy, and ruinous to Himself, if it succeeded not; and if it
succeeded, not capable of making him so truly Great as he is by Law
already. If we add to this, his Majesties natural love to Peace and
Quiet, which increases in every man with his years, this ridiculous
supposition will vanish of itself; which is sufficiently exploded by
daily experiments to the contrary. For let the Reign of any of our Kings
be impartially examin'd, and there will be found in none of them so many
examples of Moderation, and keeping close to the Government by Law, as
in his. And instead of swelling the Regal power to a greater height, we
shall here find many gracious priviledges accorded to the Subjects,
without any one advancement of Prerogative.

The next thing material in the Letter, _is the questioning the legality
of the Declaration; which the Author sayes by the new style of_ his
Majesty in Council, _is order'd to be read in all Churches and Chappels
throughout_ England, _And which no doubt the blind obedience of our
Clergy, will see carefully perform'd; yet if it be true, that there is
no Seal, nor Order of Council, but only the Clerks hand to it, they may
be call'd in question as publishers of false news, and invectives
against a third Estate of the Kingdom_.

Since he writes this only upon a supposition, it will be time enough to
answer it, when the supposition is made manifest in all its parts: In
the meantime, let him give me leave to suppose too, that in case it be
true that there be no Seal, yet since it is no Proclamation, but only a
bare Declaration of his Majesty, to inform and satisfie his Subjects, of
the reasons which induc'd him to dissolve the two last Parliaments, a
Seal in this case, is not of absolute necessity: for the King speaks not
here as commanding any thing, but the Printing, publishing and reading.
And 'tis not denyed the meanest Englishman, to vindicate himself in
Print, when he has any aspersion cast upon him. This is manifestly the
case, that the Enemies of the Government, had endeavour'd to insinuate
into the People such Principles, as this Answerer now publishes: and
therefore his Majesty, who is always tender to preserve the affections
of his Subjects, desir'd to lay before them the necessary reasons, which
induc'd him to so unpleasant a thing, as the parting with two successive
Parliaments. And if the Clergy obey him in so just a Design, is this to
be nam'd a blind Obedience! But I wonder why our Author is so eager for
the calling them to account as Accessaries to an Invective against a
third Estate of the Kingdom, while he himself is guilty in almost every
sentence of his discourse of aspersing the King, even in his own Person,
with all the Virulency and Gall imaginable. It appears plainly that an
House of Commons, is that _Leviathan_ which he Adores: that is his
Sovereign in effect, and a third Estate is not only greater than the
other two, but than him who is presiding over the three.

But, though our Author cannot get his own Seditious Pamphlet to be read
in Churches and in Chappels, I dare secure you, he introduces it into
Conventicles, and Coffee-houses of his Faction: besides, his sending it
in Post Letters, to infect the Populace of every County. 'Tis enough,
that this Declaration is evidently the Kings, and the only true
exception, which our Answerer has to it, is that he would deny his
Majesty the power of clearing his intentions to the People: and finds
himself aggriev'd, that his King should satisfie them in spight of
himself and of his party.

The next Paragraph is wholly spent, in giving us to understand, that a
King, of _England_ is no other thing than a Duke of _Venice_; take the
Parallell all along: and you will find it true by only changing of the
names. A Duke of _Venice_ can do no wrong; in Senate he can make no ill
Laws; in Council no ill Orders, in the Treasury can dispose of no
Money, but wisely, and for the interest of the Government, and according
to such proportions as are every way requisite: if otherwise all
Officers are answerable, &c. Which is in effect, to say he can neither
do wrong nor right, nor indeed any thing, _quatenus_ a King. This puts
me in mind of _Sancho Panca_ in his Government of the Island of
_Barataria_, when he was dispos'd to eat or drink, his Physitian stood
up for the People, and snatch'd the dish from him in their right,
because he was a publick person, and therefore the Nation must be Judges
to a dram and scruple what was necessary for the sustenance of the Head
of the Body politique. Oh, but there is a wicked thing call'd the
Militia in their way, and they shew'd they had a moneths mind to it, at
the first breaking out of the Popish Plot. If they could once persuade
his Majesty, to part graciously with that trifle, and with his power of
making War and Peace; and farther, to resign all Offices of Trust, to be
dispos'd by their nomination, their Argument would be an hundred times
more clear: for then it would be evident to all the World, that he could
do nothing. But if they can work him to part with none of these, then
they must content themselves to carry on their new Design beyond Seas:
either of ingaging the _French_ King to fall upon _Flanders_, or
encouraging the States General to lay aside, or privately to cut off the
Prince of _Orange_, or getting a War declared against _England_ and
_France_ conjoyntly: for by that means, either the King can be but a
weak Enemy, and as they will manage matters, he shall be kept so bare of
Money, that Twelve _Holland_ Ships shall block up the River, or he shall
be forced to cast himself upon a House of Commons, and to take Money
upon their Terms, which will sure be as easie, as those of an Usurer to
an Heir in want. These are part of the projects now afoot: and how Loyal
and conscionable they are, let all indifferent persons judge.

In the close of this Paragraph, he falls upon the King for appealing to
the People against their own Representatives. But I would ask him in the
first place, if an Appeal be to be made, to whom can the King Appeal,
but to his People? And if he must justifie his own proceedings to their
whole Body, how can he do it but by blaming their Representatives? I
believe every honest man is sorry, that any such Divisions have been
betwixt the King and his House of Commons. But since there have been,
how could the King complain more modestly, or in terms more expressing
Grief, than Indignation? or what way is left him to obviate the causes
of such complaints for the future, but this gentle admonishment for what
is past?

'Tis easily agreed, he says, (and here I joyn issue with him) _That
there were never more occasions for a Parliament, than were at the
opening of the last, which was held at_ Westminster. But where he
maliciously adds, _never were our Liberties and Properties more in
danger, nor the Protestant Religion more expos'd to an utter extirpation
both at home and abroad_, he shuffles together Truth and Falshood: for
from the greatness of _France_, the danger of the Protestant Religion is
evident; But that our Liberty, Religion, and Property were in danger
from the Government, let him produce the instances of it, that they may
be answer'd; what dangers there were and are from the Antimonarchical
Party, is not my present business to enquire. As for the growing terrour
of the _French_ Monarchy, the greater it is, the more need of supply to
provide against it.

_The Ministers tell us in the Declaration, That they asked of that
Parliament the supporting the Alliances they had made for the
Preservation of the general peace in Christendom, and had desir'd their
advice and assistance for the preservation of_ Tangier: _had recommended
to them, the farther examination of the Plot; and that his Majesty had
offer'd to concurr in any Remedies for the security of the Protestant
Religion, which might consist with the preserving the Succession of the
Crown, in its due and legal course of descent, but to all this they met
with most unsuitable returns._

Now mark what the Gentleman infers, _That the Ministers well knew, that
their demands of Money for the ends abovesaid, were not to be complyed
with, till his Majesty were pleas'd to change the hands and Councils by
which his Affairs were managed_.--that is, nothing must be given but to
such men in whom they could confide, as if neither the King, nor those
whom he employed were fit any longer to be Trusted. But the supream
power, and the management of all things, must be wholly in their Party,
as it was in _Watt Tyler_, and _Jack Cade_ of famous memory, when they
had got a King into their possession: for this Party, will never think
his Majesty their own, till they have him as safe, as they had his
Father. But if they could compass their Designs, of bringing the same
Gentlemen into play once more, who some years since were at the Helm;
let me ask them, when the Affairs of the Nation were worse manag'd? who
gave the rise to the present greatness of the _French_? or who counsel'd
the dissolution of the Tripple League? 'Tis a miracle to me that the
People should think them good Patriots, only because they are out of
humour with the Court, and in disgrace. I suppose they are far other
principles, than those of Anger and Revenge, which constitute an honest
Statesman. But let men be what they will before, if they once espouse
their Party, let them be touch'd with that Philosophers stone, and they
are turn'd into Gold immediately. Nay, that will do more for them, than
was ever pretended to by Chymistry; for it will raise up the shape of a
worthy Patriot, from the ashes of a Knave. 'Tis a pretty juggle to tell
the King they assist him with Money, when indeed they design only to
give it to themselves; that is, to their own Instruments, which is no
more, than to shift it from one hand into another. It will be a favour
at the long run, if they condescend to acquaint the King, how they
intend to lay out his Treasure. But our Author very roundly tells his
Majesty, _That at present they will give him no supplyes, because they
would be employ'd, to the destruction of his Person, and of the
Protestant Religion, and the inslaving the whole Nation_, to which I
will only add, that of all these matters next and immediately under God,
he and his Party, constitute themselves the supream Judges.

_The Duke of_ York, _the Queen, and the two French Dutchesses are the
great support and protectors of the Popish interest in these Kingdoms_.

How comes it to pass that our Author shuffles the two French Dutchesses
together? of which the one is an _Italian_, the other a _French_ Woman,
and an _English_ Dutchess? Is he grown so purblind, that he cannot
distinguish Friends from Foes? Has he so soon forgotten the memory of
past benefits, that he will not consider one of them as her, to whom all
their applications were so lately made? Is she so quickly become an old
acquaintance, that none of the politick assignations at her Lodgings are
remembred? After this, who will trust the gratitude of a Common-wealth?
or who will blame the Conduct of a silly Court, for being over-reach'd
by the whole _French_ Council, when the able part of the Nation, the
designing heads, the gray wisdom, and the Beaux Garcons, are all foil'd
by a single _French_ Woman, at their own Weapon, dissimulation? for the
other _French_ Dutchess, since I perceive our Author is unacquainted
with her Character, I will give it him; she is one who loves her ease to
that degree, that no advantages of Fortune can bribe her into business.
Let her but have wherewithall to make Merry adays, and to play at Cards
anights, and I dare answer for her, that she will take as little care to
disturb their business, as she takes in the management of her own. But
if you will say that she only affects idleness, and is a grand Intriguer
in her heart, I will only Answer, that I should shew you just such
another as I have describ'd her Grace, amongst the heads of your own
Party: indeed I do not say it is a Woman, but 'tis one who loves a
Woman.

As for the Dutchess of _M._ either she is a very sincere lover of
downright idleness, or she has cousen'd all parts of Christendom, where
she has wandred for these last Ten years. I hope our solid Author will
pardon me this digression; but now we have had our dance, let us to our
serious business.

_While these, and their Creatures are at the Helm, what can we expect
for the security of the Protestant Religion, or what opposition to the
ambitious designs of_ France?

I suppose more reasonably on the other side, that no such persons are at
the Helm, and that what he has assum'd is but precarious. But I retort
upon him, that if some of his Party were the Ministers, the Protestant
Religion would receive but very cold assistance from them, who have none
at all themselves. And for the growth of the _French_ Monarchy, I have
already told you, to whose Counsels we are beholden for it.

_He goes on; you will tell me that the supplyes so given may be
appropriated, to these particular ends of supporting our Alliances, and
the relief of_ Tangier: _And it may be so limited by Act of Parliament,
that it cannot be diverted to other uses. But he answers that Objection
by a Story of_ Monsieur de Sully's _telling of_ H. 4th _of_ France: _let
the States raise the Money, and tye it as they please; when they are
dissolved, you may dispose of it as you please_.

All this is to confirm his first unalterable principle, that the King
must be sure to finger nothing; but be us'd as Fishers do their
Cormorant, have his mouth left open, to swallow the prey for them, but
his throat gagg'd that nothing may go down. Let them bring this to pass,
and afterwards they will not need to take away his Prerogative of making
War: He must do that at his own peril, and be sent to fight his Enemies
with his hands bound behind him. But what if he thinks not their Party
fit to be intrusted, least they should employ it against his Person? why
then, as he told you _they will give him nothing_. Now whose will be the
fault in common reason, if the Allyances be not supported, and _Tangier_
not relieved? If they will give him nothing, before they bring him to a
necessity of taking it upon their terms, asmuch as in them lyes they
dissolve the Government: and the Interest of the Nation abroad must be
left in the Suds, till they have destroy'd the Monarchy at home. But
since God, and the Laws have put the disposing of the Treasury into his
Majesties hands, it may satisfie any reasonable _Englishman_, that the
same Laws have provided for the mispending of the Treasury, by calling
the publick Officers into question for it before the Parliament. For God
be thanked we have a House of Commons, who will be sure, never to forgoe
the least tittle of their Priviledges, and not be so meal-mouth'd as the
States of _France_, of whom neither Monsieur _Sully_, nor any of his
Successors, have never had any cause of apprehension. But since the
wisdom of our Ancestors have thought this Provision sufficient for our
security, What has his present Majesty deserv'd from his Subjects, that
he should be made a Minor at no less than fifty years of age? or that
his House of Commons should Fetter him beyond any of his Predecessors?
_where the Interest goes, you will say, there goes the power_. But the
most ingenious of your Authors, I mean _Plato Redivivus,_ broaches no
such principle as that you should force this Prerogative from the King,
by undue courses. The best use which can be made of all, is rather to
support the Monarchy, than to have it fall upon your Heads. If indeed
there were any reasonable fear of an Arbitrary Government, the adverse
Party had somewhat to alledge in their defence of not supplying it; but
it is not only evident, that the Kings temper is wholly averse from any
such Design, but also demonstrable, that if all his Council, were such
as this man most falsely suggests them to be, yet the notion of an
absolute power in the Prince is wholly impracticable, not only in this
Age, but for ought any wise man can foresee, at any time hereafter. 'Tis
plain, that the King has reduc'd himself already to live more like a
private Gentleman than a Prince; and since he can content himself in
that condition, 'tis as plain, that the supplies which he demands are
only for the service of the publick, and not for his own maintenance.
Monsieur _de Sully_ might give what Council he thought convenient for
_Henry_ the Fourth, who was then designing that Arbitrary power, which
his Successors have since compass'd, to the ruine of the Subjects
liberty in _France_; but I appeal to the Consciences of those men, who
are most averse to the present Government, if they think our King would
put his Peace and Quiet at this time of day, upon so desperate an issue.
What the necessities, which they are driving him into, may make him part
with on the other hand, I know not. But how can they answer it to our
Posterity, that for private Picques, self Interest, and causeless
jealousies, they would destroy the foundation of so excellent a
Government, which is the admiration and envy of all _Europe_?

_The rest of my Authors Paragraph, is only laying more load upon the
Ministers, and telling us, that if a sum of Money sufficient for those
ends were given, while they were Managers of Affairs, it would be only
to set them free from any apprehensions of account to any future
Parliament_. But this Argument having only the imaginary fear of an
Arbitrary power for its foundation, is already answer'd, he adds in the
close of it, _That the Prince has a cheap bargain, who gives Paper-Laws
in exchange of Money and Power. Bargains, he tells us, there have always
been, and always will be, betwixt Prince and People, because it is in
the Constitution of our Goverment, and the chief dependance of our Kings
is in the love and liberality of their People_.

Our present King, I acknowledge has often found it so; though no thanks
I suppose to this Gentleman and his Party. But though he cry down Paper
and Parchment at this Rate, they are the best Evidence he can have for
his Estate, and his friends the Lawyers will advise him to speak with
less contempt of those Commodities. If Laws avail the Subject nothing,
our Ancestors have made many a bad Bargain for us. Yet I can instance to
him one Paper, namely, that of the _Habeas Corpus_ bill; for which the
House of Commons would have been content to have given a Million of good
_English_ money, and which they had Gratis from his Majesty. 'Tis true,
they boast they got it by a Trick; but if the Clerk of the Parliament
had been bidden to forget it, their Trick of telling Noses might have
fail'd them. Therefore let us do right on all sides: The Nation is
oblig'd both to the House of Commons for asking it, and more especially
to his Majesty, for granting it so freely.

_But what can we think of his next Axiome, that it was never known that
Laws signified any thing to a People, who had not the sole guard of
their own Prince, Government and Laws?_

Here all our Fore-fathers are Arraign'd at once for trusting the
Executive power of the Laws in their Princes hands. And yet you see the
Government has made a shift to shuffle on for so many hundred years
together, under this miserable oppression; and no man so wise in so many
ages to find out, that _Magna Charta_ was to no purpose, while there was
a King. I confess in Countreys, where the Monarck governs absolutely,
and the Law is either his Will, or depending on it, this noble maxim
might take place; But since we are neither _Turks_, _Russians_, nor
_Frenchmen_, to affirm that in our Countrey, in a Monarchy of so
temperate and wholsom a Constitution, Laws are of no validity, because
they are not in the disposition of the People, plainly infers that no
Government but that of a Common-wealth can preserve our Liberties and
Priviledges: for though the Title of a Prince be allow'd to continue,
yet if the People must have the sole guard and Government of him and of
the Laws, 'tis but facing an whole hand of Trumps, with an insignificant
King of another sute. And which is worst of all, if this be true, there
can be no Rebellion, for then the People is the supream power. And if
the Representatives of the Commons shall Jarr with the other two
Estates, and with the King, it would be no Rebellion to adhere to them in
that War: to which I know that every Republican who reads this, must of
necessity Answer, _No more it would not_. Then farewell the Good Act of
Parliament, which makes it Treason to Levy Arms against the present King,
upon any pretences whatsoever. For if this be a Right of Nature, and
consequently never to be Resign'd, there never has been, nor ever can be
any pact betwixt King and People, and Mr. _Hobbs_ would tell us, _That we
are still in a state of War_.

_The next thing our Author would establish, is, That there is nothing in
Nature or in Story so ridiculous, as the management of the Ministers, in
the Examination of the Popish Plot. Which being prov'd by_ Coleman's
_and others Letters, and by both Houses by declaring the King's Life to
be in danger_, &c. _Yet they have persuaded the King to believe nothing
of this danger; but to apprehend the Plot to be extreamly improv'd, if
not wholly contriv'd by the Presbyterians. And to think it more his
concernment to have an end of all; then to have it search'd to the
bottom: and that this was the true reason, why four Parliaments, during
the Examination of the Plot have been dissolv'd:_

Reasonable People will conclude, that his Majesty and his Ministers have
proceeded, not ridiculously, but with all that caution which became
them. For in the first heat and vehemence of the Plot, the Avenues of
_White-Hall_ were more strictly Guarded: His Majesty abstaining from
Places of publick Entertainment, and the Ministers taking all necessary
Care in Council, both to discover Conspiracies and to prevent them. So,
that simply considered, the Popish Plot has nothing to do with the
Dissolution of Four Parliaments. But the Use which has been made of it by
the House of Commons to Dis-inherit the Duke, to deny the King
Supplies, and to make some Votes, which the King declares to be
illegal, are the real and plain occasions of dissolving those
Parliaments. 'Tis only affirm'd, but never will be prov'd by this
Author, that the King or his Ministers have ever been desirous to stifle
the Plot, and not to have it search'd into the bottom. For to what end
has his Majesty so often offer'd the Popish Lords to be brought to their
Trial, but that their innocence or guilt, and consequently, that of the
whole party might be made manifest? Or why, after the execution of the
Lord _Stafford_, did the House of Commons stop at the other Lords, and
not proceed to try them in their turns? Did his Majesty stifle the Plot
when he offered them, or did they refuse to sound the depth of it, when
they would not touch upon them? If it were for want of Witnesses, which
is all that can be said, the case is deplorable on the part of the
accused; who can neither be bail'd, because impeach'd in Parliament, nor
admitted to be tryed, for fear they should be acquitted for want of
evidence. I do not doubt but his Majesty, after having done what in him
lies for the utmost discovery of the Plot, both by frequent
Proclamations of Indemnity, and Reward, to such as would come in, and
discover more, and by several others too long to repeat, is desirous
(for what good man is not?) that his care and trouble might be over. But
I am much deceiv'd, if the Antimonarchical Party be of the same
opinion; or that they desire the Plot should be either wholly
discover'd, or fully ended. For 'tis evidently their Interest to keep it
on foot, as long as possibly they can; and to give it hot water, as
often as 'tis dying; for while they are in possession of this Jewel,
they make themselves masters of the people. For this very reason I have
often said, even from the beginning of the Discovery, that the
Presbyterians would never let it go out of their hands, but manage it to
the last inch upon a Save-all. And that if ever they had tryed one Lord,
they would value themselves upon that Conquest, as long as ever it would
last with the Populace: but whatever came on't, be sure to leave a Nest
Egg in the _Tower_: And since I doubt not, but what so mean a Judge as I
am could so easily discover, could not possibly escape the vigilancy of
those who are at the Helm; I am apt to think, that his Majesty saw at
least as great a danger arising to him from the discontented spirits of
the popular Faction, as from the Papists. For is it not plain, that ever
since the beginning of the Plot, they have been lopping off from the
Crown whatever part of the Prerogative they could reach? and incroaching
into Soveraignty and Arbitrary Power themselves, while they seem'd to
fear it from the King? How then could his Majesty be blam'd, if he were
forc'd to dissolve those Parliaments, which instead of giving him
relief, made their Advantages upon his Distresses; and while they
pretended a care of his Person on the one hand, were plucking at his
Scepter with the other?

After this, the Pamphleteer gives us a long Bead-roll of _Dangerfield's_
Plot, Captain _Ely_, young _Tongue_, _Fitz-Gerard_ and Mr. _Ray_, rails
at some, and commends others as far as his skill in Hyperbole will carry
him. Which all put together, amounts to no more than only this, that he
whom they called Rogue before, when he comes into their party, pays his
Garnish, and is adopted into the name of an honest man. Thus _Ray_ was
no Villain, when he accus'd Colonel _Sackvile_, before the House of
Commons; but when he failed of the reward of godliness at their hands,
and from a Wig became a tearing Tory in new Cloaths, our Author puts him
upon the File of Rogues, with this brand, _Than whom a more notorious
and known Villian lives not_.

The next thing be falls upon, is the Succession: which the King
declares, _He will have preserved in its due descent_. Now our Author
despairing, it seems, that an Exclusion should pass by Bill, urges,
_That the Right of Nature and Nations will impower Subjects to deliver a
Protestant Kingdom from a Popish King_. The Law of Nations, is so
undoubtedly, against him, that I am sure he dares not stick to that
Plea: but will be forc'd to reply, that the Civil Law was made in favour
of Monarchy: why then did he appeal to it? And for the Law of Nature, I
know not what it has to do with Protestants or Papists, except he can
prove that the English Nation is naturally Protestant; and then I would
enquire of him what Countrymen our Fore-fathers were? But if he means by
the Law of Nature, self-preservation and defence; even that neither will
look but a squint upon Religion; for a man of any Religion, and a man of
no Religion, are equally bound to preserve their lives. But I answer
positively to what he would be at; that the Law of self-preservation
impowers not a Subject to rise in Arms against his Soveraign, of another
Religion, upon supposition of what he may do in his prejudice hereafter:
for, since it is impossible that a moral certainty should be made out of
a future contingency, and consequently, that the Soveraign may not
extend his Power to the prejudice of any mans Liberty or Religion: The
probability (which is the worst that they can put it) is not enough to
absolve a Subject who rises in Arms, from Rebellion, _in foro
Conscientiae_. We read of a divine Command to obey Superior Powers: and
the Duke will lawfully be such, no Bill of Exclusion having past against
him in his Brother's life: Besides this, we have the Examples of
Primitive Christians, even under Heathen Emperors, always suffering, yet
never taking up Arms, during ten Persecutions. But we have no Text, no
Primitive Example encouraging us to rebel against a Christian Prince,
tho of a different Perswasion. And to say there were then no Christian
Princes when the New Testament was written, will avail our Author
little; for the Argument is a _Fortiori_: if it be unlawful to rebel
against a Heathen Emperor, then much more against a Christian King. The
Corollary is this, and every unbiassed sober man will subscribe to it,
that since we cannot pry into the secret Decrees of God, for the
knowledge of future Events, we ought to rely upon his Providence, for
the Succession; without either plunging our present King into
necessities, for what may never happen; or refusing our obedience to one
hereafter, who in the course of nature may succeed him. One, who if he
had the will, could never have the power to settle Popery in _England_,
or to bring in Arbitrary Government.

_But the Monarchy will not be destroyed, and the Protestant Religion
will be preserved, if we may have a Protestant Successor_.

If his party had thought, that this had been a true Expedient, I am
confident it had been mentioned in the last Parliament at _Westminster_.
But there, _altum silentium_ not one word of it. Was it because the
Machine was not then in readiness to move! and that the Exclusion must
first pass? or more truly was it ever intended to be urged? I am not
ashamed to say, that I particularly honour the Duke of _Monmouth_: but
whether his nomination to succeed, would, at the bottom be pleasing to
the Heads of his Cabal, I somewhat doubt. To keep him fast to them by
some remote hopes of it, may be no ill Policy. To have him in a
readiness to head an Army, in case it should please God the King should
die before the Duke, is the design; and then perhaps he has reason to
expect more from a Chance Game, than from the real desires of his party
to exalt him to a Throne. But 'tis neither to be imagined, that a Prince
of his Spirit, after the gaining of a Crown, would be managed by those
who helped him to it, let his ingagements and promises be never so
strong before, neither that he would be confin'd in the narrow compass
of a Curtail'd Mungril Monarchy, half Common-wealth. Conquerors are not
easily to be curbed. And it is yet harder to conceive, that his
pretended Friends, even design him so much as that. At present, 'tis
true, their mutual necessities keep them fast together; and all the
several Fanatick Books fall in, to enlarge the common stream: But
suppose the business compassed, as they design'd it, how many, and how
contradicting Interests are there to be satisfied! Every Sect of High
Shooes would then be uppermost; and not one of them endure the
toleration of another. And amongst them all, what will become of those
fine Speculative Wits, who drew the Plan of this new Government, and who
overthrew the old? For their comfort, the Saints will then account them
Atheists, and discard them. Or they will plead each of them their
particular Merits, till they quarrel about the Dividend. And, the
Protestant Successor himself, if he be not wholly governed by the
prevailing party, will first be declared no Protestant; and next, no
Successor. This is dealing sincerely with him, which _Plato Redivivus_
does not: for all the bustle he makes concerning the Duke of _M._
proceeds from a Commonwealth Principle: he is afraid at the bottom to
have him at the Head of the party, lest he should turn the absolute
Republick, now designing, into an arbitrary Monarchy.

The next thing he exposes, is the project communicated at _Oxford_, by a
worthy Gentleman since deceased. But since he avowed himself, that it
was but a rough draught, our Author might have paid more respect to his
memory, than to endeavour to render it ridiculous. But let us see how he
mends the matter in his own which follows.

_If the Duke were only banished, during life, and the Administration put
into the hands of Protestants, that would establish an unnatural War of
Expediency, against an avowed Right and Title. But on the other hand
exclude the Duke, and all other Popish Successors, and put down all
those Guards are now so illegally kept up, and banish the Papists, where
can be the danger of a War, in a Nation unanimous_?

I will not be unreasonable with him; I will expect English no where from
the barrenness of his Country: but if he can make sense of his
_Unnatural War of Expediency_, I will forgive him two false Grammars,
and three Barbarisms, in every Period of his Pamphlet; and yet leave him
enow of each to expose his ignorance, whensoever I design it. But his
Expedient it self is very solid, if you mark it. _Exclude the Duke, take
away the Guards_, and consequently, all manner of defence from the Kings
Person; _Banish every Mothers Son of the Papists, whether guilty or not
guilty in particular of the Plot_. And when Papists are to be banished,
I warrant you all Protestants in Masquerade must go for company; and
when none but a pack of Sectaries and Commonwealths-men are left in
_England_, where indeed will be the danger of a War, in a Nation
unanimous? After this, why does not some resenting Friend of _Marvel_'s,
put up a Petition to the Soveraigns of his party, that his Pension of
four hundred pounds _per annum_, may be transferred to some one amongst
them, who will not so notoriously betray their cause by dullness and
insufficiency? As for the illegal Guards, let the Law help them; or let
them be disbanded; for I do not think they have need of any Champion.

The next twenty Lines are only an illustration upon his Expedient: for
he is so fond of his darling Notion, that he huggs it to death, as the
Ape did her young one. He gives us his Bill of Tautology once more; for
he threatens, that they would not rest at the Exclusion; but the Papists
must again be banish'd, and the Dukes Creatures put out of Office both
Civil and Military. Now the Dukes Creatures, I hope, are Papists, or
little better; so that this is all the same: as if he had been conning
over this ingenious Epigram;

    There was a man who with great labour, and much pain;
    Did break his neck, and break his neck, and break his neck again.

At the last, to shew his hand is not out in the whole Paragraph, when
the Duke is excluded, his Creatures put out of Office, the Papists
banished twice over; and the Church of _England_-men delivered to Satan,
yet still he says the Duke is the great Minister of State; and the Kings
Excellent Qualities give his Brother still opportunities to ruine us and
our Religion. Even excluded, and without Friends and Faction he can do
all this; and the King is endued with most excellent Qualities to suffer
it.

Having found my man, methinks I can scarce afford to be serious with him
any longer; but to treat him as he deserves, like an ill Bouffoon.

_He defends the sharpess of the Addresses of which his Majesty
complains_: but I suppose it would be better for him, and me, to let our
Principals engage, and to stand by ourselves. I confess, I have heard
some members of that House, wish, that all Proceedings had been carried
with less vehemence. But my Author goes further on the other hand; _He
affirms, that many wise and good men thought they had gone too far, in
assuring, nay, in mentioning of money before our safety was fully
provided for_. So you see he is still for laying his hand upon the
penny. In the mean time I have him in a Praemunire for arraigning the
House of Commons; for he has tacitely confessed, that the wise and good
men were the fewer; because the House carryed it for mentioning money in
their Address. But it seems they went too far, in speaking of a Supply,
before they had consulted this Gentleman, how far the safety of the
Nation would admit it. I find plainly by his temper, that if matters had
come to an accommodation, and a bargain had been a bargain, the Knights
of the Shire must have been the Protestant Knights no longer.

_As for Arbitrary Power of taking men into custody, for matters that had
no relation to Privileges of Parliament, he says they have erred with
their Fathers._ If he confess that they have erred, let it be with all
their Generation, still they have erred: and an error of the first
digestion, is seldom mended in the second. But I find him modest in this
point; and knowing too well they are not a Court of Judicature, he does
not defend them from Arbitrary Proceedings, but only excuses, and
palliates the matter, by saying, that it concern'd the Rights of the
People, in suppressing their Petitions to the Fountain of Justice. So,
when it makes for him, he can allow the King to be the _Fountain of
Justice_, but at other times he is only a _Cistern of the People._ But
he knows sufficiently, however he dissembles it, that there were some
taken into custody, to whom that crime was not objected. Yet since in a
manner he yields up the Cause, I will not press him too far, where he is
so manifestly weak. Tho I must tell him by the way, that he is as justly
to be proceeded against for calling the Kings Proclamation illegal,
which concerned the matter of Petitioning, as some of those, who had
pronounced against them by the House of Commons, that terrible sentence,
of _Take him,_ Topham.

_The strange illegal Votes declaring several eminent persons to be
Enemies to the King and Kingdom, are not so strange, he says, but very
justifiable_. I hope he does not mean, that illegal Votes are now not
strange in the House of Commons: But observe the reason which he gives:
for the House of Commons had before address'd for their removal from
about the King. It was his business to have prov'd, that an Address of
the House of Commons, without Process, order of Law, hearing any
Defence, or offering any proof against them is sufficient ground to
remove any person from the King: But instead of this he only proves,
that former Addresses have been made, _Which no body can deny_. When he
has throughly settled this important point, that Addresses have
certainly been made, instead of an Argument to back it, he only thinks,
that one may affirm by Law, _That the King ought to have no person about
him, who has the misfortune of such a Vote_. But this is too ridiculous
to require an Answer. They who will have a thing done, and give no
reason for it, assume to themselves a manifest Arbitrary Power. Now this
Power cannot be in the Representatives, if it be not in the People: or if
it be in them, the People is absolute. But since he wholly thinks it,
let him injoy the privilege of every Free Born Subject, to have the Bell
clinck to him what he imagines.

Well; all this while he has been in pain about laying his Egg: at the
last we shall have him cackle.

_If the House of Commons declare they have just Reasons to fear, that
such a person puts the King upon Arbitrary Councils, or betrays His and
the Nations Interest, in such a Case, Order and Process of Law is not
necessary to remove him; but the Opinion and Advice of the Nation is
enough; because bare removing neither fines him, nor deprives him of
Life, Liberty, or Offices, wherein State Affairs are not concern'd._

Hitherto, he has only prov'd, according to his usual Logick, that bare
removing, is but bare removing, and that to deprive a man of a Publick
Office is not so much as it would be to hang him: all that possibly can
be infer'd from this Argument, is only that a Vote may do a less wrong,
but not a greater. Let us see how be proceeds.

_If he be not remov'd upon such Address, you allow him time to act his
Villany; and the Nation runs the hazard_.

I answer, if the House have just Reasons on their side, 'tis but
equitable they should declare them; for an Address in this Case is an
Appeal to the King against such a man: and no Appeal is supposed to be
without the Causes which induc'd it. But when they ask a Removal, and
give no reason for it; they make themselves Judges of the Matter, and
consequently they appeal not, but command. If they please to give their
Reasons, they justifie their Complaint; for then their Address is almost
in the nature of an Impeachment; and in that Case they may procure a
hearing when they please. But barely to declare, that they suspect any
man, without charging him with particular Articles, is almost to
confess, they can find none against him. To suppose a man has time to
act his Villanies, must suppose him first to be a Villain: and if they
suspect him to be such, nothing more easie than to name his Crimes, and
to take from him all opportunities of future mischief. But at this rate
of bare addressing, any one who has a publick profitable Employment
might be remov'd; for upon the private Picque of a Member he may have a
party rais'd for an Address against him. And if his Majesty can no
sooner reward the Services of any one who is not of their party, but
they can vote him out of his Employment; it must at last follow, that
none but their own party must be employ'd, and then a Vote of the House
of Commons, is in effect the Government. Neither can that be call'd the
Advice and Opinion of the whole Nation, by my Author's favour, where
the other two Estates, and the Soveraign are not consenting.

_'Tis no matter_, says this Gentleman; _there are some things so
reasonable, that they are above any written Law: and will in despite of
any Power on Earth have their effect, whereof this is one_.

I love a man who deals plainly; he explicitly owns this is not Law, and
yet it is reasonable; and will have its effect as if it were. See then,
in the first place the written Law is laid aside: that sence is thrown
open to admit reason in a larger denomination. Now that reason which is
not Law, must be either Enthusiasm, or the head-strong will of a whole
Nation combin'd: because in despite of any Earthly Power it will have
its effect; so that, which way soever our Author takes it, he must mean
Fanaticism, or Rebellion: Law grounded on reason is resolv'd into the
Absolute Power of the People; and this is _Ratio ultima Reipublicae_.

Furthermore; _The King is a publick Person: in his private capacity_,
as we are told, _he can only eat and drink; and perform some other acts
of nature which shall be nameless. But his actings without himself,_
says my grave Author, _are only as a King. In his politick capacity he
ought not to marry, love, hate, make war, or peace, but as a King; and
agreeable to the People, and their Interest he governs._

In plain terms then, as he is a man he has nothing left to do: for the
Actions which are mention'd, are those only of an Animal, or which are
common to Man and Beast. And as he is a King he has as little Business,
for there he is at the disposing of the People: and the only use that
can be made of such a Monarch, is for an Innkeeper to let upon a
Sign-Post to draw custom. But these Letters of Instruction how he should
behave himself in his Kingly Office, cannot but call to mind how he was
school'd and tutor'd, when the Covenanters made just such another Prince
of him in _Scotland_. When the terrible fasting day was come, if he were
sick in bed, no remedy, he must up and to Kirk; and that without a
mouthful of Bread to stay his Stomach; for he fasted then in his
Politick Capacity. When he was seated, no looking aside from Mr. _John_;
not a whisper to any man, but was a disrespect to the Divine Ordinance.
After the first Thunderer had spent his Lungs, no Retirement, the first
is reinforc'd by a second and a third: all chosen Vessels, dieted for
Preaching, and the best breath'd of the whole Country. When the Sun went
down, then up went the Candles, and the fourth arises to carry on the
work of the night, when that of the day was at an end.

'Tis true what he says, that our greatest Princes have often hearkened
to the Addresses of their People, and have remov'd some persons from
them; but it was when they found those Addresses reasonable themselves.
But they who consult the manner of Addresses in former times, will find
them to have been manag'd in the House of Commons, with all the calmness
and circumspection imaginable. The Crimes were first maturely weigh'd,
and the whole matter throughly winnow'd in Debates. After which, if they
thought it necessary for the publick wellfare, that such a person should
be remov'd, they dutifully acquainted the King with their opinion, which
was often favourably heard; and their desires granted. But now the Case
is quite otherwise; Either no Debate, or a very slight one precedes
Addresses of that nature. But a man is run down with violent Harangues;
and 'tis thought sufficient, if any member rises up, and offers that he
will make out the Accusation afterwards: when things are carried in this
heady manner, I suppose 'tis no sign of a Great Prince, to have any of
his Servants forc'd from him. But such Addresses will insensibly grow
into Presidents: you see our Author is nibbling at one already. And we
know a House of Commons is always forgiving the Crescent in their Arms.
If they gain a point, they never recede from it, they make sure work of
every concession from the Crown, and immediately put it into the
Christmass Box: from whence there is no Redemption.

In justification of the two Votes against lending or advancing Money to
the King, he falls to railing, like a Sophister in the Schools, when his
Syllogisms are at an end. He arraigns the Kings private manner of
living, without considering that his not being supplied has forc'd him
to it. I do not take upon me to defend any former ill management of the
Treasury; but, if I am not deceiv'd, the great grievance of the other
party at present, is, that it is well manag'd. And, that notwithstanding
nothing has been given for so many years, yet a competent provision is
still made for all expences of the publick, if not so large as might be
wish'd, yet at least as much as is necessary. And I can tell my Author
for his farther mortification, that at present no money is furnish'd to
his Majesties Occasions, at such unconscionable Usury as he mentions. If
he would have the Tables set up again, let the King be put into a
condition, and then let eating and drinking flourish, according to the
hearty, honest and greasie Hospitality of our Ancestors. He would have
the King have recourse to Parliaments, as the only proper Supply to a
King of _England_, for those things which the Treasury in this low Ebb
cannot furnish out: but when he comes to the Conditions, on which this
money is to be had, they are such, that perhaps forty in the Hundred to
a Jew Banquer were not more unreasonable. In the mean time, if a
Parliament will not give, and others must not lend, there is a certain
story of the Dog in the Manger, which out of good manners I will not
apply.

The Vote for not prosecuting Protestant Dissenters upon the Penal Laws;
which at this time is thought to be a Grievance to the Subject, a
weakning of the Protestant Religion, and an Incouragement to Popery, is
a matter more tenderly to be handled. But if it be true what has been
commonly reported since the Plot, that Priests, Jesuits, and Friars,
mingle amongst Anabaptists, Quakers, and other Sectaries, and are their
Teachers, must not they be prosecuted neither? Some men would think,
that before such an uniting of Protestants, a winnowing were not much
amiss; for after they were once sent together to the Mill, it would be
too late to divide the Grist. His Majesty is well known to be an
indulgent Prince, to the Consciences of his dissenting Subjects: But
whoever has seen a Paper call'd, I think, _An intended Bill for
uniting_, &c. which lay upon the Table of every Coffee-House, and was
modelling to pass the House of Commons, may have found things of such
dangerous concernment to the Government, as might seem not so much
intended to unite Dissenters in a Protestant Church, as to draw together
all the Forces of the several Fanatick Parties, against the Church of
_England_. And when they were encouraged by such a Vote, which they
value as a Law; (for so high that Coin is now inhaunc'd) perhaps it is
not unreasonable to hold the Rod over them. But for my own part, I
heartily wish, that there may be no occasion for Christians to persecute
each other. And since my Author speaks with some moderation, candor, and
submission to his Mother Church, I shall only desire him and the
dissenting Party, to make the use they ought, of the King Gracious
Disposition to them, in not yet proceeding with all the violence which
the penal Laws require against them. But this calm of my Author, was too
happy to last long. You find him immediately transported into a storm
about the business of _Fitz-Harris_, which occasion'd the Dissolution of
the Parliament at _Oxford_: and accusing, according to his sawcy Custom,
both his Majesty, and the House of Lords, concerning it. As for the
House of Lords, they have already vindicated their own right, by
throwing out the Impeachment: and sure the People of _England_ ought to
own them as the Assertors of the publick Liberty in so doing; for
Process being before ordered against him at Common Law, and no
particular Crime being laid to his Charge by the House of Commons, if
they had admitted his Cause to be tryed before the Lordships, this would
have grown a President in time, that they must have been forc'd to judge
all those whom the House of Commons would thrust upon them, till at last
the number of Impeachments would be so increas'd; that the Peers would
have no time for any other business of the Publick: and the Highest
Court of Judicature would have been reduc'd to be the Ministers of
Revenge to the Commons. What then would become of our ancient Privilege
to be tryed _per pares_? Which in process of time would be lost to us
and our posterity: except a proviso were made on purpose, that this
judgment might not be drawn into farther President; and that is never
done, but when there is a manifest necessity of breaking rules, which
here there was not. Otherwise the Commons may make Spaniels of the
Lords, throw them a man, and bid them go judge, as we command a Dog to
fetch and carry. But neither the Lords Reasons, nor the King first
having possession of the Prisoner, signifie any thing with our Author.
He will tell you the reason of the Impeachment was to bring out the
Popish Plot. If _Fitz-Harris_ really know any thing but what relates to
his own Treason, he chuses a fine time of day to discover it now, when
'tis manifestly to save his Neck, that he is forc'd to make himself a
greater Villain; and to charge himself with new Crimes to avoid the
punishment of the old. Had he not the benefit of so many Proclamations,
to have come in before, if he then knew any thing worth discovery? And
was not his fortune necessitous enough at all times, to catch at an
impunity, which was baited with Rewards to bribe him? 'tis not for
nothing that Party has been all along so favourable to him: they are
conscious to themselves of some other matters than a Popish Plot. Let
him first be tryed for what he was first accus'd: if he be acquitted,
his Party will be satisfied, and their strength increas'd by the known
honesty of another Evidence: but if he be condemn'd, let us see what
truth will come out of him, when he has _Tyburn_ and another World
before his Eyes. Then, if he confess any thing which makes against the
Cause, their Excuse is ready; he died a Papist, and had a dispensation
from the Pope to lie. But if they can bring him silent to the Gallows,
all their favour will be, to wish him dispatch'd out of his pain, as
soon as possibly he may. And in that Case they have already promis'd
they will be good to his Wife, and provide for her, which would be a
strong encouragement, for many a woman, to perswade her Husband to
digest the Halter. This remembers me of a certain Spanish Duke, who
commanding a Sea-Port-Town, set an Officer of his, underhand to rob the
Merchants. His Grace you may be confident was to have the Booty, and the
Fellow was assur'd if he were taken to be protected. It fell out, after
some time, that he was apprehended: His Master, according to Articles,
brought him off. The Rogue went again to his vocation, was the second
time taken, delivered again, and so the third. At last the matter grew
so notorious, that the Duke found, it would be both scandalous and
difficult to protect him any longer; But the poor Malefactor sending his
Wife to tell him that if he did not save him he must be hanged to
morrow, and that he must confess who set him on: His Master very civilly
sent him this Message; _Prithee suffer thy self to be hanged this once
to do me a Courtesie, and it shall be the better for thy Wife and
Children._

'But that which makes amends for all, says our Author, is the Kings
resolution to have frequent Parliaments. Yet this, it seems, is no
amends neither: for he says Parliaments are like Terms, if there be Ten
in a Year, and all so short to near no Causes, they do no good.'

I say on the other hand, If the Courts will resolve beforehand to have
no Causes brought before them, but one which they know they cannot
dispatch; let the Terms be never so long, they make them as
insignificant as a Vacation.

_The Kings Prerogative, when and where they should be call'd, and how
long they should sit, is but subservient, as our Friend tells us, to the
great design of Government; and must be accommodated to it, or we are
either denyed or deluded of that Protection and Justice we are born to._

My Author is the happiest in one faculty, I ever knew. He is still
advancing some new Position, which without proving, he slurs upon us for
an Argument: though he knows, that Doctrines without proofs will edifie
but little. That the Kings Prerogative is subservient, or in order to
the ends of Government is granted him. But what strange kind of Argument
is this, to prove that we are cheated of that Protection to which we are
born. Our Kings have always been indued with the power of calling
Parliaments, nominating the time, appointing of the Place, and
Dissolving them when they thought it for the publick good: And the
People have wisely consulted their own welfare in it. Suppose, for
example, that there be a Jarring between the three Estates, which
renders their sitting at that time Impracticable; since none of them can
pretend to Judge the proceedings of the other two, the Judgment of the
whole must either reside in a Superiour power, or the discord must
terminate in the ruine of them all. For if one of the three incroach too
far, there is so much lost in the Balance of the Estates, and so much
more Arbitrary power in one; 'Tis as certain in Politiques, as in
Nature; That where the Sea prevails the Land loses. If no such discord
should arise, my Authors Argument is of no farther use: for where the
Soveraign and Parliament agree, there can be no deluding of the People;
So, that in short, his quarrel is to the constitution of the Government.

And we see what nettles him, That the King has learnt from the unhappy
example of his Father, not to perpetuate a Parliament. But he will tell
you, that they desire only a lasting Parliament, which may dispatch all
causes necessary and proper for the publick: And I Answer him, that it
lyes in themselves to make it so. But who shall Judge when it shall be
proper to put an end to such a Parliament? there is no farther Answer
left him; but only, that the Reason of things is the only Rule: for when
all necessary causes are dispatch'd, then is the proper time of
Dissolution. But if you mark it, this Argumentation is still running in
a Circle. For the Parliament, that is the House of Commons, would
constitute themselves Judges of this reason of things; and of what
causes were necessary to be dispatch'd. So that my Author had as good
have laid down this Position bare-fac'd, that a Parliament ought never
to be Dissolved, till an House of Commons would sit no longer.

My Author goes on scoffingly, _That he has nothing to say for those
angry men_ (he means of his own Party) _whose particular Designs are
disappointed; only that they might have kept their places; and that he
can find no difference betwixt them who are out, and those who are put
in, but that the former could have ruin'd us, and would not: and these
cannot if they would._

I am willing to let them pass as lightly as he pleases: Angry they are,
and they know the Proverb. I hope I may have leave to observe
transiently, that none but angry men, that is, such as hold themselves
disobliged at Court, are the Pillars of his Party. And where are then
the principles of Vertue, Honour and Religion, which they would persuade
the World, have animated their endeavours for the publick? What were
they before they were thus Angry? or what would they be, could they make
so firm an Interest in Court, that they might venture themselves in that
bottom? This, the whole Party cannot choose but know; for Knaves can
easily smell out one another. My Author, an experienced man, makes but
very little difference, betwixt those who are out, and those who are put
in. But the Nation begins to be awake: his party is mouldring away, and
as it falls out, in all dishonest Combinations, are suspecting each
other so very fast, that every man is shifting for himself, by a
separate Treaty: and looking out for a Plank in the common Shipwrack, so
that the point is turn'd upon him; those who are out, would have ruin'd
us, and cou'd not; and those who are in, are endeavouring to save us if
they can.

My Adversary himself, now drawing to a conclusion, seems to be inclining
to good opinions: and as dying men, are much given to repentance, so
finding his cause at the last gasp, he unburthens his Conscience and
disclaims the principles of a Common-wealth, both for himself, and for
both Houses of Parliament, which is indeed to be over-officious: for one
of the Houses will not think they have need of such a Compurgator. But
he wisely fears no change of Government from any, but the Papists. Now I
am of a better heart, for I fear it neither from Papists nor
Presbyterians. Whether Democracy will agree with Jesuitical principles
in _England_ I am not certain; but I can easily prove to him, that no
Government but a Common-wealth is accommodated to the Systeme of
Church-worship invented by _John Calvin_.

The Declaration concludes, that the King is resolv'd to govern in all
things by the Laws: And here the Author of the Answer, is for frisking
out into a fit of Joy, which looks as aukward with his gravity, as ever
was King _David_'s dancing before the Ark. This similitude I hope has
pleas'd him; if it does not, _Esop_'s Ass stands ready Sadled at the
door. But a melancholick consideration has already pour'd cold water in
his Porredge, for all promises he says, _are either kept or broken_:
well-fare a good old Proverb. I could find in my heart to cap it with
another, _that the old Woman had never look'd for her Daughter in the
Oven, if she had not been there herself before_. But if the King should
keep his word, as all but his Enemies conclude he will, then we shall
see Annual Parliaments sit longer I hope; when they meddle only with
their proper business. They will lose their time no more, in cutting off
the Succession, altering the course of Nature, and directing the
providence of God, before they know it. We shall have no uniting of
Sects against the Church of _England_, nor of Counties against the next
Heir of the Crown. The King shall then be advis'd by his Parliament,
when both Houses concur in their advice. There shall be no more need of
Declarations about the dissolving of Parliaments, and no more need of
factious Fools to answer them; But the People shall be happy, the King
shall be supply'd the Alliances shall be supported, and my suppos'd
Author be made a Bishop, and renounce the Covenant. That many of these
things may happen, is the wish of every loyal Subject, and particularly
of


Sir, _Your most humble Servant_



_The Editors of_ THE AUGUSTAN REPRINT SOCIETY
_are pleased to announce that_
THE WILLIAM ANDREWS CLARK MEMORIAL LIBRARY
_of The University of California, Los Angeles_


will become the publisher of the Augustan Reprints in May, 1949. The
editorial policy of the Society will continue unchanged. As in the past,
the editors will strive to furnish members inexpensive reprints of rare
seventeenth and eighteenth century works.

All correspondence concerning subscriptions in the United States and
Canada should be addressed to the William Andrews Clark Memorial
Library, 2205 West Adams Blvd., Los Angeles 7, California.
Correspondence concerning editorial matters may be addressed to any of
the general editors. Membership fee continues $2.50 per year ($2.75 in
Great Britain and the continent). British and European subscribers
should address B.H. Blackwell, Broad Street, Oxford, England.


Publications for the fourth year (1949-1950)

_(At least six items will be printed in the main from the following
list)_


SERIES IV: MEN, MANNERS, AND CRITICS

John Dryden, _His Majesties Declaration Defended_
  (1681)
Daniel Defoe (?), _Vindication of the Press_ (1718)
_Critical Remarks on Sir Charles Grandison, Clarissa,
  and Pamela_ (1754)

SERIES V: DRAMA

Thomas Southerne, _Oroonoko_ (1696)
Mrs. Centlivre, _The Busie Body_ (1709)
Charles Johnson, _Caelia_ (1733)
Charles Macklin, _Man of the World_ (1781)

SERIES VI: POETRY AND LANGUAGE

Andre Dacier, _Essay on Lyric Poetry_
_Poems_ by Thomas Sprat
_Poems_ by the Earl of Dorset
Samuel Johnson, _Vanity of Human Wishes_ (1749),
  and one of the 1750 _Rambler_ papers.

EXTRA SERIES:

Lewis Theobald, _Preface to Shakespeare's Works_
  (1733)


A few copies of the early publications of the Society are still
available at the original rate.


GENERAL EDITORS

H. RICHARD ARCHER,
  William Andrews Clark Memorial Library

R.C. BOYS, University of Michigan

E.N. HOOKER, University of California, Los Angeles

H.T. SWEDENBERG, JR.,
  University of California, Los Angeles

       *       *       *       *       *

To THE AUGUSTAN REPRINT SOCIETY

_William Andrews Clark Memorial Library_
_2205 West Adams Blvd., Los Angeles 7, California_

AS MEMBERSHIP FEE I enclose for:
  The fourth year $ 2.50
  The third and fourth year 5.00
  The second, third and fourth year 7.50
  The first, second, third, and fourth year 10.00
[Add $.25 for each year if ordering from Great Britain or the continent]

_Name_

_Address_

Make check or money order payable to THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA.

_Note: All income of the Society is devoted to defraying cost of
printing and mailing._



PUBLICATIONS OF THE AUGUSTAN REPRINT SOCIETY


First Year (1946-1947)

1. Richard Blackmore's _Essay upon Wit_ (1716), and Addison's
_Freeholder_ No. 45 (1716). (I, 1)

2. Samuel Cobb's _Of Poetry_ and _Discourse on Criticism_ (1707). (II,
1)

3. _Letter to A.H. Esq.; concerning the Stage_ (1698), and Richard
Willis' _Occasioned Paper No. IX_ (1698). (III, 1)

4. _Essay on Wit_ (1748), together with Characters by Flecknoe, and
Joseph Warton's _Adventurer_ Nos. 127 and 133. (I, 2)

5. Samuel Wesley's _Epistle to a Friend Concerning Poetry_ (1700) and
_Essay on Heroic Poetry_ (1693). (II, 2)

6. _Representation of the Impiety and Immorality of the Stage_ (1704)
and _Some Thoughts Concerning the Stage_ (1704). (III, 2)


Second Year (1947-1948)

7. John Gay's _The Present State of Wit_ (1711); and a section on Wit
from _The English Theophrastus_ (1702). (I, 3)

8. Rapin's _De Carmine Pastorali_, translated by Creech (1684). (II, 3)

9. T. Hanmer's (?) _Some Remarks on the Tragedy of Hamlet_ (1736). (III,
3)

10. Corbyn Morris' _Essay towards Fixing the True Standards of Wit,
etc._ (1744). (I, 4)

11. Thomas Purney's _Discourse on the Pastoral_ (1717). (II, 4)

12. Essays on the Stage, selected, with an Introduction by Joseph Wood
Krutch. (III, 4)


Third Year (1948-1949)

13. Sir John Falstaff (pseud.), _The Theatre_ (1720). (IV, 1)

14. Edward Moore's _The Gamester_ (1753). (V, 1)

15. John Oldmixon's _Reflections on Dr. Swift's Letter to Harley_
(1712); and Arthur Mainwaring's _The British Academy_ (1712). (VI, 1)

16. Nevil Payne's _Fatal Jealousy_ (1673). (V, 2)

17. Nicholas Rowe's _Some Account of the Life of Mr. William Shakespear_
(1709). (Extra Series, 1)

18. Aaron Hill's Preface to _The Creation_; and Thomas Brereton's
Preface to _Esther_. (IV, 2)





*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "His Majesties Declaration Defended" ***

Copyright 2023 LibraryBlog. All rights reserved.