Resolution and conduct of the Prince of Orange set forth in the Proclamation of William and Mary-Character of William-Aspirants for office-The king's ministers-The judgesJealousy of William's Dutch friends-The Convention declared to be a Parliament-Oath of Allegiance-Refused by some spiritual and lay peers-Nonjurors-A Supply votedThe principle of Appropriation established-Comprehension Bill-Reform of the LiturgyThe Test Act-The Toleration Act-High and Low Church-Mutiny at Ipswich-The first Mutiny Act-Suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act-Bill of Indemnity postponedThe Coronation Oath-The Coronation-War with France. power; "WHEREAS it hath pleased Almighty God, in his great mercy to this kingdom, to vouchsafe us a merciful deliverance from Popery and arbitrary and that our preservation is due, next under God, to the resolution and conduct of his highness the prince of Orange." Such were the opening words of the proclamation, which, on the 13th of February, 1689, announced to the people of England that William and Mary were king and queen of these realms. The same "resolution and conduct" which had delivered England from the most imminent dangers, had to support the man who was acknowledged as her deliverer, amidst perils and difficulties of which not the least were the treachery, the self-seeking, the ingratitude of the greater number of those who had called him to rule over them. For thirteen years this Dutch William almost stood alone as the representative of what was heroic in England. He is not a hero to look upon, according to the vulgar notion of the hero. "He had a thin and weak body. He was always asthmatical, and the dregs of the small-pox falling on his lungs, he had a constant VOL. V. F 66 * CHARACTER OF WILLIAM. [1689 deep cough." This prince had no power of subduing men to his will by rhetorical arts. He was a master of seven languages, speaking "Dutch, French, English, and German, equally well," as Burnet records. But his possession of this necessary accomplishment of a prince did not lead him to the ambition of employing words to conceal his thoughts. "He spoke little and very slowly, and most commonly with a disgusting dryness," says Burnet. "He speaks well, and to the point," says one of the French negotiators of the peace of Ryswick. He came amongst courtiers who recollected the charm of the manners of Charles the Second-that fascinating gossip which always evaded "the point "—and in a few weeks they talked of "the morose temper of the prince of Orange." Under this frigid demeanour superficial observers could comprehend nothing of the marvellous energy of this man of action; and they descanted upon "the slothful, sickly temper of the new king." § Though "he had a memory that amazed all about him," his great abilities were not generally recognised, for he had few of the showy qualities which pass for genius. Men of that time had not studied the science of Lavater and Spurzheim, yet they had a notion that "foreheads villainous low" were symbols of imbecility; and when they looked upon the "large front" of this cautious undemonstrative stranger, they might perchance have thought that there was something in him, and that there was meaning in the silent eloquence of his "bright and sparkling eyes." There was no vivacity in the man-" solemn and serious, seldom cheerful, and but with a few," says Burnet. Yet he managed to use his talents, such as they were, not for display but for service. In war he carried the hearts of all along with him by his fire and his daring. In negotiation he accomplished the most difficult objects by his perseverance, and, above all, by his truthfulness. Tallard, the ambassador from Louis XIV., writes to his master: "He is honourable in all he does; his conduct is sincere. If he once enters into a treaty with your majesty, he will scrupulously adhere to it." || The same impartial observer bears testimony to his sagacity: "He is very quick-sighted, and has a correct judgment, and will soon perceive that we are trifling with him if we protract matters too much.". "Few men had stronger passions," according to Burnet; but "few men had the art of concealing and governing passion more than he had." He disarmed the hostility of factions by his seeming imperturbability. "The wishes of the king are checked," writes Tallard, "and it is only by his extreme patience, and by incessantly applying remedies to everything, that he succeeds in a part of what he desires."** And yet from the depths of this seemingly impassive nature breaks out the secret agony of his real sensitiveness, told only to his friend Heinsius: "Matters in Parliament here are taking a turn which drives me mad." t† Such was the man who was called to rule over England, in times when a statesman not to be treacherous, unpatriotic, corrupt, was a rare distinction. “He is generally hated by all the great men, and the whole of the nobility," says the French ambassador, after William had been ten years on the throne. But Tallard adds: "It is not the same with the people, who are very favourably * Burnet, Own Time," vol. iv. p. 547. Evelyn, "Diary," January 29. +Ibid. § Ibid. March 29. Grimblot "Letters of William and Louis," vol. ii. p. 48 and 56. ** Ibid. vol. ii. p. 233. + Ibid. vol. i. p. 355. ¶ Ibid. p. 54. Ibid. vol. i. p. 466. 1689.1 THE KING'S MINISTERS. 67 inclined towards him, yet less so than at the beginning." What this prince had done for England, from the beginning to the end, to raise her in the scale of nations, to save her from foreign domination, to keep her safe from domestic tyranny, to uphold that liberty of conscience which is the basis of true Protestantism, to make constitutional government a reality in spite of the low ambition of ignorant factions,-this, the people of that generation could not wholly appreciate, however they might feel that it was good for them to be under a ruler who knew that he had a work to do in the world, and who did it. "Innumerable were the crowds who solicited for and expected offices," says a bystander in 1689, who saw the progress of the game.* "The pasture was not large enough for the flock," writes an anonymous historian of the next generation. In those days statesmen were justly open to the reproach of seeking high place out of the lust of gain, rather than for the gratification of an honourable ambition. The official salaries were extravagantly large. It was no part of the policy of the aristocratic movers in the settlement of 1689 to disturb the lavish bounties of the Stuarts to their obsequious servants. But the people felt these burdens. In 1690, Sir Charles Sedley, in a debate on the Supply, said of William, "He is a brave and generous prince, but he is a young king, encompassed and hemmed in by a company of crafty old courtiers. To say no more, some have places of 3000l., some of 60007., and others of 8600l. per annum." In the lower offices of the household and of the revenue, the pay was disproportionately large, and the perquisites still larger. The coach and six horses of the Comptroller of the Customs was a deep offence to the country gentlemen. § We may readily imagine that in such a total change as that of 1689, there was a scramble for office, in which the real principles of public men were severely tested. The king-called to the succour of England by the united voice of men of all parties, and placed upon the throne with the partial approbation of many who were opposed to the principles of his most ardent supporters,ventured upon an experiment in government, which to us would be perfectly unintelligible if we were to judge of it by the practice of modern times. He desired to govern by a balance of parties; he sought to carry that desire into effect by choosing his ministers from parties whose principles were diametrically opposed, each to the other To comprehend why it was thought possible to twist such a rope of sand into a state-cable, we must bear in mind that, under the system which had passed away, of governing as much as possible without parliaments, an administration was merely composed of men who were thought qualified to serve the king in their respective offices, without any common agreement upon particular measures. An active king, such as Charles I. and James II., was in many respects his own administrator. William III. was willing to give the same personal superintendence to the conduct of that great policy, whose advancement had chiefly moved him to contend for the English throne. He would himself conduct the foreign relations of the country, for which duty, indeed, he was more fitted than any man. But his confidential advisers in domestic politics should be officers Evelyn, "Diary," February 21. "Parliamentary History," vol. v. col. 562. Ralph, "History," vol. ii. p. 57-1746. |