1665] THE PLAGUE IN LONDON 733 Opposition to ment, which had met with such enthusiastic feelings of loyalty, was beginning to show signs of a change. Already that great opposition, which subsequently ripened into the Clarendon. Country party, was beginning to form. Charles II. was to experience the truth of his father's saying, that "Parliaments, like cats, grow cursed with age." Clarendon's own efforts to raise the prerogative had only tended to increase this danger. In the preceding year he had succeeded in obtaining a repeal of some part of the Act for triennial Parliaments, which was one of the chief achievements of the Long Parliament. It was generally believed that that Act not only required that Parliament should be held every three years, but that its duration should be but three years. This view Charles absolutely denied, thinking that he should never secure a more loyal Parliament; he moreover succeeded in obtaining the repeal of those stringent clauses which ordered the great administrative officers to summon a Parliament on their own authority should the King fail to do so. Before the close of the reign, Parliament had reason to regret the loss of these provisions. The lengthened existence then of this Parliament had begun to give rise, as usual, to opposition, at causes of present directed against the minister. There was no difficulty in finding causes of discontent. The late legislation explains any hostility on the part of the Nonconformists. One party at Court, who felt injured by the superior decency of the minister's life, and desired greater toleration for the Catholics, was ready to join the opposition. The old Cavaliers were offended by the best act of his life, his honest adherence to the Indemnity. The whole nation was sore at the disgraceful sale of Dunkirk to the French, which had been completed in 1662, it was believed chiefly at the instigation of Clarendon, whose friendship for the French was not unpaid for. Events now occurred in rapid succession which rendered this general dislike to the Chancellor too strong to be withstood, and caused his fall. discontent. His foreign text for attack. It is plain that such reasons for opposition as have been given could not be openly put forward. His enemies still required some more plausible pretext for his attack. It was sup- policy the preplied by his foreign policy. Hostility to Spain and friendship with France had for long been the traditional policy of the best English statesmen. Dread of the overwhelming power of Charles V., of the vast monarchy and Catholic tendencies of Philip II., and the threatening and reactionary policy of Austria, had forced England to side with the Protestant powers of the North; a similar dread of the predominance of the Austrian house in Europe had driven France, for political reasons, to adopt the same course. But the rapid decay of Spain, the security of the German Princes won at the Peace of Westphalia, the increased power and influence of France, had entirely changed the circumstances of Europe. France especially, in the hands of a young and ambitious King, who had in 1661 declared his intention of ruling without the intervention of a prime minister, had become already the most powerful and dangerous country in Europe. This change Clarendon, with his usual inclination towards traditional views, had been unable to appreciate. He had throughout shown an inclination to join the French interests. He had thus been mainly instrumental in the sale of Dunkirk, a place dear to the English as their only continental acquisition, however little its real value may have been; and thus he had brought about the King's marriage with Catherine of Braganza, a Princess of Portugal, a country which had lately thrown off the yoke of Spain chiefly by means of French assistance. Louis' ambitious views But in fact the ambitious views of Louis had already begun to show themselves. His marriage with Maria Theresa, the Spanish Infanta (June 1660), although attended by renunciations which he fully intended to disregard, had given him hopes of securing part at least of the Spanish dominions, and he had already determined upon that course of aggression upor Spain which subsequently produced the great war of succession. His immediate object was the appropriation of the Low Countries and Franche-Comté to complete his frontier towards the Rhine. For this purpose, on the death of the first wife of Philip IV., he laid claim to the Low Countries for his own wife, urging a curious local custom which he had discovered, called the Law of Devolution, by which, in some of the fiefs of Brabant, upon the death of a parent, the whole fief became the property of their children, the surviving father or mother having only a life interest in it. It is needless to say that this local custom was entirely contrary to the law which governed the succession to the Crown. This claim had thoroughly frightened Holland, for that country was conscious that its alliance was no longer necessary to France, and that the close vicinity of so powerful a neighbour was not desirable. Holland was now in the hands of the oligarchic and republican party, at the head of which was De Witt; for the youth of the Prince of Orange disabled him from occupying the position of Stadtholder, which had become hereditary in his family. The republican party was constantly favourable to frighten the Dutch into negotiations. 1665] WAR WITH HOLLAND 735 France. De Witt, moreover, both despised and hated the Spaniards, and was afraid of the English, whose interest was certain to be given to the young Prince of Orange, who was the nephew of their King, and as hereditary Stadtholder, the natural leader of the anti-republican party. To obtain his object Louis entered into negotiations with De Witt; and these negotiations were still pending when suddenly the Dutch found themselves involved in a war with England. War between Holland. The war arose from very trifling circumstances. A dispute had arisen between the African colonies of England and Holland. The English, without declaration of war, had England and expelled the Dutch from their settlements on the African coasts. Reprisals had followed, still without declaration of war; Charles caused all Dutch merchant vessels with which his cruisers fell in to be captured, as well as those within the English ports. On the 14th of March 1665, the formal declaration of war was made. The efforts on both sides were very great; the fleets first met off Lowestoft. The old jealousy of Holland rendered the war at the time popular, while both the King and his brother were eager for it, the one from a desire to show his skill as Lord High Admiral, the other because he was pleased at the large grants offered him, some of which at least he hoped to appropriate. The Duke of York commanded in person against Admiral Opdam. He won a great victory, but by some mistake or confusion about orders the pursuit was checked and the victory rendered fruitless. It was thought desirable after this that the Duke should not command in person. Monk, now Duke of Albemarle, and Prince Rupert assumed the command. The following year a still more terrible fight took place in the Downs. The two English commanders, who were in fact generals and not sailors, ignorant of the movements of the Dutch, had separated, and on the 1st of June, Monk found himself unexpectedly in the Downs with 54 ships in presence of 80 Dutch men-of-war, commanded by De Witt and De Ruyter. Ignorant of naval tactics, he dashed at his opponents. For two whole days the terrible fight continued, constantly to the disadvantage of the English. On the 3rd of June, burning his disabled ships, Monk retired, nor was it till late in the evening of that day that Rupert's fleet, which should have returned much earlier, joined him. It was the common opinion that the mismanagement of the Government was the cause of the disaster. Though the Court for the time pretended they had won a victory, it soon oozed out that they had suffered a complete defeat, a defeat from which however they partially recovered in the course of the Dutch victory in the Downs. June 3, 1666. year, driving the Dutch back into their ports, and with wanton cruelty burning the unfortified town of Brandaris on the Texel. De Witt, who saw this disgraceful act, is said to have sworn that he would not sheath his sword till he had had revenge. That revenge he obtained to the full in the following year. the Dutch, and pensions Charles. Meanwhile the Dutch had been calling loudly on the French to Louis deserts fulfil the conditions of the alliance subsisting between them, and to send ships to their assistance. But the friendship of the Dutch was no longer an object to Louis. His chief desire was to see his two maritime neighbours destroy each other, and leave him at liberty to pursue his own course of aggression. Moreover, with his usual faithlessness, he was already preparing to desert the Dutch entirely. In May 1667, he had induced Charles to enter into that shameful traffic which rendered England during this reign a dependency of France. He had already secretly promised him considerable sums of money to enable him to establish his own power at home if he would leave him unmolested in his plans of conquest. Although thus deserted by their French allies, on whom they thought they had a right to rely, the Dutch had fully vindicated their honour. In the coming year the misgovernment of the English Court gave them a complete success. Grants, unusually liberal, had been made to Charles. Before the beginning of the war no less than £2,500,000 had been given him, and in 1665 and in 1666, sums on the same liberal scale. But the selfish and profligate King, instead of employing these moneys as designed, for the prosecution of the war, had taken much of them to lavish on his favourites and mistresses; and so complete was the maladministration reigning in the public offices that it was impossible to equip a respectable fleet in the year 1667. The coast of England Dutch blockade lay unprotected, and the Dutch fleet sailed triumphantly up the Thames, passed thence into the Medway, burnt the dockyard and all the shipping at Chatham, and held London in a state of blockade for some weeks. This disgraceful failure produced a peace, which was signed at Breda in July, between the three countries, Holland, France, and England. The disastrous mismanagement of this war supplied the numerous enemies of Clarendon with sufficient materials to secure London. Peace. Discontent: his downfall. In fact, the discontent, both within and without the House, was becoming serious. The opposition was no longer aimed solely at Clarendon. It began to reach the King and the whole method of carrying on the Government. 1666] CAUSES FOR DISCONTENT 737 against religious oppres Repression in Scotland had produced insurrection. The oppression exercised by Sir John Turner in the Western Lowlands in Scotland, had excited the stern Covenanters of that district. They had risen in arms and advanced towards Edinburgh. sion; They had been defeated on the Pentland Hills, and their defeat had brought on them fresh oppressions. But the fire of insurrection was kindled, not yet to be quenched. in England, against the wickedness of In England all respectable men were filled with disgust and horror at the extreme depravity of the Court itself, and of the men who hung about it. The wickedness of the time is to us almost inconceivable. The grossest indelicacies the Court. were publicly practised. The stage, upon which women were now first introduced, was occupied by comedies of the most licentious description. In the Court itself the King was notoriously the slave of any woman that captivated his senses. The reigning favourite at present was Lady Castlemaine. To the disgust thus excited was added contempt for the miserable maladministration of Maladministra ment. all branches of the Government which was the inevitable tion of Governconsequence of such depravity. While the Dutch fleet was sailing up the Thames, English sailors were mutinying for pay in the City. While English ships could not be manned, English sailors who had taken service with the Dutch were calling to their fellows to join them in a service where at least they got money for their trouble. While the fate of England seemed to hang upon the efficiency of her fleet, young nobles who had scarcely seen the sea were put in command of her ships. In the midst too of all the luxury that surrounded the Court, it was known that all the underlings were half starving for want of pay. To some of the royal household arrears of five years were due. The King's harper actually died of want, and was buried by the parish. Misappropria money. Yet all this while it was known certainly that the King and the King's officers were appropriating vast sums of public money. It was this knowledge which induced the tion of public House of Commons to establish two important principles with regard to taxation. In 1665, on granting £1,250,000 for the Dutch war, twice the amount having been granted the preceding year, they introduced and carried a proviso that the money thus given should be applied to the war only. From this time it was a recognized principle that supplies should be applied only to their specified objects. Almost as a natural consequence of this arrangement, and with the same knowledge of the misapplication of money which had caused it, |