Some subtile Devil, without more ado, To gull 'em of their Souls, and Money too. Printed for A. Thorncome, and are to be sold by most Booksellers, 1685. [Roxburghe Collection, III. 825.] The Unjust Judge's Creed, Replied.2 [1.] To Yr. Ezekiel Edgworth, Arch-Deacon of Newgate. Qui Barium non odit, amet tua carmina, Mævi.3 15 1 Misprinted "whom" in Poems on Several Occasions, by a late Person of Honour, 1685. If written by Rochester, the date is of course before July, 1680. Meaning "The Unjust Judge's Creed Stated; and Answered." 3 This is line 90 of Virgil's Third Eclogue. Compare Horace, Epod. X. This word "Sham" is said to have been invented and circulated in the year 1680. See also p. 183. [F that be true your Lordship says, IF You may, like Bulls, live Jovial Days: You sometimes fear, which they do not. Of Peace, or War, or Dutch, or French, Or new Intrigue of Madam-Wench. They careless are, how bought, how sold; Hereafter (altho') Death should be Then your Lordship pays t'a farthing, Howe're, if 't be, as you divine, The Hermit's as well's the Libertine. For it's Futurity of State, Distinguishing our unknown Fate, Live then, My Lord, that you may've room To hope, not fear, a State to Come. FINIS. [In White-letter. No woodcut, printer's name, or date: but probably of 1680.] Long-Lookt-for is Come at last. "Dost thou not hear the work on foot? Ballad of Tom and Will (our p. 199). WE believe the true date of the ensuing ballad to be between October, 1679, and October 21st, 1680, during the twelve-months of delay encountered by the "Fourth Parliament" of Charles II. before it entered fully on its work. There were prorogations from time to time, on 26th of January, and 15th of April. These hindrances caused disappointment to be felt, and petitions to be presented for speedy commencement of business. The petitions were distasteful, and at length needed to be prohibited. Those who favoured them were styled "Petitioners": those who hated and opposed them were called "Abhorrers." In general, the signers and presenters of the petitions were a factions and plebeian class as compared with the "Loyal Addressers," who expressed their abhorrence at the rebelliousness and insolence of their political foes.1 Indecision and vacillation, sure signs of weakness, are frequently precursors of ruin. This had been proved in the old days of '41; it threatened to be so again at the time of the Sham "Popish Plot." When a discontented politician has plainly shown his hand, with the evident intention of becoming mischievously obstructive, as "the little Machiavel" Shaftesbury did in 1678, clemency is folly. Prompt measures and unwavering purpose alone suffice. Let people rave as they will against absolute monarchy, or "Imperialism," there is nothing so evil in the most independent course of action, relieved from the controul of Parliament, as there is in a slavish truckling to the commands of a popular assembly, which is itself the hireling of a mob of bought-and-sold electors. At all times of factitious excitement, the representatives of the nation will probably be the mouthpiece of the bigotted and violent. Unwisdom predominates on the 1 The following narrative from the trustworthy Sir John Reresby offers a good example of both Petitioners" and "Abhorrers"; also of the intolerance shown by Parliament when it met, the Commons submitting to no controul, and exercising tyranny over opinion. Apparently the event took place at York, where the assizes were held, at the end of July, 1680.-"A petition was offered this assizes to the grand jury from some of the anti-Court party for the sitting of the Parliament, in the name of the whole county. One Mr. Darcy being of the grand jury, instead of receiving the petition, tore it in pieces; and the next day there met at least fifty gentlemen who desired me to draw up something to express an abhorrence of such proceedings (the King being the only fit judge when Parliament ought to sit). I drew it, and all the gentlemen subscribed it; the judge was sent to, and made acquainted with it by the high sheriff, and desired to make it known to his Majesty, which he did accordingly. The King took it well, but we were complained of for it in the House of Commons the next Session of Parliament, and got off very hardly." (Memoirs of Sir John Reresby, J. J. Cartwright's edition, 1875, p. 187.) hustings. Whosoever raves intemperately, according to the prevailing clamour, has best chance of securing the "sweet voices " and suffrages of the rabble. When we remember how a canvass of the illiterate and prejudiced is conducted by designing impostors; how honest intelligence is apt to be distanced in the race, owing to a manly scorn of insincere pledges, or from a refusal to submit to dishonourable checks and interference of busy bodies; it seems wonderful that any Parliament has ever yet been composed of honourable and wise men: the fools and the knaves come to have such terrific numerical advantages. In and out of "the House," the vote of the bravest and best is but one, to be outweighed by any couple of sordid knaves or cowards. That 1679-80 was an epoch of weakness in the councils of Charles the Second is indisputably clear. Danby had fallen, and the King was nearly held in check. Hitherto an easy monarch, he had been content to bear many annoyances, while he enjoyed the compensation of following his own pleasures lazily. He sauntered through life, with a smile and a jest, or yawned when the weariness became excessive. He accepted the conditions of existence, and found it endurable. But he was never deceived into a belief that it afforded the "glorious opportunities" which poets, or divines, or austere moralists demanded, and imagined for others than themselves. He knew men and women with tolerable accuracy. Although he was too wise ever to become a misanthrope, he may be forgiven the having lost enthusiasm. He had been surrounded by Churchmen, and found them greedy for benefices and mitres; when they got one bishopric, they hungered and begged for a richer see. The most beautiful of women thronged his Court, but scarcely any of them needed much solicitation to frailty, they being ripe and ready to sell to him or to others such honour as they possessed, for title and pension; they felt no more scruple to be unfaithful to a lover than to a husband, so often and so unblushingly as their inclinations prompted. In the Army, in the Navy, in every branch of civil service, peculation, favouritism, and treachery, were rife. Exposure and dismissal simply caused a change of culprits: the new men were as bad as the old, the informers had been accomplices. The ermine was smirched; the parliamentary legislators were corrupt, accepting bribes from France and from Holland, when the Court had none to give. The noisy patriots and shrieking dissenters were ever and anon detected in their hypocrisy. All the truly virtuous had retreated into privacy. Puritanism had denounced every innocent enjoyment, to the disgust of sober-minded, loyal, and religious men. Since the reign of the Saints, full license had been given for the succession of the Sinners, until it became difficult to say which experience had been the worse. Small blame need we give to the clear-sighted Charles, whom former sufferings had not made either cruel or crafty. Seeing what he saw, how could he retain faith in man or woman? "The best of all possible Worlds."-Candide. 191 As for religion, if he inclined favourably towards Romanism, it was chiefly to avoid annoyance from fanatics, and because it offered, possibly, an easy escape from punishment in another state of existence, for having wasted his life here on earth. A few rude shocks had been previously given. The Dutch War had partially aroused him, showing the insecurity of national prosperity while offices of trust were filled unworthily. There were blunders, and consequently humiliations. England murmured, and the complaints were heard. But it was not until 1678 that the loyalty of the Commons was shown to have wholly waned or evaporated. The last months of "The Pensionary Parliament" ended as ingloriously as had the Roundhead "Rump" of the previous "Long Parliament:" each having sat for nearly a score of years. In "the Pensionary" there had been, of course, many gaps to be filled, when death removed the staunchest of the loyal Cavaliers who had begun to sit in 1661. As time wore on, nearly every new member came to Westminster with a desire to express the discontent of his country, and served to swell the ranks of the disaffected faction. They hankered after a resumption of the parliamentary supremacy attained during the Commonwealth. At first, the restoration of Monarchy had been the chief object of nearly every one. But speedily returned the Puritanic spirit of higgling over supplies, and grudging suspicion. Some members repented having been too generous; nearly all were desirous of regaining privileges and abating prerogative. "You have sat too long!" might have been said unto them, and with perfect truth, as it had been said to their predecessors. A moribund Parliament becomes incapable of useful legislation. Harassed by fears of the Jesuits, of fresh Popish-Plots, of one another, of the King, his ministers, his mistresses, and his foreign allies, it grew offensive to the Court, and so ridiculous in the sight of the nation, that, when it was at last dissolved, it fell without the regret of a single person. It had not known its own corruption, but death had stricken it long before, so that it needed burial and oblivion. The next parliament, "the Habeas Corpus," was summoned while the country was distracted by the silliest terrors of "The Popish Plot," and not likely to be chosen wisely. It proved fractious and impracticable: worse than the one newly-dissolved. Speedily it was dismissed, ingloriously. It began in March, 1679, and died, not one day too soon, three months later, in July. Seeing how the excitement continued, sedition being encouraged by every artifice of the popular leaders, it was not to be expected that a freshly-called Parliament would comply with the needs of the Court. Nothing save weakness could have suggested such a dangerous experiment. Charles was willing to make terms with his foes, if it were possible; otherwise he might have legally delayed summoning the House of Commons for three years. But he |