CHAP. XI. LEAVES THE COUNCIL. BLACK BOX.- ELECTION OF SHERIFFS. MON - AS A RECUSANT. HE GOES ΤΟ SCOTLAND. IT THE King had agreed, upon the pressing instances of the Duke, that he would recall him from Scotland as soon as Parliament was prorogued; and the 26th January was no sooner passed, than he declared his resolution Jan. 28. in Council. Three days afterwards, 1680. Lord Russell, Lord Cavendish, Mr. Powle, and Mr. Lyttleton, "distasted at the late prorogation," says Sir W. Temple, " as well as at the manner of it, and pretending to despair of being able to serve the King any longer, in a conduct of affairs so disagreeable to the general humour of the people," asked His Majesty's permission to leave the Council. The King replied, "With all my heart.” A rumour was spread with great industry at this time, which probably owed its origin to Lord Shaftesbury. It was said that a black box was in the possession of Sir Gilbert Gerrard, containing a contract of marriage between the King and Lucy Walters, mother of the Duke of Monmouth. Sir Gilbert Gerrard, when examined before the council, denied any knowledge of such a box, and the King soon after published a declaration that he never was married to Mrs. Barlow, alias Walters, nor to any other woman but the Queen. A great contest, attended with much confusion, took place on the election of the sheriffs. Bethel, a presbyterian and republican, who has been severely lashed by the pen of Dryden, and Cornish, a warm friend of liberty, were elected by a great majority. These sheriffs have been accused by North of perverting the course of justice, by making out the lists of juries themselves, instead of leaving that business to the under-sheriff, as before; and by using this power, to make juries consist entirely of their own friends. This charge, I fear, cannot be disproved. The Whig party seems now to have been determined to break with the Duke of York beyond the possibility of return. On the 16th of June, Lord Shaftesbury came to the grand jury at Westminster, accompanied by several Lords and Commoners, and indicted the Duke as a popish recusant. The bill was attested by himself, Lord Huntingdon, Lord Russell, Lord Cavendish, Lord Grey, Lord Brandon Gerrard, and many Commoners, amongst whom occur the names of John Trenchard, and Thomas Thynne, Esqrs. The chief justice, fearing the consequences of this step, dismissed the grand jury before they had finished their presentments. But though the proceeding went no further in Westminster Hall, it had a very general effect on the minds of the people. It seems also to have produced great impression upon those whose support was most essential to the Duke. Not only Lord Essex and Lord Halifax, but Lord Sunderland, and Mr. Godolphin, convinced that a party which could take so bold a step must have a deep foundation in the country, advised that James should go out of England. What made the Duke's absence especially necessary at this period, was the approaching meeting of Parliament. For the treaty with France, before men * * Temple. tioned, having been broken off upon the refusal of Hyde and Sunderland to agree to the unjust conditions proposed by the French * ambassador, the want of money obliged the King to meet his . Parliament. Previous to their assembling, he called a Council, in which his brother's absence was proposed. The debate was violent, and the majority of the Council appeared to be in favour of the Duke; but the King, supported by Halifax, Essex, Sunderland, and Godolphin, decided the question against him. Mr. Seymour said at the Council Board, that those who voted so readily for the Duke's going away, would vote as readily for the King's leaving the kingdom, if the people wished it. Mr. Godolphin replied, "If the Duke does not go now, he must go in a fortnight, and the King with him." Charles appears on this occasion to have been quite convinced of the necessity of his brother's absence. In this extremity, the Duke saw himself utterly abandoned. He in vain endeavoured to persuade the King to rely upon his troops, and establish his authority by force of arms. † He could only complain to the King that the Crown had not been made independent of Parliament at the Restoration, and that the precedent of the * Dal. App. 242. + Dal. 265. |