Chapter 1

Produced by David Starner, J. David Pearce and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team.

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.