BOYER, Hugh Eiserihart, 1939- THE GROWTH OF THE FEAR OF IN THE REIGN OF CHARLES II.

The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1969 History, modern

University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor,

Q Copyright by Aigh Eisenhart Boyer

|1970{

THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED THE GROWTH OF THE FEAR OF FRANCE IN THE REIGN OF CHARLES II

DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of the Ohio State University

By Hugh Eisenhart Boyer, A.B., M.A. ******

The Ohio State University 1969

Approved by

dvlser Department of History TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... iii VITA...... iv PREFACE...... v

Chapter Page I. INTRODUCTION...... 1 II. ENGLISH SECURITY...... 13 III. ANGLO-FRENCH TRADE RIVALRY...... 58 IV. ...... 71 V. ARBITRARY GOVERNMENT...... 90 VI. CONCLUSION...... 100

BIBLIOGRAPHY...... 104

il ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish to thank all those who were so helpful in making the completion of this dissertation possible. First and foremost, 1 wish to thank Prof. Clayton Roberts for his direction and assistance. Professor John C. Rule and Professor Wallace Maurer also made helpful suggestions. In addition I wish to thank the staffs of the Ohio State University Library, the University of Minnesota Li­ brary, the Columbia University Library and the New York Public Library for their help in obtaining research material. Finally, 1 wish to thank Mrs. Carol Scherer of Mount Pleasant, Michigan and Mrs. Sandra Dicks of Columbus, Ohio for their help in typing the manuscript.

H.E.B. Columbus, Ohio

August 18, 1969

iii VITA

February 6, 1939.... Born— New York, New York I960...... A.B., Columbia University, New York, New York 1962...... Grading Assistant, Department of Classics, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 1962...... M.A., The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 1964-66...... Teaching Assistant, Department of History, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. 1967-68...... Teaching Associate, Department of History, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.

PUBLICATIONS "The Persian Empire: Its Administration, 550-500 B.C.," Argo. VI (1966), 22-46.

FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: History Studies in Tudor and Stuart , Professor Clayton Roberts Studies in Greek and Ancient Near Eastern History, Professor William F. McDonald Studies in Roman History, Professor William F. McDonald

iv PREFACE

The problem of the growth of the fear of France in the reign of Charles II has never been adequately dealt with by historians. The time during which English opinion turned definitely against France is in dispute. Maurice Lee^ traces hatred for France back to the late spring or summer of 1667, 2 3 during the War of Devolution. , Ogg, and Leopold von Ranke^ place the beginning of hatred for France in the period immediately after the (January, 1668). Andrew Browning^ would probably place it later, in October, 1670, for by then the Triple Alliance had become extremely popular with Parliament. Sir George Clarkf

^•Maurice Lee, The (Urbana; University of Illinois Press, 1965), pp. 87-88. 2 Arthur Bryant, King Charles II (: Longmans, Green and Co., 1931), p. 198. ^David Ogg, England in the Reign of Charles II, I (; Clarendon" press, 1934), p. 3377 ^Leopold von Ranke, , III (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1875), p. 4/9. ^Andrew Browning, Thomas Osborne. Earl of Danby. I (Glasgow: Jackson, Son, and Co., 1951), p. 57. ^Sir George Clark, The Later Stuarts, 1660-1714 (Oxford, Clarendon Press), p. 81.

v vi

Sir Keith Felling,7 K.H.D. Haley,8 and 6.M. Trevelyan9 date fear of the greatness of France in the months between March and October, 1673. Gerald B. Hertz10 puts it in 1674. The reasons for this fear have also been neglected. Fear of French military power, fear of French trade, fear of Catholicism, and fear of arbitrary government have all been mentioned as possible factors, but no attempt has been made to assess the importance of each. Moreover, the identity and backgrounds of those opposing France have not been consi­ dered in any great detail. The purpose of this dissertation is to discover who the men were who feared France, when they came to fear France and why they feared France.

7Sir Keith Felling, A History of the Party« 1640- 1714 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 192477 P* ISO. 8K. H. D. Haley, William of Orange and the English Opposition. 1672-74 (Oxford: CTarendon Press), ppT 105, 115. ^G. M. Trevelyan, England Under the Stuarts (London: Methuen and Sons, 1926), pp. 377-78. ^Gerald B. Hertz, English Public Opinion After the (London: T. Fisher Onwin, 1902), pp. 93, 97. CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

Oliver Cromwell, in a speech delivered to Parliament on September 17, 1656, sought to justify war with . "Why truly, your great Enemy is the Spaniard.... He is a natural enemy...by reason of that enmity which is in him against whatever is of God." Peace was not possible, because "that Peace is to be kept so long as the saith Amen to it. He (the Spaniard] hath espoused Charles Stuart"** as well. The Protector here appeals to a long tradition of anti- Spanish feeling; but this Hispanophobia had not always ex­ isted. In the period from before the beginning of the Hundred Year's War in 1337 until the Spanish marriage of Mary Tudor in 1554 France was the traditional foe of England. Several factors accounted for Anglo-French hostility in these earlier years. One of them was the position of the English king from Henry II's reign (1152) to Henry VI1s (1453): during those years they were vassals of the king of France. French kings constantly tried to gain greater rights over this territory, eventually seeking sovereign rights.

^S. C. Lomas, ed., Letters and Speeches of (London: Methuen and Co., 1904), II, pp. 5ll, 51 5, ~5 H . 2

France meanwhile interested herself in the affairs of . The English king Edward 1 (1272-1307) was deter­ mined to gain control of Scotland. He tried to rule through whom he regarded as his vassal. John was forced by public opinion to ally with France and revolt against Edward (1295). Balliol was beaten, but in an en­ suing struggle for power England supported his son Edward while France supported Robert Bruce (1332). The Scots con­ tinued to ally with France against England until the early part of the reign of Queen Elizabeth. The English claim to the French was another source of difficulty. By the Treaty of Troyes, Henry V had been named heir to the French throne (1420). This claim added another motive for hostility between the two countries. Economic factors also contributed to hostility. One of the chief causes of the Hundred Years War was France's attempt to take control of Flanders. Since English wool was sent to Flanders to be woven into cloth, England resisted France's efforts to seize this important market for English wool. During the first third of the Fourteenth Century both England and France took sides in a Flemish civil war. Eng­ land supported the townspeople of the cities against the pro-French Court of Flanders. These causes for hostility toward France gradually disappeared but the traditional enmity remained long after Spain had begun to replace France as the leading foe of 3

England. The position of the king of England as one of the largest landowners In France was ended by French victory In the Hundred Years War (1337-1453). This meant that a constant Irritant In Anglo-French relations was gone, but It did leave a legacy of bitterness in England and led to several attempts to regain territory in France. The ability of France to intervene in English domestic affairs was nearly eliminated by the ending of the Wars of the Roses and this too tended to improve relations between the two coun­ tries. A third factor in the eventual decline of hostility toward France was the defeat of French efforts to control Flanders and its wool trade. Instead the Duke of Burgundy incorporated the area into his . The Franco-Scottish alliance, however, remained a source of trouble, as did England's refusal to accept the loss of her French lands. These factors, and the rise of , helped to complicate Anglo-French relations. When Henry VII became king he was grateful to France for helping to finance the expedition which had led to his winning the crown, but other factors outweighed gratitude in shaping his policy. Since Henry had gained the throne in battle, he was eager to gain acceptance by the royal houses of Europe as their equal. A marriage alliance was the best 4 means to accomplish this. Of the available countries, Burgundy and the Empire were allied by marriage, and the ruling house of Burgundy was also Yorkish in background. Henry Vll finally settled on Spain. Like England, Spain had grievances against France. Louis XI had taken the Pyrenean provinces of Cerdagne and Roussillon from Spain, who was anxious to regain them. In return for the alliance with Spain Henry agreed to support Brittany against French attack, thus enabling Spain to attack Cerdagne and Roussil­ lon. The marriage of to Henry's son Arthur cemented the alliance. Spanish control of the after 1506 added an economic motive for friendship with that country. This may have been a factor in convincing Henry VIII to renew the alliance by marrying Catherine after his brother Arthur had died. Thomas Wolsey added a new dimension to English policy by insisting in 1511 that the papal foreign policy be followed. This meant war with France in 1511 and 1523. It is extremely unlikely that the people favored a papal foreign policy; incidents like the Hunne affair (1514) indicate a great deal of anti-clericalism. Economic and religious motives were not the only bases for the cardinal's policy. Wolsey, in 1520, claimed for 5

England a major role in maintaining the "balance of power" in Europe. He said that England would intervene in Europe on the side of the weaker power to maintain a balance. Though he did not always adhere to this principle, he enunciated a principle that was to guide many a later English statesman. Popular opinion in the late 1520's appears to have re­ mained anti-French. A plan to fight on the side of France at the papal behest failed in 1528, when Englishmen refused to support the projected war. The king's divorce was the beginning of a process which eventually changed the whole basis of English foreign policy. Until 1529 English diplomacy had been anti-French and pro- Spanish. But Henry's divorce angered Charles V without conciliating Francis I. The break from Rome angered both. Luckily for Henry neither Charles nor Francis trusted each other; further English trade was important to the prosperity of the ; so England escaped invasion. The popularity of Catherine and the Pilgrimage of Grace indicate that a large proportion of the country remained attached to Spain. This might have embarrassed Henry, but, in fact, except for a brief flirtation with the German prote- stants, Henry continued the traditional anti-French and anti- Scottish policy and even signed a treaty with the Emperor (1542). His son Edward VI continued his father's foreign policy, fighting Scotland and France and deferring to 6

Charles' demands that Mary be allowed the right to hear mass. The great change in public opinion toward Spain took place in the reign of Edward1s sister Mary. She considered herself a Spanish princess although half English and was easily persuaded to marry Charles' son Philip. Englishmen interpreted this as portending Spanish control of the country. When the Imperial envoys arrived in London they were pelted in the streets with snowballs and Sir Thomas Wyatt raised a rebellion in protest. In 1557 Philip II dragged England into war against France. The result was the loss of Calais, England's last continental stronghold. Mary's foreign policy was not only unpopular but a failure. At first followed her sister's foreign policy. France had taken control of Scotland in Edward's reign and John Knox was leading a Calvinist revolt against French rule (1559). The use of English troops and ships forced the French to evacuate their forces and leave Scotland in the hands of the Calvinists. The outbreak of the Wars of Religion gave Elizabeth the chance to intervene in France. In 1562 English forces were sent to aid the Huguenots in the war with the Catholics; in return the Huguenots promised to return Calais to England. Concern for the condition of the Huguenots was a constant 7

factor in English relations toward France and had an impor­ tant effect on relations between the two countries. One in­ stance was the Saint Bartholomew's Day Massacre (1572) which led the Queen to break off a treaty with the French govern­ ment. Another instance was the decision of Buckingham and Charles 1 to declare war on France in 1627, partly in order to gain popularity by supporting the Huguenots. Elizabeth's support of Henry of Navarre, however, arose more out of opposition to the pro-Spanish Catholic League than sympathy for the Huguenots. Nevertheless, her backing for Dutch Calvinists and French Huguenots was the beginning of a con­ cept in foreign policy which became known as the Protestant interest. Several factors led Elizabeth to change the traditional foreign policy of England. The first of these was the unpopularity of Spain and of Catholicism, an unpopularity that resulted from Spanish domination of England during Mary's reign. The unpopularity of Spain was reinforced by the efforts of the Spanish ambassadors to encourage Catholic revolt against her rule. Elizabeth, in turn, encouraged the Netherlands to re­ volt against Spanish control. Throughout her reign she supported the by sending pamphlets, weapons and men to the rebels. English public opinion strongly favored giving help to the Dutch Calvinists, for they were fellow 8

Protestants. Economic considerations outweighed political and re­ ligious motives as causes of friction. The ill-treatment of English sailors in Spanish ports, attacks upon Spanish ships by Dutch, Huguenot and English privateers, the efforts of the English to trade with the Spanish-American colonies (e.g., John Hawkins), and a tariff war between England and the Netherlands all helped to embitter relations. The result was a long and bitter war (1587-1604) finally ended by James I. The treaty was bitterly condemned by the clergy and remained extremely unpopular in the country. Re­ sumption of trade between England and Spain led to seizures of English ships on suspicion of trading with Jews or Turks or of carrying Dutch goods. The result was further embit- terment of relations between the countries. The Thirty Years War (1618-48) also helped to inflame Englishmen against Spain. James' son-in-law Frederick of the Palatinate was driven from his domains by Spanish troops (1620-1622). The king's attempts to secure Frederick's restoration through negotiations with Spain failed and his son Charles I fought an unsuccessful war with Spain (1625- 1630). In deference to public opinion, and in order to gain French support for his efforts to restore his brother-in-law Charles 1 married the French princess Henrietta Marie (1625). 9

This was a sharp contrast with the marriage of his ancestor Henry VIII to the Spanish Infanta Catharine of Aragon one- hundred and sixteen years before. The one marriage had ce­ mented a Spanish alliance; the other marked a period of hostility to Spain and uneasy friendship with France. Distrust of the 's leadership in the war led Parliament to refuse adequate funds for the war with Spain. Despite this, Buckingham, in order to gain popularity at home and to assert English power at sea, undertook a war with France in support of the Huguenots (1627). This too ended in failure. During the rest of his reign Charles' foreign policy was pro-Spanish. It was also unpopular and ineffective. The Commonwealth which replaced Charles fought an undeclared naval war with France (1650-1652) and was on friendly terms with Spain. The hostility of France was a direct result of the marriage alliance of the deposed Stuarts with the French royal family. But the Commonwealth regime gave way to the Protecto­ rate of Oliver Cromwell. The Protector's views on foreign policy were those of an Elizabethan. He had been born in 1559, just four years before the end of the reign of Eliza­ beth I. England had been at war with Spain ever since 1587. Although peace was negotiated by James I in 1604, his attempts to appease Spain infuriated a large proportion of 10 the English people. The Protector showed. In his speech on September 17, 1656, justifying war against Spain, that he, at least, still felt this bitterness. "Truly," he said, "King James made a peace: but whether this nation and the interest of all Protestant Christians suffered not more by the Peace, than even by Spanish hostility, 1 refer to your consideration."^ Nevertheless, Cromwell was willing to form an alliance with Spain against France in return for two concessions: toleration for Englishmen in Spain, and liberty for them to trade with the Spanish American colonies. Both terms were rejected. Relations between England and France were far from ideal in the early 1650's. France had refused to recognize the republic and had seized English merchant vessels in the Mediterranean. The result was an undeclared naval war be­ tween the two powers, and French support for the Stuart pre­ tender to the English throne further exacerbated relations between the two countries. When his overtures were rejected by Spain, Cromwell decided to send an expedition to plunder the West Indies. It was an action much like Drake and Hawkins had undertaken during Elizabeth'8 reign. The expedition took Jamaica

*^S. c. Lomas, ©£_. cit., II, p. 514. 11

(1655) and the result was war with Spain. In order to counter the Spanish threat, the Protector undertook to negotiate an alliance with Mazarin, the French regent (October, 1655). Cromwell's chief concern was pro­ tection for the Huguenots. , the Secretary of State, in a letter to John Pell in Hay, 1654 indicates this. "There are great endeavours used by the French to make an alliance here, but no progress is made therein as yet; nor 13 will be, without full provision for the protestants." Thurloe'8 pessimism was unfounded. An alliance was worked out without direct reference to the Huguenots. The decisive battle in the war was that of the Dunes (June, 1658), in which a unit of the joined with the French to defeat once again the , now united with a Spanish force. The reward for Cromwell was control of . Thurloe claimed that the Protector now "carried the keys of the continent at his girdle, and was able to make invasions thereupon and let in armies and forces upon it at his pleasure."^

^R. Vaughan, ed., of Oliver Crom­ well and the State of Europe in the EarlyTart of the Reign o T TbuIs *nr. (Tohaph r ' T.8 78TT TT pT T------r- ^C. H. Firth, Last Years of the Protectorate (London: Longman'8, Green and Co. ," 100$)7”!I, p. Zl8. 12

Cromwell died in September, 1658 leaving behind him a legacy of hatred for Catholicism, fear of Spain, and commer­ cial rivalry with the Dutch. The hatred for Catholicism dated back to the reign of Mary and had found expression in the unofficial alliance of Elizabeth with Protestants throughout Europe. Cromwell had tried to follow this policy too, under the name of the Protestant interest. He had sup­ ported the Protestants in France and Savoy and had tried to form an alliance with the Dutch and Scandinavian Protestant powers. Thus in the year 1658, in the year of Cromwell's death, the government of England, reflecting a century of puritan hatred for popery, saw in Spain the enemy of England and true religion. CHAPTER II ENGLISH SECURITY

I lately acquainted you with the trust we were to repose in the French King— viz. as Polyphemus, who told Ulysses he would devour him last of all his fellows— ’and that was all the curtesy he might expect. William Lilly to (February 16, 1671) printed in C. H. Josten, Elias Ashmole, 1617-92, III, (BxToraV 1566), p . 1207.

A study of the growth of the fear of France offers an immediate problem in semantics. Where does hatred leave off and fear begin? How does one measure either? The solution I have decided upon is to divide opinion into two types: undifferentiated and undirected dislike on the one hand, and hostility with an expressed basis and object on the other. The former I will regard as hatred as such, and the latter as indicating fear of some aspect of French activity. The only means, and that very crude, which one has of measuring fear is to record the number of statements indicating hostility

13 14 and to estimate the depth of feeling they display. Fear that France posed a threat to English security be­ gan in the last years of Oliver Cromwell's protectorate. In June, 1657 Francesco Giavarina, Venetian envoy to England, reported that many of the English troops sent to fight against Spain, though allied with France, had gone over to the Spanish side.'*' The war with Spain was opposed not only by the soldiers but also by many merchants. Giavarina in June and July, 1660, and again shortly after the Restoration, indicates existence of hatred for the French. This is con­ firmed by , the Secretary of the Admiralty in 3 September 1661. From this time until 1667 only a handful of references to fear of a French threat to English security occur. At the beginning of the War of Devolution (1667), the Earl of Arlington reported that large numbers of men from all classes were enlisting to fight in the Spanish armies

^•Calendar of State Papers, Venetian 1657-9, p . 70 (June 15) a n d p. 75 (June 29), hereafter referred to as CSPV. ^CSPV, 1657-9, 271 (December 13, 1658) and 275 (Decem­ ber 20, 1&P8); Osmund Airy, ed., 's History of My Own Time, I, pp. 137-8 (Oxford, 1897); tU C. Thompson "Officers, Merchants and Foreign Policy in the Protectorate of Oliver Cromwell," Historical Studies, XII (1965-7), pp. 160-63 gives evidence for a division among merchants about the war. ^CSPV, 1659-61, 157, 173, 176; Pepys, Diary, September 30, 16517“ ------A against France. This concern declined just after the end of the war, but increased again with the outbreak of the Third Anglo-Dutch War (1672-4), reaching a high point in the fall of 1673. Evidence for the intensity of this fear of a French threat to English security is the number of speeches delivered in the House of Commons against France in October and November, 1673.^ Concern was still high in 1675. Sec­ retary of State reported that although no English regiments were in Holland, three times as many Englishmen were fighting for the Dutch as for the French despite there being English regiments in France.^ The House of Commons resolution, voted early in 1678, offering ,000,000 for an immediate war with France^ is another indi­ cation of the extent of fear of France. This concern re­ mained great until 1682, and then declined. The two parties in Parliament and their supporters in the country were concerned in nearly equal numbers for English security, many more of the protestors appear to be Anglicans than , but this may be accounted for

^Arlington to Sir William Temple (May 24, 1667) printed, in Thomas Bebington, ed., The Letters of the Earl of Arlington, I, (London, 1701), pp. HTST-FIT ^Grey. Debates. II, pp. 190-215. 6Ibid., III, p. 126. ^Commons Journals IX, p. 441. 16 partly by the position of the Anglican church as the Estab­ lished Church; many more Englishmen were Anglican. Only a very few were merchants; most were gentry. A much larger number were formerly royalists than parliamentarians. The difficulty of former supporters of the Commonwealth gaining popular support and their few numbers in the House of Com­ mons might help explain this difference. At the beginning of the reign of Charles II, several observers described English hatred for France as natural. o Giavarina repeats this view on several occasions. This is 9 confirmed by other sources as well. Most of these statements, however, when scrutinized more closely, allow an alternative explanation. Giavarina reported to the Venetian government on June 11, 1660 that "all people desire this rumored war with France as besides a natural instinct to hate the French they are bitter enemies of the Cardinal ^Mazarin]."^ In a second report of such

8CSVP 1659-61. p. 157 (June 11, 1660), p. 173 (July 23, 1660),"pp7 T7ST=77“(July 30, 1660); Ibid., 1661-4, p. 55 (Oc­ tober 14, 1661), ps. 58 (October 21, 1661), p. 100 (January 27, 1662). ^Samuel Pepys, Diary, September 30, 1661; Cominges to Louis XIV (May 10, lbt>3) quoted in J. J. Jusserand, A French Ambassador at the Court of Charles the Second (London, 1892), p. l26; samuel'^orbldres'Tlobj)— quoted in Jusserand, English Essays from a French Pen (London, 1895), pp. 163-64, Hereafter referredto as English Essays. 10CSPV, 1659-61, p. 157. rancor on July 23, 1660 he also refers to news that Mazarin was reputed to be paying the Scots to revolt.^ One week later he again mentions desire for war as a result of "natu- 12 ral antipathy." The mention of the violent hatred of the English for Mazarin is a clue to an explanation for the above statements. The French government, under Mazarin, had supported the unpopular Protectorate in the late 1650's against the popular exile Charles II. This helps account for the hatred of Mazarin and the desire for war against France. By the same token, Spain, which had supported the exiles, was popular with the English. This is confirmed by the statement of Pepys at the time of the fight between the French and Spanish embassy staffs over the order of prece­ dence in a diplomatic procession in honor of the new Swedish ambassador. The English were quite outspoken in support of the Spanish in this protocol dispute, and Pepys attributes this to the fact that "...we do naturally all love the 13 Spanish and hate the French." Another explanation is offered by the Venetian envoy. He gives two reasons for English support of the Spaniards in

u Ibid., 1659-61. p. 173. 12CSPV, 1659-61. pp. 176-77. ^Diary. September 30, 1661. 18

the quarrel over precedence.

As an indication of the inveterate hatred of the English against the French it was noted that the coach on its return to the embassy, although it followed another route was followed by a crowd throwing mud and making indecent and improper remarks. This happened also because a few days before the insolent footmen of Es- trades had had a scuffle with some watermen with some fatalities, and because, a la mode de Paris, they will not let anyone alone.14

A week later (October 21, 1661) he credits the approaching return of Paris of the French ambassador to the "many inso­ lences" of the embassy staff which had infuriated the populace. ^ Still another incident apparently indicating a natural hatred is susceptible to an alternative explanation. A French traveler in England in 1663, Samuel Sorbieres, and his companions were greeted with shouts of "French dogs, French dogs!" on their arrival in . Sorbieres points out that the travelers bring it on themselves by making too much noise thus causing them to appear ridiculous to the inhabitants.^ One more report of Giavarina refers to the "natural

14CSPV, 1661-4, p. 55. 15Ibid., 1661-4. p. 58. **\j. J. Jusserand, English Essays, pp. 163-64. 19

hatred of this nation ^England} for that ^France] . "I7 This Is echoed by the French envoy Cominges in 1663 who claims, "The English naturally hate the French."*® Neither of these references is capable of any explanation other than tradi­ tional enmity or zenophobia. The growth of fear of France was influenced far more by the threat France posed to the balance of power than by the quarrel over precedence or the actions of Mazarin's re­ gime. Cardinal Wolsey had announced in 1520 that England held the balance of power in Europe, and that she would sup­ port the weaker of the two major powers against the stronger. The concept of the balance of power was carried on by Eliza­ beth 1, and it had become an axiom in later English foreign policy. The French ambassador Ruvigny in 1667 put it this way:

Their jealousy is terrible, and their minds so full of those old maxims that the weaker of the two power8 must be supported, by maintaining the balance between France and Spain, that it is to be feared that their general wish is to help the Spaniards.19

17CSPV, 1661-4. p. 100. *®Cominges to Louis XIV (May 10, 1663) quoted in Jus- serand, A French Ambassador, p. 126. l^Ruvigny to Lionne (September 19, 1667) printed in F. A. M. Mignet, Negotiations relatives a la succession d'Espagne sous Louis XtV (Faris lb35-42), TT, p. 514, here- atter referred to as fffgnet, Negotiations. 20

From the Restoration to 1667 the English had not con­ cerned themselves unduly with the balance of power, but the French attack on the Spanish Netherlands which initiated the War of Devolution (1667-8) changed matters. The Earl of Arlington wrote in May, 1667, just after the outbreak of the war, that, "it is not credible how willingly men of all qualities, into the Spanish Service, and openly protest 20 against the French." , writing ten years later, explained the concern of Englishmen in more specific terms than Ruvigny had done. "The French had, in the year 1667...invaded and taken a great part of the Spanish Nether-land, which had always 21 been considered as the natural frontier of England." Such an dates back to the Hundred Years War when England opposed French expansion in Flanders. During the reign of Elizabeth 1 the Dutch rebels had been aided by England in their war against Spain, for Spain then threatened all Europe. Now in 1667 the French threatened to overweight the balance. Thus the alarm of Englishmen when Louis XIV laid claim to the province of Brabant in the Spanish

^Arlington to Sir William Temple (May 24, 1667) printed in Thomas Bebington, ed., The Letters of the Earl of Arlington. I, (London, 1701), pp. l65-bb. 21 The Growth of Popery and Arbitrary Government in England~TT6 >/) printed in Edward Thompson, ed., the Works of Andrew Marvell. I (London, 1776), p. 461. 21

Netherlands in his wife's name. At this point Charles sent the Earl of St. Albans to France to negotiate an alliance. A preliminary agreement was reached in April, 1667, and Louis launched his attack the next month. The , the , who along with Charles and St. Albans took a pro-French stance, 22 admitted the unpopularity of this policy. This unpopu- 23 larity is abundantly confirmed by other evidence. Arlington was one of those behind the Triple Alliance of England, Holland and Sweden against France. It was he who ordered the publication in January, 1668 of a pamphlet entitled A Free Conference Touching the Present State of Eng­ land. which supported indirect help for Spain against France on the grounds that the English were "the only people capable of resisting the Design of the Universal Monarchy" and that "by uniting with Spain we do follow our ancient Maxim and Interest which...is, to be still Masters of the Balance

2^The Life of Clarendon. Ill, p. 807. ^Arlington to Temple (May 24, 1667); Arlington to Temple (October 4, 1667); Arlington to the (October 31, 1667), printed in Bebington, Letters of Arling­ ton. I, 165-6, p. 183, II, p. 264; Andrew Marvell."Tast In­ structions to a Painter (Autumn, 1667), 1. 367-70 princecfin George tie F7“Lord, ed., Poems On Affairs of State. I (New Haven, 1963) p. 117; Caroline Robbins, ed., Diary of John Milward, (Cambridge, 1938), p. 86 (October 14, 16677, p. (October 24, 1667), p. 181 (February 11, 1668); A Free Conference Touching the Present State of England. (London, 1668), p. 24, hereafter referred to as"7T Free Conference. 22 betwixt these two monarchies."2^ The Triple Alliance evoked little response at the time from the populace but Sir Thomas Clifford, Commissioner of the Treasury, testified to its popularity. "For all this great joy it must not be long before we have another war 25 with Holland." Despite this lack of immediate public fer­ vor the Triple Alliance became a landmark to country party 26 politicians like Andrew Marvell and and to courtiers like the Marquis of Halifax and Sir William Temple. They all regarded it an instrument for maintaining the ba­ lance of power in Europe. Three years later the House of Commons, despite Charles' alliance with France, asked him to oppose the expected as- 27 sault by that power on the Low Countries. The outbreak of war in 1672 led to expressions of sympathy for the enemy 28 Dutch, rather than for the French allies. Two of the most

2^A Free Conference. p. 35, p. 23. Z^Sir william Temple, Works. I (London, 1731), p. 463. 2(>The Present Interest of England Stated (London, 1671). p. 28, pTIT,------*------27CSPV, 1671-2. p. 4 (January 7, 1671). ^Richard Bower to Williamson (June 24, 1672) printed in Calendar of State Papers, Domestic 1672, p. 272 hereafter referred to as CSPD; Anchlfcell Grey, Debates in the House of Commons, II, p. 15 (Sec. Henry Coventry— torch z4, 1673), pp. 230-31 (William Garroway— January 12, 1674); History of In­ sip ids (1674), 1. 97-102 printed in Lord, Poems on Affairs or State, I, p. 248. 23 prominent o£ these protesters were Robert HacWard and Pierre Du Moulin. Both men have ties to the dissenters. MacWard was a Presbyterian clergyman while Du Moulin was the descen­ dant of French Huguenots. MacWard points out that while France has relatively few sailors to man their ships, Hol­ land has many. If the two are joined under the French govern ment the combined naval strength will be too much for Eng­ land. 29 This argument is echoed by Du Moulin.3® Concern was also expressed over the economic effect of French con­ trol of the Low Countries. Opposition to French expansion did not subside after Charles II signed a separate peace with the Dutch in Febru­ ary, 1674. In May of the following year Sir John Birkenhead, a court party leader, and Lord Cavendish, William Garroway and Sir , leaders of the country party, ex- 32 pressed opposition to French expansion. Coventry linked his views to the balance of power. "That no predominant power be a terror to the rest, is our true balance between

29 The English Balance, Weighing the Reasons of England*s Present Conjunction with France AgainstThe Dutch (LoVidori, 1677)7~ppr56-5».------^ England1s Appeal from the Private Cabal at to the Great Council of the NaTTon, the Lords amT Commons in Parliament Assembled THague, 1673V, p. 2. 31see Chapter III. ^Grey, Debates, III, p. 160, p. 120, p. 117, p. 125. 24

OO France and Spain. Parliament was prorogued from November, 1675 until February, 1677, and thus there was no forum for opposition to French expansion. One of the first actions of Parliament on its return was to suggest "stricter alliances" as a means of Q/ preserving the Spanish Netherlands. Concern for such al­ liances and purpose was also expressed in an anonymous pam- qc phlet. A new address to the king mentioned "the progress 36 he the French king daily makes in those Netherlands," and again suggested alliances. This contrasts with the earlier address which mentioned "the acquisitions already made, and the further progress likely to be made by him,' in 37 the Spanish Netherlands." The difference probably is ac­ counted for by the capture of Valenciennes during March. Cambrai fell to the French on , 1677, the prince of Orange was beaten at Cassel on April 11, and St. Omer fell on April 19. Parliament was distraught. Secretary of State

33Ibid., Ill, p. 125. Q/ Commons Journals, IX, p. 400 (March 15, 1677). 33A Representation of the Present Affairs and Interests of ThosiT in the AetherlafuTs, as they “now StancT in the begin­ ning of ~tKe Year 1677, printe3~iiTl!sP&, 1676-7, p. 592. ^ Commons Journals IX, p. 408 (March 29, 1677). 37Ibid., IX, p. 396 (March 10, 1677). 25

Henry Coventry mentions the loss of Valenciennes and St. Omer.^® Andrew Marvell also mentions St. Omer,®^ and both Sir Henry Capel, the country party politician and Sir John Ernly, the court party member, mention the battle of Cas- 40 sel, and Gilbert Burnet, the Anglican cleric, testifies to the traumatic effect of these French gains in Flanders. "...These things happening during the session of Parliament, made a great impression on all people's minds.None, how­ ever, explains the relationship between these French victo­ ries and English security. The result was an address suggesting that the king make AO an alliance with the Dutch. In order to placate Parlia­ ment, Charles married his niece to William Prince of Orange (November, 1677). The House of Commons resolved to support the alliance for "the Preservation of the Spanish Nether- 43 lands and lessening the Power of France."

®®Grey, Debates, IV, p. 348. ^Marvell to the Hull Corporation (April 14, 1677), printed in H. M. Margoliouth, ed., Poems and Letters of Andrew Marvell. II, (Oxford, 1927), p. I9JT. ^®Grey, Debates, IV, pp. 346-47, p. 345. ^Osmund Airy, ed., Burnet* s History of My Own Time, II, p. 124. ^ Commons Journals, IX, p. 424 (May 23, 1677). ^ I b i d ., IX, (February 5, 1678). 26

Reports of French attacks on Ghent and Ypres stunned 44 the English (in February and March, 1678). Some troops, under the Duke of Monmouth's command, were sent over to Os- tend. The Prince of Orange's attempt to relieve Mons, and the ensuing battle with the French, led to new anxiety for 45 the Low Countries; but peace was signed just before the battle, and war was not renewed. Despite the conclusion of hostilities, English concern for the balance of power continued to the end of the reign^

Earl of Arran to the Duke of Ormonde (February 26, 1678), Sir Robert Southwell to Ormonde (February 28, 1678), Southwell to Ormonde (March 2, 1678), Arran to Ormonde (March 2, 1678), Southwell to Ormonde (March 5, 1678), printed in Historical Manuscripts Commission (Ormonde MSS), N. S. IV, p. Izi. p. 407, pp.408-9, p. 125, p. 412; Airy, Burnet, II, p. 135. ^Arran to Ormonde (June 29, 1678), Sir Henry Coventry to Ormonde (July 23, 1678), Coventry to Ormonde (August 13, 1678), printed in H. M. C. (Ormonde MSS), N. S. IV, p. 159, p. 173, p. 181. ------46 Edmund Everard, Discourses on the Present State of the Protestant Princes of Europe""(Uondon, ib/V), p. 25 ;TTSPD, TETD'^Enr, p. 676; An Impartial Account of the Nature and Ten­ dency of the Late~Xddres8es In A Letler to a Centleman in the Country (London, 1681), p. 38; AndrewHBr owing, ed.,~Hem- oirs of Sir John Reresby, (Glasgow, 1936), pp. 248-9; John bryden and Nahum Tate, , II (Summer, 1682), 1. 264, A Supplement to tEe last Will and Testament of Anthony, EarT or Shaftesbury latter January 2u, 1683), T7 loo, Tne thirdTart of Advice to the Painter (May 28, 1684), 1. 35, 43-4, printed in“!Toward H.“TTchTess, ed., Poems on Affairs of State, III, p. 292, p. 409, p. 559. 27

Fears of French attacks on the Spanish Netherlands recurred 47 in January, 1681. Louis' troops did besiege Luxembourg 48 in late 1681, and this aroused public opinion in England. Largely because of Charles' insistence that he would call a Parliament to oppose France, Louis lifted the siege of Luxembourg; but fears of French incursions into the area did not cease. Owen Wynne wrote to Baron Dartmouth that "what •49 alarms us more is the march of the French toward Flanders. In the spring of 1684 Louis finally did take Luxembourg despite the unhappiness of many Englishmen. English complaints that France was threatening the balance of power were directly related to the French attack

Sir George Hungerford and Ralph Montague speeches in the House of Commons (January 7, 1681), printed in H. M. C. (Beaufort MSS), p. Ill, p. 109. “ “ ^Narcissus Luttrell, A Brief Historical Relation of State Affairs. 1678-1714, I, (oxford, l857), p. W5>; karT of Halifax to rtenry Savile (December 1, 1681), printed in William D. Cooper, ed., Savile Correspondence, (London, 1858), p. 247; Sir Robert Southwell to the Duke of Ormonde (December 3, 1681), printed in H. M. C. (Ormonde MSS), N. S. IV, p. 591; CSPD, 1681. pT 6177 Tbecember 9,~I5B1); Sir John Lowther to Sir Daniel Fleming (January 3, 1682) printed in H. M. C. (Le Fleming MSS). p. 184; Henry Sidney, Diary of the’Trimes oF Charles T I T (London, 1843), p . 227 (January T0\~T5877------*------^(August 27, 1683) printed in H. M. C. (Downshire MSS), I (pt. 1), p. 19. ~ “ ^Browning, Reresby Memoirs, p. 338 (, 1684). 28 on Flanders in 1667 and the subsequent threat during the rest of the reign. Fear of the imbalance in seapower which a French conquest would bring was a source of much concern. Such a conquest probably would have upset the balance of power. The threat to the balance of power was only one rea­ son for the fear for English security. Another, and very important one, was the "French interest". This was attested to by Bishop Samuel Parker. "There were two things which like Circe's Cups, bewitched men, and turned them into Brutes, viz. Popery and the French interest; and if either of these happened to be whispered in the House of Commons, they...ran immediately into Clamour and high Debates. Early in his reign Charles had "embraced the French interest." This personal alliance with France can be traced back to the spring of 1661 when the king replaced the English governor of Dunkirk, Sir Edward Harley, with a Scottish soldier, Andrew Rutherford, recommended by Louis XIV and serving in the French army. This pro-French policy was supported by Clarendon. The possession of Dunkirk had been an object of English diplomacy ever since 1625. The city had been a haven for privateers and this hurt English trade.

^^Samuel Parker, Bishop Parker's History of His Own Times (London, 1728), p. 244 quoted in RenryHorwltz, Revolu­ tion Politicks: The Career of Daniel Finch Second Earl of floEahghain 1557-1730“ (Cambridge,"I95g)T"pT"13:------29

52 Its sale to France in 1662 angered the merchants. This growing entente with France was formalized by a treaty signed in April, 1667 which provided that neither power would ally with a third country against the other. The first real evidence of English hostility to this personal entente between Charles II and Louis XIV came as a result; of the knowledge that the king of France, who was serving as mediator in the Second Anglo-Dutch War, had ad­ vised the English to put the fleet in drydock in the spring of 1667 because they had nothing to fear from the Dutch. Reports that Louis XIV knew about the Dutch plans for an attack on the Medway in June further embittered the English.^ Andrew Marvell condemned Charles's support for the French assault on Flanders (the War of Devolution). He claimed that St. Albans' talent "fits him in France to play at Cards and treat... The Count forthwith is ordered all to 54 close, to play for Flanders, and the stake to lose." (This

~*2see chapter III. ^Sir Alan Broderick to the Duke of Ormonde (June 11, 1667) quoted in Keith Feiling, British Foreign Policy 1660-1672. (London, 1930), p. 2ZZ and AndrewMarvell, Last Instructions to a Painter (1667) 1. 359-366 printed in tieorge de F. Hord', ed.. Poems On Affairs of State. I, p. 117. ^ Last Instructions to a Painter (1667), 1. 38, 367-8 printed in Lord, PoemsT I. p. 101, p. 117. 30

refers to the April, 1667 treaty). Many members of the House of Commons also complained bitterly about the support given the French forces by the English government. In Octo­ ber, 1667 and February, 1668 they protested against the shipping of men and horses to serve in the French army.^ Charles himself admitted that his pro-French policy was un­ popular with Parliament and with his own advisers.^ Marvell and Temple both were advocates of alliance with Holland. Temple wrote a pamphlet in 1666 entitled The London Merchants' Letter to him of Amsterdam opposing French mediation of the Anglo-Dutch War, and he again expressed this view in the spring of 1667. ^ The dismissal of Claren- 58 don and the formation of the Triple Alliance pleased them both. Charles had no intention of actually changing the direction of his foreign policy, and so instead began nego­ tiations with France through his sister Henrietta, the

ce ’'Caroline Robbins, ed., The Diary of John Milward, (Cambridge, 1938), 86 (October 14, 166/), pp. 95-6 (Octo- ber 24, 1667), p. 181 (February 11, 1668).

^ R u v i g n y to Lionne (September 12, 1667), printed in Mignet, Negotiations. II, pp. 514-15. •^Temple's pamphlet is lost, but this view appears in Thomas Peregrine Courtenay, Memoirs of the Life, Works, and Correspondence of Sir William Temple (London, lb36), I, p. 107 (MayZ9, 16677; Marvellespousedthis view in Last Instructions to a Painter (1667), 1. 395-6 printed in George de F. Hord', Poems~0n Affairs of State, I, p. 118. , „:?®La8t Instructions 1. 926 printed in Lord, Poems, I, p. 137.---- — — — — — r ----- 31

Duchess of Orleans, in the fall of 1668. Realizing that these negotiations would be unpopular, Charles insisted on the signing of a trade treaty before any alliance was 59 formed. The commercial treaty was not signed, but Eng­ land and France made ah alliance formalized by the treaty of Dover (May, 1670). The pro-French and pro-Catholic policies formalized by this treaty were extremely unpopular. Samuel Fepys, even before the treaty was signed, expressed his dismay over the trend of English policy. "This will make the Parliament and kingdom mad, and turn to our ruin."**® This unpopularity is clear from the large number of protests even before the outbreak of war.*** The Third Dutch War (1672-7) resulted in bitter com­ plaints against the French alliance. Country party members Sir Thomas Lee, , Sir William Coventry, Sir Thomas Clarges, and William Stockdale all attacked the policy in Parliament. Sir Thomas Lee feared that "now we

^Chapter III. 60Piary. April 28, 1669. GlcSPV, 1669-70. p. 2 (January 4, 1669), p. 60, (May 31, 1669TT^biaTT 1571-2. p. 116 (October 31, 1671), p. 122 (February 7, 1672), p. T45 (January 14, 1672); M. B. Cur­ ran, "The Correspondence of an English Diplomatic Agent in Paris, 1669-1677," Transactions of the Royal Historical Society. 2nd ser. XV {i9ui;, p. T37. 32

are the support of the Crown of France, England may be as necessary to France as other countries and so they may con­ quer us."^2 William Sacheverell was afraid that support of 63 France would give that country naval supremacy. Sir William Coventry was concerned with the effect of the al- 64 liance on English trade and religion. Sir Thomas Clarges was also worried about religion.^ Although forced to sign a separate peace in February, 1674, Charles still refused to recall his citizens serving 66 in the French army, despite strong support for such a move. The author of and Raleigh (1674-5) put it this way:

G^Grey, Debates. II, p. 201. 63Ibid.. II, p. 202. 64Ibid.. II, p. 203. *^Ibid.. II, p. 210, p. 232. See also Ibid.. II, pp. 245-6 (William Stockdale, January 13, 1674),; Basil D. Hen­ ning, ed., The Parliamentary Diary of Sir Edward Dering (New Haven, 1940TTpI'TOT10cEober- 3 ^ g 7 3 r F . “JT gegur- "Q Dupeyron, Histoire des negotiations commerciales et mari- times de la France aux xvileet iVllle sidcles, l. (Paris, TS777,“p."3357 'SIr EHberFTaTFo r 'tbHSir Joseph Williamson (November 13, 1673 & January 23, 1674), printed in W. D. Christie, ed., Letters from London Addressed to Sir Joseph Williamson (London, 1874), il, p. 70 and p. 12F; CSPV, lo73- ,5, p. IB7 (December 22, 1673), p. 196 (January 12, 1&74JI

^ A resolution for recalling the troops failed by one vote on May 10, 1675 (Commons Journals IX, p. 334) but a second motion, on May 20, passed (Ibid., IX, p. 343). 33

"A colony of French possess t h e c o u r t . Reports that recruits were being sent to France, despite a proclamation 68 against it, further angered Parliament. A proposal of the House of Commons to condemn all those leaving England to fight for France was supported by the (Novem­ ber 8 , 1675).69 The prorogation of Parliament during extended periods of time also helped convince the populace that Charles was in sympathy with French designs on Flanders. The adjourn­ ment of April, 1671 to February, 1673 took place when the Third Anglo- Dutch War was being planned and launched; and that of November, 1675 to February 1677 coincided with the beginning of Parliamentary demands for action against France.^® Andrew Marvell stated that "These frequent adjournments left no place for divination, but that they must rather have been calculated to give the French more scope for perfecting their conquests..." (December, 1677).^ He further

*^1. 25 printed in Lord, Poems, 1, p. 230. 6ft Grey, Debates, III, p. 118 (Sir Thomas Clarges ), p. 116 (Sir Thomas Littleton), 10, 1675. **9Lords Journals, XIII, p. 10. ^®Grey. Debates. III. p. 119 and p. 127 (Col. Birch) May 10, 1675.------^Growth of Popery in Thompson, Works. I, p. 641. 34 supported this claim by quoting figures on ammunition sent by the English government to France.

Exported from London to France June, 1675— June 1677. Grenadoes without number, shipt off under the colour of unwrought iron. Lead shot - 21 tuns Gunpowder - 7134 barrels Iron shot - 18 tuns, 600 weight Match - 88 tun, 1900 weight Iron Ordinance - 441 quantity, 292 tuns, 900 weight 77 Carriages, bandiliers, pikes, etc. uncertain.

Marvell's fear of French conquest is tied to his belief that 73 Flanders forms a frontier for England. These evidences of the pro-French policies of the government were accompanied by rumors of "private articles" with and "secret obliga­ tions" to France. Both the court party's Col. Giles Strange­ way 8 and the country party leader Sir William Coventry, during the Third Dutch War, referred to the rumored "private articles" with France.^ A year and a half later (May 10, 1675), the opposition spokesmen William Garroway and Col. protested against the reports of "secret

72Ibid.. I, p. 528. 73Ibid., I, p. 461. 7^Grey, Debates, II, p. 200, pp. 212-13 (October 31, 1673). ------35 obligations" to the king of France.75 Two years afterwards the terms of the Treaty of Dover were published in Paris, but the volume was suppressed by Louis XIV at the request of Charles 11. During the same year , a country party leader, dated the French alliance to the visit to Dover.76 , whose family had been royalist during the Civil wars, in 1682 indicated that by that time the secret of Dover was pretty well known:

Nor did this lord [Shaftesbury] a Dover- jouraey go, 77 From thence our tears, the Ilium of our woe.

The extent of the government's dependence on France had been indicated by the revelation of the Coleman and Danby 78 negotiations in 1678 and the last years of the reign saw 79 many attacks on Charles' pro-French sympathies.

75Ibid.. Ill, p. 122, p. 127. 76Ibid.. IV, p. 202 (March 6 , 1677). 77The Medal of John Bayes (May 15, 1682), 1. 209-10 printed in Howard"!!. Schless, ed., Poems On Affairs of State, III (New Haven, 1968), p. 89. 7®See Chapters IV and V. ™ A Satire in Answer to a Friend (early, 1682), 1. 103; Thomas Shadwell, The Bedal of John Bayes (May 15, 1682), 1. 209-10, 227; Thoroas*~TEbmpson.HEELdgummer Moon (June 26 - July 15, 1682), 1. 226, 231-2; The Charger date, 1682), 1. 209; A New Ballad (February, 1684), 1. 49-50, 56-7; Thomas sEiadwell, The Protestant Satire (July, 1684), 1. 355; and A Litany~Tor the Fifth of November 1684, 1. 108, printed in itoward H7!SchlesiB. Poems, III, p. 3'3, p. 89, p. 253, p. 261, p. 433, p. 509, p. 533, p. 574. 36

When Charles died, it could be said that he had fol­ lowed a pro-French foreign policy, and that this policy was almost as consistently opposed by the English people. The sale of Dunkirk provoked little outcry. It was not until Charles' support of French pretensions in Flanders in 1667 that there was much complaint. The Treaty of Dover set the foreign policy for the rest of the reign and it too was bitterly opposed when its implications became clear. Throughout the reign fear of the loss of Flanders was the key concern. French control of the Low Countries might well have threatened English naval predominance and trade. The danger to Flanders was not, however, the most direct threat to English security. More directly threatening to English security was the fear of French invasion. Katherine Harleston, unaware of the lack of sympathy felt by Frenchmen for the English dis­ senters, early in 1661 expressed a fear that the French government would assist their former allies (the dissenters) 80 in trying to overthrow the English government. Fear of French invasion was revived by the alliance of France with the Dutch against England (January, 1666) in the Second Anglo-Dutch War. Rumors and fears of French landings

^ C S P D . 1660-61. p. 507 (February 9, 1661). 37

81 In England were widespread. The Dutch attack on the Med­ way gave rise to the fear of French invasion from Dunkirk as well.82 The fire of London on September 2, 1666 set off a wave of hysteria. The French, the Dutch, the Irish and the Eng- QO lish Catholics were all blamed for the fire. Robert Hu­ bert, a French Catholic watchmaker, ultimately confessed to setting the blaze. Englishmen in 1666 were willing however, to entertain doubts as to his guilt,8^ a fact which places those years in sharp contrast to the late 1670's when the hysteria of the led men to regard a profession of Catholicism as equivalent to a confession of guilt. Still another report stated that "Sir Richard Brown produced some desperate daggers, fit for massacres, two hundred of which were found in the rubbish of a house in London wherein

CSPD, 1665-6, p. 459 (June 25, 1666), p. 470 (June 28, 1666), Ibid., 1666^7, p. 33 (August 12, 1666), p. 281 (Novem­ ber 23, 1666); Current Intelligence No. 7, June 21, 1666 - July 25, 1666. 82 OAWaldine Lagoe to Roger Kenyon (June 15, 1667) printed in H. M. C. (Kenyon MSS), p. 79. 88E. S. De Beer, ed., The Diary of , III, (Oxford, 1955), p. 462; Sir Edward HarTey to lady Harley (October 20, 1666) printed in H. M. C. (Portland MSS), III, pp. 301-2; Somers Tracts, VII,'“p.""62T, p. 623. 8^Sir Edward Harley to Lady Harley (October 20, 1666) printed in H. M. C. (Portland MSS), III, pp. 301-2. 38 before the fire two French persons lodged."85 Six months after the war, (December, 1667) Sir John Holland, then a court spokesman, claimed that France had con­ sidered whether to attack England or Flanders in the previous campaign, and that Turenne in the end had convinced Louis to 86 attack Flanders (War of Devolution). The next four years demonstrated clearly that the king and people had parted company in foreign policy. Several indications of apprehension of French designs upon England 87 appear. Samuel Pepys expressed fear of invasion; ' and in 1669 James Baskerville wrote to Secretary of State Sir Joseph Williamson from Bristol that "news of twenty-two of his ^Louis XIV1 is] men-of-war lately gone on some unknown design, 88 much startles the people here." The following year , the Republican exile, wrote to Dean Hummel that "my last letters from England mention an apprehension of the king of France his transporting of 32,000 men from Brest 89 thither;" and the year after (1671), William Garroway and

85Sir Edward Harley to Lady Harley (October 27, 1666) printed in H. M. C. (Portland MSS), III, p. 302. 88Caroline Robbins, Diary of John Milward, p. 319. 8 ^Piary, January 2, 1668. 88CSPD, 1668-9. p. 146 (January 5, 1669). 8^(June 10, 1670) printed in C. H. Firth, ed., The Memoirs of Edmund Ludlow, II, (Oxford, 1894), p. 502. 39

Andrew Marvell, the country party M. P.'s, and Thomas Waade, a former agent of Williamson's, all mentioned the danger of 90 French incursions. Charles in the meantime was negotia­ ting an alliance with France with a view to attacking Hol­ land; but after two unsuccessful years of war, the govern­ ment was forced by popular opinion to make a separate peace with the Dutch. In 1675 both country party politicians William Harwood and William Garroway and court party member Sir Edward Dering expressed a renewed fear of French inva- 91 sion and Dering and Harwood were concerned that lack of naval strength would endanger England. Sir,William Coventry, the opposition leader, disagreed. "It is not the interest of Holland, to let France be master of England...the Dutch 92 have a great fleet." Perhaps Coventry's nonchalance was connected with the death of Turenne in July and the French loss of Treves in September. On the following April 26th the forces of Louis XIV captured Conde. Perhaps as a result of this French triumph,

90crey, Debates. I, p. 392 (February 16, 1671); Marvell to William Popple (April 30, 1671) printed in Margoliouth, Poems and Letters. II, p. 308; CSPD, 1671, p. 216 (May 4, 1671). 9 *Grey, Debates, III, p. 162 (May 11, 1675), p. 122 (May 10, 1675)7 p. 293 (October 18, 1675). 92Ibid., III, pp. 308-9 (October 19, 1675). 40

a series of rumors spread through the English seaport towns in June to the effect that French agents were burning or had burned either all the seaport towns or all the chief towns 93 of the nation. After further French successes (in 1677) Lord Cavendish and Sir William Coventry suggested that by joining with the Confederates the English could forestall 94 any possible invasion by France. The outbreak of the Popish Plot; touched off a new panic, one indication of which was the prevalence of rumors of French invasion. himself talked of French and Spanish invasion plans. Samuel Pepys, now Secretary of the Admiralty, received the news that

There has been for three weeks past a small French Man of War that has sounded all the depths of the Water near the Shore betwixt the Mount and the Lizard point...and landed two of her Men to discover the country.95

Reports of the French fleet being fitted out at Brest caused

93,CSPD. 1676-7. p. 185, p. 142. 94Grey. Debates. IV. o. 368 (Mav 23. 1677). V. n. 18 (January 29, 16787 7" ^ Admiralty Letters. VIII pp. 350-1 quoted in J. R. Tanneri* , ''Pepys and the Popish Plot." A#* ^ IP*.*.!English 4 Historical U4 a ^ a « * 4 a a I Review, VII (1892), p. 284. ------41

96 rumors of a possible landing. Poets, too, feared Invasion. The author of Hodge (1679) writes:

Lo! How the Wight already is betray'd, And bashaw Holmes does the poor isle invade. '

Stephen College's Truth Brought to Light (1679) is more obscure:

Next sail'd the frigate with the elves, go And as is said is sterred by ourselves;

Although the Plot is generally said to have ended in 1681, there is evidence of continued fear of French

96 Sir John Lowther to Daniel Fleming (January 21, 1679) printed in H. M. C. (Le Fleming MSS), 153; CSPD. 1679- 80, p. 23, p. 25,”p-~637 Richard Baxter, Reliquae baxte- rlanae, (London, 1931), p. 245 also mentions fear of invasion. 97 1. 76-7 printed in Elias J. Mengel, Jr., ed., Poems On Affairs of State, II, (New Haven, 19o5), p. 149. TEe editor suggests that the author is hinting that Sir Robert Holmes, governor of the Isle of Wight, and friend of the , was planning to use the island as a base for a French invasion of England.

^®1. 58-9 printed in Ibid., II, pp. 14-15 may refer only to the Duchess of Portsmouth, the ship Portsmouth, or a French landing there. 42

99 attack from 1680 to 1683. The lack of statements of such concern In the nineteen months from July 1, 1683 to Charles 11*8 death of , 1685 is however, hard to account for. Fear of French invasion was present in England through much of the reign. Such fear was first aroused by the Dutch War, and maintained by French designs on Flanders. The alliance with Louis XIV led to a temporary allaying of these concerns; but they were renewed in 1675 and 1676. This renewal corresponds with the breaking of the French al­ liance. The relative lack of evidence of such fears in 1677 and 1678 is puzzling, considering French successes in Flan­ ders. The beginning of the Popish Plot, however, understan­ dably caused renewed hysteria. French historians agree that Louis XIV was not inter­ ested in invading England. Andre-J. Bourde^^ emphasizes

Britannia Languens (1680) printed in J. R. McColloch, Early English Tracts On Commerce (Cambridge. 1954), 476; (tSPD, 1680-81, p. b75~TJanuary 18. 1681); Domestick Intel­ ligence. January 6 , 1680, March 22, 1681; CSPD, 16*81, p. 483 (October 1, 1681); A Plea for Succession as Opposed to Exclusion (1682), p. 147 CSPb.<"T6g3 (ill, p. ^(Julyl, lbfl3); A Hue and Cry After blood and (February 15, 1682), T. 6 9 . Thexorles Confession t March 28, 1682), 1. 71 printed in Howard H. Schless, Poems, III, p. 22, p. 100.

lOO'tLouis XIV et 1'Angle ter re," XVIIe Siecle, No. 47 (1960), p. 62, p. 6 6 . 43 the continental and German orientation of his foreign policy and his desire for English neutrality. Sorel*®* stressed 102 the concern for the natural frontiers of France. Zeller claimed that Louis based his policy on prestige. None be­ lieves he actually contemplated invasion. This does not make the English fears less real, however, it merely makes them less warranted, and the basis for them less real. Related to a dread of French invasion of England was fear of such a landing in . Yorkists, French, Spaniards, and Germans had all, at one time or another, con­ sidered Ireland a stepping stone to the conquest of England. The Irish had never become reconciled to English rule and were generally ready to rebel. In view of this fact foreign powers or foreign-based powers frequently have considered sending forces to Ireland to join with native dissidents to overrun the island as a first step toward the conquest of England. The Yorkists had sent Lambert Simnel (1487) and Perkin Warbeck (1491) to Ireland to raise revolts against Henry VII. The Spaniards had tried to use Ireland as a base from which to overthrow Elizabeth I from 1579-80, and again from 1595-1601.

lOiuistoire d® France et d'Angleterre (Paris. 1950). pp. 81-2371------102"French Diplomacy and Foreign Policy in Their European Setting," Cambridge Modern History, IX (1961), p. 207. 44

English apprehension over such a move by the French first appeared in 1671 in a report of the Venetian ambas­ sador. Lord O'Brien, a member of the court party, claimed in February, 1674 that "common people depend on the priests, they on their superiors, and they on the French king, who has richly endowed them in France,"*®4 but concern for the security of Ireland from French attack did not again become pronounced until after the outbreak of the Popish Plot in the fall of 1678. Parliament met on October 21, 1678, just four days after Sir Edmund Godfrey had been found murdered. Just a month later the Duke of Ormonde, lord lieutenant of Ireland, wrote to Sir Cyril Vyche from ; "Nor is it a frivo­ lous speculation to consider how an inconsiderable insur­ rection may be magnified in France and invite an inva­ sion.... During the next six years there were further reports of plots to bring Ireland under French control. The elements in these reports are similar. Nearly all

103CSPV, 1671-2. p. 24 (March 6 , 1671).

104CSPD, 1673-5. p. 162.

10 3H. M. C. (Leyborne-Popham MSS), p. 243. 45 involve a plan for a revolt of the Irish, *®® most involve the Irish clergy,*®^ some involve the French clergy*®® and several involve the Pope.*®^ Nearly all provided for the invasion of Ireland by French troops or the landing of French arms.**® A few specify the establishment of the Ro­ man Catholic religion in Ireland.*** Several state that

*®6CSPD, 1679-80, p. 290 (November 26, 1679); Histori­ cal Manuscripts Commission, Fifth Report, p. 318 (October 207 lb>9); Gilbert Burnet to the Earl ot Halifax (May 15, 1680), printed in H. C. Foxwell, ed., "Some Unpublished Letters of Burnet," Camden Miscellany, XI (London, 1907), p. 29; Robert Clayton and George ‘jfreby. The Examination of Fitzharris Relating to the Popish Plot taken the tenth bay ol H arch 168! (Lon5on7 16811. p V lETCsFDT 3>8Z"~pT~2?r THSy 16bz); fbid., 1683-4, p. 306 (, 1684), H. M. C. V, p. 318 mentions a Col. Fitzherbert as leader. ” *®^H. M. C. V, p. 318; Clayton and Treby, Fitzharris Examination, p. 16; Narcissus Luttrell, A Brief historical Relation of State Affairs (1678-1714), l""(Oxford, 1857), p. 95 TJune 87 I6W;"T5PBr~1683-4 . p. 306. H. M. C. V, p. 318 lists the and the“kishop of Clogher as the planners. 108CSPD, 1682, p. 346 (August 17, 1682); Ibid., 1683 (I), p. l3 (January 15, 1683) and p. 62 (February 1 8 , 1683); CSPD, 1682, p. 346 mentions Cardinal Bouillon and the Arch- STiHbp ot Paris. CSPD. 1683 (I), p. 13, p. 62 include only Bouillon. *®^Luttrell, Brief Relation, I, p. 95; CSPD, 1682, p. 346; Foxwell, CamdenHBrsceliany XI, p. 29. **®CSPD, 1679-80, p. 290; H. M. C. (Beaufort MSS), p. 108 (January 6 , 16bl); Clayton ahd'TTreby, Fitzharris Exami­ nation, p. 16; Foxwell, Camden Miscellany, XI, p. 29;TSPP, IBSl. p. 188 (February 27. lbai); Luttrell, Brief Relation, TTp. 95; CSPD, 1683 (I), p. 13; Ibid., 1683=g,"p.~306T: Clayton and Treby, Fitzharris Examination, p.T.6 lists Mar­ shall Belfonds as commander. CSPD, lbB3 (I), p. 62 men­ tions the Duke of Luxembourg. IH h . M. C. V, p. 318; Luttrell, Brief Relation, I, p. 95; CSPDT 15827 P. 346. 46

France would have control of Ireland if the plot were to succeed.**^ English public opinion feared that Ireland was going to be subjected to control by a combined force of French Catholics and their Irish allies and thus threaten English security. Since the English and French governments were on friendly terms, the truth of these reports can be discounted; yet the prevalence of these reports in the years after the Popish Plot is significant. The reports appear to be the product of the populaces' own fears. Related to fear of invasion by France was concern for the growth of naval power. The sale of Dunkirk was a blow to English shipping. Charles II himself suggested the sale 113 of the city to France in July, 1661. The port was impor­ tant to England from two points of view. Charles could have, like Cromwell, used the city as a base from which to over­ awe the Continent. With the abandonment of this objective, its real importance became preventive. If England held Dun­ kirk, no one else could use it as a base for privateers

M. C. V, p. 318; Thomas Samson, A Narrative of the LatenPopisET Plot in Ireland, for the SuFjugatlng Thereof to the French King~Tl>ondon, lobu), passim; Clayton and Treby, TTtzHarris Examination, p. 16; Foxwell, Camden Miscellany, XI, p."29; CSFP H & r J rV 384 (September T!U, 1682); Ibl'd., 1683 (I), p7"F7. H3civde L. Grose. "England and Dunkirk," American Historical Review. XXXIX (1923-4), pp. 20-21. 47 operating against English shipping. The sale of Dunkirk to 114 France in the fall of 1662 was unpopular; but the port had been expensive to maintain, and was a poor naval base. However, Clarendon was blamed for the sale, and his new home became known as "Dunkirk House. One of the charges against him at his impeachment was that he advised the sale of Dunkirk. Despite the end of the Second Anglo-Dutch War and the War of Devolution, English concern about French naval power continued. One reads that, "The French King increases in shipping very considerably. It appears he has already in several ports 23 ships of 60 guns, and upwards of 11 or 12 of 50, and more than 15 or 16 above 40, and at least 18 or 20 of lesser frigates. Besides these he has now on stocks 7, whereof one is to be Admiral and will bear 110 guns, 116 another for the Vice-Admiral will carry 85 guns." In the years immediately preceding the Third Anglo-Dutch

u 4CSPD, 1661-4, p. 205; The Life of Clarendon, II, p. 201; SamuelTepyi’, Diary, October 31, 1662. ^^Cominges to Lionne (October 9, 1664) printed in Jusserand, A French Ambassador, p. 128; Pepys, Diary, Febru­ ary 20, 166?. 116 Bulstrode Papers, I, (London, 1897), p. 47 (June 23, 1668V; alsFCSPP. 1667-8, p. 409 (May 27, 1668) and Charles II to Madame (September 2, 1668) printed in C. H. Hartmann, Charles II and Madame (London, 1934), p. 223. 48

117 War fear of French naval might mounted. One anonymous pamphleteer in 1671 expressed his contempt for the govern­ ments' insistence on revenging petty insults to the detri­ ment of English security.

And now all the fears of the French And pressing need of navy Are dwindl'd into a salt wench And amo, amas, amavi. Nay he'll venture his subsidy so she cloven may see, 11S In female revenge, the nostrils of Coventry.

During the previous fall, Sir John Coventry, in a Parliamentary debate, had asked "whether did the king's pleasure lie among the men or the women that acted?" In retaliation several of the Duke of Monmouth's troops attacked Coventry and slit his nose. The House of Commons was fu­ rious and neglecting other public business, passed an act against such assaults. England'8 alliance with France against the Netherlands

H 7 csPD, 1668-9, p. 146 (January 5, 1669); Loc. cit.; Ibid., 1F707 p7T32r(April 8, 1670), p. 187 (AprTT“267T670); Edmund Ludlow to Dean Hummel (June 10, 1670) printed in C.H. Firth, Ludlow Memoirs, II, p. 502; Basil D. Henning, The Parliamentary Diary of Sir Edward Dering, p. 27 (December 10, 1 670); C5PV T T F 7 r a ~ . 69 '(3une y , 1671); Slingsby Bethel, The Present Interest of England Stated (London, 1671), pi 28, p-: 31.------H ® A Ballad Called the Haymarket Hectors (1671), 1. 25-30 printed in Lord, Poems, I, p. 1/0. 49 which led to the Third Anglo-Dutch War, did not still com­ plaints about French naval power. The Presbyterian clergy­ man Robert MacWard said that France had few sailors com­ pared to England while Holland had many. If France con­ quered the Netherlands she would gain the sailors needed to man her ships and thus be in a position to threaten England. Therefore England should be supporting the Dutch rather than opposing them.Presumably, he thought that England and Holland were evenly balanced in naval power, but that the conjunction of a conquered Dutch fleet with French naval forces would be too much for the English navy. Pierre Du Moulin, the descendant of French Huguenots, echoed MacWard's 120 fear of the joining of French and Dutch naval power. The arguments of Du Moulin and MacWard were reinforced by the actions of the French fleet in battle against the Dutch. The French avoided engagement as much as possible in the Battle of Southwold Bay (May 28, 1672). This angered 121 the English people; and this anger mounted to blind fury when reports reached England that the French had again

119 Robert MacWard, The English Balance, pp. 56-8.

^•^England's Appeal, p. 2.

121CSPP, 1671-2, p. 149 (June 4, 1672). 5°

122 refused to fight In the . There is some dispute about the extent of French action in the battle, but the English people were prepared to believe the worst of the French. For this and other reasons the English made a separate peace with Holland. Apprehension of French naval power appears once again in the Commons debates of 1675. The country party politi­ cians William Harwood and Sir John Holland and the court party member Sir Edward Dering all expressed fear of French 123 naval power. As a result, the Commons resolved that 10/ twenty ships should be built as soon as possible. Late in the year members of both parties once again showed their concern at the growth of French naval power. John Reresby, friend and supporter of the Earl of Danby, pointed out that the French had twenty-six more first, second and third rate 125 ships than England, while the Dutch have fourteen more.

122]jaxter, Reliquae, p. 225; Airy, Burnet. II, p. 18; CSPV, 1673-5. p. 100 (September 1, 1673), p. 173 (November 17, 1673); Crey, Debates. II, pp. 198-9 (Sir John Monson), pp. 212-13 (Sir William Coventry); G.N. Clark, The Later Stuarts. p. 77, and David Ogg, England in the Reign ot Charles II, p. 376 disagree on the FrencET role in the battle. ""Clark claims they fought hard. Qgg says they did not. *^Grey, Debates. Ill, p. 162, p. 294, p. 293. ^^Commons Journals, IX, p. 362. l^Browning, Reresby Memoirs, p. 99. 51

This worry was echoed by the , greatest 1.26 of the Country party leaders, in November, 1675. Dread of French naval power appeared again in 1677. 127 Again members of both parties expressed this dread. Sir John Emly, the court party member, distrusted the Dutch, but also feared French commercial power in the Mediter- 128 ranean. Two weeks later, Emly said,

There was not an apprehension of the loss of Flanders, till this repulse of the prince of Orange at Montcassel ten days before. Repara­ tion will not be seasonably asked. The king has neither stores, nor money, nor ships: 20 or 30 privateers may easily b u m all our ships and master the channel.129

Clearly, to E mly French control of Flanders could only lead to French control of the Channel and French control of the Channel could only endanger English shipping. He probably1 feared that, with Flanders under his control, Louis XIV could threaten England itself. The speeches delivered by the country party leaders William Sacheverell and Sir

126twq Speeches Made in the House of Peers (Hague, 1680), p. ^^Grey, Debates, IV, p. 124 (Sir Henry Capel), p. 307 (Sir John fernly), p. 356 (William Sacheverell), p. 345 (Sir John Emly). 128Ibid., IV, p. 307 (March 26, 1677). 129Ibid., IV, p. 345 (April 11, 1677). 52

William Coventry in the following month (May) certainly indi­ cate extreme fear of French naval might. Both men favored an immediate alliance with Holland to counter French power at 130 sea. This suggestion is also supported by the author of 131 an anonymous pamphlet published the same year. Parliament's fear of French naval power was so great that the Commons resolved "that Ninety Ships of War are necessary for the Support of his Majesty's present Alliance, made with the States General of the United Provinces, for the Preservation of the Spanish Netherlands, and lessening the 132 power of France." The war in Flanders ended in August, 1678, but fears 133 of French naval might continued through 1679 and 1680. The unknown author of Hodge (1679) put it this way:

^•30Ibid. , IV, p. 356, pp. 371-2. ISlihe Present State of Christendom and the Interest of England, with a kegard to France in a Letter to a Friend TIoHlon, 1577)7 p'. 2 / 7 ------132commons Journals, IX, p. 433 (February 5, 1678). ^33sir John Lowther to Daniel Fleming (January 21, 1679) printed in H. M. C. (Le Fleming MSS), p. 153; CSPD, 1679-80, p. 23, p. 25", p. 637 H. M. C. (F. J. Savile Fol- 1ambe"~HsS), p. 127; Domes tick TntellTgence, ""October 7, 1679; January 6, 1680; A Letter to a Friend About the Late Procla­ mation on the lltK of fie'cemCer 1679, For Further Proroguing tEe FarTTament~"tTTl"The ITth' bf~HovemBer NexTEnsuTnrtEon^ Son, 1681))", p. r.------53

T'ensure the plot...James does our fleet betray, That fleet whose thunder made the world obey; Ships once our safety and our glorious might, Are doom'd with worms and rottenness to fight; Whilst France rides sovereign o'er the British main.134

Fear of French naval power did not arise solely from a fear for the safety of English commerce. It also arose from an apprehension that overwhelming French power at sea would be a prelude to invasion of England itself. French naval might began to alarm Englishmen in 1668, an alarm attributable both to French expansion in Flanders 135 and to French naval construction. Control of Flanders might give France the sailors she lacked to man the new vessel being built. This alarm continued into the Third Anglo-Dutch War. Anger at the reported refusal of the French to fight at sea helped to weld public opinion in England; the public demanded that Charles break the French alliance. Charles yielded, but French expansion in Flanders, and the Popish Plot which followed caused Englishmen to continue to fear French naval power down to 1680. The absence of references after 1680 to fear of French power at sea may be

*^1. 78, 80-84, printed in Mengel, Poems, II, p. 149. -^35charle8 xi to Madame (September 2, 1668) printed in C. H. Hartmann, Charles II and Madame, p. 223. 54 attributed in part to the fact that no Parliament met from 1681-5 and to the royalist reaction that spread through England in those years. Related to the question of naval power but of much less concern was colonial rivalry. Both countries held islands in the West Indies, and France held Canada while England con­ trolled , New Foundland, , and the Atlantic coast of what is now the United States. The proximity of these territories inevitably led to conflict. The colonial struggle between France and England became serious during the Second Anglo-Dutch War. The French navy, ostensibly fighting on the side of the Dutch, did most of its work in the West Indies. Andrew Marvell pointed out "we have lost Antego, Monserat, and St. Lucas and Nevis is besieged by the French...11 (February 2, 1667). Louis XIV wrote to Henrietta Marie, mother of Charles II, that he had ordered the island of St. Christopher re- 137 stored to England in return for Acadia (April 18, 1667). Apprehension continued nevertheless. One indication of the fear for the fate of these colonies was the reminder by Pierre Du Moulin of the fact that France had waited four

^Marvell to Mayor Franke of Hull (February 2, 1667) printed in H.M. Margoliouth, Poems and Letters, II, p. 53. *^Mignet, Negotiations, II, p. 45. 55 years before turning St. Christopher over to England and 138 when they did so they left the island in a state of ruin. Concern was expressed by Benjamin Worsley, who had been advising Lord Anthony Ashley Cooper (later Earl of Shaftesbury) in the Council of Trade and Plantations. In a memorandum to Ashley written on February 24, 1669 dealing with Jamaica, Worsley discussed the danger of French ambi­ tions in the Caribbean and recommended that England cooperate 139 with Spain against them. A report about Barbadoes re­ ceived by Secretary of State Sir Joseph Williamson from Sir P. Colleton in 1676 indicates that this threat was consi­ dered to be both military and economic.

...French trade now with 100 of their own ships where two years ago they had not 10... The French have sent churchmen under colour of theggood air to view your countries, landing places etc., therefore watch them, be beforehand with them. French take off 2,000 tons of sugar yearly.1^0

French threats to England's North American colonies and 141 fear of French influence in America also worried the

138pierre Moulin, England's Appeal, p. 37. H. D. Haley, The First Earl of Shaftesbury, (Oxford, 1968), p. 284. 140CSPD, 1676-7, p. 464 (December 21, 1676). 141CSPV, 1671-2, p. 69 (June 9, 1671). 56

English. During King Philip's War (1675-6) reports to Williamson indicate "that the French from Canada assisted the Indians with ammunition etc., and that Frenchmen have been taken in Indian habits, and that a Jesuit is one of 142 their ringleaders." Another report claims that the In­ dians in had been given French artillery to use 143 against the English settlers there. Fear of French attack on English colonies in the New 1/,/. World was also expressed in 1677; and again in 1679 when a destructive fire, said to have occurred in , was blamed on a French ship which had caught fire and which then lighted the nearby houses.A Frenchman was later repor- 146 ted arrested for arson in connection with the fire. Still another report of French designs on English colonies was a rumor that the French and Moors were planning a j oint 147 attack on . No further fears for the colonies were expressed in the last year of the reign. The mention of a Jesuit as a leader of the Indians and

142cspp, 1676-7, p. 409 (November 9, 1676); also Ibid., 1675-6, p. 435 (December 7, 1675); Domestick Intelligence, October 21, 1679. 143CSPP, 1676-7, p. 300 (August 28, 1676). *44Present State of Christendome, p. 271. ^•43Domestick Intelligence, October 21, 1679. 1^6ibid., December 2, 1679. ^ ^ Tangier1s Lamentation (November 29, 1683) 1. 14-16 printed in Schiess, !Poems, 111, p. 474. 57 the reference to French clergymen in the West Indies show the close connection between Catholicism and French power in the English mind. The report of French artillery being given to the Indians seems a little far-fetched. The paucity of evidence does suggest that the English were not much con­ cerned with a French threat to their colonies at this time. This lack of concern was probably warranted, since the per­ sonal alliance of Charles and Louis would make the latter reluctant to openly threaten English colonies. The fate of the colonies and of Ireland ware of minor concern to Englishmen. The French attack on Flanders ap­ pears to have been the action which touched off fear that France would upset the balance of power and by conquering the Low Countries neutralize Dutch naval strength, thus al­ lowing an attack on England, opposed only be a weakened and wornout English fleet. The pro-French attitude of the English government encouraged fears of collusion. CHAPTER III ANGLO-FRENCH TRADE RIVALRY

Egypt and Tyrus intercept your trade, , Absalom and Achitophel (1681) 1. 7U3". Here ftgypfc symbolizes France and Tyrus Holland.

The belief in an unfavorable balance of trade with France dates back to the year before the Restoration. The claim was made that the imbalance amounted to £ 1,000,000 a year.* During the first two years of the reign of Charles II protests were made by shopkeepers and artisane against imports first of wofelen cloths, laces, ribbons and silks from France, and then against the use of tapestries from 2 that country.

The Merchants1 Humble Petition and Remonstrance to his Late Highnesse/ With an Account “of the Losses of iKeir SETpplng ana EstaTes since the War with Spain, p. IT, quoted in MargareFTPriestljey,uLondon Merchants and Opposition Poli­ tics in Charles II*s Reign," Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, XXIX (193FH 2li>. 2CSPP. 1666-? p. 363; Ibid., 1661-2, pp. 110-111.

58 59

Samuel Fortrey produced an analysis of Anglo-French trade in 1663 which showed the deficit to be £1,600,000 a q year. This concern was widespread enough to cause the House of Commons to appoint a committee "to prevent encroach­ ment in trade by the Jews, the French or any other forei- 4 gner." No action was taken against French trade at this time, but in the fall of 1667 and the winter of 1668 the Commons considered raising customs duties on French wine, linen, and brandy.^ It was finally resolved to raise £ £100,000 on wine and brandy only. Charles himself, in a letter to his sister (September 2, 1668), pointed out the trade rivalry.^ Evidence of English hostility toward French trade mounted in the ensuing years. Parliament prohibited impor­ tation of French manufactured goods in 1669 and the follo- g wing year acted against French silk, beaver, and brandy.

^England1s Interest and Improvement printed in McCullocn, Early English Tracts, p. 234-. ^Commons Journals, VIII, pp. 440-441. ^Caroline Robbins, ed., The Diary of John Milward, p. 109, p. 200, p. 202. ^Bulstrode Papers, I, p. 30 (March 14, 1668). ^Charles II to Madame and reprinted in C. H. Hartmann, Charles II and Madame, p. 233. **Ba8il D. Henning, ed., The Parliamentary Diary of Sir Edward Dering, 1670-73, p. 1, p. 22, p. l3, p. 9V. 60

During 1670 and 1671 there were rumors of an impending 9 demonstration by apprentices against French imports. There were also official complaints to the French government about the treatment of English merchants and protests by M.P.'s and pamphleteers against the adverse effects of French commerce.^ The merchants were violently opposed to the English participation in the Third Anglo-Dutch War (1672-4).^ Their dislike for French trade did not end with the war. A group of merchants signed a protest called The Scheme of 13 Trade (1674). In the ensuing years there were many pro- 14 tests against French trade.

9CSPP, 1670. p. 176 (April 21, 1670). *®H.M.C. (Buccleuch and Queensberry MSS). I, p. 483. ^Grey, Debates. I, p. 293, p. 311; CSPV, 1671-2, p. 69; CSPD, 1670, p. 152; William Carter, England1s Interest by Trade Affected (London, 1671), p. 3, p7 1.5; Slingsby bethel, the Present Interest of England Stated (London, 1671), p. 28. l^w.D. Christie, Letters to Williamson, I, p. 88; II, pp. 45-6, pp. 47-8; Grey, Debates, II, p. 202, p. 205, p. 213; CSPV, 1673-5, p. 170. l^Somers Tracts, VIII, pp. 30-31. ■^Grey, Debates, III, p. 125, p. 127, p. 426, IV, p. 123, p. 190, p. 191, p. 370, pp. 387-8, p. 205; V, p. 20, p. 210; CSPV, 1673-5, p. 331, p. 478, p. 48o; Browning, Reresby Me­ moirs, p. 1UD; CSPD, 1676-7, p. 464; Commons Journals, iXT p. 42b, Mignet, Negotiations, IV, p. 494; Thomas Manley, A Discourse Shewing That theTxportation of Wool is Destructive to this"Kingdom (London, 16//), p. 9, p. lz; RicKard Haines, Proposals for Building in Every Country a Working-alms-House or Hosp itaT~~as~~the BestHExpedlent to Perfect theTrade amT Hanufactory oF I^ejTTToth CLondonT~lbJ/7), p. 1, p. 2; Andrew MarvelT, GrowtE~oFT?opery, I, p. 579. 61

These protests finally led to the prohibition of the importa­ tion of all French commodities (March, 1678). Although there were a few complaints about smuggling after this time,^ complaints about French trade virtually ended with the prohibition. The protesters were not only merchants, but shopkeepers and artisans, Anglicans and dissenters, and members of both parties in Parliament. Thus, the fear of French trade was felt by a large percentage of Englishmen without regard to religion, party, or vocation. Commerce has always had an important bearing on the determination of foreign policy; as a result England's political rivals have often been economic rivals also. Spain had been England's chief trade rival from John Hawkin's first slavery expedition in 1562 to the Dutch massacre of the English merchants in in 1623. The Dutch then became the acknowledged commercial rivals and remained so until 1667, when they were replaced by the French. One rea­ son for the change was fear of the economic consequences of a French conquest of Flanders. This fear appeared at the time of the War of Devolution (1667-8). Thus fear for the loss of Flanders arose out of economic as well as by political considerations•* French

^Domestick Intelligence, October 7, 1679, January 30. 1680; CSPD 167V-80", p. 375 (January 19, 1680). 62 trade was a prime concern to Englishmen. In an anonymous pamphlet issued in defense of the Triple Alliance the author claims that "the Acquisition of the Sea-Ports...of Flanders must infallibly bring France to be Mistress of the Commerce of the Indies."^ Apprehension that French control of the Low Countries would lead to France's taking over English trade, and there­ by dominating world trade, was felt by many Englishmen. Robert MacWard, the Presbyterian cleric, writing during the first year of the Third Anglo-Dutch War (1672), expressed the fear that by conquering Holland France would get the sailors she needed to overcome the English at sea. Once she gained control of the sea, English trade and colonies would 17 be seized. Three years later Sir Thomas Meres, the country party leader, speaking in the House of Commons, put it this way: "...it is extremely dangerous they [the French] should get Flanders, which would help them to the 18 trade of the whole world." In the same debate, Col. Giles Strangway8, the court party member, expressed dread of the 19 effect of French control of Antwerp and the Scheldt. A

^ A Free Conference, p. 50. ^ The English Balance, pp. 58-9. *®Grey, Debates, III, p. 5 (April 19, 1675). 19Ibid., III, p. 7. 63 similar apprehension was stated in 1677 by an unknown English pamphleteer. "The French set up for an Universal Commerce as well as for an Universal Monarchy." The one de­ pends on the other. If Flanders is conquered, Holland will follow and England will be cut off from Europe and lose her 20 commerce. Presumably he fears the extension of French tariffs to the Low Countries. Concern over the ultimate commercial consequences of French control of the Low Countries was an essential factor in the Anglo-French trade rivalry, but the short-term ef­ fect of French trade on the English economy was of more immediate concern. The chief products exported from Eng­ land to France in 1667 were woolen goods and lead, the for­ mer being the more important. These items were 'shipped from London and the south coast ports (particularly Exeter) to Dunkirk, Dieppe, St. Valery, Rouen, Calais, and Bordeaux. The most important commodities exported to England from France were wine, brandy, linen, canvas, wrought silk, paper, and kidskins. The cities of and Brittany were the source of the French linen and canvas, while Marseilles, La Rochelle, Bordeaux, and Nantes sent wine and brandy to London.^

^ Present State of Christendome. p. 11, p. 27. ^Margaret Priestley, "Anglo-French Trade and the Un­ favourable Balance Controversy, 1660-1685," Economic History Review, 2nd Series IV (1951-2), pp. 40-41. 64

Both countries accepted the mercantilist view that there was only a finite amount of trade in the world and that an adverse balance of trade injured a country. The gain of one must therefore be the loss of the other. Eleven years before the Restoration (1649), the French finance minister Nicholas Fouquet had imposed a duty of 50 sous on all fo­ reign ships entering French harbors. An increase in such duties on English ships by France led to retaliation by 22 England. The commercial rivalry was intensified by the policy of Fouquet's successor, Jean Baptiste Colbert, who held the office from 1661-1683. He immediately embarked on a campaign to make France self-sufficient. Colbert en­ couraged home manufactures partly through the institution of a moderate duty on foreign imports, which was replaced by a stricter set of duties in 1667. The rapid increase in French duties is shown by the 23 following charts: French duty on large French duty on English English cloths per serge per piece piece 1644 9 livres 1654 30 livres 1654 5 livres 1664 40 livres 1664 6 livres 1667 80 livres 1667 12 livres

22csPV, 1659-61. p. 199 (October 1, 1660). ^Charles W. Cole, Colbert and a Century of French Mer­ cantilism (New York, 1939), II, p. 556. 65

These high tariffs and reports of a trade deficit with France encouraged Englishmen to consider France as a commer­ cial rival. The English too tried to encourage home manufactures. One means of doing this was the establishment of a prohi- 24 bition on the exportation of raw wool from England. If Englishmen could not export their wool, they would, presu­ mably, be encouraged to manufacture cloth from it. In many cases, however, owners resorted instead to smuggling. Cap­ tain John Strodes told a House of Commons committee in 1664 that "200,000 pistoles worth of wool have been this year landed at French ports."2^ Smuggling continued to be a pro- 26 blem for many years. At Samuel Fortrey's advice, the king also took a hand in the trade struggle. Fortrey, in 1663, had suggested that Charles encourage by his own example the use of English goods to help overcome an estimated £ 1,000,000 deficit in 27 trade with France. In October, 1665 Charles announced

24 12 Car. II c. 32. 25CSPD, 1663-4, pp. 531-2. 2^CSPD, 1668-9, p. 556 (October 28, 1669) and M. B. Curran, "The Correspondence of an English Diplomatic Agent in Paris, 1669-1677," Transactions of the Royal Historical Society n.s. XV (1901), pp. 139-40. 2^England* s Interest printed in McCulloch, Early English Tracts. 'p. 234. 66 that he would wear only English made clothes in order to 28 discourage importation of foreign goods. Louis XIV hu­ miliated Charles and his courtiers by dressing his servants in clothes similar to those adopted by the courtiers at the English court. The plan was abandoned. Charles explained his subjects' hostility toward France in this way:

There are two impediments in the way which at least retard the inclination there is on both sides to have an entire union: the first is the application there is at this time in France to establish trade and to be very considerable at sea, which is so jealous a point to us here who can only be considerable by our trade and power at sea...the principal interest of this nation is trade.29

The most important of the merchants' protests against French trade was the Scheme of Trade of November 29, 1674 30 signed by fourteen prominent merchants. Included among them were James and John Houblon and . The

28CSPD, 1665-6, p. 31. ^Charles II to Madame (September 2, 1668) reprinted in C. H. Hartmann, Charles II and Madame, p. 233. 8®Exports of cloth to France £ 84,621 6s 8d Imports of cloth from France £807,250 4s Od Imports of wine and brandy from France £ 217.500 0s Od Total imports £ 1,024,750 4s Od Somers Tracts VIII, pp. 30-31. 67

Houblon brothers, fifteen years previously, had signed The Humble Petition and Remonstrance against the effects of French trade on the English economy, while Thomas Papillon in 1669 had testified against French trade before a House of Lords Committee. The motives of the signers appear to have 31 32 been religious and political as well as economic. Economically, Sir Patience Ward was the most heavily 33 involved in the French trade, but Thomas Papillon, John Houblon, Benjamin Godfrey, Peter Paravicine, and George 34 Torriano also traded with France on a smaller scale. All these signers of the Scheme stood to gain by a commercial treaty lowering tariffs between France and England. If the publication of the Scheme forced the government to negotiate a trade treaty with France they would be benefited. If instead the government was convinced by the Scheme to oppose French economic and political pretensions in Spanish terri­ tory this would help several of the signers. Among the four­ teen, the Houblon brothers had the biggest share of the Spanish marker, but Ward, Torriano, Paravicine, and

^Chapter IV. ^Chapter v.

33Priestley, Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research. XXIX (1956), p. 217. 34Ibid., p. 211. 68

Godfrey also traded there. An analysis of the Scheme of Trade shows that it offered no adequate proof of an unfavorable balance of trade with France. First it was drawn, not from 1674, but from 1668-9. In the latter year London woolen exports to France totalled £49,542, a 27 percent drop from 1662-1663 when the 35 total was £67,586. In addition, the value of some items imported appears to have been only one-quarter or one-fifth of that quoted. This price was the retail value in London after freight charges, customs, commissions and other costs were tacked on, hence imports were not as valuable as appears 36 from the records. The export figures also showed a de­ cline which was only temporary. In 1675-6 London woolen ex­ ports to France rose to £55, 726 and in 1683-4 to 37 £ 145,033. Since London accounted for about 70 percent of the exports, this is important. By contrast Exeter's total exports of cloth to France continued to decline throughout the reign. The complaint was made in 1677 that Exeter had lost £300,000 a year in ex- 38 ports to France as a result of the French duties. This

33Priestley, Economic History Review, 2nd Series, IV (1951-2), p. 48. 36Ibid., p. 50.

37lbid.» P* 48. 3®W. B. Stephens, Seventeenth Century Exeter, 1625- 88 (Exeter, 1958), p. 108. 69 loss was more than compensated for by the tremendous in­ crease in the trade with the Netherlands. For instance, in 1665-6 the exports of both serge and perpetuana cloths to Holland totalled 3,270 pieces. By 1675-6 exports of these items had grown to 66,816. Exeter's imports of linen and canvas from France in 1666 amounted to 763,849 ells, and in 1676, 1,097,070 ells. From 1678 to 1685 there was an em- 39 bargo on French imports. Whereas London's exports to France declined from 1662-3 to 1668-9 and then increased during the rest of the reign, Exeter's exports to France kept on decreasing throughout the reign. Since London had 70 percent of the trade and Exeter considerably less, and Exeter's deficit with France was more than made up by the Dutch trade, it seems unlikely that the French trade worked much hardship on England. Despite these facts the legend of an unfavorable balance was perpetuated by the opponents of France. Opposition to French trade had begun before the Resto­ ration but was aggravated by Colbert's commercial policy and Louis XIV's expansion into Flanders. English trade seems to have suffered only a temporary setback in the 1660's, but the use of the earlier date (1668-9) rather than a later one (1673-4) by the signers of the Scheme of Trade leads one

39Ibid., p. 110, p. 114. 70 to believe that perhaps religious and political motives were also involved. Fear of French Catholicism appears to have been the religious motive. CHAPTER IV POPERY

First I changed my religion and lost all my places, I affronted the Parliament e'en to their faces. I got Clifford and Osborne the white staff and maces, I marri'd a wife, not for portion or beauty, But to please the French king and the Pope as my duty; I have given the Jesuits aid and protection.... In a Protestant mask I do not much leer, But the Devil, the Pope, myself and Monsieur Shall one time or other set up Popery here. On Plotters (1680) printed in Elias J. Mengel, Jr., Poems on Affairs of State, II (1578^817*, (New Haven, l9t>5), pp. 349-350.

Fear of Catholicism as a factor in the growth of fear of France began in 1667 but did not gain prominence till 1673. Fear of France as the abettor of Popery was shown primarily in protests against England's alliance with France in the Third Anglo-Dutch War (1672-4),^ and in complaints against the marriage of the Duke of York to a Catholic

^-England18 Appeal, p . 18, p. 19; Grey, Debates, II, p . 198, pp. 198-9, p . 203, p. 228, p. 232.

71 72 princess in the fall of that year.2 Fear that France would promote Popery in England declined considerably in the fol­ lowing years but revived again with greater intensity in the years of the Popish Plot and continued to the end of the reign.^ Merchants, tradesmen and artisans among Englishmen and the country party within Parliament were most fearful of the growth of Catholicism, but the court party and the gentry and nobility were also fearful. There were several reasons for the growth of fear of Catholicism. One of the most important was the Protestant interest. This was one of the two overriding concepts which governed attitudes toward foreign policy during the reign of Charles II. The other was "the balance of power." The

^W.D. Christie, Letters to Williamson, I, pp. 137-8, p. 144, II, p. 36, I, pp 1' 142-3,'II,’ p 1 70;' CSPV, 1673-5, p. 85, p. 180; Henning, Dering Diary, p. 150; H.M.C. V, AppT I, p. 375; Grey, Debates, liT P. 190, p. 191,~p7 T93, p. 194; Com­ mons Journals, 1JC, p. 281, p. 285. ^Grey, Debates, VII, pp. 140-2; CSPD, 1679, pp. 89-90; Ibid.; 1680-81, p. 676; A Letter From~a‘"3esuit at Paris to his Correspondent in Lon5oiTlSKewingHfe

concept of an alliance of Protestant powers against the Catholics goes back to the reign of Elizabeth 1. England, at that time, worked out an unofficial coalition of Pro­ testant states. The Dutch Calvinists, the French Huguenots, and the German Lutherans were all allied with England. Popu­ lar pressure for such a policy was intense during the reigns of James 1 and Charles 1; and Charles 1 did support the Hu­ guenots against Louis XIII. But the only ruler besides Elizabeth to make a concerted effort of this sort was Oliver Cromwell. The policy was a failure, but the interest in such a plan continued. Down to the death of Cromwell Spain was considered to be the leader of the Catholic interest and the chief opponent of Protestantism. After the Restoration, France was accorded this po­ sition by public opinion. The cause for this change was a shift in the balance of power. Spain was in a state of decline and therefore unable to impose her religion on other countries. France was increasing in power and did have such power. Proof of the shift in opinion occurs seven months after the signing of the Triple Alliance. At that time Sir William Temple was told by the English government:

And what is said to them with relation to the Swissers, you shall readily apply towards any of the Protestant princes of the empire, especially those of Brandenburg, Luxemburg, or Saxony, declaring our desire, above all other alliances to see ourselves united more 74

particularly with those that profess the Protestant religion.4

This idea was also supported by Slingsby Bethel, a Whig pamphleteer.^ The image of England as the protector of the Protes­ tant states was matched by the view that France was the leader of the Catholic interest.

The French minister at Rome endevors by all arts to persuade that Court that, under a pretense of a treaty of commerce now under consideration in England, their aim indeed is to debauch us from the Triple Alliance; and here that King Louis XIV pretends he is punctual in the observation of it the Alliance yearly, upon the account of filial obedience to that see.®

This demand that England become the bulwark of the Protestant powers was directly contrary to the policy Charles II pursued. By the treaty of Dover (1670) Charles had promised to become a Catholic himself and support the Catholic French in a war against the Protestant Dutch. In pursuance of this "Grand Design," the English government agreed to allow France to restore public Catholic services

^Thomas P. Courtenay, Memoirs of the Life, Works, and Correspondence of Sir William temple, II (London" 1876), p.

^Present Interest of England Stated (1671), p. 34. ^Bulstrode Papers, I, p. Ill (July 31, 1669). 75 in the towns in the Netherlands conquered by them. Pierre Du Moulin, in his pamphlet England's Appeal From the Private Cabal at Whitehall to the Great Council of the Nation, the Lords and Commons in Parliament Assembled (1673), argued that England was fighting against the Protestant in­ terest in attacking Holland. He claimed that the French had told the Roman Catholic powers that this was a war of reli­ gion. Further, that they had started to eradicate Protes­ tantism in the Netherlands and replace it with Catholicism.^ These arguments were echoed in Parliament. Sir William Coventry, William Russell, Col. John Birch, and Sir Thomas Clarges, all country party members, and Sir John Monson, a court supporter, objected to the war on the grounds that it Q was intended to help spread Catholicism. Sir Thomas Meres, the opposition leader, shared this view:

'Tis the king's glory to defend the Protes­ tant religion and his greatest interest,' The king of France is now the great patron of the Popish interest. In their treaties with us, when we joined them against Holland, one of the articles was 'that in all towns

^pp. 18, 19. ®Grey, Debates, II, p. 203, p. 198 (October 31, 1673), II, p. 228, p. 232 (January 12, 1674), II, pp. 198-9 (Octo­ ber 31, 1673). 76

surrendered to them, half the churches should be Popish.' Whoever will support the Protestant religion must not support the French interest, and he lay that down for a principle.9

The end of the French alliance in 1674 led to a lessening of demands for support of foreign protestantism. The Popish Plot of 1678, however, helped to set off a wave of hysteria. A chorus of voices cried out that England, to defend itself, must uphold the Protestant interest.*® Knowledge of Charles's pro-French designs, perhaps, explains the lack of further references to the Protestant interest after 1682. Although Cromwell had tried to follow the Protestant interest, the idea was not popular in the first years of the reign of Charles II. The revival of the idea coincided with the period of the War of Devolution and the Triple Alliance.

^Ibid., III, p. 5 (April 19, 1675); Andrew Marvell, Growth of Popery (1677), p. 487 agrees. *®Edmund Everard, Discourses on the Present State of the Protestant Princes of lfarope~(Ion3orr, 16/9), passim; KeTth<_. Felling and P. ITT b. Needham, eds., "The Journals of Edmund Warcups, 1676-84," English Historical Review, XL (1925), p. 245 (November 2, lb/9); E. S. SeBeer, ''The House of Lords in the Parliament of 1680," Bulletin of the Insti­ tute of Historical Research. XX (1943-5), p. 32, p. 35; H. M.“Tr. (Beaufort MSS), p 100 (Sir William Temple— Decem- Fer”18, 1680); John Somers, Plain Dealing is a Jewel (1682), p. 5; William Cobbett, Parliamentary History(London, 1808), p. 1116 (March 23, 1679)':------77

The French threat to Flanders was presumably the motive. This concern for international Protestantism was increased by the French efforts to spread Catholicism to the Nether­ lands and English tacit approval of this policy. The Popish Plot was also a cause of concern for the Protestant interest; yet another was the plight of the Huguenots. Louis XIV wrote in his memoirs that he had made the decision to persecute the Huguenots in 1661.^ The policy of eliminating Protestantism from France was carried out gradually from that year until the dragonades of 1681 set out to force the Huguenots to convert to Catholicism. The Revocation of the Edict of Nantes in August, 1685 was merely a statement after the fact. This ..policy was for­ malized in 1665 when Louis promised to interpret all ambi­ guities in the Edict of Nantes in a manner adverse to the Protestants. According to a letter written by Daniel Johnson to Sir Edward Harley, the governor of Dunkirk, the Huguenots had predicted their persecution.

When I was in France I was entreated 'by many of the poor Protestant Church in those parts to recommend their condition to the governor of this garrison.' So long as 'this garrison is kept by the English they enjoy much

^Oeuvres, I. p. 84. 78

safety}' but if ever 'this town should be surrendered either to the French or Spaniard they were all lost people} and expect nothing should follow thereon but a sudden and dismal massacre throughout their whole nation.12

In 1662 Dunkirk was sold, and though no massacre occurred, persecution did follow. This led to official and unofficial protests in England in the years before the Third Anglo- 13 Dutch War. Official protests were made in 1669 and 1670; but popular concern for their plight was evident from 1667 to 1671.14 Sympathy for the French Protestants appears also to have been one of the motives of many of the signers of the Scheme of Trade (November, 1674).^ The Houblon brothers, Thomas Papillon, Banjamin Delaune, and were all descendants of Huguenot families. Michael Godfrey and Patience Ward left money in their wills respectively to the

12(December 17, 1660) printed in H.M.C. (Portland MSS), III, p. 244. This view is confirmed by" Elkanah Settle in The Character of a Popish Successor Complete (London, 1681), p7^. ^ Bulstrode Papers, I, p. 90 (February 13, 1669); M.B. Curran, ed., '"the Correspondence of an English Diplomatic Agent in Paris, 1669-1677," Transactions of the Royal His­ torical Society n.s. XV (1901), p. l3». ^William Lloyd, The Late Apology in Behalf of the Pa­ pists Re-printed and Answered in Behalf of the Royalists (ioncTon7 I667T.~p7T6T~Bulstroaj- Paper s,~ T , ~ HS'lFebruary 2, 1669); Slingsby Bethel, Presentlnterest of England Stated, (London, 1671), p. 20; Earl of Loudown to W."TToulI (September 2, 1671) printed in H.M.C. (Roxburghe MSS), p. 111. ■^Chapter m . 79

French (Protestant) Church in London and French Protestant refugees. This continuing concern for the Huguenots in­ sured a lasting hostility to the French government. Although Louis XIV did not, between 1672 and 1679, make any new restrictions on the rights of the Huguenots, sympathy for the French Protestants continued. Sir Thomas Meres pointed to Louis XIV's setting up of Catholicism in Dutch towns and to his persecution of the Huguenots as proof that he was an opponent of the Protestant interest.^ The issuance of new restrictions on the Huguenots in France and the outbreak of the Popish Plot hysteria in England led to renewed concern in England for the Hugue- 17 nots. Edmund Everard and the Earl of Shaftesbury tied support for the French Protestants to the reduction of French power. Everard put it this way:

The one and only means to reduce France to this point where it would not threaten Europe, is to reestablish...the Civil and Protestant Liberty throughout the whole extent of that Estate, the one of the said establishments being notoriously inseparable from the other.

Ibgrey, Debates, III, p. 5 (April 19, 1675). See also Airy, Burnet, ll, p. 99 and Present Interest of Chris- tendome, p. 4. 17 Cobbett, Parliamentary History, p. 1116. ^Discourses (1679), p. 23. 80

For Everard Protestantism and civil liberty were inseparable by their nature. If one exists in a country, the other must too. The reduction of the French king's power at home would make him less able to fight abroad. Charles II him­ self took this view of the relationship between religion and politics when he complained that the had en­ couraged men to inquire into all matters, both of church and 19 state. 5 There was much sympathy for the Huguenots during the 20 last years of the reign; u there was also official and unofficial assistance. The English government protested 21 against the persecution of the Huguenots, issued proclama- 22 tions promising aid to those who fled to England and

^Airy, Burnet, I, p. 167. 2®H.M.C. (Lindsey Supp. MSS), p. 28 (August 22, 1769); Gilbert~burnet to the Earl of Halifax (February 27, 1680) printed in Foxwell, Camden Miscellany XI (1907), p. 10; Ed­ mund Everard, The Great Pressures and Grievances of the Pro­ testants in France (London, Ibdl), passim; CeorgelTickes, The True Notion of Persecution Stated in a Sermon Preached at the Time of the Late Contributions for~tKe French Protes­ tants (London, 1581), pp. 27-3b; ElkanaIT~SetFle, the Charac­ ter of a Popish Successor Complete (London, 1681), p. 2; John Somers,"Plain Dealing is a Jewel (London, 1682), p. 5; Jo­ seph Boyce to Ralph Thoresby (June 29, 1682), printed in Ralph Thoresby, Diary and Correspondence (London, 1832), p.

21CSPD, 1682, p. 24.

22CSPD, 1680-81, p. 366, p. 398. 81

OO organized a collection on their behalf. Henry Savile, the English ambassador to France (1679-82), encouraged the Huguenots to migrate to England.^ Private individuals, too, helped the refugees. Sir Patience Ward, John Dubois, Ralph Box, Sir John Moore, , Sir William Pritchard, Sir Robert Clayton, the Houblon brothers, the and Thomas Papillon joined to help set up a group of Huguenots to manufacture linen at Ipswitch (September, 1681).^ The bipartisan appeal of the Huguenots plight is shown by the fact that while Dubois, Papillon, Cornish, Clayton, Ward and the Houblon brothers were Whigs; Box, Moore, Pritchard and the bishop were all . The following year an Anglican parish in London rented a church 26 building to Huguenot refugees. The French Protestants were not uniformly beloved, however, In 1683 a riot in against them took place. The rioters complained that they were really Catholics come to ruin England's trade. The sympathy for the Huguenots was based partly on their being fellow Protestants, and partly on their being

23wiHiam A. Shaw, "The English Government and the Re­ lief of Protestant Refugees," English Historical Review IX (1894), pp. 662-83. 24-Henry Savile to Sir (July 22, 1681 and November 21, 1681) printed in Savile Correspondence (Lon­ don, 1858), p. 210, p. 236. 25a .F.W. Papillon, Memoirs of Thomas Papillon (Reading, 1887), pp. 117-19. ------^W.H. Manchle, "Church of St. Mary, the Virgin, Charing Cross Road," Notes and Queries CLXXIV (1938), p. 389. 82 considered a bulwark of civil liberty in France and a bar to the universal monarchy of Louis XIV. Charles pursued a pro-Catholic policy almost from the beginning of the reign. In the spring of 1661, at the urging of Louis XIV he had installed a pro-Catholic governor at Dunkirk and in April transferred the Duke of York's regi­ ment, mostly composed of Catholics, there. The pro-Catholic and pro-French policy which Charles and James embarked on was formalized by the (May, 1670). It was not long before opposition to the policy arose. told Secretary of State Williamson that "the City looks on the correspondence with France as Popish, to 27 the destruction of the Protestant religion." He goes on to say that the dissenters are the chief opponents of the 28 policy, but does not give their reasons. The final straw was the report that James, Duke of York was marrying , a Roman Catholic, whose marriage to James, France 29 favored. The populace was outraged, and the House of

27cSPD, 1671, p. 496 (September 21, 1671). 28l q c . cit.

29r . Ball to Sir Joseph Williamson (July 31, 1673, Au­ gust 4, 1673 and October 10, 1673), Robert Yard to William­ son (August 4, 1673) and Sir Gilbert Talbot (November 13, 1673) printed in W.D. Christie, ed., Letters to Williamson, (London, 1874), I, pp. 137-8, p. 144, il, p. 3F, 1, pp. 142- 3, II, p. 70; CSPV, 1673-5, p. 85 (August 11, 1673), p. 180 (November 29, T57T); Basil D. Henning, ed. , Dering Diary, p. 150 (October 20, 1673); Humphrey Prideaux to *b:s. Ann Coffin (November, 1673), H.M.C. V, App. I, p. 375; Grey, Debates, II, p. 195 (Col. BTMShT, p. 191 (Sir Thomas Clargefl)-* P" 193 (Edmund Walter), p. 194 (Sir Thomas Meres), (October 30, 1673). OA Commons twice passed addresses against the marriage. According to Henry Ball, Londoners reported that Louis XIV himself had told the brides' mother how to carry out his interests in England when she arrived there with her daugh­ ter.^* Col. Birch blamed all England's troubles on "these popish alliances.11 ^ Sir Thomas Clarges was more specific. "Gentlemen speak with grief of heart, when they consider how near the Duke is to the Crown, and these marriages may be of 33 great consequences in future times." Presumably he feared the establishment of a Catholic in England. Robert Yard combined both fear of France and fear of Catho­ licism. "...A Prince in Italy, to the thinking of the ordi­ nary people, is too near the of Rome, and a marriage proposed and concluded by the French cannot be good."^ Both fear of immediate French influence and fear of its per­ petuation by a Catholic succession lay behind the bitter opposition of the populace to the Duke of York.

30commons Journals, IX, p. 281 (October 20, 1673), p. 285 rflctoBer 31, 1673). 33-Ball to Williamson (October 10, 1673) printed in Christie, Letters to Williamson, II, p. 36. 32Henning, Dering Diary, p. 150. 33crey, Debates, II, p. 191. 3^Yard to Williamson (August 4, 1673) printed in Christie, Letters to Williamson, I, p. 143. 84

The popular belief that the French alliance portended the introduction of Roman Catholicism was also indicated by the action of John Ayloffe, a country party lawyer. At the opening of Parliament in October, 1673 Ayloffe threw a wooden shoe (or sabot) under the chair of the speaker of the House of Commons. The shoe had the arms of France and England on either side and a string of beads with a crucifix attached to the heel.^ The sabot symbolized French absolu­ tism and poverty.^ Opposition leaders, such as William Garroway, William Sacheverell, and Henry Powle, and court party member, Sir John Monson,^ also expressed their iears that the French alliance portended the introduction of Popery into England. Their view was echoed by the anonymous OO author of the poem History of Insipids (1674), and by James Hicks:

^Charles Hatton to Viscount Hatton (October 28, 1673) reprinted in E.M. Thompson, ed., Correspondence of the Family of Hatton (London, 1878), I, p. lib. 3^See Chapter V. 3?Grey, Debates, II, p. 205 and p. 202 (October 31, 1673); p. 239 (January 13, 1674); and p. 225 (January 12, 1674).

OQ 1. 97-102 printed in George de F. Lord, Poems on Af­ fairs of State, I (1660-78), (New Haven, 1963), p. Z48T 85

To tell you a Peace Is concluded here be­ twixt his Majesty and the Dutch is no more nor less than his Majesty declared to both Houses Wednesday last, to the great and general satisfaction; I believe of every soul except such Roman Catholics and others that wish better to the See of Rome and the French king's interest than they do to the Protestant Church and his sacred Majesty.39

England's withdrawal from the war in 1674 did not end the fear of Catholicism or of pro-French policies. Andrew Marvell in 1674 accused James of seeking to "advance the government of France with a Wife and religion Italian."^ John Ayloffe agreed with Marvell. "MacJames the Irish pagod does adore: His French and Teagues command on sea and shore.Ayloffe probably refers to the fact that Count Schomberg, a French Protestant and Col. Fitzgerald, an Irish Catholic, were named commanders of the army, and that the captains at sea had been named by James as Lord High Admiral. Marvell, too, objected to the naming of Schomberg and ­ gerald. He claimed that the former was named for the "advan­ cing the French government, the latter for the promoting the Irish Religion."^ A letter addressed to the king in

^Hicks to Williamson (February 13, 1674) printed in Christie, ed., Letters to Williamson, II, p. 152. ^ Upon His Majesty's being Made Free'Of the City (1674), 1. 118-izO printed in Lord, froems, I, p. 242. ^Britannia and Raleigh (1674-5), 1. 125-6 printed in Poems, i, p7 233. ^ The Growth of Popery (1677), printed in Edward Thomp­ son, Works of MlarveTl, I, p. 496.

f 86

March, 1677 mentions the fear that If the Duke of York is named General the Catholics, with French help, will kill Charles and make James king.43 In May of the same year Robert Sawyer, a court party spokesman, expressed the fear that "as long as that door of France is open, our Wealth will creep out at it, and their Religion will come in."44 Fear of James and France as proponents of Catholicism re­ mained a constant factor from 1674 to 1677. In order to counter this fear Charles arranged the marriage of his niece Mary to William of Orange (October, 1677).43 The court party members in the Commons felt that this proved that "French counsels" were over.4** Many of the country party members professed to be unconvinced that the danger from French influence and Catholicism was over. Barillon mentions two motives for continued opposition to the government: fear for the religion of England and ambi­ tion to replace Danby and his associates at the head of the 47 government. Presumably the fear for religion stemmed

43CSPD, Addenda 1660-85, p. 464. 44Grey, Debates, IV, p. 370. ^Barillon to Louis XIV (November 1, 1677) printed in John Dalrymple, Memoirs of Great Britain and Ireland (London, 1773). II. (Part T )~ . T?6T~HOi.C.''(AThoTe MSS), p . 34 (October 23, 1677). * --- 4®Grey, Debates, V, p. 66 (Sir George Downing); p. 72 (Sir ) (February 4, 1678). 4^Barillon to Louis XIV (February 10, 1678) printed in Mignet, Negotiations, IV, p. 534. 87 from James' position as heir to the throne. Concern for the religion of England reached a climax in the fall of 1678 with the discovery that Edward Coleman, the former secretary of the Duke of York, had been corres­ ponding with the French king's confessor in order to secure funds to help restore Catholicism in England. These revela­ tions frightened both court party members such as Sir John Ernly and Sir Thomas Higgins and opposition leaders such as Sir Thomas Clarges and Col. John Birch,and helped set off the Popish Plot and . The popularity of Exclusion is shown by the fact that 80 percent of those MP's who favored Exclusion in 1679 were re-elected, 70 percent of the absentees were returned, and only 55 percent of those who opposed the bill won again. Although the Tories quickly rallied to the support of the government, the Whigs wrote and spoke all through the Exclusion Crisis and down to the end of the reign against the Catholics, James, and France as plotters against the religion and government of England. Whig MP's such as Sir Thomas Player and Sir Henry Capel, Presbyterian clergymen such as Robert Ferguson and Whig poets such as Elkahah Settle and

^®Grey, Debates, VI, p. 145 (November 4, 1678); VI, p. 245 (November 2l, 1678); VI, p. 145 (November 4, 1678); VII, p. 145 (April 27, 1679). 8 8

49 Thomas Shadwell were leaders in the attack. In short, Englishmen from Sir William Temple in 1668 to Thomas Shadwell in 1681 feared France because France promoted Popery wherever its power extended. Most English­ men saw a pro-Catholic in England's joining with France in the Third Anglo-Dutch War. On the international level the conspiracy to promote popery exhibited itself in the setting up of Catholic services in captured towns in Holland and in the attack on a Protestant country itself. On the domestic level the conspiracy revealed itself in the Declaration of Indulgence, the appointment of Catholic officers in the army, and the marriage of James with the French-sponsored Roman Catholic duchess of Modena. The

^Grey, Debates, VII, pp. 140-2 (April 27, 1679); H. M. C. (Beaufort MSS), p. 109 (January 7, 1681); Robert Ferguson, No Protestant Plot (London, 1681), pp. 33-4; Elka- nah Settle, The Character of £ Popish Successor Complete (London, 1682), p. /; SettTi",“Absalom Senior (April 6, 1682), 1. 1228-1231, 823-4; Thomas 5ha3weH"' The Medal of John Bayes (May 15, 1682), 1. 227-8 printed in Schless, Poems, III, p. 160, p. 145, p. 89. Also see CSPD, 1679, pp. 68-9; Ibid., 1680-81, p. 676; A Letter from a Jesuit at Paris, to his Correspondent in LonHonjBhewing the Most Effec­ tualWay to Ruine the Government and Protestant Religion TTondonT T575T7“p."S7 Hbdge (1679), 1. /8-80; A Bill oJTthe House of Commons Door, April 15, 1680, Pursuant1 to a Former B U T T January 26, 1679 m e d ~ThereT~l." l-~2:"Pn FToFterF— 11550)7 17 5T-7T AHCIFany for the Fifth of November"T.g5Zr, 1. 5-8 printed in Menge 1, Poems, il, pp. 1497 3437 350 and Schless, Poems, III, pp. 16u, 145, 89, 574, 575. 89

Popish Plot and the discovery of Coleman's correspondence with Louis XIV's confessor helped to confirm their fears of a French and Catholic alliance, and this concern continued throughout the reign. The situation of the Huguenots served as a bitter example,'’® just as their existence served as a potential bulwark against the French since Protestantism and civil liberty were felt to be two sides of the same coin. The converse was also felt to be true. Catholicism had another side— arbitrary government.

^William Lloyd, The Late Apology, p. 116. CHAPTER V ARBITRARY GOVERNMENT

That Monarchy may from its Childhood grow To Man's Estate, France has taught us how: Monarchy's Divine, Divinity it shows; That he goes backward that not forward goes. Therefore go on, let other Kingdoms see Your Will's your Law, that's absolute Monarchy; The Dream of the Cabal (1672) printed inHHaurice tee, Jr., The Cabal (Urbana, 1965), p. 258.

The connection between Catholicism and arbitrary government was a common theme in the England of Charles II. The Earl of Shaftesbury declared that "Popery and slavery... go hand in hand,"* and Charles II admitted that he felt that no religion agreed better with absolute monarchy than Roman 2 Catholicism. He also believed that the reverse was true. At one point the king told Gilbert Burnet that the Reforma­ tion had encouraged men to question all things both of

*Cobbett, Parliamentary History, IV, p. 1116. ^Cominges to Lionne (April 13, 1663) printed in J. J. Jusserand, A French Ambassador, p. 206.

90 91

g church and state. Presumably, he felt that since Catholi­ cism emphasized obedience to religious authority Catholics would be less likely to question the government. On the other hand, since Protestantism emphasized individual inter­ pretation of the Bible, it would encourage people to ques­ tion secular authority as well as religious. There is abun­ dant evidence that many Englishmen shared this opinion of 4 the relationship of Catholicism and arbitrary government. The belief in the connection of Protestantism and civil liberty is also supported by the evidence. Edmund Everard and the Earl of Shaftesbury agree with Charles on this point. The combination of the ideas of arbitrary govern­ ment and Catholicism is one of the reasons for the great fear of the introduction of the Catholic religion into England. Given the assumption of such a connection, it is

^Airy, Burnet, I, p. 167. ^Richard Baxter, Reliquae Baxterianae (London, 1931), p. 224; Grey, Debates, II, p. 2b 2 (William Sacheverell— October 31, 1673); Earl of Shaftesbury, A Letter from a Person of Quality to his Friend in the Country (1675) printedTn CobbettTlParTiamentary^hlstory, Iv, Appendix V, p. iii; CSPV, 1673-5, p. 469 (November 1, 1675); Andrew Marvell, Growth of Fopery (1677), printed in Thompson,. Works of MarvellT”!, P. 496; CSPD, 1680-81, p. 676 (January 18, 168T)1 ------^Discourses (1679), p. 23; Cobbett, Parliamentary History, IV, p. 1116. 92

fair to assume that many of the references to fear of Catho­ licism are also tacit attacks on arbitrary government, and that France was seen as the exemplar of both. The first explicit reference to fear of the introduction of absolutism on the French model into England occurred early in 1671.** By 1675 Englishmen were voicing their belief that France was helping Charles, through subsidies and pro­ mises of military aid, to impose arbitrary government on England, a belief voiced again in 1678 and 1679.7 During the Third Anglo-Dutch War (1672-4) there was much alarm at Q the arbitrary tendencies of Charles' government, ana alarm which reached its height at the time of the Popish Plot.9 This chronology of the growing fear of France as an

^Grey, Debates, I, p. 334 (January 10, 1671). 7Ibid., VI, pp. 347, 348, 349, 352, 353, 358; CSPV, 1673-5, p. 353; Domestick Intelligence, September 30, 1679. 8 Airy, Burnet, II, p. 5; Andrew Marvell, Growth of Popery, in E. Thompson, ed., Works of Marvell, 1, p. 59*6. ^Andrew Marvell, Upon his Majesty's being Made Free of the City (1674), 1. 115-7PT John Ayloffe, Britannia and Raleigh (1674-5), 1. 105-110, printed in lord, Poems, I, pp. 2

*®Grey, Debates, I, p. 334 (January 10, 1671). 94 of this.** A new army was raised in the fall of 1677, in prepara­ tion for England'8 joining the allies in the war with France. In June, 1678, with peace negotiations nearing 1 9 completion, Parliament voted to disband the army. The 13 time limit was later extended to July 27. Despite these resolutions the army was not disbanded and became a subject 14 of suspicion in the l&tter part of the reign. A more important source of fear of arbitrary govern­ ment was concern that France might supply money and troops to Charles to force absolutism on England. This concern is mentioned in a report by the Venetian envoy in England, Girolamo Alberti, of a conference between several court peers and a group of M.P.'s in 1675. The M.P.'s claimed that

The duke of York, having imbibed French principles in his youth, had got into his head the chimera of reducing the English parliament to the same footing as the parliament of Paris. Knowing how little trust could be placed in English troops, as they would never fight against the liberty

**Growth of Popety (1677), printed in Thompson, Works of Mar v eTl""*T. ~p~. 4W/ ----- ^ commons Journals, IX, p. 484. *3Ibid., IX, p. 493. *4pome8tick Intelligence, September 30, 1679. 95

of the country, he deliberately sacrificed the interests of the nation to the wishes of the most Christian, for the sake of having French forces to assist his d e s i g n s .

In December, 1678 suspicion that France sought to help the English government establish absolutism became a certainty with the revelation of the Earl of Danby's nego­ tiations with France for a subsidy in return for the pro­ rogation of Parliament. This caused a tremendous furor,^ and led to Danby's impeachment. Proof that this dread was present during the period of the Plot is a newspaper article of 1679.

On Sunday last, being the Twenty-Eighth of this Instant September, a Red-Coat Souldier taking a view of the Monument set up for the late dreadful fire of 1666, declared to some Persons near him, that it would never be a good world with us till Forty Thousand French men should come hither and pull down the Monument, this being heard by an Eminent and worthy Citizen he thought it necessary that the Fellow should be seized, and taken into Custody as a dangerous Person, which was done accordingly.17

Another aspect of the fear of arbitrary government

15CSPV, 1673-5, p. 353 (February 8, 1675). ^Grey, Debates, VI, pp. 347-58. ^ Domestick Intelligence, September 30, 1679. 96 on the French model Is the political attitudes of the mer­ chants who signed the Scheme of Trade. The fact that the year 1668-9 had been used for their survey instead of 18 1674 leads one to suspect ulterior motives. Of the four­ teen, only Peter Paravicine is known to have been a Tory. Patience Ward, the Houblons, Thomas Papillon, John Dubois and Benjamin and Michael Godfrey were all prominent members of the Whig party.^ The whole syndrome of anti-French feeling was sym­ bolized by the wooden shoe (or sabot). Edmund Ludlow, the Republican politician, described his visit to France on his way to exile in Switzerland (September 1, 1660): The Louvre seemed to me rather like a garrison than a court, being very full of soldiers and dirt. I saw the King's stable of horses, which though not extraordinarily furnished, gave me more pleasure than 1 should have received by seeing their master, who thinks fit to treat them better than his miserable people. But I loathed to see such numbers of idle droves, who in ridiculous habits, wherein they place a great part of their religion, are to be seen in every part, eating the bread of the credulous multitude, and leaving them to be distinguished from the inhabitants of other countries by thin cheeks, canvas clothing and wooden shoes.

^See Chapter III. ^Priestley, Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research XXIX (1956)', p. 2187 H. Firth, Memoirs of Ludlow, II, p. 298. 97

Ludlow emphasizes the importance of the military in France when describing the Louvre as being "rather like a garrison than a court." The poverty of the peasants is indicated by the reference to their "thin cheeks, canvas clothing and wooden shoes." The wooden shoe became a symbol of the po­ verty of the French peasant ruled by an absolute monarch and an indication of what the English might expect if their king became absolute. John AyIoffe, writing at the beginning of the Third Anglo-Dutch War (1672) put it this way:

When the English Prince shall Englishmen despise, And think French only loyal, Irish wise; Then wooden shoes shall be the English wear, And shall no more appear; Then th1English shall a greater tyrant know, Than either Greek or Gallic stories show.

Since James commanded French and Irish troops while in exile in France, presumably the time for tyranny had arrived. The shoe appears again in October, 1673 when AyIoffe threw a sabot under the speaker’s chair. The shoe had a great bracelet of beads passed through the heel with a crucifix at the end of it, and on the left side of the heel of the sabot the king of England's arms blazoned with 'utrum' writ under and on the right

^ Nostradamus' Prophecy (1672), 1. 37-42 printed in Lord, Poems, I, p. 188. 98

side the king of France's arms and 'horum' under written.22

Ayloffe presumably meant the crucifix and beads to imply that England was in danger of becoming Catholic, while the shoe indicated the poverty in store for England if Parliament chose the interest of the king of France instead of that of the king of England. The image crops up again at the end of the Exclusion Crisis. A disappointed Whig, at the end of 1682, wrote that a Catholic prince James will make England over on the French model and Englishmen will be forced to wear 23 wooden shoes. Fear of arbitrary government was very strong in the last half of the reign of Charles II. The majority of Englishmen felt that Catholicism and arbitrary government were combined. The conversion of the Duke of York, the choice of a Frenchman to command the army in the Third Anglo-Dutch War and the maintenance of a standing army in the last years of the reign helped to intensify this fear. The revelation of Danby's dealings with France served to

22charles Hatton to Viscount Hatton (October 28, 1673), printed in Thompson, Hatton Correspondence, p. 118. 2^To the Loyal Londoners, 1. 15-20 printed in Schless, Poems, ill, p. 381. 99 confirm these fears, while the wooden shoe symbolized all their fears. The fears of absolutism were warranted. Although Charles did not use the army to enforce his will, he did dispense with Parliament after getting subsidies from France, and took the charters from the towns. By his death Charles was certainly his own master. CHAPTER VI CONCLUSION

The point in time at which the fear of France became especially virulent is ascertainable in terms of the evidence. Complaints about the French menace first reached a moderate level, both in volume and in intensity, in 1667 at the time of the French attack on Flanders in the War of Devolution; they reached a peak in terms of volume, in 1673 during the Third Anglo-Dutch War. The number of complaints then declined somewhat, although they remained relatively high down through 1682 (except for the year 1676), and slackened perceptibly after 1682. This numerical approach is misleading because other evidence indicates a great intensity of anti-French feeling in 1675 and in 1677. In 1675 Col. John Birch estimated that 90 percent of Englishmen were opposed to France.* The second piece of evidence for intense hostility is the demand of the House of Commons for war with France in 1677.

^Grey, Debates. Ill, p. 127.

100 101

Two other factors which might be the cause of dis­ tortion are the lack of a Parliamentary forum for discontent in 1676, and the realization after 1682 that Charles inten­ ded to pursue his pro-French policies and did not intend to call Parliament. The high point of fear of France appears to have come in 1677 and continued through the Popish Plot period, at least. The Englishmen who)feared France were a mixed group. A sizeable number (Slingsby Bethel, Col. John Birch, Benja­ min Delaune, John Dubois, Samuel Fortrey, Michael and Benja­ min Godfrey, James and John Houblon, Sir Robert Clayton, Henry Cornish, Sir John Moore, Andrew Marvell, Thomas Papil- lon, Peter Paravicine, Sir Thomas Player, Sir William Prit­ chard, the Earl of Shaftesbury, George Torriano, Sir Patience Ward) were merchants or had mercantile connections. A fair number (Sir Thomas Clarges, Benjamin Delaune, James and John Houblon, Stephen College, , Pierre Du Moulin, Sir Thomas Lee, Henry Sidney, the Earl of Shaftesbury, Richard Baxter, John Dubois, Thomas Papillon, Robert Fergu­ son, Henry Cornish, Robert MacWard, John Phillips) had Dis­ senting backgrounds. A considerable number (the Earl of Arlington, Sir John Birkenhead, Sir Henry Capel, Lord Caven­ dish, Sir Henry Coventry, Sir William Coventry, Sir Edward Dering, William Garroway, the Marquis of Halifax, Sir , Sir Thomas Littleton, Sir John Lowther, Sir John 102

Monson, Sir John Reresby, Thomas Shadwell, Col. Giles Strangways, Sir John Vaughan, , Sir Trevor Williams, Henry Savile, Col. Silas Titus, the Earl of Shaftesbury, John AyIoffe) had either been Royalists them­ selves or had had parents or other relatives who had sup­ ported Charles 1 in the civil war. A somewhat larger pro­ portion of the complainants were members at one time or another of the Country party, and their denunciations were more general than those of the Court party members. A sense of loyalty undoubtedly tended to dissuade Court sup­ porters from openly criticizing the pro-French policies of the government. The difference in numbers, nevertheless, is not so large as one might anticipate. Despite the sizable groupings above, opponents of France are not easily categorized. They included merchants and non-merchants, Dissenters and Anglicans (but not Catholics), Royalists and Parliamentarians, and members of both the Court and the Country parties. Evidence seems to demonstrate that during the reign of Charles II the over­ whelming majority of Englishmen, except for Catholics, feared France. In 1675 Col. John Birch estimated that 2 ninety out of every hundred Englishmen were anti-French.

^Grey, Debates, III, p. 127. 103

Reasons for the dread of France fall Into several related categories. Fear for English security obviously was a major factor. This was prompted especially by the up­ setting of the balance of power through the French conquest of Flanders and by French naval expansion, with the consequent threat of invasion of England itself. The menace to English trade posed by French competition early in the reign (and maintained as something of a legend later on ) combined with concern that the conquest of Flanders would further strengthen French trade further frightened Englishmen. Just as important, but less easily documented, was fear of the introduction of popery and absolutism, on the French model, supported by French power. There is abun­ dant evidence that Englishmen of the time felt that Catholi­ cism and absolutism were linked, as were, on the other side, Protestantism and civil liberty. Poverty was considered to be a result of absolutism, and hence part of the French way of life. Awareness that their government was partial to France, and that James, at least, was Catholic and abso­ lutist helped to lend potency to the fear of France. BIBLIOGRAPHY Primary Sources

Osmund Airy, ed., Burnet's History of My Own Time, 2 vols., (Oxford: Clarendon Press, I8y7, 1900). , ed., The Essex Papers, I, (London: Camden Society, 1890). An Appeal from the Country to the City for the Preservation ot nis Majesty1 s Person, UEerty, Property, and the Protestant Religion (London, 1079) printed in William Cobbett. Parliamentary History, IV, Appendix IX. Richard Baxter, Reliquae Baxterianae. (London: J.M. Dent, 1931). ------Thomas Bebington, ed. The Letters of the Earl of Arlington. 2 vols. (London: Thomas Sennit”, 1701). William Bedlow. A Narrative and Impartial Discovery of the Horrid PopisK- Plot: Carried on for the Burning and destroying the"CIties of London and Westminster. (London, 1679). Slingsby Bethel. The Present Interest of England Stated. (London, 16 71). Edmund Bohun, An Address to the Freemen and Freeholders of the Nation (London, 1682). Andrew Browning, ed. Thomas Osborne, Earl of Danby and Duke of Leeds. II, (Glasgow: Jackson & don, i444). ______, ed. The Memoirs of Sir John Reresby, (Glas- gow: Jackson, Son & Co., 19637. Calendar of State Papers, Domestic. 1658-85.

104 105

Calendar of State Papers. Venetian. 1657-75. William Carter. England's Interest by Trade Affected (London, 1671). ------The Case of Protestants in England Under a Popish Prince ---- (Toh5on," lfeBl}'.------W. Cavendish. Reasons for His Majesties Passing the Bill of Exclusion {London, iboi). The Character of ja Rebellion (London, 1681). W. D. Christie, ed. Letters Addressed fromLondon to Sir Joseph Williamson, 1673-4. 2 vols. (London: “Camden soci

William Cooper, ed. The Savile Correspondence (London: Camden Society, 1858). . City (Columbus: Ohio State Univer­ sity Press, 1967). The Current Intelligence (1666). John Dalrymple. Memoirs of Great Britain and Ireland. II (pt. 1), (London, Strahan and Cadell, 17/3). . Particular Narrative of the Late Popish Designs to ChargeThose of the frresTjyEerlan Party~with a Pretended Conspiracy Against His Maj estiesTerson and Government (London, Ib79). 106

E. S. De Beer, ed. The Diary of John Evelyn. 6 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1955). "The House of Lords in the Parliament of lbttO/' Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Re­ search (1943-!)) ,""31-7. Domestick Intelligence. 1679-81. Sir William Dugdale. A Short View of the Late Troubles in England (Oxford, T6 8 i). Louis Du Moulin. A Short and True Account of the Several Advances the Has MadeTowards Rome (London, 168oyi Pierre Du Moulin. England's Appeal from the Private Cabal at Whitehall to the Great council ot tKe Nation, the Cords and Commons inTarliament Assembled (Hague, 1673). A. C. Edwards, ed. English History from Essex Sources 1550- 1750 (Chelmsford: J. R. Clarke & do., 1952). England Bought and Sold (London, 1681). The Englishman's Happiness Under a Protestant Prince: And the Present conditionot the Kingdom considered TConabnTnreBir------— ------Edmund Everard. Discourses on the Present State of the Protestant Princes of Europe (London, 1679). The Great Pressures and Grievances of the Protestants in France (London, 1681). Keith Feiling and F. R. D. Needham, ed. "The Journals of Edmund Warcup, 1676-84," English Historical Review XL (1925), 235-60.------Robert Ferguson. No Protestant Plot (London, 1681). C. H. Firth, ed. The Memoirs of Edmund Ludlow. II (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1894). H. C. Foxwell, ed. "Some Unpublished Letters of Gilbert Burnet," Camden Miscellany XI (1907). 107

A Free Conference Touching the Present State of England Both at Home and Abroad in Order to the Designs of France TTonHon,"15687:------Anchitell Grey, Debates of the House of Commons 1667-94. I- VIII (London: 6 . Henry and R. Cave, 1743-63). Richard Haines. Proposals for Building in Every County A Working-alms^Kouse or Hospital as the Sest Expedient to Ferfect the~Trade and Manufactory of Linen Gloth JTTondon, TbTTJ. James Orchard Halliwell, ed. A Collection of Letters Illustrative of the Progress of Science in England from the keign of Queen ElizaBeth to that of CharTes t^ se c o h a rW n d o h f^ r g 1 j n r ."Tayror7nFBgi):------Basil D. Henning, ed. The Parliamentary Diary of Sir Edward Dering, 1670-73 (.Sew Haven: Yale University Fress, 1940)7 George Hickes. The True Notion of Persecution Stated in £ Sermon Preached at the Time of the Late Contributions for the French Protestants (London, IbSl). Historical Manuscripts Commission (Athole MSS). H. M. C. (Beaufort MSS). H. M. C. (Buccleuch and Queensberry MSS) 2 vols. H. M. C. (Buckinghamshire and Lindsey MSS). H. M. C. (Downshire MSS), I (pt. 1). H. M. C. Fifth Report Appendix I_. H. M. C. (Finch MSS), I. H. M. C. (Hastings MSS), II. H. M. C. (House of Lords MSS), 1678-88. H. M. C. (Kenyon MSS). H . M. C. (Lang MSS). H. M. C. (Le Fleming MSS). 108

H. M. C. (Leyborne-Popham MSS). H. M. C. (Lindsey Supp. MSS). H. M. C. (Montagu MSS). H. M. C. (Ormonde MSS), N.S. IV. H. M. C. (Portland MSS), Ill & VIII. H. M. C. (Roxburghe MSS). H. M. C. (Rutland MSS), II. H . M. C. (Rye and Corp. MSS). H. M. C. (Savile Foljambe MSS). H. M. C. Seventh Report. History and Proceedings of the House of Lords. I (London,

Thomas Hunt. The Great and Weighty Considerations, Relating to the Duke of York or the Successor ot the crown... wTtETih Answer to a litter from a Gentleman of Quality in the Country to His Friend (London! 1680). An Impartial Account of Divers Remarkable Proceedings the last Sessions of Parliament Relating to the HorriH Popish Plot Ttondon riOTT; ------An Impartial Account of the Nature and Tendency of the Late Addresses in a Letter to a Gentleman in theTbunfcry (London, liFiy. C. H. Josten, ed. Elias Ashmole. Ill and IV (London: , 1^66). Evelyn Caroline Legh, ed. Lyme Letters. 1660-1760 (London: William Heinemann, 19zB). Letter from a Gentleman of Quality in the Country to his Friend XLondon, 1679). A Letter from a Jesuit at Paris, to his Correspondent in London Shewing tKie~Hbst Effectual wav to Ruine The Government ana Protestant Religion (London. 1679). 109

A Letter to a Friend About the Late Proclamation on the 11th oFT)ecember 16/9 For further Proroguing £Ke Parliament I T U the ITth November next Ensuing. (London, ib8l)). A Letter Written to Dr. Burnet, Giving an Account of Cardi- naT Pool's SecreF Powers: From which it appears that* it was never intended to Confirm the AHenation that was Ha3e~of~lTbbey -Lands~~TLondon, i68 5). William Lloyd. The Late Apology in Behalf of the Papists Re-printed and Answered in BeEalf ot tKe Royalists XTondoii,"T6F7T.------. A Seasonable Discourse Shewing the Necessity ot Maintaining the Established Religion7 in Opposition to Popery (London, lb/3;. George de F. Lord, ed. Poems on Affairs of State. 1(1660- 78), (New Haven: Yale University Press, 19b3). Elias F. Mengel, Jr., ed. Poems on Affairs of State. II (1678-81), (New Haven: Yale“Uhiversity"Tress, 1965). Howard H. Schless, ed. Poems on Affairs of State. Ill (1682-5), (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1968). Lords' Journals, XI, XII, XIII. Narcissus Luttrell. A Brief Historical Relation of State Affairs, 1678-17T4. 1 (Oxford: Kjniversity Press, 1837). J. R. McCulloch, ed. Early English Tracts on Commerce. (Cambridge: University Press, 1934). James MacPherson, ed. Original Papers. I(London: W. Strahan & T. Cadell, 17/5). Robert MacWard. The English Balance Weighing the Reasons of England's Present Conjunction with Prance Against the Dutch (llohdon, ib/2). Thomas Manley. A Discourse Shewing That the Exportation of Wool is Destructive to this Kingdom (London, 16/7). H. M. Margoliouth, ed. Poems and Letters of Andrew Marvell. II (Oxford: Clarendon Press, Vill). 110

Francois A. Mignet. Negotiations Relatives & la succession d' Espagne sous Louis XlV. 4 vols. (FaFis: Imprimerie Royale, 1835T:------Alfred Morrison, ed. The Bulstrode Papers. 1 (London, 1897). John Oldham. Poems (Carbondale: Southern Illinois Univer­ sity Press, 1960). . England’s Great Interest in the Choice of This New Parliament (.London, 1679). Henry B. Wheatley, ed., The Diary of Samuel Pepys. 8 vols., (London, G. Bell &“5ohsTT725T.------John Phillips. The Character of a Popish Successor. II, (London, 1681;. A Plea for Succession in Opposition to Popular Exclusion (London, 1682). Poor Robin's Dream, or the Visions of Hell: with £ Dialogue ’Between the TwoHBhosts of Dr. TT and Capt. B. (London, i m y : — The Present State of Christendome and the Interest of England, with a Regard to France in a Letter to a Friend” TLondon / "1677 ) ------Religion and Loyalty Supporting Each Other, or a Rational Account How the Loyal Addressors MaintaIning*~EEe Lineal Descent of the Crown, iF~very Consistent with their Affection to the~~EstablTihed Protestant Reli­ gion. by a trueTon of the Church of England (London, 1681). Clayton Roberts, ed. "Sir Richard Temples' Discourse on the Parliament of 1667-8," Huntington Library Quarterly. XX (1956-7), 137-144. ------Caroline Robbins, ed. The Diary of John Milward. (Cam­ bridge : University Press,l93a7^ John Towill Rutt, lid. An Historical Account of My Own Life, by Edmund CaTainy, I (London: Colburn and Bentley, TB29). Ill

Thomas Samson. A Narrative of the Late Popish Plot in Ire­ land. for tKe Subjugating thereof to the FrenchTing TIondon7”l 5 F 0 ) ------George Savile, Marquess of Halifax. A Seasonable Address to Both Houses of Parliament Concerning the Succession, the Fear of Popery and Arbitrary Government (London,

Scandalum Magnaturn: Or Potapski1s Case. A Satire Against PoITsh oppression (London, 1682)7 A Seasonable Argument to Persuade all the Grand Jurries in England to Petition tor a Nfew PARLIAMENT: or a LislTof the PrincTpal Labourers Tn the Great DesigmofPopery and" Arbitrary Power, wno“TTave Betrayed TneirTbuntry to FKe Conspirators, and7Bargained'“with Them to Maintain a Standing Army in England, under the Command”of the Bigotteo PopisH~buke; who by the Assistance oF the Lord Lauderdale*s Scotch Army, FneHForces in Ireland, and* Those in France, Hopes to bring all Back to Rome (Amsterdam, lb/7; printed in William Cobbett, Parliamentary History, IV, Appendix III, xxi-xxii. Elkanah Settle. Azaria and Hushai (London, 1682). . The Character of a Popish Successor Complete TCondonri68TT7------______. The Medal Reversed. A Satire Against Perse­ cution (London, 1682). ______. A Vindication of the Character of a Popish Successor (London, 1681). Henry Sidney, Diary of of Charles the Second. 2 vols (London: Henry Colburn" 1843). . A True and Perfect Narrative of the Inhuman Practices of Jesuites andHPapists towards Protestants at Home and~Abroad (London, l6&U). John Somers. Plain Dealing is £ Jewel (London, 1682). Somers Tracts. VII & VIII (London: T. Cadell and W. Davies. 1812)7 Sir William Temple. Works. 2 vols (London: J. Round, 1731). ----- 112

E. M. Thompson, ed. Correspondence of the Family of Hatton. 2 vols (London: Camden Society" 1878). ______. The Letters of Humphrey Frldeaux to John Ellis (London: Camden Society, Id/5J7 Ralph Thoresby. Diary and Correspondence. Ill (London: Henry Colburn ana kichard Bentley, la32). The Trade of England Revived (London, 1681). The Trial of William Stayley. Goldsmith, for Speaking Treasonable Words Against His Most Sacred Maiesty {London, I678J:------Two Speeches Made in the House of Peers by the Earl of Shaftesbury (Hlgue, 168 0 ). Waldemar Westergaard, ed. The First Triple Alliance, the Letters of Christopher Lindenov, banish Envoy to London, TF68-i67Z(ltfew Haven, Yale University Press. 1947). ------William Williams, Information of Delivered at the Bar ot the house oF"Commons~kovember b, lb8t)' {London, 168TJ).

John H. Wilson, ed. The Rochester-Savile Letters (Columbus: The Ohio State University Press, 19^1). 113

Secondary Sources

W. C. Abbott. "English Conspiracy and Dissent, 1660-1674," American Historical Review. XIV (1908-9), 503-28, W b - 7 Z Z 7 ------"The of Charles II," English Historical Review. XXI (1906), 21-56, 254-85. Osmund Airy. The English Restoration and Louis XIV (New York: -Scribners, 18 V5). Georges Ascoli. La Grande-Bretagne devant V opinion Fran- caise au XVlTeT Sidcle. 2 vols. (Paris’: Librarle UniveriTtaire J. Camber, 1930). Maurice Ashley, , Plotter and Postmaster: A Study of the English Republican Movement in the “ Seventeenth Century (New Haven: Yale University PressT 1947):----- Violet Barbour. The Earl of Arlington (Oxford: University Press, 1914). ______. "Consular Service in the Reign of Charles 11," American Historical Review, XXXIII (1927-8), 553-78"!------John Bedford. London's Burning (London: Abelard-Schuman, 1966). ------Max Beloff. Public Order and Popular Disturbances, 1660- 1714 (London: FranF Cass &*Co., 19357!------Donald R. Benson. "Halifax and the Trimmers," Huntington Library Quarterly, XXVII (1963-4), 115-34. John Beresford. The Godfather of (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1920). Andre J. Bourde. "Louis XIV et 1'Angleterre," XVIIe Siicle. XLVII (1960), 54-83. Louise Brown. The First Earl of Shaftesbury (London: D. Appleton-Century to., 1933J. 114

Andrew Browning. Thomas Osborne, Earl of Danby and Duke of Leeds, I (Glasgow: Jackson, Son 6f"Co., 1951). . "Parties and Party Organization in the Reign of Charles II," Transactions of the Royal Histo­ rical Society. 4th Series XXX (iy4B7\ 21-36; ______, and Doreen J. Milne. "An Exclusion Bill Division List," Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research. XXIIITT95UJ7 2U5-ZT. Arthur Bryant. King Charles II (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1931JT"“^ ______. Samuel Pepys— The Years of Peril. (New York: Macmillan, 1935). Cambridge Modern History. Thomas Carte. The Life of James, Duke of Ormonde. IV (Oxford: University Press, 1851). Hester W. Chapman. Great Villiers (London: Seeker & War­ burg, 1949). ------W. D. Christie. The Earl of Shaftesbury. 2 vols. (Lon­ don: Macmillan, 187lJT Sir George Clark. The Later Stuarts, 1660-1714 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1955). Charles W. Cole. Colbert and a Century of French Mercanti­ lism, II (New York: Columbia University Press, 1939). D. C. Coleman. Sir John Banks, and Businessman: A Study of business, Politics and"Society in Later Stuart England (Oxford: Clarendon Press, TT63). Thomas P. Courtenay. Memoirs of the Life, Works, and Corres­ pondence of Sir William Temple. I-ll (London: Longman, Rees, Orme, Brown, Green and Longman, i836). W. Cunningham. Alien Immigrants to England (New York: Macmillan, T597T.------M. B. Curran. "Correspondence of an English Diplomatic Agent in Paris, 1669-77," Transactions of the Royal Historical Society. 2nd ser. XV (l901)~ 131-50. 115

Donald Dale. "Samuel Pepys and ," Notes and Queries. CLXXX (1941), 146-9. . "Charles II in 1660," Huntington Library Quarterly. XIX (1956), 245-75. . "The Conclusion of Dryden's Absalom and Achitophel," Huntington Library Quarterly. X (1946), 69-82. ______. "The Date of Britannia and Rawleigh," Huntington. Library Quarterly. IX (1946), 311-18. ______. "The Political Career of Sir Richard Temple (1634-97) and Buckingham Politics," Huntington Library Quarterly. IV (1940), 47-83. ' The Restoration of Charles II (San Marino, California: Huntington Library Publications, 1955). Ralph Davis. "English Foreign Trade, 1660-1700," Economic History Review. 2nd Series VII (1954-5), 150-bb. ' "Merchant Shipping in the Economy of the Late Seventeenth Century," Economic History Review. 2nd Series IX (1956), 59-771------E. S. DeBeer. "Absalom and Achitophel: Literary and Historical Notes," Review of English Studies. XVII (1941), 298-309. '------"Charles II and Louis XIV in 1683," English Historical Review XXXIX (1924), 86-9. . "Members of the Court Party in the House of Commons, 1670-1678," Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, Xl (1933-57> 1-23.” Dictionary of National Biography. Aytoun Ellis. The Universities. A History of Houses. (London: Seeker, Warburg,“1956). F. M. G. Evans. The Principal Secretary of State (Manchester: University Press, 1923). Keith Feiling. British Foreign Policy, 1660-1672 (London: Macmillan, THU)'------116

Keith Feiling. "Henrietta Stuart, Duchess of Orleans, and the Origins of the Treaty of Dover," English Historical Review. XLVII (1932), 642-5. ______. A History of the Tory Party, 1640-1714 (Ox- ford: Clarendon Press,”19124) . C. H. Firth. The Last Years of the Protectorate, 1656-8. 2 vols. (London: Longmans, Green & Co., l9u9). Joseph Foster, ed. Alunmi Oxonienses. I-IV (Oxford: Parker & Co., 1891-2). Peter Fraser. The Intelligence of the Secretaries of State and Their Monopoly or LicehsedTews, IbfeU-lbdaTCam- bridgel UniversityTress, 1956JI 0. W. Furley. "The Pope Burning Processions of the Late Seventeenth Century," History. N.S. XLIV (1959), 16-23.------. "The Whig Exclusionists: Pamphlet Literature in the Exclusion Campaign, 1679-81," Cambridge Histo- rical Journal, XIII (1957), 19-36. C. E. Fryer. "The Royal Veto Under Charles II," English Historical Review. XXXII (1917), 103-11. M. Dorothy George. "Elections and Electioneering, 1679- 81," English Historical Review. XLV (1930), 552-78. . English Political Caricature to 1792. A Study of Opinion and Propaganda. (Oxford: Clarendon Press,T 9 5 9 ) . ------Pieter Geyl. The Netherlands in the Seventeenth Century. II (London: Ernest 8enn, 1904). Hubert Gillot. Le Regne de Louis XIV et 1*opinion publique en Allemagne (Paris: 1914). Clyde L. Grose. "The Anglo-Dutch Alliance of 1678," English Historical Review. XXXIX (1924), 349-72, 52 8=517------"The Anglo-Portuguese Marriage of 1662," The Hispanic American Historical Review. X (1930), 311-52. 117

Clvde L. Grose. "Charles II of England," American Historical Review. XLIII (1939-8), 533-41. "The Dunkirk Money. 1662," Journal of Modern History. V (1933), 1-18. ------"England and Dunkirk," American Historical Hevlew. XXXIX (1933-4), 1-27. . "Louis XIV's Financial Relations with Charles 11 and the English Parliament," Journal of Modern History, I (1929), 177-204. K. H. D. Haley. "The Anglo-Dutch Rapproachment of 1677," English Historical Review. LXXI1I (1958), 614-48. . The First Earl of Shaftesbury (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968). . William of Orange and the English Opposi­ tion, lb>2-4, COxfortr Clarendon Press, 1953). D. G. E. Hall. "Anglo-French Trade Relations Under Charles II," History. N.S. VII (1922-3), 17-30. F. R. Harris. The Life of Edward Montagu, Earl of Sandwich. 2 vols. (London: John Murray, 1912). C. H. Hartmann. Charles II and Madame. (London: William Heinemann, 1934).

Gerald Bv Hertz. English Public Opinion After the Restora­ tion. (London: T. Fisher Unwin, T902). Henry Horwitz. Revolution Politicks. The Career of Daniel Finch SeconHHEiarl ot Nottingham, Ib74-l73u (Cambridge: University Press, 1968)". N. Japiske. "Louis XIV et la Guerre Anglo-Hollandaise," Revue Historique. XCVIII (1908), 22-60. J. R. Jones. The First Whigs: The Politics of the Exclu­ sion Crisis, 1678-1683 (London: Oxford University Press, 1961).------"The ," Durham University Journal. XLIX (1956-7), 17-20. ------118

J. R. Jones. "Shaftesbury's Worthy Men: A Whig View of The Parliament of 1679," Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research. XXX (1957), 752-41. C. H. Josten. Elias Ashmole. I (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1966).------J. J. Jusserand. English Essays from a French Pen (London: T. Fisher UnwinV l89b). ~ ______. A French Ambassador at the Court of Charles the Second' (London: T. Fisher Unwin, 1892). J. P. Kenyon. Robert Spencer, Earl of Suderland, 1641-1702 (London: Longman's, Green & Co., 1958). Shafaat Ahmad Khan. The East India Trade in the Seventeenth Century (Oxford: 'UniversityPress, 1973). James Kinsley. "The 'Three Glorious Victories' in 'Annus Mirabilis'," Review of English Studies. N.S. VII (1956), 29-371------Onno Klopp. Per Fall des Hauses Stuart. II (: Braumiller, 1575). Douglas Raymond Lacey. "Dissent and Parliamentary Politics in England, 1661-81," (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation/ Columbia University, 1959). . Titus Oates. (London: Andrew Dakers, 1949). Maurice Lee, Jr. The Cabal (Urbaha: University of Illinois Press, 1965). . "The Earl of Arlington and the Treaty of Dover," Journal of British Studies. I (1961*2), 58-70. Evelyn Caroline Legh. The House of Lyme (London: William Heinemann, 1917). E. Lipson. "The Elections to the Exclusion Parliaments, 1679-81," English Historical Review. XVIII (1913), 59-85. ------T. H, Lister. The Life and Administration of Edward, First Earl of Clarendon. Ill (London: Longman, Orme, Brown, Green and Longmans, 1837). 119

Sir Richard Lodge. "English Foreign Policy, 1660-1715," History. N. S. XV (1930-31), 296-307. George de F. Lord. "From Contemplation to Action: Marvell's Political Career." Philological Quarterly. XLVI (1967), 207-24.------. "Satire and : The Life and Work of John Avloffe," Huntington Library Quarterly, XXIX (1965-6), 255-73. ----- P. J. W. Van MAlssen. Louis XIV d'apres les pamphlets repandus en Hoilan?. Amsterdam: lv36. W. H. Manchee. "Church of St. Mary-the-Virgin, Charing Cross Road," Notes and Queries. CLXXIV (1938), 389. B. Martyn and Dr. Kippis. Life of the First Earl of Shaftesbury. I (London! Richard Bentley, 183F). A. E. Wallace Maurer. "Dryden's 'Absalom and Achitophel' 745-6," Explicator. XX (1961). . "Dryden's Knowledge of Historians, Ancient and Modern," Notes and Queries. CCIV (1959), 264-6. ------. "Who Prompted Dryden to Write 'Absa- lom and Achitophel'?," Philological Quarterly. XL (1961), 130-8.------Doreen J. Milne. "The with Special Reference to its Place in the Exclusion Contest and its Conse­ quences till 1685," Bulletin of the Institute of Histo­ rical Research. XXI11 (1950), 92-4. Joseph G. Muddiman. The King* s Journalist, 1659-1689 (Lon­ don: John Lane The Bodley Head,1923). Curtis Nettels. "England and the Spanish-American Trade, 1680-1715," Journal of Modern History, III (1931), 1-32. Donald Nicholas. Mr. Secretary Nicholas, 1593-1669: His Life and Letters (London: ttodley head, 1955). Allardyce Nicoll. "The Political Plays of the Restoration," Modern Language Review. XVI (1921), 224-42. 120

David Ogg. England in the Reign of Charles II. I (Oxford: Clarendonrress, 1935). ~ A. F. W. Papillon. Memoirs of Thomas Papillon (Reading: Joseph J. Beecroft, IBb/). Margaret Priestley. "Anglo-French Trade and the Unfavorable Balance Controversy, 1660-1685," Economic History Review. 2nd Series IV (1951-2), 37-52. "London Merchants and Opposition Politics In Charles 11's Reign," Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research. XXIX (1956), 205-19. Menna Prestwich. "Diplomacy and Trade in the Protectorate," Journal of Modern History. XXII (1950), 102-21. Margery Purver. The Royal Society: Concept and Creation (Cambridge, Mass.:M.I.T.Press, 196V;. C. Eden Quainton. " Lockhart and the Peace of the Pyrenees," Pacific Historical Review. IV (1935), 267- 80. B. McL. Ranft. "The Significance of the Political Career of Samuel Pepys," Journal of Modern History. XXIV (1952), 368-74.------Leopold von Ranke. A History of England Principally in the Seventeenth Century. Ill and IV (Hew York, AMs Press, 1966). Caroline Robbins. "A Note on General Naturalization Under the Later Stuarts," Journal of Modern History, XXXIV (1962), 168-77. ------______. "The Oxford Session of the Long Parliament of Charles II, 9-31 October, 1665," Bulletin of the Insti­ tute of Historical Research. XXI (1946-8), 214-257 Clayton Roberts. "The Growth of Ministerial Responsibility to Parliament in Later Stuart England," Journal of Modern History. XXVIII (1956), 215-33. ------______. The Growth of Responsible Government in Stuart England (Cambridge: University Press, 196FX. ______. "The Impeachment of the Earl of Clarendon," Cambridge Historical Journal. XIII (1957), 1-18. 121

Francis S. Ronalds. The Attempted Whig Revolution of 1678- 81, (Urbana: University o£ Illinois Press, T937). Enid M. G. Routh. "The Attempts to Establish a Balance of Power in Europe During the Second Half of the Seventeenth Century, 1648-1702," Transactions of the Royal Historical Society. 2nd Series XVllI (1W4), 33- 76. . "The English Occupation of Tangier, 1661-83," Transactions of the Royal Historical Society. 2nd Series, 5T^78\------H. H. Rowen. "Arnauld de Pomponne," American Historical Review. XLI (1955-6), 531-49. The Ambassador Prepares for War; The Dutch Embassy of Arnauld de Pomponne, 1669-71 (: M. Nijhoff, 1957). ______. "John de Witt and the Triple Alliance," Journal of Modern History. XXVI (1954), 1-14. J. H. M. Salmon. The French Religious Wars in English Poli­ tical Thought~^~Ox£ord: Clarendon Press, 1959). Dean Morgan Schmitter. "Marvell's Treasurer," Notes and Queries. CCIV (1959), 263-4. ______. "The Occasion for Marvell's 'Growth of Popery'," Journal of the History of Ideas. XXI (I960), 568-70. Sir John Seeley. Growth of British Policy (Cambridge: University Press, 1895). P. de Segur-Dupeyron. Histoire des negociations commerciales et maritime de la France aux XvTIe et ffPHIe Sifecles. I- (Paris, 1877). George E. Seney. "The Parliamentary Crisis of the Spring of 1678," (unpublished M.A. thesis, Ohio State University, 1965). William A. Shaw. "The English Government and the Relief of Protestant Refugees, English Historical Review. IX (1894), 662-83. ------122

Donal Smith. "The Political Beliefs of Andrew Marvell," University of Toronto Quarterly. XXXVI (1966), 55-67. John Harrington Smith. "Some Sources of Dryden's Toryism, 1682-4," Huntington Library Quarterly. XX (1957), 233-43. Jean Albert-Sorel. Histoire de France et d1Angleterre. (Amsterdam: H. Tuip, SwoTle, 1950J7 ~ W. J. Stankiewicz. Politics and Religion in Seventeenth Century France (Berkeley! University of California Press, i960). W. B. Stephens. Seventeenth Century Exeter, 1625-88. (Exeter: University of Exeter Press, 1958). Dorothy Stimson. Scientists and Amateurs. A History of the Royal Society (New York: Henry Schuman, 1948). J. R. Tanner. "Pepys and the Popish Plot," English Histori­ cal Review . VII (1892), 281-90. Victor L. Tapie. "Quelques aspects generaux de la etrangere de Louis XIV," XVIIe Siecle. XLVI (1960), 1-28. R. C. Thompson. "Officers, Merchants and Foreign Policy in the Protectorate of Oliver Cromwell," Historical Studies. XII (1966), 149-165. G. M. Trevelyan. England Under the Stuarts (London: Methuen & Sons, l926). A. S. Tuberville. "The House of Lords Under Charles II," English Historical Review. XLIV (1929), 400-17, and XEV TIF30) 58=777 ----- F. C. Turner. James II (London: Eyre & Spottiswood, 1948). W. S. Unger. "Trade Through the Sound in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries," Economic History Review. 2nd Series XII (1959), 206-TT Abbott Payson Usher. "Growth of English Shipping, 1572- 1922," Quarterly Journal of Economics. XLII (1927-8), 467-78.------123

John Venn & J. A. Venn, ed. Alumni Cantabrigiensis. Part I (I-IV), (Cambridge: University Press, 1927). David M. Vieth. "Rochester's 'Scepter' Lampoon on Charles II," Philological Quarterly. XXXVII (1958), 424-32. J. Walker. "The Censorship of the Press During the Reign of Charles II," History. N.S. XXXV (1950), 219-38. James Walker. "The English Exiles in Holland During the Reigns of Charles II and James II," Transactions of the Royal Historical Society. 4th Series 1XXX (19^8), TTT-25. L. N. Wall. "Marvell and the Third Dutch War," Notes and Queries. CCII (1957), 296-7. "Marvell's Friends in the City," Notes and Queries, CCIV (1959), 204-7. John M. Wallace. Destiny His Choice: The Loyalism of Andrew MarvelTT (Cambridge: University Press,“1968). C. V. Wedgewood. Poetry and Politics Under the Stuarts (Cambridge: University Press, I960). Seventeenth Century (Oxford: University Press, 1950). Charles Weiss. History of the French Protestant Refugees. I, (New York: Stringer and Townsend, 1854). Waldemar Westergaard. "A Danish Diplomat at the Court of Charles II," Pacific Historical Review. XI (1942), 1-18. ------Charles Wilson. Profit and Power (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1957)*:------John H. Wilson. Court Wits of the Restoration (Princeton: University Press, 1948). D. T. Witcombe. "The House of Commons: The Session of 1663," Bulletin of the Institute of Histo­ rical Research. XJOT "(19597,------______. Charles II and the Cavalier House of Commons 1663-1674 (Manchester; University Press, 1966).