PRETENDER’S MANIFESTO.

Meanwhile the number of malcontents in England was considerably increased by the king’s attachment to the whig faction. The clamour of the church’s being in danger was revived; jealousies were excited; seditious libels dispersed; and dangerous tumults raised in different parts of the kingdom. Birmingham, Bristol, Chippenham, Norwich, and Reading, were filled with licentious riot. The party cry was, “Down with the whigs! Sacheverel for ever!” Many gentlemen of the whig faction were abused; magistrates in towns, and justices in the country, were reviled and insulted by the populace in the execution of their office. The pretender took this opportunity to transmit, by the French mail, copies of a printed manifesto to the dukes of Shrewsbury, Marlborough, Argyle, and other noblemen of the first distinction. In this declaration he mentioned the good intentions of his sister towards him, which were prevented by her deplorable death. He observed that his people, instead of doing him and themselves justice, had proclaimed for their king a foreign prince, contrary to the fundamental and incontestable laws of hereditary right, which their pretended acts of settlement could never abrogate. These papers being delivered to the secretaries of state, the king refused an audience to the marquis de Lamberti, minister from the duke of Lorraine, on the supposition that this manifesto could not have been prepared or transmitted without the knowledge and countenance of his master. The marquis having communicated this circumstance to the duke, that prince absolutely denied his having been privy to the transaction, and declared that the chevalier de St. George came into Lorraine by the directions of the French king, whom the duke could not disoblige without exposing his territories to invasion. Notwithstanding this apology, the marquis was given to understand that he could not be admitted to an audience until the pretender should be removed from the dominions of his master; he therefore quitted the kingdom without further hesitation. Religion was still mingled in all political disputes. The high churchmen complained that impiety and heresy daily gained ground from the connivance, or at least the supine negligence, of the whig prelates. The lower house of convocation had, before the queen’s death, declared that a book published by Dr. Samuel Clarke, under the title of “The Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity,” contained assertions contrary to the catholic faith. They sent up extracts from this performance to the bishops, and the doctor wrote an answer to their objections. He was prevailed upon to write an apology, which he presented to the upper house; but apprehending it might be published separately, and misunderstood, he afterwards delivered an explanation to the bishop of London. This was satisfactory to the bishops; but the lower house resolved that it was no recantation of his heretical assertions. The disputes about the Trinity increasing, the archbishops and bishops received directions, which were published, for preserving unity in the church, the purity of the christian faith concerning the holy Trinity, and for maintaining the peace and quiet of the state. By these every preacher was restricted from delivering any other doctrine than what is contained in the holy scriptures with respect to the Trinity, and from intermeddling in any affairs of state or government. The like prohibition was extended to those who should write, harangue, or dispute on the same subjects.

GEORGE I, 1714—1727