JAMES II. AND THE REBEL.

Waikato Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 2134, 13 March 1886, Page 2 (Supplement)

JAMES 11. AND THE REBEL.

1 Amoxg the incidents in connection with the Monmouth rebellion, and with what 1 was called the "Jeffreys Campaign," which some historians have thought worth ! recording, is that of a miserable-looking rebel, whose dreadful plight had been reported with vulprar and disgusting hilarity to the king, was brought by hi* Majesty's orders into tho Privy Council chamber. The rebel had been immured in a dark dungeon for several days, and had become so loathsome that to the infamous Jeffreys it was a delight to gibe at the miserable wretch, and secure him an audience with the king, that the depravity of the victim might be witnessed by his royal master. Out of evil good may come, however, and it so happened to the prisoner in this case. It is reported that " when he was brought into the council chamber he made so sad and sorrowful a figure, that all present were surprised and frightened, and he had so strong a. mnell by being to long confined that he was very offensive." Jeffreys bndgored the fellow, the king questioned him, and elicited that he bad been by no means an insignificant supporter of the rebellion. But from the fact that the rebel without hesitation answered his Majesty with straightforwardness nnd candour, he was liberated. The incident of the Monmouth rebellion is by no means an uninteresting chapter in history. James, Duke of Montnonth, wns the son of a mistress of Charles 11. , and was born at Rotterdam on the 4th of April, 1649. The question of his maternity was the cause of all future disturbances, culminating in the rebellion, and in his execution. Charles 11. adopted him, and from the "spoiled child of a wicked court," ho suddenly developed into n person of some political importance. This was in 1670, when, in fear of Charles having no legitimate issue, and James succeeding to the throne, it was urged that Charles should legitimise Monmouth, by a ;declaration of his marriage with the mother of ! the latter. Charles refused, but the antipopery spirit was so strong that Monmouth was urged to regard himself as the representative of Protestantism, while every effort was made to imbue the people with the idea that he was the Protestant duke. Honours were conferred 1 upon him, aud every endeavour made to induce Charles to declare his legitimacy, but these failed, and when James had his right to his succession formally acknowledged on his return from Brussels, Monmouth joined the exclusionists. Some writers think that he never went so far as to contemplate armed rebellion. However that may be, it is certain that after the death of Charles, and on the quiet I succession of James the IL, the crisis | came. Determined men enforced upon his weak nature the crude and ill-con-certed rebellion. He was the puppet of Argyll aud others, for among other things by whicn he demonstrated this was that he entered into a compact with his fellow-conspirators that, though he should lead the expedition ho should not have the crown without their consent, and if their consent were refused, he should accept what dignity or rank they chose to offer him. It was a farcical start to rouse the people in his favour. He had but a meagre following, the chiefs of which were the small knot of conspirators, and when Monmouth himself visited the west of England, where his previous triumphs had been, expecting to arouse the masses, the Protestant Dissenters, we are told, looked upon his arrival off Lyme Regis more with curiosity than sympathy. By gross allegations against James, which he caused to be proclaimed in the market-place, he gathered an undisciplined army of 1500 men, and succeeded in getting to Taunton, having taken Axminster. Parliament, meanwhile, had been active. The mere assertion of Monmouth's legitimacy was declared treason ; a large money reward was offered for his head, troops were despatched, and Monmouth'n forcrrn were soon demoralised. He himself attempted flight, but within a month of landing he was a prisoner in the Tower. His conduct afterwards was cowardly and unmanly — for his life he would grovel to James, in canting submission accept a change of religious faith ; but even the priest who examined him to that end declared that it was only his life, and not his soul that he cared for. He was executed at the age of thirty-six, on the 15th of July, 1655. "Thus ended this quandarn duke, darling of his father and the ladies, being extremely handsome and adroit, an excellent soldier and dancer, a favourite of the people, of an easy nature, debauched by lusts, seduced by crafty knaves, who would have set him up only to make a property, and took the opportunity of the king being of another religion to gather a party of discontented men. He failed and perished." — Evelyn.