52 COUNCIL AND CABINET, 1679-88 January Charles had broken on many occasions his pledges to the public, but at least he had proved the truth of his statement (as far as important questions were concerned) to Ailesbury when discussing the reconstructed privy council : ' God's fish, they have put a set of men about me, but they shall know nothing.' l The failure of the ambitious scheme of which Temple claimed to be the sole author may be partly attributed to the distrust it aroused in the house of commons, 2 but its main cause was the dishonest character of the king. The composition of the council may have been faulty, but Charles could not have found thirty- three Englishmen of any considerable political standing who would have been willing to follow him along the crooked paths 'in which he delighted. In July 1679 Barillon wrote to Louis that the English king had begged him to ' incline your majesty to be willing to put England upon your dependence for ever '. 3 So long as Charles entertained such unworthy projects he could not afford to guide his policy by the advice of any duly con- stituted body. If, however, the privy council did not direct the royal policy it performed many important functions, although it is very difficult to give any summary which comprehends the extremely varied business transacted. In the first place, all proclamations were issued after approval by the council, which was formally responsible for them. It has been suggested that the frequency of orders in council instead of proclamations, which is charac- teristic of the period under review, is due to a desire to attach a personal responsibility by the publication of the names of those making the order. 4 Thus the direction to the clergy to read the second declaration of indulgence in all churches is contained in an order dated 4 May 1688, 5 but in general the political insigni- ficance of the subjects dealt with by orders does not support this suggestion. Secondly, the council dealt with crimes affecting the state, ordering the arrest of suspects, examining them, and either releasing them or committing them to prison to await trial. 6 Thirdly, the council acted as a kind of clearing-house for dissolution was agreed upon at a cabinet meeting held at Christ Church on Sunday night. The Part. Hist. iv. 1339 quotes the relevant passage. 1 Ailesbury's Memoirs, i. 35-6.
- Mr. E. R. Turner has printed extracts from the debates to prove this (ante,
xxx. 261). North goes so far as to state that the remodelling of the council ' soured and spoiled the parliaments and after that time all honest men were discouraged and no one good vote was given ' (Add. MS. 32520, fo. 251). Cf. Klopp, Der Fall des Hauses Stuart, ii. 202. 3 Dalrymple, Memoirs, ii. 230. 4 Tudor and Stuart Proclamations, ed. Steele and Crawford, cviii. There weresixteen orders issued April 1679-February 1685, and eight February 1685-December 1688. 5 Ibid. no. 3865. ' The most famous of these commitments ordering the imprisonment of the seven bishops is printed in Commons' Journals, x. 185.
