more; and you are now in the right way to it, when you come with the solemnities of thanksgiving to offer up your acknowledgments to that Fountain of Life to whom you owe this new lease of your own."1 The Bishop of St. Asaph, whose political sympathies have been indicated, was appointed to preach before the Lords at Westminster Abbey on the 31st, but according to Clarendon, Mr. Gee took his place.2 The House of Commons, after the customary formalities, and the election of Mr. Powle as Speaker, and an expression of concurrence in the Lords' order respecting day of thanksgiving, proceeded, on the 28th, to debate on the state of the nation. Amidst multifarious topics, Popery, the Church, and the divine right of kings were prominent; and the next day Colonel Birch, the Puritan, gave his view of past and present struggles by saying, "These forty years we have been scrambling for our religion, and have saved but little of it. We have been striving against Antichrist, Popery, and Tyranny." 3 The House voted that King James II., having endeavoured to subvert the constitution of this kingdom by breaking the original contract between King and people, and, by advice of Jesuits and other wicked persons, having violated the fundamental laws, and withdrawn himself out of the Kingdom, had abdicated the government, and that the throne was thereby vacant. next day it was resolved that it had been found by experience to be inconsistent with the safety and welfare of this Protestant Kingdom to be governed by a Popish Prince. Quoted in Lathbury's Hist. of Convocation, 317. 2 Journals of Lords. Compare The Clarendon's Diary and Correspondence, ii. 257. 3 Parl. Hist., v. 51. Thanks were given to the clergymen who had assailed Popery, and had refused to read the King's Declaration.1 Things deemed necessary for better securing religious liberty and law were reported from a Committee, who particularly specified, "effectual provision to be made for the liberty of Protestants in the exercise of their religion, and for uniting all Protestants in the matter of public worship as far as may be "-in which provision, are found germs of the Toleration and Comprehension Bills. The Lords at once agreed with the Commons in their vote for a Protestant succession; but about the vote declaring the throne vacant, much discussion arose. Without formally admitting that the throne was vacantonly for the present supposing it to be so they wished to determine, first, whether supreme power for the present ought to be devolved on a Regent or on a King. This point had been keenly debated by Sancroft and his brethren. He was not present now, but they were; and in the minority of 49 for a Regency against 51 for a King, occur the names of thirteen Prelates, including the Bishop of St. Asaph, who in this matter had not been. "wheedled" by Burnet, as Clarendon surmised. Indeed, the prejudice conceived against a deposing power, as a Popish art, had so impressed the minds of the Clergy, that no Bishop approved of filling the throne anew, except the Bishops of London and Bristol.2 The question raised in an abstract form-whether or no there was an original contract between King and people-involved a controversy touching divine right, which most of the Bishops had maintained. For the principle of a social 1 The thanks were conveyed to the two Archbishops, who acknowledged them, repeating expressions of attachment to Protestantism, which they again pronounced "absolutely irreconcilable both to Popery and arbitrary power." Gutch, i. 447. 2 Parl. Hist., v. 59. compact, 53 Peers voted against 46, the Bishops being included amongst the latter. The idea of a contract being adopted, nobody could dispute that James had broken it; but the Peers decided to substitute the words, "deserted the Government," for the Commons' phrase, "abdicated the Government;" nor would the majority allow the word vacant to stand, inasmuch as, by a constitutional fiction, the King never dies; and in the present case, so some contended, the Crown legitimately devolved upon the Princess of Orange-the claim of the infant Prince of Wales being given up by all parties. The two Houses were thus at issue on a fundamental point; and the London citizens became alarmed. The dispute found its way into the coffee-houses, into groups walking and lounging in the parks, and into private families, Whigs and Tories debating the problem as a vital one. The people assembled at the doors of the Convention to present petitions for the accession of William and Mary to the throne; they loaded with curses members crossing the threshold, or showered upon them benedictions, according as they believed them to stand affected towards the momentous matter in dispute.1 A conference ensued between the Houses. The Bishop of Ely strenuously argued against using the word abdication, or regarding the throne as vacant; he hoped that Lords and Commons would agree in this, not to break the line of succession, not to make the Crown elective.2 He wished to save the divine right. By some persons the idea was entertained of making William sole King-an idea which Burnet resisted, heart and soul, in a conversation held with Bentinck, the Prince's principal friend. Amidst the heats of this debate, the Prince thought it time for 1 Dalrymple, i. 267. 2 Parl. Hist., v. 75. 3 Burnet, i. 818. him to express his sentiments. It had been proposed, he said, to settle the Government in the hands of a Regent; -that might be a wise project. It had also been suggested that the Princess should succeed to the throne, and that he, by courtesy, might share in her power. Her rights he would not oppose, her virtues he respected. But for himself, he would accept no dignity dependent upon the life of another, or on the will of a woman. Should either of the schemes be adopted, he would return to Holland, satisfied with the consciousness of having endeavoured to serve England, though in vain.1 William's decision took effect, and the conference ended in dropping what was theoretical, and in coming to a practical resolution-that the Prince and Princess of Orange should be declared King and Queen. The Lords carried this by 62 against 47. Forty of the latter protested, amongst whom were twelve out of the seventeen Bishops present. The five who went with the majority were Compton, Lloyd of St. Asaph, Sprat, Hall, and Crew. Crew, the time-serving Bishop of Durham, had supported James in his obnoxious measures, had fled at the outbreak of the Revolution, had been lurking on the coast for a vessel to convey him abroad, and had returned in time to secure the advantage of supporting the new Sovereign. It has often been said that the Bishops accomplished the Revolution. No doubt the seven imprisoned in the Tower brought on the crisis which terminated in the new settlement, and so far were the authors of the change. Certain of the brethren contributed, in the way I have described, to terminate the despotism of James II., but all the seven decidedly disapproved of the Prince of Orange being constituted King, and two 1 Dalrymple, i. 269. 2 Hallam's Const. Hist., ii. 256. r thirds of the other Bishops agreed with them in this respect. The Commons would not unite in the settlement approved by the Lords until they had carefully asserted the fundamental principles upon which they based the Revolution. The Declaration of Right, embodying these principles, having recited the unconstitutional acts of James-his endeavours to extirpate the Protestant religion, and to subvert the laws and liberties of the kingdom-goes on to state that the Prince of Orange had summoned the Convention, which Convention did now specify the ancient liberties of the English people. Amongst them appear the right of petition, freedom of Parliamentary debate, and the duty of the Crown frequently to call together the representatives of the people.1 William and Mary are then solemnly declared to be King and Queen; the succession is determined to be in the issue of the latter; in default of such issue, in Anne of Denmark and her heirs; in default of her issue, then in the heirs of the King. In this Parliamentary transaction two things appear, which have been ever kept in sight under Anglo-Saxon and Anglo-Norman dynasties, namely, hereditary right and popular election. That the crown should pass from a Monarch to one of his own blood had been a funda It is not my province to discuss the political aspect of the Revolu tion; but I hope I shall be forgiven for quoting the following passage by a distinguished Frenchmen, M. d'Pressensé; it is gratifying to all Englishmen and Americans:"I call restorative the Government of a William III., or the Presidency of a Washington, because these great, good men have established society on respect for right, and have given |