drawn, amid loud complaints of the king against the conduct of the Commons. The question, however, did not end there, for grave suspicions were aroused among the leaders of the Opposition, or Country party, as they were called. A schism occurred even in the ranks of the Ministry, and Shaftesbury and Buckingham behaved more as though they were enemies, than members of the Government. A very widespread belief was growing up that the king meditated the restoration of Catholicism, and that the Declaration of Indulgence was but the prelude to far more dangerous and daring attempts.

If it be true, as the French ambassador stated, that Shaftesbury had been incautiously informed of the conclusion of the secret treaty with France without his advice or even knowledge, one of the provisions of which was that every effort was to be made to re-establish Catholicism in England, a ready explanation is furnished, both of his present ambiguous conduct and subsequent active opposition. He had supported the Declaration for the benefit of the Dissenters; but he would be no party to a popish plot. The general feeling that there was a popish plot on foot produced an act for preventing the increase of Catholicism, which is commonly known as the Test Act. It required all persons holding office under the Crown to take the Sacrament in the English form, in addition to the oaths of supremacy and allegiance, and to make a solemn declaration that they did not believe in the doctrine of transubstantiation. The latter point, involving a denial of a vital doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, would effectually exclude all Catholics. The act was double-edged-it attacked the Dissenters equally. The Dissenters, however, supported it zealously. Their views were expressed very clearly by Alderman Love, who declared that his party had no desire to claim admission to the Church; all that they wanted was freedom of worship, which could be granted by the indulgence of Parliament. The act passed rapidly through the Commons, with hardly the slightest opposition. In the Lords it was attacked severely by Lord Clifford, the Catholic leader of the Government, but it passed easily, owing to the open support of Buckingham and Shaftesbury. The results were very sweeping. Clifford,

the Lord High Treasurer, was obliged to resign his post; the Duke of York gave up the Admiralty; the Catholics were hopelessly excluded from all offices whatever.

Encouraged by this triumph, Parliament went still further, and impeached Buckingham, Arlington, and Lauderdale, three members of the fallen Ministry. It protested most energetically against the maintenance of a standing army. It brought such an amount of pressure to bear on the king with regard to his foreign policy, and criticised it so adversely and unsparingly in the debates on Supply of 1673-4, that he was compelled to break his engagements with France and conclude peace, in February, 1673-4. Finally it drew up a plan of a Habeas Corpus Act for the better security of the liberty of the subject, which was, however, rejected by the Lords. The result of the session was that, though none of these constitutional claims had been fought out, yet Parliament had given to the English Administration an entirely Protestant character, and had shown that it could interfere almost independently in the complications of Europe.

Clifford was succeeded by the Earl of Danby, who endeavored to neutralize opposition in Parliament by an elaborate system of bribery, the idea of which he had borrowed from his predecessors. The period of his government presents a very singular appearance to the historical student. Danby himself was opposed to the king's French policy; at the same time, regarding himself as the king's minister, he would not resist his commands directly, though he did all he could to thwart these projects indirectly. The Country party were anxious for war with France; at the same time they distrusted the king so heartily that they were afraid to grant him supplies to raise troops for the war, for fear he should use them to make himself supreme in the realm by military force; many of them too were undoubtedly in direct receipt of sums of money from Louis XIV. as an encouragement to continue this opposition, which was so useful to him. Charles himself had no real desire for war, and in fact was heavily paid for his neutrality; but he kept up a pretence of preparation in order to satisfy Danby and the Opposition. The result of this extraordinary position was that, after maintaining his majority with some difficulty for a short

time by dint of profuse bribery, Danby at last fell a victim to his mistaken views of his duty to his sovereign. The Commons were furnished with conclusive evidence that he had been instrumental in concluding a treaty of neutrality with France at a time when he was openly advocating war, and they promptly impeached him. Their violence was no doubt mainly due to their fears with regard to the designs of the Catholics, and they were goaded to frenzy by the disclosures known as the Popish Plot. This panic of rage and terror had already been productive (during the year 1678) of an act requiring all members of Parliament to take the declaration against transubstantiation, thus excluding the Catholic peers from the House of Lords for the first time in English history, an exception in favor of the Duke of York being only secured by two votes. The importance of Danby's impeachment was great, for it struck at the king through him. There was no doubt that he acted under the king's direct orders, and he produced the king's pardon for his deed. It was decided, however, that neither the king's order nor the king's pardon could be pleaded in bar of an impeachment. Custom and precedent were undoubtedly in favor of Danby; but the Commons were able to maintain the Whig theory that a minister is directly responsible to the nation for all acts done in his official capacity, and can no longer shelter himself from the consequences by pleading the will of the sovereign. During the preliminary stages of the impeachment the Commons endeavored to exclude the bishops from sitting in judgment, but without success; the Lords maintained their right, which was undoubtedly good in law. In the hope of saving Danby, Charles at last took the extreme measure of dissolving this Parliament. So ended the second Long Parliament, which had now sat for nearly eighteen years, and which had witnessed so many changes of feeling, from the fervid loyalty of the Restoration to the clamorous hostility during the Popish Plot.

SECTION 3.-Last Parliaments of Charles II. (1679-1685.)

The elections went dead against the Court. The Country party returned with a large majority, and immediately resumed the proceedings against Danby, declaring that an im

peachment was not affected by a dissolution-an entirely new, though highly practical doctrine. Moreover, convinced that the only way of securing the liberties of the country was to shut out the Duke of York from the succession, an Exclusion Bill was brought in to render a Catholic incapable of ascending the throne. An attempt was made by the Court to interpose a barrier between the king and the Commons, by reviving the power of the Privy Council, and re-establishing it on a sound basis. The scheme, however, failed entirely, and in order to avert the passing of the Exclusion Bill by the Commons, the king was obliged to prorogue and subsequently dissolve Parliament. In spite, however, of the violence which disgraced it, this Parliament of 1679 deserves an honorable remembrance for the securities which it provided against arbitrary infringements on the liberty of the subject, by passing the Habeas Corpus Act. A new Parliament was summoned to meet in October, 1679, but it assembled merely to be prorogued till January, 1679-80. All through the recess the Opposition kept up the most violent agitation against the Government, and as the year drew near to its close a large number of petitions, numerously signed, were sent up to the king, praying that Parliament might meet on the appointed day. The king's party, on the other hand, were not idle; and there was still deep-rooted in the hearts of the people a strong feeling of loyalty to the Crown, which was shocked by this unusual attempt to control its actions. In consequence, numerous other petitions were sent up to the king, expressing the utmost horror of the first petitions.

When Parliament at last met in October, it divided at once into two definite parties, who taunted their enemies as "Petitioners and "Abhorrers." Later these names were exchanged for the more modern ones of "Whigs" and "Tories" -the former drawn from the nickname given to the wildest and most uncompromising republican party in Scotland; the latter identifying the Royalists with the roughest and most uncivilized remnants of the old Irish, who clung obstinately to their ancient habits and laws, strongly resisting any attempt to force on them the English Constitution in Church and State; the point of the insult lying in each case in the fact that these extreme opinions were, of course, regarded by both

parties with equal abhorrence. At the opening of Parliament the Exclusion Bill was introduced once more, passed rapidly through the Commons, and sent up to the Lords. It was brought in by Lord Russell, who was accompanied by a number of members of the Lower House, the Lord Mayor, and other officials of the City. Many of the Peers were decidedly in favor of it; Shaftesbury, Essex, and Sunderland all spoke strongly in support of it. The bishops were at their wits' end, for they had been informed that the king particularly wished that a dispute between the two Houses should be averted. The discussion dragged slowly on in committee, and then Lord Halifax rose to speak- an old enemy of the Duke of York, and a strong opponent of the Papacy, but an equally firm upholder of hereditary right. The debate became a brilliant combat of eloquence between him and Shaftesbury; a rhetorical battle, the like of which was not to be seen again in the century. "Ah," said the old men, shaking their heads, when later generations marvelled at the eloquence of some rising statesman of the day, "but you should have heard Lord Halifax on the Exclusion Bill." In the end he prevailed, and the bill was rejected; but the Commons showed their rage and disappointment with so much violence that the king, in self-defence, was obliged to dissolve them, January 18, 1680-1. Their extravagant conduct, in fact, put them entirely in the wrong, and gave Charles the handle against them which he desired. The turn of the tide was really reached when the action of the "Petitioners” aroused the angry protests of the "Abhorrers." The loyalty of the country was rudely awakened and gathered steadily round the king. The rash attempt to deprive the Duke of York of his right, in favor of the illegitimate Monmouth, roused the most active enthusiasm for the royal house, and when Charles dismissed his Parliament the game was practically in his hands. After a last unsuccessful attempt at a compromise with a fresh Parliament at Oxford in March, he determined to rule without one, and so powerful was the Royalist reaction in favor of indefeasible right, that, after he had avenged himself on his enemies, he found himself able to dispense with Parliament during the last four years of his reign.