the Church of England and the other Reformed Churches.* It was necessary, therefore, that the Cavaliers should, at this conjuncture, follow the example set by their fathers in 1641; should draw off from Roundheads and sectaries; and should, in spite of all the faults of the hereditary monarch, uphold the cause of hereditary monarchy.

The body which was animated by these sentiments was large and respectable. It included about one half of the House of Lords, about one third of the House of Commons, a majority of the country gentlemen, and at least nine tenths of the clergy; but it was torn by dissensions, and beset on every side by difficulties.

One section of this great party-a section which was especially strong among divines, and of which Sherlock was the chief organ-wished that a negotiation should be opened with James, and that he should be invited to return to Whitehall on such conditions as might fully secure the civil and ecclesiastical constitution of the realm.t It is evident that this plan, though strenuously supported by the clergy, was altogether inconsistent with the doctrines which the clergy had been teaching during many years. It was, in truth, an attempt to make a middle way where there was no room for middle way, to effect a compromise between two things which do not admit of compromise, resistance and non-resistance. The Tories had formerly taken their stand on the principle of non-resistance; but that ground most of them had now abandoned, and were not disposed again to occupy. The Cavaliers of England had, as a class, been so deeply concerned, directly or indirectly, in the late rising against the king, that they could not, for very shame, talk at that moment about the sacred duty of obeying Nero; nor, indeed, were they disposed to recall the prince under whose misgovernment they had suffered so much, without exacting from him terms which might make it impossible for him again

* Albeville, Nov., 1688.

See the pamphlet entitled Letters to a Member of the Convention, and the answer, 1689; Burnet, i., 809.

to abuse his power. They were, therefore, in a false position. Their old theory, sound or unsound, was at least complete and coherent. If that theory were sound, the king ought to be immediately invited back, and permitted, if such were his pleasure, to put Seymour and Danby, the Bishop of London and the Bishop of Bristol, to death for high treason, to re-establish the Ecclesiastical Commission, to fill the Church with popish dignitaries, and to place the army under the command of popish officers; but if, as the Tories themselves now seemed to confess, that theory was unsound, why treat with the king? If it was admitted that he might lawfully be excluded till he gave satisfactory guarantees for the security of the constitution in Church and State, it was not easy to deny that he might lawfully be excluded forever. For what satisfactory guarantee could he give? How was it possible to draw up a statute in language clearer than the language of the statutes which required that the dean of Christ Church should be a Protestant? How was it possible to put any promise into words stronger than those in which James had repeatedly declared that he would strictly respect the legal rights of the Anglican clergy? If law or honor could have bound him, he would never have been forced to fly from his kingdom. If neither law nor honor could bind him, could he safely be permitted to return?

It is probable, however, that, in spite of these arguments, a motion for opening a negotiation with James would have been made in the Convention, and would have been supported by the great body of Tories, had he not been on this, as on every other occasion, his own worst enemy. Every post which arrived from Saint Germain's brought intelligence which damped the ardor of his adherents. Ho did not think it worth his while to simulate regret for his past errors, or to promise amendment. He put forth a manifesto, telling his people that it had been his constant care to govern them with justice and moderation, and that they had been cheated into ruin by

..

Fore, in a fale und, was

were soun

k, and sema our and D

Bristalt

lesiastica

guitaris

popist

ned to as

the

e exec

ecur

easy

Fra

er the

the dea

OF TH

the

imaginary grievances.* The effect of his folly and ob-
stinacy was, that those who were most desirous to see
him restored to his throne on fair conditions felt that, by
proposing at that moment to treat with him, they should
injure the cause which they wished to serve. They there-
fore determined to coalesce with another body of Tories
of whom Sancroft was the chief. Sancroft fancied that

he had found out a device by which provision might be
made for the government of the country without recall-
ing James, and yet without despoiling him of his crown.
This device was a regency. The most uncompromising
of those divines who had inculcated the doctrine of pass-
ive obedience had never maintained that such obedience
was due to a babe or to a madman. It was universally
acknowledged that, when the rightful sovereign was in-
tellectually incapable of performing his office, a deputy
might be appointed to act in his stead, and that any per-
son who should resist the deputy, and should plead as an
excuse for doing so the command of a prince who was in
the cradle, or who was raving, would justly incur the pen-
alties of rebellion. Stupidity, perverseness, and supersti-
tion-such was the reasoning of the primate-had made
James as unfit to rule his dominions as any child in swad-
dling clothes, or as any maniac who was grinning and
chattering in the straw of Bedlam. That course must
therefore be taken which had been taken when Henry the
Sixth was an infant, and again when he became lethar-
gic. James could not be king in effect, but he must still
continue to be king in semblance. Writs must still run
in his name. His image and superscription must still ap-
pear on the coin and on the great seal. Acts of Parlia-
ment must still be called from the years of his reign; but
the administration must be taken from him, and confided
to a regent named by the estates of the realm. In this
way, Sancroft gravely maintained, the people would re-
main true to their allegiance; the oaths of fealty which
Letter to the Lords of the Council, Jan. 4, 1683; Clarendon's Diary,
Jan. 1

1

they had sworn to their king would be strictly fulfilled; and the most orthodox Churchmen might, without any scruple of conscience, take office under the regent.*

The opinion of Sancroft had great weight with the whole Tory party, and especially with the clergy. A week before the day for which the Convention had been summoned, a grave party assembled at Lambeth Palace, heard prayers in the chapel, dined with the primate, and then consulted on the state of public affairs. Five suffragans of the archbishop, who had shared his perils and his glory in the preceding summer, were present. The Earls of Clarendon and Ailesbury represented the Tory laity. The unanimous sense of the meeting appeared to be that those who had taken the oath of allegiance to James might justifiably withdraw their obedience from him, but could not with a safe conscience call any by the name of king.†

other

* It seems incredible that any man should really have been imposed upon by such nonsense. I therefore think it right to quote Sancroft's words, which are still extant in his own hand-writing:

"The political capacity or authority of the king, and his name in the gov ernment, are perfect, and can not fail; but his person being human and mortal, and not otherwise privileged than the rest of mankind, is subject to all the defects and failings of it. He may therefore be incapable of directing the government and dispensing the public treasure, &c., either by absence, by infancy, lunacy, deliracy, or apathy, whether by nature or casual infirmity, or, lastly, by some invincible prejudices of mind, contracted and fixed by education and habit, with unalterable resolutions superinduced, in matters wholly inconsistent and incompatible with the laws, religion, peace, and true policy of the kingdom. In all these cases (I say) there must be some one or more persons appointed to supply such defect, and vicariously to him, and by his power and authority, to direct public affairs. And this done, I say further, that all proceedings, authorities, commissions, grants, &c., issued as formerly, are legal and valid to all intents, and the people's allegiance is the same still, their oaths and obligations no way thwarted. . . . So long as the government moves by the king's authority, and in his name, all those sacred ties and settled forms of proceedings are kept, and no man's conscience burdened with any thing he needs scruple to undertake."—Tanner MS.; Doyly's Life of Sancroft. It was not altogether without reason that the crea tures of James made themselves merry with the good archbishop's English • Evelyn, Jan. 15, 1688.

Thus two sections of the Tory party, a section which looked forward to an accommodation with James and a section which was opposed to any such accommodation, agreed in supporting the plan of regency. But a third section, which, though not very numerous, had great weight and influence, recommended a very different plan. The leaders of this small band were Danby and the Bishop of London in the House of Lords, and Sir Robert Sawyer in the House of Commons. They conceived that they had found out a way of effecting a complete revolution under strictly legal forms. It was contrary to all principle, they said, that the king should be deposed by his subjects; nor was it necessary to depose him. He had himself, by his flight, abdicated his power and dignity. A demise had actually taken place. All constitutional lawyers held that the throne of England could not be one moment vacant. The next heir had therefore succeeded. Who, then, was the next heir? As to the infant who had been carried into France, his entrance into the world had been attended by many suspicious circumstances. It was due to the other members of the royal family and to the nation that all doubts should be cleared up. An investigation had been solemnly demanded, in the name of the Princess of Orange, by her husband, and would have been instituted if the parties who were accused of fraud had not taken a course which, in any ordinary case, would have been considered as a decisive proof of guilt. They had not chosen to await the issue of a solemn parliamentary proceeding; they had stolen away into a foreign country; they had carried with them the child; they had carried with them all those French and Italian women of the bed-chamber who, if there had been foul play, must have been privy to it, and who ought, therefore, to have been subjected to a rigorous cross examination. To admit the boy's claim without inquiry was impossible; and those who called themselves his parents had made inquiry impossible. Judgment must therefore go against him by default. If he was wronged, he was