acter, still plainly discernible after the lapse of a hundred and sixty years, had sent him to the Convention; and he sat there, in his modest greatness, the unobtrusive but unflinching friend of civil and religious freedom.

The first act of the Commons was to choose a speaker, and the choice which they made indicated in a manner not to be mistaken their opinion touching the great questions which they were about to decide. Down to the very eve of the meeting it had been understood that Seymour would be placed in the chair. He had formerly sat there during several years. He had great and various titles to consideration, descent, fortune, knowledge, experience, eloquence. He had long been at the head of a powerful band of members from the western counties. Though a Tory, he had in the last Parliament headed, with conspicuous ability and courage, the opposition to popery and arbitrary power. He had been among the first gentlemen who had repaired to the Dutch head-quarters at Exeter, and had been the author of that association by which the prince's adherents had bound themselves to stand or fall together. But, a few hours before the houses met, a rumor was spread that Seymour was against declaring the throne vacant. As soon, therefore, as the benches had filled, the Earl of Wiltshire, who represented Hampshire, stood up, and proposed that Powle should be speaker. Sir Vere Fane, member for Kent, seconded the motion. plausible objection might have been raised, for it was known that a petition was about to be presented against Powle's return; but the general cry of the House called him to the chair, and the Tories thought it prudent to acquiesce. The mace was then laid on the table, the list of members was called over, and the names of the defaulters were noted.

Meanwhile the peers, about a hundred in number, had met, had chosen Halifax to be their speaker, and had appointed several eminent lawyers to perform the functions

A

J

which, in regular Parliaments, belong to the judge. There was, in the course of that day, frequent communication between the houses. They joined in requesting that the prince would continue to administer the government till he should hear further from them, in expressing to him their gratitude for the deliverance which he, under God, had wrought for the nation, and in directing that the thirtyfirst of January should be observed as a day of thanksgiving for that deliverance.*

Thus far no difference of opinion had appeared; but both sides were preparing for the conflict. The Tories were strong in the Upper House, and weak in the Lower; and they knew that, at such a conjuncture, the house which should be the first to come to a resolution would have a great advantage over the other. There was not the least chance that the Commons would send up to the Lords a vote in favor of the plan of regency; but, if such a vote were sent down from the Lords to the Commons, it was not absolutely impossible that many even of the Whig representatives of the people might be disposed to acquiesce rather than take the grave responsibility of causing discord and delay at a crisis which required union and expedition. The Commons had determined that, on Monday, the twenty-eighth of January, they would take into consideration the state of the nation. The Tory Lords therefore proposed, on Friday, the twenty-fifth, to enter instantly on the great business for which they had been called together; but their motives were clearly discerned and their tactics frustrated by Halifax, who, ever since his return from Hungerford, had seen that the settlement of the government could be effected on Whig principles only, and who had therefore, for the time, allied himself closely with the Whigs. Devonshire moved that Tuesday, the twenty-ninth, should be the day. "By that time," he said, with more truth than discretion, "we may have some lights from below which may be useful for our guidance."

* Lords' and Commons' Journals, Jan. 22, 1688; Citters and Clarendon's Diary of the same date.

His motion was carried, but his language was severely
censured by some of his brother peers as derogatory to
their order.*

On the twenty-eighth the Commons resolved themselves
into a committee of the whole house. A member who had,
more than thirty years before, been one of Cromwell's lords,
Richard Hampden, son of the great leader of the Round-
heads, and father of the unhappy man who had, by large
bribes and degrading submissions, narrowly escaped with
life from the vengeance of James, was placed in the chair,
and the great debate began.

It was soon evident that an overwhelming majority con-
sidered James as no longer king. Gilbert Dolben, son of
the late Archbishop of York, was the first who declared
himself to be of that opinion. He was supported by many
members, particularly by the bold and vehement Whar-
ton, by Sawyer, whose steady opposition to the dispensing
power had in some measure atoned for old offenses, by
Maynard, whose voice, though so feeble with age that it
could not be heard on distant benches, still commanded
the respect of all parties, and by Somers, whose luminous
eloquence and varied stores of knowledge were on that day.
exhibited, for the first time, within the walls of Parlia-
ment. The unblushing forehead and voluble tongue of
Sir William Williams were found on the same side. Al-
ready he had been deeply concerned in the excesses both
of the worst of oppositions and of the worst of governments.
He had persecuted innocent papists and innocent Protes-
tants. He had been the patron of Oates and the tool of
Petre. His name was associated with seditious violence,
which was remembered with regret and shame by all re-
spectable Whigs, and with freaks of despotism, abhorred
by all respectable Tories. How men live under such in-
famy it is not easy to understand; but even such infa-
my was not enough for Williams. He was not ashamed
to attack the fallen tyrant to whom he had hired himself
out for work which no honest man in the Inns of Court
* Lords' Journals, Jan. 25, 168§; Clarendon's Diary, Jan. 23, 25.

II

would undertake, and from whom he had, within six months, accepted a baronetcy as the reward of servility.

Only three members ventured to oppose themselves to what was evidently the general sense of the assembly. Sir Christopher Musgrave, a Tory gentleman of great weight and ability, hinted some doubts. Heneage Finch let fall some expressions which were understood to mean that he wished a negotiation to be opened with the king. This suggestion was so ill received that he made haste to explain it away. He protested that he had been misapprehended. He was convinced that, under such a prince, there could be no security for religion, liberty, or property. To recall King James, or to treat with him, would be a fatal course; but many who would never consent that he should exercise the regal power had conscientious scruples about depriving him of the royal title. There was one expedient which would remove all difficulties-a regency. This proposition found so little favor that Finch did not venture to demand a division. Richard Fanshaw, Vis count Fanshaw of the kingdom of Ireland, said a few words in behalf of James, and recommended an adjourn ment; but the recommendation was met by a general outMember after member stood up to represent the importance of dispatch. Every moment, it was said, was precious; the public anxiety was intense; trade was suspended. The minority sullenly submitted, and suffered the predominant party to take its own course.

cry.

What that course would be was not perfectly clear, for the majority was made up of two classes. One class consisted of eager and vehement Whigs, who, if they had been able to take their own course, would have given t the proceedings of the Convention a decidedly revolutionary character. The other class admitted that a revolution was necessary, but regarded it as a necessary evil, and were desirous to disguise it, as much as possible, under the show of legitimacy. The former class wished for a distinct recognition of the right of subjects to dethrone bad princes. The latter class wished to rid the country of one

bad prince without promulgating any doctrine which might be abused for the purpose of weakening the just and salutary authority of future monarchs. The former class dwelt chiefly on the king's misgovernment, the latter on his flight. The former class considered him as having forfeited his crown, the latter as having resigned it. It was not easy to draw up any form of words which would please all whose assent it was important to obtain; but at length, out of many suggestions offered from different quarters, a resolution was framed which gave general satisfaction. It was moved that King James the Second, having endeavored to subvert the Constitution of the kingdom by breaking the original contract between king and people, and, by the advice of Jesuits and other wicked persons, having violated the fundamental laws, and having withdrawn himself out of the kingdom, had abdicated the government, and that the throne had thereby become vacant.

This resolution has been many times subjected to criticism as minute and severe as was ever applied to any sentence written by man; and perhaps there never was a sentence written by man which would bear such criticism less. That a king, by grossly abusing his power, may forfeit it, is true. That a king who absconds without making any provision for the administration, and leaves his people in a state of anarchy, may, without any violent straining of language, be said to have abdicated his functions, is also true; but no accurate writer would affirm that long-continued misgovernment and desertion, added together, make up an act of abdication. It is evident, too, that the mention of the Jesuits and other evil advisers of James weakens, instead of strengthening, the case against him; for surely more indulgence is due to a man misled by pernicious counsel than to a man who goes wrong from the mere impulse of his own mind. It is idle, however, to examine these memorable words as we should examine a chapter of Aristotle or of Hobbes. Such words are to be considered, not as words, but as deeds. If they effect that which they are intended to effect, they