summoned for January 22. When it met, the House of Commons passed two resolutions: (1) That James II., having endeavoured to subvert the constitution of the kingdom by breaking the original compact between king and people, and having by the advice of Jesuits and other wicked persons violated the fundamental laws, and having withdrawn himself out of the kingdom, had abdicated the government, and that the crown was thereby vacant; and (2) that experience has shown it to be inconsistent with the safety and welfare of this Protestant kingdom to be governed by a popish prince. The reference to experience in the second resolution marks exactly the difference between the strength of the Whig position in 1688 and its weakness in 1681. Of these resolutions, the latter was unanimously adopted by the peers; about the first there was more debate, occasioned by the dubious sense of the words 'original compact,' and by the question whether the throne could really be 'vacant.' Ultimately two parties appeared, one of which would immediately have offered the crown to William, the other would have retained the nominal sovereignty of James under a regency. The former was headed by Shrewsbury, Danby, and Halifax, and had a majority in the Commons; the latter, led by Nottingham, Clarendon, Rochester, and Sancroft, commanded a majority among the peers. As a compromise, it was suggested to make Mary queen; but this plan was unacceptable to William, who gave it to be plainly understood that he had not come to England 'to be his wife's gentleman usher.' After further debate, therefore, it was arranged that William and Mary should be asked to rule jointly, the actual work of government being, with Mary's full consent, reserved to her husband. That settled, the question arose whether an attempt should not be made to lay down the fundamental principles on which the English constitution was based, in order to create something of a 'compact.' To this many objections were urged, but eventually it was decided to embody in the offer of the crown a statement of James' unconstitutional actions, and of the rights of Englishmen under the constitution. This was the origin of the memorable Declaration of Right. This was Declaration accepted by William and Mary, who were declared king of Right. and queen on February 18, 1689; and thus the great crisis in our history, known as the Revolution, was brought to a successful conclusion. The The Declaration of Right, which afterwards was turned into an act of parliament under the title of the Bill of Rights, is one of the most important documents in English history. It brought to a close the great struggle between the king and the parliament, which had lasted nearly one hundred years, by defining the law on a number of disputed points, all of which had, during this period, been matters of protest on the side of the parliament. After taking, one by one, the chief unconstitutional acts of James II., it proceeded to make the following declarations: 1. The pretended power of suspending or dispensing with the laws, as assumed of late, is illegal, 2. The late Court of Ecclesiastical Commission, and all other such courts, are illegal. 3. Levying money by pretence of prerogative, without grant of parliament, is illegal. 4. Keeping a standing army in time of peace, unless with consent of parliament, is illegal. 5. Subjects have a right to petition the king. 6. The election of members of parliament ought to be free. 8. Excessive fines must not be imposed; and jurors, in cases for high 9. For redress of all grievances, and for the strengthening of the laws, parliament ought to be held frequently. 10. William and Mary were declared king and queen of England, and all who are papists, or who shall marry a papist, are declared incapable of possessing the crown. After the deaths of both William and Mary, the crown was to go to their children, if they had any; if not, to the Princess Anne and her children; and in case of their failure, to the children of William by any other wife. The effect of the Revolution was threefold. In the first place, it destroyed the Stuart theory of the divine right of kings, enunciated in its crudest form by Filmer in his de Patriarcha, by setting up a king and queen who owed their position to the choice of parliament. In the second, it gave an opportunity for reasserting the principles of the English constitution which it had been the aim of the Stuarts to set aside. In the third, it began what may be called the reign of parliament. Up to the Revolution there is no doubt that the guiding force in directing the policy of the nation had been the will of the king. Since the Revolu tion the guiding force has been the will of the parliament. CHAPTER VII WILLIAM AND MARY: 1689-1702 William, born 1650; married 1677. Mary, born 1662; died 1694. The Revolution in Scotland and Ireland-War with France-Rise of Party Government-Financial Measures-Treaty of Ryswick-The Partition Treaties-The Grand Alliance. IN character, the new sovereigns were the complement of each other. William, though beloved by his intimate friends, and admired far and wide for his abilities as a statesman and a soldier, was not likely to Character make a popular sovereign. Society he hated; talking, and all of William. indoor games he abhorred; and he found his chief recreation in the solitary sports of the chase, where, in spite of his frail constitution and asthmatic lungs, he always contrived to excel. Dauntless courage and resolute will made themselves visible in the fiery eyes, which shone out in striking contrast to his cadaverous face; but his thin figure and rickety frame had nothing about them to attract the admiration of the multitude. Nor were his habits more popular than his appearance. Brought up, as he had been, among those who were ready to put the most sinister interpretation upon his every word, a cold reserve had become part of his nature; but among his intimate friends, or when, in the excitement of battle, the mask was removed, he could be genial and witty enough. Even to his wife he maintained the same reserve of manner; and his paroxysm of agony when he was borne fainting from her deathbed was a surprise to almost all. In religion he cared little for outward forms, and showed to the full the Dutch genius for toleration; in theology his views were Calvinistic. In foreign policy he was chiefly animated by hostility to Louis XIV., whose ambition he rightly regarded as dangerous to both civil and religious liberty, to the welfare of England and Holland, and to the balance of power. At home he detested party struggles, was simply desirous of finding expedients for securing a stable and consistent policy, and for bringing the force of a united England to bear upon foreign affairs. Being, therefore, neither a genial king, a good Englishman, a good churchman, a stout Whig or a hearty Tory, he failed to secure the popularity that would have been readily given to many an inferior man. Mary, on the other hand, with not a tithe of William's ability, was as genial and affable in society as her husband was the reverse, and her Character simple piety, purity of life, and munificent charities, gained of Mary. for her a love and admiration to which he could make no pretence. Like William, however, she hated idleness, and the court of the Revolution, under the guidance of a queen 'who made the ladies about her ashamed to be idle,' soon presented a marked contrast to the Whitehall of Charles and James. In person she was 'majestic,' her expression noble, her courage serene; and if her intelligence was not of the highest order, she showed herself in no way wanting in capacity when, in the absence of her husband, she was called on at several important crises to act alone. In the early years that followed 1688, the new sovereigns, as a pair, were probably stronger than either would have been without the other; and the popularity of Mary, as the direct representative of the house of Stuart, was a matter of the first political importance. Though the ultimate result of the Revolution was to place the real choice of ministers in the hands of parliament, neither William nor Choice of his subjects doubted that the duty of choosing the minisMinisters. ters rested solely with him. With neither Whigs nor Tories was William in complete sympathy. While his views on foreign affairs inclined him to the Whigs, who agreed with him that it was better to fight Louis abroad than to give him peace to arrange an invasion of England, his wish for a strong executive inclined him to the Tories, whose principles were favourable to prerogative. Moreover, he was well aware that he owed his place to a temporary alliance between the Whigs and the Tories, so that he could not afford to alienate either; and his common sense showed him that no ministry would be effective which did not command the goodwill and respect of the House of Commons. Accordingly he tried to conciliate all parties. He chose his first ministry from the leaders of both political camps; and by putting the treasury, the admiralty, and the chancery into commission, he endeavoured to satisfy as many as possible of the greedy claimants for office by whom he was surrounded. William himself acted as secretary for foreign affairs and as commander-in-chief; Danby became |