Shaftesbury drove him from office, and the dissolution of the second Long Parliament saved him from the results of an impeachment; he however was continued a prisoner in the Tower, till released shortly after the accession of James. Danby took a prominent part in the Revolution, and was rewarded with the higher title of Marquis of Caermarthen, and subsequently that of Duke of Leeds. His death took place in 1712. Hallam observes, "We owe to Danby's influence, it must ever be remembered, the marriage of the princess Mary to the prince of Orange, the seed of the revolution and the act of settlement-a courageous and disinterested counsel, which ought not to have proved the source of his greatest misfortunes. But we cannot pretend to say that he was altogether as sound a friend to the constitution of his country, as to her national dignity and interests."

GEORGE SAVILLE, MARQUIS OF HALIFAX. 1630-1695. George Saville was the son of a Yorkshire baronet, by Anne, daughter of the lord-keeper Coventry. His brilliant talents soon brought him into note; in 1668 he was raised to the peerage, and became one of the leading characters of the time. He was one of the three, who with Temple directed public affairs for a time, and it was owing principally to him that the Exclusion Bill was rejected by the peers. Macaulay says, he was the first statesman of that age, but whilst distinguished for his talent, he was more so for his peculiar cast of mind, which made him inconstant in all his political associations. This course, which gained for him the name of the Trimmer, he defended on the ground that every good is a mean between extremes. Halifax was a prominent person in the Revolution, he presided in the peers, and it fell to him publicly to invite the Prince and Princess of Orange to accept the crown of England. William made him privy seal, but being distrusted by all parties, he withdrew from public affairs in 1689. "He was," says Burnet, "a man of great and ready wit, full of life, and very pleasant, much turned to satire. . . . He was punctual in his payments and just in all his private dealings; but with relation to the public, he went backward and forward, and changed sides so often, that in the conclusion no side trusted him." Speaking of him at the time of his death, the same writer says, "he had gone into all the measures of the Tories; only he took care to preserve himself from criminal engagements; he studied to oppose everything, and to embroil matters all he could; his spirit was restless, and he could not bear to be out of business; his vivacity and judgment sunk much in his last years, as well as his reputation."

MISCELLANEOUS NOTES.

THE KING'S DISPENSING POWER. Great importance attaches to this question, as it became the occasion of the movement which ended in a Revolution. The dispensing power of the sovereigns of England is of very ancient standing, and is said to have grown up partly in consequence of imperfect legislation, and the infrequency of parliaments, which made it convenient and sometimes necessary, that a power should lodge somewhere of mitigating the rigor of a general prohibition. Unquestioned, as this power was by parliament, and recognised by courts of justice, court lawyers found little difficulty in asserting its supremacy even over an act of parliament.

Hallam observes that "This high and dangerous prerogative, nevertheless was subject to several limitations, which none but the grosser flatterers of monarchy could deny. It was agreed among lawyers that the king could not dispense with the common law, nor with any statute prohibiting that which was malum in se, nor with any right or interest of a private person or corporation. The rules, however, were still rather complicated, the boundaries indefinite, and therefore varying according to the political character of the judges. This uncertainty was specially evidenced in Hale's case, and its further abuse provided against in the Bill of Rights."

THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT OF SOCIETY. Blackstone on this question remarks, "Though society had not its formal beginning from any convention of individuals, actuated by their wants and fears, yet it is the sense of their weakness and imperfection that keeps mankind together, that demonstrates the necessity of this union; and that therefore is the solid and natural foundation, as well as the cement, of civil society. And this is what we mean by the original contract of society; which though perhaps in no instance it has ever been formally expressed at the first institution of a state; yet in nature and reason must always be understood and implied, in the very act of associating together: namely, that the whole should protect all its parts, and that every part should pay obedience to the will of the whole; or in other words, that the community should guard the rights of each individual member, and that (in return for this protection) each individual should submit to the laws of the community; without which submission of all it was impossible that protection could be extended to any."

Burke writing on the same subject says, "The constituent parts of a state are obliged to hold their public faith with other, and with all those who derive any serious interest under their engagements, as much as the whole state is bound to keep its faith with separate communities. Otherwise competence and power would soon be confounded, and no law be left but the will of a prevailing force. On this principle the succession of the crown has always been what it now is, an hereditary succession by law: in the old line it was a succession by the common law, in the new by the statute law, operating on the principles of the common law, not changing the substance, but regulating the mode, and describing the persons. Both these descriptions of law are of the same force, and are derived from an equal authority, emanating from the common agreement and original compact of the state, ammuni sponsione reipublicæ, and as such are equally binding on king and people too, as long as the terms are observed, and they continue the same body politic."

THE RIGHT OF OUR ANCESTORS TO ALTER THE SUCCESSION. "Whenever a question arises," says Blackstone, "between the society at large and any magistrate vested with powers originally delegated by that society, it must be decided by the voice of the society itself: there is not upon earth any other tribunal to resort to. And that these consequences were fairly deduced from these facts, our ancestors have solemnly determined, in a full parliamentary convention representing the whole society. The reasons upon which they decided may be found at large in the parliamentary proceedings of the times; and may be matter of instructive amusement for us to contemplate,

as a speculative point of history. But care must be taken not to carry this inquiry farther, than merely for instruction or amusement. The idea, that the consciences of posterity were concerned in the rectitude of their ancestors' decisions, gave birth to those dangerous political heresies, which so long distracted the state, but at length are all happily extinguished. I therefore rather choose to consider this great political measure upon the solid footing of authority, than to reason in its favor from its justice, moderation, or expedience: because that might imply a right of dissenting or revolting from it, in case we should think it to have been unjust, oppressive, or inexpedient. Whereas our ancestors having most indisputably a competent jurisdiction to decide this great and important question, and having in fact decided it, it is now become our duty at this distance of time to acquiesce in their determination, being born under that establishment which was built upon this foundation, and obliged by every tie, religious as well as civil, to maintain it."

NEW OATHS OF ALLEGIANCE AND SUPREMACY. The oath of Allegiance: "I, A. B. do sincerely promise and swear, that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to their majesties King William and Queen Mary: So help me God." The oath of Supremacy: "I, A. B. do swear that I do from my heart abhor, detest, and abjure, as impious and heretical, that damnable doctrine and position that princes excommunicated or deprived by the pope, or any authority of the see of Rome, may be deposed or murdered by their subjects, or any other whatsover. And I do hereby declare that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate hath, or ought to have, any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm: So help me God."

THE CHARACTER OF THE RESOLUTION DECLARING THE THRONE VACANT. "This resolution," writes Macaulay, “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 far 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 are rational, though they may be contradictory. If they fail of attaining their end, they are absurd, though they carry demonstration with them. Logic_admits of no compromise. The essence of politics is compromise. It is therefore not strange that some of the most important and most useful political instruments in the world, should be among the most illogical compositions that were ever penned.

"The object of Somers, of Maynard, and of the other eminent men who shaped this celebrated motion was, not to leave to posterity a model of definition and partition, but to make the restoration of a tyrant impossible, and to place on the throne a sovereign under whom law and liberty might be secure. They cared little whether their major agreed with their conclusion, if the major secured two hundred votes, and the conclusion two hundred more. In fact the one beauty of the resolution was its inconsistency. There was a phrase for every subdivision of the majority. The mention of the original contract gratified the disciples of Sydney. The word abdication conciliated politicians of a more timid school. There were doubtless many fervid patriots who were pleased with the censure cast on the Jesuits. To the real statesman, the single important clause was that which declared the throne vacant; and if that clause could be carried, he cared little by what preamble it might be introduced, The force which was thus united made all resistance hopeless."

THE EDICT OF NANTES AND ITS REVOCATION. Henry IV., the first of the Bourbon kings, after having abjured the Protestant faith, issued the celebrated Edict of Nantes (1598) as the Charter of Rights, of the Protestants of France. It guaranteed to the members of the Reformed Church, liberty of conscience; the public exercise of their worship; free admission to all offices of trust; authority to raise taxes among themselves for the benefit of their church; and for their security, certain fortified places, of which the principal was Rochelle. This last proved a doubtful benefit, by fostering among them a spirit of party, which supplied their adversaries with a plausible pretext, first to undermine the edict, and ultimately to proscribe the exercise of the Reformed religion in France. The protestants lost Rochelle partly through the failure of Buckingham's expedition in 1628. From this time, a French writer says, they lived peaceably and obedient to the government, and were distinguished by the purity of their morals, and their active industry. But Louis hated them, because they dared to hold opinions different from his own. He attempted their conversion, some he forced by violence, and others he won with gold. Those who remained firm were gradually despoiled of their privileges; their ministers forbidden to visit the sick; their schools closed, and efforts made to bring up their children in the Catholic faith. The final blow came in 1685, when the Edict of Nantes was suppressed by an ordinance, which forbad the exercise of the Reformed religion; ordered its ministers to leave France; enjoined parents to bring up their children as Catholics; and forbad emigration under penalty of the galleys and confiscation of property. The government sent dragoons amongst them, with license to indulge in all sorts of excesses, till conversion took place. These dragonnades were fruitful in atrocious violences, and such as resisted were sent to the scaffold or the galleys. A hundred thousand families escaped from France, and transferred their industry to Germany, England, and Holland.

CHAPTER VI.

WILLIAM AND MARY. FEB. 13, 1689-Dec. 28, 1694.

WILLIAM III. DEC. 28, 1694-MARCH 8, 1702.

SECTION I. THE CONVENTION PARLIAMENT. 1689. 1. The difficulties of William's position. A common danger which threatened to overturn both church and state had, in the preceding reign, united all parties, but no sooner was the storm passed by than the coalition dissolved, and each party resumed its former position. William III. was scarcely seated on the English throne ere he found himself the king of rival factions, rather than of a united people; and what aggravated the distastefulness of his position, is the fact that the statesmen who had Letrayed the counsels of his predecessor, and sought him as their deliverer from Popery and Despotism, were among the first to open treasonable communication with the exiled prince he had supplanted. The Jacobitism of the Tory peers may admit of extenuation, but hardly any apology can be made for the treacherous intrigues with the court of St. Germains, carried on by the Whig revolutionists; the Earls of Shrewsbury and Marlborough, Admiral Russell, and probably the Earl of Devonshire himself, were implicated. "It was the double and selfish perfidy of the politicians who surrounded William, that doubtless gave a tone to his public administration. Finding himself among partisans whose motives he could not comprehend, who by secret conspiracy sought to pull down the idol they had openly erected, his constitutional reserve and wariness deepened into mistrust and dissimulation. In lieu of English, he sought Dutch counsels-the advice of Bentinck, Ginckle, Zulestein, and d'Auverquerque; and the policy of England became subordinate to the policy of the Stadtholdership of Holland."

Hallam says; "In no period of time under the Stuarts were public discontent and opposition of parliament more prominent than in the reign of William III.: and that high-souled prince enjoyed far less of his subjects' affection than Charles II. No part of our history is read upon the whole, with less satisfaction than these thirteen years, during which he sat upon his elective throne." The same writer in showing why the blessings of the