THE CHAPTER IX. THE REVOLUTION OF 1688-9. 'HE difficulties created by the second flight of James and the loss of the great seal were met by prompt yet constitutional action. An assembly was summoned, consisting of the Lords and all those gentlemen who had sat in Parliament during the reign of Charles II. After discussing the state of the nation at length, they decided that William should issue writs in his own name for the election of a Convention Parliament on the model of that of 1660, and that to this body should be entrusted the task of settling the government of the country. Parliament met on the 22nd of January, 1688/9. Henry Powle and Lord Halifax were elected to preside in the two Houses, and an, address was at once drawn up describing the Prince of Orange as the glorious instrument in God's hands for the freedom of the kingdom from Popery and arbitrary power, and expressing their gratitude both for the promptitude with which he had assumed the charge of the administration and the care which he had devoted to the fulfilment of the trust. They further begged him to continue to retain it until they should have decided on some course of action. January 28 was fixed on as the day for discussing the state of the nation, and on the suggestion of Sir Edward Seymour it was decided that the House should resolve itself into a grand committee in order that every member should be able to speak as often as appeared necessary-it was felt that on such an important subject the fullest expression of opinion was desirable, and yet there was a strong objection to breaking through the rule which prohibited members from speaking more than once during an ordinary debate. The discussion was begun by Gilbert Dolben, a lawyer of some eminence, who laid down the view adopted by the Tories-that James's voluntary withdrawal from the Crown involved a laying down of it which amounted to civil death, and that therefore it devolved by hereditary right on the next heir. Dolben was followed by Sir Richard Temple, a thorough Whig. He maintained that James had attempted to violate the existing constitution, and had forfeited his right to the throne in consequence. "If King James has left the Government," he concluded forcibly, "and there be not a vacancy, what do we here?" It was so obvious that he was advising James's deposition, that Sir Christopher Musgrave invited the lawyers to declare whether Parliament had the power of deposing a king. Sir Robert Howard in reply denied the Divine right of kings, and advanced the new theory that the Government was grounded on a compact with the people, the breach of which was naturally followed by the dissolution of James's Government. The lawyers, however, strongly opposed this view. Sir Robert Sawyer denied that the Commons possessed any power over the king. "How could there be?" he asked, "when only the propertied classes of the nation were represented in them?" Heneage Finch followed with a warning of the danger of appealing to the state of nature—that were to destroy all rights of property. How was it possible, he asked, for the people to have control over the Crown, or for James to forfeit it? He might forfeit the personal exercise of the government, no doubt, but that was all. On the other side the sanctity of hereditary right was as vigorously impeached. Sir George Treby argued that the throne was actually vacant, and that there was no choice left but to supply the vacancy. It mattered little that the Convention did not represent the whole of England; they represented the most valuable portion and all who deserved a share in the government. The general opinion concurred with him. Sir William Williams declared that the king's flight was conclusive in itself; there was no need to depose him. "We come," said Pulteney, "to supply what the king has taken from us." Eventually a compromise was effected. The resolution finally carried put aside entirely the questions of forfeiture and hereditary right, and confined itself to the statement "that King James II., having endeavoured to subvert the Constitution of the kingdom by breaking the original contract between king and people, and having by the advice of Jesuits and other wicked persons violated the fundamental laws and withdrawn himself out of the kingdom, has abdicated the government, and the throne is thereby vacant." This was followed by a second resolution, added at the instance of Colonel Birch :-"That it hath been found by experience inconsistent with the safety and welfare of this Protestant kingdom to be governed by a popish prince." These resolutions were sent up to the Lords. The second was accepted at once, but the first provoked a warm debate. There was a long discussion at the outset whether there should be a Regency, and there was only a majority of two against it. The original contract did not find many more supporters. The statement with regard to James's misgovernment was accepted readily enough, but the word "deserted" was substituted for "abdicated," and the final-perhaps the most important-clause "that the throne was thereby vacant," was rejected altogether. The prince now considered that the moment had come when he ought to explain his own views decidedly in order to strengthen the hands of the Whigs in the Upper House. He declared that he would be neither regent nor prince consort; he would be king, or would return to Holland. This statement produced the desired impression. After a long conference with the Commons, in which the questions were fully discussed, the Lords at last gave way, and resolved not to press their amendments to the resolutions of the Commons. Nay, more, they proposed and carried without a division that the Prince and Princess of Orange be declared King and Queen of England. This total surrender of the Tories was mainly due to a speech delivered by Lord Halifax on February 6. He declared himself for the prince exclusively; he rejected at once the idea of declaring Mary Queen with William as Prince Consort, or of giving them equal powers. He demanded the Crown in fact for William alone, and his opinion ultimately triumphed. The Commons, however, proceeded more deliberately. They were determined not to settle the government until they had made some provision for the security of religion and the maintenance of the laws and liberties of England. A committee had been nominated consisting of the leaders of all parties, to whom was entrusted the duty of drawing up a draft of a solemn declaration of the rights claimed by the people. The draft was laid before the Commons on February 2. It enumerated all the acts which had set James II. at variance with the nation, and declared them to be illegal. Suspensions, dispensations, and even the execution of the law by royal prerogative without consent of, Parliament, the establishment of a new Ecclesiastical Court, the disarming of Protestant subjects, the maintenance of a standing army in time of peace without consent of Parliament, were all branded as illegal. The questions which had arisen during the Stuart era with regard to the power of the prerogative and of the rights of Parliament were all decided in favour of the latter, before the accession of a new sovereign. Further the committee declared that the militia in its present condition was burdensome to the people; the judges must be made more independent; the procedure on trials for high treason must be altered in favour of the subject; security must be provided for the privileges and frequent sessions of Parliament, and that it should not be dissolved till the business before it was transacted. They resolved in addition that royal pardons should not be pleadable with regard to parliamentary impeachments. They recommended further, for the protection of religion, that no member of the royal family should be allowed to marry a Catholic, and that the king and queen should be required to bind themselves in a specially prepared coronation oath to maintain the Protestant establish ment. Taken as they stood, the articles would have reduced the power of the monarch to a shadow; so William was obliged to interfere again with decision. "He had come to England," he said, "to restore its laws and liberties, but not to rob the Crown of its rights; he would not accept any limitation which was not prescribed by the existing laws; and he would not allow the prerogative to be destroyed." He had the advantage in the contest, for Parliament could not do without him—that was universally felt-and so they again yielded, and consented to considerably revise the obnoxious articles. The clause with regard to the militia and the provisions for the independence of the judges were omitted; the privileges of Parliament were secured, but there was no further question of a limitation of the prerogative of dissolution; and the most offensive innovation of all—the regulation with regard to the right of pardon-was expressly renounced. Still, in its final form the Declaration confirmed to Parliament the principal rights which they had so long asserted against the royal power, and formed a strong foundation for parliamentary government in the future. The Lower House next voted that the administration should rest exclusively in the hands of William in spite of the nominal equality of Mary's title; nor would they even admit a proposal that the queen should be regent by law during the king's absence in Holland. They were determined that the stability of the government should not be shaken by the diverse action of two independent wills. They added, moreover, under the advice of Serjeant Holt, that the throne should be continued to the survivor of the two. In conclusion, they decided that the full Plantagenet title, "King of England, France, and Ireland," should be maintained. On the 18th February, the Lords and Commons assembled in the Banqueting House. The Settlement and the Declaration of Rights were read, and the crown was solemnly offered to William and Mary on the agreed conditions. The prince declared that he accepted the crown in his wife's name and his own, and that he would protect the rights, privileges, and religion of the country. The Declaration of Rights in its final form as presented to William consists of three parts: a short summary of the illegal and arbitrary acts of James II., which had induced the Parliament to declare the throne vacant; a solemn declaration of their illegality; and a number of clauses offering the crown to William and Mary with the arranged limitations. It was turned into a statute some months later, October 25, 1689, by Act of Parliament, under the name of the Bill of Rights (1 W. and M.), with some slight modifications and additions, in the shape of a new article incapacitating all Catholics, or persons married to Catholics, from ascending the throne, and transferring the crown under such circumstances to the next heir, and a toning down of the K |