CHAPTER X.

The Prince of Orange arrives in London.- Meeting of the ConventionParliament.-Debates upon the Settlement of the Nation.-Difficulties started by James's Friends.-A Precedent taken from the History of Sweden.-Reason prevails over Authority.—Independent conduct of the Prince.-De Foe present at the Debates,-His remarks upon Political Oaths. He never owned King James.-The King refutes the political theories of his Friends.-The Throne given to the Prince and Princess of Orange.-Settlement of the Oaths.-Sophistical Distinction set up by the Clergy.-De Foe's Remarks upon it.-His Reflections upon the Objects of the Revolution.-He annually commemorates the event.-His residence at Tooting.

1689.

UPON the day of the King's departure from London, which was the 18th of December, the Prince of Orange arrived there to the great joy of the people. He immediately convened about seventy peers at St. James's, and desired them, in conjunction with the city magistracy, and such commoners as had served in any of King Charles's parliaments, to meet together, and consider of the best methods for calling a free parliament, and settling the kingdom. Accordingly, as soon as they had certain notice of the king's departure, the lords assembled in their usual place at Westminster, and agreed upon an address to the Prince, in which the Commons concurred, requesting him to take upon him the administration of public affairs, both civil and military, until the meeting of a convention-parliament, which they desired him to summon by letter, addressed to the proper authorities, for the 22nd day of January ensuing.

MEETING OF THE CONVENTION-PARLIAMENT.

165

The convention-parliament having met at the time appointed, proceeded to elect a Speaker for each house, when the choice fell upon the Marquis of Halifax for the Lords, and Henry Powle for the Commons. Before they entered upon the business of a permanent settlement, they voted an address to the Prince, requesting him in the mean time to continue the government; and this was the only unanimous resolution to which they came. Although most of them had been engaged in bringing about the Revolution, and could expect nothing less from the return of the king than the most deadly vengeance, yet there was still a numerous party in both houses that retained their former opinions of the kingly office, and were unwilling to give up the title of James; secretly hoping that he might be restored at some future day, without any danger to their religion and liberties.

Fortunately for the nation, the majority did not fall in with the casuistry of his friends, but proceeded to deprive him of a crown, which his mis-government had rendered him unworthy to wear. After a warm debate in the Commons, which lasted several hours, they came to the following remarkable vote without a division. "Resolved, That King James the Second, having endeavoured 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 withdrawn himself out of the kingdom, has abdicated the government, and that the throne is thereby vacant." This was followed by a vote, declaring Popery to be inconsistent. with the English constitution, and excluding for ever all Roman Catholics from the succession to the crown. To this, the Lords gave their concurrence; adding a clause, "That no king should in future marry a Catholic." The prejudices in favour of hereditary right, gave rise to some curious debates, and contradictory votes in both houses. It was agreed that James had broken the original contract, and that he should be

166

A PRECEDENT TAKEN FROM SWEDEN.

no longer king; but how to get rid of his title, or to reconcile their renunciation of his authority, with their oaths of allegiance, were points they could not easily settle. It was at length agreed that he had abdicated the throne, but not without much angry discussion between the two houses.

Much of the difficulty in the discussion of the settlement, arose from too strong an attachment to forms and precedents; not considering that the laws of reason are paramount to former usage, and may be resorted to for fixing a precedent in one age with as much propriety as in another. Although the English history had furnished no case exactly parallel to that of James's, yet there had been at least three examples of former kings who were dethroned by their subjects, and compelled to abdicate. If these signed away their crown, yet, as it was a compulsory act, their claim in foro conscientia was as good as that of James, and could not be debarred by force. Hereditary right, if it has any existence, can only be waived by a voluntary cession, which certainly was not the case in these instances; so that whatever logic was applied to distinguish them from the case of James, was a mere waste of words.

To reconcile those who were willing enough to get rid of James, but had scruples about his title, the address of Mr. Somers fortunately stepped in with a case in point, drawn from the history of a neighbouring kingdom. Sigismund, heir to the crown of Sweden, like James, became a convert to the Catholic religion before his accession, which occasioned his future subjects to look forward to that event with dismal apprehensions. These, upon his advancement to the throne, he in some measure allayed, by the most solemn promises to maintain the laws and religion of his country; but it was not long before he broke through his engagements by erecting a popish church in the capital, conferring the highest offices of trust upon persons of his own religion, and putting the garrisons into their hands. These acts of

REASON PREVAILS OVER AUTHORITY.

167 treachery aroused his subjects to the defence of their religion, and they made common cause against him. Sigismund fled into Poland, of which country he had been elected king; and the states of Sweden having assembled at Stockholm, declared his abdication, renounced his family, and settled the crown upon the next Protestant heir, the Duke of Sudermania. A narrative of this affair, extracted from the Swedish annals, was published during the debates in the Convention, probably by Mr. Somers. It is entitled, "The Causes and Manner of Deposing a Popish King in Sweden, truly described. Printed 1688," and may be found in the Somers's Collection of Tracts.

The necessity that now existed for dispensing with forms and precedents, led to the serious examination of many important political questions; and the discussion they underwent from the press, occasioned a favourable revolution in public opinion. As the notion of a Divine right had received. its support chiefly from the clergy, it greatly lessened their authority in such matters, and consigned them over as fit subjects for some eastern monarchy. However the former age had been blinded by their casuistry, a practical experience of its bad effects had shown the necessity of an appeal to reason, which discovered truths that were worth a thousand abstract theories, invented to flatter the selfish feelings of despots, and to assist them in plundering the defenceless. The credit they derived from Homilies, Canons, Universitydecrees, and the writings of ecclesiastics, tended only to lessen the value of such documents, and to betray the fallibility of their authors. As for the pretence of Divine authority, it could mislead only the ignorant and the unwary; for God is no more the author of monarchies than of republics; nor of either, than of the trades and professions that are practised in them. This absurdity was no novelty in politics, but had been resorted to in all ages, and under various religions, to sanction the usurpation of the few over the

168

INDEPENDENT CONDUCT OF THE PRINCE

many. The resistance to King James could only be justified upon the ground of his responsibility to the nation; and it was the one acted upon, notwithstanding the sophistry of the high clergy, to impose a tyrant, under the pretence of his being the vicegerent of God. The subject was ably argued in print at this time, in "An Argument for Self-Defence, written about the year 1687, never before published, and now offered to the consideration of the gentlemen of the Middle Temple, 1689." It was suggested by the wellknown address to James II. from that society.

During the whole of the debates, the prince conducted himself in the most independent manner. Although he was so much interested in their result, he never took the pains to influence the vote of a single individual. So jealous was he of any interference, that when the citizens of London prepared to address the Lords in his favour, he instantly sent to the Lord Mayor, requesting him to prevent it. At length finding his silence to be misconstrued, he sent for some of the Lords, and told them, "He had been till then silent, because he would not say or do any thing that might seem in any sort to take from any person the full freedom of deliberating and voting in matters of such importance: he was resolved neither to court nor threaten any one. Some were for putting the government in the hands of a regent: he would say nothing against it, if it was thought the best means of settling their affairs, only he thought it necessary to tell them that he would not be the regent; so if they continued in that design, they must look out for some other person to put in that post: nor could he think it reasonable to have any share in the government, unless it was put in his person, and that for term of life. If they thought fit to settle it otherwise, he would not oppose them, but would go back to Holland, and meddle no more in their affairs. He assured them, that whatever others might think of a crown, it was no such thing in his eyes, but that he could live very