And, to the end it may never be in the power of any Papist, if the crown defcend upon him, to make any change either in church or state, I am commanded to tell you, That his Majefty is willing that provifion may be made, firft to diftinguish a Popish from a Proteftant fucceffor; then fo to limit and circumfcribe the authority of a Popish fucceffor, in thefe cafes following, that he may be difabled to do any harm: First, in reference to the church; his Majelty is content, that care be taken, that all ecclefiaftical and fpiritual benefices and promotions, in the gift of the Crown, may be conferred in such a manner, that we may be fure the incumbents hall always be of the most pious and learned Proteftants; and that no Popish fucceffor, while he continues fo, may have any power to controul fuch preferments. In reference to the state and civil part of the government; as it is already provided, That no Papist can fit in either Houle of Parliament;' fo the King is pleased that it be provided too, that there may never want a Parliament, when the King fhall happen to die, but that the Parliament then in being may continue indiffolvable for a competent time; or, if there be no Parliament in being, then the laft Parliament, which was in being before that time, may reaffemble, and fit a competent time, without any new fummons or elections. And as no Papist can, by law, hold any place of trust, fo the King is content that it may be further provided, That no Lords or others of the Privy-council, no Judges of the Common Law or in Chancery, fhall at any time, during the reign of any Popish fucceffor, be put in or difplaced, but by the authority of Parliament; and that care alfo be taken, that none but fincere Proteftants may be Juftices of the peace. In reference to the military part, the King is willing, that no Lord Lieutenant or Deputy Lieutenant, nor any Officer in the navy, during the reign of any Popish fucceffor, be put in or removed, but either by authority of Parliament, or of fuch perfons as the Parliament shall intruft with fuch authority. It is hard to invent another restraint to be put upon a Popish fucceffor, confidering how much the revenue of the fucceffor will depend upon confent of Parliament, and how impoffible it is to raise money without fuch confent; but yet, if any thing elfe can occur to the wisdom of the Parlia ment, which may further fecure religion and liberty against a Popish fucceffor, without defeating the right of fucceffion itself, bis Majefty will most readily consent to it. Thus watchful is the King for all your fafeties; and if he could think of any thing elie, that you do either want or with, to make you happy, he would make it his bufinefs to effect it for you. God Almighty long continue this bleffed union between the King, and his Parliament, and people." Thefe propofals were not received by the Houfe of Commons, with that applause the King had expected; the Commons diftruft was too great for their fears and fufpicions to be removed by such offers. Though fome authors call this an infatuation in the Houfe of Commons, I think myself obliged to remark, that the King offered indeed his confent to acts of Parliament, but fuggested no means to secure the execution. It was an artifice of the Court of England, begun in the reign of James I, and continued under Charles I. and II, to reprefent the laws as the impregnable bulwark of the nation's liberties; and yet these three Kings had, on feveral occafions, transgreffed them. I fhall give here fome initances, to which many more might be added. Were the laws, enacted for the prefervation of religion, under James I, punctually executed? Of what benefit could laws, made for the fecurity of their liberties, be to the fubjects, fince James I. laid down for a principle, that though, in confcience and honour, the King ought to govern his fubjects with equity, he might, nevertheless, by the extent of his power, govern in an abfolute manner, without any controul? Did the petition of right restrain Charles I. from levying fhip money? Did the laws hinder the fame King from governing twelve years without a Parliament, and from raising money, in that interval, by an abfolute authority? Had Charles II. been more fcrupulous? Was it in virtue of the laws, that he fhut up the Exchequer, and feized the money there, without the confent of the proprietors? Was it for the better execution of the laws, which feem to fecure the liberties of the fubject, that he received annually, from France, a penfion of fix millions of livres? Of what use therefore are laws, the execution whereof no human power can warrant, when the interefts of the Prince and people are diametrically oppofite, which could not fail to happen in the reign of a Popish fucceffor? This fuffices to demonftrate, that the King's offer of his affent, to the acts he propofed, was incapable of difpelling the fears of the people; becaufe not only no expedient was propofed to fecure the execution, but it was not even in his power to give any security. But it will be asked, What other expedient was there, for fecuring the religion and li berties berties of the nation, confiftent with the right of fucceffion? I confefs there was none; and affirm withal, that those offered by the King were infufficient. But to whom was this impoffibility owing? To the Duke of York alone, who had openly declared himself a Papift, and, from that time, inceffantly excited both England and France to promote the interefts of his religion, as the letters of his Secretary Coleman manifeftly fhew. To enable the reader to judge of this matter, being the moft material of this reign, I fhall here propofe fome questions, which are neceffary to be decided, before he can determine in favour of the King or Parliament. Question the first. Whether there was any danger to England, in admitting a Popish fucceffor? This the King himself did not deny, fince he propofed expedients to prevent this danger. 2d Question. Whether the expedients, propofed by the King, were capable of preventing this danger? This is what no perfon can either pofitively affirm or deny; for if, on one hand, it may be fuppofed, that a Popish fucceffor would have fincerely complied with the acts proposed by the King, it may, on the other hand, with equal juftice be fuppofed, that the Duke of York, the immediate fucceffor, confidering his principles, his humour, his temper, his zeal for his religion, would never have patiently fuffered himself to be restrained by these acts of Parliament. But this was a contingency, which God alone could foreknow. 3d Question. The Commons not believing the expedients, offered by the King, fufficient to prevent the danger, and the King believing the contrary; Who was to yield, the King, or the people reprefented by the Commons? This is what I shall not pretend to decide. 4th Question. Which evil was greatest; that of breaking the lineal fucceffion, in the exclufion of the Duke of York; or that of exposing the established religion to ruin? This queftion fupposes, that the Kings of England fucceed by a right purely hereditary: But this fuppofition is greatly contefted; it may, at leaft, be affirmed, that feveral Parliaments have decided the contrary. As to the question in itself, it may at least be averred, that in France, in a parallel cafe, upon the death of Henry III, the interefts of the Catholic religion were, without hesitation, preferred to thofe of HenFy IV, who was a Proteftant and the next heir But many pretended, that, as the French did ill, fo the English Parliament was to blame to imitate them. 5th Queftion. The two evils, namely, the breach in the fucceffion, and the expofing of the Proteftant religion, being fuppofed perfectly equal; Which was to fuffer; the rights of the Duke, or the religion of the nation? Some pretend, that the right of fucceffion is not to be violated upon any confideration, and that the interefts of religion extend not fo far as to authorise fuch a violation. Others on the contrary maintain, that, when things were reduced to fuch a ftate, that the Duke or the people muft fuffer, the Duke ought to be the fufferer, fince it was he who had brought matters to that ftate. The reader ought to determine these questions, before he gives a definitive sentence upon this affair. The day after the King's and the Chancellor's speeches to both Houses, the Commons, without taking any great notice of his Majefty's proposals about the fucceffion, proceeded on the bill for preventing the dangers arifing from Popery, as well in his reign as his fucceffor's. They alfo read, the first time, a bill for better prevention of illegal exaction of money from the subject;' and ordered another to be brought in, That, when any Member of the Houfe was preferred to any office or place of profit, a new writ should immediately iffue out for electing a Member to ferve in his stead.' The 5th of May, they refolved, 'That the pardon, pleaded by the Earl of Danby, was illegal and void;' and the Speaker, with the whole Houfe, went up to the Lords bar, and demanded judgment against him. Shortly after, they drew up an addrefs against the Duke of Lauderdale, in the ftrongest terms that could be used, which was carried in a full body to the King. But, it feems, the King could not then part with this Minifter, the last of the Cabal; and therefore he coldly answered, That he would confider of it, and return an anfwer.' After this meffage, the Commons finished the money bill for disbanding the army, which the King paffed, the 9th of May. By this act a fupply was granted to the King of two hundred and fix thoufand, four hundred fixty-two pounds, feventeen fhillings, and three-pence, for paying off and dibanding the forces raifed fince the 29th of September, 1677. The act had a claufe in in it, that, for the future, foldiers fhould not be quartered in any perfon's house against their consent.' At the fame time, the Lords informed the Commons, that the Earl of Danby refolved to adhere to the plea of his pardon; and that, the Commons having demanded judgment against him, as conceiving his pardon illegal and null, the 10th inftant was appointed for hearing the Earl of Danby to make good his plea. The Lords likewife acquainted the Commons, that they had refolved the five Lords in the Tower fhould be brought to their trials the 14th inftant. The part of the meffage concerning the Earl of Danby fo offended the Commons, that they refolved, That no Commoner whatsoever fhould prefume to maintain the validity of the pardon pleaded by the Earl of Danby, without the confent of the Houfe first had; and that the perfons fo doing fhould be accounted betrayers of the liberties of the Commons of England.' This vote was pofted up in several places, that no perfon might be ignorant of it. The true reafon of thefe proceedings was, that, by the examination of the feveral articles of the Earl's impeachment, the Commons hoped to discover the King's fecret practices with the Court of France; whereas the King, by his pardon, had put the affair in fuch a ftate, that there would have been no occafion to examine the Earl of Danby's anfwers to the articles exhibited against him. The vote of the Commons much inflamed the differences, that were already begun be. tween the two Houses, about the manner of proceeding against the five Lords in the Tower: For the Lords had addreffed the King to appoint a Lord High Steward to prefide in the trials; but the Commons, thinking it unneceffary, propofed, that a Committee of both Houfes might be nominated to confider of the most proper ways and methods of proceeding upon impeachments.' And this is what the Lords refufed, which occafioned a warm difpute; but at last the Lords agreed to the nomination of the Committee. The fame day, the Lords communicated to the House of Commons a petition from the Earl of Danby, in which he fet forth, That he met with informations feverally from his Council, that he durft not appear, to argue the validity of his pardon, by reafon of the vote of the Houfe of Commons.' Their Lordships therefore defired to know, Whether there was any fuch vote as was alledged in the petition?' It appears plainly, in the proceedings of the Commons, that they only fought occa fion to drive things to extremity. With this view, they prefented an address to the King, taking notice, that multitudes of Jesuits, Popifh priefts, and Popish Recufants, reforted to the cities of London and Weftminster, in contempt of his Majesty's laws and royal proclamations: Wherefore they humbly befought his Majefty, that the militia of London, Weftminster, Southwark, the Tower-hamlets, of Middlesex and Surrey, might immediately be raised and put in a posture of defence.' The next day, though a Sunday, they ordered a bill to be brought in (purfuant to their refolve that day fortnight) To difable the Duke of York to inherit the imperial crown of England.' Immediately after, they refolved, nemine contradicente, That, in defence of the King's perfon and the Proteftant religion, they would stand by his Majefty with their lives and fortunes; and that, if his Majefty fhould come by any violent death, they would revenge it to the utmost upon the Papifts. This was foon after put into the form of an address, and prefented to the King, who thanked them, and faid, That he would do what in him lay to fecure the Proteftant religion, and was willing to do all fuch things as might be to the good and benefit of his fubjects.' In the mean time, he fent them a meffage, the 14th of May, to remind them of what he had faid concerning the fleet; but the confideration of this meffage was adjourned till the next Monday feven-night. The Committee of both Houfes meeting to confider of the way and method of trying the impeached Lords, there was a warm difpute between the two Houses concerning the Bishops; the Commons pretending, that the Bishops could not fit upon the trial of the impeached Lords, because it was a cafe of blood. The Peers, on the other hand, maintained, ' that the Lords spiritual have a right to ftay and fit in the Court, till the Court proceed to the vote of guilty or not guilty. This affair made a great noife, and occafioned several books to be writ on both fides. At laft, on the 15th of May, the Commons read the first time their bill to difable the Duke of York from inheriting the imperial crown of England,' now called the Exclufion-bill. After the particulars of the confpiracy against the King, the eftablifhed government, and the Proteftant religion, the bill fet forth : That the emiffaries, priefts, and a. gents for the Pope, had traitorously feduced James Duke of York, prefumptive heir to thefe crowns, to the communion of the church of Rome; and had induced him to enter enter into feveral negociations with the Pope, his Cardinals and Nuncio's, for promoting the Romish church and interefts; and, by his means and procurement, had advanced the power and greatness of the French King, to the manifeft hazard of these kingdoms; that, by defcent of these crowns upon a Papist, and by foreign alliance and affiftance, they might be able to fucceed in their wicked and villainous defigns. Then, after another preamble, it was enacted to this effect: That the faid James Duke of York, Albany, and Uifter, fhould be incapable of inheriting the faid crowns of England, Scotland, and Ireland, with their dependencies; and of enjoying any of the titles, rights, prerogatives, and revenues belong. ing to the faid crowns. 2. That, in cafe his Majefty fhould happen to die, or refign his dominions, they fhould devolve to the perfon next in fucceffion, in the fame manner as if the faid Duke were dead. 3. That all acts of fovereignty and royalty, that Prince might then happen to perforin, were not only declared void, but to be high treafon, and punishable as fuch. 4. That if any one, at any time whatfoever, fhould endeavour to bring the faid Duke into any of the forementioned dominions, or correfpond with him, in order to make him inherit; he should be guilty of high treafon. 5. That, if the Duke himself ever returned into any of thefe dominions, confidering the mischiefs that muft enfue, he should be looked upon as guilty of the fame offence ; and all perfons were authorised and required to feize upon and imprison him; and, in cafe of refiftance made by him and his adherents, to fubdue them by force of arms.' Five days after, this bill was read a fecond time; upon which, the question being put, Whether the bill fhould be committed? it was carried by a majority of feventy-nine. liament to the 14th of Auguft: By this the exclufion-bill was defeated for a time. The news of the proceedings of the English Parliament had fo raised the hopes of the Scotch malecontents, that they thought the time was come to be revenged of their perfecutors. Sharp, Archbishop of St. Andrew's, was the most hated of their enemies. Wherefore, in this juncture, when they expected great alterations, twelve of them refolved to begin their revenge upon their enemies with the Archbifhop. For this purpose, they waited for him about two miles from St. Andrew's, where he was going in a coach and fix, and most inhumanly and barbaroufly murdered him, calling him apoftate, betrayer of the godly, and perfecutor of Chrift's church." This murder was committed the 2d of May. In the end of the fame month, eighty Prefbyterians appeared in arms; and, in a few days, their number increased to fifteen hundred; they feized Glafcow, and fome other towns in the neighbourhood, and committed great outrages. The King, hearing of this rebellion, and that it daily gathered, fent the Duke of Monmouth at the head of fome English forces, who were joined by fome Scotch regiments. The Duke discharged his com→ miffion with fuch bravery and fuccefs, that, the 22d of June, he intirely defeated the rebels at Bothwell bridge, killed eight hundred, and took about twelve hundred prifoners; feveral were hanged, and the reft were tranfported. Shortly after the prorogation of the Parliament, the five Jefuits, Whitebread, Harcourt, Fenwick, Gawen, and Turner, were tried. The 13th of June, they were brought to the Old Bailey, where their indictment was read, and the witneffes heard. 2. That Whitebread, after his return to St. Omer's, did fay, He hoped to fee the black fool's head at Whitehall laid faft enough; and, if his brother should appear to follow his footsteps, his passport should be made too." Oates's evidence was: 1. That the great Confult of the 24th of April, 1678, This affair being begun, the Commons was by order of Whitebread the Provincial; proceeded to an inquiry after the penfioners and that he, Fenwick, Harcourt, and Turin the last Parliament. By means of Sirner, did all, in his presence, sign the resolve Stephen Fox, eighteen were discovered who for the King's death. had received annual penfions from the King. In the mean time, the King, being highly offended with the Commons, and hearing moreover that they intended to prefent to him a remonftrance, much like that prefented to the King, his father, in 1641, and of which the defign was to inflame the nation against him, refolved to prorogue the Parliament. For this purpose, he went to the Houfe of Lords the 27th of May, and, fending for the Commons, paffed fome bills, and particularly one for fecuring the liberty of the fubject, called the Habeas corpus act; and then prorogued the Par 3. That in July, Afhby, a prieft, brought over inftructions from Whitebread to offer Sir George Wakeman ten toousand pounds to poifon the King; and alfo a commiffion to Sir John Gage to be an Officer in the army they defigned to raife, which the witnefs delivered to Sir John. [To be continued.] A Favourite |