power, the Dr. was deprived of his office, and suspended from the mastership of Magdalene College.

Before the dispute with Cambridge came to a close, another was opened with the sister university. The president of Magdalen had died in March, and by the statutes of the founder of the college, the election of his successor rested in the Fellows. James sent them a mandatory letter in favor of Anthony Farmer, a man of impure morals, and report said, an apostate. Mass was already said at two colleges, and some rioting had resulted. This further attempt in favor of Catholicism was soon noised throughout the city, and the Fellows were exhorted not to betray the rights of their college. A petition went up to the king, praying for a free election or a new nomination, but no reply was made. The Fellows proceeded to election, April 15, and chose Dr. Hough, “a man of eminent virtue and prudence". This presented another case for the ecclesiastical commission, which declared the election void; of Farmer no more was said, but a new mandate issued recommending Parker, bishop of Oxford. Parker was suspected of popish tendencies, and a reply was made that Hough was already in legal possession, and were it otherwise Parker was not eligible, for he was a Fellow neither of Magdalen or New College, as the statutes required.

James returning from a tour in the provinces, stopped at Oxford, the refractory Fellows were ordered into his presence, and after being charged with undutiful conduct, were addressed by the king in these words-"Get you gone; I am king; I will be obeyed. Go to your chapel this instant, and admit the bishop of Oxford. Let those who refuse look to it; they shall feel the whole weight of my hand". Assembling in their chapel, they declared their readiness to obey the king in all things lawful, but they would not violate their statutes and their oaths. A commission was directed to sit at Oxford, but nearly the whole of the Fellows remained obstinate. Hough being declared an intruder, thus addressed the commissioners, "My lords, you have this day deprived me of my freehold: I hereby protest against all your proceedings as illegal, unjust, aud null; and I appeal from you to our sovereign lord the king, in his courts of justice". Parker was now installed by proxy; only two members of the college attended the ceremony. The Fellows who had remained obstinate were ejected, and the High Commission pronounced them incapable of ever holding church preferment. Parker was soon in his grave, and Giffard, a Roman Catholic bishop, became president, and the college a seminary for papists. A subscription being opened for the ejected Fellows, the Princess of Orange contributed £200. Lingard remarks on the result of this transaction,

that it was a victory of which the king had no reason to be proud, "for it betrayed the hollowness of his pretensions to good faith and sincerity, and earned him the enmity of the great body of the clergy".

8. Dissolution of the parliament, and endeavours made to pack a new one, 1687. The earnest wish of James was, to obtain for the measures already taken the sanction of parliament; but the members of the existing parliament were no longer devoted to their sovereign. It was therefore resolved to try another, which, by means to be adopted, might be entirely obsequious to the king's will. The parliament of 1685 was suddenly dissolved, July 2; though it was in existence two years, it had not been permitted to dispose of public business, since the close of the first session. To win public favor, James made a royal progress by way of Portsmouth, Southampton, Bath, Gloucester, Worcester, Chester, and home by way of Oxford. A joyful reception met the king everywhere. To the resident gentry he denied the charge of hostility to the Established Church, and if he sought to abolish the Test, it was only because it had been found a failure. In order to secure a parliament to suit his purpose, a Board of Regulators was appointed, ostensibly to reform abuses in corporations, but really to make such alterations as would convert municipalities into nomination boroughs for the crown. This was done by displacing all municipal officers unfriendly to the measures of the court, and forcing the surrender of charters, returning them with alterations which limited the franchise to a few persons. Thus, at Tewkesbury, the franchise was confined to thirteen persons, and because some of these were unmanageable, the regulators threatened to reduce the number to three.

In the Gazette, the king announced his determination to revise the commissions of peace, and to retain in public employment only such gentlemen as should be disposed to support his policy. The several lord-lieutenants were directed to go at once to their counties, and in person to inquire and forward to the government a list of persons fit, because of their devotion to the king, to be appointed mayors and sheriffs. In addition, each was to forward replies to the following questions, which he should put to his deputies and the magistracy-whether, if chosen in the next parliament, they would vote for the repeal of the Test Act and the penal laws? whether they would aid those candidates who engaged to vote for their repeal? and whether they would support the declaration for liberty of conscience? To these questions the great majority returned answer, that they could not promise, but would vote conscientiously after weighing such reasons as might be adduced in favor of the measures proposed. The whole

of these proceedings was offensive to the nation, half the lordlieutenants refused to act, and were dismissed, and many of the magistracy resigned their commissions. Still the king persevered, and when the new list of sheriff's came out, it was found that most of the appointments were either Roman Catholics or Dissenters. 9. The government committed to Sunderland and Father Petre, 1687. Halifax was dismissed from office and his name struck out of the council book in 1685, for refusing to vote in favor of the repeal of the Test and the Habeas Corpus Acts. Rochester and Clarendon, though they stood so nearly related to the king, shared the same fate; the former in 1686, for refusing to become a Catholic, the latter in 1687, to make way for Talbot, Earl of Tyrconnel, who had undertaken to root out the English colonists in Ireland. And when Francisco D'Adda, the papal nuncio, was honored with a public reception, July 3, the Earl of Shrewsbury, Viscount Lumley, Admiral Herbert, and others, resigned their offices. From this period, the entire government was practically in the hands of Sunderland and Father Petre, for the moderate Catholics had lost their influence in the councils of the king.

10. Mutual distrust between James and William of Orange. Many causes contributed to an estrangement between these near relatives. During the preceding and present reign, numbers of persons from this country found refuge in Holland, and William was with difficulty induced to order them to withdraw from the court; when they did so he kept up a commuication with them by means of his ministers. Another ground of complaint was, that William corrupted the British regiments in the service of the States; for this charge there was no foundation, except that the prince would not permit any officer to be entered, who was suspected of attachment to Catholicism. James, by the advice of Louis, demanded that these regiments should be sent to England; this William refused to do, as being contrary to treaty. The king then by proclamation recalled all his subjects serving under foreign powers, but of these regiments only two officers and a few of the privates obeyed.

On the other hand William complained of a design to bar his claim to the succession, by passing over Mary princess of Orange, in favor of Anne, who was reported willing to conform to the Catholic worship. To this James replied that he had not so designed, but he did expect that William would approve of the abolition of penal laws on matters of religion, and that should he succeed to the throne he would consider himself pledged to maintain that abolition. Penn the quaker was despatched to the Hague to convince the prince that religious toleration was a natural right; William, however, acting under the advice of

Burnet, refused to give his consent for the repeal of the Test Act.

11. Dykevelt's mission to England. 1687. William had more than once been requested by the discontented in England to have recourse to arms; the caution of the prince suggested an inquiry first. Dykevelt, a statesman of consummate ability was sent to England on a special mission to inquire into the destination of the armaments said to be preparing in the English ports; really his mission was to the party in opposition. After a stay of four months, during which time he had frequent conferences with the chiefs of the party favorable to William, he returned taking with him letters which pledged the services of the Earls of Danby, Nottingham, Clarendon, Rochester, Sunderland, and other peers. In addition, were Compton the bishop, who undertook to manage the clergy, Admiral Herbert, who was to use his influence with the navy, and Churchill with the army. The pledges of so many leaders gave a tone to William's designs, and when it was proposed to repeal the Test Act by means of a packed parliament, the prince sent over Zulestein another agent, to assure the chiefs that if the attempt was made, he would арpear in arms for the defence of their common religion. Zulestein returned to Holland with letters and messages as his predecessor had done, and from this time a regular correspondence was kept up between the prince and the opposition party in England.

Second Declaration of Indulgence published. April 27, 1688. This was substantially the same as the first, but appended to it was a further declaration-that the king was immutably fixed in his purpose and would not give way; that he was resolved to employ only those who would support his design, and had already dismissed many from civil and military employments; and that he hoped his subjects would choose such representatives for the coming parliament, as would assist him in his great design. That the Declaration might be more generally known, an order in council was sent, May 4, to the bishops, that it should be read by the clergy in their respective churches and chapels, during the hours of divine service. In London and Westminster, and within a ten mile radius of the metropolis, the reading to be upon May the 20th or the 27th, and in the other parts of the kingdom, June the 3rd or 10th. The clergy felt themselves in an evil case. Tillotson, Sherlock, Patrick, Stillingfleet, and others met and signed a paper pledging themselves not to read the declaration; this paper was subscribed by nearly a hundred incumbents in London. At Lambeth, Compton of London, Turner of Ely, White of Peterborough, and one or two others met, May 12, and resolved that the Declaration ought not

to be read, and that certain other bishops should be invited to join them.

13. Seven bishops petition the king that the clergy be excused from reading the Declaration, May 18, 1688. The invitation sent out brought up other bishops to London, and on the 18th a meeting of prelates and other eminent divines took place at Lambeth. A petition was drawn up by the primate himself, in which, while disclaiming all disloyalty and intolerance, it was prayed that the clergy might be excused from reading the Declaration, on the ground that parliament had declared the king was not competent to dispense with ecclesiastical statutes, and that the petitioners could not therefore be parties to the publication of an illegal declaration. Sancroft, the primate, Lloyd of St. Asaph, Turner of Ely, Lake of Chichester, Ken of Bath and Wells, White of Peterborough, and Trelawny of Bristol, signed the petition. It was now within thirty-six hours of the time for reading the declaration, the six bishops therefore proceeded without delay to Whitehall; Sancroft did not accompany them, as he was forbidden the court. James, when he had read the paper, showed signs of anger, and charged the petitioners with raising the standard of rebellion; he then bid them be gone and see that his orders were obeyed. The king was further exasperated when he learnt that the petition was printed, and in the hands of everybody. Sunday came, and the declaration was read in only four out of the hundred churches in London; and on the Sunday following, it was read only in the same churches as the week before. In the provinces, the declaration was read by about one clergyman in fifty.

14. The bishops committed to the Tower: a Prince born. June 1688. In respect to the affair of the seven bishops, Sunderland and the catholic peers in the council recommended moderate measures, but James was obstinate, and his temper further inflamed by other bishops successively signing the petition. He therefore concluded to bring up the offending prelates before the King's Bench, on the charge of a seditious libel. On the 8th they appeared before the council, where having acknowledged. their signatures to the petitions, they were called upon to give recognisances to appear before the court in Westminster Hall. Acting under legal advice, they refused, as by doing so, they would relinquish their privilege as peers. A warrant was drawn committing them to the Tower, on the charge of having contrived, written, and published a seditious libel. To prevent any considerable explosion of popular feeling, the bishops were conveyed to the Tower by water, but the authorities had the mortification to find that their passage was more like a triumphal procession.