JAMES II. 1685-1689. Citation of the Reasons which influenced James universities. to subdue the church, was now positively known'; and had he been able to establish the authority of this new erected court, his success was certain3. The Bishop of London having been cited to appear before them, to answer for his contempt in not suspending Dr. Sharpe, they refused to listen to his plea in bar of their jurisdiction; and rejected his absolute right to be tried by the metropolitan and his suffragans. He then alleged that to comply with the royal mandate, by any judicial act, was not in his power, because the offence had never come judicially before him, but that he had complied with it in substance, by advising and inducing Sharpe to abstain from preaching. This not being considered matter of justification, the commissioners suspended his lordship and the dean from their offices. 5. Unconstitutional Exercise of the Prerogative. The king having encamped an army on Hounslow Heath, to suppress every expression of constitutional feeling, the Roman Catholics were alone intrusted with the offices of state', and, not content with granting dispensations to particular persons, assumed a power of issuing a declaration of general indulgence, and of suspending at once all the penal statutes, by which a conformity was required to the established religion. From a document, left in the cabinet of James II., it IL to attack the appears that the reduction of the universities was considered of the greatest importance, as being a "formed army against the Roman Catholic church," as it is there stated, "The whole nation seems to attend to these as an example, by which they may safely form their faith: here lies the heat and strength of that great opposition the Catholic truth encounters;" the king therefore left no expedient untried, to introduce the papists, who could only be regarded as the open and avowed enemies of such institutions. The university privileges were unhesitatingly attacked, and public and private property was illegally seques 2 Echard, 1085. 3 Burnet, 153. Barillon, April 17, May 12, June 2, 1687. 2 Mazure, 130. 4 8 Lingard, 376. 38 Hume, 254, 255. 1 Ellis' Corresp. 149. James' Mem. 74, 77. Barillon, July 22, 29. Nov. 21, 1686. 2 Steph. Corp. Ref. Lond. 1835, 53 et seq. where this document is printed at length. JAMES II. trated from those who were associated with the universities, because they adhered to their duty, their oaths, and their 1685—1689. religion; and it was palpable, that all ecclesiastical, as well as civil preferments, were intended to be bestowed on such as, negligent of honour, virtue, and sincerity, would basely sacrifice their faith to the reigning superstition3. Such was the "Constitution," when the parliament assembled, for the last time, on April 28, 1687, and which was shortly afterwards dissolved, the king intimating that he should have a new one before winter. He then resolved upon making a progress through the western counties, which he effected, but was received so coldly as to be disgusted. blished, for the pretended refor mation of corpo rate abuse. When he returned, he resolved to change the magistracy in Board of Reguthe several cities. The "Regulators," a board established lators esta under the pretext of reforming the abuses in corporations, received orders to mould those bodies in conformity with the views of the court, and instructions were given to the lordlieutenants of counties, to make out lists of persons devoted to the cause, and, on that account, fit to be appointed mayors and sheriffs, so that the returning officers might be in the interest of the crown'; and, secondly, to assemble their deputies and the magistracy, and to put to each individual the three following questions: "If you are chosen to the next parliament, will you vote for the repeal of the Test Act, and of the Penal Laws? Will you give your aid to those candidates who engage to vote for that repeal? Will you support the Declaration for Liberty of Conscience, by living peaceably and like good Christians, with men of different religious principles?" These orders were promptly executed, as evinced by the long list of orders of amotion in the Council Book of this reign, commencing with Chester. indulgence in 1688. In 1688, the king published a second declaration of indul- Declaration of gence, very similar to the one that had been issued, commanding it should be read in all the churches, by the officiating clergymen,-thus adding insult to injury. Some of the bishops, with a spirit worthy of their order, 3 8 Hume, 264. 8 Lingard, 403. 11 State Trials, 1315-1340. 12 State Trials, 1 & 2 James, 119, 124, 125-127. Hist. Eccles. Com. 25, 30— 52. Barillon, May 19, 1687. 1 Machp. Papers, 274. 12 State Trials, 54, 55, 69. Kennet, 475. 3 Burnet, 143-150. 3 Dodd, 469. 2 Burnet, 219. 1 Gutch, Col. Cur. 287. Reresby, 133. 2 Clarendon's Papers, 278. Kennet, 469, 470. Dalrymple, 223. Lonsdale, 15, 16, Bonrepaus, Dec. 4, 1687. Life of James, 139. 4 3 Burnet, 183. 19. Reresby, 251. JAMES II. 1685-1689. The bishops, universities, and trial by jury, preserved the constitution. The people have forcibly to resist refused compliance, protesting that the declaration could not be read either in prudence or in conscience: not in prudence, for three reasons; because it was contrary to the interest of the church, because it would be taken as a proof of their approbation or their cowardice, and because it would lead to the reading of other, and perhaps, still more offensive papers; nor could they read it in conscience, because it contained illegal matter, as it presupposed not merely a dispensing, but even a disannulling power in the crown. For such refusal and protest, they were summoned to appear before the Privy Council', were committed to the Tower', for publishing a seditious libel, but were acquitted by a jury of their country; and it was the verdict of that jury, combined with the undaunted spirit of the bishops and the universities, that preserved the English Constitution, and roused the nation to inflict a commensurate punishment upon their sovereign, by soliciting the Prince of Orange to assume the reins of government. 6. The Expulsion of James justified. When James II. violated the fundamental laws of the an inherent right Constitution, executed an avowed system of tyranny, and established slavery as a political, a moral, and a religious obligation, there cannot be a doubt but that the people were entitled to resist his encroachments, and to adopt such precautions as were requisite for the preservation of their liberties. the illegal encroachments of the crown. The king and people derive their privileges from the same source. In fact, to deny such a proposition would be to maintain that government is intended for those who govern, not for the community at large, and that the general happiness of the human race should be sacrificed to the private interest or caprice of a few individuals. The statute and the common law are the sources from which alone the king derives his rights; they are the only sources from which the people derive their rights'. 5 12 State Trials, 453. Clarendon's Diary, 171. 2 James, 152. Kennet, 482, 483. State Tracts, 430. Lonsdale, 26-28. 1 Gutch, 335-338. 68 Hume, 269. 8 Lingard, 444. 7 2 James, 158. 12 State Trials, 198, 455-462. 2 Clarend. Corr. 175, 177. App. 481-484. 8 D'Oyly's Life of Sancroft, 250. 12 State Trials, 277-431,473. 3 Burnet, 222-226. 1 Macpherson, 266. 2 Ellis Cor. 7-12. Clarend. Diary, 179, 180. Hist. Eccles. Com. 53--60. 1 Bolingbroke's Dissert. on Parties. "A king of Great Britain," as Bolingbroke observes, "is a member, but the supreme member, or the head, of a political body. Part of one individual, specific whole, in every respect; distinct from it, or independent of it, in none; he cannot move in another orbit from his people, and, like some superior planet, attract, repel, influence, and direct their motions by his own. He and they are parts of the same system, intimately joined and co-operating together, acting and acted upon, limiting and limited, controlling and controlled by one another; and when he ceases to stand in this relation to them, he ceases to to stand in any." JAMES II. 1685-1689. Tenets of the urch incon sistent with the Roman Catholic church incon British Consti tution. It is clear, that the tenets of the Romish church were inconsistent with the British Constitution, because they recognised the pope as superior to all law, who, by the plenitude of his power, was entitled to make right wrong, and wrong right"; to make virtue vice, and vice virtue; to dispense with all laws human and divine; and to do all things above law, without law, and against law: principles subversive of any system of government like ours, and accordingly we see this imperium in imperio caused the most dreadful contests in the early periods of our history. It was, however, impossible for James II. to have pursued Canons of the any other course, than that of attempting, as he did, to destroy the English Constitution, for the Canons of the Roman Catholic church, and his duties to that church, required him, as a divine obligation, not only to oppose the progress, but to prohibit and suppress the profession of every religion but his own, for toleration was inconsistent with the canonical laws, which have rejected schism and heresy from the bosom of the church, and the Christian emperors always thought it incumbent upon them, to maintain those laws, and secure their execution. James II., therefore, was religiously bound to disobey the fundamental laws of this country, when they protected the public profession and spreading of doctrines, which were incompatible with the creed of the Roman Catholic church. In fact, wherever the constitution of a state gave equal favour and protection to all religions, such a constitution was at 2 Bozius, cited by Foulis, 98. 6 Barrow, 5, 6, 9, 11. 3 2 South's Sermons, 115. 6 Barrow, 230. Decreta, Par. I, Dis. 96, ff. 107. Paris. 1518. Southey's Book of the Church, 189–191. Romish church suppress the pro fession of every religion but their own. Equal favour and protection to all consistent with religions, is in the Roman Ca tholic doctrines. JAMES II. 1685-1689. Attachment of the House of Brunswick to constitutional liberty. direct variance with the laws of the infallible Romish church. If such a constitution prevailed, the discipline and existence of the Roman Catholic church were compromised, and she held her disciples to be justified in renouncing their allegiance; if the church prevailed, it was lawful to exterminate all those who were schismatics or heretics. It must, however, be a source of the purest pleasure, and of future confidence to the present generation, that those illegal and infamous proceedings which characterized the reign of the second James, have been finally baffled by the accession of the House of Brunswick to the British throne, who upon no one occasion have betrayed their sacred trusts, or deviated from an inviolable attachment to the joint cause of the "English Catholic Church" and "Civil Liberty." WILLIAM III. 1689-1702. First proclamation of William III. SECTION V. WILLIAM III., February 13, A. D. 1689,-March 8, A. D. 1702. 1. The Executive Power intrusted to the Prince of Orange. 2. Declaration, and Bill of Rights. 4. Municipal Institutions. 5. Act of Toleration. 6. Settlement of the Revenue. 7. Triennial Bill. 8. The Basis of the English Constitution. 1. The Executive Power intrusted to the Prince of Orange. The Prince of Orange, previous to his landing, published a proclamation, wherein, after referring to the surrenders and new grants, and other acts of tyranny, he stated, "therefore it is that we have thought fit to go over to England, and we now think fit to declare, that this our expedition is intended for no other design but to have a free and lawful parliament assembled as soon as possible: and that in order to this, all the late charters, by which the election of burgesses is limited contrary to the ancient custom, shall be considered null, and of no force. And likewise all magistrates who have been unjustly turned out, shall forthwith resume their former employments; as well as all the burgesses of England shall return again to their ancient prescriptions and charters." The lords spiritual and temporal, to the number of about ninety, and an assembly of all who had sitten in any of King |