sioners might cite him before them. In their mode of dealing with him they were fettered by no rules. They were themselves at once both prosecutors and judges. The accused party was furnished with no copy of the charge. He was examined and cross-examined. If his answers did not give satisfaction, he was liable to be suspended from his office, to be ejected from it, to be pronounced incapable of holding any preferment in future. If he were contumacious, he might be excommunicated, or, in other words, deprived of all civil rights, and imprisoned for life. He might also, at the discretion of the court, be loaded with all the costs of the proceeding by which he had been reduced to beggary. No appeal was given. The commissioners were directed to execute their office notwithstanding any law which might be, or might seem to be, inconsistent with these regulations.'

3. It was one of the preparations of James for the projects which he had in view to create a standing army subject to his sole command. Hitherto the principal national forces consisted of volunteers or of the city train-bands, and others who were compelled by law to serve for a limited time, but who were not soldiers by profession. Mercenary troops were sometimes hired; but the House of Commons had a strong check over them, as it granted or withheld the money with which they were paid. Moreover, there was no mutiny act, and no martial law to compel soldiers to observe discipline and fulfil their duties. They were only liable, like any other persons who took wages for services, to be prosecuted if they neglected to perform their proper functions. These circumstances rendered it difficult to embody an army.

DECLARATION OF INDULGENCE. Having secured, as he believed, a complying bench, James published his celebrated Declaration of Indulgence on the 7th April 1687. It had an appearance of fairness and liberality, for it annulled all laws against nonconformists, and protected the protestant dissenters from penalties as well as the Roman-catholics. The dissenters had been subjected to continual and harassing persecution, and it would not have been a cause of great wonder had they heartily accepted of the indulgence: indeed, had they been thoughtless men, they would have greatly applauded the generosity of their king. They of course took advantage of the relaxation of the law, and some of them sided with the court; but as a body they would not give their approval to a step that appeared to be so dangerous to civil liberty as the

abrogation of acts of parliament by the mere royal will. James thought that the dissenters would have been unable to resist the temptation of such a relaxation. On the other hand, knowing little of human nature, he could not conceive how the party who were always supporting the divine right of kings could oppose him. The established clergy and the universities had repeatedly told him that his power was derived from God, to whom alone he was responsible, and that it was not morally lawful for any subject to resist him. He did not remember the difference between enforcing such doctrines and suffering under them, when he believed that the clergy and the universities would at once submit to them in practice. He tried Cambridge first.

4. THE UNIVERSITIES.-It had been settled by act of parliament that no one should obtain a degree in either university without first taking the protestant oaths. A royal letter was sent directing the university of Cambridge to admit a Benedictine monk as Master of Arts. The monk of course would not take the oaths, and the university refused to give him the degree. The vice-chancellor was cited before the high commission and deprived of his office.

In March 1687, the president of Magdalen College, Oxford, died. The king, by a royal letter, required the fellows to elect Anthony Farmer, a Roman-catholic; but, though they addressed the king with great reverence, they chose another person. The fellows were cited before the high commission, and as it appeared that there were other objections to Farmer besides his being a Roman-catholic, the king named another candidate. The fellows had, however, made their election, and they adhered to it. A commission of visiters was sent to the university, by whom the person named by the king was installed in form, though the person chosen by the college was counted its real head. The porter would not even open the door, a blacksmith could not be found who would break it open, and none of the ordinary servants of the university would perform their functions for the intruder. To carry out his plans, James condemned all the fellows to expulsion; and, lest any gentleman possessed of church patronage should give them livings, they were declared incapable of holding church preferment. By this act, Oxford, the orderly and quiet centre of high church loyalty and passive obedience, became like a manufacturing town in open insurrection, and every one, from the decorous heads of colleges down to the youngest

student, showed contumely to those whom they considered intruders.

It was just four years earlier that the same university had published a decree "against certain pernicious books and damnable doctrines." These doctrines were generally in favour of the right to resist arbitrary and tyrannical princes, and the decree enforced the principle of passive submission to all ordinances of monarchs, and positively required "that this submission and obedience is to be clear, absolute, and without any exception of any state or order of men.' The king was resolved to enforce these doctrines against themselves to the utmost, and Magdalen College, became a popish seminary. It is curious to observe, that though James was professedly bringing England under the papal hierarchy, the pope, who was a man of sense, neither aided him nor approved of his conduct. He knew what it was for a religious majority to domineer over a minority; but he saw how impossible it was that a small body of Roman-catholics, even though the king was one of them, should lord it over twenty times as many protestants, with the wealth, the rank, and the intelligence of the country among them. It was the Jesuits, whose support of Catholicism was not always of a kind to please the papal court, who chiefly urged on and aided the king in his operations.

5. SCOTLAND. The king's proceedings in Scotland tended to strengthen the suspicion that he did not intend to tolerate all sects, but to establish his own religion and oppress the rest whenever he became sufficiently powerful. He desired the parliament of Scotland to repeal all the acts against Roman-catholics, leaving the cruel laws against presbyterians untouched. He afterwards so far modified his desire as to admit of a limited toleration to the moderate presbyterians worshipping in their private houses. He appears to have considered the presbyterians of Scotland more inimical to his projects and more offensive to his person than the dissenters of England. They had indeed been during his brother's lifetime in open rebellion-he had himself seen them subjected to the torture of the boot and the thumbikins. Then they had become peculiarly obnoxious to himself by raising riots in Edinburgh, and attacking some statesmen who, to gratify their master, had changed their religion. James was both mortified and incensed to find that though he used every available influence, and dismissed minister after minister, the par

liament of Scotland would not pass such a measure as he desired. He then had recourse to his prerogative, and issued a proclamation the very beginning of which justified the fears of those who charged him with a design to undermine the liberties of the kingdom. It was in these words: "By our sovereign authority, prerogative royal, and absolute power, which all our subjects are to observe without reserve.' It proceeded to declare, that the moderate presbyterians should be tolerated in the celebration of worship in their private houses; but it laid down, as the king's "royal will and pleasure, that field conventicles, and such as preach or exercise at them, shall be prosecuted according to the utmost severity of our laws." The indulgence to the Roman-catholics was by the same document made unlimited; they were relieved from all disabilities, and declared to be entitled to hold any office in the state. No one who saw such a document could believe that the king sincerely desired a complete and equal toleration.

On the 7th of April 1688, the king issued a new declaration of indulgence. It professed the reasonable doctrine, that offices and emoluments should be given as the reward of services, fidelity, and merit, instead of being given for taking an oath in favour of a particular religion. Still it was believed that this only covered projects of arbitrary power, which was immediately confirmed, for all the clergy were ordered to read it from their pulpits, so that the very act of promulgating it was one of despotic authority. In this light it was regarded by the dissenters, the greater and more eminent part of whom offered to take the side of the established clergy, whom they advised not to read the declaration. A resolution to that effect was prepared and speedily signed by eighty-five of the London clergymen. The king's order was only obeyed in four churches within London, and in these it was received rather with scorn than with respect by the congregations. In the meantime seven of the bishops signed a dutiful petition to the king, pointing out and gently chiding his illegal course, and praying that they might not be compelled to read the declaration.

EXERCISES.

1. How did James's reign begin? Give an account of the acts and fate of Monmouth and Argyle. How did the king become unpopular? What was the method of proceeding that alarmed the people for their liberties? What reasons did James assign for keeping Romish officers? What decision did the judges give?

2. How did he try to abrogate the test act? What was his saying as to

the judges? What was the answer of Judge Jones? How did he begin to transfer the benefices of the English church to Roman-catholics? What was the nature of the court of ecclesiastical commissioners ?

3. What were James's views as to an army? What had been the nature of the national force before his time? When was the declaration of indulgence published? What was its nature? How did the dissenters behave in regard to it?

4. How did the king proceed towards the University of Cambridge? What did he require the fellows of Magdalen College, Oxford, to do? How did they act? What was the result of these proceedings? What view did the pope take of them?

5. What was the character of the king's proceedings in Scotland? How did he distinguish between the Roman-catholics and the presbyterians? What was the nature of the new declaration of indulgence? What order was issued to the clergy? How did they receive it? What did the seven bishops do?

CHAPTER XXVIII.

JAMES II. FROM THE COMMENcement to the Completion OF THE REVOLUTION, A. D. 1688-1689.

Trial of the Bishops-Birth of the Prince of Wales-Condition of the Army -The Prince of Orange-State of Ireland-Lillibulero-Desertion of the Courtiers-Prince George of Denmark-Flight of the King-Disturbances in London-The Convention-Declaration of Rights-Election of William III. and Queen Mary-Scotland.

1. TRIAL OF THE BISHOPS.-The remonstrance of the bishops may be said to have been the turning point of the Revolution. The king was furious; he confronted the prelates and browbeat them; and, finally, they were committed to the Tower. Their progress thither was a species of triumph. All London was up in their favour, and even the soldiers sent to guard them treated them with respect and reverence. On the 15th of June, the bishops were brought to trial, accused of what is called in English law "a misdemeanour" in signing and presenting the petition. Except that of Charles I., this was the most important trial that had taken place in England. It was completed on the 29th of the month, when the jury sat up all night, and many other people sleeplessly waited for their decision. They found a verdict of not guilty, and the event was celebrated with public rejoicings.

Another event, from which James and his supporters had augured the best results, only served to hasten his destruction. He had two daughters by his first wife, the Princess Mary and