"to the crown was not heard of till arbitrary

power began to put forth. Before William "the Conqueror's time, it would have been a "senseless word, when the people set up and

66

pulled down as they saw cause: and till "Queen Elizabeth it was not much in fashion, "when the crown was so frequently settled by "act of parliament, and the next of blood so "often set aside; when the son seldom followed "his father into the throne, but either by elec"tion in the lifetime of his father, or else by "act of parliament. So that, to make the "Duke either heir apparent or presumptive to "the crown, it must be proved either by the "constitution of the government, or by some "law or act of parliament. If, therefore, he "has a title to the crown, it is necessary to "know what it is, and whence he has it; but "if he has none, it is not unjust to pass the "Bill, or any other where he shall be particularly named; but I will say no more of this, "lest I may seem to be against kingly govern"ment, which I am not."

On the 8th November, the Bill passed through a committee, was agreed to, and reported to the House. Proceedings so speedy, and a consent so general, alarmed the Court; and a message from the Throne was sent down in these terms:

"His Majesty desires this House, as well for "the satisfaction of his people, as of himself, "to expedite such matters as are depending "before them relating to Popery and the plot; "and would have them rest assured that all "remedies they can tender to His Majesty con"ducing to these ends, shall be very acceptable "to him, provided they be such as may con"sist with preserving the succession of the "crown in its legal course of descent."

It is obvious that this message was only a manner of informing the House that the King would never agree to the Bill of Exclusion. But the Commons chose to attend only to the first part of the message. Many took occasion to observe, that it was strange that the King, who had prorogued Parliament for more than a year, should now find fault with them for the delay of a fortnight; and a committee was appointed, of which Sir William Jones (introduced the same day) was chairman, to draw up an answer to that effect. They at the same time resolved on the prosecution of Lord Stafford, and informed the King that they should soon be ready for the trial. Thus the irregular interference of the King was to little purpose. Indeed, many of his friends thought that it would have been a wiser part in him to have been silent, and have left the odium of rejecting the

Bill entirely to the Lords. But it was thought necessary, by some ostensible act, to counteract the misrepresentations of Shaftesbury; and the anxiety of a King in behalf of the succession of his brother, was likely to produce a favourable effect on the minds of his people. On the debate in council on this message, Lord Halifax first manifested his zeal against the Bill, and entirely separated himself from Sunderland, Essex, and Godolphin, who were its secret friends, and wished not to throw it out of the House of Lords at the first reading.

The third reading of the Bill occasioned a long debate. Sir Leoline Jenkins again spoke against it; and Mr. L. Hyde, on the same side, said, that if the law was passed, there was a loyal party which would never obey it, but would think themselves bound, by their oath of allegiance and duty, to pay obedience to the Duke! He remarked that the proviso, ordered to be added for the security of the Duke's children, did not include the words "presumptive heir to the Crown." He was answered by Sir William Jones, a profound lawyer, and a man of great eminence, who maintained, as Mr. Booth had done, that the words " presumptive heir to the Crown" were totally unknown to our law-books; and that the succession of the Duke's children was secure without them.

Nov. 15.

The Bill now passed the Commons, 1680. and Lord Russell was ordered to carry it up to the House of Lords for their concurrence. He did so four days afterwards. We are told in the Life of James that many members wished the Bill to be kept back for a short time longer, not thinking the Lords sufficiently prepared; but that Lord Russell, carried on by his exceeding ardour on this occasion, and having the Bill in his hand, ran away with it in spite of all opposition. Finding they could not withhold him, many members accompanied him, and, when it was delivered, gave a mighty shout.

In the debate on the first reading, Lord Essex and Lord Shaftesbury were the chief speakers for it, and Lord Halifax against it. The King was present all the time, and the whole House of Commons, having adjourned their proceedings expressly for this purpose, attended the debate. On a divison the Bill was lost, 63 being against it, and only 30 for it. The Lord Sunderland, to the great surprise and displeasure of the King, appeared in the minority. The great majority on this occasion is not difficult to account for. Besides the bishops, whose principles and interest were both against the Bill, there were a number of Lords, either attracted by the distinctions and swayed by the pleasures

of the Court, or unable to withstand the personal canvass of the King. In the debate, the party against the exclusion derived great advantage from the ready wit and ingenious eloquence of Lord Halifax. For, unhappily, this very able man, though pursuing the same objects as Lord Essex and Lord Shaftesbury, had so great a respect for his own wisdom, that he preferred leaving our religion and liberty without any security, to accepting that which was devised by the judgment of his political friends. *

Lord Halifax proposed, as an expedient to secure the country from the dangers apprehended, that the Duke should be banished for life. The Whigs were totally averse to this proposal, and James himself dreaded it still more than the Exclusion Bill. +

I shall conclude this chapter with the excellent observations of Mr. Fox on the comparative

*It is more conformable to the character of Lord Halifax to suppose him swayed by the motive I have assigned to him, than by personal animosity against Shaftesbury. Yet he no doubt viewed with apprehension the prospect of Monmouth succeeding to the throne. It would appear, both from Burnet and Temple, that his quarrel with Shaftesbury was rather an effect of his opposition to the Exclusion Bill, than the cause of it.

+ Life, vol. i. p. 635.

VOL. I.