James II. congenial in his principles, and more bold in the avowal and the excution of his designs than his brother, met with its due reward. A. D. 1684. The established religion of the country was insulted by the erection of a popish chapel in the midst of the royal camp; the rights of election were infringed by the despotic appointment of a popish president to Magdalen college in the university of Oxford; the privileges of parliament were violated by a standing army, maintained in the time of profound peace, without their consent; and the exercise of the right of subjects to present petitions to the king was punished by the imprisonment of six bishops in the tower. Popery and slavery seemed to be again returning with hasty steps; and the spirit of determined opposition was roused to check their advances. WILLIAM, prince of Orange, descended from the illustrious house of Nassau, grandson of Charles I. was invited to share the throne with Mary, the daughter of James. The king, struck with consternation at the desertion of his army, his fleet, and even his own children, threw up the reins of government, and was indebted to the clemency, or perhaps the policy of his enemies, for a secure escape into France.

The reign of the Stuarts consisted in a continued struggle for power between the monarch and his subjects. The public mind was kept in a constant state of fermentation; and the times, however favourable to the exercise of political skill and courage, seemed to allow no leisure for the cultivation of the intellectual powers, or the growth of knowlege, which is usually the improvement of tranquillity and repose. Yet, amid the turbulence of this period was founded the Royal Society, an institution, which has been par

ticularly favourable to the promotion of science and genuine philosophy. The revolution was a most distinguishing epoch in the history of England, as it altered the line of succession by a power immediately derived from the people, and gave such an ascendant to their liberty, as to extend its influence, secure its continuance, and place it upon a solid and durable foundation. The means by which it was accomplished, without the effusion of blood, at least upon English ground, were as extraordinary as the importance of it was great, not only to Britain, but to the common interests of Europe.

At the auspicious moment, when William III. gave his assent to the bill of rights, the fabric of the constitution was completed. The most valuable parts of the feudal system, and the recent plans of liberty, were consolidated in one consistent and uniform mass of jurisprudence. A. D 1688. The privileges of the people, and the prerogative of the king, were weighed in the balance of justice; and were ascertained and defined, not so much by prescription on the one hand, or the predominance of a democratic party on the other, as by the more enlarged and moderate principles of reason and expediency. The important change then introduced into the succession to the throne was calculated to exclude the repetition of such an event, against which the laws had not before provided a remedy. That the crown should never more be possessed by a papist, was an important declaration made by the bill of rights and with such alarming apprehensions did the revolutionists view a monarch of that description, that they thought it necessary to deprive the future kings of England of the right given to every subject of choosing his own religion. The arguments

in favour of this restriction were cogent and irresistible. The religious liberty of the people was regarded as intimately connected with their civil welfare. A recent example had taught them, that the character of a popish prince was inseparable from that of a despot; and they wished for ever to prevent the repetition of the wrongs and outrages, which had sprung from the union of bigotry with arbitrary power. Influenced by a spirit of moderation, and rather seeking a remedy for past abuses, than framing a government upon principles of hazardous and untried theory, they made few changes in the established laws and statutes. But they thought it a duty incumbent upon them to embrace this opportunity of giving their due strength, vigour, and authority, to the liberty of the subject. Accordingly, the ascendancy of the law above the will of the king was fully declared, his dispensing authority was judged illegal, and the undoubted privileges of the subject to petition for a redress of grievances, and to provide for his self defence, were guarded against violation, in the most clear and positive terms. The king was invested with every power, which his predecessors had exercised over parliaments, corporations, the army, and the navy, except the power of doing injury; and his subjects were laid under those equitable restraints, which were most consistent with rational liberty. And to complete their independence, the privileges of Englishmen were not solicited as a favour, but asserted in the most emphatical terms, as an undoubted and inherent right. Allegiance and protection were declared reciprocal ties depending upon each other, and the dignity and honour of the King were involved in the security and happiness of his subjects.

The reign of QUEEN ANNE was distinguished by a successful war against France, in which John duke of Marlborough, one of the greatest generals, not only of his age, but of modern times, defeated by an uninterrupted succession of victories at the head of the allied armies of England, Germany, and Holland, the attempts of Louis XIV. to obtain universal sovereignty; and raised the renown both of himself and his country to the highest pitch of glory. This reign is also rendered memorable by the union of England and Scotland, and their joint representation in the parliament of Great Britain-measures which the regularly increasing and uninterrupted prosperity of both countries has amply justified. A. D. 1706. The death of Queen Anne was followed by the succession of the house of Hanover to the throne; and each descendant of this illustrious family, particularly the REVERED SOVEREIGN who now holds the sceptre of the United Kingdom, has ever protected the civil and religious rights of his subjects from violation, and built his glory upon the firmest basis, by reigning in the hearts of his subjects, and maintaining the most endearing and the most exalted of all human charcaters-even that of being the FATHER OF HIS PEOPLE.

Expedient as the steps taken at the revolution might be to settle the government, it is unfortunate for the tranquillity of the country, that the event gave rise to political divisions. The whigs and the tories have since divided the kingdom, and kept alive the flames of party spirit. Possibly, however, in a free country like our own, where a wide field is opened for a rivalry of talents, and a competition of interests, this counterbalance of parties may prevent evil, if it does not produce good. If the current of opinion

flowed only in one stream, the vigilance of government might be relaxed, the arrogance of men in office might want a salutary check, or their supineness be deprived of a stimulative; and no place could be found for that exertion of abilities, which often takes its rise from opposition. Whatever be the party, under which they may be enlisted, we may be certain the men in power can only secure the great and permanent prosperity of the nation by a conscientious, upright, and magnanimous discharge of their duty. The history of the two parties is recorded with singular correctness by Rapin, a dispassionate and candid foreigner.* His detail affords sufficient proofs how impolitic as well as

* See Rapin, vol. iii, p. 796. Of his impartiality and candour there are many instances. In his Life of Edward III. vol. i, p. 418, and p. 436. See his remarks on the treaty of Bretigny-his Letter to Robethon at the end of vol. ii, and p. 807 of the Dissertation on whigs and tories. To extricate himself from some historical difficulties, he has laid down two excellent rules. He remarks that the national prejudices of our historians are very rooted, chiefly upon two articles-the violation of treaties, and the success of battles. For the former, where the truth was no other way to be discovered, he has frequently made use of a very natural maxim, viz. that it is not likely that the party to whom a treaty is advantageous, should be the first to break it. As for the second article, nothing is more common than to see historians hesitate to own their nation vanquished, and they think it incumbent upon them to diminish their losses, or magnify their victories. On these occasions, when Rapin could not fix the success of a battle by the consequences, he has taken care to inform the reader of the disagreement between the Historians. See Preface, p. 4.