often and too rashly. By this proposition of a regent, here were to be upon the matter two kings at the same time: one with the title, and another with the power, of a king. This was both more illegal and more unsafe than the method they proposed. The law of England had settled the point of the subject's security in obeying the king in possession, in the statute made by Henry the Seventh. So every man knew he was safe under a king, and so would act with zeal and courage. But all such as should act under a prince regent, created by this convention, were upon a bottom that had not the necessary forms of law for it. All that was done by them would be thought null and void in law: so that no man could be safe that acted under it. If the oaths to king James were thought to be still binding, the subjects were by these not only bound to maintain his title to the crown, but all his prerogatives and powers. And therefore it seemed absurd to continue a government in his name, and to take oaths still to him, when yet all the power was taken out of his hands. This would be an odious thing, both before God and the whole world, and would cast a reproach on us at present, and bring certain ruin for the future on any such mixed and unnatural sort of government. Therefore, if the oaths were still binding, the nation was still bound by them, not by halves, but in their whole extent. It was said that, if the government should be carried on in king James's name, but in other hands, the body of the nation would consider him as the person that was truly their king. And if any should plot, or act, for him, they could not be proceeded against for high treason, as conspiring against the king's person or government; when it would be visible that they were only designing to preserve his person, and to restore him to his government. To proceed against any, or to take their lives for such practices, would be to add murder to perjury. And it was not to be supposed that juries would find such men guilty of treason. In the weakness of infancy, a prince regent was in law the same person with the king, who had not yet a will; and it was to be presumed the prince regent's will was the king's will. But that could not be applied to the present case, where the king and the regent must be presumed to be in a perpetual struggle: the one to recover his power, the other to preserve his authority. These things seemed to be so plainly made out in the debate that it was generally thought that no man could resist such force of argument, but those who intended to bring back king James. And it was believed that those of his party, who were looked on as men of conscience, had secret orders from him to act upon this pretence; since otherwise they offered to act clearly in contradiction to their own oaths and principles.

But those who were for continuing the government, and only for changing the persons, were not at all of a mind. Some among them had very different views and ends from the rest. These intended to take advantage from the present conjuncture, to depress the crown, to render it as much precarious and elective as they could, and to raise the power of the people upon the ruin of monarchy. Among those, some went so far as to say that the whole government was dissolved. But this appeared a bold and dangerous assertion for that might have been carried so far as to infer from it that all men's properties, honours, rights, and franchises, were dissolved. Therefore it was thought safer to say that king James had dissolved the tie that was between him and the nation. Others avoided going into new speculations, or schemes of government. They thought it was enough to say that in extreme cases all obligations did cease; and that in our present circumstances the extremity of affairs, by reason of the late ill government, and by king James's flying over to the enemy of the nation, rather than submit to reasonable terms, had put the people of England on the necessity of securing themselves upon a legal bottom. It was said, that though the vow of marriage was made for term of life, and without conditions expressed, yet a breach in the tie itself sets the innocent party at liberty. So a king, who had his power both given him and defined by the law, and was bound to govern by law, when he set himself to break all laws, and in conclusion deserted his people, did, by so doing, set them at liberty to put themselves in a legal and safe state. There was no need of fearing ill consequences from this. Houses were pulled down or blown up in a fire, and yet men found themselves safe in their houses. In extreme dangers the common sense of mankind would justify extreme remedies; though there was no special provision that directed to them, or allowed of them. Therefore, they

said, a nation's securing itself against a king, who was subverting the government, did not expose monarchy, nor raise a popular authority, as some did tragically represent the

matter.

There were also great disputes about the original contract: some denying there was any such thing, and asking where it was kept and how it could be come at. To this others answered that it was implied in a legal government: though in a long tract of time, and in dark ages, there was not such an explicit proof of it to be found. Yet many hints from law-books and histories were brought to show that the nation had always submitted and obeyed in consideration of their laws, which were still stipulated to them.

There were also many debates on the word "abdicate;" for the commons came soon to a resolution, that king James, by breaking the original contract, and by withdrawing himself, had abdicated the government; and that the throne was thereby become vacant. They sent this vote to the lords, and prayed their concurrence. Upon which many debates and conferences arose. At last it came to a free conference, in which, according to the sense of the whole nation, the commons had clearly the advantage on their side. The lords had some more colour for opposing the word "abdicate," since that was often taken in a sense that imported the full purpose and consent of him that abdicated, which could not be pretended in this case. But there were good authorities brought, by which it appeared that when a person did a thing upon which his leaving any office ought to follow, he was said to abdicate. But this was a critical dispute, and it scarcely became the greatness of that assembly, or the importance of the matter.

It was a more important debate, whether, supposing king James had abdicated, the throne could be declared vacant. It was urged that, by the law, the king did never die, but that with the last breath of the dying king, the regal authority went to the next heir. So it was said, that supposing king James had abdicated, the throne was (ipso facto) filled in that instant by the next heir. This seemed to be proved by the heirs of the king being sworn to in the oath of allegiance; which oath was not only made personally to the king, but likewise to his heirs and successors. Those who insisted on the abdication, said, that if the king dissolved the tie between him and his subjects to himself, he dissolved their tie likewise to his posterity. An heir was one that came in the room of a person that was dead; it being a maxim that no man can be the heir of a living man. If therefore the king had fallen from his own right, as no heir of his could pretend to any inheritance from him as long as he was alive, so they could succeed to nothing, but to that which was vested in him at the time of his death. And, as in the case of attainder, every right that a man was divested of before his death was, as it were, annihilated in him, and by consequence could not pass to his heirs by his death, not being then in himself: so if a king did set his people free from any tie to himself, they must be supposed to be put in a state, in which they might secure themselves; and therefore could not be bound to receive one who they had reason to believe would study to dissolve and revenge all they had done. If the principle of self preservation did justify a nation in securing itself from a violent invasion, and a total subversion, then it must have its full scope to give a real, and not a seeming and fraudulent, security. They did acknowledge that upon the grounds of natural equity, and for securing the nation in after times, it was fit to go as near the lineal succession as might be yet they could not yield that point, that they were strictly bound to it.

It was proposed that the birth of the pretended prince might be examined into. Some pressed this, not so much from an opinion that they were bound to assert his right if it should appear that he was born of the queen, as because they thought it would justify the nation, and more particularly the prince and the two princesses, if an imposture in that matter could have been proved. And it would have gone far to satisfy many of the weaker sort, as to all the proceeding against king James. Upon which I was ordered to gather together all the presumptive proofs that were formerly mentioned, which were all ready to have been made out. It is true, these did not amount to a full and legal proof; yet they seemed to be such violent presumptions, that, when they were all laid together, they were more convincing than plain and downright evidence: for that was liable to the

suspicion of subornation; whereas the other seemed to carry on them very convincing characters of truth and certainty. But when this matter was in private debated, some observed that, as king James, by going about to prove the truth of the birth, and yet doing it so defectively, had really made it more suspicious than it was before; so, if there was no clear and positive proof made of an imposture, the pretending to examine into it, and then the not being able to make it out, beyond the possibility of contradiction, would really give more credit to the thing than it then had, and, instead of weakening it, would strengthen the pretension of his birth.

When this debate was proposed in the house of lords, it was rejected with indignation. He was now sent out of England to be bred up in France, an enemy both to the nation and to the established religion: it was impossible for the people of England to know whether he was the same person that had been carried over or not. If he should die, another might be put in his room, in such a manner that the nation could not be assured concerning him. The English nation ought not to send into another country, for witnesses to prove that he was their prince, much less receive one upon the testimony of such as were not only aliens, but ought to be presumed enemies. It was also known that all the persons, who had been the confidents in that matter, were conveyed away; so it was impossible to come at them, by whose means only the truth of that birth could be found out. But while these things were fairly debated by some, there were others who had deeper and darker designs in this

matter.

They thought it would be a good security for the nation, to have a dormant title to the crown lie as it were neglected, to oblige our princes to govern well, while they would apprehend the danger of a revolt to a pretender still in their eye. Wildman thought it was a deep piece of policy to let this lie in the dark and undecided. Nor did they think it an ill precedent that they should so neglect the right of succession, as not so much as to enquire into this matter. Upon all these considerations no further enquiry was made into it. It is true, this put a plausible objection in the mouth of all king James's party: here, they said, an infant was condemned, and denied his right, without either proof or enquiry. This still takes with many in the present age. And, that it may not take more in the next, I have used more than ordinary care to gather together all the particulars that were then laid before me as to that matter.

The next thing in debate was who should fill the throne. The marquis of Halifax intended, by his zeal for the prince's interest, to atone for his backwardness in not coming carly into it: and, that he might get before lord Danby, who was in great credit with the prince, he moved, that the crown should be given to the prince, and to the two princesses after him Many of the republican party approved of this; for by it they gained another point: the people in this case would plainly elect a king, without any critical regard to the order of succession. How far the prince himself entertained this I cannot tell. But I saw it made a great impression on Bentinck. He spoke of it to me, as asking my opinion about it, but so that I plainly saw what was his own, for he gave me all the arguments that were offered for it; as, that it was most natural that the sovereign power should be only in one person that a man's wife ought only to be his wife: that it was a suitable return to the prince for what he had done for the nation: that a divided sovereignty was liable to great inconveniences: and, though there was less to be apprehended from the princess of anything of that kind than from any woman alive, yet all mortals were frail, and might at some time or other of their lives be wrought on.

To all this I answered, with some vehemence, that this was a very ill return for the steps the princess had made to the prince three years ago: it would be thought both unjust and ungrateful; it would meet with great opposition, and give a general ill impression of the prince, as insatiable and jealous in his ambition: there was an ill humour already spreading itself through the nation, and through the clergy; it was not necessary to increase this, which such a step, as was now proposed, would do out of measure: it would engage the one sex generally against the prince; and in time they might feel the effects of that very sensibly; and, for my own part, I should think myself bound to oppose it all I could, considering what had passed in Holland on that head. We talked over the whole thing for many

hours, till it was pretty far in the morning. I saw he was well instructed in the argument; and he himself was possessed with it. So next morning I came to him, and desired my congé. I would oppose nothing in which the prince seemed to be concerned, as long as I was his servant: and therefore I desired to be disengaged, that I might be free to oppose this proposition, with all the strength and credit I had. He answered me, that I might desire that, when I saw a step made; but till then he wished me to stay where I was. heard no more of this, in which the marquis of Halifax was single among the peers; for I did not find there was any one of them of his mind, unless it was the lord Culpepper, who was a vicious and corrupt man, but made a figure in the debates that were now in the house of lords, and died about the end of them. Some moved, that the princess of Orange might be put on the throne; and that it might be left to her to give the prince such a share either of dignity or power as she should propose when she was declared queen. The agents of princess Anne began to go about, and to oppose any proposition for the prince to her prejudice; but she thought fit to disown them. Dr. Doughty, one of her chaplains, spoke to me in her room on the subject; but she said to myself, that she knew nothing of it.

The proposition, in which all that were for the filling the throne agreed at last, was, that both the prince and princess should be made conjunct sovereigns; but, for the preventing of any distractions, that the administration should be singly in the prince. The princess continued all the while in Holland, being shut in there, during the east winds, by the freezing of the rivers, and by contrary winds after the thaw came: so that she came not to England till all the debates were over. The prince's enemies gave it out, that she was kept there by order, on design that she might not come over to England to claim her right. So parties began to be formed, some for the prince, and others for the princess. Upon this the earl of Danby sent one over to the princess, and gave her an account of the present state of that debate; and desired to know her own sense of the matter; for, if she desired it, he did not doubt but he should be able to carry it, for setting her alone on the throne. She made him a very sharp answer: she said, she was the prince's wife, and would never be other, than what she should be in conjunction with him, and under him; and that she would take it extremely unkindly, if any, under a pretence of their care of her, would set up a divided interest between her and the prince. And, not content with this, she sent both lord Danby's letter, and her answer, to the prince. Her sending it thus to him was the most effectual discouragement possible, to any attempt for the future to create a misunderstanding or jealousy between them. The prince bore this with his usual phlegm : for he did not expostulate with the earl of Danby upon it, but continued still to employ, and to trust him; and afterwards he advanced him, first to be a marquis, and then to be a duke.

During all these debates, and the great heat with which they were managed, the prince's own behaviour was very mysterious. He stayed at St. James's: he went little abroad : access to him was not very easy. He heard all that was said to him, but seldom made any answers. He did not affect to be affable, or popular; nor would he take any pains to gain any one person over to his party. He said, he came over, being invited, to save the nation; he had now brought together a free and true representative of the kingdom: he left it therefore to them to do what they thought best for the good of the kingdom; and, when things were once settled, he should be well satisfied to go back to Holland again. Those who did not know him well, and who imagined that a crown had charms, which human nature was not strong enough to resist, looked on all this as an affectation, and as a disguised threatening, which imported, that he would leave the nation to perish, unless his method of settling it was followed. After a reservedness, that had continued so close for several weeks, that nobody could certainly tell what he desired, he called for the marquis of Halifax, and the earls of Shrewsbury and Danby, and some others, to explain himself more distinctly to them.

He told them, he had been till then silent, because he would not say, or do, any thing that might seem in any sort to take from any person the full freedom of deliberating and voting in matters of such importance: he was resolved neither to court nor threaten any one; and therefore he had declined to give out his own thoughts. Some were for putting the government in the hands of a regent; he would say nothing against it, if it was thought

the best mean for settling their affairs; only he thought it necessary to tell them, that he would not be the regent; so, if they continued in that design, they must look out for some other person to be put in that post: he himself saw what the consequences of it were likely to prove; so he would not accept of it: others were for putting the princess singly on the throne, and that he should reign by her courtesy: he said, no man could esteem a woman more than he did the princess; but he was so made, that he could not think of holding any thing by apron-strings; nor could he think it reasonable to have any share in the government, unless it was put in his person, and that for term of life: if they did think it fit to settle it otherwise, he would not oppose them in it; but he would go back to Holland, and meddle no more in their affairs. He assured them, that whatsoever others might think of a crown, it was no such thing in his eyes, but that he could live very well, and be well pleased without it. In the end, he said, that he could not resolve to accept of a dignity, so as to hold it only for the life of another; yet he thought that the issue of princess Anne should be preferred in the succession, to any issue that he might have by any other wife than the princess. All this he delivered to them in so cold and unconcerned a manner, that those who judged of others by the dispositions that they felt in themselves, looked on it all as artifice and contrivance.

This was presently told about, as it was not intended to be kept secret; and it helped not a little to bring the debates at Westminster to a speedy determination. Some were still in doubt with relation to the princess. In some it was conscience; for they thought the equitable right was in her. Others might be moved by interests, since if she should think herself wronged, and ill used in this matter, she, who was likely to outlive the prince, being so much younger and healthier than he was, might have it in her power to take her revenges on all that should concur in such a design. Upon this, I, who knew her sense of the matter very perfectly by what had passed in Holland, as was formerly told, was in a great difficulty. I had promised her never to speak of that matter, but by her order; but I presumed, in such a case I was to take orders from the prince. So I asked him what he would order me to do. He said, he would give me no orders in that matter, but left me to do as I pleased. I looked on this as the allowing me to let the princess's resolution in that be known, by which many, who stood formerly in suspense, were fully satisfied. Those to whom I gave the account of that matter were indeed amazed at it; and concluded, that the princess was either a very good, or a very weak woman. An indifferency for power and rule seemed so extraordinary a thing, that it was thought a certain character of an excess of goodness, or simplicity. At her coming to England, she not only justified me, but approved of my publishing that matter; and spoke particularly of it to her sister princess Anne. There were other differences in the form of the settlement. The republican party were at first for deposing king James by a formal sentence, and for giving the crown to the prince and princess by as formal an election. But that was overruled in the beginning. I have not pursued the relation of the debates, according to the order in which they passed, which will be found in the journal of both houses during the convention; but, having had a great share myself in the private managing of those debates, particularly with many of the clergy, and with the men of the most scrupulous and tender consciences, I have given a very full account of all the reasonings on both sides, as that by which the reader may form and guide his own judgment of the whole affair. Many protests passed in the house of lords, in the progress of the debate. The party for a regency was for some time most prevailing; and then the protests were made by the lords that were for the new settlement. The house was very full; about a hundred and twenty were present; and things were so near an equality, that it was at last carried by a very small majority, of two or three, to agree with the commons in voting the abdication, and the vacancy of the throne; against which a great protest was made; as also against the final vote, by which the prince and princess of Orange were desired to accept of the crown, and declared to be king and queen; which went very hardly *. The

For particulars relating to this interesting period, see Parliamentary History; Evelyn's Diary; Clarendon Cor respondence; Dalrymple's Memoirs; Reresby's Memoirs, &c. &c.

The following succinct account of the proceedings in parliament, after the king's departure, is extracted from the Harleian MSS. 1218. 37. D. pp. 132, 280. They coincide with all the authoritics here referred to.