kingdom. Temple, on the other hand, thought that the restraints were such, as even to subvert the constitution; and that shackles put on a catholic successor, would not afterwards be easily cast off by a protestant.

Shaftesbury's opinion was entirely adopted by the commons, and a bill was brought in for the total exclusion of the duke from the crown. It was there declared, that the sovereignty upon the king's death or resignation should devolve to the person next in succession after the duke; that all acts of royalty, which that prince should afterwards perform, should not only be void but be deemed treason; that if he so much as entered the kingdoms of England or Ireland, he should be deemed guilty of the same offence; and that all who supported his title should be punished as rebels and traitors. This bill of banishment, as well as exclusion, passed the lower house by a majority of seventy-nine; but it was lost in the house of peers.

The last parliament had exclaimed much against the bribery and corruption of the members; the same reproach was renewed in this session by the popular party. An inquiry was made into this complaint. Sir Stephen Fox, the paymaster, confessed to the house, that nine members received pensions to the amount of three thousand four hundred pounds, and after a rigorous enquiry by a secret committee, eight more pensioners were discovered. A sum of about twelve thousand pounds had been also occasionally given or lent to others. The commons at this time were so jealous of the crown, that they brought in a bill, which was twice read, excluding from the lower house all who possessed any lucrative office. The commons voted also the standing army and the king's guards to be illegal and incompatible with the full security of liberty, and of a limited constitution.

Arbitrary imprisonments more or less, frequently used in all other governments of Europe, and even in limited monarchies, are unquestionably acts of despotism; therefore, no country, where such acts can take place, is entitled to boast of civil liberty in its full extent, such as it is enjoyed in England, since the glorious act of habeas corpus, which passed this session. The great charter had laid the first stone of this solid basis of liberty; the bill of rights had extended and strengthened it, but some provisions were still wanting to render it complete, and prevent all evasions or delays whatsoever, and the act of habeas corpus answered these purposes. By this act, it was prohibited to send any one to a prison beyond the sea. No judge, under severe penalties, must refuse any prisoner a writ of habeas corpus, by which the gaoler was directed to produce in court the body of the prisoner, and to certify the cause of his detainer and imprisonment. If the gaol lie within twenty miles of the judge, the writ must be obeyed in three days, and so proportionably for greater distances; every prisoner must be indicted the first term after his commitment, and brought to trial in the subsequent term; and no man after being enlarged by order of court, can be re-committed for the same offence.

Notwithstanding the necessity of this law for the protection of liberty in a mixed monarchy, it must be confessed that there are some particular cases in which it becomes very difficult to reconcile with the strict execution of this law, the full security and regular police of a state, especially the police of great cities. There occur likewise extraordinary circumstances which render some discretionary power in the crown absolutely necessary to the sup port and security of government; but the vigilance of parliament and the responsibility of public functionaries, reduce these cases to unavoidable ex

ceptions, rather tending to confirm than to weaken the common rule. A prime minister in France being one day in his private cabinet, engaged in a conversation upon business with a gentleman, was obliged for two or three minutes to go into the next room; on his coming back, he found that he had inadvertently left open on his bureau, close to which the gentleman was sitting, a private instruction on a most important affair of state, the success of which depended entirely upon secrecy. Sensible of the imprudence he had committed, and of the dan gerous consequences that might attend it, he resumed the conversation as if he thought of nothing else; but in the mean time he wrote and sent word to his secretary, ordering him to have the gentleman arrested as soon as he went out, and confined to la Bastille. Orders were also immediately sent to the governor of the castle not to allow him to speak to any body, but to treat him very civilly, and give him all the comforts he could wish for, as well as the assurances that his confinement should be of a short duration, and would by no means injure his character. A few weeks after, he was released and sent for by the prime minister, who after many apologies and excuses for his imprisonment, frankly informed him of the circumstances which had rendered it necessary. The gentleman was so satisfied with the apologies and caresses of the prime minister, that he had the candour to confess that, had he been in the same situation as his excellence, he would have acted the same. An English minister would have been obliged to sue for an indemnity to cover such an infraction of the habeas corpus act; but as it evidently derived ex necessitate rei, from the necessity of the thing, which supersedes all law, the indemnity act would most probably have passed without a division.

The passing of the habeas corpus act did not

soften the commons into compliance with his majesty's pecuniary demands; they, on the contrary, chiefly 'trusted to his distresses for passing the exclusion bill. The impeachment of the earl of Danby was also carried on with redoubled vigour. The lords appointed a day to examine the question, and agreed to hear counsel on both sides; but the commons declining to submit their pretensions to any discussion or inquiry, voted that whoever should presume without their leave to maintain before the house of peers the validity of the pardon granted to Danby, should be accounted a betrayer of the liberties of the English commons. They demanded also that the bishops whom they knew to be devoted to the court should be removed, as having no more right to vote in the debate on the earl's pardon than in the impeachment itself. The house of lords decided, however, that the bishops should be admitted to vote when the validity of the pardon was examined; and as the commons obstinately insisted on their demand, the king, who was at the same time alarmed at the intelligence that the commons were preparing an inflammatory remonstrance on the favourite topics of popish plot and popery, hastened to dissolve the parliament, without consulting his new council, by whose advice he had promised to regulate his whole conduct; and writs were issued for a new parliament. The malcontents finding all their projects completely disappointed by this vigorous measure, were extremely enraged at it. Shaftesbury publicly threatened that he would have the head of whoever had advised it.

The great discontents in England drew the attention of the covenanters in Scotland, and an incident happened which brought on an insurrection in that country. A set of these fanatics had way-laid with an intention to kill Carmichael, an officer of the archbishop, who had rendered himself obnoxious

by his active severity against the conventicles. While looking out for their victim, they saw the archbishop's coach pass by, and they immediately interpreted this incident as a manifestation of the secret purpose of Providence against him, particularly when they observed that almost all his servants were absent. Without farther deliberation, they fell upon him, dragged him from his coach, tore him from the arms of his daughter, who interposed with cries and tears, and piercing him with redoubled wounds, left him dead on the spot, and immediately dispersed themselves.

This atrocious deed was imputed to the generality of the covenanters; a more violent persecution was commenced against them. On finding that they were unwarily involved in such deep guilt, they resolved to persevere, and to seek from their valour and fortune, for that indemnity which the severity of the government left them no hopes of obtaining in any other way. They pushed on to Glasgow, made themselves masters of that city, dispossessed the established clergy, and issued proclamations, in which they declared that they fought against the king's supremacy, against popery and prelacy, and against a popish successor. Monmouth

was sent against them with a small body of English cavalry, the Scottish guards and some regiments of militia. He found the enemy posted near Bothwell castle, between Hamilton and Glasgow. Their numbers never exceeded eight thousand, and they were without officers of experience or judgment. They were easily routed; about seven hundred fell in the pursuit, and twelve hundred were taken prisoners. Monmouth, who had married a Scottish lady, treated them with great humanity. But Lauderdale, though his influence was declining with Charles, still retained enough to obtain that the act of indemnity should be worded