(1) ENGLAND. (1687—1702.)

By H. W. V. TEMPEELEY, M.A., Fellow and Assistant Tutor of Peterhouse.

Characteristics of the period .236

Second Declaration of Indulgence . 237

Attack on the Universities. The Dissenters .238

Halifax and the Prince of Orange . 239

James and Parliament. Mission of Dykvelt .240

Attitude of William of Orange. Birth of a Prince . 241

The Seven Bishops. Invitation to William .242

Attitude of James. William's German allies .243

Spain, the Emperor and the Pope . 244

Policy of Louis XIV . . 244

The expedition sails.. 245

William's landing and proclamation. 246

First flight of James. 247

Second flight of James. 248

Effects of James' flight. Projects for a Settlement. 249

Meeting of the Convention Parliament. 249

Debates on the Settlement. 250

William and Mary proclaimed. Bill of Rights. 251

Political theorists of the Revolution. 252

Harrington and Locke. 253

Locke and the Original Contract. 254

General features of the Revolution. The personalities of James and William. 255

Indifference of the people towards both. The religious motive. 256

Character and aims of William III. 257

Character and influence of Mary.. 258

William's first Parliament..259

Act of Grace.. 260

William's Irish campaign. La Hogue... 261

James at St Germain. Assassination Plot.. 262

England and the War.. 263

Bounty Act. Whig commercial policy.. 264

Finance. The Land Tax..265

The National Debt. Projects for a National Bank. 266

Establishment of the Bank of England.. 267

Character of the Bank..268

Recoinage Act. ..269

The Land Bank.. 270

Political influence of the Bank. The Press.271

Privy Council committees..272

The executive and the legislature. 273

The Whig "Junto".. 274

The Act of Settlement. Death of James II.275

Death of William III. His political action in England. 276

Results of the Revolution Settlement. 277


By P. HUME BROWN, LL.D., Professor of Ancient (Scottish) Histoi and Palaeography in the University of Edinburgh.

The Restoration in Scotland.278

Charles II and Scottish Presbyterianism.. 279

Appointment of Pi-ivy Council.280

Establishment of Episcopacy.281

Restitution of Lay Patronage.282

Measures against Recusants.283

The Pentland Rising. Letters of Indulgence.284

The "Highland Host." Murder of Archbishop Sharp.285

Battle of Bothwell Bridge..286

Failure of Lauderdale.. 286

Duke of York Royal Commissioner. 287

The Apologetical Declaration.288

Accession of James VII. Argyll's invasion.289

Letters of Indulgence. Execution of Renwick.290

Dethronement of James..291

The Revolution Parliament..292

Death of Dundee at Killiecrankie. 293

Establishment of Presbyterianism. 293

Massacre of Glencoe.. 294

The "Assurance".. 295

The Darien Scheme and Expeditions. Results of the failure. 296

Accession of Anne. Meeting of Estates.. 297

The Act of Security. Union Commissioners.298

The Treaty of Union.. 299

Results of the Treaty of Union.299


By ROBERT DUNLOV, M.A., Victoria University.

Charles II and Ireland..301

The Declaration and Act of Settlement.. 302

An Act of Explanation. Trade restrictions.303

The woollen industry. Religious toleration.304

Ormond recalled. Catholic intrigues. 305

Popish Plot. Catholic reaction.306

Tyrconnel Viceroy. Revolt of Derry. 307

James lands at Kinsale. Political situation.308

James hefore Derry. "No Surrender".. 309

Opening of the Irish Parliament.310

Its legislation. Proceedings in England.. 311

Derry relieved. Schomberg in Ireland.. 312

Schomberg's campaign. William in Ireland.313

William and James. Battle of the Boyne.. 314

Flight of James. First siege of Limerick.. 315

Siege raised. Marlhorough. St Ruth.. 316

Ginkel in command. Athlone captured.. 317

Battle of Aughrim. Surrender of Galway.. 318

Limerick capitulates. Articles of civil and military treaties. 319

Legislative independence of Ireland. Tests imposed. 320

Anti-Catholic legislation. Tory opposition.. 321

The Irish woollen industry destroyed. 322

The forfeitures. Act of Resumption. 323



(1) ENGLAND. (1687-1702.)

THE period 1687-1702 is unique in the history of England. Such achievements as the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement, the foundation of a National Bank and a National Debt, the Toleration Act and the withdrawal of the Press-Licensing Act, would have exercised an influence both deep and wide at any time and among any people. But, as taking place among this people and in this period, they had a peculiar value ; for their influence transcended the bounds of one country and had a European significance and effect. The question of the removal of the Tests engaged the attention of Princes and diplomatists in Europe, as well as of Dissenting ministers and Catholic priests in England Continental statesmen watched the results of divisions in the English House of Commons, knowing that on a casual party vote, the fate of a great alliance might depend. The resolutions of the Bank and the stale of the currency in England decided the fate of a campaign on the Continent. A native-born King deserted England and tried to reconquer it with the aid of Frenchmen and Irishmen; a foreign potentate defended it with an army of Swedes, Dutchmen, Brandenburgers, and Englishmen. The rule of an English-born King threatened disgrace and humiliation to his country; the rule of a Dutchman brought it power and glory England no longer revolved in an orbit of her own ; her course was deflected, and her movements were determined, by the presence of other bodies in the political firmament. International policy is here subordinate to internal history; but, none the less, the course of domestic policy can often be explained only by reference to continental problems.

The disasters of James II were chiefly due to the fact that he mistook tributary streams for main currents of national thought. Thus, he gathered from the widely different opinions of the clergy that the Establishment was divided in doctrine; he did not perceive that it would unite against Catholicism. And, as he perceived the disunion and was blind to the latent strength of the Establishment, so he saw the

superficial unity, and was blind to the underlying divisions, between Dissenters and Catholics. Obstinate and courageous, sincerely believing that concession had ruined his father and his brother, he was the very man to ignore obstacles and attempt impossibilities. He at first thought that the resolute expression of his will would move the Establishment to consent to the toleration of Catholics. When this expectation failed, he turned to the Dissenters, and relied upon their coalescence with the Catholics to secure toleration for both parties. Such were some of the motives which inspired the Declaration of Indulgence (issued April 4, 1687), by which he suspended all penal statutes against Catholics and Dissenters, and admitted them to public office in corporations, army, or civil service.

The Declaration had been issued on the sole ground of the royal prerogative, by which, it was claimed, the laws could be suspended. Unfortunately for James, though opinion veered as to the true limits of royal power, it was steady on the one point on which he elected to challenge it. Parliament had pronounced a similar Declaration of Charles II illegal, and the King had acquiesced and withdrawn it (1672). If precedents counted for anything, James was legally in the wrong ; and, if the legal irregularity was clear, so also was the political motive inspiring it. It was obvious that a power which could enforce the doctrines of toleration might eventually also enforce the doctrines of absolutism, in the teeth of Parliament. Hence, by a strange but intelligible paradox, the establishment of liberty in religion would lead to the destruction of it in politics. But, while recognising that political motives inspired James, it is not necessary to assume that they excluded all other considerations. His religious sincerity does not seem to have been questioned by the foreign diplomatists at his Court. His conversion to the principle of toleration was perhaps late; but the influence of the great William Penn upon him may explain much. At any rate, when the conversion was once effected, it remained permanent. Long afterwards, when in exile-and when he had much to lose by his attitude- James continued to profess at least a theoretical zeal for toleration.

An attack upon the Universities accompanied the Declaration, and supplied the mirror in which Englishmen read that toleration meant hostility to the Establishment. The proceedings against Cambridge are particularly important, because resistance was here offered even before the issue of the Declaration. On February 9, 1687, the Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge (Peachell) received a royal letter, commanding him to confer the degree of M.A. upon Alban Francis, a Benedictine. Nearly the whole Senate at once signed a protest against the proposal, describing their resistance as proceeding not "from any principle of disobedience and stubbornness, but from a conscientious sense of our obligations to laws and oaths." Eventually the Vice-Chancellor, with eight delegates (including Isaac Newton), was summoned before the Court of High

Commission (April and May, 1687). Peachell, after being thoroughly bullied by Jeffreys, was deprived of his office. But the protest succeeded, and Francis was left without a degree. The proceedings at Oxford were different and more violent. Catholic influences had already been introduced into Christ Church and University College without much open protest. In April, 1687, James had sent a letter recommending Anthony Farmer-a man of bad character who was a convert to Catholicism- for the presidency of Magdalen. But the Fellows had already met and elected John Hough to the post. They were hereupon cited before the Commission, and ultimately expelled. They offered a more dignified, if less successful, resistance than the Cambridge Vice-Chancellor and his companions ; but the Oxford opposition, being subsequent to the Declaration, was more natural and has therefore less historic significance.

The interference of James with the Universities has more value as an illustration of ecclesiastical and popular resentment than as an instance of royal illegality. For it is hard to say that James had sinned against established custom. Letters mandatory or dispensatory had expelled or appointed Fellows under Charles I and II often enough to create precedents. Professed Lutherans had been admitted to colleges ; the ambassador of Morocco had lately received a degree at Cambridge, in direct defiance of statutes and in the absence of loud or general disapproval. But when James tried to leaven the colleges with Roman Catholic Fellows the academic bodies suddenly discovered and denounced the inroad on their privileges. The conviction that the King desired to override the existing law was becoming deep-rooted, and it nowhere found a better expression than in the controversial protests of University officials. But, if James had not violated the statutes or departed from the custom of the Universities, he had certainly broken his word. He had confirmed all the suspicions awakened in the Declaration by an assault upon institutions which every Anglican believed to be nurseries of the learning, the piety, and the steadfastness of his Church. He had attempted to humiliate and degrade, he might actually mean to destroy, the Church which he had repeatedly sworn to defend. Anglicans began to feel that his measures tended, as the Prince of Orange told the English ambassador, " really to sap the foundations of the Protestant religion."

Meanwhile, the Dissenters were beginning to suspect James as an ally. All the eloquence of the great William Penn, the reputed author of the Declaration, could not win over the Nonconformists. It was significant that he could not even secure the whole body of the Quakers, amongst whom his personal influence had hitherto been boundless. And, apart from them, the majority of the Dissenters looked askance at the Declaration, and their chief divines, Baxter and Ho we, actually denounced it. The joint admission of Dissenters and Catholics to office in the corporations was producing extraordinary results. Thus, Newcastle had a Papist Mayor and a Puritan Council, and the corporation vetoed every

loyal address put forward by its Catholic head. Such a result was typical and indeed inevitable; and all the suspicions which could possibly arise from so unnatural a union were subtly suggested or emphasised by a pamphlet from the pen of Halifax.

The famous Letter to a Dissenter (published apparently in the middle of August, 1687) dissected the Declaration with inimitable irony. The incongruity of an alliance between liberty and infallibility, between Ti verton weavers and Jesuit priests was skilfully exposed, and well spiced with allusions to the Popish plot and Romish treachery. Halifax then proceeded to point out the danger of affronting the Church of England "from a desire of ease and revenge." The Declaration depended solely on the sincerity of the Court, for which there was no guarantee ; and the first act of Princess Mary of Orange, on her accession, might be to cancel it. Was it worth while to accept a favour of dubious permanence, from a suspected source, at the certain price of alienating the whole Establishment? The air of detachment and seriousness, which Halifax always preserved even in the wittiest and most prejudiced of his pamphlets, made the effect of this appeal more remarkable. Twenty thousand copies were sold ; and twenty-four answers, each excelling the other in violence of abuse and feebleness of argument, vainly endeavoured to counteract the effect of the most successful pamphlet of the age.

It was followed, at an interval of three and a half months, by another communication which was inferior to it in literary grace, but surpassed it in political importance. The document, which put into the shade even a pamphlet by Halifax, was a letter written by Fagel, Grand Pensionary of Holland, authoritatively announcing the views of the Prince and Princess of Orange upon the Declaration. Though their opinions had been known to James and to diplomatists so early as June, 1687, they were not revealed to the English people until the publication of Fagel's letter in November. Fagel announced that the Prince and Princess desired toleration, and wished no man to be persecuted for matters of private conscience. But, while several religions might be tolerated in private, the Prince and Princess thought that there could not in one State be two, " public and established." Hence they could approve nothing " so much against the existing laws," as removal of the Tests, those necessary safeguards against the Catholics. Such language was admirably chosen. The Prince and Princess disclaimed the right of interference, while clearly condemning the methods of James ; they profusely protested their duty and affection to the King, while delicately insinuating that his Declaration was illegal. The success of FagePs letter was so extraordinary that, by the beginning of 1688, forty-five thousand copies had actually been sold. From this time the position of the Prince of Orange, as the protector of the public liberties and the Protestant religion, was recognised by most members of the Established Church and by the majority of Dissenters.

The ablest of English, and one of the ablest of European, statesmen had thus pronounced against the Declaration of James. But, apart from these weighty commentaries, the facts themselves seemed to the English people to show clearly enough that the royal policy was directed first against the Established Church, and ultimately against the Constitution. James was quite aware of their suspicions, and of the danger of putting himself legally in the wrong. He accordingly sought to secure the sanction of Parliament for the repeal of the Tests and for the establishment of religious toleration. With this view he made persistent efforts during the summer of 1687 to establish his personal influence over members of Parliament by securing their adhesion to himself. When this system of " closetting " (as it was called) proved a hopeless failure, he dissolved Parliament (July 2). One last resource remained : a new Parliament might be packed, and the public officers turned into electioneering agents. If officials refused to act this part, they could be turned out. In these circumstances, half the Lords Lieutenant and eight hundred Protestant magistrates speedily resigned or were dismissed. James proceeded to fill the corporations, the benches of magistrates and the state departments with his own nominees. Commissions of " Regulators " filled the corporation councils and the commissions of the peace with Catholics and Dissenters, and expelled from the public departments any officials likely to resist the King. Such violent changes could not be accomplished without disorganising the machinery of State and producing universal discontent. The continuance of drastic reforms in the public service, together with a lavish creation of peers, might at any time place both Houses of Parliament at the feet of James. A revolution of this kind, if systematically pursued, must eventually be met by a revolution of another kind ; and from this time forward passive constitutional opposition began to develop into active resistance. By the winter of 1687 James might have read the signs, for almost all the nobility had deserted his Court and retired to their country estates. Foreign diplomatists at least were not deceived, and the sagacious Prince of Orange understood that the time for active interference was approaching.

In spite of some previous disputes the differences between William and James did not become acute till 1687. The beginnings of a real quarrel may be dated from that year, when William sent Dykvelt to England on a mission whose professed object was one of diplomatic compliment to James (February-May). Dykvelt speedily revealed his real purpose by arranging for secret interviews with Devonshire, Halifax, Danby, Shrewsbury, and others, and endeavouring to ascertain their views as to the Declaration and the policy of James. It appears that Dykvelt repeated the main substance of these conversations to James, and that there is no reason to suspect any direct attempt at conspiracy. But none the less his mission marks an epoch in the history of the time. William concluded from Dykvelt's report that he must abandon all

hope of bringing England into the continental alliance by conciliating James himself. That this deduction was correct can be seen from the memoirs of James which, though not entirely composed by himself, substantially represent his views. He there explains that, in the war which was seen to be approaching, it seemed to him that France would attack and weaken the Dutch Republic. As the Dutch were our rivals in trade he thought that England might gain and could not lose by neutrality. This account omits one all-important consideration. James, though in his own way a national king, was not wholly swayed by cynical calculation of England's self-interest. Pie might perhaps have been willing in certain eventualities to act as the ally of Louis ; he would certainly have been delighted to remain neutral. But, as he said on the eve of his downfall in 1688, he never would declare war upon France. To William the safety of Europe and of his own country was bound up with bringing England into the scale against France. The neutrality of James, therefore, compelled William and foreign diplomatists to interfere in England, and turned an internal struggle between King and people into an international event of the greatest magnitude.

After May, 1687, the relations of William with the Opposition Lords, which up to this time appear to have been quite constitutional, began to develop into a conspiracy against James. If James would not join the coalition against Louis in Europe, William would join the Opposition Lords against James in England. Even during Dykvelt's mission Danby had let fall some dark hints about a design ; and Shrewsbury, who came to Holland in August, may have gone further. But William was determined neither to hazard any rash or premature attempt, nor to appear in England as a foreign invader. Both of these resolutions induced slowness and caution, and deepen the obscurity which hangs over his policy during the winter of 1687. All that can be said with certainty is that, very early in 1688, he made it clear that he would take no action unless he received a definite invitation from leading Englishmen. This was secured to him in June, 1688 ; and the two events precipitating the crisis were the birth of a son to James, and the trial of the seven Bishops.

It was known that James II's queen, Mary of Modena, was about to become a mother, and it was believed that the most momentous issues would be determined by the sex of her child. The party of prerogative declared that the birth of a son to James would solve all difficulties, and produce the discomfiture of the " Orangeists." At least one foreign diplomat had a different opinion. " Such an event,1' wrote Hoffmann, the Emperor's resident in London (April 2), " would only consolidate the union among them, increase their aversion from the King, and make them use every effort to prevent the Catholic succession to the Crown." The news of the birth of James Edward (the "Old Pretender") on June 10 speedily proved that HoS'mann was right. The "Orangeists"

alleged that the Queen had never been with child, and that the pseudo-prince had been smuggled up the backstairs in a warming-pan. The readiness with which this fable was circulated and believed is a measure of the unpopularity of James. But statesmen were not content with the effects of the warming-pan lie upon popular opinion. They speedily resolved that, since the birth of a son appeared to assure a Catholic successor to James, the only way of preventing this was to invoke the interference of the Prince of Orange.

At this critical moment James succeeded in alienating the one great institution in the State not already hostile to him. The clergy of the Establishment held the doctrine of passive obedience so strongly that they advocated submission even to the decrees of a Nero. In 1687, James had rightly deemed their opposition almost unthinkable; in 1688, he took the only measure which could possibly have produced it. Not content with the establishment of practical toleration, he was determined to make the Establishment acknowledge the justice and wisdom of his policy. On May 4, 1688, he reissued the Declaration of Indulgence, and commanded the Anglican clergy to read it to their congregations. But even the advocates of non-resistance had no intention of becoming personal advocates of a measure which struck at their own supremacy. The Established Church was at length forced to oppose him in self-defence. On May 18, San croft, Archbishop of Canterbury, and six other Bishops, petitioned to be excused reading the Declaration. In point of fact, very few of the clergy actually read it on either of the prescribed days (May 20 and 27). James could not attack the whole mass of the clergy ; but he promptly indicted his episcopal petitioners for libel. He seems to have meant that they should be tried, condemned, and then released by royal pardon. The plan was clumsy and the error fatal. When the so-called martyrs of the Church passed to the Tower, every eye was fixed upon them ; the soldiers at the gates knelt to receive their blessing. Popular enthusiasm penetrated the Law Courts; the judges were not wholly on the side of James, and the jury at length proved to be decisively against him. On June 30 the seven Bishops were acquitted amid indescribable enthusiasm. Halifax waved his hat in the face of the Court like a schoolboy, and the people lit bonfires in the streets and shouted themselves hoarse with exultation.

On the same night seven men assembled at Shrewsbury's house and signed a letter of invitation to William. This letter, which asked the Prince of Orange to bring over an army and secure the liberties of the people, was carried to Holland by Admiral Herbert in the disguise of a common sailor. The signatories were the Earl of Devonshire, Henry Sydney, and Admiral Russell, who represented the extreme Whig party; Shrewsbury, a moderate Whig; Compton, Bishop of London, a Trimer; Lumley, an ex-Catholic ; and Danby, an ex-champion of prerogative. Two conspicuous Opposition Lords, the Marquis of Halifax and Lord

Nottingham, stood aloof, and preferred to rely upon passive constitutional opposition. But the diverse character of the signatories shows how James had contrived to unite against himself almost all parties in the State. Besides the letter of invitation, William soon received assurances from Lord Churchill, Kirke, and Trelawney, leading officers in the army, from Vice-Admiral Herbert, whose influence was great with the navy, and finally from Sunderland, the most influential adviser of James. As Sunder-land was at this moment receiving the gold of Louis, it is permissible to doubt whether he earned the gratitude of William. But apart from his assurances, William was confident of strong support in England, and forthwith began to organise his army and fleet for immediate action.

In view of the intrigues above mentioned it can cause no surprise that Hoffmann should have reported in September that King James had against him almost everybody in his kingdom, and that even his soldiers had become " his most dangerous enemies." To secure himself against disaffection in the army, which had been infected by the " No Popery " riots and Protestant vehemence of the capital, James had introduced some Irish troops into England in August. Their appearance occasioned murmurs, riots, discontent and the publication of the scurrilous ballad Lillibullero. So extraordinary was the popularity of this song that its author, Thomas Wharton, afterwards boasted that he had sung a king out of three kingdoms by it. James did not venture to land any more Irish troops. He was equally afraid to turn for aid to France, for he knew that an open alliance with Louis would be dangerous in the existing state of English feeling, while a secret league was infinitely hazardous. Perhaps he would have risked it, had he realised the extent of his danger. Louis XIV had repeatedly sent warnings of the design of the Prince of Orange ; but James, with an excess of cunning, argued that these were only pretexts for entrapping him into an alliance with France. He seems to have believed the assurances of Mary, William, and the Dutch ambassador, that no design against England was afoot. His memoirs relate that Sunderland never failed to ridicule the idea mercilessly when it was discussed in council. As to the motives of this most acute and perfidious of politicians, many conjectures have been offered ; but the advantage of his policy to the cause of William remains undeniable.

The task of William had only begun when his naval and military preparations were complete. He had to convince German Princes and Dutch burghers that their safety could only be assured by an expedition which would remove the Dutch army to England, and leave the German lands open to attack from the most powerful military sovereign in the world. The German Princes, with Frederick William of Brandenburg foremost among them, had hitherto remained more or less neutral. Though secretly hostile to Louis, they feared the French armies which had so often triumphed over the German, and doubted whether the Dutch navy would triumph over the English. But the Great Elector's

son, Frederick III, who succeeded him on April 29, 1688, finally brought Brandenburg out of its neutrality. He cooperated heartily with William, and lent him troops for his English expedition under the command of the famous Schomberg, the Protestant ex-Marshal of France. The Landgrave of Hesse-Cassel and the Brunswick-Lüneburg Duke at Celle speedily concluded treaties of alliance with William ; the Elector of Hanover intimated approval ; and the Elector of Saxony was drawn in. The Spanish Habsburg appears to have regarded with complacency the proposed expedition to dethrone a Catholic King, for his envoy at the Hague subsequently ordered masses to be sung for its success. His Austrian kinsman was more scrupulous, and it was not until William had established relations with the Pope (Innocent XI) that he made any impression on the Emperor. Leopold was at length reconciled to the enterprise by the Papal dispensation, and yielded a reluctant consent. Thus the Prince of Orange was assured of assistance from many foreign Princes, before his own people, through their organ, the States-General, had pronounced in its favour. While the destinies of Europe were suspended on the vote of the States-General, Louis XIV suddenly intervened and took the decision from its hands.

The policy of Louis at this crisis can be best understood on the assumption that his attention was fixed upon Germany rather than upon England or Holland. He presumably thought the establishment of his own power on the Rhine to be easier and more immediately probable than the success of William in any design against England. Yet, during the trial of the Bishops he had vainly ofi'ered large sums of money and the loan of his fleet to James, and later had repeatedly warned him of William's designs. Losing patience, he at last attempted to force the English King's hand ; but the result of his effort was only to play the game of his rival. On September 2, his ambassador, d'Avaux, made an announcement to the assembled States-General of the Dutch Republic, of which the immediate effect was to secure for William the object at which he had so consistently aimed. D'Avaux pronounced the vast naval and military preparations of William to be a menace to England. Owing to the bonds of " friendship and alliance " existing between England and France, any enterprise undertaken by the Dutch against England would involve an immediate declaration of war from France. The States-General were struck dumb with rage by this haughty and insulting menace. The mighty armaments of William, which had appeared to lay a heavy burden upon his country, were now seen to be the instruments of its salvation. But one difficulty still remained. After the threats of Louis the Dutch were never likely to allow William to go on his apparently quixotic expedition to England. But just as the diplomacy of Louis had won over the Dutch to William's schemes of an alliance against France, the diplomacy of James was to reconcile them to his plan of an expedition against England.

James received the news of Louis' friendly intervention in his favour

with the utmost embarrassment. Conscious of his weakness at home, he resolved not to compromise his position further by exciting suspicions about a secret engagement with France. At the moment when the aid of the French fleet was of vital importance, since his own fleet was smaller than that of the Dutch, James resolved to pose as the patriotic independent sovereign, secure in his island kingdom. He emphatically denied the existence of any alliance with France, and openly rejected her proffered assistance. By this masterpiece of folly he contrived not only to injure the feelings of the French King, but to awaken his suspicions. Louis was justly indignant and turned to pursue his own most pressing needs, well assured that James would soon find out the need of relying upon France. On September 25, Louis threw the whole of his vast military force, not upon the Dutch frontier, but against the middle Rhine. Thus the continued impolicy of James and the momentary misjudgment of Louis brought about what the ability of William himself could not perhaps have effected. The States-General, fully assured that the Dutch frontier could not be attacked in force before the end of the year, gave the long-desired consent, and bade the Prince of Orange God-speed on his bold venture for the English Crown.

By September a large army and a vast fleet of transports had been collected, and in October all was ready. On October 19, Herbert embarked his squadron at Helvoetsluys, and the Dutch warships sailed from the Texel, only to be driven back by a terrific storm. The enterprise now stood confessed ; and even James was aroused to a sense of impending danger, and employed the temporary respite in a desperate effort to restore his popularity. On October 27, he dismissed Sunderland, borrowed money from the French King, and implored his aid. He summoned before him the Bishops, whom he had once treated with such disdain, and begged for their advice. He gave back their privileges to the Universities, replaced many of the dismissed public servants, and restored the charters to London and many other cities. Finally, he dissolved the Ecclesiastical Commission and promised to summon a new Parliament in November. But James was as reckless in his policy of conciliation as he had once been in that of compulsion, and the bewildering suddenness of the changes inspired universal distrust. His concessions were openly attributed to motives of fear and necessity, created by the action of a foreign Prince. And, in truth, at this very moment a proclamation of the Prince of Orange lay in the portfolio of Fagel, demanding the very reforms that James was hurriedly conceding.

In 1688, as in 1588 and 1798, the course of English history was profoundly affected by the chances of wind and weather. William had to wait long, chafing at a delay which seemed infinitely hazardous. But at last on November 1, the "Protestant breeze" bore gaily out to sea the whole vast flotilla of 600 ships, with 15,000 soldiers aboard. Like Henry of Bolingbroke and Edward of York, William had at first

thought of landing in Yorkshire. But the unkindly wind forced him to run for the west coast, though it made up for this by binding King James' fleet in the Thames, As William's fleet passed the straits of Dover, the assembled crowds on either coast could hear the clash of cymbals and roll of drums, celebrating his birthday. The breeze bore the fleet strongly past Plymouth and then suddenly dropped, allowing it to get back to the harbour of Torbay. The services of the breeze were not yet over, for it revived on the night of the 6th, and dispersed the fleet of King James, which had sailed up in the hope of disturbing the landing. The disembarkation began on the 5th, and was speedily effected. On the 18th William's cavalry reached Exeter, and on the 19th the inhabitants were cheering the English regiments of Mackay and Talmash, gaping at the Dutch guards and the Swedish horse, and gazing on the stately form of Schomberg and the impassive face of William. The numerical superiority of the foreign troops to the English regiments in William's army illustrated the proportion between the international and the insular significance of the great enterprise.

On the banner of William were inscribed the words Pro Religione protestante-Pro libero Parlamcnto, and beneath them his own proud motto, Je maintiendrai. His proclamation, published in England on November 5, expanded these sentiments. It declared that there was no attempt at conquest, and that the Prince had only come at the invitation of Lords Temporal and Spiritual. It denounced the dispensing power, the expulsion of the Judges, the establishment of the Court of High Commission, the attack on the corporations, and the raising of an army of Irish Papists. It concluded by hinting, in accordance with the widespread popular rumour, that the Prince of Wales was a supposititious child, and that Parliament must decide on his legitimacy. The proclamation was speedily followed by a supplementary manifesto denouncing " the pretended redressments and concessions " of James as illusory, and declaring that only a settlement by a free Parliament could be final or satisfactory. It is not easy to see how far this proclamation represents William's real views ; but its purpose was to excite popular feeling rather than to propound a definite settlement. In particular it contained no hint of William's intention of bringing England into the alliance against France. On the still more urgent question of his own designs upon the Crown, the proclamation is equally silent.

On November 16 tidings of the landing at Torbay arrived, and James at once directed the royal army to concentrate at Salisbury. On the 17th James decided to join his army, of which Lord Churchill was commander-in-chief. When James set out, half-a-dozen noblemen had already joined William; Danby had raised the north and captured York ; Devonshire was in arms at Derby, Delamere in Cheshire. The serious moral effect of these defections was such as to leave no resource to James but an immediate battle. But, on the morning of the 23rd, he had already

decided to retreat, "as," wrote Barillon to Louis, "he had intended from the first." On the night of the 24th, Churchill and the Duke of Grafton fled to William. On the 25th James, as he left Andover, learnt of the defection of Ormond and Prince George of Denmark. On nearing London the unhappy father heard of the flight of his daughter the Princess Anne. He found his capital in a ferment, and his hopes at their lowest ebb. So disastrous had been these last few days to James that the prescient Hoffmann was already able to foretell the result of the struggle. On December 9 he wrote to the Emperor that the English affair would be terminated in two or three months, and that all the forces now in arms would soon march conjointly against France.

When departing for Salisbury, James had refused a petition for a new Parliament, on the ground that the invasion made it impossible. But on November 27 he summoned a presentable substitute in the shape of a great Council of Peers, which thirty or forty attended. At the meeting Clarendon bitterly reproached the King, while Halifax spoke with more delicacy and respect. Their speeches outlined clearly the difference between the two parties represented by them. The High Churchmen were incensed with James because of his attack on the Establishment ; the Moderates were less hostile because less fanatical. The upshot was a resolution to send Nottingham, Halifax, and Godolphin as Commissioners to treat with the Prince of Orange. On December 2 they started on their mission, which they appear to have conducted in good faith. In reality they had been completely deceived by the King, who merely wished to gain time for preparing his flight to France. On December 9, James despatched his wife and the Prince of Wales to France by way of Portsmouth, promising to follow them in twenty-four hours. During the night of the lOth-llth, he cancelled the recently prepared writs of the new Parliament, and also wrote a letter to Feversham, who interpreted it as an order to disband the royal army under his command. At three in the morning, taking with him the Great Seal, which was afterwards fished up from the Thames, James secretly fled from Whitehall to Sheerness. On the afternoon of the same day the Commissioners returned to London, to find the city in terror and the King gone.

The flight of James has always been regarded as the most fatal of all his mistakes. His avowed intention was to dissolve the Government of the State and to produce confusion by his flight, so as to make it clear to the people that the return of the King was the sole security of law and order. But he had taken measures before his departure which were actually instrumental in preventing this result. He had summoned the Peers to assist the Privy Council on the llth; and it was natural, when they met and heard of his flight, that they should assume provisional authority. The assembly chose Halifax as its president, and drafted a resolution to cooperate with the Prince of Orange in procuring a free Parliament. On the 13th, they received a letter from James with the

bewildering news that he had fallen into the hands of the mob at Faversham, in Kent. Assistance was promptly sent, and on the 16th, the Earl of Feversham, amid shouting crowds, escorted the King back to the palace he had deserted. On the same day the Privy Council Registers show that James held a last Privy Council, attended by eight councillors, at which some orders were issued to the Lords Lieutenant and the Secretary of the Admiralty. But neither the Lords Lieutenant nor Samuel Pepys seem to have paid any attention to the last commands which King James ever issued in England.

The duplicity with which James had deceived not only William but his own Commissioners, his evident desire to produce disorder, his craven flight-all these things provoked general indignation. But his flight brought something more than wrath and humiliation upon James-it revealed his innermost secret. It was now fatally clear that France was the goal on which he had determined for his flight, and that he would trust to French arms for his restoration. France was the Power which had persecuted the Protestants and humiliated England ; William, who had always defended the one, was now ready to befriend the other. The Prince of Orange saw his advantage and made prompt use of it. Until the flight of James, it seems certain that he had hoped for no more than a regency. Now-from the moment of the flight-he seems to have conceived the plan of directly assuming the Crown. His obvious policy was to convince England that James was the ally of France, that hereditary enemy of her race and her religion. Hence the second flight of James was, with consummate skill, facilitated by William. At ten on the night of December 17 the Dutch guards invested Whitehall, and carried off King James to Rochester early the next morning. Once there, James found his guards relaxed, and avenues of escape open. The man whom Turenne had declared to be inaccessible to fear was now a prey to almost childish terrors. He declared that there was but one step from the prison to the grave, and the memory of the fate of Richard II and of his own father hovered before his eyes. He therefore eagerly seized his opportunity and, on December 23, 1688, quitted the soil of England for ever. By this second flight, which William had deliberately encouraged, James committed political suicide. When Hoffmann first heard of the intended flight of the Queen and the Prince of Wales, he expressed his opinion to the Emperor that, if they went to France, the son would lose his crown. This far-sighted prediction applied even more strongly to the case of James himself. By remaining in England, James might have retained great influence and caused great difficulties, as his father had contrived to do while discredited and a prisoner. But once in France, however uncontrolled, he seemed the sworn friend, almost the henchman, of England's traditional foe. When William heard the news of the King's flight, he bade the French ambassador quit England within twenty-four hours. The action marked the complete immediate

harmony between the wishes of the English people and the policy of the Dutch Stadholder. The protector of the public liberties and the Protestant religion of England had, with the applause of the nation, enlisted its resources in the service of that "Great Design" which he so inflexibly pursued, and of that " Grand Alliance " of which he was the recognised head. The English people did not as yet realise that -'the Great Deliverer " had, in Halifax' luminous sentence, merely " taken England on his way to France."

With the opening of the year 1689 our interest shifts from the affairs of France and the Grand Alliance to the internal problems of England. All parties were agreed that James, as an actually ruling sovereign, was now an impossibility ; but all parties differed as to the new settlement. The main lines of division were already shaped in December ; but they were blurred and confused by the flight of James. The extreme High Church Tories, headed by Clarendon, advocated a regency, with James as the nominal sovereign ; Danby and a small body of Tories argued that James had abdicated by flight, that proofs of his son's legitimacy were unobtainable, and that judgment therefore going by default, the next legal successor was Mary. The Whigs, under Somers and Maynard, went further and proposed the simple and logical plan of declaring the throne vacant and filling it by election. Halifax headed a fourth party of " Trimmers " or Moderates, who advocated giving the Crown to William and Mary. He objected to the plans both of Somers and Clarendon, wishing the settlement to rest, not upon logical perfection or historic precedent, but simply upon grounds of practical necessity.

On the news of James' second flight William had, at the request of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, the members of Charles II's Parliaments and the Common Council of London, assumed the administration. Following their instructions, he issued a circular to constituent bodies, requesting them to elect representatives for a Convention. William made no attempt to interfere with the elections. The secret of his calm is to be found in a momentous interview with Halifax about this time, which Halifax has recorded with his own hand. It shows clearly that William was resolved to retire if James returned to England, and to refuse the Regency if it was offered him. Regarding his succession to full power as practically assured, he awaited the progress of events with imperturbable calm. Perhaps no member of the Convention Parliament, which assembled on January 22, as yet thought that events would end in the way which William already foresaw. The Commons speedily (January 28) resolved that James, "having endeavoured to subvert the constitution by breaking the original contract between King and people, and by the advice of Jesuits and other persons, had violated the fundamental laws and withdrawn himself out of the kingdom, and that the throne had thereby become vacant." The logic of the

resolution was as bad as its grammar ; for it was obvious that, though desertion of the kingdom might produce vacancy of the throne, by all precedents misgovernment and acceptance of bad advice could not. Yet all three reasons were alleged as causes of vacancy and abdication. The lack of logic marked in fact the compromise of principles and the blending of views between the moderate Tories and the Whigs.

On January 29 this resolution was sent up to the Lords, together with another, to the effect that a Popish King had been found by experience inconsistent with a Protestant Government. This second resolution excited no dispute, and even no comment ; but the first gave rise to the most envenomed controversy. The parties of Clarendon, Danby and Halifax were in conflict in the Lords, with startling results. The Lords threw out the " vacancy " clause ; the Commons declined to accept this amendment ; and the two Houses were thus at a complete deadlock. A conference took place on February 6, in which the views of all parties were stated with remarkable clearness. Clarendon and Pembroke appealed to the seven disputed successions in English history to prove that the vacancy of the throne had never been assumed, and that the hereditary principle had always theoretically prevailed. But there was a flaw in this argument which the Whigs were not slow to see. Maynard pointed out that if, as even Tories admitted, James had lost the exercise of his power, someone had a right now to that power. Both Houses had agreed to the resolution that no Papist could in future be King, and therefore Clarendon's faction, while urging that James was the nominal King, could not propose the Prince of Wales as either the actual or eventual ruler. Why not, then, admit the Whig doctrine of the original contract between King and people, with its proviso that the throne became elective when the contract was broken ? The Whigs had the worst of the precedents and the best of the arguments ; but their doctrine of an elective Crown still appeared too revolutionary for the Lords. At this point Halifax intervened, basing his appeal neither on history nor on logic, but on the grounds of practical common-sense. He argued that the Crown would only be made elective in the way of exception andjpro hoc vice, and would then revert to the original hereditary channel. Frankly admitting the need of some break with tradition, he advanced the overwhelming plea of necessity, the defence of revolutionaries as well as of tyrants. When the Lords again debated the question alone, Halifax, to the great wrath of Clarendon, " drove furiously," and carried the acceptance of the Commons' resolution intact. It only remained now to settle the succession. William had declared publicly, at the beginning of the month, that he would return to Holland unless he were chosen King regnant conjointly with his wife, with the whole administration vested in himself. On February 6 the Lords resolved, without a division, that the Prince and Princess of Orange should be declared King and Queen of England. William

accepted the vote on behalf of Mary and himself, and within a week the pair were proclaimed King and Queen from the steps of Whitehall.

With the settlement of the Crown immediate practical difficulties vanished, anarchy was averted, and a vigorous external policy was continuously pursued. But the great constitutional problems, the sphere of direct royal power, the relations of King to Parliament, to the Courts of Justice, and to the army-all these were still unsettled. A committee, appointed to secure the laws and liberties of the kingdom, with the all-accomplished Somers in the chair, had already drawn up a Declaration of Right (February 12). This resolution was afterwards expanded, renamed the Bill of Rights, and passed as a statute by the new Parliament (October). The Declaration and the Bill were intended as a final summing-up and settlement of the long struggle between King and Parliament, and as a manifesto and defence of the Revolution. The Bill of Rights therefore opens with a lengthy controversial statement as to the misdeeds of James and the virtues of William, before " asserting the ancient rights and liberties of England." It would be difficult to say that new rights were claimed or old laws infringed. But new precedents were certainly created ; for on almost all disputed points the verdict went decisively in favour of Parliament and against the King. The reason why the greatness of the change was not very obvious at the Revolution is to be sought in what took place at the Restoration. By the settlement of 1660 the powers of Parliament were greatly enlarged, and the substantial increase of its powers became apparent long before 1688. The Revolution of 1688, in increasing the power of Parliament, only moved along a path already marked out for it by the political developments of the generation immediately preceding. In this fact lies the chief explanation of the anomaly, on which Macaulay so frequently insisted, that the great changes of the Bill of Rights were accomplished without any positive change in law.

The Bill of Rights denounced as illegal the assumption of a royal power of suspending or dispensing with laws, or of erecting a Court of High Commission or other special Courts. Levying money by prerogative, or keeping a standing army in peace-time without consent of Parliament, are likewise declared to be against the law. Parliament is to be free in its elections, in its subjects of debate, and " ought to be held frequently." The rights of the people as a whole are secured in the right to petition the King. The rights of the sovereign are restricted by the provision that Papists, and those marrying Papists, are de facto excluded from the throne. On these terms, and with these limitations, William and Mary are acknowledged as joint sovereigns. There were two serious omissions, subsequently removed by the Act of Settlement. No real attempt was made to exempt the judges from undue royal influence, and a clause including Sophia of Brunswick-Liineburg in the succession was struck out by the Lords.

Perhaps the most striking insertion in the Bill of Rights was the provision declaring standing armies illegal, and placing the power of the sword beneath the control of Parliament. Yet an express law declared the whole power of the militia, and immemorial custom admitted the general control of the army, to lie solely with the King. Hence this provision was an innovation, and a very great one, based on the general repugnance to standing armies, initiated during the Protectorate and expressed in the Parliaments of the Restoration, but nowhere decisively asserted by statute or custom. William, who said he came to England to restore the invaded liberties of the people, not to circumscribe the acknowledged rights of the Crown, was to find the novelty of this particular provision most unpleasing. Incidentally, the parliamentary control over the army tended towards a similar control over foreign policy. Eventually, it was the most important influence in establishing and maintaining one of the fundamental maxims of our modern constitution, that the military power in the State is and must be subordinate to the civil. It is doubtless in the main true that the Bill of Rights makes few positive legal changes, but the provision as to the power of the sword is one of them. Here at least the Bill of Rights breaks with the black-letter of precedent, and asserts new principles of fundamental and far-reaching importance.

To a well-informed contemporary observer the smallness of the actual change effected by the Revolution would hardly have been apparent. He must have noted the triumph of the policy of the Exclusionists in the provision excluding Papists from the Crown. During 1680-1, that party had been utterly broken; its leaders had died upon the scaffold or fled the country in disgrace. Within eight years from that date its main principle had first been championed by Halifax, the greatest of its opponents, and finally accepted by the country as a whole. The cause of this remarkable change is to be found, partly in the accidental circumstances of the Revolution, partly in the slow growth of a political theory which owed far less to Coke and the precedents of the past than to Harrington, Locke, and the philosophy of the future. The main ideas on which the Revolution was based were expressed by Harrington and Locke. Of these, the one may be said to have taught the lessons of forty years of revolution, the other to have provided the theory by which the change of government was to be defended.

During the years 1640-60 every political theory had received some application and every one in turn had been found wanting. The conviction had gradually been enforced that the old monarchy, with all its practical disadvantages, was superior to the new republic with all its theoretical perfections. Monarchy, though somewhat limited by the increased influence of Parliament, emerged from the welter of anarchy powerful and venerated. Regicide became, in the eyes of the nation, the most odious of crimes, and this belief was based on reasonable as well as upon sentimental grounds. For Harrington, while advocating

fantastic schemes for a republic, had contrived to demonstrate the practical advantages of a monarchy. This was the unforeseen result of his assertion that the sole test and proof of good government was the connexion of property with power. To confine the franchise to property-holders would manifestly produce a government based on experience and stability. So argued Harrington, and his readers drew an unexpected inference. The characteristics of the old monarchy had been inequality of possessions, gradation of classes, the supremacy of rich over poor, of land over capital. What were all these but the reign of property, which produced securities for stable government? It was this tendency in political thought, that largely accounts for the sudden and total disappearance of republicanism, which is so remarkable a phenomenon in 1688. William excluded all regicides from his amnesty ; and in the vast flood of pamphlets called forth by the Revolution it is hard to find one of note or importance which may be called republican.

The union of property and power produced a just balance in the State, and for this discovery, though it was also to be found in the later pamphlets of Milton, Harrington was regarded as the Columbus of political science. His ideas permeate the whole Revolution settlement, in which there is but little appeal to absolute or general principle, and hardly a whisper of parliamentary reform. Private property in land is the basis of all authority ; power is rigidly confined to an aristocracy of freeholders, and the reign of property is acknowledged and complete. "For the divine right of Kings," writes Lord Acton, "it [the Revolution] established the divine right of freeholders; and their domination extended for seventy years under the authority of John Locke, the philosopher of government by the gentry."

It is true to say that there existed few or no republicans in 1688, if that term designates men who desired to abolish the hereditary monarchy. But, if it means men who asserted the doctrine of popular sovereignty, then there were many such, of whom the most eminent was Locke. His " Two Treatises on Government " were not published till the summer of 1689. But he had been the intimate of Shaftesbury, and, as the friend of Somers and other leading Whigs, had first-hand knowledge of the ideas of the Revolution settlement. Indeed the inconsistencies and contradictions, the imperfections, and the over-emphasis, of his work betray too clearly that his theory was intended to apply to practical political needs. It was in fact chiefly in practical applications that the originality of Locke consisted. There was nothing very new in his doctrines of contract between king and people, of limitations on royal power and extensions of popular sovereignty, and of the justification for the deposition of kings. But ideas which had floated in the brains of solitary thinkers, or had amused the intellects of scholastics, were used by Locke for the practical purpose of glorifying and defending an actual and not an imagined Revolution.

It must always be regretted that Locke did not directly measure blades with Hobbes. In the Leviathan the latter had written the greatest work on political thought as yet produced in England, and the ablest defence of absolute monarchy ever published in Europe. But his cynical attack on the clergy had alienated the Establishment, and extreme loyalty found its philosopher not in Hobbes but in Filmer. The Patriarcha of Sir Robert Filmer-a popular exposition of the doctrines of Divine Eight and passive obedience-had been written in 164a and published in 1680. It was adopted in all its tenets by the University of Oxford, and became generally popular with the royalist party. Hence Locke set out with the primary intention of destroying " Sir Robert " and " his wonderful system," rather than of confuting Hobbes. Locke easily disposed of Filmer and "the hereditary jurisdiction of Adam," and it was only in constructing his own theory in the second part of his treatise that he came indirectly into contact with Hobbes.

The end of all government is the good of the people, and the good of the people Locke defines as " the preservation of (private) property," to " secure which men enter into society." On that ground and with that object people meet together and make an Original Contract to submit to a common recognised authority. This contract is broken, and the society dissolved, when private property and personal liberty are endangered. With an absolute Prince the people cannot be assured of this preservation and these rights, for the absolute sovereign, being above law, is not bound to respect it. Hence the people as a whole are the best judge whether the general good is being endangered and whether the social contract is near to breaking. To avoid a reckless sanction of revolution, Locke carefully defines the cases in which resistance is justifiable, in the instance of a hypothetical State, whose constitution is transparently based on the English. These cases are : first, when a single person sets his own arbitrary will in place of the laws which are the will of society ; next, interference with the electors or ways of election ; then, the delivery of the people into the subjection of a foreign Power; lastly, neglect or abandonment of the government by the supreme executive power. In all these cases government is dissolved, the contract broken, and resistance justifiable. It will not escape notice that all these cases included actions of which James might plausibly be accused. Locke argued for a particular purpose, with practical qualifications ; and he fairly pays the penalty of one who binds up a political pamphlet in the cover of a philosophic treatise. He can claim as a recompense that he became the oracle of the Whigs, that he inspired the political ideas of his country for nearly a hundred years, and was for at least fifty the most influential political philosopher in Europe.

The English Revolution, unlike the French, never carried its originating principles to the extreme of logical severity. It showed little idealism and much common-sense, often allowing practical considerations

to outweigh consistency or principle. Moreover, its international and diplomatic character rendered personal factors of great importance, and the form which it finally assumed was profoundly affected by the personalities of both William arid James. In his exile James was accustomed to ascribe every disaster to his advisers. But it is certain that Mary of Modena, Father Petre, and the extreme Catholics opposed some of his most impolitic measures, and that Penn and Sunderland opposed others. And, even supposing his ordinary counsellors to have been unwise, James had frequently disbelieved the information and disregarded the advice of Louis. His actions and opinions during and after 1688 exhibit a complete misunderstanding of the limits of the possible, and show that he lived in a world of illusion. If to these considerations is added that of his well-known haughtiness and love of power, it is reasonable to conclude that his worst counsellor was himself, and his neglect of other advice the main cause of his fall. On the other hand, the respect and deference shown by William to his English advisers was one of the main reasons of his success. The firm stand of the seven Bishops, the pen of Burnet, the voice of Clarendon, and the policy of Compton, brought the Established Church for the moment on to the side of William. The calm diplomacy of Shrewsbury and the resolute purpose of Danby brought over the moderate Whigs and Tories ; the well-timed desertion of Churchill secured the army. The eloquence of Somers inspired the Commons to settle the Succession, and the arguments of Halifax induced the Lords to agree in it. The influence of Halifax, or of his "trimming" policy, is apparent everywhere-in the moderation, the cautious temporising, the concessions to expediency, and the compromises of principle, in which the Revolution abounded.

The last cause of the moderation and tranquillity of the Revolution is to be found in the personality of William, and in the elements and forces which he controlled. His European outlook enabled him to entertain views of a purely practical kind and to judge the struggle with a calmness which no Englishman could equal. He decided to interfere only when assured of powerful support, and when his own interests would have been endangered by delay. The impolicy of James and the caution of William combined to produce a result very rare in history-namely, a foreign intervention which successfully accomplished a great internal revolution with the minimum of bloodshed and change. Other explanations are to be found in more impersonal forces, especially in the course of events which bewildered contemporaries by their sudden and kaleidoscopic changes. The vigorous minority, which supported William, alone had a clear-cut plan and purpose. Hence it came about that even ardent royalists were surprised into revolt against their King. This is admirably illustrated by two well-known incidents recorded in Clarendon's Diary. On November 15, 1688, Clarendon hears of the flight of his son, Lord Cornbury, to William, and writes : " O God, that

my son should be a rebel ! The Lord in his mercy look upon me, and enable me to support myself under this most grievous calamity ! " On November 30 he records calmly and without comment that he has himself decided to fly to the Prince of Orange. His change of front is bewilderingly sudden, but there is no reason to doubt his sincerity. In revolutions events move and men think with unwonted rapidity.

The pressure of events had wrought strange conversions among the Tory landed gentry, but the impression made upon the people as a whole had similar and even more striking effects. The indifference of the people to a revolution is usually the cause of its failure ; here it was the reason of its success. " The People," said Halifax, " can seldom agree to move together against a Government, but they can sit still to see it undone." Indeed, though at first cold towards William, the people refused to stir a finger for James, and their indifference most powerfully influenced the event. It rendered the Revolution, although aristocratic in appearance and execution, popular in principle and in its eventual result. Hence the religious motive, though not at first sight the most apparent, is still the deepest cause of the Revolution. In the Exclusion period the people had shown that, if the choice had to be made, they preferred a Protestant sovereign with very large powers to a Catholic with very limited ones. Of 1688 Guizot boldly asserts that " in no country and at no time has the faith of the masses exercised more control over the faith of their government." There can be little doubt that this view is correct, though the revolution was initiated by the great nobles, effected by the aid of a foreign ruler and a composite army, and consummated by a constitutional settlement made by country gentlemen in the House of Commons. Never, perhaps, have the goodwill of a people, the rebellion of an aristocracy, and the armed interference of a foreigner, had equally striking and beneficent results.

The character of William, though excellently suited to effect, was little calculated to sustain, a successful revolution. Bred a soldier from his boyhood, he had the excellences and defects of his training. He was swift to decide and to execute, calm in judgment, resolute in purpose, serene and immovable in the face of tumult or danger. But he was ready on occasion to sanction acts of ruthless cruelty, and he often showed considerable lack of scruple and some indifference to high principle. His cold, keen nature made him deficient in sympathy, and unable to consider or even to perceive, other views than his own. Able to overawe and to command, he was never able to awaken enthusiasm or inspire affection. Thus it came about that, with many of the qualities of a great general, he could never win victories over Condé or Luxembourg ; and, though possessing almost all the essentials of a great diplomatist, he could never bind together a divided alliance with the graceful art of a Marlborough. Though he achieved his real aims, he never struck the popular imagination as forcibly as many a lesser man. He lives in history

not as the idol of cheering mobs but as the champion of threatened liberties, not as the darling of one country but as the preserver of many.

William was not qualified by previous training or character to understand the proud and jealous nation over which it was now his lot to rule. He had spent twenty years of his life in a vain attempt to understand the vagaries of the Council of Amsterdam, and he was too old and too impatient to humour or cajole a new representative assembly. His letters to Heinsius, Grand Pensionary of Holland, arc full of complaints about the ruinous delays and the trivialities of Parliament, its strange prejudices and fatal blindness. The impossibility of forecasting the attitude of the Commons from day to day, the cabals which produce such astounding changes and turn people from black to white, the stupidity of individuals, the hateful spirit of party, the intrigues which will finish by destroying the country and himself-all these he confides to his sympathetic correspondent. "Les gens" wrote he, January 21, 1698, "ne s'occupent ici que d^une prétendue liberté, tandis quails sont forcés de reconnaître qitîls n'ont jamais étés si libres, et qu'ils n'ont même rien à redouter de mon part." His people were unable to discern his true character ; and he bitterly, but not altogether justly, resented their failure to understand him. He had no ability for finance, and while possessing the energy, he had not the gifts of a great administrator. Though devoid of ostentation, his manners were harsh and repellent, and showed none of the graces to which England was accustomed in her kings. His wretched health seriously affected his temper and disposition. Calm and steady at great crises, he was often peevish and irascible on lesser occasions, chafing at small delays and slight irritations. His fondness for Dutchmen and favourites, though to some extent justified by the untrustworthiness of the most prominent Englishmen, cannot be excused in the cases of Keppel and Lady Orkney. These trivial excuses for the slight esteem in which the English held him, were strengthened by one far deeper and more fundamental, which caused his unpopularity to increase with the advance of years and with the unfolding of his policy.

William's political ideas were large and grand-those of an international statesman genuinely labouring for the good of Europe as a whole. To his "great design1' he really subordinated every particular interest, so far as in him lay. Thus, in 1689 he forced his own countrymen into a disadvantageous and humiliating convention with England, and treated their remonstrances with indifference. By looking for the same magnanimity in his new subjects, he showed how fundamentally he misread their temperament. He had declared to the English that he came to restore their Parliament and religion; it became increasingly evident that he had come to engage them in continental war. He did not remember that England had been comparatively free from continental warfare since the death of Elizabeth, and had retained a horror

of standing armies since the death of Cromwell. Nor could he see that, after 1692, her interests were far less engaged in the struggle than those of the land Powers. When, on April 6, 1701, he wrote to Heinsius that he had to do with people " whom it is necessary to lead by indirect ways for their own good," he put into a single sentence both his own defence and the justification of his English subjects.

The defects in William's character, which obscured its real elements of greatness, were in no small measure disguised by the influence of his wife. Mary was the most popular of women, and her gentle charm did much to counteract the unfavourable personal impression produced by her husband. Though William sometimes added harshness to the crime of infidelity, her devotion towards him never ceased. Her letters breathe a spirit of exquisite sincerity and gentleness, and evince a resigned and touching belief in Providence. Indeed, the whole-hearted religious fervour of Mary did much to incline the Church of England to acquiesce in the new order. The Calvinibtic William was not unnaturally or unjustly suspected of lukewarmness towards the Establishment. But the influence of Mary, her unaffected piety and zeal for the Church, and the care with which she watched over the appointment of Bishops, disarmed the resentment of the Tories. Moreover, as Regent in 1690 and 1692 she showed some capacity in civil affairs, and a courage little short of heroic after the appalling news of Beachy Head (1690). William gradually became aware of her devotion and her services- and softened towards her in later years. When her death occurred (December 28, 1694), he was so painfully affected that it seemed he would follow her to the grave. The nation mourned with him, and Prior, in touching verse, bade him forget that " grief which hinders Europe being freed." But the English could not continue to regard the foreign ruler in the same light as when he had been the husband of the warm-hearted English Queen. After her death his popularity, which had never been great, declined so rapidly, as not only to retard the continuance of the war, but even to endanger the throne.

The difficulties which beset William at the beginning of his reign were increased by the natural reaction after the Revolution. A resolute minority had effected a settlement substantially upon its own lines ; it was certain that the more traditional and conservative forces, which had yielded to the shock of circumstance, would soon reassert their strength. William formed his first administration with the express view of lessening the effect of this recoil, by balancing between the different parties. He seems in this to have followed the counsel of the famous " Trimmer " Halifax, who himself became Privy Seal and who advised the appointment of the Whig Shrewsbury and the Tory Nottingham as Secretaries of State. In his contemporary account Burnet says, that the inclusion of Nottingham in the Ministry " first preserved the Church, and then the Crown." As Nottingham, though only a moderate Tory, was a

notorious champion of the Church, as religious questions were now specially in the foreground, all devout Churchmen hailed his appointment and that of Caermarthen (Danby), who was made President of the Council, as an earnest of the good intentions of the Calvinistic King.

The religious measures of William's reign are dealt with elsewhere. The Toleration Act passed in 1689 secured the loyalty of the Dissenters to the existing régime, though various signs hinted at future trouble between Dissent and Establishment. At the same time the imposition of a new oath of allegiance and supremacy produced the deposition of the Archbishop of Canterbury and six other bishops, and caused the famous schism of the Non-jurors within the Established Church itself. Meanwhile, the financial settlement was producing important results by making the King more dependent on Parliament. The Commons granted the King an annual revenue of about ^800,000. But the duties and customs, amounting to about four hundred thousand, which had been settled for life on James, were granted to William and Mary for only four years. The principle thus suggested, of creating conditions which enforced on the King the frequent summoning of Parliament, was further developed by the Mutiny Act. This Act, suggested by the mutiny of a regiment in William's service, passed the conventional condemnation on standing armies unsanctioned by Parliament. It expressly declared illegal the establishment of Courts-martial and military discipline, unless annually reenacted by statute, though such powers had till now always been exercised by royal prerogative. So long as William possessed a standing army, which it was obvious he would always do his utmost to retain, an annual summoning of Parliament would be essential.

In October, 1689, the new Parliament met, legalised the acts of the Convention Parliament, and passed the Bill of Rights. The Whigs, flushed with success and intoxicated by their recent triumph, resolved to make their opponents atone for the sins of the past. Everything was thus thrown into confusion, for it was possible, by reviving the memories of the Rye House Plot, to attack members of the existing Ministry. The Lords appointed a committee, popularly known as the " Murder Committee," to enquire who were answerable for the deaths of Russell, Sidney, and other Exclusionists. Though John Howe and John Hampden were implacable in the Commons, Shrewsbury managed to repress the most violent outbursts in the Lords, and the proceedings of the murder committee speedily collapsed. But the Whigs had another expedient for persecuting their opponents. They inserted clauses in the Corporation Bill, to render any man, who had been a party to the surrender of his town charter under Charles II, incapable of holding- office in his borough for seven years. This clause, which would ha\e resulted in a wholesale disfranchisement of Tories, was brought forwaid in the absence of many members. But the proposal was too violent ; some of the moderate Whigs hesitated ; the Tories hurried back to town.

The obnoxious clause was rejected (January, 1690), and the Tories, emboldened by their success, then tried to pass an Indemnity Bill, which provided for a general amnesty" for the past. But here they met with a reverse ; the moderate Whigs came back to their allegiance, and threw the Bill out in committee. The reunited Whigs were proceeding to engraft upon the original Bill a Bill of pains and penalties against various Tory offenders, when their progress was suddenly interrupted. The King, who had viewed these disputes with the utmost impatience, dissolved Parliament (February, 1690).

William was so disgusted with the violence of the previous Parliament that, in the general election which followed, he for the first time resorted to an unsparing use of political corruption. The result was the triumph of the moderate Tory party. Even before the results of the election were known, William had decided to effect changes in the Ministry. The dismissal of Halifax forms a real landmark in ministerial history (February, 1690). Henceforth the King was without his most conciliatory and unprejudiced advisers, and the policy of "trimming" and of compromise was gradually abandoned. The wits said that the King had exchanged the " White Marquis '" (Halifax) for the " Black " (Caermarthen), thus implying that, for the moment, Tory influence predominated. On the new Parliament William pressed a measure, which was largely due to his own personal initiative, and which has justly been claimed as one of his chief titles to renown-namely, an Act of Grace (May 20, 1690), exempting only regicides and thirty others from pardon. After very little discussion the House, as if ashamed of its violence in the previous session, accepted the Bill. Past errors and criminals were thus buried in oblivion, and a fruitful cause of bitterness removed. Above all it at last became possible for real energy to be infused into the conduct of the war, and for William to take the field with a united nation at his back.

The great campaigns of the period in which the Grand Alliance waged war in Italy and Flanders, in Ireland and Catalonia, on the Danube and the Rhine, in the Channel and in the Mediterranean, can only be noticed here in their more insular aspects. To the continental Powers the most imminent danger was from the land forces of Louis. Unlike them England had most to fear from the predominance of the sea-power of France. Throughout 1689 William seems not to have realised the immense peril threatening from Ireland, so long as the question of naval supremacy hung in the balance. The English in Ireland were confronted by a revolt of three-fourths of the population, and by the more formidable presence of veteran regiments from France. They might well be overmatched, if the French fleet could sweep the seas and blockade the coast of Ireland. Towards the end of 1689 William realised the danger; and henceforth he showed remarkable energy. In June, 1690, he sailed from England to assume command in Ireland,

leaving Mary as Regent with a council of nine to assist her. In his absence the Grand Alliance fared ill alike on sea and land. On July 1 Luxembourg won a great victory over the Allied Army at Fleurus ; on the previous day Admiral Tourville severely defeated the Allied Fleet oft' Beachy Head. Disgrace accompanied disaster, for Admiral Herbert (Lord Torrington), by allowing the main brunt of the fighting to be borne by the Dutch, somewhat unjustly incurred the censure most fatal to a sailor. The strategic consequences were not as serious as is sometimes supposed, nor was the Cross of St George almost banished from the seas. None the less, Tour ville triumphantly swept the Channel, threatened the southern coasts, and burnt Teignmouth. In this extremity the spirit of the nation rose ; subscriptions poured in ; crowds of volunteers rushed to arms ; and London took the lead in patriotic ardour. But the hour of suspense was not long, for, on July 4, a courier rode through the City with the news that William had won a great victory in Ireland.

William had come to Ireland only just in time. On the very day that the sea-power of England was temporarily destroyed he was able triumphantly to restore its military renown. By his victory of the Boyne (July 1) William secured the fall of Drogheda and Dublin and the flight of James from Ireland. But as yet William's power stopped at low-water-mark. Without a fleet he found it impossible to reduce Limerick, though Marlborough was able to capture Cork and Kinsale. In 1691, Russell replaced Torrington in command of the navy, and held in check the sea-power of France. The inevitable result was the fall of the hopes of Louis and James in Ireland. In July the last Irish army was routed at Aughrim, and the appearance of an English squadron in the Shannon decided the fate of Limerick, the last Irish fortress of note which held out (October 3, 1691). On May 19 (O.S.), 1692, the French fleet was utterly defeated by Admiral Russell off Cape La Hogue, under the very eyes of King James, who watched in anguish from the shore. Henceforward the command of the sea was triumphantly restored to England. After this the French could carry on a destructive privateering warfare, and the English were also repelled with great loss from attacks on the French coast at St Malo (August, 1692) and at Brest (1694). But such reverses were irritant rather than dangerous; and, the fighting fleet of France having been once swept from the seas, neither England nor Ireland could be in vital danger of invasion. Not even William's defeat at Steinkirke (August 3, 1692, O.S.) nor the fall of Namur (May) could dash the hopes of England.

Two attempts to restore James had thus failed, the first at the Boyne, the second off Cape La Hogue-a third remained to be planned. The energy and firmness which James had once displayed, alike in the shock of battle and amid civic strife, had deserted him at the end of 1688, and they never returned. In Ireland he showed a vacillation and weakness admitted by his own followers, and openly proclaimed by French

generals and statesmen. The inconsistent series of proclamations issued to his rebellious subjects (1689-93) awoke dismay in his supporters and scorn in his opponents. In 1693 (July 29) Luxembourg achieved his last triumph over William by worsting him in the bloody rout of Neerwinden (Landen). The hopes of James now stood high, for in this same year the French privateers destroyed an enormous Anglo-Dutch convoy from Smyrna. But in 1694, though an English expedition to Brest was disastrously repulsed, the English navy swept the seas, and William held his own in Flanders. In 1695 he took the offensive, and, finding the incompetent Villeroi at the head of the French army in the place of Luxembourg, was able to recapture Namur (October, 1695) in the most brilliant and successful campaign which he ever directed. During the last months of 1694 the English fleet had triumphantly wintered in the Bay of Cadiz, and had thus assured England's command over both Mediterranean and Atlantic. Louis thus found his fleet swept from the seas, and his armies seriously weakened on the land.

Few historic contrasts have more pathos than that which these years presented between the luxurious splendours and the thronging crowds of courtiers which surrounded the omnipotent sovereign at Versailles, and the unreal pageantry, the fast dwindling band of exiles, which clung to the phantom King at St Germain. Like most exiles, James vastly exaggerated the strength of the party in his favour in England. His delusions were fostered by assurances from Godolphin, Marlborough, and Russell, and by correspondence with Anne, Penn, Halifax, Dartmouth, and Shrewsbury. In spite of all his flatterers, Louis had a more real grasp of the English situation than that to which James and his followers attained. He now made it clear that he would not risk sending a French force until a rising offering fair chances of success should have broken out in England. This resolution on the part of Louis determined the form of the third and last serious attempt to reestablish James. In January, 1696, the Duke of Berwick, the natural son of James, came over to England in disguise, and, failing to organise an armed insurrection, hurried back to France to avoid being party to a plot. A plan to assassinate William was at this time being devised by George Porter and a few other Jacobites in England. The plot was not unknown to James, and the exiled monarch came to Calais to await the flash of a beacon fire from Dover cliffs, which was to be the announcement of William's death. On receiving the signal, James was to step on board a fleet of French transports, and convey an expeditionary force to England. That signal never came, for the "Assassination Plot" was detected (February 24, 1696). Porter turned King's evidence, with the result that his own life was spared by William, though Sir John Fenwick, who knew nothing of the real nature of the plot, was executed. While he was awaiting the signal James had written pious letters to de liancé, the austere Cistercian Abbot of La Trappe, hinting that

"a visible interference of the good God for His greater glory" would soon be manifested in his favour. When this did not appear, his thoughts turned elsewhere ; and henceforward he edified divines by his devotion to religion, as much as he enraged statesmen by his indifference to politics. After 1696, when James refused the French offer to support his election to the Crown of Poland, Louis ceased to regard him as an independent political factor, as, indeed, he ceased to consider himself. The influence of de Rancé had transformed him into a mystical recluse, whose garments were touched by pilgrims from afar, whose miracles were attested by bishops, whose holiness was admitted by the Pope.

The progress of the War, from the shame of Beachy Head and Stein-kirke to the triumphs of La Hogue and Namur, had been viewed in England with mingled feelings. After 1692, and still more after 1694, the war seemed to be carried on for aggrandisement rather than defence, for gain not for existence. England's trade interests in the Indies or Mediterranean might indeed be secured or impaired by the progress of the war in Flanders. But many English did not measure the war either by the loss of convoys or ships to Whig merchants, or by gain in security to German Princes and Dutch burghers. The landed gentry, who formed the backbone of the Tory party, simply calculated whether the war in Flanders really gave adequate benefits to England in return for its enormous expense and frequent disasters. This exclusive consideration of insular interests, which made Parliament willing to grant large sums for the navy, but reluctant to increase the army, William could not understand. He speaks contemptuously of "the inconceivable blindness of people here," and ascribes it to the spirit of party ; yet in this matter he was really thwarted on national, not upon partisan, grounds. But the causes of his irritation were perfectly natural. He could not but be conscious, though his gaze was fixed upon Europe rather than upon the Indies, that the War was exalting beyond measure the maritime and commercial supremacy of England. The Dutch were forced by treaty to supply a larger proportion of troops than of ships to the common cause. Hence their commerce and marine suffered. If William's conversations with Montanus are to be believed, he had realised long before 1688 that the inclusion of England in the Alliance must advance her shipping and commerce to the detriment of that of his own people. In any case, he had realised this during the war, and was therefore exasperated on finding that, when he had sacrificed so much for the common cause, England did so little to help him. He was giving her the commercial and naval empire of the globe, and she showed her gratitude by cutting down the numbers of the army and starving his military campaigns.

Milton had discovered that war moved by two main nerves, one of iron and the other of gold; and Louis had declared in the midst of his victories that the Power with the last gold piece would win. Hence it is

as much to the superiority of organisation and method in developing their economic resources, as to their superiority in naval power, that the English kingdom and the Dutch Republic owed their eventual triumph over France. That England should depend on her own food supplies in time of war, and upon a prosperous landed class in time of peace, had been accepted dogmas for some years before 1688. A series of severe prohibitory Acts, beginning in 1671, had penalised and checked the importation of foreign corn. The Bounty Act of 1689 gave large bounties on the export of corn to foreign countries, and thus increased the home output. The economic result was to produce immense immediate prosperity to English agriculture, though corn was encouraged to the detriment of turnip and grass cultivation, and to the retarding of a more scientific system of agriculture. As with the economic effects, so with the political, the result was to give prosperity to what was existent without providing for the future. The new Act favoured the landed gentry at the expense of the merchant, gave an undue preference to the landlord, who possessed capital, and discouraged the small yeoman who did not. The result was to increase and make permanent the power of the landed gentry and of real property, the confirmation of which was so distinct a mark of the Revolution settlement. The Bounty Act was the economic counterpart of the philosophy of Locke and Harrington. It was by the operation of this Act that the landowners were enabled to hold at bay for so long the rising forces of wealth and commerce. The earlier economic laws of the reign gave security to the landed class, just as the later gave security to the commercial ; and these facts, though marking the transition of political power from Tory to Whig, show that the Revolution settlement was likewise national in character and aim.

The general commercial policy of England is perhaps the only department of public life in which the Revolution made no striking or even apparent innovation. Though immense developments of her commerce and shipping took place within the period, England's trade really increased by means of the sword or diplomacy, and not in the main through any specifically new commercial provisions. For the main lines of mercantilist policy were already laid in the Poor Laws, the Corn Laws, and the Navigation Laws. A broad system of national policy thus existed, which was amended in detail but not disturbed in principle. In 1696 a reorganisation of the committee of the Privy Council dealing with commerce and colonies was necessitated by the persistent criticisms of Parliament. The Board of Trade was constituted with a permanent staff as well as privy councillors, in order to prevent further encroachments of Parliament upon the executive. By these means some order was reintroduced into departments which had been carefully organised by James, and much neglected by William. The chief effect of the new Board, of which Locke was an active member, was the adoption of an exclusive mercantilist policy, which gradually ruined the nascent linen

and cloth industries of Ireland, in order to protect the drapers and clothiers of England.

The debts of the Protectorate and the extravagances of the Restoration monarchy had been immense ; but the outbreak of the continental war speedily entailed expenditure on a scale unknown to Cromwell or to Charles. The extravagant Charles had maintained an army of less than nine thousand men ; for the frugal and thrifty James an annual income of less than fifteen thousand pounds had usually sufficed. Englishmen recalled these days with regret when the Dutch deliverer showed them the cost of freedom by demanding an army of over eighty thousand men and an income of nearly six millions (1693). The first real measures to grapple with the problems of expenditure and revenue were taken in 1692, and the impulse came in the main from the Whig party and their famous financier Montagu. The method of raising subsidies which had prevailed in the first half of the century was now hopelessly obsolete. Under the Commonwealth and the Restoration a new plan had been tried. The sum to be raised was fixed, and then distributed according to assessments based on the reputed wealth of each county. In 1692 a newer and more exact valuation of landed estates was made, and it was decided to fix a rate on the values of the rentals which should vary as necessity demanded. The only serious drawback was that the new valuation was in many respects inaccurate, and fell with undue severity on the Eastern Counties. Still, the new tax was the most productive yet imposed, and when, as in 1693, the rate of 4s. in the pound was imposed, about two millions annually flowed into the Exchequer.

Nothing is more obvious to a modern observer than that there must occur crises in the history of every nation, when it can no longer settle all its obligations at the end of each year. Such a crisis had already occurred in the history of France and of Holland, both of which had large debts. It had, in fact, also occurred in England, when Charles II refused to repay to the goldsmiths the sum of £1,300,000 which he had borrowed from them (January, 1672). In 1692 the creditors had received no interest for ten years, and they seemed to have no prospect of repayment of capital. With this unhappy example before him, the average Englishman might well consider the contraction of a debt by Government, which extended beyond the end of the year, to be suggested by the discreditable shifts of a royal spendthrift or the mischievous innovations of a foreigner. All this was very different in Holland, where Sir William Temple had long ago pointed out the advantages of a national debt as a sound investment for private individuals. On every side and in every enterprise stock-jobbing drew on or deluded the individual investor. Watered stock and bogus companies, over-capitalisation and falsification of accounts-none of the expedients or disasters of modern speculation were wanting. The scale was indeed small, but the modern

financial world already existed in miniature. Montagu had resolved to divert to the national Exchequer some of that wealth which private enterprise was hiding in cupboards or dissipating in companies. He could not but perceive the double advantage of providing individuals with good investments on national security and the State with easily-raised loans. Two things were wanting-a national debt and a national bank, the chief agents which impart steadiness and balance to modern finance ; and both Montagu was now to provide. The proposal of a Government loan for nine hundred thousand pounds was carried through Parliament (1693). The loan was based on the ordinary principles upon which national debts were then founded. It pledged the existing credit of the State, and it also levied a tax upon posterity ; for it was certain that the annuities established by it could not be extinguished for at least half a century. The principles so clearly established were certain to receive a speedy extension.

At the end of 1693, Montagu, face to face with another serious deficit, was ready with a host of expedients, in the shape of a poll-tax, stamp duties, and lottery loans. But, despite all this ingenuity, another million was needed, and supplied by the expedient of a national bank. The idea of a national bank was far less familiar to Englishmen than that of a system of a national credit. Before this time merchants had usually kept their surplus cash in their own houses, buried it like Pepys in their gardens, or deposited it in the Tower or Corporation Treasury. But, from 1640 onwards, the uncertainties of war and distrust of the Government constrained them to place their money in the strongrooms of the goldsmiths. From these causes the system of banking and exchange received an unprecedented development, and under Charles II private banks became numerous and nourishing. The most famous of early private bankers was Sir Francis Child, who numbered among his customers Cromwell and the Prince of Orange, Churchill and Nell Gwyn. After England had secured her own private banks, she began to examine the national banks of other countries. Those of Venice and Genoa had long been famous ; the Bank of Amsterdam was now the most renowned financial institution in the world, and Englishmen were never slow to borrow the methods and the practice of Dutch finance.

Business ^ men generally began to realise that the lowering of interest, the circulation of a paper currency, and the general steadiness of the financial world would all be secured by the establishment of a national bank. The scheme appears to have been first suggested in a reasonable form by Francis Cradock in 1660; and henceforward innumerable pamphlets on the subject were issued, varying in merit from the masterly expositions of Petty to the ridiculous fallacies of Chamberlain and Murray. The commercial necessity for such an institution had been obvious even in the time of the Restoration ; the political necessity for it became overwhelming after the Revolution. The goldsmiths, who acted as private

bankers, speedily found that the more business they did with the Government the less they did with the public. A contemporary authority tells us that, when King William sought even a small loan from the City of London, Ministers of State went from shop to shop and office to office soliciting it. Even these trivial loans were furnished rather from motives of honour and patriotism than from hope of gain. It was at this moment that William Paterson, a traveller of vast financial experience, genius, and resource, submitted to the Government a pamphlet containing a practical plan for a national bank (1691). The Government was favourable, but Parliament was adverse, and for three years the subject dropped. But in 1694 Montagu planned to raise his loan of ,£1,200,000 by establishing a bank, and found himself strongly supported by the City. Montagu's plan, which was an adaptation of Paterson's, was to raise the loan, with its interest of 8 per cent, secured by a new duty on tonnage. Those who took up the loan were to form a company, with the title of " Governor and Company of the Bank of England." They were permitted to borrow money at 4*^ per cent., while lending to the Government at 8. They were allowed to transact private business, but restricted from trading in anything but bills of exchange, bullion, and forfeited pledges. Paterson, in a new pamphlet (1694), demonstrated that the Bank's action must have beneficial effects, and lower the rate of interest just as the Banks of Amsterdam and Genoa had done. The consequence must be to attract money and trade from abroad, and thus to benefit all borrowers, merchants, and ultimately also landed proprietors. The comparative ease with which the Bill passed the two Houses, and the extraordinary readiness with which it was subscribed in the City, appear very surprising in face of the enormous clamour raised outside the walls of Parliament. The objections put forward throw a ray of powerful light upon the economic knowledge and political condition of the age. The economic arguments against it were that the establishment of the Bank would render it hard to borrow money upon mortgage, and thereby diminish the value of land. In addition, the free circulation of money would be impeded, and local centres be denuded of cash. The political arguments against the Bill partook more of prejudice than of weight, except in one instance. The reasonable objection that the Bank might endanger public liberty by its relations with the Crown, was removed by the insertion of a clause preventing the Bank from advancing loans to the Crown save by Act of Parliament. The other political arguments, brought forward as they were by men of both parties, had an agreeable variety. The Whig section argued that the Bank would introduce absolutism, the Tory that it would introduce republicanism. The Tory party saw a more special danger to the landed interest, and declared with some plausibility that a private company of Whig merchants were thus endowed with power in perpetuity. The whole question seems to have been decided less on the merits of the new institution,
than from motives of expediency and patriotism. As Caermarthen pointed out in the Lords, there might be objectionable clauses in the Bill, but it was the only means of providing money for the navy to take the sea that summer. This practical argument sufficed, where all others might have failed.

Like so many other measures of the time, the Bill for establishing the Bank, though it bore the Whig stamp, was still the outcome of compromise and was directed to a genuinely national end. It is less clear, than in the case of his other financial measures, how far Montagu understood the real value of his creation - whether he was making shift with an expedient designed to be temporary, or whether he intended his creation to rival the great banks of the Continent, or realised that it might become the greatest of financial institutions. On the whole, it would seem that the Bank in its origin was carefully adjusted to the needs of the time, with due regard to the spirit of individual enterprise and with care to avoid too much dependence on the State. It differed fundamentally from all banks except those of Genoa and Stockholm. Other banks were primarily established as offices of exchange, as places where good coin could be obtained, or as banks of deposit - that is, safes from which in theory at least the original coins could be recovered. But the Bank of England boldly circulated notes, without pretending that its paper currency corresponded exactly to the amount of its bullion. Again, its notes were not legal tender in England, as were the notes of the national banks of Amsterdam, Genoa and Venice. Thirdly, it had in no sense an exclusive monopoly ; for the Government reserved the right of discharging the loan and dissolving the organisation in 1705, and raised up a formidable rival to it in 1696. The new Bank was eminently original, and in its originality lay no small part of its danger, for it had many of the burdens and singularly lew of the advantages of a connexion with the State.

The dangers which so speedily menaced the Bank were partially caused by the inexperience of its promoters, but even more by the malice of its opponents. The goldsmiths bought up the notes which the Bank issued for circulation and waited their time to inflict a blow on an institution whose success they believed would seriously injure their own private banks. The operation of the Recoinage Act supplied the opportunity in two years. This measure had long been rendered necessary because the clipped or damaged coins of James I or Elizabeth had been treated as of equal value with the good milled coins of Charles II and James II. To the amazement of contemporaries, increased issues of milled crowns did not increase the circulation of good currency. Gresham's law, that bad money drives out good, was illustrated on a gigantic scale, and bad money circulated, while most of the good coins were melted down, exported, and sold as bullion. Both in town and country the face value of the coins rose on the average to about twice their real value as metal.

Stringent Acts to prevent exportation and melting proved ineffective, and a drastic recoinage became essential. Singularly enough the remedy eventually adopted was framed by the united counsels of the greatest lawyer, the greatest financier, the greatest political, and the greatest natural philosopher of the age, namely, Somers, Montagu, Locke, and Newton.

The main principles of the settlement were laid down by Locke in his famous currency pamphlets. His views, that the new coinage should follow the established standard in weight and denomination, and that the loss incurred by recoinage should be borne by the State, were accepted by the Ministry. The actual form of the Bill was suggested by Somers and carried by Montagu, whilst the practical measures of recoinage were taken by Sir Isaac Newton as Master of the Mint. By the Recoinage Act (January, 1696), it was provided that the old clipped coins should cease to be legal tender on May 4, though full equivalents of their face value in the new milled coins were to be issued as fast as possible. The withdrawal from circulation of such large amounts of coin made itself sensibly felt, and it was this very moment of distress that the goldsmiths selected to deliver their long-planned stroke against the Bank.

On May 4 the goldsmiths organised a run on the Bank, at the moment when the Treasury had swallowed all available coin. Ruin and bankruptcy seemed imminent. The Directors refused to cash such notes as they held to have been presented with malicious intent, bidding the goldsmiths seek their remedy at law. But a run on the Bank had begun, and they could not refuse to honour notes presented by ordinary creditors. Yet even here they were able to pay only a percentage. The recoinage went on slowly ; the scarcity of coin showed no relaxation for three months, and very little for twelve. In January, 1G97, William could still tell Heinsius that he had no money to secure the ratification of the treaty with Denmark and no subsidies to pay his troops-nay, could not even despatch a certain diplomatic agent, being actually unable to defray his travelling expenses. If such were the straits of princes, it may be imagined what were those of the Bank Directors or of still humbler persons. It was only after March, 1697, that the crisis had definitely passed, either for the Bank or the country. The difficulties had been enormous and the sufferings great, while the actual expenses of recoinage involved the Exchequer in a loss of little under three millions. Money and suffering would both have been saved, had the remedy been adopted some years earlier. As it was, it came but just in time. Had it been -deferred a year longer, the consequence might have been more serious than the loss of a pitched battle by land or sea. But the settlement was successful, and the most subtle and one of the most serious causes of commercial crises and fluctuation was removed by the establishment of a sound currency system.

Before they had recovered from the attack of the goldsmiths, the Bank Directors had to meet an assault from the landed gentry, thus experiencing at once the united force of the economic and the political opposition to their original establishment. A coalition of Whig and Tory landed gentry, with the support of King William, carried a badly-devised project for the establishment of a Land Bank in spite of Montagu's opposition (May, 1696). Subscriptions opened in June, and owing to the almost total failure to attract subscribers, the project was entirely abandoned on August 1. But it was one of the ironies of the situation that the Bank of England, which had been so much damaged by the creation of the Land Bank, was even more endangered by its destruction. Hardly were their rivals crushed than Montagu applied to the Directors of the Bank of England for an immediate loan, which the Land Bank had promised but, in consequence of its failure, had not supplied. Montagu pleaded William's direct statement that nothing short of £3,00,000 in cash could enable his army to take the field. On August 15 the Directors made a further call of 20 per cent., which the General Court of subscribers accepted from patriotic rather than financial motives. In ten days the bullion was pouring into the King's coffers, the Allies presented an imposing front in the field, and a decision of the money-market had, not for the last time, exercised a momentous effect upon a military campaign.

Montagu wrote to William, telling him that, as the Bank had risked all for the Government, Government must now risk something for the Bank. William assented, not perhaps perceiving that he entrenched the Whig party in the citadel of the State, by settling the Bank on a firm basis. In view of the scandalous treatment meted out to the Bank by the Government in 1696, the privileges granted in 1697, though immense, were hardly excessive. The Bank was to be guaranteed its position till 1710, when the Government received the right of discharging its obligations. It was allowed authority to issue notes, on condition that they should be payable on demand. Last, and perhaps most important, a monopoly was granted ; no society of the nature of a bank was to be authorised by Parliament till 1710. The neglect to establish branch institutions and secure the organisation of local credit was to entail much future distress in the country. To this and other faulty provisions it was due that, during the first century of existence of the Bank, it had to undergo crises more serious than its predecessors at Genoa, Venice or Amsterdam had encountered in the same number of years.

Even now the Bank of England remained only a joint-stock company, pursuing the ends of individual enterprise, under the control and with the encouragement of the State. Though Montagu eventually provided that the Bank should become a national institution, he immediately secured that it should be a partisan one. The failure of the Land Bank had meant the rout of Jacobites and Tories, and the Whig

merchants, who had risked their fortunes in the Bank of England, had fought for William as energetically and more successfully than his soldiers in the field. For the moment a Whig policy was imposed on a willing nation. The Bank plumped its weight on the side of Revolution and against the Church, and the bags of Whig money-lenders outweighed the sermons of Jacobite clergymen. Addison's famous allegory pictures the Stewart rushing into the Grocers' Hall, turning money-bags into bladders and gold coin into rubbish, and sending the goddess Credit off in a fainting fit. Whether or not James II would really have repudiated the State obligations contracted after 1688, is doubtful. But the belief that he would was a wide-spread and deep-rooted superstition, which contributed immensely to the stability of the new order of things and to the supremacy of the Whig party.

Before turning to the development of party government, we may deal with the great measure which established the freedom of the Press. For both these changes had eventually international effects, far wider than are usually caused by events of such an apparently domestic character. It is impossible to view any part of the reign of William without perceiving to how great an extent public opinion criticised and influenced political action. Even James himself had showed deference to that supreme tribunal, before it passed its irrevocable sentence upon him. The criticisms of minorities in Parliament had frequently revealed cases of grave injustice, and had prevented the perpetration of scandalous political jobs and maladministration alike under Charles, James and William. But a force stronger than the voices of the Opposition in Parliament was required to extend and to secure the power of public opinion, and that force could only be found in a free press. In the Âreopagitica Milton had nobly pleaded that cause ; but the great soldier of the Commonwealth had exercised the most rigorous press-censorship ever known. Under Charles and James the Licensing Acts had been renewed ; and in 1676 Sunderland had expressed his desire to suppress the "damnable trade " of supplying news-letters to the coffee-houses.

During the turmoil of the Revolution shoals of pamphlets had been unchecked by licensing or censorship. The pamphlets of Burnet, Locke, Somers, Chamberlain, and Paterson most powerfully influenced and moulded religious, political, and economic opinion. Owing to a series of accidents, needless to relate and unimportant in themselves, it was eventually decided (1695) not to renew the Licensing Act. Henceforth, the number of printing presses was not limited and vexatious restrictions were removed. Ministers still reserved the right of prosecuting printers for attacks on the Government, and under Anne, both Godolphin and Bolingbroke showed that serious restrictions could be imposed on the press through this means and by the expedient of a paper-tax. But, apart from these restrictions, the liberty of the Press-with its subtle influences of suggestion, its broad powers of criticism, abuse and exhortation,

with all its immeasurable consequences for securing the toleration and freedom of opinion-was at last acknowledged and established.

To understand the political movements of the time, it is needful to grasp the form of the executive Government, as it then existed. The King could check the Lords by a threat of creating peers, and the Commons by the use of his veto and the power of dissolution. In these cases his power was immediate. But in administration also he had a wide and direct influence apart from his Ministers. King James had, with general applause, personally directed the naval administration and written his own speeches for Parliament and Privy Council. The relations of the King and his Council are equally significant. It is certain that before the reign of William, the power of the Privy Council had passed into the hands of a number of committees, which the King directly controlled. Some of these committees were permanent or " standing," as for Ireland and for trade ; others secret, as for foreign affairs and foreign and domestic intelligence; others appointed ad hoc for various special purposes, diplomatic, commercial or judicial. All these bodies were indifferently described as " cabinets," though the term was more usually applied to the foreign committee and to that for intelligence. These committees dealt with matters in detail, decided upon them, and acquainted the King with their decisions, which, if approved by the King, were presented to the Privy Council. Discussions sometimes took place at that Council ; but its consent was not very much more than a formality. The power and authority of the King were really supreme. He alone constituted and selected the committees, and could dismiss recalcitrant committee members or privy councillors with a stroke of his pen. Further, he alone gave authority and legality to the committees. During William's reign those Ministers, who were members of the most committees and who held the dozen most important offices of State, gradually began to form a kind of general committee. This body is sometimes termed the Cabinet, and to it William often deferred. But he could always set aside its decisions as he did those of other committees, and its authority depended wholly upon his will. This is shown by the admitted fact that the King could take a step of his own in foreign policy on the advice of a single Minister. It is also evident that he could on his own authority, as in 1690 and 1692, constitute a Council or Cabinet, whose numbers varied at his pleasure, as the supreme authority in his absence. The King's position, therefore, was that he transacted business with a number of different committees, in which he formed the centre of power and union. He had the main direction of foreign affairs, and immense opportunities for influence and control in other directions. He was really his own chief Minister; but, from inexperience in domestic affairs and preoccupation in foreign, William could not attend to administrative details or gauge the shifting currents of popular opinion. It is very evident that, under such conditions,

a system of party government, based on a united Ministry, could not easily arise. For the King was the pivot on which everything turned ; and till the end of 1692 he refused either to be the instrument of a single party, or to devolve his power upon a single man or group of men.

In his relations with Parliament, William, his Ministers, and the House of Commons, were alike dominated by a most mischievous theory, to which the great authority of Locke had recently lent renewed life. This was the theory that legislature and executive were and ought to remain separate, that the King's Ministers were the executive, the two Houses the critical body. There was no doubt a sense in which this was true, in that Parliament and the Ministry ought to some extent to be independent of each other. But it was madness to assert this theory in its full completeness just after the Revolution had placed new and great powers in the hands of the Commons. In the event of an absolute exclusion of Crown officials from the Lower House, one of two results must have followed. Either the King would have drawn his Ministers exclusively from the peers-in which case administration would have been entirely in the hands of the aristocracy ; or he would have trained a staff of clerks-in which case administration would have been in the hands of a bureaucracy. In either case the Commons would have been a body which could check, criticise and harass, but not actively direct the Government. The strength of the popular House must therefore have been weakened and endangered.

The insight of men of William's day did not pierce into the future ; it was governed by remembrance of the past. Men were oppressed with the fear of the Crown and of the undue influence exercised by Charles and James upon members of Parliament, upon corporations, and electors. This was the real cause of the vigour of Locke's theory and the real origin of the Place-Bills, of which the earliest was brought before the Commons at Christmas, 1692. It actually provided for the entire and absolute exclusion from the Commons of all holding office under the Crown. When it was known that existing place-holders would not be disturbed till the dissolution of the existing Parliament, the Bill passed the Commons with marvellous rapidity. It was thrown out by the narrowest majorities in the Lords. After various adventures the Place-Bill was finally rejected in the Commons in 1694. Thus was averted for the time being the danger of an absolute separation between executive and legislature, while the regular session of the latter was assured by the passing of a Bill providing for Triennial Parliaments (1694).

The extraordinary conduct of Parliament was largely due to imperfect harmony not only between King, Ministers, and legislature, but between party-leaders and their followers. This the Whigs were the first to realise, in a dim, imperfect fashion, through the agency of the discredited Sunderland. That ex-Minister's career had been such as lo disgrace him even in that age of loose political conscience and easy public

virtue. But his past did not prevent him from giving, not only the Whigs, but William himself, some valuable lessons in the art of government. In 1693 Sunderland counselled William to favour the Whigs and admit them to office, first because their political theory favoured the Revolution, next because they favoured the war, and last because they were the stronger party in the Lower House. The fact that the majority of the Commons, which in 1690 was certainly Tory, was in 1693 uncertain or inclining to be Whig, marks the lack of cohesion and the presence of chaos in the parties. This indeed is the explanation of the extraordinary vicissitudes that befel the various Place and Triennial Bills. After 1692 the Tories were gradually beginning to oppose the war, and the immense power of Crown influence over parliamentary placemen was naturally thrown against them. In addition to this a small knot or junto of statesmen was gradually imparting to the Whigs an organisation and discipline, such as Shaftesbury had given to the Exclusionists. Somers, already the first among the lawyers, Montagu, destined to prove the first of the financiers, Wharton, the first of the wire-pullers, and Russell, the naval hero of the day, formed the famous Whig " Junto," soon to be the ruling force in politics. It is certain that William did not appreciate the full import of Sunderland's advice ; but he gradually and almost unconsciously began to act upon it. Somers had been made a peer and Lord Keeper so early as March, 1693 ; the Tory Nottingham was courteously dismissed ; the Whig Shrewsbury resumed the seals of Secretary. The situation then became curious ; for William's chief confidence was not yet given to the Whigs, though they formed the bulk of his Ministry. He still relied in the main upon the Tory Caermarthen and upon Sunderland, who was not a Minister at all. In 1695 Caermarthen was implicated in the scandals of the East India Company, and was obliged to resign. His withdrawal was followed in 1697 by that of Godolphin, the last of the Tory Ministers. The Ministry became exclusively Whig, just at the moment when the Peace of Ryswyk was carried to a successful conclusion amid general rejoicings. With peace the old hatred of standing armies reasserted itself, and the forces were immediately cut down to 10,000 men in the face of William's intense disapproval. It was in vain that Somers wrote the famous " Balancing Letter, to calm the national hatred of militarism. The feeling may not have been justified, yet it was at least not partisan, but genuinely national. For, though the majority of the Commons was Whig, it united with the Tories against its own leaders ; and in 1699 a hostile House forced William to dismiss his famous " Blues," his dearly-loved regiments of Dutch Guards. In 1699 Parliament severely attacked the grants of Irish lands, made by the King to his Dutch favourites and to Lady Orkney, and in the next year actually passed a Bill for their resumption. William in despair at length summoned the Tories Rochester and Godolphin to the Ministry. They succeeded in checking the attacks
on the King, by giving a free rein to attacks upon the former Ministers ; Bentinck (now Earl of Portland), Russell (now Lord (Mord), Montagu (now Earl of Halifax), and Somers, were all impeached. But it was not for nothing that William had filled the Upper House with Whig Bishops and peers. The impeachments eventually failed ; but their effect had been to remove from office and to discredit the intended victims.

In the midst of all the turmoil and party intrigue of 1701, the Ministry contrived to add the keystone to the arch of the Revolution by passing the Act of Settlement. This famous Act had been necessitated by the death of the Duke of Gloucester-the only surviving son of Anne. The Act supplied two important omissions in the Bill of Rights. In the first place judges were to receive fixed salaries, and to be removable only after being convicted in the law-courts or on address from both Houses of Parliament. In other words the judge, though appointed, could not be removed, by the King. A long step was thus taken towards that separation of the powers, which Locke declared essential to liberty, and which Montesquieu was actually to regard as the characteristic excellence of the English constitution. The other important provision of the Act of Settlement decided that the Crown should pass on the death of Anne to the Electress Sophia and her Protestant descendants. It is often said that this provision established the elective character of the English Crown. This was not the opinion of contemporaries, nor was it that of Burke. Mary and William had been acknowledged Queen and King, because the Prince of Wales was already excluded by the resolution that no Papist could reign, and the Act of Settlement merely confirmed this principle. Expediency had rendered it needful to alter the succession, and to make the Crown elective pro hoc vice, but the case was not intended to form a precedent. In this, as in every other instance, the Revolution settlement rested upon compromise rather than upon the general principles, which, however, the particular action went far towards establishing in each case.

The Act of Settlement had not been passed before the international situation began to dwarf the importance of internal events. The accession of Louis1 grandson, Philip, to the whole inheritance of Spain destroyed the balance of power and endangered the existence of Holland. England, secure on the other side of the Channel, remained unmoved, and William wrote to Heinsius that he would secretly engage her in the coming war. But he did not find it easy to attain this object. At length the pride of Louis and the Whig merchants' evident apprehension of being entirely excluded from the commerce of the New World, began to stir the pulse of the nation. This resentment was inflamed to the highest pitch by Louis' action on the death of James (September 6, 1701), in recognising his son as James III of England. In a moment, the country was wild with rage, and William, riding on the wave of popular anger, was able to include England in his "Great Alliance."

But just when a new and vaster struggle than he had yet waged was opening-at the moment of all others when he wished to live-it was ordained that he should die. He had fractured his collar-hone, and a chill, which followed on the accident, was too much for his enfeebled frame. He died at Kensington on March 8, 1702.

On a survey of the whole period of the Revolution and reign, the imagination is struck by the comparatively small part played by William upon the English stage, and the immense figure which he made upon the European. By a tragic irony, he spent his life in opposing in England the very tendencies which he was promoting abroad. On the Continent William stood for the principle that the too great predominance of one Power, being dangerous to all the others, must be checked by their union. Yet it was right that there should be a balance of power in the Constitution as well as in diplomacy, in England as well as in Europe. By apportioning the balance of power between King and Parliament, by separating the judicial from the executive powers, the Act of Settlement did much to further the theory of checks and balances. According to this theory no power is absolute and uncontrolled in the State, and where there are limitations on power the rights of minorities are secured. The checks upon uncontrolled executive power imposed by the existence of a quasi-independent legislature and judicature were strengthened by the growth of party government, the development of political, and the beginning of religious, toleration, and the establishment of a free press. Such theoretical views and such practical checks had not been unknown in Holland even before their adoption in England. But, speaking generally, nothing was more opposed to contemporary political thought than Locke's view that different powers in the State should move in independent spheres, and that none should be uncontrolled or supreme. Nothing has therefore exercised more influence upon the future than this view, and its effect is revealed in the framing of the constitution of the United States, and in any other constitution which has taken the English polity for its model.

In England William was too anxious to retain the great privileges of the Crown, unable to see that, by this policy, he invited all other powers in the State in resistance to the predominance of one-the Executive. Hence he sometimes had to face in England a coalition of both parties or even of Parliament and people. Judgment or his fortune always enabled him to avert a crisis which would have been disastrous, but many of the great reforms of the age were undertaken in his despite or without his decided approval. In the constitutional and legislative problems, whose settlement so profoundly affected the destiny of political institutions, William exercised an influence which was actually small and not always beneficial. The immense development of the national power and resources, the foundation of what were to be the most renowned system of national credit and the most famous

financial institution in the world-all these he viewed with indifférence or even hostility. In commercial and colonial policy he had no active interest, though he was careful to secure England's rights in the diplomatic treaties of the time. On the other hand, it is only fair to say that in urging forward the need of political amnesty in the Act of Grace, and the cause of religious liberty in the Toleration Act, he was at once more enlightened and more disinterested than any Englishman of the time. James or Halifax desired religious liberty, Nottingham and Somers political toleration, perhaps more earnestly than William. But no single Englishman so sincerely desired and so simultaneously and consistently forwarded both causes.

The constitutional principles introduced by the Revolution can hardly be said to be new, and the curiously concrete method of their application only rendered probable, and did not finally determine, their development and triumph. The Bill of Rights expressed the idea that resistance to tyranny was justifiable, and the Act of Settlement did much to forward the imperfectly apprehended view that government finally rested on consent of the majority, and that the gift of the crown lay ultimately with the people. Thus were foreshadowed for a particular end the principles, which eventually became general and absolute, which enabled Jefferson to overthrow the sway of England's constitutional Parliament over America, and Rousseau to assail the rule of absolute kings in Europe.

While veneration is paid to Locke, to Halifax, and to Somers, for devising the theory and creating the practice of a constitution which has been the model to so many others in the world, something must be allowed to the great man who defended it from external assault, and who accomplished as great a work for the good of Europe as any of these achieved for the institutions of England. William did for the continental polity what Locke and Halifax did for the English. He asserted and maintained, in the name of the allied States of Europe, the right of confining within due bounds the aggressive and predominating spirit of one nation or element which endangered the liberty of all others. It is possible to suppose that, if Locke and Halifax had never lived, England might have still preserved her freedom ; but it is impossible to hold that, if William had never lived, the States of western Europe might not have lost theirs. And, in securing the one object, William really secured the other, for by arresting the progress of despotic France he assured the triumph of constitutional England. It was in this final sense that the interests of England and of Europe, the policies of Halifax and of William, were inseparable. And though Englishmen persist in regarding William as a ruler often unsympathetic or indifferent to their special interests, Europe cannot fail to see in him one who laboriously and triumphantly toiled, amid infinite difficulties, for the general interests of a continent.


The political situation in Scotland at the Restoration of Charles II in 1660 would have taxed the vigour and prudence of the most experienced statesmen. At no previous period had the nation been more distracted in its aims or torn with conflicting passions. The great revolt against the ecclesiastical policy of James VI and Charles I, which had issued in the overthrow of the royal authority and the reestablishment of Presbyterianism, had eventually resulted in a national catastrophe. Triumphant Presbyterianism had been cleft in twain by its own internal divisions, and had lost the support of the nobility by whose aid alone it had successfully waged war with Charles I. Then came the domination of the Commonwealth and Protectorate, when for ten years the nation had to accept such institutions and methods of government as an alien power deemed to be in the interest of both countries. The domination had on the whole been beneficent, but it had been the result of conquest, and no considerable section of the Scottish people were in sympathy with the political or religious ideas either of Commonwealth or Protectorate.

It was, therefore, with an enthusiasm almost as general and spontaneous as the feeling displayed in England that Scotland hailed the restoration of her ancient line of kings. The burst of loyalty was at once the expression of hope for the future and joy at the deliverance from a rule under which the national ideals could never be realised. But the momentary exaltation of feeling could not conceal the fact that no possible policy of the new government could satisfy all parties in the State or harmonise their divisions. The paramount public concern remained what it had been since the Reformation a century before-the question of the national religion in doctrine and polity. At the Reformation there had been two clearly-defined parties-Protestants on the one side and Roman Catholics on the other-and the issue between them could not be misunderstood. At the Restoration Protestantism was the religion of the nation, with the exception of a remnant that still clung to the old faith; but it was a Protestantism so divided in doctrine, spirit, and aspirations as virtually to create a number of distinct religious bodies

incapable of harmonious action towards a common end. There was that section of the Presbyterians, known as the " Protesters " or "Remonstrants," who in 1650 had rejected Charles as their King, till he should have furnished satisfactory evidence that in his heart as well as with his lips he had given his sanction to the National Covenant of 1638 and the Solemn League and Covenant of 1643. But, as Charles was never likely to afford this satisfaction, the Protesters from the beginning stood in irreconcilable opposition to his government. On the other hand, the main body of the Presbyterians, known as the " Resolutioners," who had sanctioned the coronation of Charles after his father's death in 1649, were disposed to accept him as their King on easier terms : if he would guarantee Presbyterianism as the polity of the national Church, they would not rigorously insist on his acceptance of the Covenants. But in this main body itself there were degrees of strictness, alike regarding doctrine and forms of Church government. It was now more than twenty years since the signing of the National Covenant ; and a new generation had arisen for whom the Covenants were only a memory and not a palladium won by blood and tears. During the reign that had begun it was to be seen with what different degrees of rigour or steadfastness the new generation held to the faith of Andrew Melville and Henderson.

At the restoration of Charles, however, the salient fact was that in numbers and strength of conviction the Presbyterians were the dominant religious party in the country ; and it was with this fact that Charles and his advisers had to reckon in whatever policy they chose to adopt. As to what that policy should be Charles had no hesitation from the first. Presbyterianism had dethroned his father, and, once more in the ascendant, it might take the same measures with himself. But, if Presbyterianism had been found incompatible with the Stewart conception of the royal prerogative, it had also been found alien to the spirit and traditions of the feudal nobility. It had been only by the support of the nobles that the revolt against Charles I had succeeded ; but in the course of the struggle the nobles had discovered that the interests of their order were vitally bound up with the interests of the Crown. Thus, at the date when Charles ascended the throne, the Scottish nobles as a body were hostile to Presbyterianism and were prepared to support the royal authority in supplanting it. Had they been of the same mind as in the period preceding the National Covenant, Charles could not have carried out that ecclesiastical policy which was to be the absorbing object of himself and his successor, and which was eventually to end in the national rejection of the House of Stewart. In approving or abetting that policy, therefore, the nobility as an order must share the responsibility of the Crown.

The first measures of the new reign implied a direct return to the methods of government which James VI had bequeathed to Charles I, CH. x.

The Parliament, which met in 1641, had, in the presence and with the sanction of Charles, enacted that all officers of State, Privy Councillors, and Lords of Session should be chosen by the King " with the advice and approbation " of the Estates. Without waiting for the meeting of Parliament Charles II appointed his own Privy Council, and, following further the precedent of James VI, he arranged that a section of it should sit in London and that a part of this section should consist of Englishmen, of whom the most notable was Edward Hyde, afterwards Earl of Clarendon. Of the Scotsmen who were chosen, some had once been Covenanters, but all had since given satisfactory proofs of their attachment to the Crown. The man who was to be the dominating spirit of the Council and Charles' chief instrument in the government of Scotland was John, second Earl of Lauderdale, once an ardent Covenanter, but who by his nine years' imprisonment after his capture at the battle of Worcester had done full expiation for his backsliding from loyalty. To Lauderdale was given the office of Secretary, which involved residence in London, and thus placed him at an advantage over every other member of the Council. The " King of Scotland "-such was the current designation for the holder of the office ; and no Secretary of the Council was more of a King than Lauderdale, who swayed, while he only seemed to approve, the mind of his master. Lauderdale's ideal for the administration of Scottish affairs was "the good old form of government by his Majesty's Privy Council " ; and, in point of fact, it was through his Privy Council that Charles mainly governed Scotland from the beginning to the end of his reign.

It was on January 1, 1660, that Monck had crossed the Tweed, and on May 25 that Charles had landed at Dover, but it was not till August that an ostensible executive body was established in Scotland. As the Privy Council was still in England and the meeting of Parliament was postponed till the beginning of the next year, a temporary executive body was found in the Committee of the Estates which had been captured by Monck in 1651. The proceedings of this Committee left little doubt as to the future policy of the Government. A body of " Protesters " which met in Edinburgh to draft a petition to Charles was broken up, and all but one of them were imprisoned in the Castle-an action which was followed the next day by a prohibition against all assemblies "without his Majesty's official authority." Protesters and Besolutioners were alike disquieted by these proceedings; but some comfort was found in a letter from Charles (August, 1660), in which it was ambiguously stated that the Church of Scotland, as it was settled by law, would be maintained " without violation." When the Parliament at length met (January, 1661), it was brought home to the whole body of the Presbyterians that they had little to hope from a King to whom, with good reason, the Covenants and everything connected with them were a hideous remembrance, Carefully packed by the methods which

had been devised by James VI, Parliament simply registered decrees which had been drafted by the King and his Privy Council in London. The Commissioner chosen to represent the royal authority was John, Earl of Middleton, who, as a renegade Covenanter, announced in his own person the intentions of the Government. The work of the Parliament may be briefly summarised: it restored the constitution which had been fashioned by James VI, and which, as inherited by his son, had provoked the revolt that had brought forth the Covenants. By a Rescissory Act the proceedings of every Parliament since 1633 (those of 1650 and 1651, over which Charles himself had presided, being practically, though not nominally, included) were declared null and void, and the King was proclaimed " Supreme Governor of his Kingdom over all persons and in all causes." As a substantial evidence of its loyalty, the Parliament further voted an annual grant of ^40,000 to the King-an excess of liberality which, according to a contemporary loyalist, " became the ruin of this Kingdom." It was an ancient custom of the Scots to nickname their Parliaments from some peculiarity that distinguished them ; and the first Parliament of Charles came to be known as the " Drunken Parliament.'"

As Charles was now " Supreme Governor of his Kingdom over all persons and in all causes," it only depended on his pleasure what Church should be imposed on the nation. It fell to the Privy Council, which met at Holyrood after the rising of the Parliament, to announce his momentous decision. In his letter of the previous year Charles had declared his intention of maintaining the Church " as it was settled by law " ; and this Church, it was now decreed, was the Episcopal Church as it had been established by James VI and confirmed by his son. It was in September (1661) that the decree was announced ; and, that no time might be lost in giving it effect, four persons were sent to England in the following December to receive consecration, as there were no bishops in Scotland to communicate it. Among the four there were two who were to play very different parts and to bequeath very different memories. The one was James Sharp, who had been a prominent Resolutioner and was now Archbishop-elect of St Andrews. In the beginning of 1660 Sharp had been sent to London by his brother ministers to promote their interests in view of the expected Restoration. They had misjudged their agent; for Sharp returned to Scotland as an instrument of the Court, whose ecclesiastical policy he was to promote with all the astuteness and persistency which were the leading traits of his character. If Sharp was a born ecclesiastic, Robert Leighton, subsequently Archbishop of Glasgow, was a natural saint-a " Christianised Plato," Coleridge called him-whose unhappy destiny it was to be cast in a time when saintly attributes seemed but the timid hesitations of a character incapable of strenuous conviction. To Leighton the strife between Episcopalian and Presbyterian appeared but "a drunken scuffle in the

dark"; as, however, he had once been a Covenanting Presbyterian and eventually accepted an archbishopric, his former brethren had an obvious rejoinder.

The Privy Council had done its work in decreeing the reestablishment of Episcopacy ; but the constitution required that Parliament should ratify its action. In May, 1662, therefore, Parliament again met, and completed the work of the Council by readmitting the Bishops to its sittings, and reinstating them in their " accustomed dignities, privileges, and jurisdictions, of which they had been deprived during the ascendancy of the Covenants." Another Act, passed on June 11, was the direct occasion of the subsequent conflict between the Government and a section of the people which is the dominant fact of Charles' reign. The Covenanting Parliament of 1649 had abolished lay patronage ; and many of the existing ministers held their charges direcb from their congregations and presbyteries. It was now enacted that by September 20 following all such ministers should receive presentation from their lawful patrons or demit their cures. When the appointed day came, it appeared that few of the ministers in the diocese of Glasgow had taken the prescribed step. At a sederunt in Glasgow, therefore, the Privy Council further ordained that, if any minister did not conform to the law by November 1, his parishioners should cease to attend his ministrations and to pay him his stipend. Even in the eyes of Sharp this action was "so rash a thing" that he could not have believed it "till he saw it in print." Convinced of its own impolicy, the Council postponed the day of grace till February 1, 1663 ; but, even when that day came, about a third of the whole ministry had still refused to give in their submission.

Middleton had proved himself a rash and tactless administrator; and in the Secretary Lauderdale he had an enemy at Court who made the most of his blunders. Since the beginning of his administration there had been rivalry between the two for the first place in Charles' councils ; but the influence of Lauderdale at length prevailed, and Middleton was recalled from a position for which neither his character nor his previous career had even in a remote degree adapted him. Nevertheless the policy which he had inaugurated was the policy which the Government of Charles had deliberately adopted, and the action of his successors was but its logical and necessary consequence. It had been decreed that the Covenants were incompatible with the royal prerogative, and in the execution of the Marquis of Argyll and of the Protester, James Guthrie, the Government had proclaimed to the nation its judgment on the cause of which they had been the most prominent champions.

Middleton was succeeded in the commissionership by John, Earl of Rothes, a man, according to Burnet, of "quick apprehension, with a clear judgment," but, as an illiterate debauchee, incapable of the serious statesmanship which his office demanded. Rothes was at first the tool of Lauderdale, but, as Lauderdale was to discover, not the most suitable

instrument for giving effect to his Scottish policy. In June, 1663, the Restoration Parliament met in its third and last session-Lauderdale himself being present-and crowned the work which had been begun under the administration of Middleton. One of its Acts restored the method of choosing the Lords of the Articles which had been devised by James VI, and which, as was said, virtually converted Parliament into the " baron court " of the King ; and another authorised the raising of a militia of 20,000 foot and 2000 horse for the double purpose of suppressing disorder in Scotland, and of being a serviceable instrument in England should Charles ever have occasion to require it. But it was another Act, significantly known as " the Bishops' Dragnet," which was to have the most momentous consequences during the remainder of the reign. By this Act " against separation and disobedience to the royal authority," heavy fines were imposed on absentees from the parish churches, and a relation between subject and ruler was thus created which explains the chapter of woes that was to follow.

The prime object of the Government was now to exact obedience to the new constitution in Church and State. It was in the case of the Church, however, that it had to encounter its chief difficulties; two-thirds of the public business, it was said by a statesman of the time, directly or indirectly concerned religion. To enforce acceptance of the new religious order the Court of High Commission, which had proved so obnoxious in the reigns of James VI and Charles I, was revived (1664) at the suggestion of Archbishop Sharp. But more drastic means were required to coerce the spirit of resistance which had been evoked by the Restoration policy; and these means were now conveniently at hand. In the body of dragoons which had been levied with the sanction of Parliament the Government had an instrument which it could use with convincing effect on contumacious recusants. The Privy Council sought to enforce its decrees by the imposition of heavy fines; and, to ensure that the fines should be forthcoming, the dragoons were quartered on recalcitrant parties till they were " eaten up." It was in the south-western counties-Ayrshire, Wigtownshire, and Dumfriesshire- that the Government was most persistently defied ; and it was in these shires that the Protesters had found the most numerous following, and where the largest body of ministers had demitted their cures rather than accept them at the hands of a lay patron. In place of these ejected ministers, incumbents had been substituted (1663) who, for the most part, had had no previous training for their office, and whom a colleague of Lauderdale described as " insufficient, scandalous, imprudent fellows." Thus the Westland Whigs, as they came to be called, had the choice of three alternatives-to attend the ministrations of " the King's curates," to pay a heavy flue, or to be "eaten up" by the dragoons. The dilemma had again arisen with which Scotland had been familiar since the Reformation-allegiance to a legitimate King or obedience to the

dictates of conscience. The memory of the successful revolt against Charles I was an encouraging precedent ; and, as the history of the reign proves, the recusants of the west were at all times prepared to follow it. The occasion came in November, 1666, when Sir James Turner, one of the commanders of the dragoons, who had made himself specially obnoxious, was seized and made prisoner by a party of the men of Galloway. This action proved to be the signal for revolt; joined by increasing numbers, the insurgents marched through Ayrshire and Lanarkshire, and in a body some 3000 strong, amid incessant winter rains, made their way towards Edinburgh. At Colinton, three miles to the west of the capital, they found themselves in a critical position ; the inhabitants of the surrounding country were hostile ; the forces of the Government were closing in upon them ; and their only safety lay in a rapid retreat. At Bullion Green, on the southern slope of the Pentland Hills, they were overtaken and dispersed by the royal troops led by Sir Thomas Dalziel, fifty falling in the action and about eighty being taken. The haunting dread of the statesmen friendly to the Restoration was the possibility of a national uprising such as had overthrown the authority of Charles I ; and it was in cruel fear that the Privy Council proceeded to the punishment of the leaders of the rebellion. Over thirty were hanged in different towns ; the rank and file were for the most part transported to the Barbados, and the agents of the Government were enriched by fines and confiscations.

The results of Bothes1 administration had not commended him to Charles, and he had, moreover, made an enemy of Lauderdale, whom he and Archbishop Sharp had been endeavouring to supplant. Again Lauderdale triumphed, and Bothes was deprived of the commissionership (September, 1667), Lauderdale himself taking his place. It had been the contention of Lauderdale that the Pentland Bising was the result of the oppressive measures of the late administration, and it was in a spirit of conciliation that he entered on his charge. Two military agents of the late Government, Sir James Turner and Sir William Bellenden, were disgraced and removed from their posts; and by what is known as the First Letter of Indulgence (1669) permission was given to such ejected ministers as had lived "peaceably and orderly" to occupy charges which happened to be vacant. But to accept the Indulgence implied the acceptance of Episcopacy, and only forty-two ministers succumbed to the temptation. Conventicles, hot-beds of sedition, as the Government regarded them, became more numerous than ever; and, which gave special ground for alarm, those who frequented them now began to carry weapons along with their Bibles. Against his will, therefore, Lauderdale was driven to a succession of measures which surpassed in severity those of his predecessor Bothes. In the second session of a Parliament, which had met in 1669, he passed what he called a " clanking act " against conventicles, which in spite of its stringency signally failed in its object.

A second Indulgence (1672) equally missed its aim of bringing over the majority of the recalcitrant ministers, and only intensified the zeal of those who refused to profit by it. But there were other weapons at Lauderdale's disposal which might prove more effectual. Since the Reformation a succession of repressive statutes had been passed against Roman Catholics, which in their case had operated with deadly effect and which might be equally successful in the case of refractory Protestants. In 1674 all heritors and masters were declared responsible for the conformity of their tenants and servants ; and in the following year "Letters of Intercommuning"" (the Scottish form of the "boycott") prohibited all intercourse with above a hundred persons, eighteen of whom were ministers. But, in the districts against which they were specially aimed, even these enactments proved of no avail ; and in 1667 an Act of the Privy Council imposed a bond on heritors and masters for the loyal behaviour of all persons whatever who resided on their lands. To enforce this Act, which exasperated many who had shown no signs of disloyalty, Lauderdale took a step which was the crowning act of his coercive policy. To avert another rising, which every year made more probable, he quartered in Ayrshire a host of 6000 highlanders and 3000 lowland militia, with instructions to help themselves to whatever accommodation and necessaries they might find to their taste. The special business of the " Highland Host " was to disarm the denoted districts and to exact the bond from all who had hitherto refused it-tasks which, after a month's luxurious living at free quarters, they performed to the satisfaction of the Government.

A succebbion of tragic events (1679) brought Lauderdale's satrapy to a close. On Magus Muir, near St Andrews, Archbishop Sharp was murdered by a band of zealots, who in their own eyes were the instruments of Heaven in taking off an apostate and a persecutor of the saints. Within a month after »harp's assassination the long-anticipated rising came to a head in the disaffected west. On May 29, the anniversary of the Restoration, a band of eighty armed recusants entered the village of Rutherglen, extinguished the festal fires, and burned all the Acts which had overthrown the Church of the Covenants. Three days later, at Drumclog in Ayrshire, they defeated John Graham of Claverhouse, who at a later day was to be their avenger of blood. Their next movement was on Glasgow, where they had many sympathisers ; but the town was well garrisoned, and they were forced to retreat to Hamilton in Lanarkshire. Ever in dread of an uprising such as had produced the Covenants, the Government took vigorous measures to suppress the revolt before it attained more formidable proportions. Orders were issued for the levy of 15,000 men ; and the Duke of Monmouth, who had married the heiress of Buccleuch, and was known to disapprove of the policy of Lauderdale, was sent down from England to command them. On June 22 the two armies faced each other at Both well Bridge on the

Clyde, and a vain attempt was made by the insurgents to gain concessions that would have stultified all the past policy of the Government. Their supplication refused, they chose to abide the issue of battle ; but the increase of their numbers had turned their camp into a debating assembly, and the ministers " preached and prayed against each other." Against such an enemy Monmouth had an easy task ; and, though a resolute stand was made at the Bridge, his victory was complete-about 400 being slain and 1200 taken. Bound two and two, the prisoners were led to Edinburgh, where for five months the majority of them were kept in Greyfriars' Churchyard, exposed day and night to the weather. By the end of July 400 of them had been allowed to return home on the condition of their remaining peaceable subjects; but others, 250 in number, refusing to give the necessary pledge, were shipped to Barbados-never to reach their destination, as the vessel in which they sailed was wrecked off the Orkneys, and the majority of them perished.

Lauderdale had failed, as Rothes had failed, to give a satisfactory account of his stewardship ; the revolt that had resulted in Bothwell Bridge had been more formidable than the Pentland Rising. Both in England and Scotland he had made many enemies, and the English Commons demanded his removal from the King's councils on the ground that he had assailed the liberties of both countries. Lauderdale had at leasb been a faithful servant of his master; and it was against his own will, as he knew it was against his own interests, that Charles deprived him of the commissionership and put in his place James, Duke of York, afterwards James VII. The policy of the three successive Commissioners had not made Scotland a happy and peaceable country, but it had succeeded in breaking the once mighty power of Presbyterianism. The three Acts of Indulgence (Monmouth had procured the third) had cut deep into the ranks of nonconformity, as had been wofully shown in the camp at Bothwell Bridge. Of the irreconcilable recusants of the west only a remnant was now left after fines, confiscations, slaughter, and transportation. Outlaws with a price upon their heads, this intractable remnant still bade defiance to authority, and on the mountains, moors, and mosses flocked to hear their preachers in armed conventicle. Of these preachers two hold a supreme place in the Covenanting martyr-ology-Donald Cargill and Richard Cameron. Under the inspiration of these two leaders, a section of the proscribed recusants formed themselves into a body, known as the " Society People," or Cameronians, with a definite set of tenets and a definite programme of action. In a Declaration, affixed to the market-Cross of Sanquhar (1680) they formally disowned Charles as their King on the ground " of his perjury and breach of Covenant to God and Kirk." The doctrine of the Declaration-that rulers might be dethroned when they failed in their duty to their subjects-was no novelty in the history of the Christian Church, but it was a doctrine that involved internecine war between people and king.

Extirpation of the dreaded sect, therefore, was the only policy left to a Government whose existence was bound up with a definite form of ecclesiastical establishment ; and the hunting of conventiclers became the special work of the dragoons. Little more than a year after the Sanquhar Declaration, Cameron and Cargill had finished their course. At Airds Moss, in Ayrshire, a band of the "Wanderers" was defeated by the royal troops, Cameron being among the slain ; and Cargill, captured in the following year, was executed in Edinburgh, hailing the day of his death as the most joyful of his pilgrimage on earth.

It was not till July, 1681, that the Duke of York made his appearance in his capacity of Royal Commissioner. He had already been twice in Scotland, and had made himself acceptable to the leading loyalists, and specially to the Highland chiefs, who at a later day were to give notable proof of their attachment to the House of Stewart. It was considered a propitious step that shortly after his arrival he summoned a meeting of Parliament-the first that had assembled for nine years ; but the Acts it was required to pass were a gloomy portent of what was to come. By one of these Acts-the Act of Succession-it was declared that " no difference in religion ... can alter or divert the right of succession and lineal descent of the Crown." As the Duke was a known Roman Catholic and the presumptive heir to the throne, the drift of this Act could not be mistaken. But it was another Act that raised the greatest alarm-even among well-disposed loyalists. This was a Test Act to be imposed on all persons holding offices of trust in Church and State. So self-contradictory were its terms that, in the general opinion he who took it implied that he was Presbyterian, Episcopalian, and Roman Catholic at once. On this ground Sir James Dalrymple, President of the Court of Session, demitted his office rather than come under an impossible obligation-eighty of the Episcopalian clergy similarly refusing to do injury to their consciences. The Earl of Argyll agreed to take the Test " as far as it was consistent with itself" ; but this conditional pledge was not found satisfactory, and he was committed for trial, which he eluded by escaping from the Castle of Edinburgh where he had been confined. To introduce Catholicism and to prepare the way for his own succession to the throne-such were the manifest ends to which James1 action was tending. But, divided as Scottish Protestants might be among themselves, they were united in their dread and hatred of Rome; and various popular manifestations might have warned James of the dangerous path he was treading. The students at the University of Edinburgh burned the Pope in effigy, and those of Glasgow ostentatiously wore the blue riband of the Covenant (1680)-significant indications of the drift of public opinion.

While James was thus alienating many who had hitherto been faithful supporters of the Throne, the struggle between the Government and the Westland Whigs proceeded with increasing exasperation on

both sides. Armed conventicles were still held in various parts of the country; and, goaded to desperation, their frequenters at length virtually declared open war against authority. In their Apologetical Declaration (1684) they announced that, if attacked, they would defend themselves with weapons in their hands. As they had thus openly proclaimed themselves outlaws, the commanders of the Government troops, the most noted of whom were Graham of Claverhouse and Sir Thomas Dalziel, received simple instructions for dealing with their prisoners. If they refused to abjure the " Apologetical Declaration," they were shot ; if they abjured it, they were detained for further examination.

The reign of Charles II, which had begun amid such exuberant manifestations of loyalty, closed amid the gloomy forebodings of every class in the country. "Though we change the governors," wrote a moderate loyalist, " yet we find no change in the arbitrary government." No class or order in the country had reason to be satisfied with the policy that had followed the Restoration, in the affairs of either Church or State. Presbyterians of every shade of opinion had been more stringently treated than in the reigns of James VI or Charles I. Nor had Episcopalians, though their Church had received the sanction of the State, found themselves in a position compatible with the dignity and credit of religion-their clergy in all ranks being the nominees of the Crown, and retaining their charges on the condition of absolute obedience to its mandates. For the trading and commercial classes the reign had been disastrous owing to two principal causes. Free trade with England, which had been enjoyed during the Commonwealth and Protectorate, was abolished at the Restoration, with the result that the country lost its best market for corn and cattle. Still more calamitous had been England's ten years1 war with Holland, which had begun in 1664. Holland had for centuries been the main outlet for Scottish exports, and by the closing of its ports foreign trade was for the time practically annihilated. No class had hailed the Restoration with greater fervour than the nobles ; but their hopes also had been disappointed by a policy which had ignored their order as a whole and given places of authority and trust to a favoured few, who were prepared to be the facile instruments of every new fiat of the royal pleasure. When Charles II died on February 6,1685, it was with unhappy memories of the past and grave uneasiness for the future that the nation saw James VII ascend the throne.

It was an ominous beginning of the new reign, that James on assuming the Crown did not take the Coronation oath-an omission which was made the gravest charge against him at the crisis of his fate. An Indemnity, granted at his accession, hardly affected the existing situation, as every nonconformist was expressly excluded from its operation. The first year of his reign, indeed, was marked by greater severities again&t

these persons than at any previous period ; and among the people who were the principal sufferers it was known as the " Black Year," the "Killino- Time." On April 23, 1685, James1 first and only Parliament met with William, Duke of Queensberry, as Commissioner. The chief reason why it had been summoned (so its members were informed in a royal letter) was that it might have an opportunity " of being exemplary to others"-the "others" being the English Parliament which was about to meet. " Exemplary " the Estates proved, and in a high degree. They pledged themselves to provide a national army whenever it was required, voted the excise to the Crown in perpetuity, and (most stringent of all measures of the kind) enacted that all persons proved to have attended a conventicle should be punished with death and confiscation.

While the Estates were sitting, an attempt was made to effect a revolution. In concert with the Duke of Monmouth, the Earl of Argyll, who had fled to Holland in the previous reign, had approached the west coast at the head of an armament, in the expectation of being joined by his own clansmen and the disaffected people of the west. In this expectation he was disappointed ; and delay and mismanagement on the part of the leaders of the expedition doomed it to failure. Captured at Inchinnan in Renfrewshire, Argyll was conveyed to Edinburgh, where he met the same fate as his father, the Covenanting Marquis. Connected with Argyll's enterprise is one of the black pages in the national history. As a precautionary measure it was deemed necessary to bestow in a safe place all who were in ward for religious offences. But secure prisons were not numerous in Scotland. About 200 men and women, therefore, were committed to the vaults of Dun-nottar Castle in Kincardineshire, and there confined for two months amid conditions which made their lives a prolonged torture. The danger past, the survivors were offered the alternative of recantation or the Plantations : the majority chose the Plantations.

The proceedings in connexion with the second session of the Parliament, which met at the end of April, 1687, left the country in no doubt as to James' ultimate intentions. As Queensberry, the Commissioner of the previous year, had refused to become a Roman Catholic, the office had been conferred on Viscount Melfort who had been more compliant. This in itself was a significant circumstance, but it was a letter from James to the Parliament that raised the gravest alarm. In this letter the Parliament was recommended to repeal the penal laws against his "innocent subjects, those of the Roman Catholic religion." The Estates replied that they would take his recommendation into their " serious and dutiful consideration " and " go as great lengths therein," as their consciences would allow, but expressed their assurance that "His Majesty will be careful to secure the Protestant religion established by law." After this rebuff James resolved to have done with Parliaments, and he turned to the Privy Council as the convenient instrument for enforcing

his desires. He had in mere courtesy, the Council was informed, requested the Parliament to abolish the penal laws against Roman Catholics ; but this request had been wholly unnecessary. The Council was, therefore, commanded to rescind the laws in question, to permit the Catholics the free practice of their religion, and to set apart the Chapel Royal of Holyrood for their special use. Even in the Council, however, there was opposition, and James found it necessary to remove eleven Protestants and to put in their places Catholics, among whom were the Earl of Traquair and the Duke of Gordon.

These were sufficiently clear indications of the object James had in view, and there were other circumstances equally fitted to warn the nation that its religion was in danger. The Lord Chancellor, James, Earl of Perth, and the two Secretaries of State, Viscount Melfort, and Alexander, Earl of Moray, had all become Catholics. A Catholic press was set up in Holyrood under the management of the pamphleteer Sir Roger 1'Estrange, and Catholic worship was celebrated in the Chapel. It was not only the Presbyterians who were alarmed at James' policy ; their fears were equally shared by the Episcopalians. The Episcopal clergy of the diocese of Aberdeen, the most intensely Episcopalian part of the kingdom, represented to their Bishop the iniquity of abolishing the penal laws against Roman Catholics ; and the Bishop of Dunkeld and the Archbishop of Glasgow were deprived because of their opposition to James' action. James could not shut his eyes to the storm he was evoking, and to avert it he took the same step as he had found necessary in England. He published three successive Letters of Indulgence, in the last of which he offered freedom of worship to all nonconformists, Protestant and Roman Catholic alike, provided they taught nothing "to alienate the hearts" of his subjects. By the main body of the Presbyterians this last Letter was accepted, and many of them who had fled to Holland now returned to their own country. To the followers of Cameron, however, the Indulgence brought no respite ; only a Covenanted king could satisfy their ideal of a State and Church which had the sanction of Heaven. But their deliverance from the dragoons at least was fast approaching, though they were to yield one more victim to the political necessities of the Restoration. In February, 1688, the year that was to prove fatal to the Stewarts, James Renwick, who had succeeded Richard Cameron as the leader of the devoted remnant, was executed in Edinburgh. In his last words from the scaffold he uttered the warning and prophecy that Scotland "must be rid of Scotland before the delivery came"-words which were to be literally fulfilled in the transformation which she was to undergo in the impending revolution.

The birth of a Prince of Wales (June 30, 1688), which involved a Catholic succession and the eventual dominion of Rome, raised the same forebodings in Scotland as in England. England was now turning to William of Orange as a deliverer, and in William Scotland also saw her

best hope. It was on September 18 that the news of his coming was received; on December 18 William was in Whitehall. Without a struggle James' authority came to an end in Scotland, and for a time law was in abeyance. The Catholic Chapel in Holyrood was sacked by the Edinburgh populace, and the Presbyterians of the west " rabbled " and evicted the obnoxious King's curates with a harshness which showed that their own sufferings had not taught them charity. At length, on the petition of about thirty nobles and eighty gentlemen, William issued a summons for the meeting of the Estates, which duly assembled on March 14, 1689, with a decisive majority in favour of the Revolution. Without and within the Convention, the situation showed that the country was at a turning-point in its destinies. The Castle of Edinburgh was held for James by the Duke of Gordon ; and Graham of Claverhouse, now Viscount Dundee, had come down from London at the head of a troop of sixty horse, prepared to act for the exiled King. On their part the supporters of William had introduced armed men from the west to be ready for battle if the occasion should arise. Unmolested, however, the Convention proceeded with the momentous business for which it had met ; and its action proved that the cause of William was in the ascendant. By a majority of fifteen the Duke of Hamilton was chosen President ; and, when two days after, letters came from William and James, William's was at once read, while before James' was opened it was voted that nothing it contained should invalidate the Convention.

On April 11 the House agreed to a formal " Declaration," consisting of two parts-a Claim of Right, and an offer of the Crown to William and Mary. The Claim asserted that the Estates had the constitutional right to dethrone a ruler who had violated the laws of the kingdom ; and it was found that in fifteen cases James had infringed the constitution. On these grounds he was declared to have " forefaulted " the throne; and representatives were commissioned to proceed to London and make formal offer of the Scottish Crown to William and Mary. The ceremony was held at Whitehall on May 11, when William and Mary took the Coronation Oath which James had ignored. To one of its clauses, which bound the sovereign to be "careful to root out all heretics," William raised a demur ; but the words were explained to his satisfaction, and that they could be so explained significantly denoted the fact that a new age had begun. Thus Scotland had cast out her native prince-the 109th of his line, as was her proud boast to the nations. In widely different circumstances and with widely different results, the same national inspiration had dethroned James as had overthrown his father. It was the dread of Rome that had inspired the revolt against Charles I, and it was the same dread that had brought disaster to his son. With the Revolution the spectre of Rome ceased to haunt the spirit of the nation, and new cares and new interests were henceforth to determine its future destinies.

In ascending the throne of Scotland William had not behind him the general popular enthusiasm which had hailed Charles II at the Restoration. The first Parliament of Charles was virtually unanimous, and in the exuberance of its loyalty gave its sanction to all the royal measures. Very different was the temper of the first Parliament of William. It was not thought prudent to risk a new election ; and the Convention that had dethroned James was continued as a Parliament under the new King. To the chagrin of the Duke of Hamilton, who had been President of the Convention, his place was given to the Earl of Crawford, an ardent Presbyterian. With him, for the management of business, was associated as Lord Advocate Sir James Dalrymple, who had no preference for any form of polity, whether in Church or State, but was simply a statesman of cold, clear, and large intelligence. That William associated these two men as his representatives shows that he saw the necessity of a tentative policy. On Dalrymple devolved the task of upholding the rights of the Crown, which William was fully resolved to maintain. The Parliament met in June, 1689; and Dalrymple found that all his great powers would be taxed to secure his master's interests. Three different sections in the House were bent on giving trouble-Jacobites, who desired the recall of James, Whigs who aimed at curtailing the royal prerogative, and a body of dissatisfied politicians, who came to be known as the Club or the Country Party, ready to play fast and loose, as opportunity offered. It was on the mode of electing the Lords of the Articles that the opposition was mainly concentrated. The later Stewart Kings had virtually assumed the privilege of appointing these officials and thus made themselves masters of the Parliament. William in his instructions offered a remedy for this grievance ; instead of twenty-four Lords there should be thirty-three, of whom the Estates, from which the Bishops were excluded as the result of the Revolution, should each choose eleven-the remainder to be made up from officers of State without election. The Opposition refused to accept the compromise, and the question remained in abeyance. But the main concern of the session was the settlement of the question whether Presbyterianism or Episcopacy was to be the national Church. William's recommendation was that, if the Presbyterians proved the predominant body in the nation, theirs should be the chosen Church. The decision at which the Parliament actually arrived showed the uncertainty of the public mind. Episcopacy was abolished, but Presbyterianism was not put in its place- a conclusion which cut off the hopes of the one party and could not satisfy the other.

While Parliament was still sitting, the supporters of James made a bold stroke for his restoration. The hero of the adventure was Viscount Dundee, whom both his instincts and his interests attached to the House of Stewart. In the Highlands, henceforward to be the stronghold of Jacobite hopes, he succeeded in collecting a force with which he threatened

to descend into the Lowland country. Met at Killiecrankie (July 27) by General Mackay, he fell in the hour of a brilliant victory, and, as there was no one equal to carrying on his enterprise, the danger to the Government passed as quickly as it had arisen.

The Government was safe from immediate danger ; but the most critical question with which it had to deal-the settlement of religion- had yet to be faced. The predominance of national feeling in favour of Presbyterianism was not so decisive as to make it clear which form of polity should receive the preference. Moreover, the difficulties of William and his advisers were increased by the fact that the Church of England had declared her resolution to stand or fall with her sister Church in Scotland. In his uncertainty William took the advice of one who of all men was best fitted to give it-William Carstares, a Presbyterian minister who had been exiled in the reign of Charles II, and had made William's acquaintance in Holland. Mainly on the counsel of Carstares, William resolved to establish Presbyterianism as the national Church; and with this object the Parliament met in its second session (1690). The same parties appeared as in the previous year ; but the extreme Whigs were conciliated by the abolition of the Lords of the Articles ; and the Government succeeded in giving effect to its ecclesiastical measures. The assumption of the later Stewarts that the King was "supreme over all persons and in all causes ecclesiastical" was declared unconstitutional ; sixty ministers, the survivors of those who had been ejected since 1661, were restored to their parishes ; and Presbyterianism was established as the national Church. Finally, against the wishes of William, patronage was annulled and the right of electing ministers conferred on the congregations.

In spite of the sanction which had thus been given to Presbyterianism, it was with grave apprehensions that William and his advisers looked forward to the meeting of the General Assembly, which had been fixed for the following October. It was the first Assembly since that which had been broken up by the officials of the Commonwealth in 1653 ; and the natural dread was that the now triumphant Presbyterians would mete out such treatment to the Episcopalians as might endanger the peace of the country. A hundred and eighty members, laymen and divines, appeared on the appointed day, but among them were none from the north-the stronghold of Episcopacy ; and, though three Cameronian ministers were received at their own express desire, they did not represent the majority ot that body, to whom the Revolution Settlement was an unblessed compromise. The main business of the Assembly was to make arrangements for setting the new Church in order; and with this object it appointed two Commissioners, one for the north and the other for the south of the river Tay. The duty of the Commissioners was to restore church order and to extrude such ministers, Presbyterians and Episcopalians alike, as failed to give satisfaction in their doctrines and practices.

The Commissioner for the south had a comparatively easy task, as there he had the sympathy of clergy and people; but in the Episcopalian north the work of purification met with determined opposition, and so harsh were the measures employed that the Government had to control the zeal of the inquisition.

So far as the Lowland country was concerned, the Government had no reason to fear a serious rising in favour of the exiled King; but in the Highlands there were symptoms of unrest which demanded vigorous measures if the public peace was to be secure. For various reasons the sympathies of many of the Highland chiefs went with the Stewart. John, we have seen, had, while Commissioner under his brother, made a special effort to conciliate them ; and in the eyes of the chiefs of the west, the ascendancy of the House of Argyll, assured by the Revolution, was a hateful fact that made them the natural enemies of the new Government. As the disaffected chiefs were led to believe that a French armament was about to arrive in the interests of James, their attitude became more and more menacing; and it was necessary to take measures to avert a probable rising.

First, as a means of conciliating the impecunious chiefs, over £12,000 was distributed among them, but with so little effect that Dalrymple was in doubt whether the money would not have been better employed " to settle the Highlands or to ravage them.'" This measure having failed, an order was issued commanding all chiefs who had not yet done so to take the oath of allegiance by January 1,1692, under " the utmost penalty of the law." All the chiefs took the oath by the prescribed date except Mac-donald of Glencoe, who in bravado postponed the obnoxious act till the day of grace was past. As in Dalrymple's opinion the Clan Macdonald was "the worst in all the Highlands,1' he resolved, with unconcealed satisfaction, that it should be made an example of what the Government could effect against its enemies. Through his action as prime mover, a troop of a hundred and twenty men were quartered in the vale of Glencoe, and were hospitably entertained by the inhabitants for nearly a fortnight. On the morning of February 13, the errand of blood on which they had come was accomplished. The chief and thirty-seven of his clan were butchered, and the remainder escaped massacre only through the darkness of the morning and the neighbourhood of the hills. Had the Massacre of Glencoe occurred at any period previous to the Revolution, it would have been regarded merely as another of the long list of atrocities recorded in Highland history; but it was the interest of the Jacobites to stigmatise the existing Government, and at home and abroad they denounced the crime as an example of the iniquity of which it was capable. It was against Dalrymple, detested for other reasons, that the clamour was loudest; and, though William himself had signed the letters of fire and sword against the Macdonalds, he was at length (1695) constrained to grant a commission for an enquiry. As

its result, Dalrymple resigned his office of Secretary, and remained in privacy till the next reign, when his remarkable gifts were to be signally displayed in the service of his country.

The great problem for William in the government of Scotland was to conciliate the Episcopalians who composed such a formidable body of his subjects. On the loyalty of the Presbyterians he could securely reckon, since, however they might grumble and protest, they would in no event find it their interest to prefer the Stewart to himself. The Episcopalians, on the other hand, who had lost their status through his accession and had no prospect of recovering it, were his natural enemies, and their one aim must be to undo the Revolution. It was thus evidently William's interest^to make their position as tolerable as was consistent with the maintenance of his own authority. In 1693 the Parliament again met-the first time since 1690; and his representatives succeeded in carrying two measures intended to improve the existing situation. From the peculiar tenure by which William held the Crown the Jacobites had found a convenient ambiguity in the terms of the Oath of Allegiance : they might swear that he was King in fact, but with the mental reservation that he was not King of right. To remove the ambiguity it was enacted that to the Oath of Allegiance there should be added an " Assurance " affirming that William was King of right as well as in fact. It reveals the difficulty of William's position that the " Assurance " was as obnoxious to the Presby terians as to the Episcopalians against whom it was specially aimed ; in the eyes of the former the exaction of such a pledge was an assumption of the Crown over the Church which had been the damning offence of William's predecessors. The other important Act of the session equally failed in its object of improving the ecclesiastical situation. By the terms of this Act all ministers were to be admitted into the national Church who should subscribe the Confession of Faith, the Oath of Allegiance, and the Assurance. To the Presbyterians the Act seemed only a deep-laid scheme to swamp the Church with Episcopalians, and to the Episcopalians the conditions it offered were incompatible at once with their principles and their aspirations. Thus abortive proved William's well-meant scheme of comprehension, and alike for religion and the State its failure was to be a national disaster in the years that were to come.

The last important event of William's reign was one which is written large in Scottish annals and, in its origin and its effects, is to be regarded as one of the most significant in the national history. In the process of public affairs since the Revolution, it had become evident that a new spirit reigned in the councils of the statesmen who were responsible for the conduct of the country ; and in no sphere of their action had the change been more conspicuous than in their settlement of religion. The framers of the Solemn League and Covenant had sought to impose

Presbytery on the three nations on the ground that it was the one form of polity which had the sanction of Heaven ; the authors of the Revolution Settlement had established Presbytery as the national Church, because it was the most expedient policy in the interests of the new régime. Thus in the minds of statesmen secular had overridden theological considerations ; and it was now to be proved that a similar change had come over the spirit of the nation. In the year 1695 James Pater-son brought forward his scheme for the founding of a Scottish colony on the Isthmus of Darien : the scheme received the sanction of the Scottish Parliament and of the King; and subscriptions were promised from Holland, always on good terms with Scotland, and at first from London. But the enterprise, so promisingly begun, evoked the commercial jealousy of English traders ; and, to the bitter indignation of the Scots, William was persuaded to withdraw his sanction. Thrown upon their own resources, the promoters of the scheme in Scotland appealed to their own countrymen ; subscription lists were opened, and the response by all ranks and classes of the nation recalled the days of the signing of the National Covenant. The enterprise thus launched proved a temporary national calamity. A pestilential climate, the active opposition of the English merchants, and the hostility of the Spaniards, who claimed possession of the Isthmus, baffled the efforts of the colonists to effect a settlement ; and three successive expeditions experienced the same fate. The immediate result of the tragical failure of what was a national enterprise was exasperation against William and England ; and this remained an abiding feeling to the close of the reign. But in the national development the Darien scheme has a wider significance. That the nation which for a century and a half had been dominated by theological interests should have thrown itself with such enthusiasm into a purely secular enterprise was a striking proof that a revolution had been wrought in the public mind. Scotland, following the example of other countries in Europe, had in fact entered on a stage of development in which material interests had become the prime consideration, alike in her foreign relations and in her internal economy.

Such being now the dominant national preoccupation, the result of the Darien scheme could not but suggest to responsible statesmen both in England and Scotland that the existing relations of both countries could not remain as they were-that complete separation or a closer union lay in the necessity of things. During the closing years of William's reign the state of opinion in Scotland pointed to the former alternative as the more probable event. Yet amid all the clamour against William and the English there was one consideration that held the majority of the nation fast to the Revolution Settlement-the dread of the return of the Stewart with absolutism and Roman Catholicism as ils inevitable result. A common Protestantism, a common political ideal, and common material

interests, on the one hand, and national sentiment and national antipathies, on the other-between these warring forces the two nations had to decide whether their destinies were to lie apart or to be joined in indissoluble union.

Throughout the reign of Anne (1702-14) the dominant concern of Scotland was the Union-first, as an impending and, afterwards, as an accomplished fact. It had been the dying counsel of William that, in the interest of both countries, the Union should be effected at the earliest date possible ; and, as it chanced, the Tory Queen Anne was of the same opinion as her Whig predecessor. Anne's first action in Scottish affairs decisively showed that she and her advisers had the great object at heart. In her first speech to the English Parliament she expressly suggested that Commissioners from both countries should be appointed to treat regarding the conditions under which the Union might be accomplished. The Commissioners were actually appointed (1702); but public opinion in neither country was sufficiently ripe for the momentous transaction, and their meetings led to no immediate result. It was the proceedings in the successive sessions of the Scottish Parliament which at length convinced both nations that there was no other alternative than complete severance or closer union.

By an Act of the previous reign (1696), similar to one passed in the Parliament of England, it had been settled that the existing Parliament should meet twenty days after the King's death, and should continue to sit for six months thereafter. As the Parliament did not meet within the prescribed period, the Duke of Hamilton protested that it could not be held a legal body ; and, at the head of fifty-seven members, he marched out of the House. The members who remained, a hundred and twenty in number and contemptuously nicknamed the " Rump," were virtually unanimous in passing a succession of Whig measures, and, what is specially noteworthy, in response to the Queen's request desired her to nominate Scottish Commissioners to treat regarding union with a similar body representing England. But it was not this Parliament that was to have the responsibility of consummating the Treaty of Union. In 1703 a new Parliament was returned-the first elected since 1689, and destined to be the last in its succession. In the previous year the English Bill against Occasional Conformity, which would have deprived Dissenters of civic status, had been introduced into the English Parliament ; and, though it was defeated by the Lords, it had been ardently supported by the Commons. In the eyes of the Scottish Presbyterians the approval which the Bill had received could only portend the eventual triumph of Episcopacy in both countries ; and to avert the dreaded event they spared no effort to secure a majority in the new Parliament. Their efforts were successful, and it was a Parliament with a Whig and Presbyterian majority that carried the Union. This was to be its great achievement;

but its action during its three antecedent sessions gave little promise of such a result. The one motive animating all parties was hostility to England and the determination to let her know that Scotland was an independent kingdom. The Duke of Queensberry, who was continued as Commissioner in the new Parliament, was instructed in the first place to obtain a grant of supply, and, next, to secure the passing of an Act of Settlement similar to the English Act which devolved the Crown on the Electress Sophia and her heirs. In neither object did he succeed ; what the Parliament did, Whig and Tory agreeing, was to pass an Act of Security, which declared that, twenty days after the death of the reigning sovereign without issue, the Estates were to name a successor who should be a Protestant and a descendant of the House of Stewart : whoever this successor might be, he or she must not be the person designated by the Parliament of England unless under conditions that secured to Scotland complete freedom of government, religion, and trade. To such an Act, which virtually declared Scotland an independent kingdom, the Government could not give its sanction ; and the session closed amid mutual recrimination between the Commissioner and the House.

When this refractory Parliament met in the following year (1704), the new Commissioner, the Marquis of Tweeddale, found it as resolute as ever to have its own way : no supply would be granted till the Act of Security received the royal sanction. As the less of two evils, Godolphin, the English Treasurer, advised the Queen to yield; and the Act was passed. It was intended as a defiance to England, but by the irony of events it was the chief immediate cause in furthering union. As a direct reply to Scotland's challenge, the Tory House of Lords and the Whig House of Commons passed an Act which declared that, unless the Crown of Scotland were settled by Christmas Day, 1705, all Scotsmen would be declared aliens and the importation of Scottish commodities prohibited. By the same Act, however, the Queen was empowered to appoint Commissioners to negotiate a union between the two countries, never less disposed to fraternal feelings than at this moment. But the threat contained in the English Alien Act had the desired result. The Scottish Estates were satisfied with having asserted the national feeling in the Act of Security; and, when they met in the following year (1705) under the presidency of the Earl of Argyll, they passed an "Act for a Treaty with England," by which the Queen was desired to appoint Commissioners to negotiate the terms on which the union might be concluded.

The two Commissions, each consisting of thirty-one representatives, met on April 16, 1706, and in nine weeks accomplished a task which in the opinion of the majority of both nations had seemed "a chimera of the English ministry." By the terms of the proposed Treaty, as it finally emerged from their hands, the two kingdoms were to be united

under the name of Great Britain ; the United Kingdom was to be represented by one Parliament ; and the Crown was to devolve on the House of Hanover in accordance with the English Act of Settlement. There was to be complete freedom of trade between the two countries, both at home and abroad; in the case of certain commodities-malt, salt, stamped paper, vellum and parchment, etc., Scotland was for a time to be partially exempt from duties ; and her proportion of the land-tax was to be one-fortieth of that of England. In compensation for her losses at the hands of various English trading companies and of her share in England's national debt, she was to receive an "equivalent" of £398,085. 10s. Od., which was to be expended in recouping the parties who had suffered these losses and in encouraging trade and industry. In the United Parliament sixteen Scottish peers, elected by their own body, were to sit in the House of Lords, and forty-five Scottish members in the House of Commons. Scotland was to retain her own Courts of Law, with the addition of a Court of Exchequer which was to deal exclusively with fiscal questions. The privileges of the Royal Burghs and the feudal jurisdictions of the nobles were to remain intact; and, finally, as sign and symbol of the completed union, the arms of the two countries were to be conjoined, as her Majesty saw fit, on "all flags, banners, standards, and ensigns both at sea and land."

The Articles, as drafted by the two Commissions, had now to receive the sanction of the Parliaments of both countries, and, as the greatest opposition was anticipated from the Parliament of Scotland, it was deemed prudent that it should first sit in judgment on the Treaty. The last of Scottish Parliaments, it met in its last session on October 3, 1706, with Queensberry as Commissioner, Lord Seafield as Chancellor, and the Earl of Mar as Secretary of State. In the teeth of a hostility which threatened civil war, the Government addressed itself to the task of passing the Treaty into law. From the Convention of Burghs and from every royal burgh except Ayr, petitions poured in, denouncing the proposed union ; in Edinburgh and Glasgow there were open riots, and at Dumfries the Treaty was publicly burned. It was from the national Church, which dreaded union as inevitably involving the ruin of Presbytery, that the most dangerous opposition was anticipated ; but its leaders were appeased by an Act of Security which guaranteed the existing establishment " to continue without any alteration to the people of this land to all generations." Opposed at almost every step by the different parties in the House, the Articles were at length successfully carried without essential modification ; and on January 16,1707, Queensberry touched the Act of Union with the royal sceptre, and at the same time, as inviolably bound up with it, the Act for the security of the national Church. In the English Parliament, the Articles had met with little opposition, and on March 6 the Queen gave the royal assent to the Act in the presence of the Lords and Commons.

The Treaty of Union, which had thus been sanctioned by the Parliaments of both nations, was not to result in immediate and fraternal cooperation. How the Treaty was regarded by the general educated opinion of Scotland, it is difficult to determine ; for, as a leading Jacobite of the time admitted, the petitions against it were in general inspired and even manufactured by the Jacobite party. By the mass of the people, influenced by national sentiment and traditional dislike of England, it was long considered as a disgraceful transaction-the work of venal statesmen and traitors to their country. And in the years that immediately followed there was not a class which did not find ground for alarm in the treatment it received from a legislature in which English influence was necessarily predominant. The nobility were irritated by what they considered infringements of their order ; the Church saw in an Act that restored patronage a deliberate intention of reviving Episcopacy ; the traders and merchants were exasperated by taxation which they declared to be at once unjust and a breach of the Treaty of Union. Not till towards the middle of the eighteenth century did the national prosperity become so apparent as to convince the majority of Scotsmen that the Union had been a necessity and a blessing. The preeminent advantage that Union brought to both countries, had, indeed, been the same-strength and security as the result of their combined resources. Had Scotland become an independent kingdom retaining her ancient traditions, England would have been seriously crippled in the course she was to run. On the other hand, Scotland, to hold her own in the conflict of material interests in which the nations were now engaged, would have required a fleet and an army, the maintenance of which would have overstrained her resources and permanently retarded their development. Relieved from this necessity and no longer dominated by theological preoccupations, she was at liberty to pursue the new paths on which she had entered at the Revolution ; and it was only these new conditions that rendered possible her growth in material prosperity and her contribution to the world's thought, which make the close of the eighteenth century the most distinguished period in her annals.


In the fulness of his joy at finding himself safely seated on the throne of his fathers Charles II had expressed his desire to make his people as truly happy as he himself was. So far as Ireland was concerned, it was soon apparent that the attempt to make all happy was likely to end in gratifying nobody. There had been a rebellion in Ireland ; the rebellion had been suppressed with the result that the greater part of the soil of the country had passed into the hands of those who had been instrumental in suppressing it. That the Irish had deserved their fate every Englishman was convinced. On the other hand the Irish were not slow to point out to Charles that the rebellion had been condoned by the treaties of 1646 and 1648-9, and that in sharing his exile with him they were entitled to share also his restoration. The argument, so long as no one enquired too closely into the premisses on which it was based, appeared plausible enough. But by accepting his restoration at the hands of the new settlers Charles had deprived himself of all choice in the matter. His decision to leave the decision of the question to Parliament was accepted as satisfactory by the Convention of Estates that met at Dublin in February, 1660. Being in possession, the colonists could afford to wait. But it was otherwise with the Irish, whose impatience to recover their forfeited properties led them in some isolated instances to attempt a forcible ejection of the new occupants. The latter did not fail to make the most of these disturbances, in order to impress upon their friends in England the danger of a fresh rebellion. Pressure was brought to bear on the King ; and on June 1 strict orders were issued to suppress all such disorderly proceedings, and to confirm the adventurers and soldiers in the temporary possession of their estates. Still, there can be no question that Charles was seriously anxious to gratify, as far as he possibly could, all reasonable claims on the part of his quondam allies ; and, being led to believe that a sufficient fund of lands existed to enable him to do so, without touching the interests of the adventurers and soldiers, he issued, on November 30, a Declaration for settling the affairs of Ireland.

The Declaration (afterwards embodied in the Act of Settlement) was admirably calculated to satisfy everybody, on the one condition that sufficient lands could be found for the purpose. The plan on which it was based had been suggested by the agents of the new settlers, in the belief that few Irish would be able to prove their innocency. To make sure of this point, they took care that in selecting the commission before which the Irish were to plead their claims, their own interests should be exclusively represented. But in this they overshot their mark. For, after wasting much time and displaying incredible partiality, the commission was dissolved. Checked in this direction, the new settlers (or, as they called themselves, " the English interest ") found themselves suddenly attacked by the old settlers (nicknamed "the Irish interest'"), who pointed out that, if there was a deficiency of land to satisfy the Irish according to the King's intentions, it could easily be made good by forcing the adventurers to disgorge the lands they had illegally acquired under the so-called Doubling Ordinance of 1643. The controversy waxed hot in the Parliament which met in May, 1661 ; and the new settlers, finding themselves likely to be outvoted if they tried to pass the Declaration as it stood, effected a compromise, by which it was agreed to refer the matter to the King in Council. Backed by English opinion, they hoped to recover in London what ground they had lost in Dublin. But as Ormond, whom Charles appointed Lord Lieutenant in November, clearly recognised, the question, though veiled as one between the old and new settlers, was in reality a contest between the latter and the Irish claiming restoration. The Irish, with the support of the old settlers, held a strong position. Unfortunately, by disclaiming the character of rebels and by insisting too strongly on the simple justice of their demands, they managed to put themselves in a false position. The production of the original instructions from the Supreme Council to their agents abroad, authorising them to dispose of the kingdom to any Catholic Prince who would take it under his protection, settled the matter against them. The debates in Council which had threatened to prove interminable found a sudden conclusion; and the Bill for the Settlement of Ireland, being returned to the Irish Parliament, passed in May, 1662, and received the royal assent in September.

As a concession to the Irish a commission, consisting of seven Englishmen nominally unconnected with any interest in Ireland, was appointed to decide the claims to innocence. The Commissioners opened their Court on September 20 ; but it was not till January 13, 1663, that they actually began their sittings. More than 4000 claims for restoration, it was said, had been entered. By the end of the month only twenty-seven cases had been decided; but, of these, twenty-one had been admitted. The Cromwellians were alarmed. Complaints of partiality were raised against the Commissioners. A proposal to require proofs of innocency more stringent than those already exacted was not carried out ;

but the dissatisfaction caused by the proceedings of the Commissioners grew from day to day. A plot to overturn the Government was detected and several individuals implicated in it were executed. The incident exercised a sobering effect on all parties. Urged by their fears, the Cromwellians expressed a readiness to come to terms. Their offer to surrender one-third of the estates in their possession on May 7, 1659, was accepted ; and on this basis a Bill for the Explanation of the Act of Settlement was drawn up and, after various interruptions, became law on December 23,1665.

The end had come at last. Taking the total arable land of Ireland at Sir William Petty's estimate of about seven and a half million plantation acres, and discriminating three sets of proprietors, viz. (1) the native interest, including families of Anglo-Norman descent ; (2) the Irish interest, i.e. the planters introduced by Elizabeth and James I, including the Church of Ireland; (3) the English interest, i.e. the Cromwellian element, it would appear that by the operation of the Acts of Settlement and Explanation an equal portion of land (or about two and a half million acres) was definitely assigned to each class. Of the multitude, who could expect no hearing in the new Court of Claims that opened its sittings on January 4, 1666, to administer the Acts, hundreds took to the congenial calling of Tories (outlaws).

The settlement had not come a minute too soon. The economic crisis through which England was at this time passing had led to a strong demand for protection against the introduction of Irish live-stock into the English market. An Act had accordingly been passed in 1663, limiting the importation of Irish cattle to the first six months of the year. The measure, though it pressed heavily on Ireland, only slowly recovering from the ravages of war, was not attended with the success that had been predicted for it ; and in October, 1665, a Bill was introduced absolutely prohibiting the importation of all live-stock from Ireland. The Bill was opposed in the House of Lords ; and, the prorogation of Parliament having put a temporary stop to proceedings, it was hoped that the generous contribution of 30,000 head of Irish cattle towards the relief of London, after the Great Fire, would incline the English Commons to a more liberal treatment of the Irish landowners. These hopes were disappointed. For no sooner had Parliament reassembled in the autumn of 1666, than the Commons promptly agreed to a Bill for the virtual exclusion of all great cattle, sheep, and swine as well as of all beef, pork and bacon, on the ground that such imports were destructive of the prosperity of the country and a "common nuisance." On January 18, 1667, the Bill, after a fierce contest in the House of Lords, received the royal assent. The consequences of the measure were soon apparent. From statistics taken at the time it appears that whereas in 1665 57,545 oxen and 99,564 sheep were exported from Ireland, in 1669 the number had fallen to 1454 oxen and 1120 sheep. On the other

hand, barrelled beef, butter, tallow, hides, and above all wool, which rose from 181,013 stone to 254,760, showed a remarkable increase. These statistics are significant. By closing the English market against Irish live-stock, the Act practically killed the chief existing Irish industry. Unable to find a market for their lean cattle the Irish landowners turned their land into sheep-walks and took to fattening their own stock for the provision trade. Irish wool was of excellent quality ; but its exportation (except to England) was severely restricted, and finding no legal outlet for it the Irish established a woollen industry of their own. Owing largely to Ormond's encouragement the industry began to flourish. English capital found its way into the country; skilled labour was introduced ; and, though debarred by the Act of Navigation from directly participating in the colonial trade, Ireland, owing to the cheapness of living and labour, was ere long able not merely to compete with England but even to undersell her in the European market. The linen manufacture revived. Other trades followed in the wake of the chief industries; and for twenty years Ireland enjoyed a period of unexampled commercial prosperity.

As a result, religious discord lost much of its asperity. No doubt, the restoration of Episcopacy and the ejection of their ministers caused much bitter feeling among the Presbyterians of Ulster, especially where they constituted the bulk of the population. But such struggles as those which soured the existence and frustrated the labours of Jeremy Taylor in the diocese of Down and Connor were happily exceptional ; and it may be said that throughout the whole reign the position of the Protestant nonconformists in Ireland contrasted favourably with that of their fellows in England and Scotland. Nor had the Roman Catholics much reason to complain. The policy inaugurated by the Commonwealth of excluding them from corporate towns was theoretically maintained ; but there was no attempt made to interfere with individual liberty of conscience or to exclude them from the higher professions. Ormond, whose object was to stimulate a feeling of loyalty to the Crown by repressing the religious bigotry of both Protestants and Catholics, had, shortly after assuming the government, been much gratified by the presentation of an address by Peter Walsh, a Franciscan friar, on behalf of a number of Catholic clergy and gentry, protesting their unfeigned loyalty to the Crown and disclaiming all foreign power " either papal or princely, spiritual or temporal." The Loyal Remonstrance, as it was called, was greeted with contumely by the Ultramontanes ; but it afforded Ormond the opportunity he wanted of drawing a distinction between loyal and disloyal Roman Catholicism. Whether his policy of playing one party off against the other, with the avowed object of ultimately weakening both, would have been followed by the success he expected may be doubted; but it was certainly attended by a more tolerant treatment of the Catholics generally.

Before, however, it had time to fully develop, Ormond was recalled. The real reason of his removal, though veiled by charges of issuing a commission of martial law in time of peace, and of misapplication of the revenue, is to be found in the intrigues which had led to the downfall of his friend the Earl of Clarendon. His successor, Lord Robartes, owed his appointment to the zeal with which he had advocated the claim of the Crown to exercise a dispensing power in the matter of religious tests ; but, having during his six months of office managed to render himself personally objectionable to all classes of the community, except to the more rigid Presbyterians, with whose tenets he sympathised, he retired in a huff in May, 1670. He was followed by John Lord Berkeley of Stratton. Berkeley's appointment, though apparently devoid of political significance, was like that of Robartes, a step carefully calculated in the spirit of the Treaty of Dover. Of a naturally indolent disposition, Berkeley, through his wife and his secretary, Sir Ellis Leighton, was entirely under Catholic influence.

With Leighton's assistance Richard Talbot, better known by his subsequent title of Duke of Tyrconnel, and his brother Peter, the recently-appointed titular Archbishop of Dublin, speedily effected a radical change in the conduct of public affairs. Not only was the favour that had hitherto been shown to the Remonstrants withdrawn and a systematic attempt made to prosecute them out of existence ; but, under colour of carrying out the King's intentions, a number of Catholics were placed on the Commission of the Peace, and a proclamation was issued in March, 1672, dispensing with the Oath of Supremacy as a condition of their admission to the Corporations. Moreover, at Talbot's instigation, the King consented to the appointment of a committee to consider the desirability of instituting an " impartial " enquiry into the execution of the Acts of Settlement. The indignation of the Protestants was unmistakable ; and, foreseeing a storm in Parliament, Charles prudently transferred the government to Arthur Capel, Earl of Essex, a zealous Protestant. As he had anticipated, the English Parliament had no sooner met than a vigorous address was presented to him in March, 1673, insisting on the maintenance of the Acts of Settlement, the revocation of the Commission of Enquiry, and the removal of Talbot from his counsels. Charles yielded. All the same, he had no intention of surrendering the advantage he had gained. Essex gradually began to perceive which way the wind was blowing. For himself he was willing enough to pursue a neutral policy ; but, to his credit, he was too honest to become a mere tool for the subversion of the Protestant interest and for exploiting the country in the interests of the harpies that battened on the extravagance of the King. When he refused to carry on the government without being allowed to exercise any control over the revenue, he was recalled (1677).

The unexpected reappointment of Ormond was hailed with satisfaction

by the Irish Protestants. Recent events had not tended to inspire them with confidence in the Government. The finances of the country were in disorder ; and, though Ormond had obtained Charles1 consent to a more rigorous control of the revenue, the only radical remedy for the situation lay, as he clearly saw, in summoning a Parliament. Before, however, anything could be done in this direction, the Government was distracted by the news of the discovery of a popish plot in England, with ramifications extending, it was alleged, to Ireland. Uncertain at first what credit to give to Gates' revelations, Ormond thought it prudent to arrest one or two suspicious individuals, and to issue orders for disarming the Catholics. His moderation, however, gave great offence to Shaftes-bury and his allies, and knowing, as he said, that his position was a slippery one, he saw himself constrained to issue a proclamation to encourage persons to come forward to make discoveries of the plot. The proclamation, though it did not fail to bring forth a host of informers and to lead in the end to the judicial murder of Oliver Plunkett, Catholic Archbishop of Armagh, failed to answer the expectations of the managers of the agitation. When the reaction came, Ormondes difficulties wore off; but only, as it proved, to be followed, after a short pause, by others of an even more serious nature.

The opportunity, for which Charles had long been waiting, to free himself from the control of the Protestant party in Ireland, seemed to have arrived at last. By the advice of the Duke of York and Talbot he resolved to recall Ormond, to divide the civil from the military authority, and, by placing the latter in the hands of a trusty Catholic, to remodel the army on a Catholic basis. At the same time a commission was to be issued for the establishment of a Court of Grace, nominally to enable the new settlers to strengthen their defeasible titles, really as a means of clipping their properties in the interest of the Irish. It is hard to say to what lengths Charles was willing to go; but before matters could be arranged he died. His death did not materially affect the situation. Orrnond, having proclaimed James II, retired from the government. Pending the appointment of his successor the government was placed in commission, and in the interval advantage was taken of Monmouth's rebellion to effect a partial disarmament of the Protestants. In January, 1686, the Earl of Clarendon was sworn Lord Lieutenant ; but the real director of Irish affairs was Talbot, whom James shortly after his accession had created Earl of Tyrconnel, and whom he now appointed commander-in-chief of the army. In pursuance of the plan already agreed upon, Tyrconnel set to work at once to remodel the army on a Catholic basis. His proceedings did not fail to alarm the Protestants ; and, as Clarendon, whose pride was hurt at the daily insults offered to his authority, failed to prove as subservient an instrument as James had expected to find in him, he was recalled and the government transferred to Tyrconnel (January, 1687).

This appointment, while it inspired the Protestants with the gravest apprehensions, so that thousands of them, it was said, disposed of their property and fled the country, afforded the liveliest satisfaction to the natives, who, in the expectation of a speedy reversal of the Acts of Settlement, were already in imagination revelling in the recovery of their forfeited estates. The fears and hopes of both alike were well founded. Towards the end of August Tyrconnel was granted an interview with James at Chester, who approved his proceedings and, it is asserted on credible authority, arranged with him a plan whereby, in the event of his policy in England miscarrying and the succession falling to a Protestant, Ireland was to be put in a position to maintain itself as an independent kingdom.

Events moved faster than either expected. With the cheers of his own army ringing in his ears at the acquittal of the Bishops, James turned for assistance to Tyrconnel, as his father had to Strafford, and, despite the warning voice of Sunderland, 3000 Irish troops were transported to England during the autumn of 1688. The assistance, purchased at the price of exasperating public opinion in England, proved of no use to James, while by compelling Tyrconnel to denude Derry of its garrison the opportunity was given for a revolt which was destined to upset all his plans. Recognising his mistake, he ordered the Earl of Antrim to proceed with his regiment to Derry. But the tinder had already taken fire. Alarmed at the menacing attitude of the natives and by rumours of an intended repetition of the horrors of 1641, the citizens of Derry, actuated by one of those sudden impulses of self-preservation that override all habits of obedience to authority, gave the signal for rebellion by closing the gates of the city in the face of the royal army. Enniskillen followed suit, and everywhere the Protestant colonists drew together for safety and formed military associations for their defence. Taken by surprise, Tyrconnel seemed to hesitate. Thinking he might be won over, William sent Richard Hamilton over to negotiate terms with him. Hamilton betrayed his trust ; and, after Tyrconnel had thus learnt the real state of affairs in England, his hesitation, real or affected, quickly passed away. By the end of January, 1689, he had got together an army of 36,000 men ; and, though they were badly officered and but partly armed, the prospect according to Pointis, whom Louis had sent over to repoit on the situation, was encouraging.

Meanwhile a strong force under Hamilton was despatched into the north, to put an end to the resistance there. At Dromore he came up with the bulk of the Protestants under Sir Arthur Rawdon and Major Baker. Seeing themselves overmatched, they broke and fled, some to Coleraine, others to Derry and Enniskillen, breaking down the bridges in their rear, and destroying everything they could not carry away with them. On March 12-two days before the "Break of Dromore"- James, accompanied by the Count d'Avaux as Louis' plenipotentiary and

a number of French officers who were to assist him in organising his forces, landed at Kinsale with a small army of about 1200 men, for the most part his own subjects. On landing, he was heartily welcomed by the Catholics of the district ; and a promise on his part to take the Protestants under his protection went some way to disarm opposition on their part. At Cork he was met by Tyrconnel, who escorted him in triumph to Dublin.

All the same, James' heart was not in the enterprise. He had hoped with Louis' assistance to have made a direct descent on England. But Louis was anxious at almost any price to avoid an open breach with England. By assisting James to establish himself firmly in Ireland he hoped, at a moderate cost to himself, to prevent William from interfering actively on the Continent. It is doubtful whether James saw through Louis' scheme; but it was not long before Tyrconnel recognised James1 perfect indifference to Ireland, and perceived, from his endeavour to reconcile the Protestants, that his thoughts were all the time concentrated on England. For such a plan, however, Tyrconnel was not to be had. First and foremost, he was an Irishman. His object, to put it plainly, was to sever the connexion with Great Britain. If James was willing to be King of Ireland, well and good ; if not, then Tyrconnel was ready to offer the crown to Louis. But in this he reckoned without Louis himself, who no sooner heard of the intention than he clearly indicated his dislike to the proposal. In the background stood d'Avaux, cynically urging the extirpation of the Protestants as the only rational solution of the situation.

On March 24 James made his public entry into Dublin. Next day he published a batch of proclamations, commanding all his subjects who had fled the kingdom to return to their allegiance, under a general promise of taking the Protestants into his protection ; forbidding robberies ; ordering a market to be opened for the provisioning of the army; raising the nominal value of the currency, and convoking a Parliament to meet at Dublin on May 7. At the same time, he created Tyrconnel a Duke, and admitted d'Avaux to a seat at the Privy Council. This done, he announced his intention of proceeding in person to Derry. Once in possession of that city, there was nothing to prevent him from crossing with his army into Scotland. Tyrconnel and d'Avaux did their utmost to dissuade him ; but, supported by Melfort and the English Jacobites, he held to his purpose, and shortly afterwards set out for the north.

Since their rout at Dromore the Protestants of Ulster found themselves in a precarious position. Driven northwards by Hamilton's advancing forces, as many as were able to do so took shipping and fled to England ; a few accepted protection from the Irish general ; others found a refuge in Enniskillen and Derry, the rest ensconced themselves in Coleraine, whence they appealed to Robert Lundy at Derry for help.

Lundy's position was a peculiar one. He was a Protestant, and had been appointed military governor of Derry at the instance of one of the most trusted leaders of the party, William Stewart, Viscount Mount) oy. Yet he had from the first failed to give entire satisfaction to the more resolutely-minded citizens, who suspected him, perhaps not altogether without reason, of being secretly a Jacobite ; and it must be admitted that, whether he was a traitor at heart or not, his conduct had the effect of nearly wrecking the Protestant cause. Sligo in particular, with almost as good a chance of holding out as Enniskillen, was lost by his contradictory orders. On the other hand, his advice to evacuate Coleraine appears to have been founded on sound military reasons ; and he cannot be held responsible for the panic-stricken flight that followed its rejection. Owing to bad weather, the almost impassable condition of the roads, and the difficulty of finding provisions in a country almost devoid of inhabitants, James' army advancing in two divisions-the one under Hamilton against Derry, the other under Galmoy against Enniskillen-made slow progress. On April 13 the former came up with Lundy's outposts at Cladyford, about three miles above Strabane on the Finn, and, after some sharp fighting, succeeded two days later in forcing a passage at Castlefinn. Finding their flank turned and their retreat menaced, Lundy's raw levies broke and fled in wild confusion to Derry, closely followed for some miles by Hamilton's cavalry. The bulk of them got safely into the city, but a number of isolated parties were wiped out.

Disgusted and dismayed at the conduct of his troops, Lundy saw no chance of holding out against the overwhelming force which, with King James at its head, was now rapidly approaching the city. At a council of war he gave his advice in favour of a capitulation. In the light of subsequent events his conduct may be regarded as an act of treachery ; but it should be remembered that all competent military authorities agreed in believing that Derry was indefensible. Military opinion proved wrong ; but, if the successful defence of Derry forms one of the most brilliant pages in Irish history, the odds were that, like that of Drogheda, it would prove one of the bloodiest. Informed of what had passed at the council, James appeared under the walls of the city on April 18, expecting an easy surrender. But both he and Lundy failed to reckon on the fierce spirit of racial hatred that burned in the breasts of the citizens. While negotiations for a surrender were proceeding, a cannon-ball, fired either by accident or of set purpose, came very near to cutting short James' life, while at the same time it put an end to his hopes and Lundy's authority. A feeble apology followed ; but that same mght Lundy slipped out of the city ; the defence was reorganised, and next morning, with a defiant shout of " No surrender," Derry entered on her memorable fifteen weeks' siege.

The unexpected resistance with which he had met completely upset

James' plans ; and on April 29 he left the camp, to open the Parliament summoned by him to meet at Dublin on May 7. Considering the precautions taken by Tyrconnel to regulate the elections, it was only to be expected that the Parliament, which assembled on the day appointed, should have consisted almost exclusively of men who either in their own persons or in those of their fathers before them had suffered most severely by the plantations that had in large measure caused their rebellion, and by the confiscations that had followed on its suppression. They had now, as they thought, got the upper hand of their enemies- the colonists ; they had got a King of their own religion ; and it was only natural that they should have determined to use their power to recover possession of those estates of which they had, in their opinion, been most unjustifiably robbed.

In his opening speech James, after gratefully acknowledging their loyalty, expressed his firm resolve to put an end to all calumnies against him, by granting full liberty of conscience to all his subjects, and to recognise no test or distinction between them but that of loyalty ; as for those who had been injured by the late Acts of Settlement, he was ready to agree to any plan that might be found to relieve them " as far as might be consistent with reason, justice, and the public good of his people." It was from his own point of view a politic speech ; though to most of his hearers his reference to the necessity for a revision of the Acts of Settlement must have seemed rather lacking in warmth. Unfortunately the object he had before him of uniting Protestants and Catholics into a body of loyalists, quite apart from the fact that it suited nobody's purpose but his own, was utterly impracticable. The protection of a King who could not protect himself was not likely to impress the Protestants ; and, to gratify the Catholics, he was bound to upset the Act of Settlement. To do this, however, was equivalent to forfeiting all chance of recovering England. The question as to which course he would pursue was soon brought to a practical issue.

On May 12 a Bill was introduced into the House of Commons for repealing the Acts of Settlement and Explanation. In the preamble to it, in which the causes which gave rise to those measures are discussed, nothing is more remarkable than the intense hatred displayed against Ormond, who " by his interest and power cherished and supported a fanatical republican party...and to transfer the calamitous consequences of his fatal conduct from himself upon your trusty Roman Catholic subjects...interposed betwixt them and his late Majesty's general indulgence and pardon." The absurdity of the charge is apparent on the face of it; but a scapegoat had to be found, and it would hardly have suited the purposes of those who were trying to procure its repeal to remember that the Act of Settlement was simply the price Charles had paid for his restoration. As James listened to the debates in the House of Lords, the hopelessness of his position began to dawn upon

him. Not he, but Tyrconnel, was master of the situation, and nothing would satisfy Tyrconnel but an absolute repeal. To his intimates James admitted that he had no other choice than to consent. The Irish, he said, were determined to " ram that and much more down his throat."

When the session came to a close on July 20, he had given his assent to thirty-five Acts, some of them no doubt of great, others of questionable, utility. Taken together, they represent the political ideal of the party led by Tyrconnel-parliamentary independence, the restoration of the land to its original owners, and freedom of trade. Unfortunately, however legitimate they were in themselves, they were claims that could only be made good by the sword.

Meanwhile the situation in general had undergone little change. Though hard pressed and with a garrison sadly diminished by hunger and sickness, Derry still continued to bid defiance to her besiegers; but, as July drew to a close, her powers of resistance rapidly declined, and any day, any hour could see her forced to capitulate. The fate of Enniskillen hung in the same balance. Hitherto, by distracting the attention of James1 generals the Enniskilleners had rendered Derry excellent service. But even to their powers of resistance there was a limit ; and, if Derry fell, they too were bound to succumb.

Absorbed in their own affairs, Englishmen had at first paid little attention to Ireland. After his flight there had been a natural revulsion of feeling in James1 favour; but this feeling had quickly given place to one of intense resentment, when the news arrived of his landing in Ireland. In its indignation, Parliament insisted on an instant declaration of war against France. Putting his own construction on the address, William thought that the hour had at last arrived for setting his scheme of the Grand Alliance in motion. Parliament thought otherwise. From being a subject of secondary importance, Ireland suddenly became the sole topic of interest. As time went on and Derry remained unrelieved, public opinion grew restless. In June, a committee of the Lords was appointed to enquire into the causes of the miscarriages in Ireland. Witnesses, including Archbishop Marsh, were examined: the minute books of the Committee of Council for Irish affairs and the Admiralty books were called for and closely inspected. The evidence elicited was of a contradictory sort; but it was generally admitted that with a little foresight the rebellion might have been prevented. Even after Tyrconnel had declared for James, the Protestants could, with a little help, easily have held their own; but no attention had been paid to their appeals for assistance; on the contrary, Sir William Harbord had been heard to say that " Ireland could wait: land there would be cheap enough shortly."

The fact is the muddle was due to causes which in the circumstances were unavoidable. The Committee for Irish affairs had been active enough. Already on March 80 orders had been issued for an

army of over 22,000 men to be got ready to march on May 1 ; and on April 29, when it was evident that Derry, contrary to all expectation, was managing to hold out, instructions were sent to Major-General Kirke to sail with four regiments and what provisions he could collect to its relief. But weeks passed away ; and it was only after receiving a second order that Kirke, "un homme capricieux,"" as Schomberg called him, at last set sail. The middle of June had arrived before his fleet appeared in Lough Foyle. Even then he could not make up his mind to attack the boom which the besiegers had thrown across the river. At last a peremptory message from Schomberg, who had been appointed com-mander-in-chief of the forces for Ireland, compelled him to move. The task proved easier than had been expected, and on July 28 Derry was relieved.

His failure to capture Deny was a terrible disappointment to James; but the news of the complete defeat, on July 31, at Newtown Butler, of the army he had sent to reduce Enniskillen under Viscount Mountcashel, followed as it was by that of the loss of Sligo, was in the circumstances little less than a calamity. Dundee's death (July 27) had put an end to his hopes of assistance from Scotland, and the question of how he was to maintain himself was becoming daily more difficult to solve. From raising the nominal value of the currency he had proceeded to the issue of a debased coinage, with the natural result of ruining what little commerce there was left to the country. Provisions for the army could only be obtained at the sword's point ; and, with bankruptcy staring him in the face, the temptation to follow d'Avaux' advice and lay forcible hands on the Protestants became almost irresistible. In the midst of his troubles came the news that Schomberg, with an army which rumour placed at about 20,000 men, had landed in county Down. The feeling at Dublin was one of utter consternation. The advisability of retiring beyond the line of the Shannon was discussed ; but neither James nor Tyrconnel would listen to the suggestion ; and, when it was found that Dublin was not immediately menaced, the feeling of panic gradually yielded to bolder counsels.

As a matter of fact the situation was not nearly so critical as it had at first sight appeared to be. So far from being 20,000 men strong, Schom-berg's army, composed mainly of raw recruits, badly equipped and worse officered, was barely more than half that size. Belfast of course fell into his hands; but Carrickfergus had to be reduced by force. Having been joined by most of the Enniskillen horse Schomberg on September 2 moved southward by way of Lisburn and Newry to Dundalk. Here he was brought to a standstill by lack of provisions ; and, recognising the necessity of keeping open his connexion by sea, he entrenched himself on a little slip of land to the north of the town, where he was practically secure from attack, and where reinforcements could easily reach him. His action, unavoidable under the circumstances, revealed his

weakness to the enemy. Enthusiasm took the place of despondency in the Irish ranks, and with an army over 20,000 strong James marched northward. On September 21 the two armies stood face to face at Dundalk, both eager for the fray, but neither willing to yield the other the advantage of an attack. Finding it impossible to draw Schomberg, James, after laying the country bare of provisions, retired with his army to Ardee, where, owing to the bad roads and broken-down bridges, he was as inaccessible to Schomberg as the latter was to him at Dundalk. The autumn was cold and wet, and both armies suffered severely from sickness ; so that, when at the beginning of November James moved into winter-quarters, Schomberg promptly followed his example.

The campaign, which closed with the recovery of Sligo by Sarsfield, had ended better for James than could reasonably have been expected after his successive defeats. On the other hand, Schomberg's management of the war caused great dissatisfaction in England, where it was generally felt-and the feeling was shared by William-that he might have risked a little more than he did. The feeling was excusable; but the real blame lay with the commissariat department; and the fact that the commissary-general, Henry Shales, was, or had been, a Papist, furnished the Whigs with an admirable opportunity of pointing their argument that nothing but mismanagement could be expected, so long as Tory influence was allowed to make itself felt in the King's counsels. To William, however, it had become evident that the subjugation of Ireland was a matter of first necessity, if he was not to become a mere puppet in the hands of the Whigs. In this dilemma, he announced his intention of going himself to Ireland. The proposal was not agreeable to the Whigs, and even his own friends thought it a risky experiment ; but it was received with applause by the country, and, taking advantage of the situation, he dissolved Parliament. The general elections answered his expectations; and on June 11, 1690, he set sail from Chester for Carrickfergus.

Meanwhile, in Ireland both sides had been busily occupied in recruiting their armies for the coming campaign. The priests worked hard for James, and many a man who came to mass found himself before the day closed enrolled in the army. Provisions seem to have been plentiful in the Irish camp ; but there was a great dearth of money and war material. Schomberg's difficulties, on the other hand, arose chiefly from scarcity of provisions and forage, in which respect the loss of Sligo, which was only partly made good by the capture of Belturbet by Colonel Wolseley in December, 1689, made itself severely felt. In January he was compelled to disband a number of regiments, and to send their officers to gather recruits in England. Suffering as he did from ill-health, it was with a feeling of intense relief that he heard of William's determination to come to Ireland himself. From that moment things began perceptibly to improve. Under the management

of Shales' successor, Pereira, provisions became more plentiful ; and at the beginning of March a stream of recruits set in, including nearly 7000 Danes under the personal conduct of Duke Ferdinand William of Wurtemberg. That nothing might be wanting when William arrived, stores were laid up, forage collected, roads and bridges on the proposed line of march repaired, and finally in May the forb of Charlemont was attacked and captured.

Nor had Louis been altogether wanting to his ally. At James1" request d'A vaux was recalled; and on March 14 the Duc de Lauzun landed at Cork with 7000 veterans, a park of artillery, and considerable stores of arms and ammunition. Numerically both armies were about equal ; but in general efficiency William's was infinitely superior. So great, indeed, was the disorder in the Irish camp, that Lauzun at once recognised the hopelessness of a contest on equal terms, and, as d'Avaux had formerly urged, he too advised setting Dublin in flames and retreating behind the line of the Shannon. To his credit, James refused his consent to such a step. When the news of William's landing reached him on June 16, he moved his army to Dundalk. The position was strategically a good one, though it had the disadvantage of exposing his base at Dublin to a flanking movement from the direction of Armagh. Urged by this consideration and by the importunate advice of Lauzun to avoid risking a battle, he fell back on Drogheda. If he meant to fight, the spot was, as Schomberg had long foreseen, the best he could have chosen. But from the fact that fully a third of his available force was scattered in garrisons, it can hardly have been his intention to risk a decisive battle.

William meanwhile was following closely on his heels. To those who urged precaution in the pursuit he replied that he had not come to Ireland to let the grass grow under his feet ; and on June SO, sixteen days after his landing, both armies stood facing each other with only the Boyne between them. The odds against James were very great. Still, the advantage of position lay with him, and to the experienced eye of Schomberg the determination of William to force a passage on the following morning (July 1) seemed little short of folly. Unfortunately for himself, James could not make up his mind either to fight or retreat. His indecision lost him the battle. Forced by William's impetuous attack to turn and defend himself when he was actually on the point of retiring, he was unable to bring half his army into action before his adversary had crossed the river at three different points. Taken more or less by surprise, the Irish and their allies, especially the cavalry, foughb with a determination that fully justified Schomberg's criticism of William's tactics. Seeing the centre division falter in the attack, Schomberg himself plunged into the river, when he was surrounded by a body of hostile cavalry and killed. His death allowed the main body of the Irish to make good its retreat through the pass of Duleek,

and, according to the Duke of Berwick, saved James' army from destruction. Among the earliest to quit the field was James. At Dublin he snatched a few hours' rest; and, having laid his express commands on the mayor to prevent any attempt to pillage or fire the city, he hastened to Waterford, where he took ship for France.

To William as to Mary the flight of James was a great relief; and, in anticipation that, now that the chief actor was gone, resistance to his authority would cease, he allowed the fruits of his victory in large measure to slip from his grasp. The fact was he had yet to learn that the Irish had not taken up arms out of any feeling of loyalty to James, but solely and entirely in their own interests. They were acute enough to see that TyrconneFs attempt to restore things to the status quo ante October 23, 1641, had failed and they would have been glad to lay down their arms on terms of a general amnesty. For himself, William would readily have agreed to purchase peace on these terms. Unfortunately the desire for revenge on the part of the colonists rendered a policy of conciliation impossible. Baser motives cooperated. The Irish were still in possession of thousands of acres of fertile land, and the desire to get hold of them was as strong in the breasts of Englishmen as it had been in the days of Parsons and Borlase. So it came to pass that, instead of a general amnesty, which would in all likelihood have put a speedy end to the war, the proclamation of pardon published on July 7 to all who should lay down arms by August 1 was, as it had been in the days of Cromwell, confined to the tenant and landless man. The result might have been foreseen. With ruin staring them in the face, the Irish resolved to sell their lives as dearly as possible, and in the extremity of their position the landless man and the landowner awaited their fate shoulder to shoulder.

After the loss of much precious time William, on July 9, despatched Lieutenant-General Douglas with a considerable force to take Athlone, while he himself with the bulk of the army set out two days later in the direction of Limerick, whither Tyrconnel had withdrawn with the bulk of his forces. Wexford, Waterford, Duncannon, Clonmel, and other places fell into his hands. At Carrick-on-Suir he received intelligence of the battle off* Beachy Head, and, thinking his presence required in England, he handed over the command of the army to Count Solms and returned to Dublin. There he was met with more reassuring news, and in the belief that the war would be over in a fortnight he returned to the camp. On August 8 he was joined by Douglas, who had failed to capture Athlone, and the next day he sat down before Limerick.

The situation within the city was strange. Tyrconnel, who had James' authority to come to terms with William or to continue the war as he thought most conducive to his interests, was inclined to treat. He was convinced that the city could not hold out against a regular siege, and his opinion was shared by Lauzun. On the other hand the Irish, animated by Sarsfield and with the example of Derry before them,

insisted on defending the place. Finding it impossible to convince them of the futility of their resolution, Tyrconnel withdrew with Lauzun and the French regiments to Gal way, leaving Major-Generals Boisselot and Sarsfield with about 6000 men to conduct the defence of the city. The summons to surrender had hardly been rejected, when information reached the besieged that William's heavy siege-guns were approaching. Acting on the spur of the moment, Sarsfield, having collected about 500 horse, crossed the Shannon at Killaloe, and surprising the escort at Ballyneety within seven miles of Limerick, blew up the entire train. The loss of his artillery delayed William's operations ; and, after several desperate efforts to storm the place, seeing the rainy season approaching, he raised the siege on August 31, and sailed for England on September 5.

His failure to capture Limerick was a surprise to everybody, and not least of all to Louis, who, after James' sudden reappearance at Versailles full of complaints against the Irish, had issued orders recalling all his troops from Ireland in the belief that " the game there was lost." In obedience to his commands. Lauzun was busily attending to their embarcation at Galway, when the news that the siege had been raised caused him to delay their departure in the expectation of fresh orders; but, more than a week having elapsed and no orders arriving, he and the French brigade sailed from Galway on September 12. With him went Tyrconnel, moved to this step partly in order to explain his conduct, partly to solicit fresh assistance.

Hardly had the French withdrawn when an English fleet, with about 5000 men under the command of the Earl of Marlborough, appeared before Cork. Landing hard by the city on September 22, and being joined by the Duke of Wurtemberg with 4000 foot and 1500 horse, he forced the place to surrender within a week and at once proceeded to attack Kinsale, which, after a vigorous but short defence, capitulated on October 15. Though compelled to abandon the greater part of Munster, the possession of the line of the Shannon enabled the Irish during the winter to carry on an exasperating guerilla warfare, with which Ginkel, who had succeeded to the command of the army, found it almost impossible to cope, even with the help of a strong militia force which he had raised.

In January, 1691, Tyrconnel returned from France with an assurance of further assistance from Louis. But month after month passed away, and the hope of assistance had almost died out, when, early in May, St Ruth, accompanied by d'Usson and a number of French officers, arrived at Limerick with large supplies of ammunition and other provisions, and with a commission rendering him practically independent of Tyrconnel in the command of the army. St Ruth's arrival scattered the gloom that had begun to settle down on the Irish ; and, encouraged by his presence and energetic measures, they quickly recovered confidence in themselves and their cause.

Meanwhile, Ginkel on his side had been busily engaged in preparing for the coming campaign ; and, on taking the field towards the end of May, he found himself at the head of 20,000 well equipped troops with a train of artillery such as Ireland had never seen. Concentrating his army at Mullingar, he set out for Athlone on June 6. Ballymore, which the Irish had occupied with a small garrison, was easily captured ; but at this point he lost more than a week waiting for his pontoons, and it was not until the 19th that he arrived before Athlone.

The town lying partly on the Leinster, partly on the Connaught side of the Shannon, and connected only by a bridge, occupied a strong strategical position. To St Ruth it seemed absolutely impossible for Ginkel to capture it by a direct attack ; and, in the belief that his real object was to attempt a turning movement from the direction of Banagher several miles lower down the river, he had concentrated his main force somewhat to the south of the town, leaving the direction of the defence to d'Usson. On the 22nd, Ginkel opened a heavy fire upon the enemy's entrenchments on the opposite side of the river. Day and night for days together the cannonade continued. But every attempt to cross the river failed, and as forage began to grow scarce Ginkel's position became very critical. At a council of war on the 30th the advisability of raising the siege was discussed; but in the end it was decided to make one more effort. The defence had somewhat slackened ; and, encouraged by the unusual lowness of the Shannon, a picked body of men succeeded early next morning in fording the river a few yards below the bridge. Others followed, and, before the Irish had time to recover from their surprise, Athlone was captured. St Ruth, who could hardly believe his ears when the news reached him, made a desperate effort to recover the position, of which his negligence more than anything else had deprived him ; but, failing in this, he withdrew his army in the direction of Galway.

The success was one for which William had been anxiously waiting. A year had passed since the battle of the Boyne and Ireland was apparently as far as ever from being reduced. He had missed one opportunity, and, in the determination not to miss another, he had given his sanction to a proclamation (to be issued at the first moment of success) offering a free pardon with the recovery of their estates and liberty of religion to all who should lay down their arms within a limited time, or by their action be instrumental in bringing the war to a close. The proclamation, published on July 7, though it failed to exercise any immediate effect, undoubtedly prepared the way for the surrender of Galway and Limerick. The terms offered by it being calculated to give great offence both in England and Ireland to those who hoped to see the Irish, according to Lord Justice Porter's expression, " quite beggared," it was kept as secret as such a thing could be.

Having crossed the Shannon and reorganised his army with as little

loss of time as possible, Ginkel set out in pursuit of St Ruth. On July 12 he came up with him near Aughrim, half-way between Athlone and Galway. St Ruth had made up his mind to fight. His army, though weaker in cavalry, was, so far as numbers went, equal to Ginkel's; and he had the advantage of occupying a strong position. For two hours the issue of the battle hung in the balance. The Irish fought with unexampled bravery ; and, seeing the enemy waver, St Ruth was already counting the day his own, when a cannon-ball put an end to his life. His death decided the battle. Deprived of their commander and ignorant of his plans, the Irish continued fighting desperately for some time longer. Then they broke and fled. No quarter was given, and night alone put an end to the slaughter.

A week later Ginkel appeared before Galway. He was anxious to finish the war as soon as possible, and at once offered the benefit of the recent proclamation, if the city would submit "without further trouble." D'Usson, who commanded the garrison, at first refused ; but in the end, "considering the ill-will of the citizens," he consented to capitulate. Articles based on the proclamation of July 7, securing the inhabitants in the possession of their properties and the private exercise of their religion, were drawn up ; and, having signed them on the 21st, d'Usson surrendered the city and withdrew with the garrison to Limerick. Thither also Ginkel prepared to march. But bad weather, and the necessity under which he lay of recruiting his army and providing horses to drag his siege-artillery from Athlone, greatly delayed his progress. August was drawing to a close before he reached Limerick. It was too late in the year to begin regular siege operations ; and his hope of forcing a surrender rested mainly on the effect which a heavy bombardment was likely to produce on the already depressed spirits of the garrison.

As in the previous year, opinion in the city was divided, as to whether it should be defended or not. Mindful of the mistake he had formerly made, Tyrconnel now insisted on carrying on the defence to the uttermost. Of the ability of the city to hold out there could be no question. But the situation was no longer the same. On August 14 Tyrconnel died. His death deepened the present feeling of despondency, and even Sarsfield began to waver. The summons to surrender was, however, rejected, and on August 80 Ginkel opened up a heavy fire on the city; but the distance was too great to do much damage, and it was soon evident that so long as the Irish continued in unmolested possession of county Clare, the mere battering of the walls was of little use. The pontoons were accordingly got ready; and, advantage being taken of a particularly dark night, a landing was effected on the opposite side of the Shannon, before the Irish, who were looking rather to see the siege raised than for any such assault, had recovered from their surprise. Their camp fell into Ginkel's hands ; but otherwise he reaped no advantage from his success.

A week elapsed, and, seeing no sign of surrender, Ginkel recrossed

the river on September 22 with fully half his army, for the purpose of destroying the works that commanded the bridge on the other side. Had the Irish been properly commanded, the experiment might have cost him dear. As it was, the works were rushed, and the defenders driven helter-skelter back over the bridge. Fearing for the city, the officer in charge of the gate raised the drawbridge, and in an instant what had been a mere rout was turned into a bloody disaster. Terrified at what had happened the garrison broke from control and called wildly to surrender. Twenty-four hours later a truce was concluded.

The moment for which Ginkel had been waiting had at last arrived, and, rather than lose the chance thus offered him to end the war, he resolved to grant all that his instructions allowed him to concede. On their side, the Irish, naturally anxious to make as good a bargain as possible, submitted as conditions of surrender seven articles, which, besides indemnifying them for their rebellion, would have secured them in the possession of their estates and the public exercise of their religion, and would practically have placed them on a position of equality with the Protestants. Knowing nothing of their legal disabilities, Ginkel would have conceded even these terms ; but, at the instigation of those about him, he returned them as incompatible with the laws of the realm, and formulated his own demands in twelve articles. These twelve articles provided the basis for the civil and military treaties of Limerick signed on October 3. By the military treaty it was agreed, that all persons of whatever quality or condition who desired to leave the country should have liberty to depart with their families and portable goods, and that Ginkel should provide the necessary shipping for them. By the civil treaty, it was conceded that the Irish Catholics should enjoy all those religious rights which they possessed in the reign of Charles II, with such further privileges as their Majesties (William and Mary) might with the consent of Parliament in the future procure for them, and that they and all Irish still in arms, who should immediately submit and take the oath of allegiance, should be secured in the free and undisputed possession of their estates as they possessed them according to the Act of Settlement. In other words, the price of the surrender of Limerick was to be a general indemnity and a return to the state of affairs that had existed in the reign of Charles II. In the full belief that the debt would be loyally discharged, Limerick was forthwith surrendered to Ginkel. By the middle of December, the last of the 12,000 men who elected to seek their fortunes abroad had quitted Ireland; and three months later a royal proclamation declared the war at an end.

Ireland was once more at peace; but the peace was one that brought no satisfaction with it. The conquerors, angry at seeing their prey escape them, sulkily protested against being held to an agreement which furnished no guarantee against a fresh rebellion. The feeling that they had been betrayed found open expression in a sermon preached by

Dopping, Bishop of Meath, before the Lords Justices Coningsby and Porter in Christ Church, Dublin, on the Sunday after the signature of the treaty. A preacher more agreeable to Government was found in the person of Moreton, Bishop of Kildare, who argued eloquently on keeping faith with the Irish; but Dopping's view of the situation was that generally taken, and his words found an echo in England.

For the English Parliament had no sooner met on October 22, than it passed an Act rendering it compulsory on all members of the Irish Parliament to take the Oath of Supremacy and to subscribe the Declaration against Transubstantiation. This Act was not only a flagrant breach of the spirit of the Treaty of Limerick, but a direct attack on the independence of the Irish Parliament. It, however, so entirely harmonised with the sentiment prevailing in Ireland among the colonists that no exception was taken to it; and the Parliament convened on October 5, 1692, under Lord Sidney, who had succeeded Coningsby and Porter in the government, " paid " as Molyneux admits " an entire obedience to it." But that in doing so the colonists had no intention of recognising the subordination of the Irish Parliament to that of England, soon became apparent. The Parliament had been called for the double purpose of confirming the Treaty of Limerick and settling a revenue. Bills to these ends had been transmitted from England, with an intimation that, so far as the treaty was concerned, it had been sufficiently discussed in England, and nothing further was required beyond a simple confirmation. The Commons took offence at the message. They were willing enough to admit that the Crown of Ireland was inherent in that of England ; but Ireland was a kingdom and not a colony, and in their legislative capacity they were independent of England. The treaty as it stood was, they asserted, too dangerous to be allowed to pass ; and, though they were ready, under the peculiar circumstances, to consent to the taxes demanded, they were compelled to assert that they and they alone had the right to originate money-bills.

The Lord Lieutenant was in a difficult position; but there can be no question that, in causing a protest to be entered on the Journals of the House against their claim to originate money-bills as a breach of Poynings1 Law, he acted entirely in accordance with public opinion in England. All the same, the quarrel afforded a very welcome opportunity to the English Parliament for attacking William on his Irish policy. In its zeal the House of Commons even proposed to enquire into the grounds of Sidney's protest ; but, on second thoughts, the point was quietly dropped, and in addressing the King the House contented itself with complaining of the encouragement shown to Irish Papists, and the misapplication of the forfeited estates. In his answer the King promised to remedy what was found amiss ; but, to put an end to the discussion, he prorogued Parliament. Sidney, however, was recalled, and the administration placed in the hands of Lords Justices, in one

of whom, Lord Capel, the colonists found a man of their own way of thinking.

Two years elapsed. The country was rapidly recovering from the effects of the war; but great distress prevailed among the natives, and as a natural consequence the Tories were much in evidence. Under the pretext that fresh rebellion was hatching, a proclamation setting a price of £5 on the head of every Tory killed in action was published, and did something to abate the mischief, though, as a contemporary historian remarks, " It is to be feared that many innocent persons fell a sacrifice to the temptation of the reward." In their eagerness to keep down the Irish the colonists even yielded to CapeFs persuasion to waive their claim to originate money-bills, on being allowed a free hand to regulate matters as they wished between themselves and the Irish Catholics. An understanding on these terms having been arrived at, Capel was appointed Lord Deputy, and a Parliament was summoned for August 27, 1695. Supplies to the amount of ,£163,325 having been voted, the Commons immediately turned to a consideration of the state of the nation. The causes of the recent calamities they traced chiefly to the long intermission of Parliaments, to the proclamation of March 8,1672, permitting Papists to reside in corporate towns, and in general to the favour shown them by Government since the Restoration. To remedy these evils the proclamation of March, 1672, was declared void, and Acts were passed prohibiting parents from sending their children abroad to be educated in any Catholic seminary; disqualifying Papists from teaching in schools at home ; rendering it penal for any Catholic, except those privileged to do so by the Articles of Galway and Limerick, to carry arms, or to possess a horse worth more than £5 ; limiting the number of holydays to those marked as such in the liturgy of the Church of Ireland ; and rendering all who refused to work on Catholic holydays liable to be fined or whipped. Finally, an Act was passed abrogating all Acts passed in James' Parliament, and ordering the records relating to the same to be destroyed, which was accordingly done on October 2.

This outburst of fanatical legislation did not pass unchallenged. Among the members of both Houses there were some who, much as they disliked and feared the Catholics, felt even a greater dislike for the Puritan nonconformists. The spirit that had animated Bramhall and Jeremy Taylor reasserted itself; and, under the guidance of Lord Chancellor Porter, a party of opposition, to which the titles Tory, High Church, Jacobite were indifferently applied, came into existence, and proved strong enough to throw out a Toleration Bill, with which William had intended to reward the loyalty of the Presbyterians. Parliament was prorogued on December 14. In May, 1696, Capel died and Porter became Lord Justice ; but he, too, dying in December, the government was placed in the hands of de Iluvigny, Earl of Galway, and the Marquis of Winchester.

Parliament, after several adjournments, reassembled on July 27,1697. The situation was practically unaltered; and, having voted a supply of £150,000, the Commons proceeded to gratify their craving for further protection against Roman Catholicism. But when a Bill limiting the-reversal of the outlawries following on the Rebellion was submitted to them, they broke with Government in a way quite inexplicable to the Lords Justices. The question was one that, in their opinion, touched the disposal of the forfeited properties ; and they were highly dissatisfied with the way in which William had disposed of them. Better, they insisted, that the properties should remain in the old families than be squandered in that fashion. Forced to withdraw the Bill for one of a less sweeping nature, and safeguarding the interests of a number of the old nobility and gentry, Government hoped that, in its new-found zeal to protect the victims of the Revolution, Parliament would at last consent to ratify the Articles of Limerick. But here the current of anti-Catholic feeling ran with irresistible violence; and, instead of a full confirmation of the Articles, a Bill was passed (though it escaped rejection in the House of Lords by only a single vote) confirming, as the preamble to it expressly admits, only so much of them as consisted with the safety and welfare of his Majesty's subjects in Ireland. Whether in doing as it did Parliament acted within its constitutional rights or not, is a moot point; but there can be no doubt that its repudiation of the treaty was as politically unwise as it was morally unjustifiable.

Meanwhile, a certain measure of commercial prosperity had returned to the country ; and in 1698 Ireland possessed a quite flourishing woollen industry, a no less flourishing provision trade, besides a number of smaller industries, of which linen, glass, iron, fisheries were the most noticeable. But it was on the development of the woollen manufacture that the hopes of the commercial prosperity of the nation rested. Unfortunately, the success with which it had been attended had aroused the jealous fears of the English manufacturers, and there were not wanting warning voices to point out the political danger likely to accrue to England by allowing Ireland to attain a position of wealthy independence. Still, it was not an easy matter to invite the Irish to assist in the destruction of their own commercial prosperity ; and, in preparing a Bill for laying additional duties on all woollen fabrics exported from Ireland, great care was taken to represent it as an encouragement of the linen industry. To the surprise of the Lords Justices, the Irish Parliament, on reassembling in the autumn of 1698, agreed without much discussion to a Bill placing duties of from 10 per cent, to 20 per cent, on all woollen goods (except friezes) exported from Ireland for a limited period of three years and three months, beginning on March 25, 1699. It is probable that these duties were regarded as countervailing and not prohibitive, and it is evident that in limiting the duration of the Act the Parliament only consented to an experiment. But, before it had time to test its

working, the English Parliament clinched the matter by an Act expressly forbidding, under the severest possible penalties, the exportation from Ireland of all wool and woollen goods except to England, and even this only under duties which were intended to be absolutely prohibitive.

Having thus, as it supposed, sufficiently safeguarded English commercial interests by an unblushing infringement of the privileges of the Irish Parliament, the English House of Commons proceeded, with an equal disregard of the prerogative of the Crown, to call it to account for the way in which the Irish forfeitures had been disposed of. A commission of seven members was appointed to enquire into the matter ; and, on the strength of a report signed by four out of the seven, it was unanimously resolved that a Bill should be brought in to apply all the forfeited lands in Ireland, and the grants thereof since February 13,1689, to the use of the public. A Bill for the resumption of all grants, and for vesting the disposal of the forfeited estates in the hands of thirteen trustees, with a clause protecting the interests of the Irish included in the Articles of Galway and Limerick, was accordingly passed ; but, in the well-grounded apprehension that it would be rejected by the Lords, it was adroitly tacked to a Bill of Supply. The manœuvre succeeded ; but it led to a fierce passage of arms between the two Houses, and the measure was only allowed to pass on William's intervention (April 10, 1700). It proved a failure. Instead of the £1,699,343, which it had been confidently asserted would accrue to the Crown after all legal obligations had been met, less than half (or £724,501) was recovered, and this only after compromising the public faith, insulting the sovereign, inflicting incalculable mischief, both of a public and private nature, and in the case of the Earl of Galway directly infringing an Act of the Irish Parliament, confirming the estate granted to him by William for his services during the war.

Historically, the Act of Resumption closes the chapter which opened with the Act for the plantation of Leix and Offaly. For nearly one hundred and fifty years the process of confiscation and colonisation following on rebellion and conquest had continued with little intermission, till at last there was practically no more land to confiscate. The Ireland of the O'Neills and Fitzgeralds, of the wild Irish and the gentry of the Pale has passed away for ever. With the eighteenth century, we enter on a new and, to most of us, more familiar period of Irish history.