CHAPTER X

THE REVOLUTION AND THE REVOLUTION SETTLEMENT IN GREAT BRITAIN.

(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 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 Parliament had pronounced a similar Declaration of Charles II illegal, and the King had acquiesced and withdrawn it (1672).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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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 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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

(2) SCOTLAND FROM THE RESTORATION TO THE UNION OF THE PARLIAMENTS. (1660-1707.)

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

(3) IRELAND FROM THE RESTORATION TO THE ACT OF RESUMPTION. (1660-1700.)

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.

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).

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.