Ecclesiastical History of England, Volume 5—The Church of the RevolutionStoughton, John
History
Ecclesiastical History of England, Volume 5—The Church of the Revolution
Stoughton, John
Great Britain -- Church history
The Lords at once agreed with the Commons in their vote for a
Protestant succession; but about the vote declaring the throne vacant,
much discussion arose. Without formally admitting that the throne was
vacant--only for the present supposing it to be so--they wished to
determine, first, whether supreme power for the present ought to be
devolved on a Regent or on a King. This point had been keenly debated
by Sancroft and his brethren. He was not present now, but they were;
and in the minority of 49 for a Regency against 51 for a King, occur
the names of thirteen Prelates, including the Bishop of St. Asaph,
who in this matter had not been “wheedled” by Burnet, as Clarendon
surmised. Indeed, the prejudice conceived against a deposing power, as
a Popish art, had so impressed the minds of the Clergy, that no Bishop
approved of filling the throne anew, except the Bishops of London
and Bristol.[99] The question raised in an abstract form--whether or
no there was an original contract between King and people--involved
a controversy touching divine right, which most of the Bishops had
maintained. For the principle of a social compact, 53 Peers voted
against 46, the Bishops being included amongst the latter. The idea of
a contract being adopted, nobody could dispute that James had broken
it; but the Peers decided to substitute the words, “_deserted_
the Government,” for the Commons’ phrase, “_abdicated_ the
Government;” nor would the majority allow the word _vacant_ to
stand, inasmuch as, by a constitutional fiction, the King never dies;
and in the present case, so some contended, the Crown legitimately
devolved upon the Princess of Orange--the claim of the infant Prince
of Wales being given up by all parties. The two Houses were thus at
issue on a fundamental point; and the London citizens became alarmed.
The dispute found its way into the coffee-houses, into groups walking
and lounging in the parks, and into private families, Whigs and
Tories debating the problem as a vital one. The people assembled at
the doors of the Convention to present petitions for the accession
of William and Mary to the throne; they loaded with curses members
crossing the threshold, or showered upon them benedictions, according
as they believed them to stand affected towards the momentous matter in
dispute.[100]
[Sidenote: 1689.]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account