The Restoration was one of those revolutionary events which occur in the history of this country. It was effected, says one of our historians, “without any effusion of blood.” But what is more to be wondered at, is, that whereas so much blood had been spilt to compel _Charles I._ to come to terms with his people, towards which it is certain he at last made large concessions, _Charles II._ should be received without any conditions at all. Upon this bishop Burnet, in the _History of his own times_, observes, that _Hale_, afterwards lord chief justice, did move that a Committee might be appointed to look into the propositions that had been made, and the concessions that had been offered by the late king, and from thence digest such propositions as they should think fit to be sent over to the king. As such a motion was foreseen, _Monk_ was instructed how to answer [or overrule] it. He accordingly told the House, that he had information of such numbers of incendiaries still in the kingdom, that if any delay was put to the sending for the king, he could not answer for the peace either of the nation or army: and as the king was to bring neither army nor treasure with him, either to fright or corrupt them, propositions might be as well offered to him when he should come over; so moved for sending commissioners immediately. This was echoed with such a shout all over the House, that _Hale’s_ motion was no more insisted on. To the King’s coming without conditions, says the bishop, may well be imputed all the errors of his reign. {792a} To allow him so to return and ascend the throne was certainly a flagrant proof of the folly and pusillanimity of the convention parliament, and of the baseness of that spirit which then predominated among out ancestors. Such a tide of extravagant joy overspread the nation upon the king’s arrival, as in the end very much hurt and debased the morals of the people, and introduced an almost universal dissoluteness of manners, which was encouraged and propagated by the ill example of the king and the court. From the enthusiasm and fanaticism, which prevailed in the former period, the nation fell now into the opposite extreme of licentiousness and immorality; one or the other of which extremes being always the consequence of men’s not governing themselves by reason. {792b} Thus the country had no great cause to congratulate itself on the blessed effects of the restoration of royalty, or the revival of the old order of things. No nation in Europe could be more depraved and licentious than the English in the reign of Charles the second.