accusation against him was not found to be sufficient to build a legal charge upon.

Nov. 2.

On the 2d November Lord Russell seconded a motion, made by Colonel. Titus, "That a committee be appointed to draw up a bill to disable James Duke of York from "inheriting the imperial crown of this realm."

66

It may naturally excite some surprise to find Lord Russell proposing so violent a measure as the exclusion of the legal successor to the throne. He was loyal in his disposition, and zealously attached to hereditary monarchy. He was of a temper which inclined to moderate measures, and had on a former occasion supported the plan of limitations. The difficulty of carrying the Bill of Exclusion must have forcibly struck him; for the Peers were known to be favourable to the Court, whilst the Clergy were, as usual, engaged on the side of prerogative and legitimacy and if, as it was afterwards loudly proclaimed in Parliament, there was a loyal party, determined, in spite of all laws, to assert the right of James, a wise patriot, it may be said, would never concur in the formation of an act which entailed resistance, and made a provision for civil war. These considerations might bave had some weight in Lord Russell's mind, and probably restrained him from joining Lord Shaftesbury when he first promoted the Exclusion Bill. On the other

1

hand, his affection to the reigning family must have been shaken by remarking how frequently they had violated the liberties, and betrayed the interests of the country they were called to govern. James the First had torn with his own hand the remonstrance of the Commons from their Journals: Charles the First had set at defiance all law and order, when he seized, in the House of Commons, five members who were obnoxious to him: Charles the Second, restored by an indulgent nation, had become the pensioner of France, her greatest enemy, and a promoter of Popery, the object of her continual dread. His conduct was only moderated by love of ease, and an instability of temper, which unfitted him for great enterprizes. But his brother James was so bigotted in his religious principles, and so arbitrary in his notions of government, that there could be little doubt he would endeavour, immediately on his coming to the throne, to introduce the Roman Catholic religion, and lay aside parliaments. These apprehensions have been fully confirmed, and more than justified by subsequent events. There was also reason to fear that he would avail himself, as Charles had intended to do, of the military assistance of France; and that, amongst the divisions of the times, he would gain at least one party in the nation to his support. His neglect in both these particu

lars implies an extreme of folly and arrogance, which could not fairly be an element of calculation, and forms another instance of the truth. Quem Deus vult perdere prius

of the proverb, dementat !"

If the existing actual danger was so imminent as to justify the strongest remedy, the obstacles to the Exclusion Bill were not, in their own nature, so insurmountable as they afterwards became by force of circumstances. The tenacity of the House of Lords to the principles of legitimacy might have been overcome by the perseverance of the Commons, as it was afterwards at the Revolution, when they refused to declare the throne vacant; and with regard to the Court, it was to be observed that Charles had never been steady to any man or any measure. It has even been said, that if he could have been assured of 600,000l. from the Commons, he would have agreed to the exclusion of his brother. But they suspected his sincerity, probably with reason. The Duchess of Portsmouth was induced, partly by her fears of impeachment, and partly by her hopes of her son's succession, to be zealous in favour of the exclusion. The Duke of Monmouth promoted it as an opening to his own designs on the Crown; and the Prince of Orange, probably with like intentions, encouraged Pensionary Fagel to send a strong mea

morial in its support. Lord Sunderland, Lord Essex, and Mr. Godolphin, secretly favoured it in the Council. That the part taken by Lord Russell was of no trifling importance, is sufficiently plain from a passage in Sir W. Temple, where he mentions, as one of two circumstances that had great influence on the House, the lead which Lord Russell took in promoting the Bill.

The motion for bringing in the Bill was supported by Sir H. Capel, Mr. Boscawen, Sir F. Winnington, Colonel Birch, &c. They urged that every endeavour had been made, but without success, to find another expedient: that any other law would give the Duke of York such a command both of the army, and of the revenue, that he would be enabled to make those inroads on our constitution, in church and state, which he had been so long promoting.

On the other hand, the motion was opposed by Mr. Garroway, Mr. Lawrence Hyde, Sir C. Musgrave, and Sir R. Graham, who severally spoke for expedients; but the greatest ability was displayed by Mr. Seymour:-" Sir, I must "confess," he said, "I am very much against "the bringing in of this Bill; for I think it a 66 very unfortunate thing, that, whereas His

Majesty hath prohibited but one thing only, "we should so soon fall upon it. I do not "see there is any cause why we should fear

Popery so much as to make us run into such "an extreme. We are assured there can be "no danger during His Majesty's life; so, upon

66

an impartial examination, we shall find there "can be no great reason for apprehension "after his death, though the Duke should "outlive and succeed him, and be of that

religion. Have we not had great experience "of his love for this nation? Hath he not always squared his actions by the exactest rules of justice and moderation? Is there not a possibility of being of the Church, and not of the 66 Court, of Rome? Hath he not bred up his "children in the Protestant religion; and showed

a great respect for all persons of that pro❝fession? Would it not be a dangerous thing "for him (I mean in point of interest) to offer "at any alteration of the religion established by "law? Can any man imagine that it can be "attempted without great hazard of utterly "destroying both himself and family? And ❝ can so indiscreet an attempt be expected from "a Prince so abounding in prudence and wis"dom? But though we should resolve to have "no moderation in our proceedings against

Papists, yet I hope we shall have some for "ourselves. It cannot be imagined that such "a law will bind all here in England, or