THE CONVENTION CONVERTED INTO A PARLIAMENT.

The first resolution taken in the new council was to convert the convention into a parliament, that the new settlement might be strengthened by a legal sanction, which was now supposed to be wanting, as the assembly had not been convoked by the king’s writ of summons. The experiment of a new election was deemed too hazardous; therefore the council determined that the king should, by virtue of his own authority, change the convention into a parliament, by going to the house of peers with the usual state of a sovereign, and pronouncing a speech from the throne to both houses. This expedient was accordingly practised. 002 [See note B, at the end of this Vol.] He assured them he should never take any step that would diminish the good opinion they had conceived of his integrity. He told them that Holland was in such a situation as required their immediate attention and assistance; that the posture of affairs at home likewise demanded their serious consideration; that a good settlement was necessary, not only for the establishment of domestic peace, but also for the support of the protestant interest abroad: that the affairs of Ireland were too critically situated to admit the least delay in their deliberations; he therefore begged they would be speedy and effectual in concerting such measures as should be judged indispensably necessary for the welfare of the nation. The commons returning to their house, immediately passed a vote of thanks to his majesty, and made an order that his speech should be taken into consideration. After the throne had been declared vacant by a small majority of the peers, those who opposed that measure had gradually withdrawn themselves from the house, so that very few remained but such as were devoted to the new monarch. These therefore brought in a bill for preventing all disputes concerning the present parliament. In the meantime, Mr. Hambden, in the lower house, put the question, Whether a king elected by the lords spiritual and temporal, and the commons assembled at Westminster, | coming to and consulting with the said lords and commons, did not make as complete a parliament and legislative power and authority as if the said king should cause new elections to be made by writ? Many members affirmed that the king’s writ was as necessary as his presence to the being of a legal parliament, and as the convention was defective in this particular, it could not be vested with a parliamentary authority by any management whatsoever. The whigs replied, That the essence of a parliament consisted in the meeting and co-operation of the king, lords, and commons; and that it was not material whether they were convoked by writ or by letter: they proved this assertion by examples deduced from the history of England: they observed that a new election would be attended with great trouble, expense, and loss of time; and that such delay might prove fatal to the protestant interest in Ireland, as well as to the allies on the continent. In the midst of this debate the bill was brought down from the lords, and being read, a committee was appointed to make some amendments. These were no sooner made than the commons sent it back to the upper house, and it immediately received the royal assent. By this act the lords and commons assembled at Westminster were declared the two houses of parliament to all intents and purposes: it likewise ordained, That the present act, and all other acts to which the royal assent should be given before the next prorogation, should be understood and adjudged in law to begin on the thirteenth day of February: that the members, instead of the old oaths of allegiance and supremacy, should take the new oath incorporated in this act under the ancient penalty; and that the present parliament should be dissolved in the usual manner. Immediately after this transaction a warm debate arose in the house of commons about the revenue, which the courtiers alleged had devolved with the crown upon William, at least during the life of James, for which term the greater part of it had been granted. The members in the opposition affirmed that these grants were vacated with the throne; and at length it was voted, That the revenue had expired. Then a motion was made, That a revenue should be settled on the king and queen; and the house resolved it should be taken into consideration. While they deliberated on this affair they received a message from his majesty, importing that the late king had set sail from Brest with an armament to invade Ireland. They forthwith resolved to assist his majesty with their lives and fortunes; they voted a temporary aid of four hundred and twenty thousand pounds, to be levied by monthly assessments, and both houses waited on the king to signify this resolution. But this unanimity did not take place till several lords spiritual as well as temporal had, rather than take the oaths, absented themselves from parliament. The nonjuring prelates were Sancroft, archbishop of Canterbury; Turner, bishop of Ely; Lake, of Chichester; Ken, of Bath and Wells; White, of Peterborough; Lloyd, of Norwich; Thomas, of Worcester; and Frampton, of Gloucester. The temporal peers who refused the oath were the duke of Newcastle; the earls of Clarendon, Litchfield, Exeter, Yarmouth, and Stafford; the lords Griffin and Stawel. Five of the bishops withdrew themselves from the house at one time; but before they retired one of the number moved for a bill of toleration, and another of comprehension, by which moderate dissenters might be reconciled to the church, and admitted into ecclesiastical benefices. Such bills were actually prepared and presented by the earl of Nottingham, who received the thanks of the house for the pains he had taken. From this period the party averse to the government of William were distinguished by the appellation of Nonjurors. They rejected the notion of a king de facto, as well as all other distinctions and limitations; and declared for the absolute power and divine hereditary indefeisible right of sovereigns.

WILLIAM AND MARY, 1688—1701.