File:The history of England, from the accession of James the Second (1914) (14784163013).jpg

Identifier: histofengfromthe01macauoft (find matches)
Title: The history of England, from the accession of James the Second
Year: 1914 (1910s)
Authors: Macaulay, Thomas Babington Macaulay, Baron, 1800-1859 Firth, C. H. (Charles Harding), 1857-1936
Subjects: Great Britain -- History James II, 1685-1688 Great Britain -- History William and Mary, 1689-1702
Publisher: London : Macmillan
Contributing Library: Robarts - University of Toronto
Digitizing Sponsor: MSN

View Book Page: Book Viewer
About This Book: Catalog Entry
View All Images: All Images From Book
Click here to view book online to see this illustration in context in a browseable online version of this book.

Text Appearing Before Image:
eal had hurried them into folly and crime, andcould scarcely believe that they had been induced by nursery tales toclamour for the blood of fellow subjects and fellow Christians. Themost loyal, indeed, could not deny that the administration of Charleshad often been highly blamable. But men who had not the fullinformation which we possess touching his dealings with France, andwho were disgusted by the violence of the Whigs, enumerated the largeconcessions which, during the last few years, he had made to his Parlia-ments, and the still larger concessions which he had declared himselfwilling to make. He had consented to the laws which excluded RomanCatholics from the House of Lords, from the Privy Council, and fromall civil and military offices. He had passed the Habeas Corpus Act.If securities yet stronger had not been provided against the dangers towhich the constitution and the Church might be exposed under a RomanCatholic sovereign, the fault lay. not with Charles who had invited the
Text Appearing After Image:
o CO o asw ca H w D o as c O .2 fa S H « IS c O -a U -s CO O p-i rt > 2 fc 2 O & HU X K W a 250 HISTORY OF ENGLAND chap, n Parliament to propose such securities, but with those Whigs who hadrefused to hear of any substitute for the Exclusion Bill. One thing onlyhad the King denied to his people. He had refused to take away hisbrothers birthright. And was there not good reason to believe that thisrefusal was prompted by laudable feelings ? What selfish motive couldfaction itself impute to the royal mind ? The Exclusion Bill did notcurtail the reigning Kings prerogatives, or diminish his income. Indeed,by passing it, he might easily have obtained an ample addition to hisown revenue. And what was it to him who ruled after him ? Nay, ifhe had personal predilections, they were known to be rather in favour ofthe Duke of Monmouth than of the Duke of York. The most naturalexplanation of the Kings conduct seemed to be that, careless as was histemper and loose as were his morals, he had

Note About Images