y alarmed at the
temper in which it was conceived. But these, overpowered by numbers, and
perhaps afraid of the imputation of being concerned in plots and
insurrections (an imputation which, if they had shown any spirit of
liberty, would most infallibly have been thrown on them), declined
expressing their sentiments; and in the short session which followed
there was an almost uninterrupted unanimity in granting every demand, and
acquiescing in every wish of the government. The revenue was granted
without any notice being taken of the illegal manner in which the king
had levied it upon his own authority. Argyle was stigmatised as a
traitor; nor was any desire expressed to examine his declarations, one of
which seemed to be purposely withheld from parliament. Upon the
communication of the Duke of Monmouth's landing in the west that nobleman
was immediately attainted by bill. The king's assurance was recognised
as a sufficient security for the national religion; and the liberty of
the press was destroyed by the revival of the statute of the 13th and
14th of Charles II. This last circumstance, important as it is, does not
seem to have excited much attention at the time, which, considering the
general principles then in fashion, is not surprising. That it should
have been scarcely noticed by any historian is more wonderful. It is
true, however, that the terror inspired by the late prosecutions for
libels, and the violent conduct of the courts upon such occasions,
rendered a formal destruction of the liberty of the press a matter of
less importance. So little does the magistracy, when it is inclined to
act tyrannically, stand in need of tyrannical laws to effect its purpose.
The bare silence and acquiescence of the legislature is in such a case
fully sufficient to annihilate, practically speaking, every right and
liberty of the subject.

As the grant of revenue was unanimous, so there does not appear to have
been anything which can justly be styled a debate upon it, though Hume
employs several pages in giving the arguments which, he affirms, were
actually made use of, and, as he gives us to understand, in the House of
Commons, for and against the question; arguments which, on both sides,
seem to imply a considerable love of freedom and jealousy of royal power,
and are not wholly unmixed even with some sentiments disrespectful to the
king. Now I cannot find, either from tradition, or from contemporary
writers, any gr