eying
Nero; nor, indeed, were they disposed to recall the prince under whose
misgovernment they had suffered so much, without exacting from him terms
which might make it impossible for him again to abuse his power.
They were, therefore, in a false position. Their old theory, sound or
unsound, was at least complete and coherent. If that theory were sound,
the King ought to be immediately invited back, and permitted, if such
were his pleasure, to put Seymour and Danby, the Bishop of London and
the Bishop of Bristol, to death for high treason, to reestablish the
Ecclesiastical Commission, to fill the Church with Popish dignitaries,
and to place the army under the command of Popish officers. But if, as
the Tories themselves now seemed to confess, that theory was unsound,
why treat with the King? If it was admitted that he might lawfully be
excluded till he gave satisfactory guarantees for the security of the
constitution in Church and State, it was not easy to deny that he might
lawfully be excluded for ever. For what satisfactory guarantee could he
give? How was it possible to draw up an Act of Parliament in language
clearer than the language of the Acts of Parliament which required that
the Dean of Christ Church should be a Protestant? How was it possible
to put any promise into words stronger than those in which James had
repeatedly declared that he would strictly respect the legal rights of
the Anglican clergy? If law or honour could have bound him, he would
never have been forced to fly from his kingdom. If neither law nor
honour could bind him, could he safely be permitted to return?

It is probable, however, that, in spite of these arguments, a motion for
opening a negotiation with James would have been made in the Convention,
and would have been supported by the great body of Tories, had he not
been, on this, as on every other occasion, his own worst enemy. Every
post which arrived from Saint Germains brought intelligence which damped
the ardour of his adherents. He did not think it worth his while to
feign regret for his past errors, or to promise amendment. He put forth
a manifesto, telling his people that it had been his constant care to
govern them with justice and moderation, and that they had been cheated
into ruin by imaginary grievances. [634] The effect of his folly and
obstinacy was that those who were most desirous to see him restored to
his throne on fair conditions felt that, by proposing at that moment