ous sense of the meeting appeared to be that those who
had taken the oath of allegiance to James might justifiably withdraw
their obedience from him, but could not with a safe conscience call any
other by the name of King. [636]

Thus two sections of the Tory party, a section which looked forward to
an accommodation with James, and a section which was opposed to any such
accommodation, agreed in supporting the plan of Regency. But a
third section, which, though not very numerous, had great weight and
influence, recommended a very different plan. The leaders of this small
band were Danby and the Bishop of London in the House of Lords, and
Sir Robert Sawyer in the House of Commons. They conceived that they had
found out a way of effecting a complete revolution under strictly legal
forms. It was contrary to all principle, they said, that the King should
be deposed by his subjects; nor was it necessary to depose him. He had
himself, by his flight, abdicated his power and dignity. A demise had
actually taken place. All constitutional lawyers held that the throne
of England could not be one moment vacant. The next heir had therefore
succeeded. Who, then, was the next heir? As to the infant who had been
carried into France, his entrance into the world had been attended by
many suspicious circumstances. It was due to the other members of the
royal family and to the nation that all doubts should be cleared up. An
investigation had been solemnly demanded, in the name of the Princess
of Orange, by her husband, and would have been instituted if the parties
who were accused of fraud had not taken a course which, in any ordinary
case, would have been considered as a decisive proof of guilt. They had
not chosen to await the issue of a solemn parliamentary proceeding: they
had stolen away into a foreign country: they had carried with them the
child: they had carried with them all those French and Italian women of
the bedchamber who, if there had been foul play, must have been privy to
it, and who ought therefore to have been subjected to a rigorous cross
examination. To admit the boy's claim without inquiry was impossible;
and those who called themselves his parents had made inquiry impossible.
Judgment must therefore go against him by default. If he was wronged,
he was wronged, not by the nation, but by those whose strange conduct
at the time of his birth had justified the nation in demanding
investigation, and who had then avoided inv