after member stood up
to represent the importance of despatch. Every moment, it was said,
was precious, the public anxiety was intense, trade was suspended. The
minority sullenly submitted, and suffered the predominant party to take
its own course.

What that course would be was not perfectly clear. For the majority was
made up of two classes. One class consisted of eager and vehement Whigs,
who, if they had been able to take their own course, would have given to
the proceedings of the Convention a decidedly revolutionary character.
The other class admitted that a revolution was necessary, but regarded
it as a necessary evil, and wished to disguise it, as much as possible,
under the show of legitimacy. The former class demanded a distinct
recognition of the right of subjects to dethrone bad princes. The latter
class desired to rid the country of one bad prince, without promulgating
any doctrine which might be abused for the purpose of weakening the
just and salutary authority of future monarchs. The former class dwelt
chiefly on the King's misgovernment; the latter on his flight. The
former class considered him as having forfeited his crown; the latter as
having resigned it. It was not easy to draw up any form of words which
would please all whose assent it was important to obtain; but at length,
out of many suggestions offered from different quarters, a resolution
was framed which gave general satisfaction. It was moved that King
James the Second, having endeavoured to subvert the constitution of the
kingdom by breaking the original contract between King and people, and,
by the advice of Jesuits and other wicked persons, having violated the
fundamental laws, and having withdrawn himself out of the kingdom, had
abdicated the government, and that the throne had thereby become vacant.

This resolution has been many times subjected to criticism as minute and
severe as was ever applied to any sentence written by man, and perhaps
there never was a sentence written by man which would bear such
criticism less. That a King by grossly abusing his power may forfeit it
is true. That a King, who absconds without making any provision for
the administration, and leaves his people in a state of anarchy, may,
without any violent straining of language, be said to have abdicated his
functions is also true. But no accurate writer would affirm that long
continued misgovernment and desertion, added together, make up an act of
abdication. I