nd emoluments were heaped on Roman Catholics, might not unnaturally
excite the jealousy of the nation. He owned that, if the Test Act were
repealed, the Protestants were entitled to an equivalent, and went
so far as to suggest several equivalents. During some weeks the word
equivalent, then lately imported from France, was in the mouths of all
the coffee-house orators, but at length a few pages of keen logic and
polished sarcasm written by Halifax put an end to these idle projects.
One of Penn's schemes was that a law should be passed dividing the
patronage of the crown into three equal parts; and that to one only of
those parts members of the Church of Rome should be admitted. Even
under such an arrangement the members of the Church of Rome would have
obtained near twenty times their fair portion of official appointments;
and yet there is no reason to believe that even to such an arrangement
the King would have consented. But, had he consented, what guarantee
could he give that he would adhere to his bargain? The dilemma
propounded by Halifax was unanswerable. If laws are binding on you,
observe the law which now exists. If laws are not binding on you, it is
idle to offer us a law as a security. [262]

It is clear, therefore, that the point at issue was not whether secular
offices should be thrown open to all sects indifferently. While James
was King it was inevitable that there should be exclusion; and the only
question was who should be excluded, Papists or Protestants, the few or
the many, a hundred thousand Englishmen or five millions.

Such are the weighty arguments by which the conduct of the Prince of
Orange towards the English Roman Catholics may be reconciled with the
principles of religious liberty. These arguments, it will be observed,
have no reference to any part of the Roman Catholic theology. It will
also be observed that they ceased to have any force when the crown had
been settled on a race of Protestant sovereigns, and when the power of
the House of Commons in the state had become so decidedly preponderant
that no sovereign, whatever might have been his opinions or his
inclinations, could have imitated the example of James. The nation,
however, after its terrors, its struggles, its narrow escape, was in
a suspicious and vindictive mood. Means of defence therefore which
necessity had once justified, and which necessity alone could justify,
were obstinately used long after the necessity had ceased to ex