the unsaciable auarice of suche as soughte more theyr owne lucre than the glorye of God; that the abuses coulde not well bee taken awaye, the thyng remaynyng styll. But nowe as concernyng those persones, whiche peraduenture will bee offended for that some of the olde Ceremonies are retayned still: Yf they consyder, that wythoute some Ceremonies it is not possible to kepe anye ordre or quyete dyscyplyne in the churche: they shall easilye perceyue iuste cause to refourme theyr iudgementes. And yf they thynke muche that anye of the olde dooe remayne, and woulde rather haue all deuised anewe: then such menne (grauntyng some Ceremonyes conueniente to bee hadde), surelye where the olde maye bee well used: there they cannot reasonablye reproue the olde (onelye for theyr age) withoute bewraiyng of theyr owne folye.

(1) What can you gather from this extract of the religious
views of the author?

(2) Name certain ceremonies that were abused, say in
what manner, and how they were abolished.
(3) Why was it not possible to keep order or quiet in the
church without some ceremonies?

(4) Who would be the offended persons mentioned?

106. Yesterday I received an express from my Ambassador in France with the enclosed memorial. I doubt not but this unheard-of proceeding of France will surprise you as much as it did me.

I never relied much on engagements with France, but must confess I did not think they would, on this

occasion, have broken, in the face of the whole world, a solemn treaty before it was well accomplished. The motives alleged in the annexed memorial are so shameful that I cannot conceive how they can have the effrontery to produce such a paper. We must confess we are dupes; but if one's word and faith are not to be kept, it is easy to cheat any man. The worst is it brings us into the greatest embarrassment, particularly when I consider the state of affairs here, for the blindness of the people here is incredible.

For though this affair is not public, yet it was no sooner said that the King of Spain's will was in favour of the Duke of Anjou than it was the general opinion that it was better for England that France should accept the will than fulfil the Treaty of Partition.

I am perfectly persuaded that if this will be executed England and the Republic are in the utmost danger of being totally lost or ruined. I will hope that the Republic understands it thus, and will exert her whole force to oppose so great an evil.

It is the utmost mortification to me in this important affair that I cannot act with the vigour which is requisite and set a good example; but the Republic must do it, and I will engage people here by a prudent conduct by degrees and without perceiving it.

I confess I think vigour is necessary on this occasion, and hope it is to be found in the Republic, in case the Emperor shall maintain his right.

If I followed my own inclination and opinion, I should have sent to all Courts to incite them to vigour; but it is not becoming, as I cannot set a good example, and I fear doing more harm than good, not being able to

play any other game with these people than engaging them imperceptibly.

(1) Give the date and author of this letter as accurately as possible.

(2) What engagements had the French broken?

(3) In what did the "blindness of the people here" consist and why was it incredible?

(4) Why did the writer think vigour necessary?

(5) What was the result of the carrying out of the policy as laid down in this letter?

107. The principal law that was made [by] this parliament was a law of a strange nature; rather just than legal; and more magnanimous than provident. This law did ordain: that no person that did assist in arms, or otherwise, the King for the time being, should after be impeached therefor, or attainted, either by the course of the law, or by act of parliament. But if any such act of attainder did happen to be made, it should be void and of none effect; for that it was agreeable to reason of estate, that the subject should not inquire of the justness of the King's title, or quarrel; and that it was agreeable to good conscience, that, whatsoever the fortunes of the war were, the subject should not suffer for his obedience. The spirit of this law was wonderful pious and noble....Neither wanted this law parts of prudent and deep foresight: for it did the better take away occasion for the people to busy themselves to pry

into the King's title; for that howsoever it fell, their safety was already provided for. [1495]

(1) What might be said of the justness of the King's title? (2) Suggest motives leading to the passing of this statute. (3) Had the policy suggested here always been carried

out?

108. This bill gave the King [i.e. William III] great content. He in his own opinion always thought that conscience was God's province, and that it ought not to be imposed on; and his experience in Holland made him look on toleration as one of the wisest measures of Government. He was much troubled to see so much ill-humour spreading among the clergy, and by their means over a great part of the nation. He was so true to his principle herein that he restrained the heat of some who were proposing severe acts against Papists. He made them apprehend the advantage which that would give the French to alienate all the Papists of Europe from us, who from thence might hope to set on foot a new Catholic League, and make the war a quarrel of religion, which might have very bad effects. Nor could he pretend to protect the Protestants in many places of Germany and in Hungary, unless he could cover the Papists in England from all severities on account of their religion.

(1) What bill is here referred to? Give your reasons. (2) Why was ill-humour spreading among the clergy? (3) By what means did the clergy cause their ill-humour to spread over the greater part of the nation?

(4) What severities did the Papists suffer from?

109. This is the prayer of the Petition! this is the present cure for all this popular frenzy! and will do more to establish our peace, than the whole twenty years' war has done! this will prepare us, either to carry the war on abroad, or to receive peace when God shall think fit to trust us with that blessing again!

That you would be pleased to condemn the Principle! It is nothing what ye do with the man.

The Principle is the plague sore that runs upon the nation; and its contagion infects our gentry, infects our clergy, infects our politics; and affects the loyalty, the zeal, and the peace of the whole island.

Passive Obedience, Non-Resistance, and the Divine Right of Hereditary Succession are inconsistent with the rights of the British Nation (not to examine the Rights of Nature)! inconsistent with the Constitution of the British Government! inconsistent with the Being and Authority of the British Parliament! and inconsistent with the declared essential Foundation of the British Monarchy !

(1) What is the principle here referred to?

(2) What was the cause of this vehement denunciation of that principle?

(3) What conclusions can you draw as to the author? (4) How did the principle affect the loyalty, zeal and peace of the whole island?

110. A. I perceive that the project of maintaining troops in the country during peace will meet with more difficulties than I expected.

B. You cannot form an idea of the indifference with which foreign affairs are now considered. People here