The reasons which they employed were diametrically
opposite. Shaftesbury's opinion was, that the restraints were
insufficient; and that nothing but the total exclusion of the duke
could give a proper security to the kingdom. Temple, on the other hand,
thought, that the restraints were so rigorous as even to subvert the
constitution; and that shackles put upon a Popish successor would not
afterwards be easily cast off by a Protestant. It is certain, that the
duke was extremely alarmed when he heard of this step taken by the king,
and that he was better pleased even with the bill of exclusion itself,
which, he thought, by reason of its violence and injustice, could never
possibly be carried into execution. There is also reason to believe,
that the king would not have gone so far, had he not expected, from the
extreme fury of the commons, that his concessions would be rejected, and
that the blame of not forming a reasonable accommodation would by that
means lie entirely at their door.
It soon appeared that Charles had entertained a just opinion of the
dispositions of the house. So much were the commons actuated by the
cabals of Shaftesbury and other malecontents, such violent antipathy
prevailed against Popery that the king's concessions, though much more
important than could reasonably have been expected, were not embraced.
Pages:
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380