This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
30
History of the Nonjurors.

sarily ascend the throne. In the Lords, the debate turned on the question between a vacancy and a Regency: and the former was carried by a majority of only three votes.[1] Sancroft, and several of the Bishops, were not present on this occasion. Their presence, therefore, would have turned the scale in favour of a Regency. The Archbishop of York and eight other Prelates voted for a Regency; while two only, the Bishops of London and Bristol, voted with the majority. Had the Lords been left to their own unbiassed decision, without any influence from the Commons, they would not have voted for the vacancy of the throne. William himself saw this, and became alarmed. Contrary to his natural reserve, he called some of the Peers around him, and assured them that he would not be the Regent. He also asserted, that he would not accept the crown in the right of his wife, and that he should return to Holland unless he had the power as well as the title. Undoubtedly this declaration alarmed many of the Lords, and led to their concurrence with the Commons.[2]

The Prince knew that the country would be at the mercy of King James, if he withdrew his army: consequently "he threatened to return to Holland, and leave them to the mercy of their exasperated Prince, which soon silenced all his opposers in the debates concerning the abdication."[3] It must be admitted, that William's desire for his own aggrandizement was stronger than his love for the Church of England, since he was ready to leave the Church to the mercy of King James, if he could not secure the crown for


  1. Evelyn, iii. 268. Fifty-four voted for the vacancy: Fifty-one for a Regency.
  2. Macpherson, i. 507.
  3. Salmon, i. 252.