Page:The Works of the Rev. Jonathan Swift, Volume 3.djvu/245

of many successions of parties, with very different ideas fastened to them. This distinction, I think, began toward the latter part of king Charles the second's reign, was dropped during that of his successor, and then revived at the Revolution; since which it has perpetually flourished, although applied to very different kinds of principles and persons. In that convention of lords and commons, some of both houses were for a regency to the prince of Orange, with a reservation of style and title to the absent king, which should be made use of in all publick acts: others, when they were brought to allow the throne vacant, thought the succession should immediately go to the next heir, according to the fundamental laws of the kingdom, as if the last king were actually dead. And although the dissenting lords (in whose house the chief opposition was) did at last yield both those points, took the oaths to the new king, and many of them, employments; yet they were looked upon with an evil eye, by the warm zealots of the other side; neither did the court ever heartily favour any of them, although some of them were of the most eminent for abilities and virtue, and served that prince, both in his councils and his army, with untainted faith. It was apprehended at the same time, and perhaps it might have been true, that many of the clergy would have been better pleased with the scheme of a regency, or at least an uninterrupted lineal succession, for the sake of those whose consciences were truly scrupulous; and they thought there were some circumstances in the case of the deprived bishops, that looked a little hard, or at least deserved commiseration.

These,