■WILLIAM AND MAHT.

163

Enlightened politicians could not but perceive that special ciup.taxation, laid on a small class which happens to be rich, un— a_:—popular and defenceless, is really confiscation, and mustultimately impoverish rather than enrich the State. After somediscussion, the Jew tax was abandoned.*

The Bill of Bights, which, in the last Session, had, after The Bincausing much altercation between the Houses, been suffered to passed,drop, was again introduced, and was speedily passed. Thepeers no longer insisted that any person should be designatedby name as successor to the crown, if Mary, Anne and "Williamshould all die without posterity. During eleven years no-thing more was heard of the claims of the House of Bruns-wick.

The Bill of Bights contained some provisions which deservespecial mention. The Convention had resolved that it wascontrary to the interest of the kingdom to be governed by aPapist, but had prescribed no test which could ascertainwhether a prince was or was not a Papist. The defect was nowsupplied. It was enacted that every English sovereign should,in full Parliament, and at the coronation, repeat and subscribethe Declaration against Transubstantiation.

It was also enacted that no person who should marry aPapist should be capable of reigning in England, and that, ifthe Sovereign should marry a Papist, the subject should beabsolved from allegiance. Burnet boasts that this part of theBill of Bights was his work. He had little reason to boast: fora more wretched specimen of legislative workmanship will noteasily be found. In the first place, no test is prescribed.

* Commons’ Journals, Nov. 7. 39., Dec. 30. 3GS9. The rule of theHouse then was that no petition could bo received against the imposition ofa tax. This rule was, after a very hard fight, rescinded in 3842. Thepetition of the Jews was not received, and is not mentioned in the Journals.

But something may be learned about it from Narcissus Luttrcll’s Diary andfrom Grey’s Debates, Nov. 19. 1689.

li*