■WILLIAM AND ITALY.

181

of William and Mary had passed to the more daring, more un- chap.scrupulous and more practical Caermarthen, against whose in——fluence Shrewsbury contended in vain. Personally Shrewsburystood high in the royal favour: but he was a leader of theWhigs, and, like all leaders of parties, was frequently pushedforward against his will by those who seemed to follow him. Hewas himself inclined to a mild and moderate policy: but he hadnot sufficient firmness to withstand the clamorous importunitywith which such politicians as John Howe and John Hampdendemanded vengeance on their enemies. His advice had there-fore, at this time, little weight with his master, who neitherloved the Tories nor trusted them, but who was fully determinednot to proscribe them.

Meanwhile the Whigs, conscious that they had lately sunkin the opinion both of the King and of the nation, resolved onmaking a bold and crafty attempt to become independent ofboth. A perfect account of that attempt cannot be constructedout of the scanty and widely dispersed materials which havecome down to us. Yet the story, as it has come down to us, isboth interesting and instructive.

A bill for restoring the rights of those corporations which The Cor-had surrendered their charters to the Crown during the last two muf 1 ™reigns had been brought into the House of Commons, had beenreceived with general applause by men of all parties, had beenread twice, and had been referred to a select committee, ofwhich Somers was chairman. On the second of January Somersbrought up the report. The attendance of Tories was scanty:for, as no important discussion was expected, many countrygentlemen had left town, and were keeping a merry Christmasby the chimney fires of their manor houses. The muster ofzealous Whigs was strong. As soon as the bill had been re-ported, Sacheverell, renowned in the stormy parliaments ofthe reign of Charles the Second as one of the ablest and keenest