foul perjuries. It was the duty of the legislature, in
such circumstances, to do justice to the memory of a guiltless
sufferer, and to efface an unmerited stain from a name long
illustrious in our annals. A bill for reversing the attainder of
Stafford was passed by the Upper House, in spite of the murmurs
of a few peers who were unwilling to admit that they had shed
innocent blood. The Commons read the bill twice without a
division, and ordered it to be committed. But, on the day
appointed for the committee, arrived news that a formidable
rebellion had broken out in the West of England. It was
consequently necessary to postpone much important business. The
amends due to the memory of Stafford were deferred, as was
supposed, only for a short time. But the misgovernment of James
in a few months completely turned the tide of public feeling.
During several generations the Roman Catholics were in no
condition to demand reparation for injustice, and accounted
themselves happy if they were permitted to live unmolested in
obscurity and silence. At length, in the reign of King George the
Fourth, more than a hundred and forty years after the day on
which the blood of Stafford was shed on Tower Hill, the tardy
expiation was accomplished. A law annulling the attainder and
restoring the injured family to its ancient dignities was
presented to Parliament by the ministers of the crown, was
eagerly welcomed by public men of all parties, and was passed
without one dissentient voice.318
It is now necessary that I should trace the origin and progress
of that rebellion by which the deliberations of the Houses were
suddenly interrupted.
CHAPTER V.
TOWARDS the close of
the reign of Charles the Second, some Whigs
who had been deeply implicated in the plot so fatal to their
party, and who knew themselves to be marked out for destruction,
had sought an asylum in the Low Countries.
These refugees were in general men of fiery temper and weak