te-book. It is singular that this savage proscription should have
been the work of the party at whose head stood the champion of
toleration. The account which Mr Burke has given of it, and for the
accuracy of which he appeals to Bishop Burnet, does not entirely
coincide with the view taken by Dr Arnold. Mr Burke says--

"A party in this nation, enemies to the system of the
Revolution, were in opposition to the government of King
William. They knew that our glorious deliverer was an enemy to
all persecution. They knew that he came to free us from slavery
and Popery, out of a country where a third of the people are
contented Catholics, under a Protestant government. He came,
with a part of his army composed of those very Catholics, to
overset the power of a Popish prince. Such is the effect of a
tolerating spirit, and so much is liberty served in every way,
and by all persons, by a manly adherence to its own principles.
Whilst freedom is true to itself, every thing becomes subject
to it, and its very adversaries are an instrument in its hands.

"The party I speak of (like some amongst us who would disparage
the best friends of their country) resolved to make the King
either violate his principles of toleration, or incur the odium
of protecting Papists. They, therefore, brought in this bill,
and made it purposely wicked and absurd, that it might be
rejected. The then court-party discovering their game, turned
the tables on them, and returned their bill to them stuffed
with still greater absurdities, that its loss might lie upon
its original authors. They, finding their own ball thrown back
to them, kicked it back again to their adversaries. And thus
this act, loaded with the double injustice of two parties,
neither of whom intended to pass what they hoped the other
would be persuaded to reject, went through the legislature,
contrary to the real wish of all parts of it, and of all the
parties that composed it. In this manner these insolent and
profligate factions, as if they were playing with balls and
counters, made a sport of the fortunes and the liberties of
their fellow-creatures. Other acts of persecution have been
acts of malice. This was a subversion of justice from
wantonness."

Whether Dr Arnold's theory be applicable or not to this particular case,
it f