rsons
who were believed to have been deeply implicated in his unlawful acts,
or to be engaged in plots for his restoration, had been arrested and
confined. During the vacancy of the throne, these men could derive no
benefit from the Habeas Corpus Act. For the machinery by which alone
that Act could be carried into execution had ceased to exist; and,
through the whole of Hilary term, all the courts in Westminster Hall had
remained closed. Now that the ordinary tribunals were about to resume
their functions, it was apprehended that all those prisoners whom it was
not convenient to bring instantly to trial would demand and obtain their
liberty. A bill was therefore brought in which empowered the King to
detain in custody during a few weeks such persons as he should suspect
of evil designs against his government. This bill passed the two Houses
with little or no opposition. [49] But the malecontents out of doors did
not fail to remark that, in the late reign, the Habeas Corpus Act had
not been one day suspended. It was the fashion to call James a tyrant,
and William a deliverer. Yet, before the deliverer had been a month on
the throne, he had deprived Englishmen of a precious right which the
tyrant had respected. [50] This is a kind of reproach which a government
sprung from a popular revolution almost inevitably incurs. From such
a government men naturally think themselves entitled to demand a more
gentle and liberal administration than is expected from old and deeply
rooted power. Yet such a government, having, as it always has, many
active enemies, and not having the strength derived from legitimacy and
prescription, can at first maintain itself only by a vigilance and
a severity of which old and deeply rooted power stands in no need.
Extraordinary and irregular vindications of public liberty are sometimes
necessary: yet, however necessary, they are almost always followed
by some temporary abridgments of that very liberty; and every such
abridgment is a fertile and plausible theme for sarcasm and invective.

Unhappily sarcasm and invective directed against William were but too
likely to find favourable audience. Each of the two great parties had
its own reasons for being dissatisfied with him; and there were some
complaints in which both parties joined. His manners gave almost
universal offence. He was in truth far better qualified to save a nation
than to adorn a court. In the highest parts of statesmanship, he had
no e