magistrate of the first city in the world, whose name on the back of a bill commanded entire confidence at Smyrna and at Genoa, at Hamburg and at Amsterdam, who had at sea ships every one of which was worth a manor, and who had repeatedly, when the liberty and religion of the kingdom were in peril, advanced to the government, at an hour’s notice, five or ten thousand pounds, should be supposed to have a less stake in the prosperity of the commonwealth than a squire who sold his own bullocks and hops over a pot of ale at the nearest market town.  On the report, it was moved that the Universities should be excepted; but the motion was lost by a hundred and fifty-one votes to a hundred and forty-three.  On the third reading it was moved that the City of London should be excepted; but it was not thought advisable to divide.  The final question that the bill do pass, was carried by a hundred and seventy-three votes to a hundred and fifty on the day which preceded the discovery of the Assassination Plot.  The Lords agreed to the bill without any amendment.

William had to consider whether he would give or withhold his assent.  The commercial towns of the kingdom, and among them the City of London, which had always stood firmly by him, and which had extricated him many times from great embarrassments, implored his protection.  It was represented to him that the Commons were far indeed from being unanimous on this subject; that, in the last stage, the majority had been only twenty-three in a full House; that the motion to except the Universities had been lost by a majority of only eight.  On full consideration he resolved not to pass the bill.  Nobody, he said, could accuse him of acting selfishly on this occasion; his prerogative was not concerned in the matter; and he could have no objection to the proposed law except that it would be mischievous to his people.

On the tenth of April 1696, therefore, the Clerk of the Parliament was commanded to inform the Houses that the King would consider of the Bill for the further Regulation of Elections.  Some violent Tories in the House of Commons flattered themselves that they might be able to carry a resolution reflecting on the King.  They moved that whoever had advised His Majesty to refuse his assent to their bill was an enemy to him and to the nation.  Never was a greater blunder committed.  The temper of the House was very different from what it had been on the day when the address against Portland’s grant had been voted by acclamation.  The detection of a murderous conspiracy, the apprehension of a French invasion, had changed every thing.  The King was popular.  Every day ten or twelve bales of parchment covered with the signatures of associators were laid at his feet.  Nothing could be more imprudent than to propose, at such a time, a thinly disguised vote of censure on him.  The moderate Tories accordingly separated themselves from their angry and unreasonable brethren.  The motion was rejected by two hundred and nineteen votes to seventy; and the House ordered the question and the numbers on both sides to be published, in order that the world might know how completely the attempt to produce a quarrel between the King and the Parliament had failed.690