Talk:Exclusion Bill

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Sentence Restructuring Suggestion

The following sentence could use reworking. I don't know the history well enough to do so however:

"The occasion that brought these sentiments to a head was the impeachment of Thomas Osborne, Earl of Danby as a scapegoat for the scandal by which Louis XIV bought the neutrality of Charles' government with an outright bribe."

What I found confusing is that the impeachment is described as a means to 'buy the neutrality' of the current King's government

• Is the impeachment the cost of the government's neutrality or some (unspecified) bribe?
• Neutrality towards what issue? I'd presume the Exclusion Bill but even if this is the case, does neutrality mean ignoring the bill or allowing it to remain in effect? Why would Catholic France be bribing Charles's government when they would be allies on this issue, unless 'Charles' government' actually refers to Parliment? Louis XIV wasn't mentioned earlier in the definition so the reader has no background for his motivations here.

[edit] Change of Name

Wouldn't this article be better off under the name "Exclusion Crisis"? It's more commonly referred to, and has more breadth. Gabrielthursday 16:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the controversy is more better known as "Exclusion Crisis".--Johnbull 17:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

...and since Exclusion Bill will be redirected, what could be the harm? --Wetman 05:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)