An historical essay on the real character and amount of the precedent of the revolution of 1688 : in which the opinions of Mackintosh, Price, Hallam, Mr. Fox, Lord John Russell, Blackstone, Burke, and Locke, the trial of Lord Russell, and the merits of Sidney, are critically considered

loo

:LD
ICO
= 00

i CD

AN

HISTORICAL ESSAY,

&c.
VOL. L

LONDON :

Printed by A. SPOTTISWOODE,
New-Street-Squarc.

AN

HISTORICAL ESSAY

ON

THE REAL CHARACTER AND AMOUNT OF THE
PRECEDENT

OF

THE REVOLUTION OF 1688 :

IN WHICH THE OPINIONS OF
MACKINTOSH, PRICE, HALLAM, MR. FOX, LORD JOHN RUSSELL,

BLACKSTONE, BURKE, AND LOCKE,
THE TRIAL OF LORD RUSSELL, AND THE MERITS

OF SIDNEY,
ARE CRITICALLY CONSIDERED.

ADDRESSED TO

THE RIGHT HONOURABLE CHARLES WILLIAMS WYNN,

M.P. FOR MONTGOMERYSHIRE.

BY R. PLUMER WARD, ESQ.

AUTHOR OP '« TREMAINE."

Opinionum commenta delet dies,
Nature judicia confirmat.

IN TWO VOLUMES.

VOL. I.

LONDON:
JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET.

MDCCCXXXVIII.

X

PREFATORY REMARKS.

I COULD have wished that the following work
had been cast in a different form, for perhaps
its most interesting parts, if any are interesting,
will be found in the Appendix, and an ap-
pendix, except with a view to mere reference,
is seldom read. Yet the work being in the
form of an almost continuous narration, or, at
least, of a letter to the enlightened friend to
whom it is addressed, I could not conve-
niently stop its current, to make an excursion
into a criticism of the tenets of Mr. Fox, or
Locke, or the guilt or innocence of Lord
Russell. Yet these, perhaps, are the most
important and interesting parts of the whole
volume, and I beseech the reader's attention
to them accordingly.

While this work is printing, the news of
the events in Canada is arrived. All we can

VI PREFATORY REMARKS.

say of it is, that if there wanted the most
complete example of the dangers, in practice,
of the precepts which we have been com-
bating, eminently of those respecting the re-
formatory revolt broached by Sir James
Mackintosh, it is here supplied to our hand.

THE AUTHOR.

Gilston Park, Dec. 30. 1837-

CONTENTS

OF

THE FIRST VOLUME.

Page
SECTION I.

The Right of Resistance - - 13

SECTION II.

Of the Sovereignty of the People, and the Social Compact. 126

SECTION III.

Revolution of 1688 - 146

SECTION IV.

Character of the Revolution - - 180

SECTION V.

March of the Revolution after the Retirement of James - 245

ERRATA.
VOL. I.

Page 1. line 5. for " who admires," read " whom I admire for.'1

63. to " This was the head and front of the offence," add
"as contained in the petition."

66. last line, for "judicial," read t( executive."

67. line 16. for "as,'' read "an."

84. line 13. for " Fivirden," read " Twisden."

88. line 8. of note, for " indicted," read " tried."

89. i;ne 11. for "treason," read "evidence."
128. line 9. aft°r "reason," add K against it."
163. line 22. for " Whig," read " Whigs."
215. line 8. for " this," read " his."

285. line 9. for " his precious father-in-law,'' read <( his son's
precious father-in-law."

VOL. II.

Page 87. line 23. for " daring attempting," read " daring to attempt."
74. line 2. for "republicanism," read "democracy."

AN

HISTORICAL ESSAY,

&c. &c.

MY DEAR SIR,

As an old friend, a friend in public and in private,
with whom on questions the most stirring, and vital
to the security of society, when most old friends are
divided, I believe I have the good fortune mainly to
agree; and more particularly as a friend whom I
admire for your correct and deep knowledge of the
Constitution, and the firmness you have always
shown in defending it, perhaps I may be excused for
addressing you on some of the points of dispute,
which, after a century and a half's seeming settle-
ment, appear in our ill-fated Country to be more
unsettled, or, at least, more agitated, than ever.

What I particularly advert to, are those, what I
may call Revolutionary principles, which among all
ranks, in all places, and at all times — among men,
women, and children, morning, noon, and night — are
debated with more or less acrimony, (but generally

VOL. I. * B

2 HISTORICAL ESSAY.

with a great deal,) producing divisions among friends
and families, setting sons against fathers, and making
fathers wish their sons had never been born ; which
seem at present to be undermining all the happy
securities of life, and

" fright the Isle from her propriety."

One would have thought that all the dangerous
and visionary theories in regard to the origin of
Governments ; the rights of kings, whether supposed
divine and indefeasible, or derived by election from
the people ; the right of resistance and insurrection
at the will of that people, and their power to try and
to punish sovereigns, as the French Assembly did by
Louis XVI., and as it was supposed that we did by
Charles I. ; — one would have thought, I say, that
all these questions, and the nature of the much-
abused term, the Sovereignty of the People, had long
been set at rest, and buried in the graves of those
who agitated them with so much ability and zeal on
both sides.

I certainly never expected, after the miseries and
atrocities of the French Revolution had spent their
force, and men had recovered from the delirium
which had blinded them, and put the abuse of liberty
to shame, that the rash and daring principles of
Payne, Price, and others, of a right under the law,
or from history, to " choose our own governors, to
cashier them for misconduct, and to frame a govern-
ment for ourselves," — that these principles should be

INTRODUCTION. 3

revived, and preached, and acted upon, or at least
recommended, as the known and admitted axioms of
the Constitution.

Yet the question of our great and happy Revo-
lution seems "never ending, still beginning;" and
there are not wanting high, and respectable names,
adorned with scholarship and research, and invul-
nerable to any reproach of factious, or rebellious
designs, as well as others to which the contrary may
be evidently imputed, which advocate and dis-
seminate these dangerous doctrines.

Used and acted upon as they are, by the mis-
chievous and restless spirit which pervades most
ranks, and is, unhappily, rather encouraged than
resisted by those who ought to know better, they
tend most markedly, and therefore most unhappity,
to unsettle all hope or expectation of again seeing the
sunshine of quiet in these agitated realms.

Am I wrong in saying those who should know
better^ when a man of accomplished mind and su-
perior mould, — a man believed by all to be the soul
of honour, and distinguished by education and ability
as much as by birth, rank, and fortune, — when such
a man, a peer, and Prime Minister, proclaimed from
his place in parliament, that the bishops should put
their houses in order ; meaning (for that was the
clear inference,) that otherwise they should surely
die ; and when the same person held, that he was not
a wise man who did not legislate in the spirit of the
times, that spirit, at least in great numbers, being, as
B 2

4 HISTORICAL ESSAY.

we know, the destruction of the Church, and the
subversion of the Constitution.

It is in vain that this eminent person, or his friends
for him, say, that when he uttered these very faulty
maxims, he did not believe such to be the spirit he
alluded to.

The maxim was general, and had it been pursued,
he must have abided all consequences.

Whether, if he held an opinion of its innocency
when he broached it, he holds it now, is a question
which may be answered by his having felt forced by
principle, and real fears for a country he loves, to
abandon the helm, and with it probably the doctrine
itself.

We >ught, therefore, to respect him for honour's
sake.

But there are others, whose conduct, as w7ell as
political preaching, resembles the infatuation of some
men, who will not believe in the reality of an earth-
quake, until they are buried in its ruins.

These hold tenets which they call and believe to
be constitutional law, and which, especially in times
such as I have described, might and may lead to
consequences so disastrous, that you will possibly
excuse me if I invite you to a consideration of the
grounds of their opinions.

I am the more impelled to this from the cir-
cumstance that some of them are men, who from
their abilities and their genius, their learning and
their accomplishments, are fit to be regarded as

INTRODUCTION. 5

no inconsiderable authorities on the side they have
taken.

At the head of these I should place a person,
whom, I believe, both of us admired, when alive, as
an eloquent rhetorician, philosophic writer, and
amiable man, though we might not follow him
through half the conclusions he has ventured upon,
in the course of a long and busy life, valuable to
letters and to ethical, if not to political science.

You will perhaps at once perceive, that I allude
to the late Sir James Mackintosh.

His last work, " the History of the Revolution of
1688," has been perused by me with all that deference
and interest, which any work of his must always
command. Never was a fuller mind, or poured out
with more facility, warmth, or energy on any subject
he chose to embrace; but more particularly that
which had engaged and absorbed his earliest at-

O O

tention, and touched and elevated his youthful con-
ceptions to a degree which never subsided, (as we
see by the work before us,) though advanced to, what
may be called, old age.

I mean the principles of that strong, vehement, and
eloquent ebullition, which first made him known to
fame, and which all must admire, though few may
approve.

The Vindiciae Gallicas indeed will ever be read as

a first-rate production of genius, however it may be

blamed for rash and wild theories, and as a defence

of errors in practice, leading to horrors which no

B 3

6 HISTORICAL ESSAY.

subsequent advantages could ever compensate, much
less excuse.

These principles, or at least the defence of many
of their consequences, were afterwards, we are told,
abandoned by him, or ceased to be brought forward
as his ruling motives of action in his brilliant career.

On one eminent occasion, indeed, (the defence of
Peltier for a libel upon Buonaparte,) the crimes
of the principal instigators of the Revolution were
blazoned and held up to just detestation, with a
fervour as well as depth, which few could equal, none
exceed ; and, but for the publication in question, I,
for one, should have been happy to think that the
dangerous, and, as I think, untenable principles of
the Vir diciye Gallicse had been fairly and sincerely
recanted.

But, it seems, this is not so.

In the history of our Revolution, many of the
dogmas which governed and caused that of France,
are not only upheld, but impressed with undisguised
force, as truths in political science not to be disputed ;
and the all-engrossing, all-reaching, inalienable ir-
responsible power of the people, (that nondescript and
ill-defined class of beings,) who, without being con-
trolled themselves, are to control every one else,
(even the laws and constitution, and of course their
sovereign,) this power is not only given them, but
every use of it defended, and the impossibility of an
abuse of it demonstrated ; so that while the tyranny
of the most tyrannous despots is made to fall before

INTRODUCTION. 7

them, a tyranny exceeding all despotism is exercised
by them, as lawful, justifiable, and not to be resisted.
We are told that kings can do no wrong. But
here the maxim is reversed : kings may be dethroned,
and killed, (for war may be waged against them,)
while the people (because people) must be always
right, just, and innocent. These, from what I am
able to collect from his work, are the principles of the
British Constitution, professed and supported by our
accomplished, but surely mistaken friend. I do not
mean, that in so many words he has laid down the
positions I have detailed; but, from many direct
assertions, and many plain inferences from the pro
positions he holds, such are the opinions to be
collected.

For in various examples,

We collect how little in reality the visions of
the Vindiciae Gallicse, in regard to the absolute
despotism of whatever is meant by the mystic term
people,—

" Monstrum horrendum, informe, ingens, cui lumen ademptum,"

• — how little this has been sobered down by age, or
qualified by experience.

Of this we shall have abundant proofs, as well as
what beautiful theories may be erected, fair to the
eye, yet based upon such sandy foundations as cannot
for a moment stand the touch of the practical states -
man.

*B 4

8 HISTORICAL ESSAY.

As a proof,

Weigh the consequences of the following sentences
against the specious language in which they are con-
veyed : —

" It must be owned that in civilized times mankind
have suffered less from a mutinous spirit, than from a
patient endurance of bad government"

Is this proved by the Revolution of France, or the
civil war in England ?

Again. " A nation may justly make war for the
honour of her flag, or for dominion over a rock, if
the one be insulted, and the other unjustly invaded.
But if these sometimes faint and remote dangers justify
an appeal to arms, shall it be blamed in a people who
have no other chance of vindicating the right to
worship God according to their consciences, to be
exempt from imprisonment and exaction at the mere
will and pleasure of one, or a few ; to enjoy as per-
fect a security for their persons, for the free exercise of
their industry, and for the undisturbed enjoyment of
its fruits, as can be devised by human wisdom under
equal laws and a pure administration of justice?" *

Thus, because every person in a nation has not as
perfect security as can be devised by human wisdom for
the free exercise of his religion and industry, he may
immediately take arms; and parliamentary taxes,
which are imposed by a comparative few, and the

* Hist, Revpl. vol. ii. p. 54. Paris edit.

INTRODUCTION. 9

restrictions upon trade by apprenticeship, or the navi-
gation or revenue laws, justify revolt !

If these are Sir James's notices, what wonder if
his Continuator bringing his history to perfection,
and talking of a forcible resistance to oppression,
holds that the lawfulness of it constitutes the main
strength of every opposition to mis-government !*

Here the very thin veil, which had hitherto perhaps
disguised the full extent of the doctrine, seems to be
dropped, and the lawfulness of forcible resistance
(that is, a right under the Constitution,) is pro-
claimed in unequivocal terms.

Reason, prudence, moral necessity, natural self-
defence against unbearable illegal oppression, are
departed from as too undefined and ambiguous autho-
rity: and it is boldly assumed that mis-government sin>-
ply, (which by no means implies either oppression or
illegal usurpation,) will lawfully justify rebellion.

This principle is carried still farther by Sir James
himself, which we shall see more at large when we
come to examine his doctrine of what he calls A RE-
FORMATORY REVOLT ; meaning that although the
sovereign power, wherever it may reside, be adminis-
tered according to law, yet if it restrain liberty in the
opinion of those subjected to it, they may rise in
arms to obtain an extension of it.

Though far from going to such lengths, yet in the
doctrine of the right of resistance generally, he seems

* Hist. Revol. vol. ii. p.
*B 5

]0 HISTORICAL ESSAY,

supported by the lucubrations of another very emi-
nent but more sober asserter of this great privilege
of the people ; and the wildness about mis-govern-
ment, (at least if I read him right,) seems carried so
far, that even what may be thought unwise policy in
foreign affairs, though unaccompanied by oppression,
may be a reason for revolution.

Yet Mr, Hallam is so fair and moderate in his
opinions, so deep in his researches, and so generally
correct, that possibly I may have mistaken him.

I, however, understand one of his reasons for the
expulsion of James to be, the impossibility of his ever
being persuaded to join the league of Augsburg against
.Louis XIV.

Eng^nd's natural position, says he, would be to
become a leading member of that confederacy.

But James's prejudices opposed. " It was there-
fore the main object of the Prince of Orange to
strengthen the alliance, by the vigorous co-operation
of this kingdom ; and with no other view, the emperor
and even the pope had abetted his undertaking.

" Both with respect, therefore, to the Prince of
Orange and to the English nation, James was to be
considered as an enemy, whose resentment could
never be appeased, and ivhose power consequently must
be wholly taken away."

I do not mean to say that in these passages, had
there been no other cause for taking arms by his sub-
jects, Mr. Hallam asserts, that James might have been
legitimately attacked ; but, at least, it should seem that

INTRODUCTION. 11

his foreign policy entered far into the reasons for
driving the Revolution to the extremities that ensued.

The object of the insurrection might possibly have
been satisfied with less than dethronement; but the
continental politics of William, according to Mr.
Hallanij made it necessary to force on that cata-
strophe.

The emperor and the pope are said in terms to
have abetted the enterprise that was to produce the
Revolution, from no other view : and thus a difference
of opinion on foreign politics between a king and his
subjects, may be made one of the reasons, at least, that
justify insurrection.

Do not these loose speculations, both of Mr. Hallam
and Mackintosh (with proper and sincere deference
to them both, be it said), make us recal with more re-
spect than ever the sound sentiment of Burke : " no
government could stand a moment if it could be blown
down with anything so loose and indefinite as an
opinion of misconduct."

Before, however, we proceed to examine the several
specific conclusions, drawn from the specific facts
which occur in the History, it may be convenient to
canvass the subject as Sir James treats it in an ex-
press chapter on the " Doctrine of Obedience, and
Right of Resistance."

Such is its formidable title.*

I shall therefore, with your permission, divide what

* Mackintosh's History of the Revolution of 1688, chap. x.
B 6

12 HISTORICAL ESSAY.

I have to trouble you with, on what may be called the
law of the case, into three sections.

I. As to the general proposition of the Right of
Resistance at the pleasure of the people, and the cases
when that right may be exercised.

II. As to the famous question of the Sovereignty
of the People itself, and as to their supposed compact
with their rulers.

III. As to the exact amount and force of the his-
torical precedent afforded by the Revolution of 1688,
and the doctrines raised upon its various incidents.

To these I may beg to add two more on the cha-
racter of the Revolution, and 11 the means by which
it was brought about, with a view to ascertain
whether the glory ascribed to it as an example of the
principles of philosophical liberty brought into prac-
tice is really deserved.

In doing this I know full well the boldness of my
undertaking; — what difficulties, what opposition, what
prejudices I shall have to encounter; how little likely
I am to succeed ; how little popular the endeavour, if
I do. But as my opinion is not one of yesterday; as
it has been pondered for years, and has only been
confirmed by the observation of a life neither short
nor passed in ignorance of public affairs ; as, in fine,
my object is truth, and my sentiments sincere, I will
not shrink from the task.

13

SECTION I.

THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE.

WITH regard to this first question, we must agree
with Sir James, that it is what he has called it, " a
tremendous problem, which, though it requires the
calmest exercise of reason to solve, the circumstances
which bring it forward commonly call forth mightier
agents, which disturb and overpower the action of the
understanding."

It should seem, then, that in the outset, he an-
nounces at least very serious difficulty, if not despair,
of ever bringing it to a satisfactory conclusion even
in theory, much more in practice.

He allows that " in conjunctures so awful, men
feel more than they reason;" that the duty of legal
obedience seems to forbid that appeal to arms, which
the necessity of preserving law and liberty allows^ or
rather demands. In such a conflict, therefore, he says,
" there is little quiet left for moral deliberation"

Little, indeed ; so little, I should say, that it had
been better, perhaps, to have left the subject un-

14 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. I.

touched, as one upon which the .attempt were vain to
prescribe beforehand rules of moral conduct, in cases
which must necessarily be exceptions to all rules.

To your penetration and logical mind I need not
point out the difficulty, I might say impossibility,
of reconciling the law of obedience to the duty of
taking arms for the preservation of law.

This is a confusion of terms which I own it is beyond
me to unravel, though I am very willing to suppose
what is meant, that there is a confliction of duties —
on one side, the duty of obeying the laws of the land,
whatever they may be ; on the other, that of obeying
moral expediency, or the general precepts of reason
and justice, should the laws of the land be not
conformable to them.

Whicn of these is the superior, so as to extinguish
the other, he leaves no doubt in the following pas-
sages.

" That there are some duties superior to others will
be denied by no one ; and that when a contest arises,
the superior ought to prevail, is implied in the terms
by which the duties are described. It can hardly be
doubted that the highest obligation of a citizen is
that of contributing to preserve the community, and
that every other political duty, even that of obedience
to the magistrates, is derived from, and must be sub-
ordinate to it."

Of these simple truths there can be no doubt : but
observe the use he makes of them. "It is a necessary
consequence, (says he,) that no man who deems self-

SECT. I. THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE. 15

defence lawful in his own case, can by any engagement
bind himself not to defend his country against foreign
or domestic enemies."

The blending of foreign and domestic enemies is
here skilfully introduced, because it should seem that
it meant, generally, enemies, without particularising
their characters ; and the proposition would therefore
pass without controversy. But we soon see what his
true meaning (thus adroitly disguised) is, and that
by domestic enemies is designated a king. " For oaths,"
lie goes on to say, " to renounce the defence of our
country, were considered as binding till the violent
collisions of such pretended obligations with the secu-
rity of all rights and institutions, awakened the national
mind to a sense of their repugnance to the first prin-
ciples of morality."

Do we not here at once detect the sophister, adroit
as he is ? For myself I profess my profound igno-
rance; and I ask of your far greater stores of informa-
tion, to point out to me any oath recorded in our
history as binding men to renounce the defence of their
country ? The search for such an oath, I am con-
vinced would be vain. But the search for the mean-
ing and motives of the assertion will not cost us a mo-
ment. The fallacy is unworthy so great a dialectician
as Sir James. By renouncing the defence of our coun-
try, is as plainly meant, as if the words were printed in
capital letters, the oath which no honest man I trust
would refuse, renouncing the lawfulness of arming
against our sovereign simply, and without any addition

16

HISTORICAL ESSAY.

SECT. I.

of words that may denote him a tyrant. Without sucli
addition, I own I look in vain to discover how such
an oath can be a pretended obligation, in collision
" with all our rights and institutions."

Yet it is thus he treats this oath. — " Maxims so
artificial and overstrained, wlticli have no more root
in nature than they have warrant from reason, must
always fail in a contest against the affections, sen-
timents, habits, and interests, which are the motives
of human conduct, leaving little more than compassionate
indulgence to the small number wlio conscientiously cling
to them."

So then ! in the opinion of this great Whig light,
and certainly highly cultivated man, an oath not to
bear arms against your lawful Sovereign, that Sove-
reign, in the teims of the oath at least, not said to be
stained by any act, or any design against his people,
is an oath, to renounce the defence of your country,
and springing from maxims artificial and overstrained,
having no more root in nature than warrant from
reason ; and the small number of honest fools who
conscientiously cling to this expression of their alle-
giance, are to be treated with compassionate indul-
gence.

Thanking Sir James for his compassion, let us ask
where were his scruples when he took the oath of
allegiance, as I dare say he often did, and swore he
would be true and faithful to his Majesty.

If true and faithful, could he rise in insurrection
against him? and if he swore to allegiance, could

SECT. T. THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE. 17

there be any objection to swear that he would not
take arms against him to whom it was due?

Had the oath indeed swore, in so many words, that
a man would not defend himself though illegally at-
tacked by the government, the justice of the inculpation,
by the learned jurist and historian, would be admitted,
without comment ; but as the oath implies that the
resistance foresworn is only against lawful commands,
I am lost in wonder that any man, not an actual rebel?
much more that a man so versed in the nature of laws,
should have broached such opinions, which, but for
the name of the author, would need no refutation.

But he rests his proposition upon the right of self-
defence, which alone, he says, (and says properly,) is
the justification of foreign war, and may, and will
therefore justify taking arms in a war at home. To
take arms against the king may therefore be in defence
of your country, which by the oath you renounce.

But is that so ? Or is the oath not to attack the
king, the same as not to defend yourself if illegally
attacked ?

This I am yet to learn; but this I have learned,
that these are thorny questions, which, admitting of
no general solution, are most unnecessary, and can tend
to no possible good, while they may practically do
much harm.

A sovereign whom one law tells you not to oppose,
and another law tells you not to obey, denotes, if not
a contradiction, at least so difficult a problem, and
such a collision of contrary forces, that it is very

18 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. I.

wantonness to call for a discussion of them, unless
driven to it by the necessity of the case ; and in a
time like the present, when there is any thing but an
attempt on the sovereign's part, to overturn the laws,
such discussion, it should seem, is futile and gratuitous,
as well as dangerous to tranquillity.

Those, however, who wished to overturn the king,
but who are unhappily deprived, by his moderation
and respect for the laws, and the mildness and justice
of his reign, of all power to demonstrate that mis-
government which Sir James holds a legal justification
of rebellion, — those will gladly hail the discussion we
have deprecated, and insist upon proving what they
call the people's right to act as if they were perpetually
in extreme cases ; although as to oppression, it is evi-
dent, spite of be wling, there is no case at all.

The impossibility of ever laying down before-hand
a general rule, for what, as I have observed, must
always be beyond, and therefore an exception to all
rule, is, I think, a stumbling-block at the threshold
of the attempt, which even so excellent a sophister as
Sir James, in his delightful vision of metaphysical
liberty, cannot get over.

If he laid down boldly and fairly at once, (which I
must do him the justice to say he pretty nearly does5)
that although there may be rules and regulations for
conduct which men may agree to pursue as long as it
suits them, but that there are no such things as laws
binding them beyond their pleasure, (especially if
they are repugnant to what they choose to call reason,

.SECT. I. THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE. 19

of which reason they themselves are the sole judges,
so that what may be reason to-day may be folly to-
morrow,) if this were the fundamental proposition on
which he founds his right of resistance, I should at
least be under no difficulty to understand him.

The proposition would then be clear.

Why then not at once say the laws of a man's
reason are always above the laws of the land, and
therefore the latter may be disobeyed, resisted, and
changed, (or at least an attempt may be made to
change them,) at the will and pleasure of any in-
dividual whose reason tells him to do so ?

This, in fact, is the gist and purpose of his whole
doctrine, avowed or concealed. For, from all I have
quoted, and still more from what is to come, it is
evident that he means a great deal more than the
mere right of self-defence, if attacked.

To that doctrine no Englishman would object ; for
then, reason, justice, and the law of nature, which
self-defence is, would rise above the law of the land ;
and did our jurist go no farther, we should agree with
him, But he here undertakes a task, in which no
man can be successful, if he is not, to reduce cases
which are obviously of necessity and unforeseen, and
therefore, from the terms, can only be met by a
departure from the law, to all the regularity of an
enacted code. His Continuator, improving upon this,
was for bringing James to " a full and fair trial,"
* B 10

•20 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. I.

before the exalted justice and superior reason of the
realm*, only he despaired of finding a sufficiency of
it, as we shall hereafter see. I mention it here
merely to show how easily this vague and loose deal'
ing with the most important principles of high justice,
and affecting the very heart and soul of civil society,
may lead to the most dangerous absurdities. What
is meant by the exalted justice and superior reason
of the realm, it would not be easy to define, except
that a trial, perhaps such as that of Charles the First
was intended, probably leading to the same con-
sequences.

Whether Sir James would have approved the ex-
tent to which his Continuator carries his principles,
cannot perhaps be known. I should hope not.

Let us, however, consider farther the argument on
which he builds his right of resistance.

Having, fairly and clearly, canvassed the right in
nations to wage foreign war with one another, the
nature of the injuries that justify, and the rules by
which such war should be conducted, which he rests
upon self-defence, he applies the same reasoning as
governing civil war.f

"A government, (says he,) is entitled to obedience
from the people, because, without obedience, it cannot
perform the duty for which alone it exists — of protect-
ing them from each other's injustice. But when a

* Hist, of Revolution, vol. ii. p. 280. f Ibid. ch. x.

SECT. I. THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE. 21

government is engaged in systematically oppressing a
people, or in destroying their securities against future
oppression., it commits the same species of wrong to-
wards them which warrants an appeal to arms against
a foreign enemy."

This is abstractedly true; and were there any known
authority in the state, (which, from the nature of the
thing, is impossible,) to decide when a sufficient case
of systematic oppression has arisen, a legal cause of war
might be given to the oppressed party.

But inasmuch as independent nations are bound
by no municipal laws to one another, and parties in
the same state are, the comparison does not hold.

France and England have no common laws, no
duties to bind them to one another, except those of
reason. They are to one another in a state of nature;
they have sworn to no code by which each is bound,
and from which they cannot be released while it
exists.

If, therefore, there is injury on either side, there
are no previous duties to prevent the appeal to the
sword, the only one left, the ratio ultima regum.

Not so with a people and their governors.

They are bound together by the strongest reci-
procal duties, expressly laid down and expounded by the
volume of the law.

It is to this they are to look in all cases of dispute ;
and if they cannot agree, neither party has a right to
claim to be its sole interpreter.

There may be mutual injuries, and mutual accu-

22 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. I.

sations, but the law remains the same, and can never
authorise a departure from it at the will of either
party, or declare that a case has happened where all
its provisions are abrogated, and itself annihilated.
It might describe the character of such a case ; but
who is to pronounce upon its actual existence ?

Not the parties ; if only because they are parties.
If it say the King shall judge, that very judgment
may form another and still greater case of oppression.
If the people, their decision may only increase the
factious conduct which may have been right or
wrong, imputed to them. For want of this judge of
the case, therefore, no constitution can ever contain
a provision for its own dissolution; and this Sir
James himself fully admits in some very able passages,
introduced however in order, as kings must be con-
stitutionally irresponsible to the legal, to make them
responsible to the moral code. It is this moral code
to which I object in the light in which Sir James
represents it. For though it in reality mean nothing
but moral obligation, and the responsibility therefore
of the delinquent king is to his conscience, and his
God, yet, as Sir James would manage it, it is en-
dowed with a body, has a court, judges, the axe and
executioner, to fulfil its behests.

One would suppose that if a king could not be
tried by the law, he could be tried by nothing else.
He might be shot as an enemy or wild beast in the
act of invasion; but he could not be tried. Sir
James, then, must explain what he means by being

SECT. I. THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE. 23

morally and rationally responsible* If it be to run
the risk of being opposed, dethroned, killed in battle,
or even murdered, as some kings have been, we
agree, where the tyranny warrants self-defence, in
going so far; but this is not responsibility, which
means answering for some crime before a tribunal or
judge, having power to hear and determine.

This is not salved by the fallacy of treating the
governors and the governed as different nations,
perfectly independent of one another, even after the
parties are bound together under a social compact,
from which, as soon as they enter, the law of that com"
pact forbids them from ever separating.

The instance which approaches nearest to it is a
clause in the Bill of Rights, which declares the subjects
absolved from their allegiance, and that the crown
shall pass to the next heir, if the possessor of it shall
hold communion with the church of Rome, or marry
a Papist.

This seems a distinct description; yet what is
communion with the church of Romef ? and who is
the proper judge, and what the jurisdiction that is to

take cognisance of and decide when the case has

o

happened ?

If this be not pointed out, the clause is nugatory,
though it may give rise to bitter commotions.

* Vind. Gall.

f A party in England might hold that to be communion, which the
church of Rome might scornfully reject.

* B 12

24 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. I.

Suppose the king do not disclose or confess his
communion with the church of Rome ! Or suppose
he marry a concealed Papist, whom he may have
thought a Protestant when he married her, or who
may have changed her religion after marriage !

Would that forfeit the crown ? or if it would, can
any lody that pleases say the case has happened, and
may every subject feel absolved from his allegiance
and take arms to enforce the Bill of Rights, without
a solemn adjudication somewhere of the fact?

Even if that somewhere is held to be the parliament,
may that not admit of discussion, and opposition from
the king, and even from other corporations ? Might
not the Lord Mayor and common hall say it was for
the people to decide, and that they were the people
as they hdve oftvn said before.

But be it that the parliament have, or assume to
have, the jurisdiction, (for it is not pointed out by the
Act,) must there not be a trial of the fact? Must
there not be two trials., one in the Lords, and one in
the Commons?

And may they not pronounce differently ? At any
rate, must not the king be allowed to defend himself?
May he not be wrongfully accused ? Or if acquitted,
may he not be accused again and again, and thus
the whole government for ever be interrupted, till all
end in that very civil war, which by this attempt to
legislate on a positive case of resistance it was in-
tended to prevent?

Yet Hallam, not perhaps having all these conse-

SECT. I. THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE. 25

quences before him, thinks this vague and unguarded
provision in the Bill of Rights " as near an approach to
a generalisation of the principle of resistance, as could
be admitted with any security for public order." *

What the security is, we see.

Observe then the impossibility of any constitution,
laying down beforehand a case for its own abolition.

But if it contain contradictory provisions; if it
enact that a sovereign is inviolable, and has a right
to allegiance, yet may be tried and judged by his
people, who may absolve themselves from allegiance
whenever their reason tells them to do so, that is, when-
ever they please, all disquisition is useless, for all is
absurdity.

The sovereign whom his subjects are ordered to
obey, is surely himself a subject — his subjects' so-
vereign.

Thus much then for the comparison of the causes
for war between foreign independent states, and be-
tween a sovereign and his subjects.

We say they cannot be compared.

Take, however, the following propositions : —

" A magistrate who degenerates into a systematic
oppressor shuts the gates of justice on the people,
and thereby restores them to their original right of de-
fending themselves by force."

The first part of this sentence is true. What is to
be understood by the second ?

What is the original right of the people to defend

* Constitutional Hist., vol. iii. p. 360.
C

26 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. I.

themselves by force? Where, in society, did they
ever possess this right? No where. Then if they
had it, (and this is what is meant,) it must have been
before society existed, and they cannot have it again
without society being completely dissolved.

It follows, then, that before oppression can be resist-
ed, all ties of union, all the laws, institutions, and public
and private rights and duties, must be broken up.*

See what it is to be a theorist, and to endeavour
to give the form and regularity of a code of law,
(whether municipal or natural,) to what must be
above all form or regularity. Oppression must, as
we have said, be resisted by force, and the case dis-
posed of one way or other.

But we are not on that account to fly to metaphy-
sical or extreme rights, and by only founding them
on the savage state, to return to that state.

How many young people (myself once among
them), have been dazzled with the seducive maxim
" Salus populi suprema lex est !" When I read my
Oratio pro Milone, how did I not glow with the
incontrovertible sentiment on self-defence, "Est enim
hoec judices, non scripta sed nata lex ; quam non
didicimus sed accepimus ; etiam ex naturae penu
hausimus, arripuimus ; ad quam non pacti, sed facti ;
non instituti sed imbuti sumus ; ut si vita nostra in
tela, inlatrones, in enses insideret, omnis honesta ratio
erit expediendi salutis."

Nothing in the world can gainsay this, in our

* See this discussed more at large in the review of Locke, Appen-
dix, No. V.

SECT. I. THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE. 27

closets, in the recesses of our minds, in investigating
the laws of nature. And what, says inexperienced
youth, is to prevent the insertion of whatever these
teach, in the codes of municipal or constitutional law ?

Age and experience tell you at once, the want of
an impartial judge, which cannot be yourself, who
assume to yourself to pronounce wliat is the solus
populi, what the honesta ratio expediendi salutis.
Wait therefore till the case arises, and act upon your
own responsibility, but also at your own risk : attempt
not to legislate, that is, provide for cases which are to
govern all, though, about them, all may disagree.

To Sir James's second proposition, as follows, we
agree.

" As he (the magistrate) withholds the protection
of the law from them (the people), he forfeits his
moral claim to enforce their obedience by the au-
thority of law."*

Now heaven forefend that we should question this
as a general axiom in political philosophy. But,
again, I say it is an axiom for the closet; to be kept
in the mind, and preserved in quiet, till the occasion
blazes out which absolutely requires it to be acted
upon :

" Condo et compono quac mox depromere possim."

Like Honour,

" It aids and strengthens virtue where it meets her,"

but " ought not to be sported with."

* Mackintosh's History of the Revolution of 1688, vol. ii. p. 51.

28 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. I.

Never can it be laid down as a right, and as a
duty, to be perpetually borne in mind, and con-
stantly asserted, by every one who may think himself
aggrieved — in fact lasainte insurrection of the French
revolutionary madmen.

The total impossibility of laying down beforehand,
especially in a code even of natural law, what is the
systematic oppression, (for you see that even our
friend holds that it must be systematic,) which is
legally to authorise this resistance, ought to make us
abstain from the attempt.

Not less is it difficult, if not impossible, in a mixed
government like ours, where the sovereignty is in
three estates, to designate who is to pronounce that
systematic oppression has occurred, so as that the Con-
stitution is annihilated.

It cannot be the Lords, for they are but one in
three.

It cannot be the Commons, nor the King, for the
same reason. It cannot be any two of them. It may
certainly be in the three, but, as it is the oppression of
one that is complained of, he will hardly join in
authorising a revolt against himself.

Who then is to j udge even under the moral law, is
a question ever arising, never to be answered : or we
must come to Paley's untenable answer, " Every one
for himself," which is to authorise perpetual confusion
and the right of the strongest.

In no definite case, therefore, can resistance be au-
thorised beforehand. The Continuator of Sir James,

SECT. I. THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE. 29

however, broaches, or rather hints, some wild notions
of a power in the Lords, and therefore, under the
Constitution, of trying James at the time of the Revo-
lution.

Where he found this power, he does not, indeed,
even pretend to say.

He is certainly prudent enough (whatever may be
inferred,) not to rest it in terms upon the infamous
mockery practised upon Charles I. But hear his
words, and the occasion of them.

" Upon the entry of the Prince of Orange with
an armed force into London, whence James at his
command had retired, he was met by all the peers
then in town, who attended him at St. James's on
the 21st of December, where he told them he had
sent for them to ask their advice how best to accom-
plish the ends of his declaration for a free parliament,
and the other purposes of his landing.

" Upon this, after making some arrangements of
form, and appointing officers, they agreed to assemble
the next day in their accustomed House, as if parlia-
ment were sitting."

Did this, their assembling in their accustomed Houses,
make them the lawful House of Peers even without
reference to the power thus assigned them by Sir
James's Continuator of trying their king ?

I think not : the utmost that this author himself at
first says of it is, that removing from St. James's gave
an air of independence, and meeting in their own
* c3

30 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. I.

house an air of authority to their declarations.* Thus,
in the opinion of this author, they had only an air of
legitimate power, not the reality of it.

It seems, however, they were content with this air;
for, on assembling, they addressed the Prince in their
capacity as the House of Peers, to take upon him the
o'overnment, which he would not do without the con-
currence of the Commons ; and this could not be had,
because there were no commons to give it.

To the discussion of this whole affair, which gave
being to the Convention Parliament, we shall here-
after come.

At present, my business is with the strange, and
surely indefensible doctrine, that the Lords, even had
they been legally assembled in parliament, much less
as a mere set of individuals, as they then were, could
have brought James to trial. This, however, is broadly
implied from the dicta of the Continuator of Sir
James.

The king, when he was forced to leave the king-
dom, left, as is known, a paper or letter stating his
reasons.

This letter was laid before the Lords (such as they
were), who determined that it should not be opened,
and proceeded to the business of settling the nation.

In this, says the jurist, " the Lords appear to have
exercised a sound discretion."

* Continuation of Mackintosh's History of the Revolution of 1688,
vol. ii. p. 239, Paris edit.

SECT. I. THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE. 31

" His (James's) removal once resolved*, there
were two modes of proceeding to effect it : either a
FAIR and FULL TRIAL, or a SENTENCE against him
upon the NOTORIETY of his acts.

" It is a dangerous precedent," says the Coritinuator,
" to condemn even a tyrant unheard ; but for the
former mode (pray observe this), there was not enough
of exalted justice or superior reason in the realm, and
the latter process alone remaining, the king's letter
could only produce barren or mischievous commiser-
ation." f

I own I was thunderstruck when I read these
words, and thought I was reading an ebullition of
Robespierre previous to the murder of Louis.

Yet even Robespierre seems to have been here a
better jurist; for he laughed at the bunglers, his
brother-murderers, who wished (what he knew was
impossible) to give an air of judicial authority to the
death they had resolved, and more consistently said
there could be no trial where all was a " coup d'etat"

Upon this Mignet, the historian of the Revolution,
sensibly observes he was right, and gives a lesson to
men who adopt these principles, which may deter
them from the wild enterprise to bring a case of
necessity under a regular code, be that code legal or
moral. "Les plus grands torts des partis," saysMignet,

* Query, by whom ? when ? where ?

f Continuation of Mackintosh's History of the Revolution of 1G88,
vol. ii. p. 280.

* c 4

32 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. I.

" apres celui d'etre injustes, est celui de rie pas vou-
loir le paroitre. Le parti de Robespierre se montra
beaucoup plus consequent en ne faisant valoir que la
raison d'etat, et en repoussant les formes comme
mensongeres." *

The preacher, therefore, of the doctrine relative
to the trial of James, is greatly behind Robespierre
in not fairly putting the case upon its true grounds,
and in endeavouring to give it the character of a
judicial proceeding, he equals him in his zeal for a
coup d'etat.

The " Vindiciae Gallicae," however, that warm and
eloquent apology for the atrocious departures from
justice which blasted and disfigured the French revo-
lution, would have better defended the sacred rights
of the people, to rise in what he calls " VIRTUOUS

INSURRECTION AND NOBLE DISOBEDIENCE."f

Upon these positions, and this apology for the
Lords for not bringing their king to trial, much is to
be observed.

For when we talk of trial, the very word (I sup-
pose it will not be contested) implies a number of
important associations, familiar in England to the
meanest mind.

* Mignet, vol. i. p. 316, 317.

•f- " The garrisons of the cities of Rennes, Bordeaux, Lyons, and
Grenoble refused, almost at the same moment, to resist the virtuous
insurrection of their fellow -citizens. Nothing but sympathy with the
national spirit could have produced their noble disobedience. — Vind,
Gal).

SECT. I. THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE. 33

Laws : competent authority r, legal power to inquire,
rules of evidence, legal power to punish, preceding-
decisions, legal judges, legal juries, and, above all, the
legal maxim that accusers shall not be judges.

Yet not one of these, in the pure and sacred fury
of this successor of Sir James in Whiggism, ever
seems to have come across him. Though a lawyer,
a man of research, and evidently habituated to
the investigation of all the bearings of judicial max-
ims, the extent and the consequences of departing
from old, or of establishing new, precedents.

He talks of bringing a king to trial by his subjects
(who, the law says, can never be tried, and whom all
received notions have ever treated as inviolate),
as if it was a matter of every day's occurrence,
and a court was always open for the prosecution of
monarchs.

" There were but two modes of proceeding," he
says, — " either &fair and full trial, or a sentence upon
the notoriety of his acts."

A most compendious way, it must be owned, of
disposing of what he calls " this tremendous pro-
blem." *

I need not say that " sentence" without trial is the
grossest tyranny ; this even James himself never
attempted. It therefore implies trial, or, at least,
inquiry. But what trial? What inquiry? Why, into

* Continuation of Mackintosh's History of the Revolution of 1688,
vol. ii. chap. 10.

* c 5

34 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. I.

the notoriety of acts, not acts themselves; and who is
to judge? the accusers.

Who are the witnesses? the accusers. Who the
accusers ? any body ! man, woman, or child.

What the evidence ? hearsay, report, common fame!

Can such a farce stand for a moment in the justifi-
cation of a sentence that must at least be judicial?

Do we not here, on the contrary, see the dark-
minded, mischief-brooding, intolerant Whig bigot,
St. John, who, pressing by illegal means, even unto
death, upon Strafford, the object of his fear and of
his hate, did not blush to say that he had no right
to plead law, because he had broken law, and that
although we gave law to hares and deer, for they
were beasts of chace, it was neither unfair nor cruel
to destroy wolves and foxes, for they were beasts of
prey. He therefore thought that Strafford was to
be hunted down in a different manner from lesser
criminals.

An excellent illustration of Robespierre's coup
ffetat, and of the purity and superior virtue of popular
justice ! According to this dogma, worthy of Jeffries
or Nero, the breach of the law is assumed as proved :
and no man, however unjustly accused, could ever
have a trial. Yet this bloody man, a prototype of
Danton and the rest of the French patriots, was made
Chief Justice, and is worshipped as a deity of liberty
by those who think we have still to go in quest of it.
He did to Strafford, what Jeffries did to Sidney.

SECT. I. THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE. 35

Those statesmen who think themselves free from
all laws, but of policy, may adopt the coup of Robes-
pierre; but if they pretend to the character of jurists,
let them explain, if they can, what is meant by a
sentence, founded on a notoriety of acts, and particu-
larly what the sentence on James might or might
not have been.

No limit to it is at least stated by Sir James's
Continuator; and it might therefore have been, not
merely dethronement or banishment, but imprison-
ment, or death itself.

But the laws of reason and morality are paramount
to the laws of the land ; arid however low in the scale
may be their interpreters, yet, with the gibbet, and
the cry of a la lanterne to support them, they must
be obeyed.

Of a truth we have profited much by the march
of reason.*

As to notoriety of acts being a ground for a judg-
ment on James, it was only one of the French maxims
of justice, and as such had quite sufficient to war-
rant it. It, indeed, governed higher, or at least
more regular, tribunals than the mob. I remember,
in the French Revolution, a Monsieur du Patye
brought before a court erected in the south. The
jury (for there actually was a jury) said, neither the
court nor the prisoner need trouble themselves, for
it was known he was guilty, and he was accordingly,

* Was not Lord Stowell right in asking, so quaintly, whether the
march of reason was the rogue's march ?

* c 6

36 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. I.

by a sentence founded on a notoriety of his acts, trans-
ferred at once to the guillotine.

Nor was this more than was done by those who,
in their zeal for liberty, would have destroyed every
vestige of it, — I mean the parliament of 1633, who
voted that common fame was ground for impeaching
the Duke of Buckingham of high treason.

The reason for not adopting the other alternative,
namely, bringing James to a " full and fair trial,"
was, we see, the want of " enough of exalted justice,
and superior reason, in the realm."

That is, of course, (or it means nothing,) exalted
justice and reason to form and go through such an
exalted and reasonable undertaking, as to try James
and decapitate him as they had done his father.

Unhappy England ! to have so soon lost " the
breed of noble bloods" that once adorned and ele-
vated your character.

Not one Bradshaw, Cromwell, or Ireton left, to
form a high commission court to manufacture and
execute an ex post facto law, and destroy a life which
all law forbade to be attempted.*

But leave we these revolting doctrines, which can

* It may not be irrelevant, in winding up this part of the subject, to
mention a conversation between a warm-minded young senator and
the cool-judging venerable Lord Eldon, on the disposal of Buonaparte,
when he was brought prisoner to Plymouth. " Might he not be tried
and executed as a murderer and treaty-breaker, under the law of
nations," asked the younger politician. " I should have no objection,"
replied Lord Eldon, " to sit upon his trial, and even pass sentence, if
you will draw the indictment." The young senator was mute.

SECT. I. THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE. 37

do no good; and whose only effect can be to inflame
more violently brains already too much heated.

I am glad, therefore, to turn to something like
redeeming qualifications of the right of resistance,
which Sir James has preached; and which, though
only arising from prudential motives, and recanting
no principle, however dangerous, are so wisely con-
ceived, and so clearly expressed, that it cannot but
do good to those who may be led away by his theo-
ries, to observe what mischiefs he himself allows they
may engender in the practice.

Having given, as we have seen, though, I think,
most incorrectly, the same right of war to a people
against their governors which belongs to independent
states against one another ; and having observed, that
in all wars, foreign and civil, there may be failures, he
adds, " But the evils of failure are greater in civil
than foreign war. A body of insurgents is exposed
to ruin."

The probabilities of success are more difficult to
calculate in cases of internal contest, than in a war
between states.

" An unsuccessful revolt strengthens the power,
and sharpens the cruelty of the tyrannical ruler:"
(ought he not to have added, — and also of the
tyrannical tribune, or rebel ?)

" It is almost peculiar to intestine war, that suc-
cess may be as mischievous as defeat. The victorious
leaders may be borne along by the current of events far
beyond their destination; a government may be over-

38 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. I.

thrown^ which ought to have been repaired ; and a new,
perhaps a more formidable tyranny, may spring out
of victory."

Pretty well this for the author of the " Vindiciae
Gallicse," who upheld all the acts of that Assembly,
which, in one night's madness, overthrew all the
institutions of ages in an empire, so flourishing, that
it was impossible for all of them to be worthless or
unjust. How well these speculations were illus-
trated both by the actors in the rebellion of 1641,
and the French Revolution, to you I need not re-
mark. Let us, however, go on.

" A regular government may stop before its fall
becomes precipitate, or check a career of conquest
when it threatens destruction to itself. But the
feeble authority of the chiefs of insurgents is rarely
able., in the one case., to maintain the courage, — in the
other, to repress the impetuosity ', of their voluntary ad-
herents. Finally, civil war brings the same, or worse
evils (than foreign) into the heart of a country, and
the bosom of families. It eradicates all habits of
recourse to justice, and reverence for law * : its
hostilities are not mitigated by the usages which soften
wars between nations ; it is carried on with " the
ferocity of par ties who apprehend destruction from one
another; and it may leave behind it feuds still more
deadly, which may render a country depraved and
wretched through a long succession of ages. As it

* No wonder when the object of one or both sides is to destroy the
law.

SECT. I. THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE. 39

involves a wider waste of virtue and happiness than
any other species of war, it can only be warranted
by the sternest and most dire necessity."

Now, I ask again, Who is to judge of this stern
and dire necessity ? The answer is, Any man.
Necessity, therefore, is the rebel's as well as the
tyrant's plea.

" The chiefs of a justly disaffected party," he goes
on to say, " are unjust to their fellows and their
followers, as well as to all the rest of their country-
men, if they take up arms in a case where the evils
of submission are not more intolerable,, the possibility
of reparation by pacific means more apparent, and
the chances of obtaining it by arms greater than are
necessary to justify the rulers of a nation towards
their own subjects for undertaking a foreign war.
A wanton rebellion is one of the greatest of crimes.
The chiefs of an ill-concerted revolt, however pro-
voked, incur the most formidable respcnsibility to their
followers and their country" *

So far Sir James in this masterly picture of the
horrors of civil war, enough, one would think, to
have made him pause longer than he did in explain-
ing or proving the right to commence it.

Of this in these passages he says nothing, and it is
obvious that the hesitation he touches upon is that

* We shall see presently, on the enterprises of Argyle and Mon-
raouth which Mr. Fox approved, how totally he must have disagreed
with Mackintosh in these sensible observations.

Wild, therefore, as Mackintosh was, Mr. Fox appears wilder.

40 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. I.

which proceeds from prudence alone, not from any
consideration of legality, or any of the causes that
may in his mind justify it. In this indeed he only
follows Mr. Fox, who, in the vehemence of debate ( I
trust it was no more), declared openly that it was
only a question of prudence whether or not the
people should obey the laws. Both, according to
my view, were wrong.

To be sure Sir James makes one admission, which
is of importance, and which I own I did not expect
in his zeal for the popular right. He does allow that
in the exertion of this right, a government may
be overthrown which ought only to have been re-
paired ; and this solitary and feeble qualification of
the right to rebel, is the only redeeming accom-
paniment to the doctrine we are examining. All the
other dissuasions from plunging a nation into the
miseries and dangers he so forcibly describes, are
founded upon prudential fears alone.

A wanton rebellion is one of the greatest of crimes :
the chiefs of an inconsiderable and ill-concerted revolt
incur a formidable responsibility. Why ? Not because
rebellion is a crime per se ; not because revolt when
they choose to think it necessary, is not one of the in-
alienable rights of the people, but because the revolt
is inconsiderable and ill-concerted. If extended and
well managed so as to promise success, then all is
fair, warrantable, and legitimate.

Hence he winds up in that generality of language
which befits an oracle, but is the bane of a jurist,

SECT. I. THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE. 41

and which his logic ought to have taught him was
the parent of error *, that " an insurrection, ren-
dered necessary by oppression, and warranted by a
reasonable probability of a happy termination (again
justification by success, or the right of the strongest,)
that such an insurrection is an act of public virtue,
always environed with so much peril as to merit admir-
ation^ Thus, whenever in the judgment of any
man a king's life ought to be attempted, though the
assassin may fail and be hanged, he will always merit
admiration, on account of his gallantry. In this
sentiment Sir James is at least practically supported
by the late attempts against the king of Fr-ance,
which, though they failed, call forth the admiration of
some of our generous English patriots.

And are these the results of learning, of studious
and cool reflection, of thought, and philosophical
as well as historical research ?

Are these the apothegms of an experienced lawyer,
a senator, and a judge; or a wild youth, boiling over
with momentary enthusiasm and present feelings,
and totally regardless of sober principles ?

What is oppression?

Still more, systematic oppression ?

Will, or can any constitutional code, can even Sir
James answer, so as to describe the exact case, 'when,
to what degree, and by whom it is to be perpetrated,
to justify revolt ?

* In generalibus versatur error.

42 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. I.

The what, may be difficult to lay down as a prac-
tical case ; the who, still more so.

Is every act that may be irregular, or even illegal ;
is every thing that demagogues may choose to call
misgovernment, (for that, we see, is one of thejustifying
causes in this profound casuistry,) — is even palpable
error universally acknowledged, to be a signal, and an
authority for rising and breaking up the social order?
for successful rebellion does no less.

Then as to the personality of the oppressor, is that
to be confined to the king ? May it not be in other
irresponsible branches of the legislature., the Lords, the
Commons, the parliament without the king? The laws
themselves though ever so regularly enacted?

Such things are, and, still more, have been; and if
oppression, be that of which any one of the millions
who constitute the people, are, and ought (if Mack-
intosh is right,) to be legal judges, when or how can
any community be safe ?

The sword, and the musket, the axe and the gib-
bet, will be in perpetual employ; we must again em-
battle our houses against robbers in the form of pa-
triots ! and the guerre aux chateaux, which desolated
France, may devastate the peaceable fields of Britain.

If oppression, too, (explained by every man's own
feeling) is to legalize revolt, may not the king himself
be the oppressed party, and revolt against his people ?
Suppose the Commons arbitrarily refuse supplies in
order to overturn the government, or repeal the
union with Ireland or vote any other madness —

SECT. I. THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE. 43

their power to do this would be legal ; but would it
not be oppression, and according to the doctrine,
legalise civil war ? May not a king be reduced to
self-defence from moral causes as well as the people?

God knows there have been other quarters, besides
the king, from which oppression the most bloody,
scandalous, ferocious, and unjust that ever was heard
of has emanated. Such an oppression has destroyed
all fair security for the people's liberties, though
perpetrated by the people's representatives.

For the truth of this, I need only refer to the pe-
riod preceding our Revolution; embracing the history
of the Long Parliament of Charles L, and the latter
parliaments of Charles II.

Be not afraid ; I am not going to discuss the great
abstract question between perogative and law. I am
not about to examine who was originally right in the
quarrel — Charles or his parliament : for 1 am free as
Hampden or Pym could have wished me, had I then
lived, to say that the early acts of Charles were un-
justifiable and tyrannical; and though allowances
might be made for the errors of his education, a
yielding temper exposed to the influence of favourites
and evil counsellors, and, above all, for the darkness
of that unsettled time, when the Constitution was so
ill understood from the long, long prevalency of pre-
cedent against law; yet this will never deliver him
from the charge of an exercise (though he was not
guilty of an assumption) of arbitrary power. This,
though not peculiar to him, justifies all that was done

44- HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. I.

at first by the parliament ; and what Falkland or
Selden proposed or approved, no free man would, I
think, disapprove.

But when that parliament was triumphant ; when
the king saw his errors ; when all that was wrong,
was righted ; when all possible security for good rule
was given ; and every reasonable desire of the Com-
mons was granted, consistent with the existence of
the monarchy ; — in short when men who began as
patriots, ended as rebels, and showed that every con-
cession made them not only mor.e unreasonable, but
traitorous, then did they show, in their turn, that
the representatives of a people can be as selfish,
grasping, and dishonest — as arbitrary, cruel, and op-
pressive — as implacable, bloody and insolent, as the
worst monarch that the worst times ever saw.

The Commons in the Long Parliament, as we have
seen, murdered Strafford and Laud.

These guardians of the Constitution, who com-
plained of the wresting of the law, invented a law by
their own authority, which broke down all security,
by setting loose what was thought the palladium of
liberty, the definiteness of the law of treason.

This was done when they made the new crime, of
an endeavour to subvert the fundamental laws, on which
the Statute of Treasons was totally silent ; done still
more when, in order to destroy Strafford, they in-
vented, in the very spirit of legal murderers, a new
species of proof, called accumulative evidence, by
which many actions, either totally innocent, or cri-

SECT. I. THE SIGHT OF RESISTANCE. 45

minal in an inferior degree, were held, when united,
to amount to treason.

In what did the confessed wresting of the law, in
Sidney's case, exceed this infamy ? and when in that
case, or any other prosecuted by the crown, was it
ever proposed to prosecute the counsel for a man ac-
cused of treason, as partaking of it himself?

This was reserved for an immaculate representative
of the people, in the person of Strode.

Well might Hallam call this a monstrous proposal* ,
yet it was but of a piece with many others. Need I
add the murder of the sovereign himself for treason
which was never heard of in the law, and could not
be committed? The scandalous injustice pursued
by the committee of management, to hunt out evi-
dence against Strafford, is also shocking to an Eng-
lishman's notions of law or fairness.

While the object of their rage was close prisoner
in the Tower, with no means to collect evidence on
his side (certainly not by compulsion), this com-
mittee of rancorous enemies had power to examine
witnesses upon oath, compel the production of papers,
and scrutinise the whole life of the earl. Does not
the feeling revolt at this, as base, cowardly, and ty-
rannical, and what, if practised by a king against
subject, would have set the Commons in a blaze?
Practised by the Commons themselves, it was only a
noble defence of liberty.

It is true, in common criminal cases, a grand jury

* Hallam's Constitutional Hist., vol. ii. p. 215.

46 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. I.

examines upon oath, to say whether there is ground
for a trial ; but, that found, what should we say
to a power given to the counsel for the prosecution,
to examine witnesses upon oath out of court, and, by
examination, tutor them ?

So sacred, however, is the flame of democracy that
it purifies the grossest breaches of decency and jus-
tice.

They seized a judge (Berkeley) whilst sitting on
his very tribunal to make him answer, for what? —
His opinion upon a point of law brought before him,
in his judicial capacity; and though that point was
ship-money, and he might be, and was, wrong in his
judgment, where would our rights be, and where the
use of writs of error, if this were legal power?

Their impeachment of Berkeley, as well as Lord
Finch, for high treason, is allowed by Hallam him-
self to have been as little justifiable in point of law
as that of Strafford.

But, as has been observed, the people can do no
wrong, nor (unlike in this the inviolability regarding
the king) their ministers either.

They then invented another new crime, called de-
linquency ; which, from its very indefiniteness, was
the height of tyranny. Under this, lieutenants of
counties, who had only exercised the powers necessary
for their offices, and warranted by precedent, were of
a sudden voted to be criminals.

Without a pretence of authority, and evidently,
therefore, becoming themselves guilty of delinquency,

SECT. I. THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE. 47

they commissioned Harley, one of their body, to de-
stroy all altars, images, and crucifixes. *

All Papists and Arminians were declared capital
enemies to the commonwealth.

What here becomes of liberty of conscience,
when to doubt that God had predestined people to
damnation was made a political crime?

Petitioners in favour of monarchy, or the church,
were sent for, and prosecuted as delinquents, and
imprisoned.

What imprisonments of Charles were ever equal to
this? and where would the nation be now, if this
were the assumed power of the Commons?

Reflections on Pym were treated as breaches of
privilege ; and Holies had the impudence, in a speech
to the Lords, to demand the names of those peers
who should vote against the sentiments of the Commons.

There were tumults enough, but Pym said, in his
place, that " the people must not be restrained in the
expressions of theirjws£ desires."

To be sure this was imitated by a minister of our
own day; who, in defending a mob, who were said
to have carried a tricolour flag, and who, also, no
doubt, had just desires, asked, with amiable simpli-
city, " Who but must respect the expression of their
opinion by the people 9 "

In those times, as now, there was an outcry against

* This was executed with such zeal by Harley, that he would not
allow any where one piece of wood or stone to lie at right angles upon
another.

48 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. I.

the bishops, immortalised by Butler, in a well-known
distich." *

On one occasion, in going to attend their duty in
parliament, they were set upon by a mob, insulted,
and prevented.

They complained to the House, that they had been
menaced and assaulted, and could no longer with
safety attend in their places ; and, in the mean time,
protested against all that should be done in their
absence.

This was unwise ; but was it illegal ? Still more,
was it treason ?

But the Commons, who desired no better, imme-
diately impeached them of high treason (according to
their own audacious usurpation of a power to make
a new law), for endeavouring to subvert the funda-
mental laws, and invalidate the authority of the
Legislature.

What is more wonderful, the Lords had the weak-
ness, as well as injustice, to sequester them from
parliament, and commit them to custody.

If this were law, what petition to parliament might
not, with a very little ingenuity, be converted at
pleasure into an attempt to invalidate the power of
the legislature, and therefore into treason.

These, and many more instances of usurpation,
and a design to change the Constitution, have been
so well summed up, and with such fairness in, as I

* " The oyster wenches lock'd their fish up,
And trudg'd away to cry no bishop. '*

SECT. I. THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE. 49

think I may call him, a determined enemy of Charles,
(Mr. Hallam,) that I think I cannot do better than
follow his words : —

" After every allowance," says he, " has been made,
he must bring very heated passions to the records of
those times, who does not perceive in the conduct of
that body (the Parliament) a series of glaring viola-
tions^ not only of positive and constitutional, but of
those higher principles, which are paramount to all
immediate policy. Witness the ordinance for dis-
arming recusants passed by both Houses, in August,
1641, and that in November, authorising the Earl of
Leicester to raise men for the defence of Ireland,
without warrant under the Great Seal, — both manifest
encroachments on the executive power; and the
enormous extension of privilege, under which every
person accused on the slightest testimony of disparag-
ing their proceedings, or even of introducing new-
fangled ceremonies in the church, a matter wholly
out of their cognisance, was dragged before them as a
delinquent and lodged in their prison.

" Witness the outrageous attempts to intimidate
the minority of their own body in the commitment of
Mr. Palmer, and afterwards of Sir Ralph Hopton to
the Tower, for such language used in debate as
would not have excited an observation in ordinary
times ; their continual encroachments on the rights
and privileges of the Lords, as in their intimation
that, if bills thought by them necessary for the public
good should fall in the Upper House, they must join

50 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. I.

with the minority of the Lords in representing the
same to the King; or, in the impeachment of the
Duke of Richmond for words, and those of the most
trifling nature, spoken in the Upper House * ; their
despotic violation of the rights of the people, in
imprisoning those who presented or prepared respect-
ful petitions in behalf of the established Constitution,
while they encouraged those of a tumultuous multi-
tude at their bar in favour of innovation; their
usurpation at once of the judicial and legislative
powers in all that related to the church, particularly
by their committee for scandalous ministers, under
which denomination, adding reproach to injury, they
subjected all who did not reach the standard of
puritan perfection to contumely and vexation, and
ultimately to expulsion from their lawful property.

" Witness the impeachment of the twelve bishops
for treason, on account of their protestation against
all that should be done in the House of Lords during
their compelled absence through fear of the popu-
lace; a protest not, perhaps, entirely well expressed,
but abundantly justifiable in its argument by the
plainest of law.

" These great abuses of power, becoming daily
more frequent, as they became less excusable, would
make a sober man hesitate to support them in a civil
war, wherein their success must not only consummate
the destruction of the crown, the church, and the

* Richmond was their known enemy, but his impeachment was for
merely saying, on a motion for adjournment, ** Why should we not
adjourn for six months?"

SECT. I. THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE. 51

peerage, but expose all who had dissented from their
proceedings, as it ultimately happened, to an oppres-
sion less severe, perhaps, but far more sweeping than
that which had rendered the Star-chamber odious." *

To these forcible observations of Hallam, writing
expressly on the Constitution, let me add as forcible
a one of Hume, particularly forcible when we recollect
that they had extorted by wily professions from the
weakness of the king, that they should not be
dissolved but by their own consent : — "The whole
sovereign power was in a manner transferred to the
Commons, and the government, without any seeming
violence or disorder, was changed in a moment from a
monarchy almost absolute to a pure democracy, f

These instances of oppression and barefaced usurp-
ation have been confined to the period previous to
that when Charles, pushed beyond bearing by their
insolence and pretensions, tyrannising alike over him
and all the nation, drove him to take arms in his own
defence, and the defence of the Constitution. I
make this assertion, because after all that has been
written, said, or felt about liberty, and the glorious
struggles of these her virtuous champions, I hold
that they sought to gratify their own ambition, quite
as much (many of them more) as to obtain the
ostensible object proposed, with which they gulled
the nation : yet Lord John Russell, in his life of his
respectable ancestor, (respectable and respected, with
a thousand faults,) says that the king's violence be-

* Hallatn, ii. 256—259. f Hume, vi. 375.

D 2

52 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. I.

came the cause of a civil war, and his insincerity
prevented any hope of a peace.*" How either of
these assertions is proved we shall presently see.

As to the violence, Lord John, from the instances
given, might have done well to have settled first,
which party was the worst. Who really caused the
war, no dispassionate or unprejudiced man will, in
these days I think, doubt.

Every grievance had been redressed ; ship-money,
and tonnage and poundage, without grant of parlia-
ment, made illegal; the oppressive forest laws,
monopolies, and rights of purveyance, done away;
martial law abolished, together with the jurisdiction
of the privy council, and the authority of proclama-
tions; the Star-chamber, the High Commission Court,
the Courts of the Presidents of the North, and of
Wales, those instruments of oppression, (not created
by Charles, but his ancestors,) these were all sup-
pressed; even the votes of the Bishops in parliament
were abolished ; and the famous Triennial Bill passed,
by which if the king did not summon a parliament
at the expiration of every three years, the Chancellor
was ordered to issue the writs, and if he did not, the
sheriffs might. Moreover, the parliament could not
be dissolved for fifty days after their meeting ; and as
if this were not enough, another act passed, as has
Jbeen observed, by which they could not be dissolved
at all without their own consent. This at once,

* Life of Lord Russell, vol. i. p. 37, 38.

SECT. I. THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE. 53

without a war, overturned the whole Constitution, in
favour of the people. What then remained to be done ?
Was not their work complete? Or if there were
still a few minor abuses, would they not, after these
great conquests of liberty over the prerogative, so
easily, and some of them so fatally, granted by the
king, have been abolished for asking?

Hear what the candid Hallam (I repeat, no friend
of Charles,) says upon this most important epoch of
this most unhappy contest: —

"It is to be observed that by these salutary re-
strictions and some new retrenchments, of pernicious
or absurd prerogative, the long parliament formed
our Constitution nearly as it now exists. Laws of
great importance were doubtless enacted in subse-
quent times, particularly at the Revolution, but none
of them perhaps were strictly necessary for the preserv-
ation of our civil and political privileges. And it is
rather from 1641 (that is, before the war commenced)
than any other epoch, that we may date their full
establishment." *

Be it so. Then what occasion for the war ? Did
the king abrogate or break any one law that he had
conceded ? When he had yielded up his prerogative,
(which he had previously rather misunderstood to be
law because handed down from his predecessors, than
strained it higher than they had done,) did he ever
retract a single concession, or attempt to invade a

* Constitutional Hist., vol. ii. p. 203.
D 3

54 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. I.

single right?* Let us speak out. The fault of the
war was the insatiable private ambition of the now
hypocritical patriots and lawless graspers, who, under
the name of the people's advantage, as they after-
wards amply proved, sought only their own.
Hence again the fair admission of Hallam. —
" From this survey of the good works of the long
parliament, we must turn our eyes to the opposite pic-
ture of its errors and offences ; faults, which, though
the mischief they produced were chiefly temporary,
have yet served to obliterate from the recollection of
too many the permanent blessings we have inherited
through its exertions."

By Mr. Hallam's permission, the benefit they at
first conferred can never, on the other hand, obliterate
from our recollection the iniquitous price in blood,
and civil war, the rupture of all ties of kindred and
society, the universal desolation and misery, the
lasting mutual hatred and animosity among all ranks,
which this infamous personal ambition of theirs cost
us; I except not the popular Hampden, who perished,
as it is always said, for liberty in the field. He did
no such thing. Liberty was completely restored.
According to Mr. Hallam himself, our present Con-
stitution had not only been founded, but completed ;
and so fearful were the conspirators that the troubles
should subside, that they framed their famous remon-
strance^ on the king's return from Scotland, in 1641,

* There is no doubt he violated the petition af right ; but the reader
is to observe the above question relates to the year 1641, long after
that petition.

SECT. I. THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE. 55

on purpose to keep them alive. All, or nearly all,
the abuses they complained of having been redressed,
far from conciliating the king, or doing him common
justice, they renewed the history of their grievances,
and, as there was little or nothing new, they opened
all the old wounds afresh.

With what view, again ask the constitutional his-
torian, any thing but a defender of Charles. His
own words are better than mine: —

" This (the remonstrance) being a recapitulation
of all the grievances and misgovernment that had
existed since his accession, which his acquiescence in so
many measures of redress ought, according to the
common courtesy due to sovereigns, to have cancelled,
was hardly capable of answering any other purpose
than that of re-animating discontents almost appeased,
and guarding the people against the confidence they were
beginning to place in the king's sincerity. The promoters
of it might also hope from Charles's proud and hasty
temper, that he would reply in such a tone as would more
^asperate the Commons" *

Can any thing be more full to my point that the
leaders of the Commons, Harnpden at their head,
were factious demagogues, instead of patriots? The
picture drawn proves them infamous plotters to pre-
vent all rational liberty ; and the insincerity of the
king, supposing it proved, was nothing to theirs.

* Constitutional Hist., vol. ii. p. 229. In the same spirit, he
observes, rumours of pretended conspiracies by the Catholics were
rather unworthily encouraged by the chiefs of the Commons.
D 4

56 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. I.

Hampden, therefore, drew the sword for himself
and the rebellious, not the sound part of the people.

He fought not for liberty but power.* His best
friends, therefore, can only defend him by saying,
that he plunged (good moral man!) like a Jesuit, into
the depths of evil and deceit, to produce what to his
hot brain seemed good.

I fear this may alarm, -if not draw upon me the
vengeance of a noble friend of ours, your near re-
lation, the writer of his life. Let him confute these
allegations, and I will confess my error. I am so far
like Brutus, that

" I shall be glad (o learn from noble men."

On the subject, however, before us, the candid
author whom I have quoted cannot help saying : —
" In reflecting on the events which so soon clouded
a scene of glory, we ought to learn the dangers that
attend all revolutionary crises, however justifiable or
necessary ; and that even when posterity may have
cause to rejoice in the ultimate result, the existing
generation are seldom compensated for their present loss
of tranquillity"

He observes, indeed, that their very enemies con-
fess that the parliament that met in 1640 met with

* This picture of Mr. Hallam's of the factions, proves almost the
extent of Clarendon's supposed calumny of Hampden, applying to him
the character of China — " He had a head to contrive, a tongue to
persuade, and a hand to execute any mischief."

SECT. I. THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE. 57

almost unmingled zeal for the public good and loyal
attachment to the crown.

I doubt this on the part of not a few : Cromwell,
Hampden, Pym, Vane, Ireton, Strode, St. John,
Martin, and a long et ccetera.

These, had I been the king, I would have " trusted
as I would adders fanged;" but let that pass.

Mr. Hallam adds that they were " not the dema-
gogues or adventurers of transient popularity, but
men well born and wealthy, than whom there could,
perhaps, never be assembled 500 more adequate to
redress the grievances, or fix the laws of a great
nation.

I admit their fitness to redress grievances ; I deny
their qualifications to fix the laws of a great nation ;
or if the last be allowed, the greater was their guilt;
for instead of fixing, they unfixed every constitutional
law the nation possessed.

Their advocate, able as he is, fails in accounting
satisfactorily for this.

" They were misled," he says, " by the excess of
two passions (no one allows any thing for the king's
being misled), both just and natural in the circum-
stances wherein they found themselves — resentment
and distrust; passions irresistible when they seize on
the zeal and credulity of a popular assembly." *

All this is philosophically true ; but, as I need not
observe, accounts for their treasons, not justifies them.

* Hallam, vol. ii. p. 2O4.
D 5

58 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. I.

I repeat, then, more confidently from having sub-
mitted it to examination, my assertion that Charles
drew the sword to defend — the parliament to destroy
— the Constitution ; and the more we pursue the acts
of each from the point where we left them, the clearer
will this appear.

The immediate cause of the war, that which pro-
duced the king's retirement from London, and the
calling of the peers to the North, were, as you well
know, the contest respecting the militia; — in other
words, the power of the sword.

Beat out of every other hold of the monarchy, had
the king surrendered this, he might as well have
yielded himself in chains, have divested himself of his
crown, and by solemn acts permitted the change of
the monarchy into a republic.

Upon this there can be no contrariety of opinion,
any more than that whatever doubts may have been
started as to the king's power over the militia, as to
that of the parliament there could be none.

The pretension, therefore, of that body, or rather of
the Commons alone, was sheer, unqualified, traitorous
usurpation.

Their want of right is so clear, that I know not a
single passage in the history, nor any authority,
except their own, that ever countenanced the pro-
position.

" This question," says Blackstone *, " became the

* Vol. i. p. 412.

SECT. I. THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE. 59

immediate cause of the rupture between the king and
his parliament; the two houses not only denying this
prerogative of the crown, the legality of which,
perhaps, might be somewhat doubtful, but also seizing
into their own hands the entire power of the militia,
of the illegality of wliicli step there could never be any
doubt at all."

Hallam, also, whom for his candour, as well as his
research, though in many things I do not agree with
him, I love to quote, is full to this point : — "If the
power," says he, " existed at all, it manifestly resided
in the king. The notion that either or both Houses of
Parliament, who possess no portion of executive au-
thority, could take on themselves one of its most pe-
culiar and important functions, was so preposterous,
that we can scarcely give credit to the sincerity of any
reasonable person who advanced it." *

The aim, however, as he very properly adds, was
not so much to remove uncertainties by a general
provision, as to place the command of the sword in the
hands of those they could control, f

And how was this to be done ? Why, in the bill
presented to the king they themselves nominated the
lords lieutenants of every county, who were to obey the
orders of the two Houses and to be irremoveable by the
king for two years.

They also sent orders to Goring J, governor of

* Constitutional Hist., vol. ii. p. 248. f Ibid>

| This was palpable treason.

D 6

60 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. I.

Portsmouth, to obey none but the parliament, and
forced the weak king to displace his own officer, and
appoint theirs to the government of the Tower.

They usurped the government of Hull, in which
they collected magazines of arms and placed them
under the care of their own man Hotham, who re-
sisted soon after the legal authority of his king. He
afterwards repented, for which they cut off' his head — -
a lesson to all weak trimmers, but thrown away
upon many too near us, I fear, in the present time.

All this, be it observed, was before they had, by
the tumults they had encouraged, forced the king, for
his own preservation, to retire from his capital, and
therefore before he had been obliged to set up his
standard, which was that of the Constitution, against
their standard of revolt.

This, therefore, I think is fatal to that opinion of
the " unminyled zeal for the public good> and loyal at-
tachment to the crown" which Hallam has attributed
to the Commons of 1640. *

This is so clear that we anxiously look for some,
deciding and sufficient cause for this total dereliction
of all loyalty and duty — this undeniable design to
destroy this part of the Constitution, by depriving the
king of his most valuable and most acknowledged
privilege, and conferring it upon themselves.

And what was this cause? Mr. Fox gives, if not
the best, at least the most honest answer: — " When a
contest was to be foreseen, they could not, consistently

* See p. 57.

SECT, I. THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE. 61

with prudence, leave the power of the sword altogether
in the hands of the adverse party.'' *

I think so too ; and if prudence, how to obtain an
end, is to determine the character of that end, and
convert wickedness into virtue, the Commons were
virtuous and right. It is obvious also that the same
prudence would then make them equally virtuous
and equally right, not merely in not leaving the
sword in the hands of the king, but in usurping it
themselves ; but according to this, prudence, by
turning crime into virtue, will justify any violence or
breach of law. A robber, seeing the object he is,
about to attack, armed, shoots him from an ambush.
Foreseeing a contest, " he could not, consistently with
prudence," leave him the power of defending himself,
or annoying the assailant. But the accounts of all
who advocate the cause of the parlimentary leaders
affirm their distrust of the king's sincerity in all the
concessions he had made.

The irrefragable proofs of their own insincerity I
have already given; but the discussion of this question
would lead us too far, though by no means irrelevant,
and would exceed the bounds I have prescribed to
myself.

Some of them, however, ought to be touched
upon.

They are chiefly founded upon two events, cer-
tainly of considerable consequence; but whether they
amount even to a proof of insincerity on the part of

* Hist, of James II. p. 10.

62 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. I.

Charles, much more whether it can justify the usurp-
ation of the power of the sword, in my mind is no
question.

These events were first the associations of
some officers of the English army which had been
opposed to the Scotch, to engage their men to march
to London for the protection of both king and par-
liament against the perpetual tumults then going on.

Next, the memorable indiscretion of the king in
going with his guards to the House of Commons to
arrest in person the five members whom he had
charged with treason.

That either of these were defensible in point of
prudence, or perhaps in point of law, no one will
pretend to say. That they amounted to a design of
the king to undo all he had done in favour of liberty,
much more to even a moral right to take from him
the sword and transfer it to themselves, thereby de-
stroying the Constitution, may be strenuously denied.

The attempt by the officers, though least remark-
able, is the least defensible, of the two, though neither
are defensible. The association formed was to engage

o o

the men in a petition to the king and parliament,
representing the great concessions made by the
crown, the insatiable designs by turbulent spirits to
overturn the Constitution, and the tumults excited
by these spirits, endangering the liberties of par-
liament; they therefore offered to come up and
guard that assembly. " So shall the nation, they
conclude with saying, be vindicated from preceding

SECT. I. THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE. 63

innovations, and be secured from the future which are
threatened."

This was the head and front of the offence.

Now, if a set of constables, or an association of
gentlemen, or any description of persons not soldiers,
had presented such a petition, the usurping Commons
(agreeably to all we have been narrating) would
certainly have sent them all to prison, or probably
impeached them. But would they have been justified
in this? would the petition have been illegal? and
supposing the king had countenanced it, would that
have been a proof of his insincerity in all that he had
done ? I should say, no.

Then what difference, as to that question, is made by
the circumstance that the petition was to come from
soldiers instead of civilians ?

I do not justify the interference of soldiers in any
matter of state, or the propriety of their giving an
opinion on any thing. Arguments or recommend-
ations at the point of the bayonet must ever be
condemned. Inter arma silent leges. This association,
therefore, was utterly unconstitutional, and cannot
be too severely reprehended ; and the approbation
which the king gave to it, was only an additional
proof to the many he had given of his rashness,,
weakness, total want of judgment, and entire ig-
norance of his true situation. But this is not the
question which only concerns his sincerity.

That by thinking he could protect himself, he meant
to make war upon the parliament, repeal the laws he

64 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. I.

had passed, or retract any thing he had done, could, in
my opinion, have only been held by those, who, for
their own purposes, had already made war upon him.
That it proved folly, indiscretion, and incapability
of surmounting the cruel difficulties with which his
abler opponents (some of them as wicked as able)
had surrounded him, is most true. That it showed
dishonesty of purpose, and intention to resume his
power by the sword, is said, and by some may be
believed, but not proved.

Mr. Hallam himself, while he calls it (mistakenly, I
think,) a "demonstration of an intention to win back
his authority at the sword's point," with his usual
fairness allows that " it is equitable, on the other hand,
to observe, that the Commons had by no means greater
reason to distrust the faith of Charles, than he had to
anticipate fresh assaults from them on the power he
had inherited, on the form of religion which alone he
thought lawful, on the counsellors who had served him
most faithfully, and on the nearest of his domestic
ties."*

A brave admission from an antagonist; and had
Charles really attempted what is imputed to him, might
have possibly justified it on the same principle of self*
defence, which Sir James assigns as the fall justifi-
cation of a subject to take arms against his sovereign.

We come now to that other case of invasion, in
appearance, far more overpowering at first sight, but

* Vol. ii. p. 250. This last was soon after verified by the impeach-
ment of the queen. By what law, or for what crime, God knows.

SECT. I. THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE. 65

I think a far less proof of insincerity? or design to
make war, than that we have been examining.

In these days, that the king can enter either House
of Parliament, with or without an armed force, to ar-
rest any of its members, even convicted, much more
only charged with treason, will not bear stating.
It is as preposterous as Mr. Hallam holds the assump-
tion of the power of the sword by the Commons.

To violate the hall of free debate by such a pro-
ceeding, would deprive its members of all power of
debating. And, though much may be said of the
difference of the times, the then unsettled state of
the question between privilege and prerogative, and
the entire novelty of the case, there can be no doubt
whatever, that the conduct of Charles on the occasion
was still more rash, foolish, and illegal, than when he
so unwisely assented to the association of the officers.

But recollect, my comment (for it is any thing
but a defence,) is not to defend its legality, but to
question its being a proof of insincerity, or of a
resolution to make war upon the parliament.

How was it a war ? The attorney-general had been
ordered to prosecute the five members for high
treason.

I suppose it is possible for members of parlia-
ment to commit treason, and not illegal to be made
to answer for it. On the contrary, it never was
pretended, — no maxim of law, indeed, was ever more
established, than that privilege of parliament did not
extend to treason, felony, or breach of the peace.

66 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. I.

Members are at this day sequestered from the House,
for trial, when they are guilty of crimes, and yet
their privileges are not invaded. Well, the House
was called upon to deliver them up to the judicial
power; but instead of sending the members, they
sent a message. This was a delay of that j ustice which
they exacted so rigorously from every body else : wit-
ness their seizing Judge Berkeley upon the bench
itself, in the very act of trying a cause.*

What was the executive power, thus eluded, to do?
As long as the accused remained among their col-
leagues, though they might have been guilty of a
hundred murders, were they to be held safe, and defy
the judicial power? Yes ! say we in these days, when
the nature and necessity for guarding privilege is
better understood ; and yes ! say I ; for it is safer for
the freedom of the Constitution to run the risk (an
impossible one it should seem) of the House securing
a traitor from justice, (if it be so unwise, and have
the power to do it,) than to give a right to the officers
of the executive to enter their precincts at pleasure,
and disturb them in the exercise of their functions.

But no House would noiv be so unwise, so unjust,
as this was, to aid and conspire to elude the demand
of the law against an accused member. They would,
as they actually do, virtually comply; for if a member
offend the law he is always amenable to it, the
judicial power apprising the House of the proceeding.

* Hallam's is the best defence for the non-rendering the members—
the want of regular process.

SECT. I. THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE. 67

Tims far, then, there could have been no complaint
against Charles, for ordering the five members to be
prosecuted, and consequently arrested, had he, or
any one in his name, not entered the chamber itself
in the course of the process. His conduct in applying
to the House first was the reverse of war ; it was a
decorous and praiseworthy consideration, which met
with an ill return. Set, as it were, at defiance, by
what he considered rebellion against his lawful au-
thority, he resolved, with his usual rashness and
impolicy, to overpower resistance in the bud, by
what, at very best, was a gross irregularity.

This is granted to its fullest extent. It was a
palpable and most violent invasion of privilege ; but
it was an invasion proceeding from mistake, from
misunderstanding, not as intentional breach of the
law. It was any thing but intentional war. The
law itself was then obscure, or at least not so clear
as it is now : even now there are many cases of pri-
vilege, which, from their being apparently opposed to
justice, and liable to passionate discussion, are painful
and difficult to deal with. What must it have been
then, when the subject was so new, unprecedented,
and unsettled !

Do I justify Charles ? No ! He was wrong,
rash, hasty, ignorant ; but he was not insincere, the
only point I deal with. He planned no armed inter-
ference to do that by power, which he thought he had
a right to do ~by law ; he recanted nothing that he
had admitted; he cancelled no promise; he attempted

68 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. I;

no repeal of any thing he had conceded. Once set
right, as to this ill-understood and unfortunate pro-
ceeding, it never would have been repeated. Had
he meant war, or to put a force upon the parliament
to recover his authority, his soldiers would have
entered the House with him, as they did with Crom-
well, who, perhaps, was the loudest in the outcry on
this occasion. He would not have confined his mea-
sure to a legal process against five members whom
he had accused of treason, but would have purged the
whole House of his enemies, as the same Cromwell
afterwards did through Colonel Pride.

I think this is decisive of the question of sincerity;
and I repeat, these observations are not to defend the
measure, either on the score of legality or prudence,
but to repudiate the stale and wily position which
was founded upon it by far greater hypocrites and
tyrants than Charles, that as he had appealed to the
sword, they had a right to take it from him.

Be it so. But will that confer upon them the right
to give it to themselves? This is the nipping point.
Grant that he had no power over the militia. They
had already reduced it, by annihilating the power
at least of the lords-lieutenants. Their fears were
therefore groundless. But they sedulously and
cunningly kept them up, in order to seize the com-
mand of the military themselves, the only thing
wanting to crush the king, and render their own
po-.ver omnipotent.

Grant then all that is desired as to the intention

SECT. I. THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE. 69

to make war ; load Charles with all the reproaches
that were vented upon him, and convert calumny
into truth ; — we will allow that the most accomplished
gentleman, and the best husband, father, and master
in England, was the most execrable of tyrants; will
that do more than justify taking arms against him
(taking his life in battle if you will) ? Will it justify
you in the total overthrow of the whole Constitution,
and the arrogation of all power to yourselves ? Sup-
pose he had fallen in battle, would you not have
been delivered from his tyranny, which you allow was
only personal? Had his son no rights? Were not
the laws safe ? But no ! that would not have suited
your own ravin. You must yourselves be tyrants
over the people whom you pretended to secure from
tyranny.*

For observe the state to which things had been
reduced. By voting every thing that could be done
in public or private, within the scope of their privi-
leges, of which they were the sole judges, in the very
spirit of the corrupt and lawless tribunes of Rome,
they, the Commons, had usurped a power to interfere
in every function of government, and every private
proceeding of life. By the weakness of the king,
whom they so hypocritically pretended to fear, they

* This word secure, \ve shall presently see, is of momentous conse-
quence in Sir. James's code of the law of resistance. He says you
have a right to take security from your kings for good government.
I suppose those modest exactions of Hampden, Pym, and the rest of
the virtuous patriots, are the sort of securities meant.

70 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. I.

had become in dependent forever, whether of him or any
other power in the state. Thus they were completely
tyrants in power as well as disposition ; and that their
tyranny might be above all chance of resistance, they
now claimed the power of the sword, and drove the
king to war rather than renounce it.

This was so palpably nefarious, that Hallam, who
throughout inclines to their cause, allows that no
man has a right, even for his own security, to subvert
his country's laws, or plunge her into civil war. But
this admission draws from him the somewhat extra-
vagant opinion, that Hampden, Hollis, and Pym,
might not absurdly consider the defence of English
freedom bound up in their own, assailed as they were
for its sake, and by its enemies.*

That these innocent persons might consider Eng-
lish freedom bound up in their own, is very likely ;
that they could so consider it without absurdity (if by
that phrase we mean reasonably) I do not admit,
any more than that having been charged with high
treason, of which it is more than probable they were
guilty, is a proof that they were assailed, because
friends to liberty, by its enemies. The excuse, then,
with submission to their apologist, absolutely fails.

Away then with all notion that this was a war in
defence of the people's rights! It was a war in de-
fence of the leader's wrongs, and all the blood that
was afterwards spilt was upon their heads.

* Vol. ii. p. 239.

SECT. I. THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE. 71

From these considerations, the defence they set
up for their conduct, grounded upon their fears, be-
comes absolutely ludicrous. Well might the king
say, " You speak of jealousies and fears ! Lay your
hands on your hearts, and ask yourselves whether I
may not likewise be disturbed with fears and jea-
lousies."

They had desired him not to quit London, where,
like the scoundrels of the French Revolution, they
knew they could rule him by their mobs. His an-
swer was : —

" For my residence near you, I wish it might be
safe and honourable, and that I had no cause to ab-
sent myself from Whitehall. Ask yourselves whether
I have not.

" What would you have ? Have I violated your
laws? Have I denied to pass any bill, for the care
and security of my subjects ? I do not ask what you
have done for me" *

The whole defence of the king, at this period of
the history, as the whole guilt of the usurping hy-
pocrites, and the wretched fanatics who gave them
their power in London, may be summed up in
these affecting sentences, as cogent from the im-
plied argument they contain, as pathetic in the lan-
guage used.

Were I to stop here (and I indeed fear you will
think it is time), I imagine enough has been said to

* Rushworth apud Hume.

72 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. I,

place the events of this too interesting period, and
the real character both of them and the actors, on
the right footing. That there were some real patriots
among them, well intending, but misguided men, I
should be loth to deny. That the most of them were
at best pernicious, and many of them wicked and
bloody enthusiasts — that the leaders were urged on
by a criminal and infamous ambition, when they had
forgotten the ardour for liberty which had originally
kindled them, was my opinion from the moment I
could read or think. It is so now ; and has been
only confirmed in my old age by all that I have
since read or thought, and all that I now see.

Still there may be something wanting to complete
the story of their villanies, and prove that the repre-
sentatives of the English people may be as corrupt,
unjust, and oppressive tyrants as any monarch whom
it was their glory to oppose.

Let us then pursue the history of these patriotic
Commons, after the kinjj had escaped from their fan^s

O i O

and summoned his peers and other friends to attend
him at York. Let us begin with the nineteen pro-
positions which were sent to him as the terms of
what, of course, they thought equitable conditions of
peace.

They amounted to what has justly been called a
total abolition of the monarchy, and afford a preg-
nant illustration of the correctness of the too hasty
opinion of the excellent writer I have so often quoted,
that this parliament had met with almost unmingled

SECT. I. THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE. 73

zeal for the public good, and loyal attachment to the
crown.

With the propositions you are familiar. To re-
fresh the memory of others, I presume to state them.

" No man to be a privy counsellor, not agreeable
to parliament.

" No deed of the king to be valid, unless it had
passed the council, and was attested under their hand.

"All officers of state, and principal judges to be
chosen with consent of parliament, and for life.

61 None of the royal family to marry without consent
of parliament, or the council.

" Laws to be executed against the Catholics.

" Votes of popish lords to be excluded.

" The Liturgy and church government to have
place according to the advice of parliament.

"The ordinance in regard to the militia, to be
submitted to. *

" That the justice of parliament pass upon all de-
linquents, f

" General pardon to be granted, with such excep-
tions as should be made by parliament. J

* That is, the power of it to be given to the parliament.

f Admirable attention to the rights of Englishmen. The justice
of parliament not of the known law. Who were delinquents, was in
their own breasts. If ever there was despotism, even of Nero, it was
here. . , '

\ Whether any of their own side would come under these exceptions,
we may guess ; and as they had assumed the province of deciding who
were delinquents, who were always friends of the king, we may know
where the weight would fall.

E

74 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. I.

" That the forts and castles be disposed of by con-
sent of parliament.

" That no peer be made but ivith consent of both
houses"

Such were these famous propositions ; such the ho-
nest designs of the restorers of our constitution, and, be
it remembered, before the war had actually begun. It
is, therefore, a still more damning proof than any yet
cited, of their original intentions.

These propositions need only to be stated to give the
true character of the rebellion that followed — for re-
bellion it was, shameless and wicked, if ever there
was one. It will also show satisfactorily (or nothing
will show any thing), that, granting the whole question
as to the sincerity of the king, and their fears of his
designs through military power, their own true design
was to make themselves sovereigns, him their sub-
ject.

How was it necessary defence against an armed
force, that they should appoint the privy counsellors ?
that the king should execute no deed that they did
not ratify ? that the appointment of all officers of state,
and the creation of all peers, should be in them ? that
he should divest himself even of the power of a father,
and his children be not allowed to marry without their
consent ?

These things are so clear that 1 am really lost in
astonishment that any man of sane mind, on perusing
these conditions, after all that had been done, should
for one moment undergo the illusion that they were

SECT. I. THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE. 75

dictated by any thing but the most scandalous am-
bition ; and by destroying the sovereign, and removing
all ancient landmarks, to arrogate all power to them-
selves.

The people I ! What were they with these false
men, but the mere tools of their designs? I have
sometimes been wondered at for calling Hampden a
traitor. Was he not so when he could concur, much
more when he took too celebrated a lead, in this in-
famous conspiracy ?

The astonishment is that any man, who had the cha-
racter of honour, such as Essex, Northumberland*,
or the Montague?, could have lent themselves to such
palpable wrong !

As my point was to show that there may be to the
full as much corruption and oppression on the side of

* This Northumberland might have been a man of honour, but
seems throughout the war to have been a mere mass of pride, with
little force of understanding; mighty ideas of his own consequence,
and no reach of ability or foresight to support them.

Had he not been born the head of the Percys, he never would have
been the head of any thing.

While all the kingdom was in a struggle for life and death, to be
allowed to remain idle at Westminster, a mere man of quality, not
discompose himself, but think all about him unmannerly knaves, seems
to have been his only ambition. A sort of Mr. Delville in Cecilia, or
a modern Exclusive. His pomp was a little taken down by Cromwell
in the act of administering to it, by making him one of his lords,
which taking as an affront, he never would sit with his vulgar colleagues,
such as Colonel Pride the drayman.

He seems to have been of no real energy, and not at all worthy the
good fortune that attended him.

K 2

76 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. I.

a people, as of a king, this might suffice : but there
are minor instances, — instances not unworthy of pe-
rusal in establishing the view I have taken.

The first I will mention was, perhaps, equal to
the insolent iniquity of the demands I have been
reviewing. What will the most furious of their
apologists say to the following vote ?

" That when the Lords and Commons in par-
liament, which is the supreme court of judicature,
shall declare what the law of the land is, to have this
not only questioned but contradicted, is a high breach
of their privileges." *

This was as admirably supported as the doctrine
itself was constitutional; by turning critics in the
sacred cause of the people, and finding in the coro-
nation oath, that the king promises to maintain the
laws, which the people had chosen (in Latin, quos
elegerit vulgus). This elegerit they construed to mean
which the people shall choose.-^ What had become
of their holy zeal in support of the Constitution,
when they attempted such a fraud to alter it?
Was the claim of the dispensing power, for which
James was dethroned, one particle more usurping
than this ?

When the war broke out, they impeached the
Queen of high treason. For what act ?

The bringing a supply of arms to the king, her

* Rushworth apud Hume, vol. vi. p. 288.
f Ibid.

SECT. I. THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE. 77

husband and sovereign. Would not this have made
every man who adhered to the king, nay the king
himself, guilty? But it was an affront, a mean stab,
which gratified spleen and low revenge : which we
want not this instance to show, are perfectly com-
patible with the purest and most exemplary patriotism.
It is well called by the historian of the Constitution,
" a violation of the primary laws and moral senti-
ments that preserve human society, to which the
Queen was acting in obedience." *

The next proof of iniquity was, the agreement of
nearly all the members, in order to purchase the trea-
sonable assistance of the Scots, to take the Scotch
covenant, which pledged them to overturn the Esta-
blished Church.

This they did, and either reduced it to beggary,
which was the case with half the clergy ; or, what was
worse, forced them into perjury, to save themselves
from starvation.

Soon arose the murder of Laud.

He had been impeached, and lay in prison four
years without trial : an admirable proof of their regard
for liberty.

He was now seventy, and was at last proceeded
against.

But the Judges, when consulted, declared there
was no legal treason against him; for there was

* Hallam, vol. ii. p. 279.
E 3

78 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. I.

no treason but what was enacted by the statute of
Edward III., which did not apply to his case.

So they cut off his head by an ordinance of the
Commons, with which the wretched remnants of the
Peers complied. *

" But what excited the most universal complaint,"
(I use the words of Hume,) " was, the unlimited
tyranny and despotic rule of the country commit-
tees."

During the war, the discretionary power of these
courts was excused from the plea of necessity. Again,
you see as favourite a plea with the rebel as with
the tyrant. But the nation was reduced to despair,
when it saw neither an end put to their duration,
nor bounds to their authority. They could seques-
ter, fine, and imprison, and corporally punish with-
out law or remedy ; they interposed in questions of
private property ; under colour of malignancy, they
exercised vengeance against their private enemies;
to the obnoxious, and sometimes the innocent, they
sold their protection ; and, instead of one Star-

* Maynard was the chief manager on the trial, urging these illegal
" treasons against him." Who can ever after this respect Maynard, or
read, with satisfaction, the unfounded fine things said of him by Kurd,
who makes him the hero of one of his dialogues?

Hallam truly remarks that Laud's execution, without the slightest
pretence of political necessity (again the rebel's as well as the tyrant's
plea), was a far more unjustifiable instance of the abuse of power than
any he himself had exhibited. I know not which was most infamous
in this treatment of Laud : the murder itself, or the manner of it. But
patriots can never be wrong.

SECT. I. THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE. 79

chamber, which had been abolished, a great number
were anew erected, fortified with better pretences,
and armed with more unlimited authority.

The same, or greater tyranny, was exercised in
Scotland; where loans were exacted, often to the
ruin of families, from all who were suspected of favour-
ing the king, though ever so inoifensive. This was,
as it was said, to reach heart malignants. Never, in
this island, was known a more severe and arbitrary
government than was generally exercised by the
patrons of liberty in both kingdoms.

Could any thing have increased the indignation
against that slavery, into which the nation, from the
too eager pursuit of liberty, had fallen, it must have
been the reflection on the pretences by which the
people had so long been deluded. The sanctified
hypocrites, who called their oppressions " the spoil-
ing of the Egyptians," and their rigid severity " the
dominion of the Elect" interlarded all their iniqui-
ties with long and fervent prayers ; saved themselves
from blushing by their pious grimaces; and exercised,
in the name of the Lord, all their cruelty on men.
An undisguised violence could be forgiven ; but
such a mockery of the understanding, such an abuse
of religion, were, with men of penetration, objects of
peculiar resentment.

They next declared, that the Commons of England
in assembled parliament, being chosen by the people^
and representing them, are the supreme authority of
the nation; and that whatever is enacted and de-

E 4

80 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. I.

clared to be law by the Commons, hath the force of
law, without the consent of King or House of Peers.
This was the sovereignty of the people with a venge-
ance, and, of course, no invasion of the Constitution !

In the Treaty of Uxbridge, though they had by
no means yet conquered the king, who was sur-
rounded by a rival parliament at Oxford, their
exaction was as great, or greater, than in the nineteen
propositions.

They claimed not only the militia, but to name
all commanders by sea and land, including the
lord lieutenants of Ireland, and all governors of
garrisons for an unlimited time. What pretext had
they for this but their own ambition ? Hallam is
excellently fair upon it, and allows that Charles had
now been reduced to an impossibility of ever again
pretending to arbitrary power. * Yet they required
the king to attaint and except from pardon forty of
the most considerable of his English, and nineteen
of his Scottish subjects, together with all popish
recusants who had borne arms for him.

Forty-eight more, with all members of his par-
liament at Oxford, all lawyers, and divines who had
embraced his party, were to be incapable of any office,
be forbidden the exercise of their profession, or to come
within the verge of the court, and were to forfeit a
third of their estates.

The mind absolutely revolts at these infamous pro-

* Hallam's Constitutional Hist., vol. ii. p. 303.

SECT. I. THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE. 81

posals, and at the delusions of mankind, which could
incline any one then, but much more now, to sup-r
pose those who made them anything but rebels.

That they were patriots acting for the good of
their country is mockery to all truth; and we heartily
assent to the saying of Colonel White when Cromwell
sent him to clear the house of Harrison and other
saints, who told him " they were seeking the Lord,"
" Then go elsewhere, for, to my certain knowledge, he
has not been here these many years."

One would suppose that those who could risk so
much character, and incur so much detestation in the
minds of moderate and good men, for the sake of the
people, were at least free from any imputation of a
love of filthy lucre for the sake of themselves : and, no
doubt, our modern patriots who admire them, and
those who are ambitious of treading in their steps,
will be startled when they are told, that, having loaded
the people, whose deliverers from illegal imposts they
set out with being, with taxes far beyond those im-
posed by the most wasteful of monarchs *, they shared
openly among themselves no less than 300,000/.

Will not the surprise increase when we estimate
what this really was ?

I am a bad computer of the real or relative valu0
of money ; but are we far wrong in supposing that the
pound, two hundred years ago, could command four

* It is said, though probably an exaggeration, by Clement Walker,
who, however, was a zealous parliamentarian, that they amounted in
five years to 40,000,000?.

E 5

82 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. I.

times the amount in commodities that it can at
present ?

If so, let our patriots of the present day, who admire
their brethren of these former times, say what they
think of them for filching from their masters, the
people, 1,200,0007. in the course of five years.

Pursue the same line of inquiry in the pensions
(that never-dying source of complaint and indignation
of the present time) which the parliament settled upon
those they wanted to get rid of. To console Essex for
dismissing him, they settled upon him 10,0007. (that
is, of our money, 40,0007.) a year. Upon Richard
Cromwell, 20,0007., equal to 80,0007. a year.

Even the little job of appeasing a would-be military
rival in Lambert, when he dismissed him from his
command, cost Cromwell 80007. a year.

What would our present economists and reformers,
who feel such holy horror at the king's power to
bestow a few hundreds upon a decayed or drooping
family, or recompense a retired servant — much more,
if done in sheer munificence towards the objects of
it, — what would they think of their brother patriots if
they purchased the active services, or the mere ab-
stinence of individuals from action, at such a price? —
much more, if these patriots bestowed such sums
upon themselves?

This was mere robbery : what shall we say to their
tyranny ? Obvious and grinding in every thing, how
did it not press down its objects, as if with peine forte
et dure, as exercised by those savage oppressors the

SECT. I. THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE. 83

major-generals. They wanted only the power of life
and death, exercised by the French revolutionary com-
missioners, to be as cruel and grinding as they. They,
at least, deprived their French imitators of all pre-
tension to originality in the creation of a crime by no
means unimportant, — that of being a suspected person.
This subjected him to the tyranny of decimation, or
the exaction of the tenth of his property imposed upon
all royalists by that deliverer from oppression Crom-
well, which, to collect with greater facility these me-
morable offices of the twelve major-generals, were
instituted. These divided England into as many
parts, and, without regard to compositions, capitu-
lations, or acts of indemnity, reduced most of the
royalists to ruin.

But with the royalists the oppression did not stop.
Assisted by commissioners, they had power to subject
whom they pleased to decimation ; to levy all the
taxes imposed by the Protector and his council; and to
imprison any person who should be exposed to their
jealousy or suspicion : nor was there any appeal from
them but to the Protector himself and his council.

Under colour of these powers, which were sufficiently
exorbitant, the major-generals exercised an authority
still more arbitrary, and acted as if absolute masters
of the property and person of every subject.

"All reasonable men," says Hume, now concluded,

that the very mask of liberty was thrown aside, and

*that the nation was for ever subject to military and

despotic government, exercised not in the legal

E 6

84 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. I.

manner of European nations, but according to the
maxims of Eastern tyranny. Not only the supreme
magistrate owed his authority to illegal force and
usurpation : he had parcelled out the people into so
many subdivisions of slavery, and had delegated to his
inferior ministers the same unlimited authority which
he himself had so violently assumed." *

In conformity with this, Cromwell imposed, or col-
lected, taxes unauthorised by law; and when one
Cony had, like another Hampden, refused to pay,
and, the tax being enforced, had sued the collector,
Cromwell (not like another Charles) committed the
counsel he employed, Maynard, Fivirden, and Wynd-
ham, to the Tower. He also erected a high court of
justice, with powers different from those known to
the law, by which four legal murders were committed —
those of Gerard, Vowel, Slingsby, and Hewit ; " in
short," says Hallam (though the eager enemy of
hereditary despotism), " no hereditary despot proud
in the crimes of a hundred ancestors, could more
have spurned at every limitation than this soldier of
a commonweal th."f

His management of his parliament is almost still
more striking. He had exacted a recognition from
the members not to propose any alteration in the
government as settled in a single person and the
parliament ; and he placed guards on the House, who

* Hume, vol. vii. p. 245.

t Hallam's Constitutional Hist, vol. ii, p. 414.

SECT. I. THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE. 85

turned away all members who had refused to sign
this recognition. They complained to the speaker,
who, requiring of the clerk the indentures of all the
members, returned; and asking why the names of
those who had not taken their places were not en-
tered, was informed it was because they had not been
approved by the council ; — an admirable picture of a
free representation of the people, purchased by a civil
war.

The speaker then demanding of the council why
they were not approved, received this most satisfac-
tory answer, still more demonstrative of the liberty
which had been acquired by the death of the king : —

" Whereas it is ordained by a clause in the instru-
ment of government, that the persons who shall be
elected to serve in parliament shall be such, and no
other than such, as are persons of known integrity,
fearing God, and of good conversation, the council,
in pursuance of their duty, and acccording to the trust
reposed in them, have examined the said returns, and
have not refused to approve any who have appeared,
to them to be persons of integrity, fearing God, and
of good conversation ; and those who are not ap-
proved, his highness hath given order to some persons
to take care that they do not come into the House." *>

Well, you see the council here stand upon a trust
reposed in them by the instrument of government J
and though no where expressed, they implied it as

* Journals, 22d September, ap. Hallam.

86 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. I.

custodes morum ; and we have here an excellent prac-
tical lesson to those theorists (I by no means except
the great names of Locke or Mackintosh), who are
so fond of introducing implied trusts in the con-
struction of written laws. May we not say that
there never was an example in history of greater cant
and hypocrisy, with a view to a violation of right,
than this passage exhibits, compared to which all the
usurpations and instances of insincerity imputed to
Charles sink into nothing?

I think we may here take our leave of this sad and
desolating picture of fraud, violence, hypocrisy, and
oppression, which the history of these patriots and
lawful representatives of the only true authority, as
they are called, the people, exhibits.

I have waded, and forced you to wade, through a
hideous swarnp of traitorous designs, actions, and
characters, which by some zealots, some mistaken
men, and some villains, have been thought to have
adorned, but which, I trust, I have proved have dis-
graced our history. If I have, I have also proved
my point, that the tyranny and oppression which
justifies a war of his subjects against a king, may be
equaHy exhibited by the subjects themselves, and
equally, therefore, justify a war against them.

In short, it is not by that same vaunted name, the
people, that we are to be cozened.

It will not excuse, though it may varnish, crime in
the eyes of hot zealots or cool knaves.

Both their power and their disposition to rob,

SECT. I. THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE. 87

murder, usurp, and oppress, are to the full as great,
if not greater, than in a king. It is a talismanic
word, which, like other talismans, may be broken,
and leave vice, if it exists, in all its naked deformity.

How greatly could I add to this picture if I bor-
rowed the colours disclosed by the French revolution;
but as my object is England, to England I will adhere.

Turn we, therefore, to the later parliaments of
Charles II., and, before everything, to the infamies
of the popish plot, — that dreadful scourge, which
created as much dismay, and violated as many prin-
ciples of justice, morality, and law, with quite as
much infatuation as any act of the dethroned James.

It even exceeded him in the cruelties of tyranny.
He seized no property, though he invaded rights ; he
took no life, though he violated laws.

I mean not by this even to palliate the legal crimes
of Jeffreys, or the military executions of Feversham:
they were horrors, not even extenuated by the un-
justifiable rebellion and invasion that raged at the
time ; but James was scarcely more answerable for
them personally than William for the still greater
horror of Glencoe.*' Even Hal lam, one of his most
severe judges, observes that " the strength of the

* It is true Jeffreys accuses him of much of the blood, and James
was unforgiving enough. But who believes in such an authority as
Jeffreys ; and as to William's abhorrence of blood, we shall pre-
sently see what Mackintosh thought of it. If Sir James's opinion is
founded, that the supposed murderer of De Witt would not have
scrupled destroying James, the Whig king and the Tory king are
about equally matched.

88 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. I.

Jacobite faction sprang from the want of apparent
necessity for the change of government. The en-
croachments of James were rather felt in prospect
than much actual injury." He allows, too, as to
Charles II., that there were no such general infringe-
ments of liberty in his reign as had occurred before
the Long Parliament.* Both these seem strange
avowals in so determined an enemy to all the Stuarts.
Yet as to Charles II. even Lord John Russell seems
to agree with him, as we shall hereafter see.

In the Whig parliament, however, which brooded
over and hatched the Popish plot, neither life, nor
property, nor character were safe : all was violence,
prejudice, and blood; wilful perjury was rashly be-
lieved, if not suborned ; and men amiable in private
life, though violent in public (among them I em-
phatically mean Lord Russell, whom enthusiasts, as
misled as himself, rank among the martyrs j-), proved

, * Constitutional Hist., vol. iii. p. 231.

f Mackintosh calls him the victim. Victim of what ? He plotted
rebellion, and was fairly tried for it, under the law that existed
then, and exists now, and which was not wrested as in the case of
Sidney. By fairly tried, I mean that the evidence was legal, and
fairly left by the judge to the jury. See the warm encomium upon
the integrity and law of that judge (Pemberton) by Sir Vicary Gibbs,
while actually defending Hardy and Home Took, indicted, like
Russell, for constructive treason. This, however, has nothing to do
with that other reason for the reversal of Russell's attainder, founded
upon his jury not being freeholders. This was valid, but does not
alter the moral guilt of Russell. Whether Charles might not have
pardoned him with the approbation of the country and safety to him-
self, is another question.

SECT. I. THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE. 89

themselves to be more bloody, ruthless, and tyrannical
than all the Stuarts put together.

In the trial of Lord Russell, complaint was made
that constructive treason only was proved, and that
he was therefore condemned against law : and this
was the chief ground of the reversal of his attainder.
But exclusive that this constructive treason was held
to be law even after the Revolution, and, to use Mr.
Hallam's own expression, "established for ever"* by
the correct Holt, it was upon this very species of
treason that that injured old man Lord Stafford was
condemned, Lord Russell being one of his prosecutors.^

* Hallam, vol. iii. p. 209.

t Are we wrong in pronouncing him injured, when Mr. Fox,
whose party feelings transported him beyond his judgment as much as
any man, allows that he was innocent, and the popish plot a shocking
transaction, and an indelible disgrace upon the nation ? — Hist, of
James II., p. 36.

Mr. Fox does not hesitate also to say that the condemnation of
Russell and Sidney was a flagrant violation of law and justice, because
they had committed no act indicating the imagining the king's death,
even according to the most strained construction of the statute of
Edward III., much less was such act legally proved; so that it is im-
possible not to assent to the opinion of those who have ever stigmatised
the condemnation and execution of Russell and Sidney as a most
flagrant violation of law and justice. — History of James II., p. 38.

I pass the case of Sidney ; but this opinion as to Russell, all sober
lawyers, all judges, in short, all who are not more political partizans
than lawyers, deny. Lord John Russell, therefore, comes to his aid
by staking his own authority in support of that of Mr. Fox (neither
of them professional), against the weight of the whole profession put
together. His words are remarkable : — "I copy, with great satis-
faction, the recorded sentiments of Mr. Fox — an authority, in my
opinion, not easily matched by that of any lawyer." — Life of Lord
Russell, ii. 65.

90 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. I.

Upon the trial, too, of this same violent nobleman,
complaint was made that his jury had been named

Now the question is, who are the lawyers whose professional know-
ledge is thus to sink, in consequence of Lord John's opinion, before the
unprofessional but intuitive knowledge of Mr. Fox? Lord Hale,
Lord Holt (the last a Whig, both incorruptible), Sir Joseph Jekyll
(another Whig, and proverbially honest), Mr. Justice Foster (one of
the greatest authorities on the criminal law), Sir William Blackstone,
Chief Justice Eyre, and Chief Justice Gibbs, who, when counsel for
Hardy and Tooke, indicted for this very sort of treason, and laying
then the foundation of his after great reputation, could not breathe a
word against the law of Lord Russell's case, but, on the contrary, pro-
nounced the highest eulogium both upon the legal knowledge and the
integrity of Pemberton, who tried him. These are the lights, which,
according to Lord John, are to be extinguished by the superior,
though lay authority of Mr. Fox. Every one must venerate both
the abilities and the integrity of character of Mr. Fox, and we ought
so far to allow for the partiality and admiration of a young political
Euryalus, when he hazarded this rash but generous compromise of his
judgment in praise of his Nirus ; but the recollection of Mr. Fox's
failures, so fatal to himself and his party, on the subject of the Prince
of Wales's claim to the regency, ought, one would think, to have made
Lord John pause, before he denounced for comparative ignorance in
their profession the brightest ornaments of that profession. However,
this devotion of himself (for it is not less) to the cause of his friend,
ought to spare farther criticism. It is sufficient that the spell with
which, for party purposes, Lord Russell's supposed martyrdom has
always been surrounded, is broken by those who have most pretension
and most right to pronounce upon his case, and who have pronounced
upon it. The idea that, because Lord R., when he planned insur-
rection, did not mean to take the king's life, he was not therefore
answerable in law for the probable consequences, is a puerility we
never should have expected; and if Lord John still persists in his
opinion, we hope he will not be offended if we advise him to read

SECT. I. THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE. 91

by the Tory sheriff, North ; but when vengeance was
called for upon North by the victorious revolu-
tionists, they were stopped by finding that he had
only pursued the precedent set him by the " noto-
rious Whig sheriff; Bethel."

" Thus had the course of justice wheeled about."

But can we quit Lord Russell without noticing
what has always seemed to me a stain upon his
humanity, and only shows that tyrannical subjects
are as furious in the use of power as tyrannical kings.
I mean the doubt he expressed of the power of the
crown to remit the horrors of cruelty which form
part of the sentence upon treason, and confine it to
the infliction of death alone. The resolution of the
House upon this supposed usurpation of the king,
is most observable. " This House is content that the
sheriffs do execute William, late Lord Stafford, by
severing his head from his body only"

carefully the reply of the solicitor-general on Hardy's trial, where
legal responsibility for crimes not originally contemplated, but conse-
quent to those that are, are irrefutably set forth. The surprising as-
sertion, therefore, of Mr. Fox (however he may have himself believed
it), that, " even according to the most strained construction of the
statute of Edward III., Lord R. could not have been condemned,"
had long been ranked, and ranks still more than ever, with the consti
tutional and real judges of what is or is not law, among vulgar
errors. If Mr. Fox was right and the judges wrong, why did he not,
when a minister, why does not Lord John, now he is secretary of state,
among other reforms, set this absurd and crooked law straight ?

92 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. I.

This House content ! What had they to do with
it, content or not content? The execution of the
laws and the power of pardoning is in the king alone :
but the House here set itself above the law, and hence,
according to Mackintosh's doctrine (not his lan-
guage), a right of war accrued to the king against
them. We say nothing of their address to the crown,
praying that it would give orders for the execution of
Pickering and other condemned priests, — a request
which, as, with the exception of Pickering, their
fault was merely the exercise of their religion, Lord
John Russell himself, in the life of his ancestor, deno-
minates, with reason, savage and inhuman.* The
heart again sickens at these usurpations and cruelties
of the Commons.

But if this could belong to the character of so
amiable a person in private life as Lord Russell; if
such a person could be so infuriate a party bigot, — •
so outrageous a visionary, what could be expected
from his brother whigs, in the wantonness of assumed
power.

Probably the expelled tyrant James would be
obliged to yield the palm of infatuated despotism,
to these champions of the people, and enemies of
oppression.

Look at the acts and votes of the Commons of
1680.

Their violence in the popish plot, and the general

* Life of Lord Russell, vol. i. p. 157.

SECT. I. THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE. 93

violent spirit kindled by that iniquity, had produced,
as we know, petitions full of inflammatory language.

To balance these, the friends of the government
dealt largely in addresses in which they abhorred the
sentiments of the petitioners ; hence the two classes
of petitioners and abhorrers. The Commons, of
course, abhorred the abhorrers; and because one of
their body, Withens, encouraged one of these ad-
dresses, they expelled him. Will any man alive say
this was not a breach of one of the best of the natural
and moral rights of man — the right to his opinion ?
Had it been perpetrated by a sovereign according to
the principles of our doctors, it would have been a
legitimate cause of revolt ?

But Withens was one of themselves: see how it
fared with strangers.

They had no jurisdiction over real offences ; but
they could turn what they pleased into imaginary
ones, and punish them as breaches of privilege,
without appeal.

A despotism far beyond the king's, even if he were
not made constitutionally responsible in the persons
of his ministers. They had no ministers, and, in so
far, were superiors to kings. How did they use their
power ?

Thompson, a clergyman, preached a sermon in
which he traduced Hampden, and Queen Elizabeth,
both of them long in their graves. He might be a
fool ; he might be a madman ; a courtier ; a syco-
phant; but what law did he break? Nevertheless,

94 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. I.

they voted this a breach of privilege, arrested, and
brought him to their bar to answer for a high mis-
demeanor, and compelled him to find security to
answer to an impeachment voted on these charges.*

Others were brought to the bar for rcmissness in
searching for papists. Where did the law pronounce
this a crime? It is scarcely exceeded by the crime
invented by the French murderers — the suspicion of
being suspected.

Sir Robert Cann was taken into custody for de-
claring there was no popish, but a presbyterian plot.
This assumed dominion over opinion beats, or at
least equals, Domitian or Nero.

A general panic spread over the country in conse-
quence of these infamous invasions of liberty by its
immaculate guardians; and even Lord John Russell is
forced to allow the practice became so oppressive,
that the people began to turn their suspicions of an
arbitrary king into fears of an arbitrary parliament, f
At length, a Mr. Stawell of Devonshire refused
compliance with the Speaker's warrant, and defied
their tyranny. Their factiousness was now at its
height. They resolved nem. con. that no member
should accept of any place under the crown, or any
promise of one, under pain of expulsion.

Where did the constitution give them this power,
by which they invaded deeply the rights and freedom

* Journals, December 24. 1 680. cited by Hallam.
f Life of Lord Russell, vol. i. p. 211.

SECT. f. THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE. 95

of choice of the constituents of such members who,
therefore, at least according to the doctrine, had,
from its oppression, a right to revolt? Had sucli a
piece of tyranny been attempted by the king, revolt
by the Whig authorities would have been instantly
justified.

Again, without inquiry, much less a hearing, they
passed resolutions against Lords Worcester, Halifax,
Clarendon, Feversham, Lawrence Hyde, and Edward
Seymour, as dangerous enemies to the king and
kingdom, and promoters of popery, for having ad-
vised the king to refuse the Exclusion Bill, though
that bill had not proceeded so far as ever to be pre-
sented to him.

They resolved to refuse all supplies till the bill
passed ; and that any one who should advance money
to the government on the security of the customs or
excise, should be judged a hinderer of the sitting of
parliament, and made responsible for the same. Yet
what law was here broken, and still more, what law gave
them this power? By such usurpation all govern-
ment, nay all society, was torn up by the roots.

They closed this with resolving unanimously, but
without even the mockery of the inquiry played off
in the murders they committed in the popish
plot, that they were of opinion that London was
burnt by the Papists in 1666, designing thereby to
introduce popery and arbitrary power. Yet after
this there came out a just and modest vindication of
the two last parliaments. I should say Risum tene-

96 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. I.

atis, but that Somers was supposed to have had a
hand in it, and our laughter is turned into regret.

" Who would not laugh if such a man there be,
Who would not weep if Attius were he? "

May we not apply to the last vote another line of
the same poet on London's column, which he says,

" Rising to the skies,
Like a tall bully, lifts its head and lies ? "

What think you ? Could any state exist in com-
mon safety, much less peace and happiness, with
such thorns in its sides? Was there not here op-
pression, even " systematic oppression" to warrant
civil war ?

Are kings then the only oppressors, — the only
powers in the state whose acts can create a cause for
resistance ?

Hallam, less wild than Mackintosh, but a reason-
ably devoted Whig, is just enough to give its true
character to such a tyranny.

" These encroachments," says he, " under the name
of privilege, were exactly in the spirit of the Long
Parliament, and revived too forcibly the recollection
of that awful period. It was commonly in menis
mouths that ]641 was come about again. Thefe
appeared for several months a very imminent danger
of civil war." *

I ask, then, if an opinion of oppression authorises

* Hallam, vol. iii. p. 192.

SECT. I. THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE. 97

civil war, who were here the oppressors ? Charles II.,
bad man as he was, or his virtuous subjects ?

It was time that this House of Commons should be
dissolved, and it was so; but it was succeeded by a
worse, in the celebrated Oxford parliament ; which,
from its increased heat and violence, which Hallam
(no enemy to the rights of the people) observes,
served still more to alienate the peaceable part of the
community*, and lasted but eight days.

The chief feature of this parliament was its im-
mitigable rage against the Duke of York, and its
persevering determination to exclude him from the
throne.

Yet he had offended no law ; he had usurped no
power ; he had been guilty of no oppression : his right
to the succession was undoubted.

His only offence was being a papist, — a matter
between himself and his God, and for which, at that
time, the law of the land did not exclude him from
the throne.

The oppression, therefore, here was on the other
side.

For this, however, our political casuists provide no
remedy by resistance : though, probably, a duke of
Lancaster in other times, if thus injured in his rights,
would have little scrupled to have asserted them, in
the same manner as he asserted his claim to his estates,

* Hallam, vol. iii. p. 1 93.
F

98 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. I.

of which he had been deprived by oppression., and with
them obtained the crown.

I do not hold that the Duke of York would, or
should, have imitated Henry IV. But had the
Exclusion Bill passed — if oppression justifies revolt
against the oppressor, whoever he is, I see not that
the theory would not have permitted him to have
raised a civil war, had he had the power and in-
clination to do it.

The rage of his enemies, the Commons, was without
bounds.

It evidently exceeded all limits of reason or justice.

It was offered to banish him for life five hundred
miles from England, and that if he succeeded to the
crown, the power should be administered by a regent
in his name. Even this sacrifice of himself to the
views of the Commons was rejected, and the king
might have been reduced to extremity, when a
quarrel between the two houses relieved, by giving
him a fair pretext to dissolve them.

They had impeached Fitzharris at the bar of the
House of Lords, who they insisted should try him.
The Lords refused as beneath their dignity, and re-
ferred him to the ordinary courts. The Commons
took fire, and voted that whatever court should presume
to try him would he guilty of a high breach of privilege.

These heats produced their dissolution after a
session (as we have said) of only eight days. But
suppose, like the Long Parliament, they could not have

SECT. I. THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE. 99

been dissolved, might not the right of civil war con-
tended for, have instantly accrued ?

Were there not here systematic oppressors, " who
shut the gates of justice on the people, and thereby re-
stored them to their original right of defending themselves
by force*," and was there any power but force to
make them repair their wrong?

Sir James must therefore either allow the " lawful-
ness," to use his own term, of resisting this misconduct
of the Commons, by force, or give up his position, f

And this brings me to deeper speculations.

The power of supplies is, we know, exclusively in
the Commons. Suppose, in order to carry some
great object of usurpation which they may have at
heart, that they are so mad as to stop them ! Suppose
that object were to make the king descend from his
throne, and turn the Monarchy into a Republic !
That has been attempted.

Suppose it to be, to annihilate the House of Lords,
and leave themselves without check !

That has been done.

Suppose it to be, to vest the whole Indian Empire
in commissioners, appointed by themselves !

That has also been tried.

Suppose it be to banish all of a particular religion
possessed of a hundred a year ; or suppose it to be to
give themselves several thousands a year each !

All these have been essayed.

* Supra. f Even Locke allows this.

F 2

100 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. I.

Suppose it to be, to give themselves a right to other
men's wives and daughters ; to annihilate the national
debt, and produce national bankruptcy ; or, which is
not so unlikely as these suppositions, not only to
annihilate the Protestant Church, but to establish
Catholicism in its stead !

Suppose, finally, it be to make Mr. O'Connell king
of Ireland, after separating the two countries !

If all, or any of these measures are not granted by
the rest of the legislature, suppose ALL SUPPLIES to be
stopt!

We know the consequences. We should imme-
diately be left without army or navy ; all miscel-
laneous services would be at an end; all business
would stagnate, and the wheels of the state would
stand still.

It may be said, that this could not be, for that these
despotic Commons might be dissolved.

True : but might not the same members again be
returned? The enlightened reformers of our late
corrupt Constitution, in order to imbue it with the
proper degree of unchangeable virtue, have given
such a preponderance to numbers over property, of
tribes over centuries, that, aided by the still more
liberal views of still farther reaching reformers, uni-
versal suffrage — that crowning object of every just
man's wish — may soon take place ; and then !

Well, and then ? who is to say that the defensive
weapon of dissolution is not to fall from the king's
hands, and the eternal power of the Commons, by

SECT. I. THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE. 101

the eternal re-election of the same men, have the
same effect as that fatal error which gave the eternity
of power to the Long Parliament of Charles I. ?

My suppositions, then, are not so fallacious; and
some of them may be realised.

And if they are, would there not be oppression, and
a closing of the gates of justice, to Sir James's heart's
content, to justify our resuming our original rights of
defending ourselves by force ?

Cromwell did no more when he dissolved the Long
Parliament, and reproached them with their " mis-
conduct" which, we see in the oracle before us, justifies
revolt. You recollect his emphatic words, when he
entered with his soldiers.

He loaded them with the vilest reproaches for their
tyranny, ambition, oppression, and robbing of the
public : — one was a whoremaster ; another an adul-
terer ; a third a drunkard and glutton ; a fourth an
extortioner.*

Heaven forbid that such characters should be
found among our present chaste and temperate re-
presentatives, or justify any modern Cromwell in
using such language as this to the future represent-
atives of the people, purified as they must be by
universal suffrage.

" For shame ! " said the would-be Protector, " get
ye gone ! give place to honester men — to those who

* See the histories.
F 3

102 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. I.

will more faithfully discharge their trust. You are
no longer a parliament : the Lord has done with
you ; he has chosen other instruments for carrying on
his work."

Here we see the principles we have been investi-
gating completely carried into practice against a par-
liament as well as a king ; nor do I perceive how
there can be any difference between the oppression
and misconduct of the one and the other ; for these
being the creating motives for action against the one
as well as the other, Cromwell was only right, nay,
praiseworthy in what he did; and, of course, Sir James
must approve.

This case, then, again shows that the represent-
atives of a people, as well as their monarch, may be
oppressors, and guilty of misconduct, and therefore
be punished.

Who, if any future House of Commons should at-
tempt any of the usurpations I have supposed, will be
the Cromwell to resume the original right of self-
defence, and put it in force against them, is a ques-
tion which I venture not to answer; but this I think,
that if such a breach of trust as stopping the supplies
were ever to be committed for the avowed purpose of
carrying any of the points I have supposed, according
to Sir James a right of war against them by those
who felt the misconduct would be instantly acquired,
and, according to Locke, the trust being abused, the
power would be forfeited, and devolve again upon
those who gave it.

SECT. I. THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE. 103

The cases of unjust usurpation I have supposed,
are not all of them imaginary.

But are there no actual oppressions, or already en-
acted laws, esteemed to be such, by many thousands,
perhaps millions, of the people ?

The game-laws, represented falsely, but doggedly,
fts the tyranny of the rich over the poor ; the corn
laws, decidedly bearing, however unjustly, the same
character ; the poor laws, tyranny itself, and even in-
human ; the national debt, that incubus, which might
be annihilated at a stroke ; the trappings of the mo-
narchy, which republicans say would maintain many a
commonwealth; the pension list, emphatically "framed
for the worthless few, at the expense of the virtuous
many;" the church-rates, the tithes, and a thousand
obnoxious taxes, particularly upon newspapers, mono-
polies, arrests for debt, and even the marriage act;
both of these last, oppression, and invasion of man's
natural rights ! Surely there are here grievances
enough, in our unhappy and rough-ridden country, to
make us, according to Sir James's doctrine, rise to a
man, and use our original power of resistance; or
at least of administering the physic of revolution to
the diseased and rotten body politic.

To be sure, the oppressions have all been authorised
by the law, and long acquiesced in without revolt.
But what then ? Does that take away the right, still
less the advisableness of revolting, provided, as our
jurist holds, the plan is not " ill-concerted" and we
can get reformers enough to warrant success ?

F 4

104 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. I.

I am afraid, however, that the praise of originality
in this doctrine of insurrection does not belong to
Sir James. The patriot Hampden (he of 1688)
treats them as if of every day's allowance. When
examined before the House of Lords, as to his plea of
guilty, in his share of the Rye-House plot, he boldly,
and certainly unanswerably, says no man will think
he ought to be ashamed of it, who thinks that Lord
jRussell ivas murdered. — That certainly must be allowed
to him who so thinks. But he adds, that the matter
(insurrection) was a very common thing, and quite
constitutional : — " This was the way," he says, " which
our ancestors always took when the sovereign authority
came to so great a height ; as might be made out by
many instances. Custom had made this the law of
England; and all civilised and well governed nations
about us had used the like ivay."

So far the oracle Hampden, who thus makes in-
surrection part of our common law, and holds it even
to belong to civilisation and good government, — of
which, no doubt, all the well-governed states of the
world are duly sensible, and take care to put it in
practice. I will only add, that this opinion of Mr.
Hampden is quoted by a noble statesman of ours —
himself a legislator and secretary of state, and there-
fore, of course, alive to all maxims of good govern-
ment, at least without any mark of disapprobation or
difference of opinion.*

* Life of Lord Russell, by Lord John Russell, vol. ii. p. 166. 1

SECT. I. THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE. 105

Yet, with the greatest possible deference to one
who, from his office of home secretary, must know so
much better how to govern than we simple folk whom
he governs, 1 would ask, in what state of happiness or
security that man would be whose tenants or servants,
if they chose to be discontented, were bred up in the
notion that they had a right, and were even encour-
aged by the law, to destroy hims provided they were
strong enough ?

What would become of confidence, or sense of
honour, or gratitude, the best ties of social order? It
is but justice, however, to Lord John, to say, that in
another place he qualifies these opinions ; not, how-
ever, as to the principle, but as a matter of prudence,

" I apprehend," says he, " few men will now deny,
that resistance to a government may sometimes be an
act not only justifiable as an enterprise, but impe-
rative as a duty."

I am sure, for one, I will not be of the few who
deny this. On the contrary, I should have been
glad, had I lived at the time, to have been thought
worthy of siding against James.

Lord John goes on, soberly and wisely, I think,
to condemn a doctrine of Lord Chatham, that it
were better for the people to perish in a glorious
contention for their rights, than to purchase a slavish
tranquillity, at the expense of one iota of the Con-
stitution. Lord John thinks, that a single franchise
may be compensated, and abuses resisted, without
taking arms.

106 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. I.

So do you and I. " It is only," he goes on to say,
" when the channels of redress are choaked up, and in
danger of being totally closed, that it is the right of
all men to prepare for their defence."*

This, too, is undoubted. But cui bono> such general
truths, unless accompanied with practical illustrations
in order to disclose your real meaning ?

These sentences were written by the noble author,
in discussing the question of the principle, as well as
of the fact of the Rye-House plot, and the share his
honourable and popular ancestor was supposed to
nave had in it. Well ; is he prepared to say, that
because the general principle, so generally laid down,
is undeniable, that Lord Russell was justified in pre-
paring for a defensive insurrection, because, not the
king, but the House of Lords, (though we will grant
him the king if he pleases,) had thrown out the
Exclusion Bill ?

Were the channels of redress in danger of " being
choaked and totally closed," because the undoubted
heir of the throne was not set aside for being a Papist ;
there being no law against it ?

Yet this was the main grievance complained of,
spite of an enumeration of many others (and serious
ones too) made by Lord John.

For, as to some of them (for example, the removal
of judges for a particular purpose, and the effects, at
least, of the surrender of the charters) ; these had

* Life of Lord Russell.

SECT. I. THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE. 107

not then taken place ; the abuse of the nomination of
juries by sheriffs had been begun, as we have seen,
by the Whig Sheriff Bethell, against the court*, and
the press was pretty much where it was.

Even Hallam admits, while also enumerating the
encroachments by proclamations, on the rights of
parliament, and of the subject, that there were no
such general infringements of liberty in the reign of
Charles II., as occurred continually before the Long
Parliament, f

On the other hand, we are not to forget that the
association framed by Shaftesbury against the go-
vernment, and the plan, by force of arms, to continue
the Oxford parliament, spite of the dissolution, were
already contemplated, if not organised, long before
any of the enumerated grievances of Lord John had
been felt.

But strange to say, Lord John plainly and forcibly
answers himself in the following passages : — "It is
sufficient to justify the leaders of an insurrection,
that the people should be thoroughly weary of suf-
fering, and disposed to view with complacency a
change of rule. Were they so in 1683? It appears
to me that they were not" Then what could justify his
ancestor in plotting insurrection ? " Acts of oppres-
sion," Lord John proceeds to say, "had been exercised
chiefly against a party, many of whom had become
unpopular ; the general character of the government

* Severely and justly blamed by Lord John himself,
f Constitutional Hist., vol. iii. p. 130, 137.
F 6

108 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. I.

was not tyrannical; the religion and the property of the
subject had not yet been attacked. Lord Russell seems
himself to have entertained little hopes of rousing the
people at this period ; and it is probable that, after
some consultation with his friends, he would either
have persuaded them to remain quiet, or have with-
drawn altogether from their councils."

If so, I repeat the question, Why did Lord Russell
consult about a rising, and wherefore does Lord John
make the enumeration of grievances that are supposed
to justify him ? Would the refusal of the Exclusion,
would any refusal of any bill by the king, or House
of Lords, (that refusal being in the exercise of their
constitutional rights,) justify the insurrection pro-
posed ?

If not, where was the necessity, or even the policy,
of introducing this abstract question as a defence of
Lord Russell ?

Mackintosh, however, proceeds infinitely farther.

As James invaded liberty, he observes, the right
of a defensive war was clear.

" It is needless, therefore, to moot the question,
whether arms may be as justly wielded to obtain, as
to defend liberty."

Can the question then be mooted ?

This is most important, since it implies that, in
the mind of our luminous instructor, if the legal con-
stitution of a state be not sufficiently consistent with
liberty, (oj which difficult matter every one is to judge
for himself,) it may be at least mooted, whether the

SECT. I. THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE. 109

subject, without farther cause of complaint, and
without any illegal attempt 011 the part of the sove-
reign, may not take arms to obtain what HE THINKS
is wanting to form a better constitution ?

Hence therefore, though the governments of Russia,
Prussia, and Austria, if despotic, are so by law, and
are allowed to be well administered, the people, in
the midst of peace and happiness, may at any time
rise against their sovereigns and destroy them.

If this be not a removal of all landmarks — an
undermining of all security in a community, I don't
know what is.

According to this, the most wise, virtuous, and
patriarchal sovereign upon earth is not safe from a
lawful revolt : for if the law give him more power
than it pleaseth any of his subjects to submit to, and
the y think they can make the Constitution better, it is
only a moot point whether they may not rise in arms
against him. If that were so, I fear the mooting
would not last long. We know the nature of a pam-
pered prosperity to produce discontent; and, for
one, I was always struck with the forcible expressions
of old Walton on the usurpations of the Long Par-
liament:— " This nation," says he, " being then happy
and at peace, but inwardly sick of being well."* At
any rate, what then are loyalty and submission to the
laws ? Both mere sound, banished from the Ethical
code by this the Rebel's book; for so I think I may
i\ow call it.

* Life of Saunderson.

110 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. I.

But it is said, and is allowed, that the law by
which this resistance is authorised, is not, and cannot
be, the law of any written constitution; for that
would be a contradiction. It is one paramount to all
enactments of man, namely, the moral law, or law of
nature, written in our hearts.

Be it so ; but all law, whether positive, or moral,
must have an obligation to force obedience to its
enactments; and what is the obligation of natural
law?

A great, diversified, and much agitated question,
ending, I think, (or ending in nothing,) in religious
obligation, which thus becomes the same with moral
obligation.

An excellent answer ; for, no doubt, such an obli-
gation must bind all mankind, except those who have
no sense of religion.

But here, as every man that pleases, and when he
pleases, may rise in insurrection, amenable to no
tribunal but his own interpretation of the moral law,
all definiteness in moral (that is, religious) obligation
is set aside, and we are reduced to the commonwealth
of atheists, or of Hobbes, and all civil security
depends upon the fear of the axe and the gallows.

Am I doing Sir James injustice, in tracing this
consequence from a doctrine, that it is only a moot
question whether arms may not be wielded to obtain,
as well as defend, liberty ?

That there may be no doubt as to his meaning of
the word " mooting" I beg to call your attention to

SECT. I. THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE. Ill

the following explanatory passages : — "It may be
observed, that the rulers who obstinately persist in
withholding from their subjects securities for good
government, obviously necessary for the permanence
of that blessing, generally desired by competently
informed men, and capable of being introduced
without danger to public tranquillity, appear thereby
to place themselves in a state of hostility against the
nation whom they govern.

" Wantonly to prolong a state of insecurity seems to
be as much an act of aggression as to plunge a nation
into that state.

" When a people discover their danger, they have a
moral claim on their governors for security against
it. As soon as a distemper is discovered to be dangerous,
and a safe and effectual remedy has been found, those
who withhold the remedy are as much morally ans-
werable for the deaths that may ensue, as if they had
administered poison.

" But though a REFORMATORY REVOLT may in
these circumstances become perfectly just) it has not
the same likelihood of a prosperous issue, with those
insurrections which are more strictly and directly
defensive."

Here, then, the mask is thrown off, and, under the
mild and innocent phrase of a reformatory revolt, we
may take arms against our governors whenever we
please ; not because they do not, but because they do
govern according to law. They may be the wisest
and best of princes — Trajans, Antoninuses, Alfreds,

112 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. I.

or Henri Quatres; but we may kill, burn, and
destroy them if they administer laws which, in our
opinion, might be made better.

This is what I understand by the ingenious term
reformatory revolt.

What is specifically meant by many parts of the
language in which this doctrine is conveyed, I confess
I cannot tell.

I can only guess, from some of the expressions,
something very terrible and threatening from the
governed to the governors.

The ambiguities and obscure shadows contained in
the didactic parts, I in vain endeavour to make out;
but when we come to acts of " aggression" on the
parts of rulers, though none are substantively speci-
fied ; and when a " reformatory revolt " is talked of,
metaphysics are at an end, and there is something
which we could grapple with if we knew how they
came into the array where we find them.

What can we understand of rulers obstinately with-
holding from their subjects securities for good govern-
ment?

What is the good government meant ? What are
the securities ? What the safe and effectual remedies ?

On these there may be ten thousand opinions.

They may mean a periodical national assembly,
periodically cancelling the government, in order to
make a new one: they may mean a periodical, or
perpetual dictator; a mixed monarchy, an elective
king ; any thing that any body pleases.

SECT. I. THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE. 113

I know not what exactly is in the writer's mind
by the vague and indefinite term security, applied
practically to a people, still less what is meant by the
competently informed men, who are to decide.

In the wording of the sentence, too, it is doubtful
whether it is good government, or security for it,
which these competently informed gentlemen are said
so generally to desire.

All these branches of the proposition which is
attempted (for it is by no means perfect) must be
distinctly understood, before we can reach even the
idea of what is the aggression predicated, and what is
aimed at by the reformatory revolt.

Rhetoricians are seldom logicians, though our
friend had the reputation of both.

It must be owned that here, where, on account
of the muttering thunder from behind this cloud,
perspicuity was most wanted, he has most failed.

The generality of the phrase of competently informed
men, though these are the men who are to judge of
no less than what may be a lawful cause of civil war,
is still more markedly fallacious, and is of a piece
with all that vagueness and indeterminate phraseology,
in which, throughout, Sir James does not hesitate to
hazard the most dangerous propositions.

He, himself, is a storehouse of information ; and
what may appear to be competent information to me,
may seem ignorance to him. What I may think
ignorance, another may be content with. What he
may think information, I may think madness.

114 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. I.

Must we not therefore reject his proposition, for
want of more light, where he lays down in such unin-
telligible generality, though it may lead to domestic
horrors, that if securities for good government desired by
competently informed men are refused^ revolt and civil
war may lawfully follow ?

Let us try this competency by its effects.

I have heard that Mr. Owen is not only com~
petently, but well informed.

Will Sir James elect him as a judge of good govern-
ment, or the securities for it ; and allow him to tell us
when we are to rise to claim it ? Will Mr. Bentham
do ? or will Mr. Muirson satisfy him ?

Who is Mr. Muirson ? —

A gentleman who has evidently, and deeply, studied
the subject, as well as Sir James ; and evinces quite
as much zeal upon it, though inferior to him, probably,
upon all others. Witness a pamphlet which he wrote,
and read at a meeting, sometime since at the Crown
and Anchor, of the working classes, on Spanish affairs ;
which, of course, they must have profoundly under-
stood. That they were at least competently informed
upon it, appears from their discovering that in Spain
there was no House of Peers ; and therefore " it would
be a national blessing if our House was swept away,
with all its appendant rubbish."

Mr. Muirson, however, was more particular. He
read from his pamphlet (sold at the door for one
penny) the following " Outline of a new constitution,
such as should be submitted to the British nation,

SECT. I. THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE. 115

assembled as a people upon the principles of association,
and in social union, to form and enact a social com-
pact."

"It is decreed, by order of the people, in social
union assembled —

" That all kingly authority, all hereditary titles,
privileges, and all laws of primogeniture and entail,
be for ever abolished.

" That there be no state religion.

" A national legislative assembly, to be elected by
ballot and universal suffrage. Ireland, as well as
the colonies, shall constitute and legislate for them-
selves.

" All the Crown lands, Church lands, waste lands,
and whatever else at this time be constituted national
property, shall be immediately taken possession of in
the name of the nation.

" The people shall be armed, so that they shall be
at all times prepared to resist oppression and assert
their rights.

" Every soldier, who has co-operated in social union
with the people in order to re-conquer and obtain their
natural and just rights, to have sixteen acres of the
best land, rent free for life. *

" England looks up for, and wants a leader of
courage, capacity, and action, around whose patriotic
genius all men whose bosoms glow with the sacred
love of liberty, will unite their efforts to rescue their

* Is this one of Sir James's securities?

11(> HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. I.

suffering countrymen from the yoke of bondage, wliicli
has so long, and so cruelly oppressed, and which still so
shamefully degrades it."

Such was Mr. Muirson's address ; and surely he
must be one of the competently informed, particularly
on questions of constitutional law ; for the report said,
he was vociferously applauded by an audience, who
said that, with the assistance of the member for Kil-
kenny, they had no fear of being able to reconstruct
the British Constitution.*

I fear you will think I am trifling with your
patience, in intruding this apparent burlesque upon
you. Believe me, I never was more serious ; nor do
I think it would be possible to produce a more sound,
or practical comment upon almost all the constitutional
doctrines in Sir James's book, particularly the last I
have reviewed.

Wild, exaggerated, treasonable as the proposals
are, ridiculous as may seem the power, or the
knowledge of such an assembly, there is no one
feature of the transactions, nor one principle or
assertion of the address, which is not in unison with,
and founded upon the whole doctrine of resistance,
in all its ramifications, and emphatically on his last-
mentioned theories of a reformatory revolt, contained
in Sir James's work.

* See The Times, August 14. 1836. — The Sun subjoins, that the
audience, though composed of the working classes, handled the sub-
ject so well, as to leave no regret for the absence of parliamentary
orators.

SECT. I. THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE. 117

It is true, with us, no aggression is, or can be
pointed out. The king is no tyrant. His is a reign
of law, of kindness, of moderation and good will;
and his measures have been the reverse of oppressive.
But what of that? — According to the advocate for
resistance, a mere desire in subjects to obtain more
liberty than they have, and without any attack upon
what they have, will justify their taking arms, provided
there is a chance of success ; which these gentlemen of
the Crown and Anchor say they have.

We see they already cry out that they are in a
bondage, which has long and cruelly oppressed them.
Well ; have they not, according to Sir James, a right
to a reformatory revolt ? Have they not a right to
think as well as others ? The Sun newspaper says,
they think as well as the reformed Parliament. Are
they not, then, "men, competently informed?" and
may they not decide therefore on what are the best
securities for the good government they demand ?

Could I have supposed Mr. Muirson meant to
have laughed Sir James's proposition out of coun-
tenance, I should have thought he would have framed
the exact proposal for an amended constitution, and
called this meeting expressly for the purpose.

All falls in with the many other proofs, in the
book I am presenting to you, of how dark, how
ambiguous, and therefore how dangerous to be fol-
lowed on questions of political law, it is possible
for a mind to be; luminous, beautiful, and eminently
cultivated in all other respects.

118 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. I.

But here I am aware of the saving clause in Sir
James's theory, of which it would be injustice to him
not to take notice. The securities to be demanded
must be " capable of being introduced without danger
to public tranquillity"

Here, again, is the sad error of legislating " in
generalities," if the object is to legalise a given
practical case.

Amidst the thousand different feelings and opinions
which agitate mankind on political measures, the
party spirit, the blind prejudices, the personal in-
terests that ever prevail, (particularly in a mixed
government,) who is to say what will or will not be
"dangerous to public tranquillity?" Besides, if re-
fused by tho ruling powers, (say, in England, the
King, Lords, and Commons,) that instant, according
to Sir James, " they place themselves in a state of
hostility to the nation. Wantonly to prolong a state
of insecurity, seems to be as much an aggression as to
plunge a nation into that state." We know pretty
clearly now, what are to be the consequences of this
aggression.

Is this then the wisdom that Sir James would teach
us — that we are to live in constant apprehension of
tumult and revolt, our security from which may be
destroyed whenever any fool, any visionary, or any
wicked person chooses to propose what HE thinks may
be granted by the legislature without endangering
public tranquillity, but upon which, unfortunately, the
legislature may hold a different opinion ? In short,

SECT. I. THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE. 119

that it is never duty and allegiance, but mere pru-
dence, that is to preserve our safety in society?

With submission, this saving clause, that the se-
curity (that is, the alteration) in question, is to be
introduced without danger to tranquillity, yet give a
right of insurrection if not granted, is a contradictory
proposition. The mere demand of the security,
(however tranquilly it might be introduced if adopted
immediately,) if refused, breaks the tranquillity.
What should we say to a robber who demands a
man's purse, with this persuasive speech, — " You can
give it, if you please, without the least breach of
tranquillity; but if you do not, I will blow your
brains out ! "

Many demands upon the legislature may illustrate
the refutation of this wild doctrine. Take one. Voting
by ballot may, by many, be deemed a security for
good government. It certainly might be introduced
without danger to public security. But it is refused ;
and 'thereby an aggression is committed.

The legislature " has placed itself in a state of
hostility to the nation;" and those who think the
ballot a security for liberty, have an instant right of
insurrection.

Will this hold for a moment ?

These are mere sophistries that cannot be ad-
mitted in a code of law.

But how then, it may be asked, do you resist a
robber ?

By sheer force, upon the sudden emergency ; the

120 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. I.

right to which you have, (as I said,) by the law
of self-defence, which is the law of nature. But
before I do this, I do not attempt to reason about
his having broken a compact with society when he
entered it, or about my having retained a power to
take the law into my own hands when he did so.

You allow then, an antagonist may say, that you
would repress grievances by the sword, if there were
no other mode. Say rather, repel an attack ; which
I certainly would do, provided there were no other
remedy.

But I would do it on the principle I have alluded
to, of self-defence, w hen the case arises ; of which I
must judge at the risk of my neck : for if I am wrong,
or if I do not succeed, I shall certainly be either
shot by the robber or hanged by the law. I would,
therefore, not busy myself with a metaphysical right,
or provide for cases of necessity which have not
arisen.

Should a king then attack your person, or house,
with no warrant of law — — — ! I would shoot
him, as well as the robber, if I could not defend my-
self without it; but not in virtue of my dormant
sovereignty, revived for the occasion.

How infinitely more rational, upon this subject, is
the clear and cool-judging Blackstone ! He is as fully
aware of the difficulty of treating a case of necessity as
Sir James ; but he extricates himself from it with pru-
dence, because he seeks not to generalise, or legislate
universally for cares that cannot be foreseen, and

SECT. I. THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE. 121

can only be met by temporary measures. He felt
and practised Sir James's own maxim, — which Sir
James himself did not. He did not attempt to " look
for regularity in a sudden and unprecedented crisis,
where all was irregular.*" He is as free as our jurist
in applying remedies where wanted, pro re nata ;
but he does not, on that account, endeavour to render
(to use a forcible illustration of Burke,) "the medi-
cine of the commonwealth its daily bread."

Locke, in his warm zeal for liberty and just
hostility to the divine right of kings, fell into an
extreme on the opposite side, which republicans are
fond of quoting. " There remains," says he, " still in-
herent in the people a supreme power to remove or
alter the legislative, when they find the legislative
act contrary to the trust reposed in them ; for when
such a trust is abused, it is thereby forfeited and
devolves to those who gave it."f

Here we are evidently again at sea. For, again,
supposing a fact which does not exist, that the people
in form assembled to frame a government, and, in
the first instance, resolved unanimously (I should
say women as well as men, and certainly many of
those called infants in the eye of the lawj) to abide
by the determination of a majority, still the question
recurs, What is trust? what the abuse of it? and,

* Mackintosh, vol. ii. p. 282.
f On Government, p. 2. s. 149. 227.

| If a boy of seventeen may be and act as an executor, or be a
father, why may he not vote in the formation of a government ?

G

1'2°2 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. I.

above all, who is to judge? If every man, it is evident
you can have reliance on no man.

The name of Locke is such a host to whatever
side he takes, that it is not easy to grapple with it ;
but here his position is so obviously weak, that no-
thing but a theorist's enthusiasm for his theory could
have induced him to hazard it. As a theorem in
abstract philosophy, to be worked out, if it can, by
thought and reflection, — as a question to exercise the
mind in the closet, like other abstruse questions in
science, (the philosopher's stone for instance,) to a
cool, not a hot brain, there may be no danger in
treating it. As a practical position, ever to be laid
down fundamentally to guide the interpretation of
laws, and be pleadable in a defence for an unsuccessful
revolt, it can but entrap the judgment; and, if the
revolt is successful, it is unnecessary. It therefore
resolves itself into feeling, or the right of the
strongest, — which surely can have no place in a
treatise on law.

Well then has Blackstone observed upon it : —
" However just this conclusion may be in theory,
we cannot practically adopt it, nor take any legal
steps for carrying it into execution, under any dis-
pensation of government at present actually existing.
For this devolution of power to the people at large,
includes in it a dissolution of the whole form of
government by that people* ; reduces all the members

* Which form never was so established.

SECT. I. THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE. 123

to their original equality * ; and, by annihilating the
sovereign power, repeals all positive laws whatsoever
before enacted. No human laws will therefore
suppose a case which at once must destroy all lav/,
and compel men to build afresh upon a new foun-
dation ; nor will they make provision for so desperate
an event as must render all legal provisions ineffect-
ual." f

This is excellent sense, and if their theories
are proclaimed, with a view to practical consequences,
blows the theorists to atoms whoever they may be.
There is one thing, however, in these passages
of Blackstone, which I do not understand ; the
meaning of the words " under any dispensation of
government at present actually existing." Did it ever
exist ? Can it exist ?

Those who may agree with me will say, No.
For though a code of laws may foresee and describe
a case wherein a king may be deposed, (as where he
breaks any given law,) that king, whatever his title,
cannot be a sovereign. If he can be a legal delin-
quent, he must have a legal judge, and that judge is
sovereign over him.

This was exemplified in the Ephori of Sparta ; and
if we suppose the code to describe the functionary
who is thus triable as the real sovereign of the state,
who therefore can have no superior, the assertion is
a solecism, for he has one.

* Which original equality never existed,
f Comment, vol. i. p. 61.
G 2

124 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. I.

A sophism of this kind appears in the work of the
sophist Paine, I think in his Rights of Man.

He there held this (not even specious) contra-
diction, laying it down that the sovereignty might by
law be subject to the people; and his exemplification
was the constitution of one of the American states,
in which there was a sovereignty with all legislative
and executive powers, but reviewable at the end of
fifteen years, by an assembly of the people who might
take it away.

Who did not see that the word sovereignty was
here inaccurate? for that there were here two go-
verning powers, one paramount, one subordinate :
one, the Assembly, the real sovereign ; the other, its
deputy for a definite period.

It is five and forty years since I read this blunder,
probably a wilful one of a man who was supposed to
have the power of enlightening us. It glared upon
me, though then a young man, and I never forgot it.

Can I, or ought I to quit this division of the
subject, without investigating the far-famed question
of the Sovereignty of the People itself, founded upon
rights supposed by many, besides Mackintosh, to be
clear, admitted, inalienable, and resumable, because
paramount to all other authority, even though derived
from themselves?*

* How can any possession over which a man has the absolute control,
in his own right, be inalienable ? If it is, he has not that control.
Liberty is a possession of this kind. A man who has it, is lord of
himself; and being so, what is to prevent him from disposing of himself

SECT I. THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE. 125

To this therefore I hasten, and will close (not I
fear before you have wished,) what it has occurred to
me to remark, upon this first of the four sections into
which I proposed dividing my observations upon Sir
James's work.

for a valuable consideration, or no consideration at all : Jacob served
Laban seven years for each of his two wives (Leah's a dear purchase.)
The ancient Germans, according to Tacitus, were so fond of gaming,
that they sometimes staked themselves, that is, their liberty upon the
hazard of chance. If liberty is inalienable, how could this have been ?
Suppose an unfortunate but metaphysical gamester, had refused paying
the stakes, and resumed his power over himself on this plea, would
not his new master have accused him of having cheated at play ?

G 3

126

SECTION II.

OF THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE PEOPLE, AND THE
SOCIAL COMPACT.

SINCE the Revolution, and the celebrated debates
upon these questions, ending in the celebrated finding
of both Houses of Parliament, that there was such
a compact, and that James had broken it, all English-
men, at least all good Whigs would be scandalised to
hear it questioned. I ought therefore to fear and
tremble, when I confess that in this doctrine, I never
could see any thing more than a supposititious case,
which never really happened, but was created merely
for the better educing and illustrating the duties of
governments.

Abstract principles are generally more difficult to
demonstrate, particularly by arguments a priori, or
even by analogy, than to gather them by a plain
deduction from a tangible case.

The theories therefore of the political philosophers,
as to the reciprocal duties of sovereign and subject,
were infinitely more capable of practical demon-
stration by supposing what might, but what never

SECT. II. SOVEREIGNTY OF THE PEOPLE. 127

did happen, that wild and independent men living in
solitary freedom, in woods and caves, left them for
the purpose of associating together, and framing a
government for their better security. Not only this,
but that these savages entered into a compact with
those whom they chose for their governors, in which
the ramified and mutual duties of obedience and pro-
tection, and the exact boundaries of power on one
side, and subjection on the other, were all pointed
out, with a defeasance, as the lawyers term it, should
the conditions be not observed. This, I say, was a
far more convenient way of elucidating the theory
and science of government, than mere speculative
truths without such an example to illustrate them.

As such a convenient mode of elucidation, I am
willing to adopt it. As a case that ever happened,
and as the actual origin of government, I never could
bring my mind to admit it. The utmost that can be
said for it is, that it may be implied from the reason
and nature of things, and, had the Convention Par-
liament voted that it was so implied, perhaps it would
not have been so objectionable; though about reason
and the nature of things how many are the differences
of opinion, I need not to your experienced mind
point out.

To be sure, the Convention voted it : but will that
make it binding upon our belief?

Suppose they had voted that there was no God :
would that have demonstrated such a proposition ?
G 4

128 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. II.

In reference to the opinion quoted from Locke, I
have asked what is meant by a trust ?

Surely it is not meant to be that technical instru-
ment in law which appoints, by a known formulary,
one person to hold a benefit for the use of another ?

But, even if Locke meant it so, could he who
appointed the trust resume it himself, let it be ever
so much abused?

The reason is, because no man can be a judge in
his own case. The law, therefore, in cases of abuse,
appoints other parties to take cognisance of, and
decide the question. But the word had not this
literal technical meaning, even with Locke.

It is evidently a metaphysical supposition, the
better to illustrate a particular doctrine in morals, as
well as in politics.

Under this, as a legal deed of trust enacts certain
duties to be performed, in failure of which, the
power may be resumed under a decree by competent
and known authority; so, for the better exposition
of the reciprocal duties of governors and governed,
or of men generally, a case is supposed which never
actually happened, and a trust is impliedly granted
by one party to another, as if both were in a state
of civil society, when, in point of fact to have been
so, the trust supposed must have already been exe-
cuted.

For, to pursue this matter : — if we allow what is
falsely, I think, presumed, that there ever was a state
of man without government, tl^at is, when every man

SECT. II. SOVEREIGNTY OF THE PEOPLE. 129

was his own absolute master, like any other animal;
it is clear that in such a state, from the very de-
scription of it, no such trust, express or implied,
could have existed, for there were neither governors
nor governed.

And when a government was at last constituted,
as is supposed by common consent, there must have
been a previous common consent to abide by such
institution ; which instantly supposes a society al-
ready formed; and there must have been a still
earlier trust from every man to every man for that
purpose.

This, however, is a state which the most liberal
theorist, as to the origin of government, has never
ventured to suppose ; and is not only not supported,
but contradicted by whatever history remains to us
of the earliest times.

By this history it is fair to suppose, that the first
governments were patriarchal, which by no means
implies divine right; — a doctrine long exploded,
and reduced to mere speculation, amusing in the
reveries of contemplative men, but not admissible by
true philosophy.

Yet so, also, seems this supposition of an actual
trust, or contract, between people and their sove-
reign, entered upon by the respective parties: the
one executing, the other receiving it upon known
conditions.

I do not say that no instance of such a transaction
is to be found in history.

G 5

130 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. II.

Exiles and outlaws have, I think, in one or two
instances, been known to have agreed to stand by
one another to find a settlement, and have elected
a chief; but with these exceptions, there is no proof,
that the general origin of states sprang from this
asserted trust or contract.

We, therefore, as has been observed, start an ima-
ginary transaction, only as a more convenient vehicle
to convey more clearly our notions of duty in our
different relations one to another.

In this sense, we say we are stewards or trustees of
the fortune which God may have given us, for the
proper use and distribution of it; and Locke might
just as well, and with as much reason, have asserted,
that if we abuse the gift by waste or profligacy, the
law by which we hold it might take it from us, and
devolve it upon some other person more worthy.

Indeed, what is more common than for pious, or
merely moral men, to hold by a metaphor, as it were,
that the rich are only trustees or stewards for the
poor ?

For the better expounding the rationale of our
duties, this is convenient in a code of morals.

But what right it would give the poor, even had
they arms in their hands, to resume their supposed
property from these their metaphorical trustees, I will
not inquire. Yet if the trusteeship of sovereigns is also
only metaphorical, and not an actual fact, I see not why
the doctrine might not prevail in one case as well as in.
the other; especially as in both, the cestuiqui trust is

SECT. IJ. SOVEREIGNTY OF THE PEOPLE. 131

the sole judge (according to the theory,) when the trust
is abused, and, therefore, when it may be resumed.
Hence, I entirely concur with the observation of
Hume, that, though the principle is noble in itself
and seems specious, that the people are the origin of
all just power, it is belied by all history and expe-
rience *; and I recur again to the support of the
candid and liberal Hallam, who allows that the idea
of an original contract " seems rather too theoretical,
yet necessary at that time, as denying the divine
origin of monarchy, from which its absolute and
indefeasible authority had been plausibly derived." f
If this be the only reason that made the doctrine
necessary, the doctrine itself is evidently not genuine,
especially as from our improved knowledge it is
necessary no longer.

Upon the whole then, even the great Locke must,
I think, in this opinion be pronounced inaccurate ;
probably from being hurried on by zeal into another
extreme, at a time when boldness and extreme prin-
ciples of liberty were required to meet and confute
extreme principles of divine right.

It is certain, that to me the cooler judgment of
Blackstone on this question seems not only preferable,
but the true one.

Now to examine the nature of this sovereignty of
the people a little farther.

* Hist., vol. vii. p. 134.
j- Constitutional Hist. vol. iii. p. 349.

G 6

132 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. II.

It is said that Frederick II. king of Prussia, once
contemplating the turbulent character, and at the
same time the power and resources of the English,
exclaimed, " Gallant nation! why am I not your
king with an army of 80,000 men, and a score of
executioners in my train ! what would I not make of
you!"

This bespoke gross tyranny on the part of Frede-
rick, and a pretty correct exhibition of the right of
the strongest.

Well ! a million of men, with arms in their hands,
find themselves subjects to a weak king. But though
weak, he is a just king; a lawful king; a king whom,
and whose ancestors, they and their ancestors have
always obejred!

But they think, or choose to think, they can be
happier without a king; so, as he cannot resist, and
the law has not a million of armed men on its side,
they dethrone — perhaps, for greater security, kill him.
Had they a right to do this, either by law or reason ?
or, if a right, is it not the right of the strongest, as
much as what we have supposed of Frederick II. ?

No! says a liberal jurist : for the million (that is,
the people,) are sovereigns; the king only their
servant, whom they have a right to dismiss when
they please.

And what gives them this right ? Their numerical
force ? their swords if they choose to employ them ?
which the king cannot resist.

No! again says the jurist: for you forget that

SECT. II. SOVEREIGNTY OF THE PEOPLE. 133

each of the million, or his father before him, had an
absolute power over himself, of whom he was there-
fore sovereign ; and it is from this only, by delegation,
that a king, or government can assume dominion
over the whole; and the million has only delegated
this sovereignty to the government upon certain
conditions.

Which, if the king keep, it cannot be resumed except
by power?

Just so !

Then how are the people sovereigns, who have
parted with their sovereignty ?

They are not, unless the conditions are broken ;
when all is as it was, and each man again becomes
his own sovereign.

Till that happen then, at least, there is no sove-
reignty in the people, but what may be derived
from their physical force ; which if they use, they on
their side break their compact as much as a king who
sets himself above the law.

Not so ; for their sovereignty only lies dormant, to
revive again, when those from whom, and for whom
alone it has been delegated, choose to alter their minds.

That is what I cannot comprehend. For it must
either be absolutely and for ever extinguished, or it
must be somewhere latent, with some known deposi-
tary ; and who is to demonstrate that they have
altered their minds ?

Themselves.

That again seems strange. For I never heard of

134 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. II.

a contract binding upon two parties, in which one
might be off whenever he pleased.

If not whenever he pleases, at least when the other
party breaks the conditions.

That is the same thing, if the discontented party is
to be the sole judge of the case when the conditions are
broken. But you say expressly " whenever he
pleases," when you talk of a reformatory revolt ; which
supposes only discontent with the conditions, not
that they are broken. The whole therefore is a string
of contradictions.

For the people are at first sovereigns ; then they
are not sovereigns, for they have given up the sove-
reignty ; then they are sovereigns again, because the
sovereignty they had parted with had always remained
in their own keeping, and they only parted with the
exercise of it for a time, of which time they were
themselves to be the masters. How can this be?

From their sovereignty being inalienable.

But your supposition says it has been alienated,
which comes to an absurdity. If resumed, therefore,
it cannot be from its having only lain dormant, but
from a new creation acquired by force, and is there-
fore what I set out with, the right of the strongest.

In short, argue as long as we will, no servant can be
master as well as servant, without a contradiction of
terms; and if a servant can sit in judgment on his
master, in any supposable case, of which he himself is
the judge, there is an end of the relation between
them.

SECT. II. SOVEREIGNTY OF THE PEOPLE. 135

Granting this, says my opponent, what if the
master attempt to cut the servant's throat ?

The servant may knock him down ; but not in
virtue of a reserved right expressed in the contract,
still less of any supposed mastery over the master,
retained at the hiring.

Yet what is it, again replies my adversary, but the
case of two independent nations that go to war ?
suppose for the breach of a treaty.

Each being sovereign, each decides for itself, for
there is no common judge. This is the case between
a king and a people.

That again is a fallacy ; for, by the supposition,
the people are not an independent nation, but owe
obedience to their rulers, which neither of your
independent states does to the other. The com-
parison therefore will not hold.

May I not then resist oppression ?

Yes, certainly, by the right of self defence; but
not by any provision of law, still less by any fanciful
notion, by implication from premises that do not exist.
Such, as that you have surrendered your sovereignty
yet still preserve it, and alienated a right which re-
mains inalienable.

Such I have presumed to suppose would be the
argument upon this question between a man of plain
sense, and a professor of, what is called, liberal
principles. The plain man, you see, is as great a
supporter as the other of the natural right of resist-
ance against a case of oppression sufficient to call for

136 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. II.

it, when it happens ; but he does not entangle it, like
Mackintosh, by laying down beforehand what causes
are to justify this resistance; still less the outrageous
doctrine of a reformatory revolt, or the right to de-
mand securities beyond the existing constitution, at
the pleasure of the governed. The plain man, too,
lays aside all sophistical notions of the inherent,
never dying, inalienable, and unalterable right of
sovereignty in the people, which he thinks does not
exist; and, which if it did, would, and under bold
and visionary or wicked men, does involve us in
consequences destructive of all security.

The dangerous effects which may flow from this
doctrine are so well drawn out and displayed by, in
my opinion, the wisest intellect of his time, that I
think I shall do well in reproducing it upon this
occasion. It is Burke who will speak.

He is reviewing the position that the majority in a
state can never be wrong ; and that, therefore, what-
ever they ivill, whether to erect, alter, or destroy a
constitution, and whatever miseries may flow from it,
must be right.

In discussing this, by way of showing how this
majority may be and often, unfortunately, is obtained,
he describes the steps that may be and often are
pursued. The argument for tlieir position is thus
stated : —

" The sum total of every people is composed of its
units. Every individual must have a right to ori-
ginate what afterwards is to become the act of the

SECT. II. SOVEREIGNTY OF THE PEOPLE. 137

majority. Whatever he may lawfully originate he
may lawfully endeavour to accomplish.

" He lias a right, therefore, in his own particular,
to break the ties and engagements which bind him to
the country where he lives ; and he has a right to
make as many converts to his opinions, and to obtain
as many associates in his designs as he can procure ;
- for how can you know the dispositions of the
majority to destroy their government, but by tam-
pering with some part of their body ?

66 You must begin by a secret conspiracy, that you
may end witli a national confederation.

" The mere pleasure of the beginning must be the
sole guide ; since the mere pleasure of others must
be the sole ultimate sanction, as well as the sole actu-
ating principle in every part of the progress."

So far the reasoning on the right of the people
to overturn a constitution. On this Burke ob-
serves : —

" Thus arbitrary will, the last corruption of power,
step by step, poisons the heart of every citizen.

" If the undertaker fails, he has the misfortune of
a rebel but not the guilt.

" By such doctrines all love to our country, all pious
veneration and attachment to its laws and customs,
are obliterated from our minds ; and nothing can
result from this opinion, when grown into a principle,
and animated by discontent, ambition, or enthusiasm
but a series of conspiracies and seditions, sometimes
ruinous to their authors, always noxious to the state.

138 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. II.

No sense of duty can prevent any man from being
a leader, or a follower in such enterprises. Nothing
restrains the tempter, nothing guards the tempted.
Nor is the new state, fabricated by such arts, safer
than the old.

" What can prevent the mere will of any person,
who hopes to unite the wills of others to his own,
from an attempt wholly to overturn it ? It wants
nothing but a disposition to trouble the established
order, to (jive a title to the enterprise"

Again : —

" When you combine this principle of the right to
change a fixed and tolerable constitution at pleasure,
with the theory and practice of the French Assembly,
the irregularity is, if possible, aggravated. There is
a far more commodious road to the destruction of an
old government, and the legitimate formation of a
new one.

" Get the possession of power., by any means you can,
into your hands, and then a subsequent consent (what
they call an address of adhesion,) makes your authority
as much the act of the people, as if they had conferred
upon you originally that kind and degree of power which,
without their permission, you had seized upon.

" This is to give a direct sanction to fraud, hypo-
crisy, perjury, and the breach of the most sacred
trusts that can exist between man and man. *

" What can sound with such horrid discordance in

* This was exactly the case of Cromwell and Bonaparte.

SECT. II. SOVEREIGNTY OF THE PEOPLE. 139

the moral ear as this position ? — That a delegate, with
limited powers, may break his sworn engagements
to his constituents, assume an authority never com-
mitted to him to alter things at his pleasure ; and
then, if he can persuade a large number of men to
flatter him in the power he has usurped, that he is
absolved in his own conscience, and ought to stand
acquitted in the eyes of mankind. On this scheme,
the maker of the experiment must begin with a de-
termined perjury. That point is certain. He must
take his chance for the expiatory addresses. This is
to make the success of villainy the standard of inno-
cence.

" Without drawing on, therefore, very shocking
consequences, neither by previous consent, nor by
subsequent ratification of a mere reckoned majority,
can any set of men attempt to dissolve the state at
their pleasure."

This reasoning, so cogent in argument, and so
perspicuous in style, seems to me irrefutable. Let
us now consider his notions of that mystical phrase
" The People," so entitled to our veneration, so ex-
travagantly abused.

" Believing it therefore a question at least arduous
in the theory, and in the practice very critical, it
would become us to ascertain, as well as we can, what
form it is that our incantations are about to call up
from darkness and the sleep of ages, when the supreme
authority of the people is in question. Before we
attempt to extend or confine it, we ought to fix in

140 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. II.

our minds, with some degree of distinctness, an idea
of what it is we mean, when we say THE PEOPLE.

" In a state of rude nature there is no such thing
as a people. A number of men in themselves have no
collective capacity. The idea of a people, is the idea
of a corporation. It is wholly artificial, and made,
like all other legal fictions, by common agreement.
What the particular nature of that agreement was,
is collected from the form into which the particular
society has been cast. Any other is not their
covenant.

" When men therefore break up the original compact
or agreement, which gives its corporate form and
capacity to a state, they are no longer a people ; they
have no longer a corporate existence ; they have no
longer a legal coactive force to bind within, nor a
claim to be recognised abroad. They are a number
of vague, loose individuals, and nothing more. With
them, all is to begin again. Alas ! they little know
how many a weary step is to be taken, before they
can form themselves into a mass, which has a true
politic personality.

" We hear much from men who have not acquired
their hardiness of assertion from the profundity of
their thinking, about the omnipotence of a majority
in such a dissolution of an ancient society as hath
taken place in France. But amongst men so dis-
banded, there can be no such thing as majority or
minority, or power in any one person to bind another.
The power of acting by a majority, which gentlemen

SECT. II, SOVEREIGNTY OF THE PEOPLE. 141

theorists seem to assume so readily, after they have
violated the contract out of which it has arisen, (if
at all it existed,) must be grounded on two as-
sumptions : first, that of an incorporation produced
by unanimity; and secondly, by an unanimous agree-
ment, that the act of a mere majority (say of one)
shall pass with them, and with others, as the act of
the whole.

" We are so little affected by things habitual, that
we consider this idea of the decision of a majority, as
if it were a law of our original nature : but such a
constructive whole, residing in a part only, is one of
the most violent fictions of positive law that ever has
been, or can be made, on the principle of artificial
incorporation. Out of civil society, Nature knows
nothing of it ; nor are men, even when arranged
according to civil order, otherwise than by very long
training, brought at all to submit to it.

" If men dissolve their ancient incorporation in
order to regenerate their community, in that state
of things each man has a right, if he pleases, to
remain an individual. Any number of individuals
who can agree upon it, have an undoubted right to
form themselves into a state apart, and wholly in-
dependent. If any of these is forced into the fellow-
ship of another, this is conquest, and not compact"

Again : —

" As, in the abstract, it is perfectly clear that, out
of a state of civil society, majority and minority are
relations which can have no existence ; and that in

14*2 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. II.

civil society, its own specific conventions in each
corporation determine what it is that constitutes the
people, so as to make their act the signification of
the general will ; it is equally clear that neither in
France nor England has the original or any subse-
quent compact of the state, express or implied, con-
stituted a majority of men, told by the head, to be the
acting people of their several communities.

" And I see as little of policy or utility, as there is
of right, in laying down a principle that a majority
of men, told by the head, are to be considered as the
people, and that, as such, their will is to be law."

Mr. Burke then argues that a people, possessing
such powers as are here ascribed to them, can only
be those who are divided according to the rules and
classifications of society, into which they fall from
the nature of things.

66 Give once (says he) a certain constitution of
things, which produces a variety of conditions and
circumstances in a state ; and, there is in nature and
reason a principle which, for their own benefit post-
pones, not the interest, but the judgment of those
who are numero plures, to those who are virtute et
honore majores."

He then luxuriates in a noble as well as beautiful
and philosophical account of a natural aristocracy,
which, he says, is NOT a separate interest in the state,
nor separable from it. (Nothing more true !)

It is (he observes) an essential integrant part of
any large body rightly constituted. It is formed out

SECT. II. SOVEREIGNTY OF THE PEOPLE. 143

of a class of legitimate presumptions, which, taken as
generalities, must be admitted as actual truths.

" To be bred in a place of estimation ; to see nothing
low or sordid from one's infancy; to be taught to
respect one's self; to be habituated to the censorial
inspection of the public eye ; to look early to public
opinion ; to stand upon such elevated ground, as to
be enabled to take a large view of the wide-spread
and infinitely diversified combinations of men
and affairs in a large society; to have leisure to
read, reflect, and converse; to be enabled to draw
the court and attention of the wise and learned, when-
ever they are to be found ; to be habituated in armies
to command and to obey; to be taught to despise
danger in the pursuit of honour and of duty ; to be led
to a guarded regulated conduct, from a sense that you
are considered as an instructor of your fellow-citizens
in their highest concerns ; to be employed as an ad-
ministrator of law and justice, and to be thereby
amongst the first benefactors of mankind; to be a
professor of high science, or of liberal and ingenuous
art; to be amongst rich traders, who, from their
success, are presumed to have sharp and vigorous un-
derstandings ; these are the circumstances of men, that
form what I should call a NATURAL ARISTOCRACY,
without which there is no nation.

" When great multitudes act together under this
discipline of Nature, I recognise THE PEOPLE.

" In all things, the voice of this grand chorus of
national harmony ought to have a mighty and de-

144 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. II,

cisive influence. But when you disturb this harmony ;
when you break up this beautiful order, this array of
truth and nature, as well as of habit and prejudice;
when you separate the common sort of men from their
proper chieftains, so as to form them into an adverse
army ; I no longer know that venerable object called
the PEOPLE, in such a disbanded race of deserters and
vagabonds. For a while they may be terrible indeed,
as wild beasts are terrible. The mind owes to them
no sort of submission. They are, as they have always
been reputed, REBELS. They may lawfully be fought
with, and brought under, whenever an advantage
offers.

"Those who attempt by outrage and violence to
deprive men of any advantage which they hold under
the laws, and to destroy the natural order of life, pro-
claim war against them." *

Thus far this admirable man on the point imme-
diately before us. But can I quit him, long as these
extracts are, without adding the sportive use he
makes, in winding up his argument, of the ludicrous
but important account which Walsingham gives of
the preaching of Doctor Ball to 20,000 men as-
sembled on Blackheath, by which he says it is plain
that the Abbe Ball understood (though so long
before him) the rights of men quite as well as the
Abbe Gregoire ; and, he might have added, as Tom
Paine himself.

* Appeal of new Whigs to the old.

SECT. II. SOVEREIGNTY OF THE PEOPLE. 145

The Abbe Ball preached from this text, as all our
modern reformers do in this day.

" When Adam dalfe and Eve span,
Who was then the gentleman ? "

Walsingham then details the sermon as follows : —
" Nitebatur per verba proverbii quod pro themate
sumpserat, introdticere et probare ab initio omnes pares
creates a natura — servitutem per injustam oppres-
sionem nequam hominum introductam contra Dei vo-
luntatem. Quia, si Deo placuisset servos creasse, utique
in principio mundi constituisset, quis servus quisve
dominus futurus fuisset. Considerarant igitur jam
tempus a Deo datum eis (in quo deposito servitutis
jugo diutius), possent, si vellent, libertate diu con-
cupita gaudere. Quapropter monuit ut essent vivi
cordati, et amore boni patris familias excolentis agrum
suum, et extirpantis ac resecantis noxia gramina quae
fruges solent opprimere, et isti in praesenti facere festi-
narent, primo major es regni dominos occidendo ; deinde
juridicos, justiciaries et juratores patrise perimendo ;
postremo quoscunque scirent in posterum communitati
nocivos tollerant de terra sua : sic demum et pacem
sibimet parerent et securitatem in futurum, si sublatis
majoribus esset inter eos, aequa libertas, eadem nobi-
litas, par dignitas, similisque potestas."

Here was reform with a vengeance ; and so very
like the modern reforms, acted upon in France, and
proposed at many of our meetings here (not quite so
numerous indeed, but equally patriotic), that being

VOL. I. H

146 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. II.

preached near 500 years ago, it must deprive our
reforming sages of all pretension to originality.

The similarity also holds in the effects ; for the ma-
jesty and sovereignty of the people on Blackheath
being thus moved, they all by acclamation declared that
the reformer Ball should be Archbishop and Lord
Chancellor; a consummation which no doubt would
be very agreeable to some of our present demagogues.
In sober seriousness, I see no reason why their 200,000
majesties on Blackheath, and the Apostle of Liberty
and Equality, Ball, had not as much a right to call
themselves the PEOPLE, and as such, by virtue of their
sovereignty, to command the deaths of all the then
holders of property and power, and change the
monarchy into a republic, as any of the self-elected
apostles of liberty and enlightened philosophy now
in England.

And with this we close these great theoretical ques-
tions, in order to hasten to the practical, and perhaps
more important one, that still remains, and which, though
last in order, has been in fact the foundation of the
other two. I mean the real amount of the precedent
of 1688, and the doctrines that have been derived
from it, together with the real character of its
managers, stript of all extraneous glosses, with which
partiality, love of theory, blind admiration, or blind
condemnation have surrounded them.

147

SECTION III.

REVOLUTION OF 1688.

UNDER this great settlement of our Constitution,
this nation has enjoyed, and may still enjoy (unless
destroyed by some suicidal act of its own), more, I
think, of rational liberty, and better secured, than any
other nation since time began.

But it was not obtained except at the expense of
political controversies which have lasted from that
time to this ; a cheap purchase, if it end not, through
the madness of the controversialists, in the destruction
(though upon other and more extreme principles)
of what the Revolution had sought to secure.

Two parties, as you well know, have been em-
battled against one another ever since this great
event ; each of them extolling, each approving, but
at the same time drawing from it very different con-
clusions.

The one raising upon it all those doctrines, and
more, which we have been reviewing, respecting the
general right of resistance, the inalienable sovereignty
H 2

J48 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. III.

of the people, and their rights beyond the law, over
their monarchs; the other contenting themselves
with looking upon it as a case of necessity, which was
met with the greater wisdom, because, as they
contend, no new or untenable principles in the
science of government were engendered, no dan-
gerous usurpations of force over law accomplished;
so that, while our liberties were enforced, the harmony
and security of society were not disturbed.

Those who contend for the first, assert that it is
proved that we have a right " to revoke abused power,
cashier our governors for misconduct, elect others in
their room to frame a government for ourselves, and be-
stoiv the crown" as we please.

So said Mackintosh in his " Vindiciae Gallicae ; " so
said Price in his famous sermon.

The opinions of Locke we have already noticed.

These tenets were all warmly opposed, and elo-
quently exposed, by a number of statesmen and con-
stitutional lawyers, (Mr Burke their leader and
powerful chief,) who saw the danger of so destroying
all the foundations which support civil society, as
these principles, if carried as far as they would lead,
would inevitably do. Burke therefore met the whole
question in all its modifications, in perhaps the most
celebrated of his works, the "Reflections on the
French Revolution," and afterwards in several others
supplementary to it.

Let us examine these propositions, and see how
they are borne out by the history ; we shall then be

SECT. III. REVOLUTION OF 1688. 149

able to tell, stript of their colours of rhetoric, to
what they really amount.

The doctrine of Locke upon the devolution of the
sovereignty to the people, when the trust, supposed,
in legal form, to have been committed to their go-
vernors, has been abused, and upon the consequent
right which he says they have to remove and alter the
legislature — as if all society were to begin again — this
has been so satisfactorily answered by Blackstone *,
that I shall not revert to it again in this letter, though
I may consider his whole philosophy on the subject,
more at large, in a question by itself, f But the am-'
plification of this tenet by Sir James requires more
attention.

"The Revolution of 1688," he observes, "is con-
fessed to have established principles, by those who
lament that it has not reformed institutions.":}:

Where is this confessed ? what principles has it es-
tablished, not known before? what are the institutions
which he wished it had reformed ?§ I profess I do
not know.

To resist oppression, which means something
contrary to duty and moral obligation in the oppres-
sor, and destructive to rights in the oppressed, is a
law of our nature, and requires no precedent to give

* Comment, i. 161. f Vide Appendix, No. V.

t Vind. Gall.

§ Did he mean the kingly government, or the House of Lords, or
to give universal suffrage ?

H 3

150 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. III.

us power to act upon it. This, then, was established
at the birth of man, and surely did not take its
origin from the revolution. *

What else did it establish by way of precedent ?

Mackintosh answers, the right of the people to
revoke abused power.

This is a very general sweeping proposition, which
ought to be far more distinctly explained before we
can even understand, much more assent to it. If it
mean a right to resist an invasion of our legal secu-
rity, it is not only admitted, but, as has been observed,
asserted by the law of nature, not merely of the
Revolution; but if it mean to resume a power ac-
tually ever enjoyed and actually delegated to another,
we dispute the fact.

Power, to be revoked, must have been enjoyed; and
the people of England never did enjoy this power,
or delegate it in form to another. It is a fancy em-
bodied in argument, and, as we have before observed,
by implication, for the better illustration of the
science of government ; an imaginary case, which, as
a fact, never existed.

The word revoke, therefore, is improper, and the
doctrine founded upon it, as derived from the Revo-
lution, still more so. The people of England neither
revoked, nor resumed, their political power: they used
their right of self-defence when attacked, given by
nature to all human and all other kind.

* For the eloquent proof of this, see Mackintosh himself, in the
Vind. Gall.

SECT. III. REVOLUTION OF 1688. 151

But the consequence of this revocation in the
jurist's mind is still more indefensible.

The precedent, says he, gave them a right to
" frame the government, and bestow the crown ; " in
this, defending the assertion of Price, that it had esta-
blished a right" to choose our own governors, to cashier
them for their misconduct, and frame a government
for ourselves ; " adding, that the House of Hanover
owes the crown to the choice of the people, that is, that
the people might with equal right have chosen any
other family, or even Jeffries or Kirk, to be their king.

These memorable positions are what drew forth
the as memorable answers of Burke ; and it would
be gross affectation of incredulity to say that these
doctrines have not been held by many reasonable
and well-disposed persons since the Revolution, if they
were not first started and established by that event.

But are they true ? That is the question.

That the House of Hanover owes the crown to the
Act of Settlement, made by King, Lords, and Commons,
and that it would be a poor subterfuge to deny that
what that act did, was, in part, done by the repre-
sentatives of the people, I will not be the person to
hold; but to say that it was given by election — such
election as the theories which have been combated
suppose, namely, a meeting of all the people, returned
to a state of nature, every individual his own sove-
reign, and about to delegate that sovereignty to a
particular man or family upon certain conditions, or
even an election by their representatives, so free from
H 4

152 HISTORICAL ESSAV. SECT. III.

all duty or guiding principle, that their choice could
have been uncertain or indifferent, — this I take leave
to deny.

For was it more than what the parliament had
often done before to meet unexpected emergencies,
in regard to the throne, when either really or virtually
vacant, or the succession altered by a contingency,
natural or forced ? Did the House of Hanover suc-
ceed by election more than Henry IV., when it was
simply voted that " the inheritance of the crown and
realms of England and France, in all other the king's
dominions, shall be set and remain in the person of
our sovereign lord the king, and in the heirs of his
body issuing" — remainder to Prince Henry and his
heirs, then to Lord Thomas, Lord John, and Lord
Humphrey, his brothers, and their issue ?

Now, as Henry IV. had no legal title of himself,
any more than King William or George L, and the
lawful heirs of the family of Marche were here set
aside, so William and George, though, like Henry,
they were in the succession, not being immediate
heirs, that succession was altered in their favour, to
the exclusion of those who were, namely, Anne and
the House of Savoy. Yet will any man alive, or did
any one who ever lived, suppose, much less promulge,
that Henry IV. came in by election of the people, or
that the people might, if they had pleased, and had
not been controlled by him on that occasion, have
placed any one of themselves (a Percy, for instance)
on the throne? Such is the opinion of Mackintosh,
who asserts, that, at the Revolution, the principle that

SECT. III. REVOLUTION OF 1688. 153

justified the elevation of William, and the preference
of the House of Hanover, would have vindicated the
election of Jeffries or Kirk.*

The respect we owe to Sir James alone makes us
patient in refuting this most mistaken position.

The principle was the same on which, in various
periods of our history, the parliament regulated, that
is, altered, the course of succession, as to individuals of
the same royal family, but never supposed, or held
(or any one for them), that in that they could, or did,
set the reigning family aside, and elect a new one, or
abolish monarchy altogether.

To you, I need not dwell upon these alterations ;
but those who follow these strange tenets of Sir
James and his wild associates in doctrine, would do
well to consider how many of them there have been.
How they were produced is not the question: the
simple point is to show that parliament has often so
interfered, without the most remote notion in the
Mackintoshes or Prices of those days, that the power
of altering the succession as to the individual, pro-
ceeded upon the right to elect a new family, or a new
government altogether.

In Henry VI I. 's case, he certainly had no right to
be considered even in the line of succession ; because,
though he descended from the House of Lancaster,
it was through a stock that was illegitimate. But the
claim of the descent, and the assertion of it, were al-

* Vind. Gall.
H 5

154 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. ni«

lowed by the world, from the detestation born to
Richard. Henry was treated and estimated as the
true representative of John of Gaunt, and, as such,
was able to procure that power and following which
overturned the tyrant. No other man in the nation
was looked to, or could have done it. He suffered
himself to be crowned by his army* on the field ; and
the parliament voted, as they did in the case of
Henry IV., " that the inheritance of the crown should
rest, remain, and abide in him and the heirs of his
Itody ;" but will Sir James for a moment pretend that
all this was upon the principle of a free legalised
election by the people, who might, by the law, have
elected Lord Stanley, or any other chief they had
pleased, instead of him ?

In the reign of his son, the king and parliament
were most busy with the succession. They set aside
his daughter Mary in favour of Elizabeth; they set
aside Elizabeth in favour of the issue by Jane Seymour;
they then restored both Mary and Elizabeth; and
they even vested in the king, on failure of children,
the power of naming his successor. In strictness,
therefore, had the conjuncture arisen, he might have
exercised it to the exclusion of the Scottish princes,
who were the undoubted natural heirs.

But would even this have amounted to the claim

* It is said that Sir William Stanley, after the battle of Bosworth,
having found a crown which Richard used to wear, placed it upon his
head, and saluted him king.

SECT. III. REVOLUTION OF 1688. 155

contended for in the people to dispose of the throne
absolutely as they pleased, or to set aside the reigning
dynasty? Certainly not; if only because the king
himself was a party to all these alterations, which
plainly deprives the people of any exclusive pretension
to such a right.

This also applies to the preference of the House of
Hanover itself; for the warmest sticklers for an
election by the people cannot and do not pretend that
the same power that chose King William, placed King
George in the remainder. The convention did the
first, but the second was effected by an act of par-
liament.

And this is a complete answer to what, with sub-
mission, is a fallacy of a noble author and secretary of
state — Lord John Russell. " The hereditary suc-
cession of the crown," says this statesman, " was in
their eyes (the Whigs) a rule for the benefit of the
people, and not a dispensation of Providence for the
advantage of a single family. If at any time, there-
fore, the observance of the rule became dangerous to
the welfare of the community *, the legislature was, in
their opinion, competent to consider whether that
danger was greater than the inconvenience of de-
viating from the established course." f

Were this all, who would doubt it, who profess
that the legislature could not remedy all evils or in-*

* Who is to decide that question ?
f Life of Lord Russell, i. 186.
H 6

156 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. III.

conveniences ? But if it is meant that by this word
Legislature, the people resumed their supposed and as-
serted inalienable sovereignty, the consequence does
not flow from the premises. For the Legislature, though
compounded of the people, are not the people alone,
as the term is here meant; it is compounded of king
and hereditary senators, as well as people : these,
together, are omnipotent ; asunder, nothing. If,
therefore, Lord John, by Legislature, means the
people alone, it is not the fact.

Fortified by this junction with the king, the legis-
lature becomes, indeed, what the lawyers hold it to
be, omnipotent; and as they once so altered the con-
stitution, as to give the proclamations of Henry VIII.
the power of laws, so, I apprehend, we must admit
that, in concurrence with the kiny, they might overturn
the monarchy and enact a republic. But neither
would this give the people alone any such right, still
less that of deposing, or excluding at pleasure, the
whole of the reigning family.

The naming the power of exclusion brings us to the
famous question as to James, when Duke of York.

If any thing could countenance the supposed right
to cashier our kings for misconduct, and choose others,
it would be this attempt to cashier the next heir to
the crown. Had it been carried, the supporters of
Price and Mackintosh might have perhaps resolved it
into a precedent of this unconstitutional pretension.*

* Unconstitutional, if attempted by any thing short of the whole
legislative power.

SECT. III. REVOLUTION OF 1688. 157

Yet, not to mention again that the king must have
been a party to this, what would it have amounted to
more than those other instances of a regulation of tlie
succession in members of the same family ? not to any
precedent of a power in the people to create a new
government, or elect a new governor.

The contest about the exclusion was, as you know,
conducted with more heat and violence by the Com-
mons, than any question of our history. The ques-
tion as to James as king, was tranquil in comparison
with that regarding him as heir ; yet no one talked
of the inherent power of the people to cashier go-
vernors and elect new ones. Sir James, indeed, asks
rather triumphantly, whether Price was not right as
to a succession by choice in the Hanoverian family ?
" Dr. Price," says he, " had asserted (I presume,
without fear of contradiction) that the House of
Hanover owes the crown of England to the choice of
the people"*

I venture to say not ; at least, not in the full sense
that both Price and Mackintosh assert it, as arising
from the supposed new principles established at the
Revolution. Both of them forget that an act of
parliament had regularly passed by King, Lords, and
Commons, and not by the sole voice of the people,
(I mean the Bill of Rights,) by which all Roman
Catholics were disabled from succeeding to the throne.
This at once incapacitated the whole House of Savoy,
and brought forward the next protestant heir, who

* Vind. Gall.

158 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. Ill,

by law might have asserted his claim ; and this heir,
as we all know, was George the First. But even
had no disabilities been enacted, it cannot too often
be noticed, that the necessary concurrence of the
Sovereign in the Act of Settlement, at once destroys
all notion of an Election by the people, whether by
themselves individually, or through their represent-
atives collectively.

Can any thing, therefore, be more wild, more
untrue, or more unsupported, than this triumphant
question of Sir James ?

Both of these jurists (if Price had any preten-
sion to be a jurist) might quite as well have sup-
ported the impudent and infamous falsehood of
the murderers of Charles, who told him he was an
elective prince, elected by his people, and account-
able to them for his conduct ; — upon which principle
they cut off his head. Neither of these authors,
indeed, expressly held this, and Sir James, at least,
would probably have hesitated in doing so; but I
profess I can see no difference between these as-
sertions of the regicides, and the principles laid down
in the works I am canvassing. Jt is true, the family
of Hanover were called to the throne by an act of
parliament; but what was this but to make assur-
ance doubly sure, and prevent not only all cavil as to
what, though clear, might have been started by the
family of Savoy, but to give the finishing blow to
the hopes of the family of Stuart. I repeat that the
Bill of Rights, having incapacitated the King of Sar-

SECT. III. KEVOLUTION OF 1688. 159

dinia, the right of the Electress Sophia established
itself at once, and would have prevailed without the
necessity for any confirmatory act to give it exist-
ence; although such act, by doing away all difficulties,
and smoothing the way to the throne, was wise, ex-
pedient, and politic.

This argument, founded upon the previous dis-
abilities of all Roman Catholics, created by the
known sovereign power of England, is, I think, a
complete answer to all the warm declamation, as well
as the nice subtleties of Sir James, in regard to what
he calls the choice of the House of Hanover. Had
Victor Amadeus been a protestant as well as King
George, I have little, indeed no, doubt that the choice,
as it is called, would have fallen upon him as nearer
to the throne. *

But the Convention, by the election of William?
set aside the claims not only of the son of James,
but of his daughters Mary and Anne.f

This is a great inaccuracy, and not what one

* He was grandson of Henrietta Duchess of Orleans, daughter
of Charles I. ; George, grandson of the Queen of Bohemia, daughter
of James I., a generation further off. See a remarkable passage of
Lord Cowper's speech, in passing sentence on the rebel lords, 1715,
wherein he said the king (Geo. I.) succeeded to the crown, as it was
declared by the law some years before it was expressly limited to the
House of Hanover. What bears still more upon the point, one
reason for the Commons not joining the Lords immediately in
William's reign, in selecting the House of Hanover, was that the
nearer but disabled heirs, by renouncing the Roman Catholic religion,
inight remove their disabilities.

f Vind. Gall.

160 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. III.

would expect from an historian. It is as known, as
remarkable, that the parliament took no notice of the
existence of a son, whose very birth was questioned
with different degrees of sincerity by most of the
actors 011 that busy scene. The claims of the son,
therefore, could not be set aside ; for the heroes of the
Revolution, bold and enthusiastic as they are sup-
posed to have been in asserting the people's right
of election, had not the courage to make them a
question : — like the chivalrous knight of LaMancha,
they were prudently satisfied with the helmet, with-
out putting its strength to the trial. Then as to
Mary, far from being passed over, her title was ex-
pressly acknowledged, and she was made sovereign
in her own right, in conjunction with ( her husband;
though the latter was, for good reason, to exercise
the administration of the sovereignty. Her children
too, if she had any, were to succeed; and though
childless by William, had she survived him, married
again, and had issue, that issue, I apprehend, would
incontestably have succeeded. She, therefore, was not
set aside.

It is true, in the event of William's surviving his
wife (which happened), he was preferred to Anne;
but there is a remarkable and, I think, a most im-
portant circumstance, which ought not to have been
passed by by Sir James, that his children by any other
wife than Mary were postponed to her. This shows
exactly how deeply impressed the Parliament were
with the necessity of preserving the line of succession

SECT. III. REVOLUTION Of 1688. 161

in every thing but what the most absolute necessity
required.

Let us even suppose for a moment that Anne,
from infirmity of mind or body, (she was not very
strong in either,) had been unequal to the duties of
the sovereignty, and that William was, on that account,
elected for life, to the exclusion of the progeny of
Anne, whose right might have been protected by a
regency; would that have immediately thrown down
the hereditary monarchy, and let in the sovereignty
of the people, as if it were elective ? Would it not
rather have been one of those regulations or altera-
tions in regard to individuals in the line of succession,
which we have just been noticing?

I am quite aware of the passage in Blackstone
which gives colour to the supposition, that, from the
finding of the Convention parliament that the throne
was vacant, the whole royal family ceased to be royal,
and was only renovated by positive enactments.
If with various deviations, therefore, the family were
replaced on the throne, it might be argued that it
was only from prudential regard to public feeling,
and not from absolute legal obligation.

"Perhaps" says the learned commentator, "upon
the principles before established, the Convention
might, if they pleased, have vested the regal dignity
in a family entirely new, and strangers to the royal
blood ; but they were too well acquainted with the
benefits of hereditary succession, and the influ-
ence which it has by custom over the minds of the

162 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. Ill*

people to depart any farther from the ancient line,
than, temporary necessity and self-preservation re-
quired." *

This is a most important dictum; and, were it
more positively laid down, than with the hypothetical
and cautious " PERHAPS," with which the sentence
opens, would be a grave authority for the position of
Sir James. He would then have had the support of
a very enlightened man, when he said " the choice
(of William) was, like every other choice, to be
guided by views of policy and prudence, but it was
choice still f;" and he might also have felt justified,
or at least countenanced, in so boldly pronouncing
that the elevation of William and the preference of
the House of Hanover, to the exclusion of nearer
heirs, might have vindicated the election of Jeffries
or Kirk.

But the very doubtful and doubting word with
which so momentous a doctrine is prefaced by this
otherwise cautious judge, throws all, if not into
confusion, at least into such uncertainty, as to de-
prive a man of all right to plead it as a direct au-
thority.

It is certainly true, even without a perhaps, that
the Convention, having all power, and witli their
opponents all at their feet, might, if they had pleased,
have vested the regal dignity in a family entirely
new; and the Judge might have gone farther, and

* Comment, i. 214. f Vind. Gall.

SECT. III. REVOLUTION OF 1668. 163

added, or might have converted the monarchy into
a republic or any other form of government. But
would the power of doing this have given them either
a legal or moral right to it ? Would it not all have
been reducible to the right of the strongests as
formerly alluded to ?

Burke himself admits the power (supported, says
he, by force and opportunity), but, as may be sup-
posed, gives it but little or no weight in a discussion
of principles.

The true way of estimating the real extent of the
precedent, is to inquire what were the opinions enter-
tained, what the principles actually laid down, by the
leaders and actors in the story. They at least knew
their own meaning.

If ever there was an opportunity of asserting the
supposed right ; if duty, policy, and fairness called
for the most explicit declarations upon it, it would
have been in the Bill of Rights, in which the whole
of the new constitution was founded. That Bill was
framed by the wisest statesmen and lawyers of their
time, and what is more, by Whig (Lord Somers at
their head) at least as virtuous, and as much at-
tached to rational liberty, though perhaps not so
wild as those of the present day. Yet, though they
intensely scanned the whole subject of the people's
rights, and the principles on which the Revolution
was founded, no mention of such a pretension as is
claimed for them by our twro political Apostles, is
made, either in the debates, or in that ample Bill in

* H 11

164 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. III.

which all the other privileges which had been fought
for were so amply, and perspicuously laid down.

Is it on this account that the Continuator of Mack-
intosh, in a fit of virtuous spleen, and admiration of
the superior virtue of modern whiggery, denounces
the Whigs even of the Revolution, in language such
as the following : " The real secret, if it be any longer
a secret, is, that the Whigs of 1688 had no notion of
freedom beyond their sect or party ; that with liberty
on their lips, monopoly and persecution were in their
hearts."

In a virtuous strain of indignation also against the
dethroned family, he bespatters the whole English
nation. " Their vigour, and virtue, and character,"
says he, " had dwindled, from the restoration of the
Stuarts. A degenerate race succeeded the men of
the Commonwealth. — The aristocracy seem to have
been born without that sense which is supposed to be
their peculiar distinction — a sense of honour." '

To what, then, in the minds of our Professors of
modern whiggery, are all our deliverers, the Whigs
of the Revolution, reduced ? Instead of patriots,
they were all mean, selfish jobbers. Vigour and
virtue had fled from the seven heroes (as we were
taught to think them), who, at the risk of their heads,
invited William to aid their oppressed country ;
and the cowardly names of Shrewsbury, Devon-
shire, Russell, Sydney, and also of the enlightened

* Hist. Rev. ii, 149. 224.

SECT. III. REVOLUTION OF 1688. 165

Somers, sink into dirt before the sturdy vigour and
virtue of the disinterested Commonwealth's men,
Cromwell, Ireton, Vane, Martin, and Hazelrigg.
Is it possible that this can find place in a history of
the Revolution.

To return to our point, let us consider Mr. Hallam's
view of it. " It could not be held," he observes,
" without breaking up all the foundations of our polity,
that the monarchy emanated from the parliament, or
even from the people. But by the Revolution, and the
Act of Settlement, the rights of the actual monarch
of the reigning family were made to emanate from
the parliament and the people. Hence," he adds,
" the rights of the House of Brunswick can only
be deduced from the Convention of 1688."*

In this just remark of a gentleman, any thing but
an opposer of the rights of the people, or a favourer
of despotic power, I recognise nothing but my own
doctrine. The foundations of our polity would be
broken up, if the monarchy emanated from the
parliament5 or even from the people; and the actual
monarch of the reigning family does derive his right
ultimately, by what was done at the Revolution.
For it was the Revolution that removed, not the
family, but the person of James and his son, and
placed others of that family in his stead on the
throne. It was the Revolution that incapacitated
Roman Catholics from succeeding, and hence called
into action the claims of the House of Brunswick,

* Const. Hist. iii. 345.
*H 12

166 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. III.

confirmed and sanctioned, though not, as I hold,
created, by the Act of Settlement. I see nothing,
therefore, in this opinion of Mr. Hallam, either in
support of Blackstone's " Perhaps," or Sir James's
absolute assertion of the power to elect " a family
entirely new, and strangers to the royal blood."
In truth, as I have before remarked, what seems
decisive of the case is this total absence of evidence,
on the part of the most republican theorists (old
Commonwealth's men, like Maynard), and still more
on the part of the rational but determined Whigs,
like Somers, that there was any pretension in their
minds to a right of election out of the reigning family.
On the contrary, as we shall presently see, these
very men disclaimed such a right, when reproached,
as they were in debate, with the tendency of their
measures to produce it. To the particulars of these
debates in the Convention we shall hereafter come ;
meantime it is right to bear in mind that not one of
the Revolutionists broached this modern doctrine of
unlimited choice.

What do the votes, what does the address to
William and Mary in the Bill of Rights, say ? Do
they talk of a new election by the people ? or of
their power to choose a new family, or new frame the
government ? No ! even the vote of the Scotch
Convention, bold as it is, and not only not warranted
by law, but contrary to law, in saying that the king,
who could legally do no wrong, had " forefaulted his
crown ;" not even this vote pretended to the right of

SECT. III. REVOLUTION OF 1688. 167

the nation to extinguish the whole royal family, and
choose a new one.

The English vote did still less; for it ventured
not, it did not even nibble at, the doctrine of for-
feiture, nor dreamed of cashiering ; it only found the
throne vacant in consequence of James's conduct,
and, as might naturally be expected, filled it up, in
the same manner as it would do again if all heirs
failed or were incapacitated. Nor is it any argu-
ment against this, that the vacancy was fraudulent,
or found by a forced construction, or contrary to the
fact (of which presently). In estimating the precedent
recorded, we cannot travel out of the record; the
vacancy is there stated as true, and, whether true or
false, so we must take it. This is the amount of the
precedent, and no more. To this, and this alone, are
we bound ; nor can any other use be made of it, 'than
that, in the same circumstances, — that is, if the throne
were again found vacant, — the same remedy would be
applied. It is indeed true, that the vote of the Con-
vention added some theoretic positions, such as that
there was a compact, between the king and the
people, which James had broken : that, in addition to
this, he had endeavoured to subvert the fundamental
laws; and by this, and withdrawing from the realm,
he had abdicated the throne, which was thereby
vacant. But this, though it adds the history of the
case, does not alter it. The case remains simply the
same, in regard to the fact of the vacancy, and the
power as well as the necessity to fill it up. How it

168 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. III.

was occasioned, is of no consequence to the argu-
ment founded upon it ; but it is quite sufficient for
the point before us, that, though the whole proceeding
of the Convention showed how much they were im-
bued with the spirit of opposition to arbitrary power,
and their own right to supply the vacancy of the
throne, by stopping suddenly short upon the question
of election, and not even glancing at Blackstone's
unproved supposition, they showed that they neither
did, nor could, broach such a pretension.

Yet, with all this clearly before him, a noble
person of the present day, to whom we cannot refuse
the attribute of much reflection, does not hesitate to
tell us, that " the peculiar distinction of the Revolu-
tion is not, as some have supposed, to have established
the right to depose the king and alter the succession, —
a principle often before asserted in our history, — but to
have brought into easy and undisturbed practice" our
ancient rights and liberties"*

Is not this admirable? And can you ever be
thankful enough for so great a boon, of which you
possibly (myself certainly) were in total ignorance,
till this noble writer bestowed it upon us? For
according to him, at least, nothing is now more easy
or regular than to depose a king of England, which,
indeed, was always a part of the Constitution ; and the
Revolution did nothing new, in exercising this right.
Mr. Booth, indeed, had been before him, who dis-

* Lord John Russell. Life of Lord Russell.

SECT. III. REVOLUTION OF 1688. 169

covered, that before the Conquest the people set up
and pulled down as they saw cause.*

We only wonder that the noble Lord stopped here,
and did not tell us, as there were precedents for
murdering our kings as well as deposing them, and
that the one fatality generally accompanied the other,
as in the cases of Edward II., Richard II., Henry VI.,
&c., that it was also our undoubted right to make
away with them in prison, according to our ancient
and constitutional privileges, f

So much for the votes.

Then, as to the address to their new sovereigns,
(elected indeed, but out of the old family, as a
necessary condition to their power,) did they hint even
at the right of the people to look at any other fa-
mily ?

No! they thanked God, not that they had an
opportunity of exercising their right of sovereignty,
thus devolved upon them, but that he had preserved
William and Mary to reign over them on the throne of
their ancestors.

Thus, then, according to the cogent observation of
Burke, if the right of the people to elect were ad-
mitted before, it was now taken from them; and

* Debate on" Exclusion Bill.

f Lord John Russell. Life of Lord R. i. 164. Will Lord John
pardon the liberty of telling him, that precedent and right are not the
same things ? If they were, all the crimes human nature ever com-
mitted might be justified.

VOL. I. I

170 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. III.

hereditary succession, which had before existed by
common law, was now enacted by statute.

Surely one would suppose, that, if the Revolution
had developed this new power of the people, some-
thing would have been said upon it when they
proceeded to put it in practice. But not a word
was ventured to that effect; and they quietly pro-
ceeded to regulate the succession upon the emergency,
as their ancestors had often done before, selecting
what was most fit to meet the case, but never, for a
moment, thinking or pretending that the hereditary
monarchy was dissolved and rebuilt. Hence Burke's
observation is just, that the wisdom of the nation was
totally adverse to turning a case of necessity into a
rule of law ; and, as to the preference of William, it
was also necessity, not choice ; for, without him, we
could not have avoided a bloody war, which seems to
me to be the true account, and to put an end to all
the fine-spun notions in respect to deviations being
rules instead of exceptions. *

If this be so, (and I see not how it can be refuted,)
we may count little upon the subtleties hazarded by
Sir James to get rid of it. He attempts to reconcile
what he owns is a " repugnance between the conduct
and the language of the Revolutionists. Their con-

* It would swell this treatise beyond its intended limits to set forth
at large the debates upon this question of election, to which the
Tories expressly warned the Whigs that their proposed measures
would lead ; all which the Whigs flatly denied.

SECT. III. REVOLUTION OF 1688. 171

duct," says he, " was manly and systematic, their
language conciliating and equivocal."*

How manliness and equivocation can be recon-
ciled, I don't know ; but he goes on, " they kept
measures with prejudice which they deemed necessary
to the order of society. They imposed on the grossness
of the popular understanding, by a sort of compromise
between the constitution and the abdicated family. " -{-

So, then, all these great and high tenets of the
power and sovereignty of the people, and the actual
proof of their exercise, demonstrated to the minds of
every body then and ever afterwards, were, after all,
kept secret! They passed muster in the dark, were
never promulged or asserted, but silently pondered,
reserved in the cells of the brain of political philoso-
phers for a hundred years, and then brought out, like
silver cleared of dross, fresh from the mint.

Verily, these discoveries of Sir James, that our
ancestors equivocated us into rights, and compromised
us into a sovereignty, which we never thought of at
the time, this imposing upon the grossness of the
popular understanding^:, from the fear that the people
would otherwise reject the sovereignty offered them,
are as beneficial as they are amazing ; and we owe
him the greater thanks for having fished up, after
a century's immersion, tenets, and principles, and

* Vind. Gall. f Ibid.

\ To continue the hereditary line, was, according to Sir James, to
impose on the grossness of the popular understanding.

I 2

172 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. III.

designs, and stratagems, from the minds of statesmen
and^ legislators, which they had themselves, it seems,
for the sake of success, purposely concealed.

And this is the way in which doctrines the most
important and vital to the security of our consti-
titution, and the well-being of our society, are said
to have originated : their birth was kept secret, nay,
hid from the knowledge of those most concerned in
their promulgation, yet whose acts are supposed to
have received their chief impetus from a sense of
their truth. With submission, however, the silence
of our deliverers as to the existence of a prince of
Wales is completely decisive of our position, that
they never thought, but were the reverse of thinking,
of establishing the doctrine we are contesting,
namely, the right of the nation to set aside a whole
family for the fault of the sovereign. Had this
been held, why did they not manfully declare it, by
acknowledging the son of James as his natural heir,
and cutting him off with his father, by virtue of their
inherent inalienable power? Instead of this, what
have we but mean subterfuges to get rid of a question
which they were afraid to encounter, but which,
perhaps, they prophetically consoled themselves with
thinking would be demonstrated for them a hundred
years afterwards by Price and Mackintosh.

But the best is, that Sir James himself immediately
refutes his whole supposition by showing its absurdity.
In particular, he well exposes the inconsistency of
the position of an election, with the thanks to heaven

SECT. III. REVOLUTION OF 1688. 173

that the new sovereigns had been preserved to sit OH
the throne of their ancestors. This, says he, either
referred to their descent, which was frivolous, or
insinuated their hereditary right, which \vasfalse.
Need I remark, that this mode of putting it begs the
whole question ?

The same inconsistency, he remarks, attends the
choice of the family of Brunswick, because of their
descent from James I. If, says he, this (that is, the
hereditary right,) were the sole reason, the right was
in Victor Amadeus ; and he then asks, triumphantly,
what answers Burke or Lord Somers could make to
these charges ? *

According to us, the answer has already been
given. The Bill of Rights had incapacitated all
Roman Catholics, the House of Brunswick were the
next protestant heirs, and as there was no claim at
the time to this new right, (only lately discovered,) of
a power to frame a new government, and new
ruling families, but the intention was merely to fill
up a vacant throne out of the old one, so far from
inconsistency there is the most perfect conformity to
the proposition we have laid down, the election of an
individual, but no invasion of family rights ; William
preferred before Anne, but Anne preserved; Han-
over before Savoy, because Savoy disabled.

Sir James, however, says, and not unfairly for one
who holds the argument he does, that " it is futile to

* Vind. Gall.

i 3

174 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. III.

urge that the convention deviated very slenderly from
the order of the succession. The deviation was,
indeed, slight, but it established the principle, the
right to deviate. "

Yes, the right to deviate from the general rule as
to individuals in the line of succession, but not to
depart altogether from the constitution, not from the
choice of a particular family enjoying an inheritance.
If this were so, the precedents of William Rufus,
Henry I., and Stephen, of Henry IV., Richard III.,
and Henry VII., all of whom were preferred to the
next heir, (besides the fluctuations between Mary
and Elizabeth,) would deprive the Revolution of all
the honour of this new principle of election. I have
already asked, if the precedents ever did so in the
doctrines of any constitutional lawyer before the
Revolution.

Sir James, proceeding in his defence of Price's
notion of cashiering, next asks, whether the depo-
sition of King James, for the abuse of his powers,
does not establish a principle in favour of the like
deposition when the like abuse should again recur ?

Here, for principle we should read precedent, or
else both are confounded, and all wickedness (for
which there is generally precedent enough) may be
defended upon & principle.

That the Revolution formed a precedent, nobody
can doubt, any more than that the deposition and
murder of Edward II., Richard II., and Charles I.,
formed precedents. Will they, on that account,

SECT. III. REVOLUTION OF 1688. 175

furnish a principle, that all other princes in the same
circumstances may be deposed and murdered ?

We see, then, how dangerous it is to get entangled
in a labyrinth of difficulty, by endeavouring to
reduce cases of unforeseen and sudden emergency
to the forms of law. The amount of the precedent
of the Revolution is what did not require the au-
thority of that or any precedent to justify it — the
right of self-defence when attacked. This, and no
more.

Even Mackintosh himself admits that the " mis-
conduct " stated by -Price, as warranting our power to
cashier our kings, must, in future, amount to " the
precise species of misconduct committed by James ;
and he is angry with Burke for fixing Price to so
feeble and loose a term as misconduct.

But Burke did not class petty faults under the
misconduct predicated by Price ; and if nothing short
of James's crimes amounts, in Mackintosh's under-
standing of it, to the meaning of misconduct, how
does he account for his own assertion, that " of the
justice of a war against Charles II. (meaning an in-
surrection) no man can doubt, who approves that
revolution on which the laws and liberties of England
now stand.*

What, then, was Charles as great a criminal
against the laws as James ? This, I own, I am to
learn. He was a bad man, and despicable prince :

* Hist. Rev. ii. 90.
i 4

176 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. III.

he wished to govern without parliaments ; his con-
nection with France was not only impolitic but in-
famous; the second Dutch war could not be defended;
the shutting up the exchequer was dishonest; and
many proclamations in the year 1672, such as those
concerning martial law, and various others, savoured
of arbitrary power; but, above all, the declaration
of indulgence, so pleasing to the Catholics and Dis-
senters, so terrific to the Church, filled the latter with
alarm. But, exclusive that for all these there were
legal remedies by the impeachment of his profligate
ministers ( Shaftesbury, that child of rebellion, among
them), would these have given a right of war in his
subjects against him ? If so, what becomes of the
explanatory assertion, that kings must be precisely
in the same situation with James to justify the same
punishment of them by their subjects ? But if we
grant the right of war against Charles, where is the
reign in which acts of impolicy or power might not,
with very little colouring, be made to amount to a
legitimate cause of insurrection ? The question of
general warrants, the late poor laws, or the marriage
act, so much complained of at the time, or the excise
(such an invasion of liberty, though imposed bylaw,)
— might not each of these, if Sir James or Price be
right, have been a call upon the subject to arm
against the throne ? There was immorality enough
in Charles ; but, as there was no personal oppression,
are we not warranted in demanding of this our in-
structor in the principles of resistance, to point out

SECT. III. REVOLUTION OF 1G8& 177

the special case or cases of tyranny and misconduct
which would justify the right of war against him,
which, he says, was so undoubted ? We should, then,
force him from his stronghold of generalities, and be
able, at least, to understand him.

I will, however, give him one. The greatest
breach of the law, though, perhaps, not the greatest
instance of misconduct by Charles, was in governing
without parliaments spite of the triennial bill. This,
had there been a chance of success from union or
numbers, or the aid of the Prince of Orange, as in
the time of James, might have justified an armed
rising to force him to obey the law of the consti-
tution. But here was a specific attack upon the
rights of the nation, which might have been resisted
by the law of self-defence, without any recourse to
refinements respecting a dormant sovereignty of the
people, which none of them could understand.

On the other hand, we have seen the misconduct
of the popish plot parliament, which, if the invasion of
moral rights is to justify war, would have authorised a
thousand revolts against them ; and the rather, because
parliaments have no ministers to be responsible for
them ; but this it does not suit the advocate of the
people to notice.

As it is, if, as Sir James requires, the misconduct
cited by Price is to tally with the precise misconduct
of James, it at once destroys the axiom as a general
principle authorising us to cashier our rulers. Yet,
as a general principle, and with no explanation, it is

i 5

178 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. III.

laid down by the political divine, as if it were the
postive law of the Constitution, not merely a moral
right.

This, however, is confuted ably, but strangely, by
Sir James himself; strangely, because he is fully a
participator in the same doctrine.

" No man," he says, " can deduce a precedent of
law from the Revolution ; for law cannot exist in the
dissolution of government ; a precedent of reason and
justice can only be established on it ; and, perhaps,
the friends of freedom merit the misrepresentation
with which they have been opposed, for trusting their
cause to such frail and frivolous auxiliaries, and for
seeking in the profligate practices of men what is to be
found in the sacred rights of nature."

Why, then, I have all this time been mistaking the
eloquent advocate for the Revolution, particularly
where he asserted, that the deposition of a king for
the abuse of his power established a principle in favour
of the like deposition when the like abuses should
again recur; all which, he says, was done by the
Revolution.

Now, I suppose, I need not observe, that to establish
is to form or create something new — something
that had not existed before. We certainly should not
say that we had established a monarchy in a country
where a hundred kings had reigned. The Revolution,
therefore, according to Sir James, having created this
principle, was lauded with the eloquence due.

Who, then, could expect that its advocate should,

SECT. III. REVOLUTION OF 1688. 179

almost in the next sentence, denounce it as " a frail
and frivolous auxiliary," or that it arose from the
profligate practices of men, instead of being a sacred
right of nature."

This is, indeed, wild work, and a total contradiction;
for, if a sacred right of nature, the Revolution did not
establish it: it was known to every born man; and the
doctor has really very much to complain of in Sir
James for having, by the discovery, reduced his all-
conquering and resistless case to a frail and frivolous
auxiliary.

i 6

180 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. IV,

SECTION IV.

CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION.

HITHERTO we have been occupied with canvassing
principles, prompted, as is said, by the facts of the his-
tory; and, were those facts all as represented, my
task would be over.

But the object yet wants much for its completion ;
for though, as to the event, there can be no difference
of opinion, as to the character and colour of the facts
that led to it there may be a great deal.

The general impression from the history, as we
love to believe it ourselves, and to teach it to our
children, is, that James, being a tyrant, we were
driven not merely to oppose him in self-defence, but,
that using the rights of sovereignty vested by nature
in a great, free, and enlightened people, the nation rose
as a man, in judgment upon his acts; and, finding
him guilty, deprived him of the power he had abused;
that they, therefore, withdrew an allegiance of which
he was unworthy, and filled his place with one better
deserving their confidence; that all this was done

SECT. IV. CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION. 181

upon principles well understood, gravely discussed,
and bravely as well as justly enforced, by a set of
heroes and sages, whose patriotism, courage, and ho-
nourable dedication of themselves deserve the admi-
ration and everlasting gratitude of posterity, and the
whole world, to whom they exhibited the august and
magnificent spectacle of a nation of freemen calling
to account, and punishing by forfeiture, its sovereign
magistrate for a breach of trust.

Farther, it appears that, being too weak to effect
this of themselves, they called in the aid of a great
and glorious military deliverer, who, out of pure love
of justice, and a disinterested attachment to their
liberties, suppressed all inferior calls upon him of
duty and affection, as the son-in-law, friend, and ally
of King James, and sacrificed every private feeling to
this holy object. On this national invitation, the de-
liverer cheerfully hazarded his life and the resources
of his country, for no ambition of his own, but purely
to restore an oppressed people to their rights and in-
dependence, who used them, when recovered, unin-
fluenced by any fear or other motive than their own
will, to place him on the throne which the tyrant
had forfeited. Finally, that all this was done with-
out tumult, or the exertion of any force, but by the
people themselves, through their representatives in
parliament assembled, and, therefore, by their own free
and unbiassed voice; — a noble, and even stupendous,
example of the most stupendous, as well as beautiful,
theory of natural rights which the world ever saw.

182 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. IV.

Such is the account of this great event, which, as
was before observed, we endeavoured to believe our-
selves, and love to teach to our children.

Now I do not say the picture is altogether false;
the result, happily for us, seems to warrant its cor-
rectness.

How far it is really just, is a question as momentous
as it is interesting. For, if we examine its details
with critical strictness, are we sure we shall find in it
that exhibition of patriotism or public virtue in the
actors, or even of disinterested generosity in the de-
liverer himself, which we fondly, and not unnaturally,
wish to believe ?

Upon dissecting the character of the event itself,
and more particularly of its authors, what shall we
say, if we find that the nation at large had at first
very little to do with it, that it was mainly promoted
by men who intrigued at least as much for their own
benefit as that of the people, (the usual character of
common-place patriots,) and that William himself
fomented the discontents, which were, in the end, to
aggrandize him, with a view to his personal ambition,
and a passion of far more consequence to him than
the love of liberty which he professed ?

The passion I mean was to liberate Europe, not
England, by humbling France; and that so stu-
pendous an enterprise as he undertook should be
only secondary in this pursuit, enhances our ideas of
the vastness of his genius, and the grandeur of his
mind.

SECT. IV. CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION. 183

Let us (for must we not) add to this, that even
our darling notion that our love of liberty, and the
defence of an invaded constitution, were the para-
mount and deciding causes of our resistance, is not
to be asserted without great qualifications. There-
fore, so far our merit, as Liberty's favourite sons, is
not so unmixed.

You will see, at once, that I mean how great a share
religion had in every feeling which, on this occasion,
prompted men to action. Had the love of Pro-
testantism and hatred of Popery not been interwoven
in the nature of almost every man concerned in the
Revolution, had the tyranny of James not meddled
with the religious faith of his subjects, for one, I feel
warranted in thinking our far-famed Revolution would
never have existed.

It is very certain, I think, that, but for their re-
ligious jealousies, the troops at Hounslow would not
have grounded their arms, and, still more, that the
bishops would never have dreamt of petitioning
against a declaration of the king.

We know how much the love of liberty, in the
great civil war against Charles, was sullied and stained
by the grossest and most disgusting fanaticism,
amounting often to blasphemy.

Without this fanaticism, is it unfair to question
whether Cromwell, or Vane, or Harrison, could have
effected what they did ? Is it less so to make the
same question as to the full motives of our revo-
lutionists ?

184 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. IV.

Even Marlborough professed that, though he pre-
tended not to be a saint, he was able to die a martyr
for his creed. Would it be a great stretch of incre-
dulity to doubt whether he or another military enemy
of popery, the enlightened Kirk, felt such soreness
at the invasion of their civil rights as to draw the
sword against the master whom they had served, and
whose money they had pocketed so long, without any
protestation against it ?

We must not, therefore, look at the Revolution
with a pure unmixed Roman spirit, nor think that
love of country, and an enlightened understanding
of laws, alone incited our ancestors to this great
undertaking. Neither, on the other hand, can I
believe, with Lord John Russell, that James the first
embraced the Roman Catholic faith because he found
it most congenial to his own love of arbitrary power.
Of that love there is too abundant proof, — for no
one can deny that " Csesar was ambitious." Any
more than that " grievously hath Caesar answered
it;" but the merits or demerits of his opponents is
an open question. We pass, therefore, the sins of the
king, as too glaring to be doubted, and also the
question as to his prudence or courage in meeting
his difficulties ; but not so can we pass the conduct
of those subjects who advised or betrayed him, any
more than the moral conduct of his son-in-law, in
maintaining, for a great length of time, a corre-
spondence with those subjects for the purpose of
revolt.

SECT. IV. CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION. 185

Yet, during all this time, William was making the
strongest protestations of duty and attachment to his
father-in-law, whom he was thus preparing to de-
throne. At the same time, in order to show the
spirit in which a modern Whig can write (for Mackin-
tosh is called by his Continuator emphatically a Whig
of the Revolution,) and, therefore, to appreciate the
impartiality of his judgment, I cannot help tran-
scribing a few passages in regard to the king and the
prince.

In his letters to William, James was brief and dry,
nor can we be surprised at it. " This betrayed the
violence he did to his nature in writing them." I
know not how it does so : but the Continuator adds
that James " combined with his harsh character that
common art in the education of princes, and exercise
of kingcraft, dissimulation."*

Well, was the prince (though in him, being only
a prince, and at the same time a deliverer, there
could be no kingcraft,) exempt in a greater or in any
degree from this crime ?

See what the Continuator himself is forced to say
of him, in regard to his communications with the dis-
affected subjects of James. " Affecting towards him,
with an air of patient tranquillity, the deference and
duty of a son, he gained over the subjects, sapped
the throne, and, finally, made himself supreme arbiter

* Cont. of Hist. Rev. ii. 106.
*I 9

186 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. IV.

of the fate of his father-in-law, under the pretence of
zeal for a church, and affection for a nation, to neither
of which he belonged."

Again, in a letter from Fagel to Stuart, an agent
of the king, the pensionary says, " their highnesses
have ever paid a most profound duty to his majesty,
which they will always continue to do, for they con-
sider themselves bound to it both by the laws of God
and man." This was after concert had been made to
dethrone him, but, being in the cause of liberty, I
suppose it was not dissimulation.

In another passage, speaking of Dyckvelt's in-
structions from the prince, 1686, more than two years
lefore the invasion, he says, only one article came
within the duties of an ambassador, " the rest ivas a
warrant for improper practices with the king's subjects"
No wonder that Sunderland, who had discovered the
whole design, though he basely concealed it from his
master, should observe to Barillon, that the most diffi-
cult of all things was concord between two persons
of whom one impatiently longed for the crown worn
by the other.

Excellent proof of disinterestedness in William !

But then comes in the plea, that all deceit may be
excused in the cause of the sovereign people. " The
nearest interests of the Prince of Orange were at
stake : the subjects of James conspired with a foreign
prince for their laws and liberties ; and, in such a case,
men do not look very narrowly into the obligations of in-

SECT. IV. CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION. 187

temational and municipal jurisprudence" * No mo-
dern radicalism is made of sterner stuff.

Once more : — " He (Zuylslein) was sent over with
their congratulations to James and his queen, on the
birth of their son, at the very moment when the
prince, and, as far as she was competent or allowed,
the princess, were preparing to dethrone the parents,
and bastardize the child."

This startles the natural good feeling of the modern
Whig.

But mark how soon the man of nature is lost in
the man of the people.

" There is in all this," he observes, " something re-
volting at first sight, (what, only at first sight !) con-
sidering the relations of blood and marriage between
the parties ; but it should be remembered, in extenu-
ation, that James was trampling at the time on the
liberties and sentiments of a free people, that the
Prince of Orange had a contingent interest in the
succession to the crown in his own person, AND THAT

THE TIES OF NATURE ARE MADE ONLY FOR A FREE
PEOPLE." f

What the phraseology of this last observation
means, I do not exactly know. If that none but a
free people can feel the ties of nature, it is false.
Possibly they feel them less than others, for public
virtue, to be public virtue, must and does extinguish

* Vol. ii. 123. f Hist. Rev. ii. 147.

* i 10

188 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT, IV.

the charities of kindred. This is proved by the
whole history of real and genuine patriotism ; witness
the Spartans, Timoleon, Junius and Marcus Brutus,
and many real or pretended patriots. I guess, how-
ever, that the sense intended is, that the ties of nature
no longer bind where freedom is at stake, and that
therefore dissimulation, in the cause of liberty, is
heroic virtue, while, in a monarch, it is the exercise
of art and kingcraft.

In another place, the Continuator does not scruple
to hazard a conjecture, which I, at least, never re-
member to have met with in any other historian, that
the hero William, the greatest man of his time, (for
such I think him,) would not have hesitated to murder
his father-in-law if necessary to his object.

He had already said, that William had been sus-
pected of having connived at the destruction of the
De Witts, and it is thus he writes concerning his
possible disposal of James.

" If the existence of James presented itself as a
bar to the ambition of the Prince of Orange, can it
be supposed for a moment that the most aspiring of
politicians, and most phlegmatic of Dutchmen, would
have seen in his wife's father any thing but a political
unit of human life ?" *

What a mild wording is this of a hint that our
great deliverer would have had no scruple to murder

* Hist Rev. ii. 245.

SECT. IV. CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION. 189

his father-in-law. I suppose, however, that for this
the former excuse would have been allowed, and
that " the ties of nature are made only for a free
people ; " in other words, that murdering a king by his
son-in-law is no crime when in the cause of liberty,

In asking why the confederates of Augsburg sub-
mitted so long to the aggressions of France, the
historian says, they were probably kept back by the
Prince of Orange, because " he had not yet sufficiently
concerted with his English partizans the dethroning of
James, the placing his crown on his own head, and
the embarking of England, with her national re-
sources and antipathies, in the league of Europe
against Louis XIV." *

Of a piece with this is the assertion of Burnet,
that William aspired to the crown in 1686, more
than two years before the invasion, and long before
the measure of James's aggression against the laws
was full.

Lord Dartmouth told James, from the time of
Monmouth's invasion, he was confident the prince
would attempt it ; but the following is remarkable : —

The Prince at the time (1686) contemplated being
king of England, but could imagine it only on the
supposition that James was deposed, and the throne
vacant. " If the crown devolved upon the princess
his wife, on her father's decease, he would not have

* Hist. Rev. ii. 110.
*I 11

190 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. IV.

the slightest ground to expect that the order of suc-
cession should be departed from, and the rights of
the Princess Anne sacrificed in his favour. Nothing
but the shock of a revolution, the necessities of the
time, and the merit of a deliverance, could warrant
a man of his sagacity in such an expectation ; and it
was only by a very small majority of one house of
parliament, that these causes, co-operating with others,
raised him eventually to the throne."

But William proved, at a much earlier period, that
lie had little tenderness for the rights of his father-
in-law.

He declared his wish, " that the bill of exclusion
should be carried rather than the powers of the crown
should be diminished." * He received " with pleasure
the proposition of enacting, that the princess should
be regent during the life of her father f ;" and it would
appear from a letter of Montague to him, after he
became king, that he knew and approved " the Rye-
House plot." J

If this were so, we cannot wonder at the expressed
opinion that, " whilst other great political changes
in nations and governments have been achieved by
resolute spirits from motives of ambition, vengeance,

* Letter of the Prince of Orange to Sir Leoline Jenkins. Dall.
App. p. 306, et seq.

t Ibid.

J Letter of Lord Montague to King William. Dall. App. partii.
p. 339.

SECT. IV. CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION. 191

love of liberty, or love of country, it will be found
that, in the ruin of James and elevation of William,
the dominant elements were intrigue, perfidy, and
intolerance/' Possibly this is exaggerated, but as to
the motives of the patriots who invited the Prince,
we agree that the tone of the letters they sent to him
inviting him over, " was too like that of vassals
transferring their service from one absolute lord to
another.

" Religion is often mentioned, liberty and country
never."

We agree also, that " Viewing the Revolution of
1688 at this distance of time, and with the lights
of the present day, it is impossible to deny James
a certain superiority in the comparison of abstract
principles.

" His standard bore the nobler inscription.
" He proclaimed religious liberty impartial and
complete ; and had he not sought to establish it by
his own lawless will, had his proceedings been but
worthy of his cause, posterity might regard him, not
as a tyrant justJy uncrowned, but as a beneficent
prince, who became the victim of an intolerant fac-
tion, an overweening hierarchy, and a besotted
multitude."

On the announcement of the intention to call a
new parliament, the prince is stated to have been
alarmed. — " Whilst a hope remained that rights
would be secured, and wrongs redressed, it was feared

192 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. IV.

at the Hague that the mass of the nation, and the
leading party chiefs, would shrink from the extremities
of foreign invasion and domestic war." *

How devoted here seems the prince to the hap-
piness and liberties of England !

Of the virtuous fairness of the patriots, in their
clear cause, we may judge by their treatment of the
queen, and the doubt which they every where spread
of her pregnancy. This was placarded on dead walls ;
and a pasquinade, appointing a day of thanksgiving
for the queen's being great with a cushion, was fixed
to the pillars of a church.

The prince's declaration itself was criticised by
many zealous friends to liberty, among them Wild-
man, and Lords Mordaunt and Macclesfield, who
rested it upon its true basis, a reform of the political
government, and not the petty warfare of parties and
sects, f But, with the exception of these three, it
should seem that there was little but self-interest to
kindle the exertions of that great mass of patriotism
which the nation was supposed to contain.

Take a specimen from the exhibition of political
virtue in one of the chief naval leaders, Herbert,
afterwards, for this virtue, made a peer.

Writing to William with offers of his support, some
months before the invasion, he says, " It is from
your highness's great generosity that I must hope

* Vol. ii. 132. f Burnet.

SECT. IV. CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION. 193

for pardon for presuming to write in so unpolished a
style, which will not furnish me with words suitable
to the sense I have of your Highnesses goodness to me
in the midst of my misfortunes. I have a life entirely
at your devotion, and shall think every hour of it
lost that is not employed in" (my country's ? No ! in)
"your Highnesses service." *

Is this the letter of a dedicated martyr to his
country's wrongs, or of a sycophant courting a new
master ?

The Continuator of Mackintosh observes upon it,
that the misfortunes of this patriot consisted in his
being dismissed from places at court, which he held
at the king's pleasure, upon his refusal to support
the king's government f ; to which Burnet adds, that
being sullen, proud, and morose, the preference of
Dartmouth to him in the command of the fleet was
the principal cause of his joining William.

A very pretty patriot in the minds, observe, of
other patriots, who record this of him !

The declaration of the prince contained two great
pledges.

The calling a free parliament; and to inquire into
the birth of " the pretended Prince of Wales."

William fulfilled the first. Why did he not do so
by the second ?

He was afraid of the truth. Was this the justice,
the sincerity, or the grandeur of mind which are

* Dall. App. p. 11. f Burn. i. 762.

VOL. I. * K

194 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. IV.

said to have actuated the authors of our glorious
Revolution ?

What does Mackintosh's Continuator say of the
" seven distinguished patriots, who with Roman virtue
signed the invitation; and who, therefore, may be
considered as the leading specimens of our revolu-
tionary virtue ?" '

They were " men who deserved well of their
country, but who wanted grandeur of achievement
and stature of mind, to figure as personages truly
historic; and whose names have failed to become
classic among the destroyers of tyrants, or the libe-
rators of nations."|

What does this mean? — that the writer would

* They were Shrewsbury, Devonshire, Danby, Lumley, Compton,
Russell, and Sidney. Hallam calls them the seven eminent persons
who signed the Declaration. With the exception of Lord Devon-
shire, a noble gentleman, and Lumley, who was at least without stain,
they were all eminent rogues. Shrewsbury and Russell proved
themselves afterwards to be traitors to the cause they now espoused ;
Danby was guilty of the most infamous corruption, from private
motives, as he had before been (and lay five years in prison for it),
when as Lord Treasurer he connived at King Charles's taking bribes
from France. Compton, as we shall see, was a cowardly and deli-
berate liar, when taxed with signing this very Invitation.

f p. 149. From this reproach, he should have exceptL'd the Earl
of Devonshire, a man, from every account of him, worthy of antiquity;
full of honour, full of courage, ardent for liberty, yet a friend to the
laws ; in short, deserving the epitaph written by himself, and placed
upon his tomb :

" BONORUM PRINCIPUM

SUBDITUS FIDELIS,
IXIMICUS ET INVISUS TYRANNIS."

SECT. IV. CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION. 1 95

have wished them to assassinate James, as Brutus
(that classical name) did Caesar ? or legally murder
him, as Cromwell did Charles?

He goes on thus: — "It is a remarkable fact that
not one great principle, or generous inspiration,
escapes them in that document.

" Their Invitation is a cold, creeping, irresolute
address."

The imprisonment of the bishops, and imposition
of a spurious heir, were put forward as the grievances
which immediately provoked arid justified the expe-
dition. But these incidents were merely seized upon
as favourable (we might add false) pretences. The
prince had resolved upon it long before. The Decla-
ration itself was in fact one of those politic mani-
festoes which are issued by all invaders to mask, not
disclose their purposes.

If any thing were wanting to prove this, William
writes to Bentinck his distrust of the English parlia-
ment, on whose mercy he must throw himself; and that
to trust one's destiny to them was no slight hazard.
Finally, he reveals to his Dutch counsellors that he
hated parliaments, like Louis and James." * Admi-
rable sincerity !

Then as to those who signed the Invitation, as
one of the chief reasons of the increase of discontent
announced in the nation is not so much the invasions

* Letters from William to the Earl of Portland, quoted in Hist.
Rovol. ii. p. 164.

* K 2

196 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. IV.

of liberty ', as the attempt to impose upon them a sup-
posititious heir, they inform him that his compli-
menting the king on the birth of the child has clone
him some injury; and instruct him, therefore, in his
declaration of the causes for entering the kingdom
in a hostile manner, to rest his chief reason upon this
imposition.*

Thus roguery, deliberate falsehood, and cunning
glare out through all this veil of patriotism; but
being patriotism, it of course is excusable.

In the paper war that followed on this declaration,
that the prince aspired to the crown is positively
denied, which the Continuator himself of Sir James
thinks so untrue, that he points it out as remarkable, f

In all this, but particularly the plot as to the
Prince of Wales, I own I see a mean and miserable
conspiracy to mystify facts which none but a weak
zealot or designing knave ever said he disbelieved ;
and look in vain for that noble spirit of freedom
which calls a population to arms, spurning all pre-
tences but the true one, for the assertion of their
rights.

Whatever were the now proved designs of William
upon the crown, they were, at the time, concealed,
from the fear that an open profession of them might
endanger their success in the minds of the really
honest subjects of James, who sought to defend them-
selves but not destroy him.

* See the Invitation. f ii. 204.

SECT. IV. CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION. 197

I do not blame this policy in William or his
abettors, supposing the object defensible. "Dolus
an virtus, quis in hoste requirit?" It is the hy-
pocrisy of the pretence in persons who are supposed
champions of the sovereignty of the people, and the
meanness of their stooping to such low arts in the
assertion of a cause supposed so clear, and really so
noble, that move our indignation. Nothing of the
real design was avowed at first landing. On the
contrary profession was every where made that to
regulate, not destroy the existing government, and
bring back the constitution to its proper limits, were
all the objects desired. To meddle with the person
or crown of James, was jealously disavowed.

How true this was, may be gathered from the
conversation between a confidential agent of the
prince and Lord Halifax, when the latter was sent
by James to treat, only about a month after his
landing.

The agent reproached Halifax for attempting a
delusive negociation, when there was no room for
trust, and every thing must be built on new foundations^
and a total change of persons* A worthy proof that
William only came as a deliverer, with no design
whatever to dethrone James or seize the crown
himself !

Does not the mind revolt at these gross deceits ?

Not that the invasion itself was not fair, and even

* Quoted in Hist, of Revol. p. 11, from Dalrymple.
* K 3

198 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. IV.

politic for the nation. It is the hypocrisy with
which it was conducted that provokes our animad-
version.

We are shocked at this wretched hypocrisy and
the falsehood of the pretences under which it was
promoted.

The triumph of our patriotism fades as our in-
quiries proceed. We sicken to think of the truth ;
and we have little exultation in being forced to confess
the error we have been in, as to the real character
and views of our glorious Deliverer.

Even in the conduct of this great enterprise (at
least in its commencement), we search in vain for
that supposed universal and simultaneous effort
which belonged to a great and aggrieved nation,
sensible of its rights, and determined to assert them
or perish.

On the contrary, all was not so much fear, as
apathy and indifference.

ITi at at first, or at any time, it was a great and
unanimous national movement, is at least not sup-
ported by the reception which the prince received.

Far from being warmly welcomed or welcomed at
all, he was forced to lay the country under con-
tributions, which he seems to have levied very un-
scrupulously.

This was little like a delivery.

His officer whom he sent to summon Exeter was
committed to prison by the mayor, and the gates
were closed against Lord Mordaunt who went with

SECT. IV. CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION. 199

horse to take possession. Being an unfortified town,
without a soldier in garrison, it was soon surrendered,
but this showed any thing but good will.

The mayor would neither acknowledge nor hold
communication with the Deliverer, who was received
where he advanced in person, no better than his
officers. The bishop and the dean retired, the first
to the king ; and when Burnet took possession of the
pulpit in the cathedral, and not over decently con-
verted it into a political club, by reading the Decla-
ration ; on commencing it, the canons, the choristers,
and the greater part of the congregation withdrew.
Kennet declares that when Burnet concluded his
address and said, " God save the Prince of Orange,"
the major part of the congregation responded "Amen,
Amen ;" but even the Continuator construes this to be
only the major part of 'what remained, a sneer not unre-
markable in so zealous an advocate for the invasion.

The presbyterian Ferguson met with still greater
opposition from his brother dissenters ; for going
to the meeting-house to address them, he found the
door closed upon him, and could only gain admittance
by force.

In this situation the prince remained nine days
(an immense retardation), without progress or being
joined by a single person of distinction. Had James
possessed half his vigour, there would have been
an end of him, for any thing the nation did to
prevent it.

He gave commissions to Lord Mordaunt, Sir John
* K 4

200 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. IV.

Guise, and Sir Robert Peyton to raise regiments,
but they could make no levies ; and he began to turn
his eyes to his mast-heads. So little was this great
cause of liberty upheld by those whose bosoms were
supposed to be all on fire to assert it.

While every thing was thus flat, and hope itself
almost deadened, the prince even suffered it to be
proposed to him that he should re-embark.

Did this look like the pronounced sense of a bold
and injured nation resolving to be free ?

In fact Lord Dartmouth says, William suspected
he was betrayed, and resolved, upon his return to
Holland, to publish the names of those who had in-
vited him, as a just return for their treachery, folly,
and cowardice.

So much for the heroism of our great patriots, and
the universal feeling of the injured nation.

Argue then as we please for the supposed wishes
of all, or even some ranks, the success which afterwards
attended the Deliverer was owing chiefly, I should
rather say entirely, to the want of energy, the doubt,
and indecision of James himself, and the scandalous
treachery of those whom he had loved best, and who
professed most for his service.

This was far more efficient than any general or
active feeling expressed by the community at large.

Had James with his army been in the neighbour-
hood of the prince when he landed, the probability
is he would have beaten him directly, if only from
the coldness and want of support of those whom he

SECT. IV. CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION. 201

came to deliver ; while on the other hand at sea, had
the winds and tides permitted Lord Dartmouth and
the fleet to have engaged him in his passage, such
was the fidelity of the Admiral and the crews, and
such the point of honour of even the disaffected
officers, who all said that if they met the Dutch fleet
they must fight, that probably we should have heard
little of the landing in Torbay.

As we proceed with the enterprize, I fear, though
successful, it was any thing but glorious.

The Declaration having stated that the prince had
been invited over by several lords spiritual as well
as temporal, the king sent for the bishops and asked
if it was true. Compton, of London, who had signed
the Invitation, staid away, pretending to be out of
town. No harm in that. But he appeared the next
day, and being questioned by James, told a delibe-
rate and wilful falsehood, in order to conceal his
treason ; and this he repeated upon being questioned
again the day after, which satisfied the king, who said
he believed them innocent. Soon after, this bishop
planned and effected the escape of the weak child of
James, the Princess Anne, and joined the Deliverer.
Compton, for this conduct, is canonized, if not as a
saint, at least as a hero and a patriot; to humbler
conceptions of the moral duties of clergymen it seems
that his conscience must have been not exactly that
of an apostle.

The Declaration was everywhere dispersed : it was
written by Fagel, and according to Burnet himself
* K 5

202 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. IV.

who shortened it, was long and dull. Dartmouth
says that though it was shortened, it preserved its
dulness. Answers were published, which the Con-
tinuator of Mackintosh allows had the superiority in
argument. " The prince employed pretences as well
as the king. Ambition could, no more than tyranny,
dispense with a mask. There was a rejoinder on the
part of the prince. One sentence may be worth re-
membering; the defender of the prince treats the
imputation of his aspiring to the crown, as a grievous
calumny." *

After what has been related, I need not ask you
why the Continuator of Mackintosh thought this was
worth remembering. It was a gross falsehood ; and
he had said, and with no small, though at the same
time with natural indignation, that the Revolution
was brought about by false pretences.

At length, encouraged by the supineness of the
king, the gentlemen of the south-west began to come
in, Sir Edward Seymour at their head, who then pro-
posed an association which was acceded to ; yet, so
little was the concert or the trust reposed in him that
the prince suspected, and ordered an officer to watch
him. He then reproached them all with their dila-
toriness. His language was very memorable. He
did not address them so much as the protector of
suffering but high-minded patriots, resolved upon
liberty, as a party himself concerned who had rights
and a cause of his own.

* ii. 204.

SECT. IV. CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION. 203

His language was regal, if not insulting. It is at
least remarkable. " We expected," said he, " that you
that dwelt so near the place of our landing, would
have joined us sooner. Not that we want your
military assistance so much as your countenance and
presence, to justify our declared pretensions, rather
than to accomplish our good and gracious designs."

He then proceeds, in a tasteless and hollow strain
of more than regal pomp : " Though we have brought
a good fleet and army to render these kingdoms
happy by rescuing all Protestants, (etccetera,) yet we
rely more on the goodness of God and the justice of
our cause than on any human force and power what-
soever." Here let us pause to inquire (for it is by
no means apparent) what he means by God and his
cause. What cause had he, whatever might be that
of a nation ? What claim to England, or the rights
even of the meanest citizen, unless naturalized, which
I do not find he was ? His cause therefore was that
of a conqueror, and his object that which he had dis-
claimed, the throne.

He finishes thus : " Therefore, gentlemen, friends
and fellow Protestants, we bid you and all your
followers most heartily welcome to our court and
camp."

What think you ? Is this the language of a man,
however magnanimous, who as a lover 'of liberty,
armed for its defence from a generous disinterested-
ness to aid the rights of oppressed sufferers, and
restore them to their own ? or, of a prince pretender,
* K 6

204 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. IV

seeking his own objects, and making use of those he
pretends to relieve, to obtain them ? I own, had I
been a Devonshire squire I should, after this, have
hesitated before I joined him, on the principle of rather
bearing the ills we have, than fly to others which we
know not of. It is certain that such a squire would
have paused till he had obtained some explanation of
what was meant by a foreign prince, not even an
Englishman, when he talked of the justice of his pre-
tensions. Even the Continuator of Mackintosh is
provoked into the observation that ts he made very
light both of the previous invitation and the counte-
nance of his English friends, compared with his own
pretensions and the good and gracious obligations he
was conferring upon the three kingdoms ; and that
he, a distant contingent claimant, sought the crown
of these three kingdoms as a return, while he pro-
fessed to practise virtue as its own reward. He
departed, in addressing the English, from the manly
simplicity with which he was accustomed to address
the Hollanders. The English people, as if by a
tacit understanding*, are never named ; none are
recognized beneath the condition of gentlemen, unless
by the feudal and contemptuous denomination of
followers. It is a distinctive trait of the Revolution,
that the people are not parties to it, even by name, as
a decent formality." f

* Evidently, as is meant, with the gentry, in contradistinction to
the people,
f ii. 309.

SECT. IV. CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION. 205

So far the opinion of the historian of the Revo-
lution, on the conduct and views of its own hero;
who had as yet made little advance, still waiting, we
seppose, for the great and universal defection which
was to follow. Even in the defection which did follow,
I know not while James remained true to himself,
that we can detect any thing of that unanimity even
among the troops, still less in the efforts of the
unarmed population, which might entitle them to be
denominated national. Few or no civilians had
joined ; and, though some of the officers of sufficiently
high rank, being also men of birth connected with the
planners of the undertaking, took opportunities to
desert, they carried over with them few, nay, were
opposed by most of their men. The first patriot
deserter, Lord Colchester, could only "seduce" four
troopers to accompany him. Lord Cornbury in-
deed, James's nephew by marriage, deeply wounded
him by joining the prince ; but even he failed in
carrying over much of the military force. On
the contrary, he was forced to use stratagem and
falsehood to make them move. Being left in com-
mand of three regiments of horse at Salisbury,
he marched with them towards Exeter, pretending
to have orders to attack a post of the enemy. His
major, Clifford, demanded a sight of his orders; and,
with major Littleton and other officers, questioned
him so closely, that he lost his presence of mind, and
fled from his own men with some officers indeed, but
only sixty troopers. Langston, who commanded one

*K 7

206 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. IV.

of the regiments, now told them he had brought them
not to fight, but to join the prince; upon which his
major, Norton, and several subalterns refused
obedience; for which they were dismounted, dis-
armed, and plundered, and with " much ado, " says
James, " got liberty to return on foot to the army. The
other two regiments, seeing themselves bretrayed, fled
back in disorder. Most of the troopers of Langston's
regiment returned as they found opportunity, " which
showed," says the king, " greater honour and fidelity
in the common men, than in the generality of the
officers, who usually value themselves so much for
these qualifications." * This is any thing but a proof
of a simultaneous effort of a resolved and unanimous
nation.

Lord Clarendon, Cornbury's father, apparently
in despair at the conduct of his son, ran to
throw himself at the king's feet, who received him
with kindness and pity, only to see him soon after
desert, more meanly than Cornbury himself. As-
suredly, neither father nor sou were heroes nor

* Life of James II. There is also a very curious and a very in-
teresting account of this transaction drawn up by the major (Norton,
above mentioned}, which so graphically sets forth the hard and ne-
farious treatment of these men, and the scandalous means attempted
by the officers who deserted to seduce them from their allegiance ;
that, with a view to the important information it contains upon a point
rather slurred over than examined in almost all the histories, I have
thought it but right to throw it into an appendix. Ihe narratijn is
in a letter from Norton, preserved in Carte's Memorandums, and pub-
lished by Macpherson — See APPENDIX to this, No. i.

SECT. IV. CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION. 207

men of honour, though they might be very virtuous
patriots.

A farther proof of the little alacrity that was shown
at first to join the prince, was in the capture of Lord
Lovelace, who, proceeding with seventy horse (who
probably knew not his intentions) to the army of
William, was attacked by the militia, and made
prisoner with thirteen of his men.

The rest of the army it should seem, with the ex-
ception of some of the officers, would have remained
firm to their duty, but were paralyzed by the total
incapacity of their general, Feversham, and the
vacillation of the king. On the first rumour of
desertion, Feversham abandoned all his posts, and
retreated towards London. There the king remained,
confounded more (and with reason) by the treachery
he expected, than what he had already experienced.
Sunderland, Godolphin, Churchill, his ministers,
his military officers, his friends, to which add his
daughter, were all preparing to desert, nor did he
know whom to trust. One does not blame these
persons for taking part against him, but one abhors
the execrable treachery of continuing to serve only to
betray him. Where was the manliness, the devotion
to an heroic resistance of tyranny, exhibited by these
high persons in the following scene between them
and their master ?

After holding a council with his ministers he
summoned his general officers and colonels, and told
them he would call a parliament as soon as peace was
* K8

208 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. IV.

restored; and moreover promised every thing, his
subjects could desire in regard to their liberties
and religion. He then made this remarkable con-
cession to them as individuals, that, if any among
them were not free and willing to serve him, he gave
them leave to surrender their commissions, and go
where they pleased ; that he believed them men of
too much honour to imitate Lord Cornbury, but was
willing to spare them if they desired it, the discredit
of so base a desertion.

There was here something surely that partook even
of greatness, and one would have thought, must have
had a corresponding effect upon men of honour, if
such they were.

" Accordingly, they all," continues the king, (for
from his memoirs this extract is compiled) " seemed to
be moved at the discourse, and vowed they would serve
him to the last drop of their blood" The Duke of
Grafton and my Lord Churchill were the first that
made this attestation; "and the first," adds the compiler
of the Life of James, " who, to their eternal infamy
broke it afterwards, as well as Kirke and Trelawney,
who were no less lavish of their promises." So much
for the honour of these patriots ; which, however, as it
is not the object of our strictures to criticise, we pass
for the present, to attend the march of events.*

* At the same time it may not be amiss to remember the letter of
Churchill, who, if the military glory of his after life had not gilded
over this early baseness, would have been only known in history as a
villain. I mean the letter to William, in which, while he was thus

SECT. IV. CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION. 209

A petition was now got up by Lord Clarendon
(who had been in such despair at his son's dishonest
conduct,) in conjunction with several prelates, to call
a free parliament, and spare the effusion of blood,
that is, to treat with the Prince of Orange. The
parliament was promised, but not till the invasion
had been repressed ; in which who shall say the king
was wrong ? He afterwards set out for the army
meaning to oppose William, but was prevented from
advancing by an attack of bleeding at the nose so
violent that he was utterly incapacitated from acting.
This he says was providential, for he was afterwards
informed that Churchill, Kirke, Trelawney, and
others, who had been foremost as we saw in swearing
fidelity to him to the last drop of their blood, meant
to have seized and delivered him to William, or some-
thing worse.

The fact is contested; but no arguments other than
opinions are alleged against the belief of it which is
asserted. Coxe, the biographer of Marlboro ugh,
merely disdains it, but I agree in a pungent remark :
" That he should have remembered that his hero

continuing the trusted servant and friend of James, he devoted him-
self and his honour, as he called it, to the service of the Prince. This
and the other infamies of Cornbury, Grafton, and many others, make
the heart sick to think how ignoble were the means which produced
so noble an end. Like Falstaff, we may say, " If I be not ashamed
of my soldiers, I am a souced gurnet."
*K 9

210 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. IV.

was the last person in whose case a charge of perfidy
and meanness could be treated with contempt."*

We have said that it is not our purpose to inves-
tigate the military conduct of James or his more
faithful adherents in the steps they took to oppose the
advance of William. With so much rottenness and
treachery in those he most trusted, much greater
faults might be excused, if excuse was the object of
these strictures. But my question is only as to the
true character of the Revolution, and whether in the
revolt of many commanding officers, in the imbecility
of others who remained faithful; in the general
fidelity of the private soldiers, or in the apathy of the
greatest part of the gentry and common people not
in arms, we descry, even afar off, the traces of that
august and heart-stirring spectacle which the history
supposes; that of a great nation unanimously re-
solving to assert the great first principles of freedom,
and to relieve themselves by a universal effort to
resist and punish a tyrant. If, instead of this, we
find that success was chiefly owing to dishonour and
hypocrisy in the means, and that even the end was
as much to gratify private views of self-interest as the
nation's welfare, as philosophers, freemen, and lovers
of our country's fame, we may be bitterly disap-
pointed.

* ii. 217. We shall presently come to the investigation of this
very interesting question, and a more atrocious charge belonging to it.

SECT. IV. CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION. 211

We have already seen how little the effort was
what the French called a rising " en masse." The
people (as such) were not considered; of the 32,000
men who composed the royal army, the king, though he
had lost a large proportion of officers, was abandoned
by only a few hundred privates, and that " the prince
had received no efficient accession." It was to the
weakness, therefore, and personal dismay of James,
(dismay at being deserted 'by his best friends, and
even his children,) not to the vigour of the nation, that
the progress of William towards the capital was
chiefly owing. The desertion of Prince George
(called in derision by the king "Est il possible")
was intrinsically of no consequence, and James was
but right in saying that the loss of a good trooper
would have been more severely felt. On this im-
maculate patriot there is this observation, that " he
affords one of many proofs that the meanest faculties
suffice to practise knavery with success." One of
his flimsy reasons, stated in his letter to James for
abandoning him, was his alliance with Louis XIV.
He forgot, says the historian, that his own brother,
the king of Denmark, was at that moment also the
ally of France.

But the defection of Anrie was a severer blow, and
prompted that pathetic exclamation from James,
" God help me, my own children have forsaken me !"

He had, indeed, ever been to her, as well as her
sister, who also was cognizant 'of, and approved the

* K 10

212 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. IV.

enterprize to dethrone their father, the kindest of
parents.

But patriotism and love of liberty have been said
to be paramount virtues ; and they are so. How far,
in the present case, they were mixed up with mere
personal ambition in the Princess of Orange, who was
to be a queen, or an intolerant zeal for her religion
in a mere bigot like Anne, may be made a question.
In regard to the last, " she was taught to look upon
the Church as grievously ill-used in being deprived
of the pleasure of crushing and worrying papists and
dissenters." She also believed that her father had
been base enough to impose a spurious heir upon the
kingdom, and, of course, so far to lessen her own
contingent expectations of the throne. Are we
wrong then in venturing to believe, that the purity
of patriotism in these two princesses might be some-
what doubtful ?

The real characters of the other leading patriots
who brought about the Revolution, we shall hereafter
have occasion to discuss; meantime, it is really curious,
in pursuing the narrative, to observe how these Whig
benefactors are handled by their Whig historian.

Lord Bath, governor of Plymouth, having declared
for the prince, he says, " this lord had been some
time waiting to ascertain the stronger side : and ad-
ded another example of intrigue and ingratitude."

The Duke of Ormond, Lord Drumlanrig, and
Sir George Hewet, having attended Prince George

SECT. IV. CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION. 213

in his flight to William, he was accompanied by others
of meaner rank, but not of meaner principles. The
duke figured in the gazette as volunteering to raise
troops against the invasion, while he was deep in the
intrigues of the prince for corrupting the faith, not
only of the army, but of the fleet. Drumlanrig was
also a young man, and " it is not easy to reconcile
with the frankness of youth* the treachery with which
these noblemen abused, up to the last moment, the
favour, confidence, and hospitality of the unfortunate
king."

This is at least strange in the eulogist of the Re-
volution ; but he makes it the channel of, to himself, a
more gratifying eulogy on former exertions of liberty ;
for he adds, " But the vigour and virtue of the
English nation and character had dwindled from the
restoration of the Stuarts. A degenerate race suc-
ceeded the men of the Commonwealth. The aris-
tocracy seem to have been born without that sense
which is supposed to be their peculiar distinction, —
the sense of honour." '

Such then is the opinion of, at least, one great cham-
pion of the Revolution, as to the virtue of many of its
most active partisans. We have seen the character
of Lord Cornbury ; let us add to it that of his father
Lord Clarendon, an influential leader.

" He was a person of mean understanding, and
still meaner conduct. After invoking God in his

* ii. 224.

* K 11

214 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. IV.

despair upon the calamity of beholding his son a
rebel*, he wrote to the Princess Anne, complimenting
her upon her desertion. Finding that neither he,
nor his brother Rochester, were likely to be appointed
to treat on behalf of James with the prince, he in-
dulged in pedant wisdom and ungenerous reproaches
against the fallen king ; deserted the next day to the
prince; was received without confidence or respect;
had the baseness to suggest that James should be sent
to the Tower; continued to be neglected, or despised
by William ; and ended in making professions of con-
science, loyalty, and Jacobitism." f

This was no more than what Marlborough did
afterwards. These benefactors to their country, and
champions of its civil rights, were certainly not of
Roman breed !

Was Halifax, the polished, the eloquent, the witty,
the vigorous, the highly cultivated, the philosophic,
the active, one jot better than they ? No ! Accord-
ing to our historian, his reputation needs all the
indulgence that can be derived from the universal
degeneracy. Less daring than his uncle Shaftesbury,
less corrupt than Sunderland, he was their equal in
the versatility of intrigue.

Why does he say he was less corrupt than Sun-
derland, though that infamous man, while he contri-
buted perhaps most to the Revolution, was the pattern

* This appears in Clarendon's own diary.

•f- He was detected in the plot to restore James, might have been
put to death, and was exiled 10 his country house.

SECT. IV. CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION. 215

and father of all corruption ? Halifax was appointed
commissioner by the king to treat with the prince,
and no sooner was so, than he betrayed him. He
opened himself to the confidential agent of William,
and agreed to support all his measures.

It is worth while to consider how the real designs
of the Deliverer had now begun to be unfolded. The
mask was dropt between this agent and the noble
commissioners. The pretence of a free parliament,
the chief reason urged for the invasion, by William in
his declaration, was thrown aside. The agent avowed
that new foundations and a total change of persons were
to be adopted ; for which purpose, it was urged in
print and conversation that the king would not adhere
to his engagements, and that it would be the greatest
folly to graft any thing on the old stock. Far from op-
posing this, the virtuous Halifax assured the agent
who had told him that his acceptance of his commission
would subject him to unhappy suspicions, on the part
of the prince, that he would act in such a manner as
not to incur his censure.*

Is not this patriotism a fine thing, when it can gild
over such conduct, place such a man in the first ranks
of history, and inscribe him among the foremost of
those whom we look upon as the fathers of our
liberties ? Let it be remembered that, as is supposed
from fear, Halifax declined to inroll himself among
those who invited William to appear in arms ; and that

* ii. 234., where all the authorities are cited.
* K 12

216 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. IV.

from this, and other instances of interested incon-
sistency, he obtained the inglorious epithet of Trimmer.
But to return to the narrative.

Defection, from the imbecility of James, was now at
its height. The prince had advanced to Hunger-
ford, where the commissioners from the king were ap-
pointed to meet him. There were joined to Halifax,
Nottingham andGodolphin; of whom the latter had the
dexterity or dishonesty to possess at the same time the
confidence both of James and William. Upon their
arrival the prince would not see them, but referred
them to commissioners of his own. Among these
(mirabile dictu) was the very Lord Clarendon whose
loyalty we have been describing. But this seems to
have been to mark his (William's) contempt both of
Clarendon and Halifax, who were known enemies.
In truth, the negociation on the prince's part was
a mockery. He wanted nothing so much as delay,
for he now wanted the crown, which he could not
obtain by any negociation. His engines had for some
days been at work for it, and his means, adds the
historian, were unworthy his character.

A spurious manifesto, called a third declaration of
the prince, was published. It did not, as is said,
proceed from the prince himself, but it was found too
useful to be contradicted; for it proclaimed that
all papists who had arms in their houses, or were in
office, should be treated as robbers, freebooters, and
banditti, refused quarter, and delivered to sum-
mary execution. It set forth that the papists were

SECT. IV. CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION. 217

in arms to destroy London by fire, and massacre the
protestants; called upon the magistrates to secure
them, who, if they disobeyed were themselves, to be
treated criminally.

All this was believed ; copies sent to the lord
mayor and the king, who, with his courtiers, were
panic-struck, and, in fact, through a lie, did much
service. Was this the high-minded spirit of a ge-
nerous, lawful, and general insurrection ? Did so pure
a cause require the aid of false witnesses ? The De-
claration was afterwards, indeed, denied by William ;
but not only the advantage of it was pocketed, upon
the king of Prussia's principle, that a lie sometimes
does good for four-arid-twenty hours, but Speke, who
claimed to be the forger, declared, after William's
death, that he showed it to him, and that he ap-
proved. His disavowal of it was, at least, only verbal,
and confined to those about him ; and his historian
himself winds up with these remarkable passages
" The prince had already the reputation of being not
only a phlegmatic, but an unscrupulous politician.
His policy was charged by some with tolerating, by
others with sharing, the practices which stimulated the
populace of the Hague, to massacre the patriot bro-
thers, De Witt, and give him undivided sway over the
republic. The profit he made of this impudent and
atrocious fabrication leaves an additional stain upon
his character."*"

* Hist. Revol. ii. 235.
VOL. I. L

218 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. IV.

What can we say to this, but to ask in surprise, if
this can be the opinion formed by our great historian
of liberty, of liberty's greatest champion, our glorious
deliverer ?

It is a grief to add what is stated of Lord Dart-
mouth— surely a man of loyalty arid honour, though,
as it should appear, more weak and hesitating than
we wish to consider him. He had orders from James,
who had sent his son to Portsmouth to have him con-
veyed in a yacht to France. At first he promised to
obey, and then retracted: his excuse was the
strictness of the law against it *, and the bad conse-
quences in his mind of the measure. This we should
not notice to his disadvantage ; but in Dalrymple
there is a letter from the prince to him, taken by Byng,
urging him to join him, and offering him, if he did,
to continue him in the command, with an assurance
that Herbert should not be advanced over his head.
" This letter," says Byng, <: had some effect upon him.
From that time, he seemed inclinable to the prince's
party." The letter was laid privately on his toilet,
by his own captain, and he never instituted any
inquiry upon it, though an affront which few men of
honour but must have resented, being a direct
temptation to desert.

I am far in this from saying that there is the least
proof of even intended treason in Dartmouth ; nor do
I blame the prince for tempting him; but in such a

* Query, what law ?

SECT, IV. CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION. 219

system of bribery which do we recognise : the volun-
tary rising of the nation against invaded rights, or
the ambition, from personal interest of one prince,
to usurp the throne of another ? Had Dartmouth
accepted the offer, and joined the prince, would it
have been from public virtue ?

Defection, or distrust, having now become uni-
versal, James resolved, and attempted, to quit the
kingdom. This was precisely what the prince most
wanted : it was what was most conducive to his own
undisguised object — the crown of his father-in-law.

It is not to our purpose to inquire by whose advice
he was in this chiefly influenced : it was said by that
of Halifax and Godolphin, his own commissioners,
who, knowing that it played the game into William's
hands, the Continuator of Mackintosh observes upon
it as " one of the meanest and most characteristic
intrigues of theRevolution." *

Mean intrigue, then, is the characteristic of the
Revolution ! What must have been its glory ? What
the triumph of the sovereign people ?

Godolphin's share in the advice is not questionable ;
but the baseness of Halifax almost exceeds belief.
Burnet says that that lord, while transacting his com-
mission (proh pudor !) asked him if they had a mind
to have the king in their hands ; that he answered
no ; that Halifax then asked, what if he (the king)

* Hist. Revol. ii. 240.
*L 2

220 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. IV.

had a mind to go away ? Burnet answered, nothing
they so much wished. This he told the prince, who
approved both answers.*

Upon this, Halifax wrote to the king, informing
him of a design upon his life, which made him resolve
to withdraw ; and James himself says, that if he did
not go, the prince would, probably, find other means
to send him out of it (the kingdom) and the world
too." t

On the morning after his departure, which had
been concealed, his antechamber was crowded with
lords and gentlemen, who rushed in to attend his
levee. He was gone, and had addressed a letter to
Lord Faversham, thanking the army under him for
their services, and desiring them " not to expose them-
selves (for his sake) to a foreign enemy and poisoned
nation." This letter was read at the head of 4000
men at Uxbridge, many of whom, it was said, shed
tears. These circumstances do not bespeak the una-
nimous hatred of a nation to a tyrant, still less its
desire to sit in judgment upon him. It is true that
upon his flight being known, the rabble of London
rose in their character of robbers, and committed
great excesses ; but it was chiefly for the sake of
plunder, not of promoting their political rights.

It is not incurious to observe the spirit shown at
this time. " There was, even in the capital, no

* Burnet.

f Memoir in Life, ii. 249; cited by M. ii. 242.

SECT. IV. CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION, 221

public spirit, no democracy, no people, no magis-
tracy, worthy or conscious of its mission. All power
was divided between the aristocracy and the rabble.
When, upon the king's flight, the populace began the
work of plunder and devastation, the citizens and
their magistrates were alike supine." *

Here, again, we are at a loss to discover the great
injured nation, acting upon first principles, and the
inalienable rights of resistance. So little so, that
there being no concert, nothing organised, the city
might have been fired and pillaged by ruffians, had
not the lords spiritual and temporal, at least those
who happened to be in town (many of them, pro-
bably, who had recently so crowded the king's ante-
chamber, to pay their duty to him, thinking him
there), proceeded, in their individual capacity (for
they had no collective one), to confer with the lord
mayor and magistracy of London with a view to
preserve order. Finding the magistrates (though we
must suppose them to have been so alive to the rights
of a reformatory revolt) utterly incompetent to act,
these lords took upon them the temporary govern-
ment, and, being obeyed, preserved things, for a time,
from destruction.

There was nothing to blame in this : it was
rather matter of praise. There was great confusion
the house was on fire; the owner had fled; and
whoever had influence enough to command, and be

* ii. 250.
L 3

222 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. IV.

obeyed in restoring order, though he had broken a
thousand laws — such is the privilege of necessity —
only did right.

It was well the lords acted thus; for though, as to
legal power, they were only so many private gentle-
men, they had influence from their names, and
obtained obedience from good will, when the law
could do nothing.

They assumed the whole government for a time,
like a provisional committee of safety, and were
luckily obeyed by the city, the army, and the fleet.
They took the command of the Tower by stratagem
from the king's governor Skelton, and issued warrants
to apprehend all popish prjests and Jesuits in London;
a still stronger proof of the rights of necessity. More
than this, they issued their famous Declaration, im-
puting the king's flight to popish counsels, which
was a falsehood, because it arose from the fears
purposely instilled into him by Halifax and Godolphin,
in league with the prince, though trusted by James.

In consequence of this, they resolved to " resort" to
the prince; and the corporation of London joined
them in an invitation to him to vouchsafe to repair to
the city. This, Burnet, the partisan bishop, has the
effrontery to represent as an invitation in form, to
assume the government, and it was so believed by the
prince, who had already assumed the style of a sove-
reign, issuing orders, disputing those of the king, and
dating them from his court at Henley, from which he
moved, with all royalty, to Windsor.

SECT. IV. CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION. 223

Here the later historian of the Revolution breaks
out into a most unwarrantable abuse, not only of
James, but of kings in general.

" James," says he, " like all tyrants, and most kings,
considered the nation as made for his use."

Indeed ! Most kings ! Did Agis, or Agesilaus, or
Codrus, did Numa, or Trojan, or Antoninus, did
Alfred, or Robert Bruce, or Henry IV. of France,
did our own princes of the present family think
nations made for their use ? I believe William did ;
for, with all his zeal for our liberties, it is clear, even
in his historian's own opinion, that the great and
deciding cause of his invasion was, under false pre-
tences, to obtain the throne of England.

There is another inculpation which an enlightened
lawyer, versed in the law of nations, surely could not
mean to be serious. It implies, that when a person,
whether king or otherwise, is attacked in war, he is
not to consider himself at war, and avail himself of
his means of defence. Or does he mean, that being
civil war between the people and a king, the latter
is not to be considered as a legitimate belligerent ?

" James," this historian goes on to say, " therefore
(that is, because he so thought) did not scruple to
leave his people in a state of anarchy, with the selfish
purpose of embarrassing his rival, and deriving advan-
tage from public confusion." *

* Mackintosh, vol. ii. 253.

*224 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. IV.

I do own this passage filled me with astonishment.
Selfish purpose ! What ! is it selfish to resist an
assailant ? Anarchy ! Who caused it ? Embarrassing
his rival ! was he then to facilitate his enterprise ?
Derive advantage from confusion ? Are we not to
confound an enemy ? One would suppose that this
historian thought it was the bounden duty of James
to fall at the feet of the man who came to rob him.

In the same spirit, having cancelled the writs for
the new parliament, and taken away the Great Seal,
he says that " he, (the king), vainly imagined that
there was some inherent power, not only in his person,
but the mere symbol of his will. Kings seldom reflect
that their great seals are but so much wax, and their
persons but ciphers, when they are no longer sup-
ported by the will of the nation or by hireling
force."* *

This is only worthy of a mere declaimer against
kings, endeavouring to excite a mob. To you I
need not say how easy it is for demagogues to rail ;
and, were it worth while to dissect this fine passage,
should we be able to discover that it was even sound ?
Could James have embarrassed his enemy, he had a
right to do so ; and if we ask calmly for the proof of
the other imputation as to the inherent power which
he supposed to reside in his person, where is it to be
found but in the heated fancy of the writer ? As to

* Mackintosh, vol. ii. 266.

SECT. IV. CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION. 225

the last part of the assertion, that kings and seals are
but ciphers and wax, without the support of their
people, or a hireling force, it is as certainly true that
a vicious rebellion may succeed, as well as the most
holy insurrection. What then does this fine declama-
tion end in but the right of the strongest ? The
remark was gratuitous.

To come coolly to particulars, the question is, as I
have stated, who caused the anarchy ? Not James !
Attacked and betrayed in the midst of peace, and
declarations of duty ; attacked by his innocent invader,
nephew, and son-in-law ;

" Deserted in his utmost need,
By those his former bounty fed;"

informed by his own minister that his life was threat-
ened, without refuge, without power, what could he
do but fly ?

Of all the accusations brought against him, well or
ill-founded, this last, as it is the most unexpected, so
it is least proved or provoked. As a king and as a
man, there are faults enough proveable against
James, who was no more than justly opposed in his
endeavour to subvert the laws ; but this attempt to
aggravate his sins against the nation, for using his
own rights of self-defence, partakes of the spirit of
the times and of contemporaneous partisans, rather
than the able and impartial judge at the distance of
a century and a half.

But to return. In the meeting of the lords at
*L 5

226 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. IV.

Guildhall, not above thirty in number, and in the
voluntary obedience paid to them, we find a full
exemplification of the case of necessity.

Hitherto the acts of the prince had been purely
military, and if he had been obeyed or joined, it was
as Monmouth had been obeyed and joined, his fol-
lowers running the risk of what might be to come,
the sovereign power being still in the hands of the
king.

But the king having abandoned the helm, and the
ship without compass, in very necessity the assembled
peers took upon themselves, not so much to command
as to suggest, what seemed vital measures for the
safety of the vessel. In this they did no more than
any passenger might have done in the same circum-
stances, provided the crew had good opinion enough
of him to obey him. These lords addressed the
prince ; so did the city ; so did the lieutenancy ; and
it will be critical to canvass what it was they com-
municated. Did they broach the opinions of our
two great enlightened authorities, Price and Mackin-
tosh ? were they even in circumstances to call, or
believe, themselves the nation ? I should say not.

Echard says, that of the lords " who were in and
about town (a sort of chance assembly themselves)
there were only about thirty, including seven
bishops. The names of all are given ; none of them
violent opposers of James, still less upholders of
Revolutionary doctrines; many, the direct reverse.
The Archbishop (Saricroft), the Bishop of Ely,

SECT. IV. CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION. 227

(Turner) the Lords Mulgrave, Rochester, North and
Grey, might even be denominated Jacobites. These
never could intend, in addressing the prince, to pro-
tect the state in its unlooked-for emergency, to alter
the whole frame of government, cashier the king, and
elect a stranger, — whether William, Jeffries, or Kirk, —
in his stead. Burnet, indeed, as we have said, has the
impudence, or bad faith, to call the addresses above
mentioned an offer of the government to the Prince of
Orange. Let the addresses speak for themselves.

After professing their regard for the protestant
religion, and their reasonable hope " that, the king
having issued his writs for a free parliament, they
might have rested secure under the expectation of
that meeting, the lords add, " But his majesty hav-
ing withdrawn himself, and, as we apprehend, in
order to his departure out of this kingdom, by the
pernicious counsels of persons ill affected to our nation
and religion, we cannot, without being wanting to
our duty, be silent under these calamities, wherein
the popish counsels which so long prevailed, have
miserably involved these realms.

We do therefore unanimously resolve to apply our-
selves to his highness the Prince of Orange who with
so great kindness, to these kingdoms such vast ex-
penses, and so much hazard to his own person, has
undertaken, by endeavouring to procure a free par-
liament^ to rescue us with as little effusion as possible
of Christian blood from the imminent danger of
popery and slavery."

L 6

228 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. IV.

" And we do hereby declare that we will with our
utmost endeavours," — (do what? cashier James, and
place the crown on William's head? No!) — assist
his highness in the obtaining such a parliament
with all speed."*

The addresses of the city, and of the lieutenancy
of London, are equally worthy of notice.

The former, after complimenting the prince on all
lie had done for the protestant religion, arid thanking
him for appearing in arms to rescue the country from
popery and slavery, observes that they had hitherto
looked for remedy from his majesty's concessions and
concurrences with the prince's just and pious purposes
expressed in his gracious Declaration, f

If so, then had the king not withdrawn, but gone
on with his concessions and concurrences, it was
clear that they thought all wounds would have been
healed. At any rate there was no thought'of setting
up their undeniable right of calling kings to account
and dethroning them for misgovernment.

What, then, prompts them to apply to the prince ?
Not the continuation of the tyranny of James, but his
leaving them without remedy, by withdrawing from
the exercise of his power. Herein, being finally
disappointed (not by the continuation of the tyranny,
but the desertion of the king) "we presume," they
say, " to make your highness our refuge" and they

* Echard, iii. 931. f Ibid. 931.

SECT. IV. CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION. 229

accordingly, invite him (to assume the crown? No !)
to repair to the city, where he will be received with
joy and satisfaction.

No doubt of it, when the government seemed broke
up, and there was no other refuge at hand.

It is remarkable that the address of the lieu-
tenancy was infinitely more pointed, and spoke more
decidedly than either that of the thirty lords or the
city magistrates. They are concerned, they say,
that they had not before an opportunity of testifying
their resolution to venture all to attain the glorious
ends which the prince had proposed for settling these
destracted nations.

What the prince had proposed to the world, (I
speak not of himself) is only to be found in his Declara-
tion; a free parliament, and an inquiry into the birth
of the Prince of Wales. In all the three addresses
was there any thing of bringing the king to trial to
answer for his misgovernment, through the means of
the prince, or was any reason assigned for inviting
him to the city, but its having been abandoned by
the king?

What now, then, becomes of Burnet's silly, or
wicked, misrepresentation, that these addresses were
an offer of the government to the prince? The
lords talk of assisting him. That a man should
assist another to assist himself to obtain his own
object, is indeed a remarkable phrase ; but it is any
thing but an offer to place himself in subjection to
him. I do not deny that these thirty lords, who

230 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. IV.

happened to be "in and about town" were looked up
to by the deserted people in their vicinity as au-
thorities whom, for the sake of their safeties, they for
a time obeyed; and that by their conduct they de-
served well. Neither do I question that in these ad-
dresses the intention was to propose pro tempore, and
until the desired free parliament should meet and provide
for the exigency of the deserted government, that the
addressers wished William to exercise a provisional
power, in the same manner as they had done them-
selves. But that they intended to overthrow the
dynasty of James, or deny that he was still their
sovereign, still more that they could ever pledge the
nation, or claim to represent its resolves to this effect,
no whiggery that then existed ever supposed or
asserted. That such was the opinion whether at
Guildhall where these lords assembled, or in the
great majority of the nation, is contradicted by the
protracted and stormy debates of the Convention
itself, where the still existing sovereignty of James,
and his right to the throne, under whatever modifica-
tions, were asserted, defended, and contested by those
who were personally most opposed to him, and were
active in calling in and siding with the prince as their
ally and deliverer. We are not, therefore, even yet
near that great revolutionary doctrine, supposed to
have been so incontestably established by these
wonderful events.

But what shall we say to the intentions and temper
against the king, supposed to be so clearly manifested

SECT. IV. CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION. 231

by the mass of the nation, when we consider the re-
action which, from an unforeseen (and to William
unwelcome) accident, took place almost immediately
after the addresses had been dispatched.

The story of the arrest of the king at Feversham,
in his endeavour to escape to France, is known. The
incident, which might have terminated his life, ended
in a momentary triumph. Having escaped the mob,
he was persuaded by Lord Winchelsea, the Lord Lieu-
tenant to return to London. The consequence of
this I cannot relate better than in the words of old
Echard.

" This strange adventure had various effects upon
the Prince of Orange and the city of London. The
former seems to have desired that the king should not
have been stopt nor brought back, and the latter ap-
peared filled with a joyful surprise ; most people
there being glad of an opportunity to convince the
king, that there was never any ill design against his per-
son. As for the peers and privy council, they were
likewise variously affected by this news, more es-
pecially by reason of the advance they had made to the
Prince of Orange. However, after some debates, they
appointed four of their members, namely, the Earls
of Middleton, Ailesbury, Yarmouth, and Feversham
to wait upon his Majesty, and to invite him to his
palace at Whitehall; to which, though at first he
showed some reluctance, yet at last he condescended.

" The peers also dispatched an express to the Prince
of Orange, to acquaint him that the king was still

232 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. IV.

in England; at which time his highness came to
Windsor, and lodged in the prince of Denmark's
apartment, which was prepared and made ready for
his reception.

" As his highness was much surprised, so it is easy
to believe that he was not very well pleased to meet
with new obstructions when his affairs necessarily
called him to London.

" Therefore, after a long consultation with the chief
of the nobility and gentry about him, he dispatched
Monsieur Zuylestein to the king to desire him to
continue at Rochester; but this express missing his
way, his majesty left that place on Sunday morning,
the 16th of December, and about four in the after-
noon entered the city of London, as it were in
triumph, and went to Whitehall, attended by several
noblemen and a great number of guards, while mul-
titudes of people that crowded to see him welcomed
his return with their loud acclamations; and the
night concluded with the ringing of bells, illumin-
ations, bonfires, and other such like demonstrations
of joy and satisfaction."*

In all this we look in vain for the acts of a resent-
ful nation, conscious of their strength, and resolved
to use it for the punishment of a delinquent king.
Yet, though thus received, what might still be his
fate from the arms of his invading rival may be
questionable. Probably, deprived as he was of all

* Echard, iii. 931.

SECT. IV. CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION. 233

military aids, he would have been conquered in the
field; but so much was he encouraged by this appa-
rent return to loyalty in his subjects, that he thought
his power had revived, and he not only summoned
a privy council, but it was well attended, and an
important order, which he immediately made, was
signed by several members, among them the Duke
of Hamilton, who soon after, without any new act of
aggression on his part, took the lead against him in
Scotland, and joined in the memorable vote of that
country, that he had forfeited the throne. A more
important person in regard to Whiggery set his name
also to this order ; the great patriot Godolphin,
whose Janus face looked quite as much towards
William, though he here acknowledged James to be
still his master. It was also signed by Trevor,
master of the rolls, and by Titus ; the last any thing
but a tool of tyranny.*

The reflection of Mackintosh's Continuator upon
this incident is worth commemorating. " Reigning
princes," he says, "are not selected for their virtues,
or selected at all. James II. was really one of the
less despicable princes of his time ; and the mass of
the people in all countries were as low in the scale of
reason and knowledge as their sovereign."! Our
revolutionary ancestors are at least obliged to him.

He goes on to review the effects of the king's

* Echard, iii. 931 . The other signers were Lords Craven, Berkeley,
Middleton, and Preston,
f Vol. iii.

234 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. IV.

return on the prince's court at Windsor. It startled,
he says, these enemies of James. The prince, asto-
nished at the sudden change, and alarmed by the
inconstant genius of the English people, desired the
advice of his principal friends. Clarendon, taking
conquest for granted, advised the Tower, arid, as
Sheffield writes, hinted at something farther. The
prince preferred holding the king to his avowed pur-
pose of withdrawing. " It was thought necessary " says
Bnrnet, " to stick to the point of the king's deserting
his people ; and not to give up that ~by entering into a
treaty with him" In other words, adds Sir James,
to dethrone him for that, as a voluntary act, inspired
by popish counsellors.

So then, after all, it is confessed, that James de-
throned himself, not the sovereign injured people; and
the whole glittering precedent of the inalienable
right of resisting tyrannical sovereigns has crumbled
to nothing. This was, in fact, the policy finally
pursued. The flight of James was critical upon the
question, for it produced the vote of abdication, by
which the throne was vacant ; " so that," as Echard
observes, "the people fell into their original right
(of cashiering ? No ! ) of filling the vacancy. Thus
the Prince of Orange," adds he, " succeeded unspotted
by any parricide/' *

But the Continuator cannot restrain his indigna-
tion at this. James II., he says, "by assuming a

* Echard, vol. iii. 941.

SECT. IV. CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION. 235

power above the laws, assuredly incurred the penalty
of forfeiture of the throne. But he should have
been unhinged by an ingenuous, just, and national
proceeding upon principles worthy of a nation exer-
cising the most sacred of its rights, and not upon
false pretences, and perfidious arts."*

The Revolution then, according to this gentleman,
was not an ingenuous, just, and national proceeding,
but brought about by false pretences and perfidious arts.

I think here is enough (added to what has preceded)
to show that in the opinion of those themselves whom
we oppose, our Glorious Revolution was a very in-
glorious thing, or, at least, not quite so glorious, or
cogent, in the support of the doctrines erected upon
it by modern Whigs, as we in general consider it.
The task, however, will be only better performed if we
attend upon the march of its history a little farther.

In compliance with the scheme avowed by Burnet,
to get James out of the way, without the further trouble
of considering certain grand first principles of the
sovereignty of the people, which were not then so
perfectly understood as by our more enlightened
modern instructors, every artifice of terror, treachery,
and chicanery, was put in practice against the weak
and infatuated king. The Dutch guards were sent
in the night without notice to take possession of
Whitehall and dispossess those of England. The stout
old Earl Craven, who commanded the last, would

* Hist. Rev. ii. 263.
* L 10

236 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. IV.

have fought them ; but the king, to spare bloodshed,
prevented him, and went to bed, but was roused from
his sleep by an order from the prince, borne by the
Lords Halifax, Shrewsbury, and Delamere, to give
up his palace and retire the next morning to Ham.
The Continuator of Mackintosh calls this a black
transaction on the part of the three noblemen con-
cerned : I cannot conceive why, at least upon his own
principles ; for if James had given his subjects a right
of war, so that he might have been tried and sen-
tenced even upon mere notoriety of acts*, he might
have been killed in the field, or judged to death by
his subjects. How, then, was it a black transaction
to wake him at night, with an order to retire from
London ? But what shall we say to the conduct of
Halifax ?

He is more correct in what he says of the conduct
of Halifax, which, he observes, was indescribably base.
Having, as commissioner of the king, secretly betrayed
his trust, he now, adding open shame to hidden per-
fidy, came back to the king, commissioner or something
worse from the prince.f

It is stated that William could not help smiling — he
who smiled so rarely — at the willingness with which

* Vide supra.

f Sheffield Duke of Buckingham's Account of the Revolution.
Apud Continuation of Mackintosh, vol. ii. It is difficult to separate
truth from opinions in a conflict of parties, even when it did not
produce civil war. Here the war was raging, and we must attach
much to this insinuation of Sheffield, though one of the honestest of
the grandee's, as times went.

SECT. IV. CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION. 237

Lord Halifax consented to play so mean a part. He
was nominated, it appears, by the prince, as " an easy
trial " of his new faith, and as an expiation of his
refusal to join those who invited the Deliverer.
Perhaps, continues Sir James's Editor, William had
already resolved to employ him, and thought the
dishonoured peer would be so much the more useful
a minister.*

William was now in London ; his entry triumphant,
and the behaviour of his new sovereigns, the people,
instructive. St. James's Palace was thronged to do
him homage, as Whitehall had been thronged the day
before to do homage to James. He rather avoided,
than courted, the shouts of the populace, disgusted
perhaps with their versatility : but he had equal
reason to be disgusted with the mob of the court.
Upon the departure of the king, Whitehall again
became a desert. Those who Imdjlocked to him upon
his reappearance, rushed now to St. James's to make
their eager court to William, exemplifying in this
little of the supposed august scene of a nation re-
suming its suspended rights, but very much the correct
estimation made of the multitude: — "An habitation
giddy and unsure hath he that buildeth on the vulgar
heart, O, thou fond many !"

Meanwhile, though the self-exiled king was at
Rochester in his way to voluntary banishment, he was
pressed by all his protestant friends still to stay, and
to summon a parliament, assuring him that there was

* Sheffield Duke of Buckingham's Account of the Revolution.
Apud. M.

*L 11

238 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. IV.

a great turn in the minds of the city, and of the
English army, and that pity and compassion for him
then generally prevailed ; what is more, Echard
adds *, that it ivas in a great measure true. If so,
what again are we to say of the universal feeling, the
universal resolution, to dethrone him ?

Could the advice have prevailed, there can be little
doubt as to the event, and the Tower, probably, would
have been the palace to which James would have
been consigned. But if the reaction was a fact,
which the Editor of Mackintosh himself seems to
admit, are we far wrong in thinking this imprison-
ment would have proceeded more from the efforts of
the Dutch guards, than the wishes or the energies of
the great English people ?

In his then situation James did wiser in rejecting
the advice, and proceeding to France, leaving free
scope to all that collision of high but discordant
principles, theories, and discussions which followed,
and which, though nothing new to you, but, on the
contrary, long since settled in your excellent judg-
ment, I cannot help asking you, as a proper close to
these strictures, to examine.

Previous to this, however, it may not be amiss, nay,
it is only justice to James, to take a glance at his.
famous letter from Rochester, containing his reasons
for quitting the kingdom, and in so far affording an
answer to the argument afterwards raised upon it,
that he had made a voluntary renunciation of the
throne. If his retreat was occasioned by treachery,

* Vol. iii. 340.

SECT. IV. CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION. 239

force, threat, or stratagem, it was evidently not vo-
luntary, and we are but right in saying that this
national proceeding was founded on " false pretences
and perfidious arts."

" The world," says the king, " cannot wonder at
my withdrawing myself now this second time. I
might have expected somewhat better usage, after
what I writ to the Prince of Orange by my Lord
Feversham, and the instructions I gave him; but
instead of an answer such as I might have hoped for,
what was I to expect, after the usage I received, by
making the said earl a prisoner against the practice
and law of nations ; the sending his own guards at
eleven at night, to take possession of the posts at
Whitehall, without advertising me in the least manner
of it; the sending to me at one o'clock, after mid-
night, when I was in bed, a kind of an order, by
three lords, to be gone out of my own palace before
twelve that same morning ?

" After all this, how could I hope to be safe, so
long as I was in the power of one who had not only
done this to me, and invaded my kingdoms without
any just occasion given him for it, but that did, by
his first declaration, lay the greatest aspersion upon
me that malice could invent, in that clause of it which
concerns my son ? I appeal to all that know me, nay,
even to himself, that, in their consciences, neither he
nor they can believe me in the least capable of so
unnatural a villany, nor of so little common sense, as
to be imposed on in a thing of such a nature as
that.

* L 12

240 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. IV.

" What had I, then, to expect from one who, by
all arts, hath taken such pains to make me appear as
black as hell to my own people as well as to all the
world besides ?

" What effect that hath had at home, all mankind
have seen by so general a defection in my army, as
well as in the nation, amongst all sorts of people.

" I was born free, and desire to continue so ; and
though I have ventured my life very frankly on se-
veral occasions, for the good and honour of my
country, and am as free to do it again (and which I
hope I yet shall do, as old as I am, to redeem it from
the slavery it is like to fall under), yet I think it not
convenient to expose myself to be so secured as not
to be at liberty to effect it ; and for that reason do
withdraw, but so as to be within call whenever the nation's
eyes shall be opened, so as to see how they have been
abused and imposed upon by the specious pretences of
religion and property."

Such is this famous letter ; and whoever now reads
it, now that the prejudices, the fears, and the excite-
ment of the times which produced it are over, will
not refuse, I think, to admit that, however we may
rejoice in the effects of the throne's being voted vacant
by a voluntary abdication, the vote itself was founded
upon anything but truth.

Burnet says the facts the letter complains of were
aggravated or misrepresented. In what were they
so ? Was not Lord Feversham imprisoned contrary to
all law of nations ? Would William have dared to have

SECT. IV. CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION. 241

done so by any messenger from Turenne or Luxem-
burg ? Were not the Dutch guards sent without notice
to surprise James at night ? Was he not forced from
Whitehall? Could he have thought himself safe?
Could William have himself believed, though he pre-
tended to do so for the better carrying on his own
ends, that the birth of the Prince of Wales was a
wicked imposture ? If he did, why did he send an
express embassy to congratulate James upon it ? Anne
believed it for a time; but Anne was a weak bigot
(though a Protestant), as great as her father was a
Catholic. The letter to William formerly cited*,
admonishes him that he would lose ground by not
supporting the lie, and he did support it. Was this
the magnanimous deliverer, or a political trickster?
In this point, at least, James will bear a comparison.
He might be arbitrary, he might be a tyrant, but he
was a man of honour. William landed with a lie in
his mouth, and chiefly by means of that lie became
king.

It is hence, I think, that what James so emphati-
cally complains of was true. He could expect no
safety from those who, knowing it to be false, endea-
voured to make him appear to his subjects " as black
as hell."

Do I in this defend the cause of James? No ! but
not the less do I blame our supposed high-minded
and clear-sighted ancestors. Not the less do I re-

VOL. I.

* Supra.
*

242 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. IV.

pudiate being one of those wiseacres who halloo one
another into the thought that James was a monster,
William a disinterested deliverer, and those who acted
with him patterns of wisdom and public virtue.

With all my cautions in admitting, and still more
in exercising, the right of resistance, I am free to say
that the vote of the Scotch convention, that James
" had forcfaulted his right to the throne," was in-
finitely more consistent, and more worthy of the
principles of liberty which have been contended for
by the jurists we have been reviewing, than the
Jesuitical niceties and scholastic pedantry on which
the palladium of our happy constitution was, at last,
actually founded.

The steps by which this was produced were of a
piece with the production itself. Every thing was
marred and incrusted with such irregularities, such
unfounded assumptions, such semblances of reality
where no reality was, that the mind seems bewildered
in pursuing them. We follow them with difficulty,
and part from them without satisfaction. Decies
repetita non placebit.

The prince and his followers had every thing in
their power. There was not a possibility of resist-
ance to any thing they might propose. As they had
gained all, so they might have modelled all by suc-
cessful force. The laws were mute ; all rights at the
foot of the conqueror (for conqueror he was), and as
such implied to be, even by such Whig lawyers as
Pollexfen and Holt, who, however blamed, no more

SECT. IV. CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION. 243

than consistently (I do not say wisely) advised
William to assume the crown as Henry VII. had
done before him. I repeat, this would not, perhaps,
have been wise ; but if an easy and early settlement
of a distracted state betokened practical wisdom in our
earlier ancestors, it is not clear that it would have
been the contrary on this occasion ; as, on the other
hand, it would have saved us the examination of a
thousand failures and bewildering derogations from
reasoning and regularity, which marked the whole
progress of our sage politicians, from the commence-
ment of their sayings and doings to their final and
lucky settlement.

Had this been done, in what would it have been
different from the origin of many other states, go-
vernments, or usurped powers, now consecrated by
time?

But though this would have been more consistent
and intelligible than what was afterwards done, it
could not have been without the acknowledgment of
the bold right of force which our learned ancestors
wished (I by no means say improperly) to evade.
They resolved, therefore, to do every thing they
wanted, yet pursue, as much as possible, old forms
and a beaten track. Hence the incumbrances with
which they surrounded themselves, and the difficulties
from which (as critics in legislature, not practical
statesmen) we are not even at this day satisfactorily
relieved.

Our deliverers resolved to remedy the exigency
* M 2

244 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. IV.

that had occurred through the old, known, and re-
spected medium of a free parliament, so dear to
Englishmen, and the chief object and cause of the
Declaration itself. The deliverer, however, did not
foresee, when he published it, all that was to happen.
He did not think, perhaps, of a parliament without a
king ; and whatever his secret designs, he probably
did not exactly cast beforehand how he was to get
rid of the king, and yet create a parliament.

The unforeseen loss, therefore, of the presence of
the king before the parliament was summoned, occa-
sioned the difficulty. Was it solved ? Let us
inquire.

245

SECTION V.

31 ARCH OF THE REVOLUTION AFTER THE RETIRE-
MENT OF JAMES.

WE have seen how the lords, who had assembled
themselves for excellent purposes, though without
character, at Guildhall, and had addressed William
to advance to London, had returned to James, when
James returned to them. We have seen, too, upon
the second withdrawal of James, how instantly they
returned to William.

They were now all again at his beck at St. James's ;
for they had laid down whatever power they had
assumed, and were no longer an assembly except of
individuals. Yet these, disjointed as they were,
without a character, without a capacity to do any
one legislative or representative act, were the first
set of people (I do not mean to blame him) whom
*M 3

246 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. V.

William pitched upon to address as the nation, and
ask their advice to carry his Declaration into effect.
This, and their having gone from the palace to their
own house by a sort of magic, charmed them into
the belief that, instead of being some eighty or ninety
titled gentlemen, they were one of the estates of the
realm, lawfully assembled, by the only power which
could assemble them, the king's writ.

Let us pause here to ask by what talisman, what
strange metamorphose, this could be that consti-
tutional meeting which formed one third part of the
legislature ; much more how it could pretend to be
any part at all of the representation of the people's
will, beyond the eighty or ninety units of which they
were individually composed ?

Yet this collection of individuals were, as we have
seen, that solemn court which was supposed to be
endowed with the power of sentencing their king
on the notoriety of his acts, and would have given
them power to order him to be tried, had there
been " exalted justice and superior reason enough
in the nation" to have gone through with such an
undertaking.*

Hitherto we have neither heard nor seen any thing
of the people, either in their collective or individual
capacity, whether set free from their government, or
not.

* Vide supra.

SECT. V. MARCH OF THE REVOLUTION. 247

We have witnessed the march of armies, heard
the sound of trumpets, and seen the struggles of
contending parties ; we have beheld the ascendancy
of a foreign prince, and the retirement of a native
king ; but of any organized appearance of a people,
acting numerically, or by representation, we have
been in total darkness. Does the meeting of indi-
vidual lords, even though they had taken possession
of what they called their own house, which gave an
air of greater independence and authority to their
deliberations, does this enlighten us? Again, I say,
I think not.

Certainly, if William had no right to assemble them,
and they no right to assemble themselves, as a House
of Peers, it was not the chamber where they did
assemble that could supply the defect.

Assemble, however, they did, and whether their
old walls enlightened, or their own virtue encouraged
them, they assumed the port and privileges of the
peers of the realm in parliament assembled. They
chose a Speaker, the immaculate and consistent
Halifax, and named other officers. Did this make
them the legitimate House of Peers? still more, a
constituent part of a parliaments not only to which
a House of Commons was wanting, but which had
never been called together by the proper autho-
rity ?

Defective, however, as their construction, and
* M 4

248 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. V.

therefore their authority, evidently was, they made
use of their usurpation for acts of the highest con-
sequence to the nation. They addressed William to
assume the whole government of the kingdom in his
person, and, as such, to issue summonses to all
parts of the kingdom for the meeting of a parlia-
ment, which they thus thought would be regularly
assembled.

I entreat you to observe, that in this I am far from
blaming the proceeding of the lords ; for even without
parliament, the peers have a known constitutional
character: and if an individual peer can claim to
give advice to his sovereign, much more may the
whole peerage united. But this requires a real and
known sovereign, and extends to advice, not power,
though an opinion is recorded by Echard, that the
peers have an intrinsic power, which, like a spring,
may be kept down by the weight of the sovereign ;
yet, when the weight is removed, as it was here, the
spring recovers its force, and resumes its elasticity.

Ingenious as this may be, where it is to be found
in our books of constitutional law, I in vain seek to
discover.

You will perceive, however, that I direct this criticism
on the powers assumed by the peers, only against
those jurists, who, waving the argument from necessity
(the only real or justifiable one on this occasion), at-
tempt more, I think, than the question requires, in

SECT. V. MARCH OF THE REVOLUTION. 249

the endeavour to prove that these peers, thus as-
sembled, were the old legitimate upper house of
parliament, and acted as such.

Was it this which prompted observations as devoid
of justice, as I think they are of liberality, from a
democratic oracle from across the Atlantic, who
seems to regard us with no friendly eye, yet
is so good as to instruct us as to our constitution
in the tone of a master ? I mean Mr. Cooper, whom
I mean any thing but to offend, when I say that I
like his novels better than his law. That an American
should not be in good humour with a House of Lords,
does not surprise ; but there is method even in mad-
ness, A democrat has a right to wish lords at the
bottom of the sea ; but while upon earth, and tolerated
by less elevated creatures than republicans, they
have a right at least to fair play. Where in history
does this great person find that " The peers of Great
Britain, considered as a political body, are usurpers
in the worst sense of the word ?" Where that
they are usurpers at all ? Where authority for
saying the authority they wield, and the power by
which it is maintained, are the results neither of
frank conquest, nor of legally delegated trusts, but of
insidious innovations effected under the fraudulent
pretences of succouring liberty. He allows they were
" the principal, and at that time the natural agents
of the nation in rescuing it from the tyranny of the
Stuarts ; but profiting by their position, they have

250 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. V.

gradually perverted the institutions * to their own

aggrandisement and benefit. This," he adds, "is

substantially the history of all aristocracies, which

commence by curbing the power of despots, and end

by substituting their own."f N.B. This is the

exact account of the democrats of the Long

Parliament. Yet as a not unjust criterion of human

nature at large, it may be allowed ; but a republican

is the last man in the world to presume to attribute

it exclusively to aristocracies. Mr. Cooper would do

better, perhaps, to defend his democratic brethren, for

their cruel abuse of power in retaining the Slave

Trade, than in vituperating the aristocracy of England,

who contributed so much to its annihilation. At

any rate he is forced, we see, to allow the English

House of Peers the merit of having been the principal

and natural agents in rescuing the nation from

the tyranny of the Stuarts, a call upon him, one

would think, to demonstrate by proofs, an assertion

which, till proofs are produced, we may consider as

mere commonplace declaration ad captandum.

But to return to the peers of 1689. Most
certainly they did not only what they might have
done had their meeting been regular, but a great
deal more. They, standing single, and without the
support of the other house, addressed the prince, as
we have before related; but as to the people, it

* Query, what institutions ?

j- See Mr. Cooper's work upon England.

SECT. V. MARCH OF THE REVOLUTION. 251

would be most difficult to find them, except in the
mobs in the street, who, from time to time, and as
they thought they could succeed, used the sovereignty
which had reverted to them, by making free with
other people's property now without safeguard from
the law, which, we are told, was annihilated.

In fact, though the interests of many leaders indi-
vidually, of corporations, of the church, and of the
magistracy had been talked of, and, in some measure,
stipulated for, the people were wholly overlooked.
Not a word was said about them or their authority
collectively, either by the deliverer, or those who
invited him, or the bishops, or the magistrates,
or the corporation of London, or any other cor-
poration.

These first principles of authority, this only source
of power, which have been the theme of our enthusi-
astic admiration a hundred years after them, were
never thought of at the time, much less mentioned,
by any of the parties concerned.

As it was, William was hugely tempted, but at the
same time embarrassed by this address of the lords,
His embarrassment, however, only arose from the
difficulty of dallying between accepting the offer
from the lords alone, and waiting for a House of
Commons to join in it.

This was unfortunate, for there were then no Com-
mons in existence; and if the lords, who were all

252 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. V.

personally recognised as the individuals who must
form the House of Peers, when properly assembled,
had no collective character, still less could any set of
men pretend to be the Commons, who had all melted
into air on the dissolution of the last parliament.

This was a sad dilemma ; but when things, right or
wrong, are resolved upon, and have power to back
them, resource is not wanting.

So all the old members who had sat in any
parliament of Charles II., who could be found in
town, were ordered to assemble, and call themselves
the House of Commons, and, by way of a Corin-
thian capital to this clumsy base, the aldermen and
fifty common councilmen of London were brought
from their shops, and ordered to assemble with
them.

Does not this remind you of the Revolution in the
Rehearsal, where the two usurpers enter the chamber
of the two kings of Brentford, sit in their chairs, and,
in the twinkling of an eye, are transformed into
sovereigns ? Even the author of this part of the
history seems ashamed of his puppets, for puppets
they were, and did as they were bid, and took pos-
session of the Commons House, as the peers had
taken possession of theirs, and chose a Speaker, the
patriot Powle, one of the pensioners of Lewis XIV.,
and thus the two Houses called themselves Lords
and Commons.

SECT. V. MARCH OF THE REVOLUTION. 253

This was to William a great satisfaction, and dis-
pelled his doubts, for they desired him to administer
the government, and issue summonses for a parlia-
ment, which he cheerfully did.

In the Commons, however, there was a not unna-
tural anxiety to know how they came there, and how
they could be the Commons of England, when none
of them had been elected.

But this false modesty was soon repressed ; and it
was resolved that the prince's warrant was quite suffi-
cient to salve their consciences. I need not ask what,
except the sword, gave the prince a right to issue
this warrant ?

One member indeed (Sir Robert Southwell), had
the temerity to say he could not conceive how it was
possible for the prince to take upon him the adminis-
tration without some distinguishing name or title.

But he was silenced by Serjeant Maynard (whom
Swift calls an old rogue, and who in the Long Parlia-
ment seems to have deserved the appellation), who
said they should wait long and lose much time, if they
waited till Sir Robert conceived how that was possible.

But Mackintosh defends his own " spurious and
motley assembly" by saying this sarcasm had "some
reason ; for it would have been in vain to look for regu-
larity where all was irregular" *

Thus he seems, like Jaques in the play, to have
discovered that " Motley's the only wear."

* Mackintosh, vol. ii. 282.
fM 7

254 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. V.

" I met a fool i' the forest,
A motley fool, a miserable varlet —
A worthy fool ; motley's the only wear.
O, that I were a fool
I am ambitious for a motley coat."

Upon the whole, if we come to consider the lawful
authority of the meeting I have described, I see not
why, if William had thrust a regiment of Dutch
guards into the Commons House, and made them
deliberate, as Cromwell would have done in the same
circumstances, why they wrould not have been invested
with quite as much legal right to be called and thought
the Commons of England, as this " spurious and
motley meeting."

The reasons for their legitimacy would be quite as
good : "It would be in vain to expect regularity,
where all was irregular"

And this is the first indication we have of an ap-
pearance of a recognized power, having even a sem-
blance of the people, being introduced on the theatre
of the Revolution.

Whether this assembly had any right to be called
representatives, or whether any thing it could do
deserved that glorious character which we are usually
so fond of bestowing upon the event, the exhibition of
the solemn act of a great and wise nation, assembled
before the world to pronounce, on the greatest crisis
which could happen to it, the dissolution of one go-
vernment, and the establishment of another, this is

SECT. V. MARCH OF THE REVOLUTION. 255

a question which, from the premises detailed, we have
no great satisfaction in asking. Most indubitably
the PEOPLE have not yet appeared.

However, all was soon cured by this bastard
meeting, engendering another, which, though also a
bastard, seemed, if not legitimate, yet something
more like a representation of the people, in the
ordinary form.

For the " spurious and motley " by voting the
prince into the government, and desiring him to
summon a more regular meeting (which he did),
produced the great Convention Parliament, whose
first act was to vote themselves the real people, and
then to dethrone James, and make William king,
who then summoned another parliament, who thus, it
was said, became a real one, and, by their first vote,
declared the convention to be so too, with a con-
vincing argument of pains and penalties upon all
who doubted it, which was pretty much the same
as Lord Peter's declaration, that whoever denied
his brown loaf to be a leg of mutton, should be
damned.

Previous, however, to this meeting, such as it was,
of the representatives of the numerous individual
sovereigns who then composed the sovereignty of
England, the prince, in virtue of his delegated power
from the no delegates, borrowed 200,0007. from
the City, chiefly, as it was said, for securing the
* M 8

256 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. V.

protestant interest in Ireland. But to this purpose,
or at least in the proportions contemplated by the
lenders, it was not applied. Here, then, was there
not an abuse? and an abuse in a king, much more
in a nondescript locum tenens, is misgovernment ;
and misgovernment, as we have seen, gives a right of
war. William, therefore, was in the outset, and
before he became a king, a tyrant, according to all
legal description of one.

For now were issued search warrants against
printers and pamphleteers who had abused him,
though only when in charge of the provisional
government, and before things were settled by his
assumption of the crown.

If any thing could have justified the most free
exercise of the liberty of the press, it was surely the
exigencies of such a time as this, when the very life
blood of all that had been done, or was doing, de-
pended so entirely upon public opinion. If really the
Revolution was just, virtuous, and necessary, the fullest
liberty to discuss it was imperative on both sides;
especially by the lovers of philosophic liberty, who
rested their cause upon the arguments, not the bayo-
nets, of the Deliverer.

Yet what was the fact ? Mobs were arrayed against
all who differed from them, with weapons far different
from reasoning, the use of which weapons also they
far better understood. These were what, under the

SECT. V, MARCH OF THE REVOLUTION. 257

guidance of the honest and just demagogues of the
Long Parliament, drove the king to seek refuge in
arms, and then they denounced him for taking them ;
and why should not the same means produce the
same effect? — Sherlock e, however, had the honour to
be answered not by a bludgeon, but a pen, though
that pen was Burnet's. Sherlocke was dean of St.
Paul's, was for recalling the king, and wrote cogently
in favour of it ; among other topics, he doubted the
assertion of a treaty with Louis for the destruction
of the protestants. " This," said he, " did more to
drive the king out of the nation than the prince's
army." This, therefore, ought to be examined,
as, if it should prove a sham, as some say it is, it
seems half an argument to invite the king back
again.

Fearing impression from this, Burnet was ordered
to reply to it, which the obsequious doctor willingly
obeyed ; so that the paper war raged with sufficient
violence, and, as it should seem, the prince nad the
worst of it.

The pensionary's letter to Stuart on the subject of
the tests abounded with expressions of affection,
gratitude, and duty on the part of the prince and
princess to the king. They declared, through Fagel,
that they were resolved to continue in the same
sentiments of affection and duty to his majesty, or to
increase them if possible.

* M 9

258 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. V.

The passages expressing these unalterable or in-
creasing sentiments of love and duty were selected
and reprinted, with commentaries insidiously re-
spectful, and the following memorandum appended
by way of note. — " These singular expressions of
affection and duty to the king their father were sent
after those irregular and offensive measures of quo
warranto charters, the dispensing power, closeting,
the ecclesiastical commission, and Magdalen College,
were practised. It is scarcely necessary to add, that
these were the leading grievances urged by the
prince in justification of his enterprise."

The Prince of Orange had his full proportion of
pamphleteers in the field, and he was personally a
sort of idol whom none dared to attack, — to whom
all parties offered homage from inclination, interest,
or fear. Yet the prince and his Whig advisers,
who had printed in Holland, and circulated in Eng-
land, the most scandalous libels upon the king,
issued a search warrant, worthy of James II., the
Charles's, and the Star Chamber, after authors,
printers, and sellers of unauthorised books and pam-
phlets.

" But the proofs," continues Mackintosh's Con-
tinuator, " are numberless, and the fact indubitable,
that the men of the Revolution of 1688 were as little
disposed as their adversaries., whether Tories or papists., to
concede the free exercise of either human reason or religious

SECT. V. MARCH OF THE REVOLUTION. 259

conscience" f He goes on in a strain remarkable for
such a champion of liberty.

" Hitherto, the assumption of a power to suspend
or dispense with laws, was the main grievance speci-
fically urged against the king, and the sheet-anchor
of the designs of the prince. To these were now
added the imprisonment of the bishops, and the im-
position upon the nation of a spurious heir to the
crown, James II. is sufficiently odious, and his
deposition from the throne sufficiently warranted,
without injustice or aggravation. It may be right
here to pause for a moment upon these three chief
heads of accusation.

" James affected to be above the law, and was
therefore a tyrant. He did not, however, assume
the right of suspending or dispensing with all laws,
as, according to the popular notion, he is supposed to
have done, but only those penal enactments which
interfered with his prerogative of commanding the
services of all and any of his subjects. His lawyers
told him this was a prerogative inseparable from his
person, which no statute could limit or invade. The
same prerogative had been claimed by Charles II.,
vindicated by Shaftesbury, and withdrawn from ope-
ration rather than renounced. James, then, did not
assert it without precedent, or without law authority.

| Hist. Revol. vol. ii. 296.

260 HISTORICAL ESSAY* SECT. V.

He did not assert it without appeal. He submitted
the question to the competent jurisdiction, and eleven
of the twelve judges decided in his favour. Such a
prerogative, it is true, was equivalent thus far to
arbitrary power ; but. this admission would only prove,
that arbitrary power had countenance from the laic of
England. The judges, it will be said, misinterpreted
the law from fear or favour, and were appointed for
the purpose. But discarding, as a delusive phrase,
the maxim, that the king can do no wrong, and
holding James responsible of right, as he was held in
fact, still he was not the sole criminal, but the accom-
plice, and, in some measure, the victim of corrupt or
craven judges, and of an anomalous system of juris-
prudence, which allows judges to make law under
the name of expounding it. In fine, of the eleven
judges who decided the case of Hales, four only were
named by the king."

" To come to the case of the bishops : — they
refused compliance with an order of their king,
whilst they professed passive obedience to him, as a
tenet of their church ; and, after having in precisely
the same matter obeyed the royal mandate implicitly
in the late reign, they presented a petition to the
king desiring to be excused. They considered their
petition legal and dutiful, as most assuredly it was.
The king considered it a seditious libel ; committed
them, in default of bail, upon their refusal to enter

SECT. V. MARCH OF THE REVOLUTION. 261

even into their own recognizances ; submitted the
question to trial by a jury of their common country,
and the verdict was against him. His proceedings,
then, against the bishops, however vexatious and op-
pressive, were not illegal, and therefore not tyrannical.
The surest test will be to suppose James, for a
moment, a true son, not of the church of Rome, but
of the church of England, and the objects of his
prosecution, not protestant bishops, but dissenters
or papists, would not his conduct be very differently
viewed, though the question of its legality would
remain the same ? The charge respecting a suppo-
sititious heir was one of the most flagrant wrongs
ever done to a sovereign or father. The son of
James II. was, perhaps, the only prince in Europe of
whose blood there could be no rational doubt, con-
sidering the verification of his birth, the unimpeached
life of his mother, and the general morality of courts
and queens.

" The imprisonment of the bishops, and imposition
of a spurious heir, were put forward as the grievances
which immediately provoked and justified the expe-
dition of the Prince of Orange ; but these incidents
were merely seized on as favourable pretences. The
prince had resolved upon it long before, and wai ted only
for a favourable conjuncture, and was already making
his arrangements in concert with the States of Hol-
land, his allies abroad, and his friends in England.

* M 11

26*2 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. V.

Viewing the Revolution of 1688 at tins distance of
time, and with the lights of the present day, it is
impossible to deny James a certain superiority in the
comparison of abstract principles : his standard bore
the nobler inscription. He proclaimed religious
liberty impartial and complete; and had he not sought
to establish it by his own lawless will, — had his pro-
ceedings been but worthy of his cause, — posterity
might regard him not as a tyrant justly uncrowned,
but as a beneficent prince whc became the victim of
an intolerable faction, an overweening hierarchy, and a
besotted multitude"

What are we to say to this powerful apology for
James by his most determined opponent ? What of
the opinion expressed of the glorious enterprize?

Surely, if this was the real character of the Revo-
lution, drawn by its most determined defender, those
who have nursed themselves into an opinion that it
was the unanimous effort of a great and enlightened

O ' ' O

nation, so deeply versed in the principles of philosophic
liberty, and so alive to the infraction of those prin-
ciples by their sovereign, that they rose, to a man, to
assert and resume their abstract and inalienable
rights, — those, I say, when they come to the facts,
will probably be disappointed.

Nor will they be less so, I fear, who have conceived
notions which the heart would warmly welcome, but
is forced totally to reject on examination, of the pure

SECT. V. MARCH OF THE REVOLUTION. 263

patriotism, contempt of danger, and generous devo*
tion of self to the public weal, in those whom cursory
readers of the common histories of the times have
dignified with the characters of deliverers. I except
not the great Deliverer himself; in respect to selfish
views, sincerity, or a bold assertion of liberty, not less
unworthy than the hypocrites who used him, as he
used them, each to serve himself, under what we have
seen stigmatized as perfidious arts and false pre-
tences*

The effect of late discoveries has been woeful to
our national feelings and national pride. The great-
est names sink to nothing; and characters we have
been used almost to adore, become the sorriest
knaves and veriest of pretenders that have appeared
in history.

You may remember in one of Voltaire's wittiest
satires upon the illusions of the world, (I think
" Babouk, ou Le Monde comme il va,") Babouk, at
Paris, going to a celebrated tragedy, full of glowing
sentiments, is so struck with the energy and pathos of
the principal actress, a persecuted princess arid model
of conjugal virtue, that he conceives the most ardent
desire to be acquainted with her, in order to offer
his adorations.

Accordingly, he waits upon the princess the next

* Supra.

f M 12

264 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. V.

day ; and to his astonishment and horror, finds her,
instead of a palace, in a sordid lodging, up two pair
of stairs, living in adultery, and with child by her
keeper.

I dare not apply this to our glorious Revolution or
its immaculate heroes ; certainly not to all its actors,
many of whom charm us in the history, as the princess
did Babouk.

But if we really coolly inquire into the genuine
character, either of the Revolution itself, or of those
who accomplished it ; the mariner in which it was
brought about, or the duplicity, treachery, and per-
sonal views of its principal leaders, I am afraid some
of our happiest prejudices will be overset, and there
will be laid bare many " a mean heart that lurk'd
beneath a star."

I am sorry for this, and would rather that I had
not, like Babouk, undeceived myself by calling at the
heorine's lodgings.

Say what we will of our innate love of liberty, of
our free constitution and our Roman spirit, as they
appeared in those times, it cannot be denied that they
all of them nearly originated (certainly received most
powerful aid) from either contemptible selfish views
or the detestation of popery.

" Though the nation in general," says Macpherson,
" were offended with the king, very few dreamed of
depriving him of the throne.

SECT V. MARCH OF THE REVOLUTION. 265

" Their present defection arose from their appre-
hensions of the popery of the king, not from any
aversion to the legal authority of the crown. That
republican enthusiasm which had overturned the
throne forty years before, was either altogether ex-
tinguished, or softened down into the more practicable
principles of limiting the royal prerogative.

" A breach upon the regular succession, though
perhaps the nearest way to the absolute security
of public freedom, was neither understood nor de-
sired.

"Men judged of the future by the past. A dis-
puted title to the crown had dyed the annals of
former ages with blood.

" No declaration of the legislature could alter at
once the principles of mankind, or induce the nation,
in general, to relinquish the first maxim in govern-
ment delivered down 'from their ancestors.

" Few had yet arrived at that philosophy in politics
which gives its necessary weight to authority, without
deeming obedience a moral duty."*

These sentiments, if they are not perfectly correct
in the abstract, are so far founded on the fact, that
they seem to have animated the great bulk of the
people from the highest to the lowest. We know
what fanaticism did in exciting and pointing the cou-
rage of the saints against Charles I., and so here,

* Macpherson, vol. i. 547.
VOL. I. * N

§66 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. V.

had the nation been catholic, we should, probably,
never have heard of the Revolution.

The excitement continued long after the fears of
liberty were appeased.

For when a spirit of returning love for James, and
the unpopularity of William, prompted perpetual in-
quiries into the feasibleness of an invasion, a very
sensible friend tells him there is no doubt his well-
wishers, were it not for his popery, formed the ma-
jority of the nation, particularly among the upper
ranks ; but that the bulk of the people continued in
such fear and detestation of his religion, that they
would rather bear the oppression of William than
join him.

Even Marlborough, professing to be ready to die
for his master, asserts that he is still more ready to
die for his faith ; and that, though he cannot live the
life of a saint, he is able, should there be occasion
for it, to show the resolution of a martyr.* He did
better, he continued to profit by the places, and
betray the confidence of James while James had
places to bestow, — changed sides with fortune (that
guide of the base), and has left the name of Marl-
borough, like that of Bacon, a perpetual memorial
of the excellence of human capacity and the infirmity
of human reason." f

* Letter to Prince of Orange, 17th May, 1688, in Coxe.
f Mackintosh, vol. ii. 130.

SECT. V. MARCH OF THE REVOLUTION. 267

No ! Maryborough was no patriot ; but with grief*,
be it said, a base time-server, who stuck by place as
long as he thought place would stick by him. Laying
the ground, however, for obtaining all proper rewards,
for changing sides, at the proper prudential moment ;
that is, when to continue where he was seemed hope-
less. Hence his letter to the prince of the 4th
August: —

" Mr. Sidney will let you know how I intend to
behave myself. / think it is what 1 owe to God and
my country"

What ! to continue in the service of James,
direct his counsels, and command his troops, with
a view to betray them both to James's determined
enemy ?

Whatever he may say of the country, supposing
him sincere, is this the way of serving God — the God
of truth, the detester of hypocrites ?

He goes on : —

" My honour I take leave to put in your royal
highness's hands, in which I think it safe."* (Very
lucky for him that he could find any one to take
care of it for him.) " If you think there is any
thing else I ought to do, you have but to command
me."*

This was four months before he left James, whose
confidence and pay he all that time continued to
pocket; and here Mackintosh's Continuator again

* Letter 4th August 1688. See Coxe.

268 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. V.

well observes, " This letter, without any other testi-
mony, would prove that he was in the confidence
of the projected invasion. No zeal, pretended
or real, for God or his country, can cover the
infamy of continuing to command the troops, be-
tray the confidence, and abuse the kindness of
King James for several months after he had de-
posited what he calls his honour with James's
enemy."

There is another letter of his (better known) to
James himself. In this he asserts that he acted con-?
trary to his interests; implying, therefore, that he
was sincere in resting, as he did, his desertion upon
his religion.

If he really did act contrary to his interests, it was
a particular reason with him to be believed; for se-
veral years after, so well was his attachment to his
interests known, that the Duke of Shrewsbury, writing
to William in his favour, observes, " It is so unques-
tionably his interest to be faithful, that that single
article makes me not doubt it."*

But was it really contrary to his interest to desert
a falling, in order to attach himself to a rising,
master? And as to his religion, with such a high
principle, we must agree that he should have been
long before in the court or camp of William.f

Biting, overwhelming as these observations are, it

* Shrewsbury Papers, Ap. Coxe's Marlb. vol. i. 72.
f Mackintosh, vol. ii. 253.

SECT. V. MARCH OF THE REVOLUTION. 269

is no more than what is deserved by this far-famed
person, who, let his military reputation be what it
will, can never get from under it, and is damned to
eternal fame for this mode of showing his patriotism.

It is unnecessary, after this, to go into the several
other questions in regard to his honesty ; to discuss
whether he wilfully gave his advice to James to quit
the field, in order to ruin him, or his mean overtures
to be taken into favour again, when he found that he
did not succeed so well with William, who, like many
other leaders of armies and parties, loved the treason,
but despised the traitor. It is needless to inquire
into the degrading imputations of De Torcy.

Yet Marlborough became so prominent a character
in the history of Europe, and is supposed, by the
glory he afterwards acquired, to have contributed so
much to the glory of the Revolution, that it is impera-
tive, upon the spirit of historical truth, to inquire into
the extent of the credit and the lustre which he may
have shed upon that great transaction.

In compliance with this duty, ought we, or not, to
notice the fearful, the terrible imputations, cast upon
him in respect to his designs, not only upon the per-
sonal liberty, but even the life of James?

James himself, whose testimony, Mackintosh says,
is most deserving of respect, narrates that "it was
generally believed " that Lord Churchill, Kirk, Tre-
lawney, and some others, had formed a design to
seize his person, and deliver him to the Prince of
Orange. Father Orleans, who wrote under the eye
N 3

270 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. V.

of the king, states it more confidently ; Reresby says
it was generally believed, and that its failure caused
Marlborough's flight.

The bleeding with which the king was seized, oc-
casioned this failure ; and hence James calls it provi-
dential.

The king himself says nothing of the intended
assassination ; Coxe, the biographer of Marlborough,
is equally silent ; and charity, together with its being
totally foreign to his acknowledged want of ferocity,
in Churchill, would lead us to disbelieve it, upon any
thing short of irresistible proof.

Whatever that proof, it is to be sought in the papers
of Carte, published by Macpherson, vol. i. p. 280., in
which appears a death-bed confession by Sir George
Hewett, communicated to Carte by Mr. Malet, of Comba
Flory, dated September 3. 1745, and stating that it
was found in his uncle's pocket-books. The paper
states, on the information of the deprived bishop of
Kilmore, Dr. Sheridan, given in November, 1709,
(thirty-six years before) that several years before that
he had seen, at the old Earl of Peterborough's house,
this death-bed confession of Hewett, who died at
Chester, of a sickness contracted at Dundalk Camp
in Ireland; which, therefore, takes it still farther
back, to 1690. Thus the evidence for this extraor-
dinary accusation had lain dormant fifty-five years
before it had reached Carte.

If these difficulties are got over, and all the parties
mentioned are to be believed, Hewett is held to have

SECT. V. MARCH OF THE REVOLUTION. 271

said that his conscience was troubled for having as-
sisted at a meeting of Lord Churchill, the Bishop of
London (Compton), Kirk, and others, in which it
was resolved to seize and deliver James to the Prince
of Orange ; and if Maine, the staff officer on duty,
should oppose it, then Churchill should stab or pistol
him.

In another paper, there is another version of it,
upon the same authority (Dr. Sheridan), in which
Salisbury was the place indicated where the deed was
to be perpetrated.

This is again confirmed by a Colonel Ambrose
Norton, who relates it upon the authority of the
same Sir George Hewett, not in confession, but con-
versation, in which he said it was resolved to seize
James when Lord Churchill was gold stick in waiting,
and in the coach with him, and that if any of the
papist officers should endeavour a rescue, Hewett
was to shoot him ; or if that missed, Churchill was
provided with a pocket pistol and dagger to despatch
him. " But it pleased God," says Hewett, " that his
nose bled, so that he was prevented from going to
Warminster."

From all this it appears, that there is a chain of
five links to be gone through before the account
reaches Macpherson : Carte, Mallet, his uncle, Co-
lonel Norton, and Sir George Hewett.

These accounts may be criticised, but there is one
other still more striking, on account of the consider-
ation of the parties vouched ; it is from the respect-
* N4

272 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. V.

able Erasmus Lewis, the faithful secretary and friend
of Oxford. Of him Carte writes thus : —

" Erasmus Lewis told me at the same time, (this
very day, April 10, 1749,) that Lord Delamere and
E. Warrington had been in the secret of the design
of assassinating K. James II. at Warminster, at the
review : and told it frequently, that when at the
consult among them about executing it, several me-
thods were proposed, the Duke of Marlborough said,
I see plainly these will not do ! I must stab him
myself in the chariot as I go with him."* Lord
Delamere here, therefore, adds one more to the
witnesses already enumerated.

Such is the relation of Carte; valeat quantum.
If truth, the heart sickens to think that so black a
spirit could belong to such a man as Marlborough ;
and yet to the truth of facts so succinctly stated, and
from such various quarters, there is nothing to op-'
pose but that Carte must have forged them. For,
as we have seen, there are six other authorities cited ;
so that if Carte is honest, all six must have concurred,
though with intervals of years, in forging and pro-
pagating the slander. That Coxe should not con-
descend to mention it, even though to defend his
hero, may not surprise us ; but that Hallam and Fox,
who were no friendly critics of the duke, should pass
this pointed and heavy accusation without notice, is,
at least, remarkable.

* Macpherson's State Papers, vol. i. 181—184.

SECT. V. MARCH OF THE REVOLUTION. 273

But though we may be loath to believe that
Marlborough was capable of designing to murder
his king and benefactor with his own hand ; of his
proved treason to his new master and his country,
ending in the slaughter of his gallant fellow-soldier,
the brave Talmashe and his little army, there can
be no doubt.

You will perceive that I allude to his revealing to
France the designed expedition against Brest; for
which, if ever traitor was hanged, he deserved to be
so. His biographer, Coxe, admits the fact with all
its aggravation, for it was only a few days before he
offered his services again to William, with whom he
was deservedly in disgrace. *

The endeavour to explain it by Coxe is admir-
able. " We are far from attempting," says he, " to
palliate this act of infidelity ; yet from the time and
circumstances of the communication, we are forced
to regard it in no other light than as one of the
various expedients adopted by Marlborough and
others to regain the good will of their former sove-
reign, that their demerits might be overlooked in the
event of a restoration. f

In no other light!! I grieve for Coxe's ethics. For
if time and circumstances can palliate crimes lead-
ing to the deaths of hundreds of brave men, what
crime may not be palliated ? There is this, however,
to be said for the archdeacon : his apology was only

* Life of Marlborough, vol. i. 76 f Ibid.

N 5

274 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. V

for want of a better, which Mackintosh could have
supplied him ; but when Coxe wrote, he had not
had the benefit of the doctrine respecting "Re-
formatory Revolt *," which, if Marlborough found
William's government too galling, gave him a right
to take arms to alter it. If so, the duke, being justi-
fiably at war with the king, only used the rights of
war to ruin him.

Does Macpherson, however, mend the case by
saying the " zeal of the Earl of Marlborough for the
service of the late king, or his aversion to the reigning
prince, induced that nobleman to become, upon this
occasion, an informer against his country." f

How mild is this way of describing one of the most
infamous treasons against his country for which ever
man died on a gibbet ! Where was his zeal for the
late king when he sold himself, or, what he called his
honour, to William ? Where, when, if unrefuted re-
port be believed, he gave him false counsel in order
to betray him ? Where, when, being commander of
his body guard, he conspired to seize him ? and
where his aversion to William till, from his justly bad
opinion of his truth, he found he would not promote
him?

Those who take the duke upon trust, or know
him only as a general, would do well to consider the
details of this treasonable letter relative to the de-
sign upon Brest. The minuteness of them shows

* Vide supra. f Macpherson, vol. ii. 67.

SECT. V. MARCH OF THE REVOLUTION. 275

how deep and determined was his roguery, arid jus-
tifies the insertion of the whole letter.

He informs James, that twelve regiments encamped
at Portsmouth, with two regiments of marines, all
commanded by Talmashe, were designed for destroy-
ing Brest and the ships of war in that harbour.
He owned, that success in the enterprise would prove
of great advantage to England ; but that no consider-
ation could now hinder, or ever should prevent him, from
informing his majesty of all that he believed to be for
his service. He desired the late king to make the
best use of the intelligence. He told him, that he
might depend on its being exactly true; but he con-
jured him, for his own interest, to keep the secret
to himself and the queen. He informed him, that
Russell was to sail the next day with forty ships ; and
that the rest of the fleet, with the land-forces, were
to follow the admiral in ten days. He had endea-
voured, he said, to learn the whole from Russell ;
but he always denied the fact, though he was no
stranger to the design, for six weeks before. " This,"
continues the earl, " gives me a bad sign of this
man's intentions." Sackville, who transmitted the
letter, formed, for the same reason, a like unfavour-
able opinion of Russell. He mentioned, " that the
man had not acted sincerely ; and that he feared he
would never act otherwise."

Such is the brilliant light in which two of the
greatest worthies of the Revolution appear. One,
breaking all trust ; complaining that the other was
N 6

276 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. V«

not to be trusted, because not hearty enough in
baseness.

Russell, let it be remembered, was one of the
signers of the Invitation. Let us see what other
men of judgment think of Churchill. " As for Lord
Marlborough," says Hallam, " he was among the
first, if we except some Scots renegades, who
abandoned the cause of the Revolution. He had so
signally broken the ties of personal gratitude in his
desertion of the king, on that occasion, that, accord-
ing to the severe remark of Hume, his conduct
required for ever afterwards the most upright, the
most disinterested, and most public-spirited be-
haviour, to render it justifiable. What, then, must we
think of it, if we find in the whole of this great man's
political life nothing but ambition and rapacity in
his motives, nothing but treachery and intrigue in
his means ? He betrayed and abandoned James be-
cause he could not rise in his favour without a sacri-
fice that he did not care to make ; he abandoned
William and betrayed England, because some ob-
stacles stood yet in the way of his ambition. I do riot
mean only, when I say that he betrayed England,
that he was ready to lay her independence and liberty
at the feet of James II. and Louis XIV., but that, in
one memorable instance, he communicated to the
court of St. Germains, and through that to the court
of Versailles, the secret of an expedition against
Brest, which failed in consequence, with the loss of
the commander and eight hundred men. In short,

SECT. V. MARCH OF THE REVOLUTION. 277

his whole life was such a picture of meanness and
treachery, that one must rate military services very
high indeed, to preserve any esteem for his me-
mory.

" The private memoirs of James II., as well as the
papers published by Macpherson, show us how little
treason, and especially a double treason, is thanked
or trusted by those whom it pretends to serve.

" We see that neither Churchill nor Russell ob-
tained any confidence from the banished king. Their
motives were always suspected ; and something more
solid than professions of loyalty was demanded,
though at the expense of their own credit." *

These strictures of Hallam are not necessary to
tell us how Marlborough would have used the em-
ployment he was then seeking, had he obtained it:
he would have been a second Sunderland.

There is an account preserved among Nairn's
papers, published by Macpherson, which, with others
of the same nature, admirably describe the fidelity

* Constitutional Hist. vol. iii. 387. As for Russell, the hero, and one
of the seven eminents, who invited William, no baseness or infamy
recorded in history exceeds his conduct in the business of Sir John
Fenwick. That unhappy person, to save his own life no doubt, ac-
cused the future Lord Oxford, as well as other ministers of William,
of being his accomplices in his treason in favour of James, and there
is little doubt but that the accusation was founded, though not legally
proved. Believe it, men of honour, if you can, that this Russell was
the man to move the bill of attainder against Fenwick. Well might
Hallam say, that the last was the victim of fear and revenge. Vol. iii.
399.

278 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. V.

and honour of character of these boasts of the Re-
volution. It is from Floyd, a confidential agent of
James, and of course of the French government.
The worthy persons to be treated with by this agent,
were, in addition to Churchill and Russell, Shrews-
bury himself, who, it will be remembered, also,
signed the Invitation* Shrewsbury was then secre-
tary of state ; Russell, admiral of the fleet, and cele-
brated for his valour (would we could say his honesty)
at La Hogue.

Can we, without regret, add to these Godolphin ?

By all these Floyd was entertained in confidential
communication ; and quite sufficient passed to prove
that they were all knaves.

What should have made them so, enjoying or
expecting all that their ambition could desire, is a
riddle in human nature ! The only clue that can be
conjectured for it is, either the excuse assigned by
Coxe, that they expected a restoration, and were
unwilling not to profit by it ; or they had anticipated
Mackintosh, in his doctrine of the legality of a re-
formatory revolt.

Any way the guilt is certain, and the particulars
curious.

In describing the real characters of our patriotic
deliverers, the pen falters as it proceeds.

What can it say of Danby? — a burning meteor,
raging in every part of the heavens : at one time the
father of corruption, the scourge of honest men, the
tool of a tyrant ; at another, the champion of liberty

SECT. V. MARCH OF THE REVOLUTION. 279

and the right of resistance. Again, the obsequious
placeman; the bribed of the India Company; twice
impeached for enormous dishonesty, imprisoned for
years, screened, but not acquitted, yet accomplishing
the first honours of the state, which he had thus per-
petually betrayed.

I need not say that, having betrayed the people
when the tool of Charles, he was not true to them
when the servant of William. The proofs are
abundant of his tergiversation from every cause he
espoused.

Having taken arms against James, and figured as
one of the seven champions (for he, too, signed the
Invitation), William could not hold him though he
made him a duke. Accordingly, we find him listen-
ing favourably to schemes for revolutionising the
Revolution, and embarking in them with the other
patriots, of whom we have just made such honourable
mention.* Can we wonder at the satirical ballad,
said (though erroneously) to have been composed by
Dryden ?

" Clarendon had law and sense,

Clifford was fierce and brave ;
Bennett's grave look was a pretence ;
And Danby's matchless impudence,

Helped to support the knave.'*

Of Compton, the lying bishop of London (another
signer), we have already spoken.

* See Macphers. State Papers. Hallam thinks his conduct so much
against his interest, that he feigned treason himself, in order to detect
it in others.

*N8

280 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT, v,

Of him, the later historian of the Revolution says,
" he seems to have been a thoroughgoing partisan,
ready to say or do any thing required of him by his
party, his ambition, or his safety" He signed the
Invitation, and, in the presence of King James, fore-
swore, in the worst form, that of an equivocation, his
knowledge and his deed. He was ready to sign any
thing, like the libertine, and swear any thing, like
the Jew in the dramatic chef-d'oeuvre of Sheridan,
" The School for Scandal." For these merits he
was named the Protestant Bishop, and enjoyed a vast
reputation.

To show how he deserved it, take another instance
of his hypocrisy. Though one of the inviters to de-
throne James, and writing full of attachment to
William, he prays for him, he says, among other
reasons, for his usefulness to the crown ; for, adds he,
" if the king should have any trouble come upon
him, which God forbid, (to invade him with a fleet
and army was, to be sure, no trouble,) we do not
knoiv any sure friend he has to rely upon abroad
besides yourself."

At that moment he was planning the invasion with
William, who must either have laughed in his sleeve
at him or thought him mad. We cannot but agree
to the remark upon it, that it was either a simplicity
so gross that it could not be believed, or an hypocrisy
to a pitch of grimace which could not be supposed
even in so bold a prevaricator.*

* Hist. Revol. rol. ii. 131.

SECT. V. MARCH OF THE REVOLUTION. 281

Would that I had not another failure to examine
among the managers of the Revolution, who were
betrayers of James rather than the defenders of the
people.

It is impossible, however, in such a catalogue, to
omit the name of Godolphin. " Clarum et venerabile
nomen" A name that, for the most part, stands for
integrity and public virtue, sufficiently, indeed,
proved by his later life, — a name which Pope has
consecrated in the lines, —

" Who would not praise Patricio's high desert,
His hand unstained, his uncorrupted heart ;
His comprehensive head, all int'rests weighed,
All Europe saved, yet Britain not betrayed? "

But was this always so ? And though, probably,
no money bribe ever went into his coffers, was Britain
never betrayed ? was his ambition pure ? In short,
was his conduct, as the minister of James or Charles
stainless, whatever it might have been as the treasurer
of Anne ? Was he true either to James or William ?
The answer to these questions is to be found in his
cognisance and participation of the most infamous of
all transactions, — the bribery, by Louis, of his
master James, to enable him to govern without his
people. He did not, indeed, like the corrupt and
base Sunderland, take a pension of 2400/. a year
from France, and ask for more as a price for farther
treachery, but he fostered and assisted, by all the
powers of his office, the iniquitous mendicity of
James. That unfortunate man, having agreed to

282 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. V.

betray Europe to France for the lucre of gain, and
received 500,000 livres as a deposit, sent the virtuous
Churchill, with the privity of the virtuous Godolphin,
to solicit for more. Under this degradation of both
personages, take Fox's forcible description of them
from Barillon. When the 500,000 livres arrived,
" the king's eyes were full of tears, and three of his
ministers, Rochester, Sunderland, and Godolphin,
came severally to the French ambassador to express
the sense their master had of the obligation, in terms
the most lavish.

In another place Fox says, " Thus ended this dis-
gusting piece of iniquity and nonsense, in which all
the actors seemed to vie with each other in pros-
tituting the sacred names of friendship, generosity,
and gratitude, in one of the meanest and most
criminal transactions which history records." *

Fox goes on : — " The principal parties in the
business, besides the king himself, to whose capacity
at least, if not to his situation, it was more suitable,
and Lord Churchill, who acted as an inferior agent,
were Sunderland, Rochester, and Godolphin, all men
of high rank, and considerable abilities, but whose
understandings, as well as their principles, seem to
have been corrupted by the pernicious schemes in
which they were engaged. With respect to the last-
mentioned nobleman, in particular, it is impossible,
without pain, to see him engaged in such transactions.
With what self-humiliation must he not have reflected

* Fox's Hist. 88. 92.

SECT. V. MARCH OF THE REVOLUTION. 283

upon them in subsequent periods of his life. How
little could Barillon guess that he was negotiating
with one who was destined to be at the head of an
administration, which, in a few years, would send the
same Lord Churchill, not to Paris to implore Louis
for succours towards enslaving England, or to thank
him for pensions to her monarch, but to combine all
Europe against him in the cause of liberty ; to rout
his armies, to take his towns, to humble his pride,
and to shake to the foundation that fabric of power,
which it had been the business of a long life to raise
at the expense of every sentiment of tenderness to
his subjects, and of justice and good faith to foreign
nations. It is with difficulty the reader can persuade
himself that the Godolphin and Churchill here men-
tioned are the same persons who were afterwards —
one in the cabinet, one in the field — the great con-
ductors of the war of the succession. How little^do
they appear in one instance, how great in the
other ! " f

As it was not Mr. Fox's design, in his history, to
go farther than James, he did not pursue Godolphin
into the reigns of William or Anne. Had he done
so, his eloquent regrets at his lubricity (to call it by
no harder name) would not have been appealed
even by the splendid reputation which latterly be-
longed to this doubtfully charactered earl. With all
his fair seeming, we might say to him, as the Duke

f Fox, 96.
*N 10

284 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. V.

jj

of Lerma to Gil Bias, that he exhibited a little of the
piccaroon. As to his attachment to liberty and re-
volutionary principles, it is notorious that he sup-
ported or gave the countenance of his office to all
James's measures, and, in particular, concurred in
the prosecution of the bishops. That he betrayed
James to William we have seen ; that he afterwards
betrayed William to James, in the affair of Brest, has
been equally stated. That he was in correspondence
with the Pretender during the time of his glory
under Anne is not to be doubted. Yet Burnet says
of him that " all things being laid together, he was
one of the worthiest and wisest men that has been
employed in our time ;" and, when he died, adds,
that " he was the most uncorrupt of all the ministers
of state he had ever known." After what we have
seen, that is not saying much. While employed
as commissioner to William, where was his love
of liberty when he wrote his advice to the king to
retire ? This might have been right or wrong ; but
mark the reason. He assured him that his subjects
would, before a year, invite him back upon their knees.
The king took the advice, and was ruined.

Perhaps this was a mere error in judgment;
but that judgment was too clear to believe itself
sincere ; and we may observe that, if sincere, he
could never have been the friend of the people.
It was the very advice charged by Burnet, and
also by William's partisans, as a crime upon the
Catholics and the queen. More probably, thinks

SECT. V. MARCH OF THE REVOLUTION. 285

Sir James, that, as he was accused, long before, of
betraying the counsels of James to the prince, his
object must have been to remove him out of the way
of the course the prince was pursuing. Either way
he was not true ; if he was playing the prince's game,
he was false to his master ; if sincere to his master,
false to the revolution. When afterwards he was
the leading minister of Anne, he joined with his pre-
cious father-in-law, Marlborough, in correspondence
with the exiled family, having before joined him
when both were in the service of William, in betray-
ing the expedition to Brestf

I grieve at all this : the characters of our great
statesmen and supposed patriots have received irre-
parable wounds by the publications of modern times.
Their private lives, their secret motives, are brought
to light, as if dug out of the ruins of a moral Hercu-
laneum. I would rather have remained in illusion
and ignorance, like Horace's madman.

" Pol ! me occiJistis amici, non servastis.

Can we wonder at the complaint of Macpherson,
who, in the course of his inquiries, though granted
access to public papers, was generally refused the aid
of private records ? " Men who have become dis-
trustful," says he, "of the principles of their ancestors,
are interested in their reputation. With a prepos-
terous show of attachment to their progenitors, they

f Coxe's Marlborough, vol. i. 76.
*Nll

286 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. V.

seem to think that to conceal their actions is the only
way to preserve their fame."*

And here I would make a close, but that the
great Deliverer himself claims " our meed of
praise," not, I fear, without alloy. Yet was he so
great in most things ; so profound in his views ; so
vast in his designs; so ardent and determined, and
yet so cool and wary in their execution, that both
wisdom and heroism at once seem to belong to
him. Every thing he did, every thing he wished to
do, was grand. The mere first magistrate of a
comparatively not powerful state, nothing less than
Europe itself, formed the scope of his operations*
When his country despaired, and in the eyes of every
one seemed lost, he uttered that gallant and patriotic
sentiment, " We will die in the last ditch." For this
alone he would have been immortalised by Plutarch,
and ranked with his most dazzling characters. In
creating and organizing the league of Augsburg,
where kings, and emperors, and a pope himself
played a subordinate part, he displayed a governing
mind for which the same Plutarch would have set
him at the head of his sages. In truth, if greatness is
shown by doing the greatest things with the smallest
means, he was in every sense not merely great but
the greatest of his time.

And this will account for what seems the most
astonishing part of his character and his history,

* State Papers, vol. i. 8. Introduction.

SECTV. MARCH OF THE REVOLUTION. 287

that his attempt upon England, one of the most
stupendous designs that history records, was only
secondary, — only subservient to his vaster object of
humbling Louis XIV., the Philip of Europe. That
the mere director of a small federal commonwealth,
his own power by no means unembarrassed, but
clogged with many opposing interests, should conceive
and execute the design *of dethroning a great king
in the midst of seeming despotic power, with a fleet,
an army, and a treasury at his command, and
that he should do this not as an insulated or final
object, to end in himself, but merely as ancillary
to one much greater, — not as a means to deliver
England, but as an end to liberate Europe ! This
seems unparalleled ; yet all was conceived by almost
his single head, and executed by almost his single
arm. The attempt alone Would place him in the
very first ranks of the Temple of Fame.

But though, with a view to the great field of
Europe, where he reaped nothing but glory, this
character of him is incontestable, did he really, in
regard to England, and his love for English
liberty, merit the title we are so glad to bestow upon
him of our glorious Deliverer ? Deliverer he was, —
but was he in this point glorious ?

In part we have already answered this in the
partial notices we have taken of him, by which it
should appear, beyond all doubt, that he was as
hypocritical as daring ; that his high, his magnificent
views were kept from the open light of day, by
* N 12

288 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. V.

dissimulation, and something worse ; for no one can
deny that wilful and deliberate falsehood formed one
of the bases of his Declaration.* All now agree
that pretending to rescue a country from the chains
of another prince, he only wanted to impose upon
it his own ; and that he sought his grand object by
mean deceptions of those he had to manage, and be-
came the pander and encourager of a faction, rather
than the generous ally of a nation of freemen.

Such, I am bound to say, the same history which
proclaims his elevation demonstrates, with equal
truth, to have been the littleness of William. In
particular, the deceptions practised on the kings his
uncles, one of them his father-in-law, whose subjects
he was seducing, while he denied all sinister views
upon them, stamp him with a stain not a little re-
sembling dishonour.

We have seen in one of his letters written by his
orders on the subject of the Test laws, only a few
months before the invasion, that he and the princess
considered themselves bound, both by the laws of
God and nature, to show profound duty to James.

Upon this we agree in the following observa-
tion: — "The Revolution, as between James and his
subjects, requires no justification ; but the relations of
father and children between him and the prince and
Princess of Orange are essentially distinct, and the

* Can we suppose him to have anticipated a modern discovery in
political lying, that it is a postponement of the truth to serve a tem-
porary purpose ?

SECT. V. MARCH OF THE REVOLUTION. 289

obligations, which in this sentence they so solemnly
avo\v, contain, perhaps, the strongest case which could
be made against them by their enemies."*

But in regard to William's treachery to his father-
in-law, cases multiply. The infamous Sunderland
was in his pay, and, it should se^m, he was in some
degree the author of the measures that made James
unpopular. To encourage his zeal for popery was to
ruin him, and this service, according to Macpherson.,
was performed by Sunderland with a strange kind of
fidelity. Sidney his uncle was sent to the Hague to
facilitate their intercourse; and while William encou-
raged James in his most imprudent and arbitrary
schemes by means of Sunderland, he kept Dyckfelt
his minister in England to promote revolt, f

Long previous to this, in 1681, we have a sort of
profession of faith from William, with which his actual
conduct afterwards is irreconcilable, consistently with
honour.

It seems at the crisis of the Exclusion Bill (which,
as we have seen asserted, the prince approved) a con-
ference was held upon it between him and his uncle
Charles II., of which Seymour, Hyde, and Conway
were witnesses. The particulars are curious.

* Mackintosh, vol. ii. 134.

f Macpherson, vol. i. 477. He cites the Life of James and D' Avaux
for this, and it falls in with the general character of his proceed-
ings. The guilt of William, however, is here so particularised, that
it would have been better if the details of the proofs had been
given.

VOL. I. O

290 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. V.

The prince had desired assistance against France,
or Flanders would be lost. " When the prince had
finished, the king asked, whether a parliament meet-
ing on no better hopes of agreement than the last,
would contribute to the support of his allies ?

He desired him to consider their demands, and to
give fairly his opinion, whether these demands should
be granted. He asked him, whether he would advise
the exclusion !

He replied, that he abhorred the thought.

He inquired whether the prince would propose
limitations.

" The crown must not be tied,'* replied the prince.

" Ought I to place the militia, the sea-ports, the
judges, out of my own power?"

"I shall never advise that measure," said the prince.

" Shall all the ministers and officers suspected to be
the Duke of York's creatures be removed, and con-
fiding men, true Protestants, be raised to their place ?"

The prince said, "he disclaimed it all." " These,"
resumed the king, " were substantially the demands
of the two last parliaments ; and if a parliament is
necessary, I desire you to propose somewhat toward a
better agreement." The prince replied, "that he knew
things only as they were mentioned abroad; but
that he understood not their real condition at home."
Being pressed to propose some plan, he desired time
to give his answer. *

* Macpherson, vol. i. 366.

SECT. V. MARCH OF THE REVOLUTION. 291

Another case of deceit seems still worse than
this.

The prince assured the emperor, in a letter a
short time before he sailed, " that whatever reports
may have been, or might be, circulated to the con-
trary, he had not the least intention to injure the king,
or those who had the right of succession ; and still less
to make any attempt on the crown, or wish to ap-
propriate it to himself." This was both a direct,
wilful, and deliberate falsehood; arid a paltry equivo-
cation. As far as regarded James I., we have seen
it was a glaring untruth ; as regarded his son, a still
meaner equivocation : for, though he might explain,
if pushed, that, in his opinion, the child was supposi-
titious, and, therefore, was not meant to come within
his notion of the right of succession ; yet, as he knew
the emperor was a bigoted Roman Catholic, Mack-
intosh holds (probably rightly) that he was inte-
rested for the son of James as well as himself, and
would construe the words so as to include him.

Another charge is of a deeper die ; for as early
as the Exclusion Bill, full five years before the inva-
sion, he had machinated with those who favoured it,
" and it would appear, by a letter from Montague
to him, after he became king, that he knew and ap-
proved of the Rye House Plot." * If this be so, two
important inferences arise from it ; extreme guilt on
his part, and the total refutation of the doubts which

* Supra.

* o2

292 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. V.

almost all extreme Whigs pretend to throw over the
existence of that plot.

Ever dissembling, yet ever pursuing, his great
object, the crown of his father-in-law, under what-
ever disguises, his negotiation with the pope himself,
to incline him against James, is a consummation
of art.

The pope (Innocent XL) was the enemy of Louis,
and so far was inclined to the prince's designs ; but
the interests of the papists in England interfered.
With uncommon adroitness William outwitted the
holy father, even in this. Through his friend, the
prince of Vaudemont, whom he sent to Rome for the
purpose, he explained to his holiness, that he was
wrong to expect any advantages to the catholics in
England from James ; because, being a declared
papist, the people would not support any of his mea-
sures. But^/07* himself, should he mount the throne., he
might take any step in their favour without jealousy;
and would certainly procure them toleration, if the
pope would join the emperor and king of Spain in
favouring his attempt. What is surprising, this thin
veil blinded the holy father, and our great Deliverer,
who certainly never afterwards thought of his pro-
mise, obtained money from the Roman church for
the express purpose of dethroning a Roman catholic
king.'

I pass by the numerous evasions by which lie

* Macpherson, vol. i. 495. He cites the MS.

SECT. V. MARCH OF THE REVOLUTION. 293

parried his father-in-law's reiterated demands, that
he should not encourage the English malcontents,
who all flocked to him, and were all entertained and
protected. I cannot pass a proceeding, more, indeed,
appertaining to the morals of private life than to
public conduct, but yet so obviously the effect of a
deep political scheme, for the sake of which he
stooped to a degradation both of himself and his
pious consort, that it ought to be mentioned. Had
it been in France, under the regent or Louis XV., it
might have carried no scandal with it; but William,
and still more his wife, were, or pretended to be, of
the strictest and most exemplary behaviour in all the
decencies and duties of religion : who then could
believe that, in order still more to conciliate the
Duke of Monmouth, one of his most useful tools in
intriguing with England, he obliged the princess to
receive with uncommon marks of honour the lady
publicly known as Monmouth's mistress ; and, though
of a most jealous disposition, to receive visits alone
from Monmouth himself?*

Where he complied with the requisition of the
Lords, and their motley compeers the ex-commons,
to take upon him the government, he descended to
the merest coquetry.

How unworthy a magnanimous Deliverer who had
armed and come from far for the very purpose !

* D'Avaux, an. Macphers. i. 437. The lady was Lady Harriet
Wcntworlh.

* o 3

294 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. V.

He affected to say the thing was a matter of
weight, and must be considered ; that thing which had
for years been the object of his ardent longings ; for
which he had for years been laying the ground ; and
for which for years he had sacrificed his private cha-
racter for openness and honour.

However he soon found that whatever was the
weight, he was able to bear it, and accepted the offer ;
" affecting to confer an obligation, by taking upon
him a laborious trust in the sovereignty of the
English nation, the first object of his ambition, and
of his life."

By some it was said that the offer, even though
made by turn-coat peers, and his own spurious
progeny, the temporary commons, was thought to
have been tardy in coming. Sheffield says, they
were quickened by the presence of Schomberg's
troops, and also by a murmur that went about,
" that the city apprentices were coining down to
Westminster, in a violent rage, against all who voted
against the prince of Orange's interest. There
appears, indeed, no ground to suppose that the
prince directly suspended over their deliberations the
terrors of his army or of the populace ; but it is far
from being equally probable that the benefit of these
terrors was not felt on that, and employed on other
occasions. The fury of the rabble was soon regarded
as a familiar engine of policy to promote the objects or
interests of the prince. It was associated with the
volicy of William, both in Holland and in England, ly

SECT. V. MARCH OF THE REVOLUTION. 295

an odious by-word so well understood as to be employed
in a document signed by five prelates. Referring
to the author of a libel upon them, they say, < he
(the author) barbarously endeavours to raise in
the English nation such a fury as may end in De
Witting us, — a bloody word (they add) but too well
understood/ *

These sad instances of a falling off from honour, but
for which the character of William would have been
perfect, must still be increased by one transaction
more, which will sufficiently demonstrate how little
he cared for the cause of England, except as it con-
tributed to his own views ; I allude to his consent in
negotiating the peace of Ryswick, to the abandon-
ment of all that he had professed to be his object
in assuming the crown ; namely, delivering the coun-
try from a family of papists, and the disgrace of a
spurious heir.

It is remarkable, that none of the contemporaneous
historians knew, or, at least, have mentioned this,
although James himself has recorded it in his life, —
strange that it should have taken a period of seventy
years before it was published to the world ! The ac-
count by Macpherson is as follows : —

" While negotiating the peace, the two hostile ar-
mies lay opposite to one another in the neighbourhood
of Brussels. The Earl of Portland, on the part of the
king of England, and De Boufflers, in the name of

* Hist. Revol. vol. ii. 284.

* o 4 "

296 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. V.

Louis, met between the armies and held a confer-
ence in the open field, on the tenth of July. They
met again on the fifteenth and twentieth of the same
month, in the same manner; but, on the twenty-
sixth of July and the second of August, they retired
to a house in the suburbs of Hall, and reduced to
writing the terms to which they had agreed in the
field. The world have hitherto been no less ignorant
of the subject of these interviews than Europe was
then astonished at such an uncommon mode of ne-
gotiation. As William trusted not his three pleni-
potentiaries at the Hague with his agreement with
France, mankind justly concluded that a secret of
the last importance had been for some time depend-
ing between the two kings. Time has at length
unravelled the mystery. Louis, unwilling to desert
James, proposed that the Prince of Wales should
succeed to the crown of England, after the death of
W7illiam. The king, with little hesitation, agreed to
this request. He even solemnly engaged to procure the
repeal of the Act of Settlement ; and to declare, by
another, the Prince of Wales his successor in the
throne.

" Those who ascribe all the actions of William
to public spirit, will find some difficulty in reconciling
this transaction to their elevated opinions of his cha-
racter. In one concession to France, he yielded all
his professions to England ; and, by an act of indis-
cretion, or through indifference, deserted the principles
to which he owed the throne. The deliverance of the

SECT. V. MARCH OF THE REVOLUTION. 297

nation was not, however, the sole object of this prince.
Like other men, he was subject to human passions ;
and, like them, when he could gratify himself, he
served the world. Various motives seem to have
concurred to induce him to adopt a measure, un-
accountable on other grounds. The projected peace
was to secure the crown in his possession for his life.
He had no children, and but few relations ; and
those he never loved. The successors provided by
the Act of Settlement he either despised or abhorred ;
and he seems, hitherto, not to have extended his
views beyond the limits of that act. Though James
had displeased the nation, he had not injured
William. The son had offended neither; he might
excite compassion, but he could be no object of
aversion. The supposed spuriousness of his birth
had been only held forth to amuse the vulgar ; and
even these would be convinced by the public ac-
knowledgment intended to be made by the very
person whose interest was ^most concerned in the
support of that idle tale."

These reflections of Macpherson seem so just,
that nothing need be added. They confirm, in an
eminent degree, all that I have ventured to hazard
on the defective side of the character of a man who,
but for these defects, would have been as great
and glorious as we wish to consider him ; and who,
as it was, was, as I have allowed, the greatest of his
time.

* o5

298 HISTORICAL ESSAY. SECT. V.

He, has, perhaps, detained us too long from the
concluding scenes of the Revolution ; with which,
and the reflections they prompt, I will close these
strictures, already, I fear, too long.

NOTE.

In page 63. no notice is taken of the unjustifiable design of the
officers, as far as it went, to coerce the parliament by marching to
London. It is passed in silence, not only because it was never con-
ceived by more than the three or four officers who canvassed it, but
because no proof whatever beyond the assertion of those who
answered their own purposes by it is -given- that it was with the
privity of the king. His privity was confined to the petition, which
lie certainly approved, and who can either blame or wonder, whatever
its prudence?

END OF THE FIRST VOLUME.

LONDON :

Printed by A. SPOTTISWOODE,
New-Street- Square.

r\
i !

DA
452
W3
v.1

Ward, Robert Plumer

An historical essay on the
real character and amount of
the precedent of the revolu-
tion of 1688

PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE
CARDS OR SLIPS FROM THIS POCKET

UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO LIBRARY