by this process only. That point being fixed, and laying fast hold of a strong bottom our speculations may swing in all directions, without public detriment, because they will ride with sure anchorage.

In this manner these things have been always considered by our ancestors. There are some indeed who have the art of turning the very acts of parliament which were made for securing the hereditary succession in the present royal family, by rendering it penal to doubt the validity of those acts of parliament, into an instrument for defeating all their ends and purposes: but upon grounds so very foolish, that it is not worth while to take further notice of such sophistry.

To prevent any unnecessary subdivision, I shall here put together what may be necessary to shew the perfect agreement of the whigs with Mr. Burke, in his assertions, that the revolution made no "essential change in the constitution of the monarchy, or in any of its ancient, sound, and legal principles; that the succession was settled in the Hanover family, upon the idea, and in the mode of an hereditary succession qualified with Protestantism; that it was not settled upon elective principles, in any sense of the word elective, or under any modification or description of election whatsoever; but, on the contrary, that the nation, after the revolution, renewed by a fresh compact the spirit of the original compact of the state, binding itself, both in its existing members and all its posterity, to adhere to the setlement of an hereditary succession in the Protestant line, drawn from James the first, as the stock of inheritance."

SIR JOHN HAWLES.

If he [Dr. Sacheverel] is of the opinion e pretends, I cannot imagine how it comes to pass, that he that pays that deference to the supreme power has preached so directly contrary to the determinations of the supreme power in this government; he very well knowing that the lawfulness of the revolution, and of the means whereby it was brought about, has already been determined by the aforesaid acts of parliament: and do it in the worst manner he could invent. For questioning the right to the crown here in England, has procured the shedding of more blood, and caused more slaughter, than all the other matters tending to disturbances in the government, put together. If, therefore, the doctrine which the apostles had laid down, was only to continue the peace of the world, as thinking the death of some few particular persons better to be borne with than

a civil war; sure it is the highest breach of that law to question the first principles of this government.'

'If the doctor had been contented with the liberty he took of preaching up the duty of passive obedience, in the most extensive manner he had thought fit, and would have stopped there, your lordships would not have had the the trouble, in relation to him, that you now have; but it is plain, that he preached up his absolute and unconditional obedience, not to continue the peace and tranquillity of this nation, but to set the subjects at strife, and to raise a war in the bowels of this nation; and it is for this that he is now prosecuted; though he would fain have it believed that the prosecution was for preaching the peaceable doctrine

of absolute obedience.'

SIR JOSEPH JEKYL.

The whole tenour of the administration, then in being, was agreed by all to be a total departure from the constitution. The nation was at that time united in that opinion, all but the criminal part of it. And as the nation joined in the judgment of their disease, so they did in the remedy. They saw there was no remedy left but the last; and when that remedy took place, the whole frame of government was restored entire and unhurt.* This shewed the excellent temper the nation was in at that time, that, after such provocations from an abuse of the regal power, and such a convu sion, no one part of the constitution was altered, or suffered the least damage: but, on the contrary, the whole received new life and vigour.'

*

*

*

The tory counsel for Dr. Sacheverel having insinuated, that a great and essential alteration in the constitution had been wrought by the revolution, Sir Joseph Jekyl is so strong on this

What we did was, in truth and substance, and in a constitutional light, a revolution, not made, but prevented. We took solid securities; we settled doubtful questions; we corrected anomalies in our law. In the stable fundamen tal parts of our constitution, we made no revolution; no, nor any alteration at all. We did not impair the monarchy. Perhaps it might be shewn that we strengthened it very consider. ably. The nation kept the same ranks, the same orders, the same privileges, the same franchises, the same rules for property, the same subordinations, the same order in the law, in the revenue, and in the magistracy; the same lords, the same commons, the same corpora tions, the same electors.' Mr. Burke's speech in the house of commons, 9th February, 1790 It appears how exactly he coincides in every thing with Sir Joseph Jekvl.

SIR JOSEPH JEKYL.

'If the Doctor instructed his counsel to insinuate that there was any innovation in the constitution, wrought by the revolution, it is an addition to his crime. The revolution did not introduce any innovation; it was a restoration of the ancient fundamental constitution of the kingdom, and giving it its proper force and energy.'

The solicitor general, Sir Robert Eyre, distinguishes expressly the case of the revolution, and its principles, from a proceeding at pleasure, on the part of the people, to change their ancient constitution, and to frame a new government for themselves. He distinguishes it with the same care from the principles of regicide, and republicanism, and the sorts of resistance condemned by the doctrines of the church of England, and which ought to be condemned by the doctrines of all churches professing Christianity.

MR. SOLICITOR GENERAL SIR ROBERT
EYRE.

'The resistance at the revolution, which was founded in unavoidable necessity, could be no defence to a man that was attacked for asserting that the people might cancel their allegiance at pleasure, or dethrone and murder their sovereign by a judiciary sentence. For it can never be inferred from the lawfulness of resistance, at a time when a total subversion of the government both in church and state was intended, that a people may take up arms, and call their sovereign to account at pleasure; and, therefore, since the revolution could be of no service in giving the least colour for asserting any such wicked principle, the doctor could never intend to put it into the mouths of those new preachers, and new politicians, for a defence; unless it be his opinion, that the resistance at the revolution can bear any parallel with the execrable murder of the royal martyr, so justly detested by the whole nation.

It is plain that the doctor is not impeached for preaching a general doctrine, and enforcing the general duty of obedience, but for preaching against an excepted case, after he has stated the exception. He is not impeached for preaching the general doctrine of obedience, and the utter illegality of resistance upon any pretence whatsoever; but because, having first laid down the general doctrine as true, without any exception, he states the excepted case the re

and then, assuming the consideration of that excepted case, denies there was any resistance in the revolution; and asserts, that to impute resistance to the revolution, would cast black and odious colours upon it. This is not preaching the doctrine of non-resistance, in the general terms used by the homilies, and the fathers of the church, where cases of necessity may be understood to be excepted by a tacit implication, as the counsel have allowed; but is preaching directly against the resistance at the revolution, which, in the course of this debate, has been all along admitted to be necessary and just, and can have no other meaning than to bring a dishonour upon the revolution and an odium upon those great and illustrious persons, those friends to the monarchy and the church, that assisted in bringing it about. For had the doctor intended any thing else, he would have treated the case of the revolution in a different manner, and have given it the true and fair answer; he would have said that the resistance at the revolution was of absolute necessity, and the only means left to revive the constitution; and must therefore be taken as an excepted case, and could never come within the reach and intention of the general doctrine of the church.

'Your lordships take notice on what grounds the doctor continues to assert the same position in his answer. But is it not most evident, that the general exhortations to be met with in the homilies of the church of England, and such like declarations in the statutes of the kingdom, are meant only as rules for civil obedience of the subject to the legal adminis tration of the supreme power in ordinary cases? And it is equally absurd, to construe any words in a positive law to authorize the destruction of the whole, as to expect that the king, lords, and commons, should, in express terms of law, declare such an ultimate resort as the right of resistance, at a time when the case supposes that the force of all laws is ceased.*

The commons must always resent, with the utmost detestation and abhorrence, every position that may shake the authority of that act of parliament, whereby the crown is settled upon her majesty, and whereby the lords spiritual and temporal and commons do, in the name of all the people of England, most humbly and faithfully submit themselves, their heirs and posterities, to her majesty, which this general principle of absolute non-resistance must certainly shake.

See Reflections, p. 121-2-8

'For, if the resistance at the revolution was illega, the revolution settled in usurpation, and this act can have no greater force and authority than an act passed under an usurper. 'And the commons take leave to observe, that the authority of the parliamentary settlement is a matter of the greatest consequence to maintain, in a case where the hereditary right to the crown is contested.

'It appears by the several instances mentioned in the act declaring the rights and liberties of the subject, and settling the succession of the crown, that at the time of the revolution there was a total subversion of the constitution of government both in church and state, which is a case that the laws of England could never suppose, provide for, or have in

view.'

*

Sir Joseph Jekyl, so often quoted, considered the preservation of the monarchy, and of the rights and prerogatives of the crown, as essential objects with all sound whigs; and that they were bound, not only to maintain them when injured or invaded, but to exert themselves as much for their re-establishment, if they should happen to be overthrown by popular fury, as any of their own more immediate and popular rights and privileges, if the latter should be at any time subverted by the crown. For this reason he puts the cases of the revolution and the restoration, exactly upon the same footing. He plainly marks, that it was the object of all honest men not to sacrifice one part of the constitution to another; and much more, not to sacrifice any of them to visionary theories of the rights of man; but to preserve our whole inheritance in the constitution, in all its members and all its relations, entire, and unimpaired, from generation to generation. In this Mr. Burke exactly agrees with him.

SIR JOSEPH JEKYL.

'Nothing is plainer than that the people have a right to the laws and the constitution. This right the nation hath asserted, and recovered out of the hands of those who had dispossessed them of it at several times. There are of this two famous instances in the knowledge of the present age; I mean that of the restoration, and that of the revolution; in both of these great events were the regal power, and the rights of the people recovered. And it is hard to say in which the people have the greatest interest; for the commons are sensible that there is not one legal power belonging but they have an interest in it;

to the crown,

and I doubt not but they will always be as careful to support the rights of the crown as their own privileges.'

The other whig managers regarded (as he did) the overturning of the monarchy by a republican faction with the very same horrour and detestation with which they regarded the destruction of the privileges of the people by an arbitrary monarch.

MR. LECHMERE,

Speaking of our constitution, states it as 'a constitution which happily recovered itself, at the restoration, from the confusions and dis orders which the horrid and detestable proceedings of faction and usurpation had thrown it into, and which, after many convulsions and struggles, was providentially saved at the late happy revolution; and, by the many good laws passed since that time, stands now upon a firmer foundation: together with the most comfortable prospect of security to all posterity, by the settlement of the crown in the protestant line.'

I mean now to shew that the whigs, (if Sir Joseph Jekyl was one) and if he spoke in conformity to the sense of the whig house of commons and the whig ministry who employed him, did carefully guard against any presumption that might arise from the repeal of the non-resistance oath of Charles the Second, as if, at the revolution, the ancient principles of our government were at all changed-or that republican doctrines were countenanced-or any sanction given to seditious proceedings upon general undefined ideas of misconduct or for changing the form of government-or for resistance upon any other ground than the necessity so often mentioned, for the purpose of self-preservation. It will shew still more clearly the equal care of the then whigs, to prevent either the regal power from being swallowed up on pretence of popular rights, or the popular rights from being destoyed on pretence of regal prerogatives.

SIR JOSEPH JEKYL.

'Further, I desire it may be considered, that these legislators [the legislators who framed the non-resistance oath of Charles the Second] were guarding against the consequences of those pernicious and anti-monarchical principles, which had been broached a little before in this nation; and those large declara.. tions in favor of non-resistance were made to encounter or obviate the mischief of those principles; a appears by the preamble to the

fullest of those acts, which is the militia act, in the 13th and 14th of king Charles the Second. The words of that act are these: And, during the late usurped governments, many evil and rebellious principles have been instilled into the minds of the people of this kingdom, which may break forth, unless prevented, to the disturbance of the peace and quiet thereof: Be it therefore enacted, &c. Here your lordships may see the reason that inclined those legislators to express themselves in such a manner against resistance. They had seen the regal rights swallowed up, under the pretence of popular ones; and it is no imputation on them that they did not then foresee a quite different case, as was that of the revolution; where, under the pretence of regal authority, a total subversion of the rights of the subject was advanced, and in a manner effected. And this may serve to shew, that it was not the design of those legislators to condemn resistance, in a case of absolute necessity, for preserving the constitution, when they were guarding against principles which had so lately destroyed it.

'As to the truth of the doctrine in this declaration which was repealed, I will admit it to be as true as the doctor's counsel assert it; that is, with an exception of cases of necessity; and it was not repealed because it was false, understanding it with that restriction; but it was repealed because it might be interpreted in an unconfined sense, and exclusive of that restriction; and being so understood would reflect on the justice of the revolution: and this the legislature had at heart, and were very jealous of; and by this repeal of that declaration, gave a parliamentary or legislative admonition, against asserting this doctrine of nonresistance in an unlimited sense.'

Though the general doctrine of non-resistance, the doctrine of the church of England,

as

stated in her homilies, or elsewhere delivered, by which the general duty of subjects to the higher powers is taught, be owned to be, as unquestionably it is, a godly and wholesome doctrine; though this general doctrine has been constantly inculcated by the reverend fathers of the church, dead and living, and preached by them as a preservative against the popish doctrine of deposing princes, and as the ordinary rule of obedience; and though the same doctrine has been preached, maintained, and avowed by our most orthodox and able divines from the time of the reformation; and how innocent a man Dr. Sacheveral had been, if, with an honest and well-meant zeal, he had preached the same doctrine in the same

Another of the managers for the house of commons, Sir John Holland, was not less careful in guarding against a confusion of the principles of the revolution, with any loose general doctrines of a right in the individual, or even in the people, to undertake for themselves, on any prevalent temporary opinions of convenience or improvement, any fundamental change in the constitution, or to fabricate a new government for themselves, and thereby to disturb the public peace, and to unsettle the ancient constitution of this kingdom.

SIR JOHN HOLLAND.

'The commons would not be understood, as if they were pleading for a licentious resistance; as if subjects were left to their good-will and pleasure, when they are to obey, and when to resist. No, my lords, they know they are obliged by all the ties of social creatures and Christians, for wrath and conscience sake, to submit to their sovereign. The commons do not abet humoursome factious arms: they aver them to be rebellious. But yet they maintain, that that resistance at the revolution which was so necessary, was lawful and just from that necessity.

'These general rules of obedience may, upon a real necessity, admit a lawful exception; and such a necessary exception we assert the revolution to be.

'Tis with this view of necessity only, absolute necessity of preserving our laws liberties, and religion; 'tis with this limitation that we desire to be understood, when any one of us speak of resistance in general. The necessity of the resistance at the revolution, was at that time obvious to every man.' *

*

*

*

I shall conclude these extracts with a reference to the Prince of Orange's declaration, in which he gives the nation the fullest assurance that in his enterprise he was far from the intention of introducing any change whatever in the fundamental law and constitution of the state. He considered the object of his enter prise, not to be a precedent for further revolu tions, but that it was the great end of his expe dition to make such revolutions, so far as humar power and wisdom could provide, unnecessary.

Extract from the Prince of Orange's Declara

tion.

All magistrates, who have been unjustly turned out, shall forthwith resume their former employments, as well as all the boroughs of England, shall return again to their ancient prescriptions and charters: and more particularly, that the ancient charter of the great and famous city of London shall be again in force. And that the writs for the members of parliament shall be addressed to the proper officers according to the law and custom.'

'And for the doing of all other things, which the two houses of parliament shall find necessary for the peace, honour, and safety of the nation, so that there may be no danger of the nation's falling, at any time hereafter, under arbitrary government.'

Extract from the Prince of Orange's additional Declaration.

'We are confident that no persons can have such hurd thoughts of us, as to imagine that we have any other design in this undertaking, than to procure a settlement of the religion, and of the liberties and properties of the subjects, upon so sure a foundation, that there may be no danger of the nation's relapsing into the like miseries at any time hereafter. And, as the forces that we have brought along with us are utterly disproportioned to that wicked design of conquering the nation, if we were capable of intending it; so the great numbers of the principal nobility and gentry, that are men of eminent quality and estates, and persons of known integrity and zeal, both for the religion and government of England, many of them also being distinguished by their constant fidelity to the crown, who do both accompany us in this expedition, and have earnestly solicited us to it, will cover us from all such malicious insinuations.'

In the spirit, and upon one occasion in the words, of this declaration, the statutes passed in that reign made such provisions for preventing these dangers, that scarcely any thing short of combination of king, lords, and commons, for the destruction of the liberties of the nation, can in any probability make us liable to similar perils. In that dreadful, and, I may hope, not to be looked-for case, any opinion of a right to make revolutions, grounded on this precedent, would be but a poor resource.Dreadful indeed would be our situation. These are the doctrines held by the whigs of the revolution, delivered with as much so

* Declaration of Right.

lemnity, and as authentically at least, as any political dogmas were ever promulgated from the beginning of the world. If there be any difference between their tenets and those of Mr. Burke it is, that the old whigs oppose themselves still more strongly than he does against the doctrines which are now propa gated with so much industry by those whe would be thought their successors.

It will be said, perhaps, that the old whigs, in order to guard themselves against popular odium, pretended to assert tenets contrary to those which they secretly held. This, if true, would prove, what Mr. Burke has uniformly asserted, that the extravagant doctrines which he meant to expose, were disagreeable to the body of the people; who, though they perfectly abhor a despotic government, certainly ap proached more nearly to the love of mitigated monarchy, than to any which bears the appearance even of the best republic. But if these old whigs deceived the people, their conduct was unaccountable indeed. They exposed their power, as every one conversant in history knows, to the greatest peril, for the propagation of opinions which, on this hypothesis, they did not hold. It is a new kind of martyrdom. This supposition does as little credit to their integrity as their wisdom; it makes them at once hypocrites and fools. I think of those great men very differently. I hold them to have been, what the world though. them, men of deep understanding, open sincerity, and clear honour. However, be that matter as it may; what these old whigs pretended to be, Mr. Burke is. This is enough for him.

I do indeed admit, that though Mr. Burke has proved that his opinions were those of the old whig party, solemnly declared by one house, in effect and substance by both houses of parliament, this testimony standing by itself will form no proper defence for his opinions, if he and the old whigs were both of them in the wrong. But it is his present concern, not to vindicate these old whigs, but to shew his agreement with them.-He appeals to them as judges: he does not vindicate them as culprits. It is current that these old politicians knew little of the rights of men; that they lost their way by groping about in the dark, and fumbling among rotten parchments and musty re cords. Great lights they say are lately obtained in the world; and Mr. Burke, instead of shrowding himself in exploded ignorance, ought to have taken advantage of the blaze of illumination which has been spread about him. It may be so. The enthusiasts of this