No More Learning

? ? ? ? TO THE OLD WHIGS. 133
"But to return to these concessions: I must appeal to your Lordships, whether they are not a total departure from the Doctor's answer. "
I now proceed to show that the Whig managers for
the Commons meant to preserve the government Vni
a firm foundation, by asserting the perpetual validity
of the settlement then made, and its coercive power
upon posterity. I mean to show that they gave no
sort of countenance to any doctrine tending to imnpress the people (taken separately from the legislature, which includes the crown) with an idea that they had
acquired a moral or civil competence to alter, without breach of the original compact on the part of the king, the succession to the crown, at their pleasure,. --
much less that they had acquired any right, in the
case of such an event as caused the Revolution, to
set up any new form of government. The author
of the Reflections, I believe, thought that no man
of common understanding could oppose to this doctrine the ordinary sovereign power as declared in
the act of Queen Anne: that is, that the kings or
queens of the realm, with the consent of Parliament,
are competent to regulate and to settle the succession
of the crown. This power is and ever was inherent
in the supreme sovereignty, and was not, as the political divines vainly talk, acquired by the Revolution.
It is declared in the old statute of Queen Elizabeth.
Such a power must reside in the complete sovereignty
of every kingdom; and it is in fact exercised in all
of them. But this right of competence in the legislature, not in the people, is by the legislature itself
to be exercised with sound discretion: that is to say,
it is to be exercised or not, in conformity to the fun
? ? ? ? 134 APPEAL FROM THE NEW
damental principles of this government, to the rules
of moral obligation, and to the faith of pacts, either
contained ill the nature of the transaction or entered
into by the body corporate of the kingdom, -- which
body in juridical construction never dies, and in
fact never loses its members at once by death.
Whether this doctrine is reconcilable to the modern philosophy of government I believe the author
neither knows nor cares, as he has little respect for
any of that sort of philosophy. This may be because
his capacity and knowledge do not reach to it. If
such be the case, he cannot be blamed, if he acts on
the sense of that incapacity; lie cannot be blamed, if,
in the most arduous and critical questions which can
possibly arise, and which affect to the quick the vital parts of our Constitution, he takes the side which
leans most to safety and settlement; that he is resolved not " to be wise beyond what is written" in
the legislative record and practice; that, when doubts
arise on them, he endeavors to interpret one statute
by another, and to reconcile them all to established,
recognized morals, and to the general, ancient, known
policy of the laws of England. Two things are equally evident: the first is, that the legislature possesses
the power of regulating the succession of the crown;
the second, that in the exercise of that right it has
uniformly acted as if under tile restraints which the
author has stated. That author makes what the allcients call mos majorum not indeed his sole, but certainly his principal rule of policy, to guide his judgment in whatever regards our laws. Uniformity and analogy can be preserved in them by this process only. That point being fixed, and laying fast hold of
a strong bottom, our speculations may swing in all
? ? ? ? TO THE OLD WHIGS. 135
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 of 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 show 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 settlement of an hereditary succession
in the Protestant line, drawn from James the First,
as the stock of inheritance. "
Sir John Hawles.
" If he [Dr. Sacheverell] is of the opinion Necessity of
he pretends, I can't imagine how it comes the
he pretends, I can't imagine how it comes right of the
crown, and
? ? ? ? 186 APPEAL FROM THE NEW
submission to pass that he that pays that dfference to
to the settlement. 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 that 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 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.
Whole frame "The whole tenor of the administration
of government re then in being was agreed by all to be a total
stored un
? ? ? ? TO THE OLD WHIGS. 137
departurefrom the Constitution. The nation hurt, on the
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 the government was restored entire and unhurt. * This showed the excellent temper the nation
was in at that time, that, after such provocations
from an abuse of the regal power, and such a convulsion, no one part of the Constitution was altered, or
suffered the least damage; but, on the contrary, the
whole received new life and vigor. "
The Tory counsel for Dr. Sacheverell 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 point, that he
takes fire even at the insinuation of his being of such
an opinion.
Sir Joseph Jekyl. ' If the Doctor instructed his counsel to Noinnovation at the
insinuate that there was any innovation in Revolution.
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 fun*," 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, fundamental parts of our Constitution we
made no revolution,- no, nor any alteration at all. We did not impair the monarchy. Perhaps it might be shown that we strengthened
it very considerably. The nation kept the same ranks, the same
? ? ? ? 138 APPEAL FROM THE NEW
damental 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.
Revolution " The resistance at the Revolution, which
no precedent
for voluntary was founded in unavoidable necessity, could
cancelling
allegiance. 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 call never be inferred, from the lawfulness of resistance at a time
when a total subversion of the government both ine
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 color for asserting any
such wicked principle, the Doctor could never inorders, 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 corporations, the same electors. "-Mr. Burke's Speech in the
House of Commons, 9th February, 1790. -- It appears how exactly he
coincides in everything with Sir Joseph Jekyl.
? ? ? ? TO THE OLD WHIGS. 139
tend to put it into the mouths of those new preachers and new politicians for a defence, -
unless it be his opinion that the resistance Revolution
not like the
at the Revolution can bear any parallel with case of
Charles the
the execrable murder of the royal martyr, so First.
justly detested by the whole nation. "
"'T 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 Revolution,
in express terms, as an objection, and then assumes
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 colors upon it. This, my Lords, 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 dishonor upon the Rev- Sacheverll's olution, and an odium upon those great and tended to
bring an
illustrious persons, those friends to the mon- odium on
the Revoluarchy and the Church, that assisted in bringing tion.
it about. For had the Doctor intended anything else,
he would have treated the case of the Revolution in a
? ? ? ? 140 APPEAL FROM THE NEW
True defence different manner, and have given it the true
of the Revolution on and fair answer: he would have said that
absolute
necessity. the resistance at the Revolution was of absolute necessity, and the only means left to revive the Constitution, and must be therefore taken as an excepted case, and could never come within the reach or 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
the civil obedience of the subject to the legal administration 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 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 law is ceased. "*
Commons " The Commons must always resent, with
abhor whatever shakes the utmost detestation and abhorrence, every
the submission of pos- position that may shake the authority of that
terity to the
settlement act of Parliament whereby the crown is setof the crown. tled 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 faithful
ly submit themselves, their heirs and posterities, to her
Majesty, which this general principle of absolute non
resistance must certainly shake.
"For, if the resistance at the Revolution was ille
* See Reflections, pp. 42, 43. - Works, Vol. III. p. 270, presenl
edition.
? ? ? ? TO THE OLD WHIGS. 141
gal, the Revolution settled in usurpation, and this
act can have no greater force and authority than an
act passed under a usurper. ' And the Commons take leave to observe, that the
authority of this 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 reestablishment, 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.
? ? ? ? 142 APPEAL FROM THE NEW
Sir Joseph Jekyl.
What are "Nothing is plainer than that the people
the rights of
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
Restoration present age: I mean that of the Restoration,
and Revolution. and that of the Revolution: in both these
great events were the regal power and the rights
of the people recovered. And it is hard to say in
People have which the people have; the greatest interest;
an equal interest in the for the Commons are sensible that there is not
legal rights
of thecrown one legal power belonging to the crown, but
own. they have an interest in it; 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 horror and' detestation with
which they regarded the destruction of the privileges
of the people by an arbitrary monarch.
Mr. Lechmere,
Constitution Speaking of our Constitution, states it as
recovered at
the Restora-' a Constitution which happily recovered ittion and Revolution.
and disorders which the horrid and detestable proceedings offaction 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
? self, at the Restoration, from the confusions
? ? ? TO THE OLD WHIGS. 143
the most comfortable prospect of security to all posterity by the settlement of the crown in the Protestant
line. "
I mean now to show 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 sanctionl
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 show 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 destroyed on pretence of regal prerogatives.
Sir Joseph Jekyl.
"Further, I desire it may be consid- Mischiefof
broaching
ered, these legislators " (the legislators who antimotnachical princiframed the non-resistance oath of Charles ples. the Second) "were guarding against the consequences of those pericous and antimonarchical principles
uhich had been broached a little before in this nation,
and those large declarations in favor of non-resistance
were made to encounter or obviate the mischief of
those principles, - as appears by the preamble to the
fullest of those acts, which is the Militia Act, in the
? ? ? ? 144 APPEAL FROM THE NEW
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 resistTwo casesof ance. They had seen the regal rights swalservtheOpe serve the
crown, the and it is no imputation on them, that they
other the
rights of the did not then foresee a quite difJ4rent 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 mainner effected. And this may serve to show 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'll admit it to be as true
as the Doctor's counsel assert it, --that is,
Non-resist- with an exception of cases of necessity: and
ance oath
notrepealed it was not repealed because it was false,
because
(with the understanding it with that restriction; but
restriction of
necessity) it it was repealed because it might be interwas false,
but to pre- preted in an unconfined sense, and excluvent false
interpreta- sive of that restriction, and, being so undertions. stood, 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 ad
lowed up under the pretence of popular ones:
? ? ? ? TO THE OLD WHIGS. 145
monition against asserting this doctrine of non-resistance in an unlimited sense. "
"Though the general doctrine of non- General
doctrine of
resistance, the doctrine of the Church of non-resistance godly
England, as stated ill her Homilies, or else- and wholesome; not
where delivered, by which the general duty bound to
state expliof subjects to the higher powers is taught, citly the
be owned to be, as unquestionably it is, a god- ions
ly 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 obey.
dience,- and though the same doctrine has beeui
preached, maintained, and avowed by our most orthodox and able divines from the time of the Reformation, - and how innocent a man soever Dr. Sacblevere ell had been, if, with an honest and well-meant zeal, he
had preached the same doctrine in the same general
terms in which he found it delivered by the Apostles
of Christ, as taught by the Homilies and the reverend
fathers of our Church, and, in imitation of those great
examples, had only pressed the general duty of obedience, and the illegality of resistance, without taking notice of any exception," &c.
Another of the managers for thlle House of Colnmons, 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 1nldertake for themselves, on any prevalent, temporary
opinions of convenience or improvement, any fundamental change in the Constitution, or to fabricate a,
VOL. IV. 10
? ? ? ? 146 APPEAL FROM THE NEW
new government for tlhemselves, and thereby to disturb the public peace, and to unsettle the ancient Constitution of this kingdom.
Sir John Holland.
Submission "The Commons would not be understood
to the sovereign a con- as if they were pleading for a licentious rescientious
duty, except sistance, as if subjects were left to their
in cases of
necessity. 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 humorsome, factious arms: they aver them to be rebellions. 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. Right of re- "'T is with this view of necessity, only
sistance how
to be unnder- absolute necessity of preserving our laws,
stood.
liberties, and religion, -'t is with this limitation, that we desire to be understood, when any 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 lie 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
? ? ? ? TO THE OLD WHIGS. 147
of his enterprise not to be a precedent for further
revolutions, but that it was the great end of his expedition to make such revolutions, so far as human power and wisdom could provide, unnecessary.
Extracts from the Prince of Orange's Declaration.
"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 again be in force;
and that the writs for the members of Parliament
shall be addressed to the proper officers, according to
law and custom. "
"' And for the doing of all other things which'the
two Houses of Parliament shall find necessary for the
peace, honor, and safety of the nation, so that there
may be no more 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
hard 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
? ? ? ? 148 APPEAL FROM THE NEW
Principal gentry, that are men of eminent quality and
nobility and
gentry well estates, and persons of known integrity and
affected to
the Church zeal, both for the religion and government of
and crown,
security England, many of them also being distindesign of in- guished by their constant fidelity to the crown,
novation.
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 anything 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 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 solemnity, 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 lie does against
the doctrines which are now propagated with so much
industry by those who would be thought their sue
cessors.
It will be said, perhaps, that the old Whigs, in
order to guard themselves against popular odium,
* Declaration of Right.
? ? ? ? TO THE OLD WHIGS. 149
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 thll y perfectly abhor a despotic government, certainly ajIproached more nearly to the love of mitigated mollnalchy than to anything 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 colnversant in history knows, to the greatest peril, for
the propagation of opinions which, on this hypothesis,
they did not bold. 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
thought them, men of deep understanding, open sincerity, and clear honor. 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 show 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
? ? ? ? 150 APPEAL FROM THE NEW
the dark, and fumbling among rotten parchments
and musty records. Great lights, they say, are lately
obtained in the world; and Mr. Burke, instead of
shrouding 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 time, it seems, like their predecessors ill another faction of fanaticism, deal in
lights. . Hudibras pleasantly says of them, they
"Have lights, where better eyes are blind, -
As pigs are said to see the wind. "
The author of the Reflections has heard a great
deal concerning the modern lights, but he has not yet
had the good fortune to see much of them. He has,read more than he call justify to anything but the
spirit of curiosity, of the works of these illuminators
of the world. He has learned nothing from the far
greater number of them than a full certainty of their
shallowness, levity, pride, petulance, presumption,
and ignorance. Where the old authors whom he has
read, and the old men whom he has conversed with,
have left him in the dark, he is in the dark still. If
others, however, have obtained any of this extraordinary light, they will use it to guide them in their
researches and their conduct. I have only to wish
that the nation may be as happy and as prosperous
under the influence of the new light as it has been
in the sober shade of the old obscurity. As to the
rest, it will be difficult for the author of the Reflections to conform to the principles of the avowed leaders of the party, until they appear otherwise than negatively. All we can gather from them is this,that their principles are diametrically opposite to his.
This is all that we know from authority. Their neg
? ? ? ? TO THE OLD WHIGS. 151
ative declaration obliges me to have recourse to the
books which contain positive doctrines. They are,
indeed, to those Mr. Burke holds diametrically opposite; and if it be true (as the oracles of the party have said, I hope hastily) that their opinions differ
so widely, it should seem they are the* most likely to
form the creed of the modern Whigs.
r have stated what were the avowed sentiments of
the old Whigs, not in the way of argument, but nlarratively. It is but fair to set before the reader, ill
the same simple manner, the sentiments of the modern, to which they spare neither pains nor expense to make proselytes. - I choose them from the books
upon which most of that industry and expenditure
in circulation have been employed; I choose them,
not from those who speak with a politic obscurity,
not from those who only controvert the opinions of
the old Whigs, without advancing any of their own,
but from those who speak plainly and affirmatively.
The Whig reader may make his choice between the
two doctrines.
The doctrine, then, propagated by these societies,
which gentlemen think they ought to be very tender
in discouraging, as nearly as possible in their own
words, is as follows: That in Great Britain we are
not only without a good Constitution, but that we
have " no Constitution";- that, " though it is much
talked about, no such thing as a Constitution exists
or ever did exist, and consequently that the people
have a Constitution yet to form;- that since William
the Conqueror the country has never yet regenerated
itself, and is therefore without a Constitution;- that
where it cannot be produced in a visible form there
? ? ? ? 152 APPEAL FROM THE NEW
is none; -- that a Constitution is a thing antecedent
to government; and that the Constitution of a country is not the act of its government, but of a people
constituting a government; -- that everything in the
English government is the reverse of what it ought
to be, and what it is said to be in England;-that
the right of war and peace resides in a metaphor
shown at the Tower for sixpence or a shilling apiece;
- that it signifies not where the right resides, whether
in the crown or in Parliament; war is the common
harvest of those who participate in the division and
expenditure of public money; -- that the portion of
liberty enjoyed in England is just enough to enslave
a country more productively than by despotism.
So far as to the general state of the British Constitution. - As to our House of Lords, the chief virtual
representative of our aristocracy, the great ground
and pillar of security to the landed interest, and that
main link by which it is connected with the law and
the crown, these worthy societies are pleased to tell
us, that, " whether we view aristocracy before, or behind, or sideways, or any way else, domestically or
publicly, it is still a monster; -- that aristocracy ill
France had one feature less in its countenance than
what it has in some other countries: it did not compose a body of hereditary legislators; it was not a
corporation of aristocracy" (for such, it seems, that
profound legislator, M. de La Fayette, describes the
House of Peers); -" that it is kept up by family tyranny and injustice; - that there is an unnatural unfitness in aristocracy to be legislators for a nation;that their ideas of distributive justice are corrupted at the very source; they begin life by trampling on
all their younger brothers and sisters, and relations
? ? ? ? TO THE OLD WHIGS. 153
of every kind, and are taught and educated so to do;
- that the idea of an hereditary legislator is as absurd as an hereditary mathematician; -that a body
holding themselves unaccountable to anybody ought
to be trusted by nobody; - that it is continuing the
uncivilized principles of governments founded in conquest, and the base idea of man having a property in
man, and governing him by a personal right;- that
aristocracy has a tendency to degenerate the human
species," &c. , &c.
As to our law of primoge niture, which with few
and inconsiderable exceptions is the standing law of
all our landed inheritalne, and which without question has a tendency, and I think a most happy tendency, to preserve a character of consequence, weight, and prevalent influence over others in the whole body
of the landed interest, they call loudly for its destruction. They do this for political reasons that are
very manifest. They have the confidence to say,
"that it is a law against every law of Nature, and
Nature herself calls for its destruction. Establish
family justice, and aristocracy falls. By the aristocratical law of primogenitureship, in a family of six
children, five are exposed. Aristocracy has never
but one child. The rest are begotten to be devoured.
They are thrown to the cannibal for prey, and the
natural parent prepares the unnatural repast. "
As to the House of Commons, they treat it far
worse than the House of Lords or the crown have
been ever treated. Perhaps they thought they had
a greater right to take this amicable freedom with
those of their own family. For many years it has
been the perpetual theme of their invectives. " Mockery, insult, usurpation," are amongst the best names
? ? ? ? 154 APPEAL FROM THE NEW
they bestow upon it. They damn it in the mass,
by declaring "that it does not arise out of the
inherent rights of the people, as the National Assembly does in France, and whose name designates its original. " Of the charters and corporations, to whose rights
a few years ago these gentlemen were so tremblingly
alive, they say, " that, when the people of Englanld
come to reflect upon them, they will, like France,
annihilate those badges of oppression, those traces
of a conquered nation. "
As to our monarchy, they had formerly been more
tender of that branch of the Constitution, and for
a good reason. The laws had guarded against all
seditious attacks upon it with a greater degree of
strictness and severity. The tone of these gentlemen
is totally altered since the French Revolution. They
now declaim as vehemently against the monarchy as
on former occasions they treacherously flattered and
soothed it. ," When we survey the wretched condition of man
under the monarchical and hereditary systems of government, dragged from his home by one power, or
driven by another, and impoverished by taxes more
than by enemies, it becomes evident that those systems are bad, and that a general revolution in the
principle and construction of governments is necessary. ," What is government more than the management
of the affairs of a nation? It is not, and from its nature cannot be, the property of any particular man or
family, but of the whole community, at whose expense
it is supported; and though by force or contrivance
it has been usurped into an inheritance, the usurpa
? ? ? ? TO THE OLD WHIGS. 155
tion cannot alter the right of things. Sovereignty,
as a matter of right, appertains to the nation only,
and not to any individual; and a nation has at all
times an inherent indefeasible right to abolish any
form of government it finds inconvenient, and establish such as accords with its interest, disposition, and happiness. The romantic and barbarous distinction
of men into kings and subjects, though it may suit
the condition of courtiers, cannot that of citizens,
and is exploded by the principle upon which governments are now founded. Every citizen is a member
of the sovereignty, and, as such, can acknowledge no
personal subjection, and his obedience can be only to
the laws. "
Warmly recommending to us the example of
France, where they have destroyed monarchy, they. say, -
" Monarchical sovereignty, the enemy of mankind,
and the source of misery, is abolished; and sovereign
ty itself is restored to its natural and original place,
the nation. Were this the case throughout Europe,
the cause of wars would be taken away. "
"But, after all, what is this metaphor called a
crown? or rather, what is monarchy? Is it a thing,
or is it a name, or is it a fraud? ~ Is it' a contrivance
of human wisdom,' or of human craft, to obtain money from a nation under specious pretences? Is it
a thing necessary to a nation? If it is, in what
does that necessity consist, what services does it perform, what is its business, and what are its merits? Doth the virtue consist in the metaphor or in the
man? Doth the goldsmith that makes the crown make
the virtue also? Doth it operate like Fortunatus's
wiohing-cap or Harlequin's wooden sword? Doth
? ? ? ? 156 APPEAL FROM THE NEW
it make a man a conjurer? In fine, what is it? It
appears to be a something going much out of fashion,
falling into ridicule, and rejected in some countries
both as unnecessary and expensive. In America it
is considered as an absurdity; and in France it has
so far declined, that the goodness of the man and the
respect for his personal character are the only things
that preserve the appearance of its existence. "
"Mr. Burke talks about what he calls an hereditary crown, as if it were some production of Nature,or as if, like time, it had a power to operate, not only independently, but in spite of man, - or as if it were
a thing or a subject universally consented to. Alas!
it has none of those properties, but is the reverse of
them all. It is a thing in imagination, the propriety
of which is more than doubted, and the legality of
which in a few years, will be denied. "
" If I ask the farmer, the manufacturer, the inerchant, the tradesman, and down through all the occupations of life to the common laborer, what service monarchy is to him, he can give me no answer. If
I ask him what monarchy is, he believes it is something like a sinecure. "
" The French Constitution says, that the right of
war and peace is in the nation. Where else should it
reside, but in those who are to pay the expense?
" In England, this right is said to reside in a metaphor, shown at the Tower for sixpence or a shilling
apiece: so are the lions; and it would be a step nearer to reason to say it resided in them, for any illanimate metaphor is no more than a hat or a cap. We can all see the absurdity of worshipping Aaron's
molten calf, or Nebuchadnezzar's golden image; but
why do men continue to practise themselves the absurdities they despise ill others? "
? ? ? ? TO THE OLD WHIGS. 157
The Revolution and Hanover succession had been
objects of the highest veneration to the old Whigs.
They thought them not only proofs of the sober and
steady spirit of liberty which guided their ancestors,
but of their wisdom and provident care of posterity.
The modern Whigs have quite other notions of these
events and actions. They do not deny that Mr. Burke
has given truly the words of the acts of Parliament
which secured the succession, and the just sense of
them. They attack not him, but the law.
" Mr Burke" (say they) " has done some service,
not to his cause, but to his country, by bringing those
clauses into public view. They serve to demonstrate
how necessary it is at all times to watch against the
attempted encroachment of power, and to prevent its
running to excess. It is somewhat extraordinary,
that the offence for which James the Second was expelled, that of setting up power by assumption, should be re-acted, under another shape and form, by the
Parliament that expelled him. It shows that the
rights of man were but imperfectly understood at
the Revolution; for certain it is, that the right which
that Parliament set up by assumption (for by delegation it had it not, and could not have it, because
none could give it) over the persons and freedom
of posterity forever, was of the same tyrannical unfounded kind which James attempted to set up over
the Parliament and the nation, and for which he was
expelled. The only difference is, (for in principle
they differ not,) that the one was an usurper over the
living, and the other over the unborn; and as the
one has no better authority to stand upon than the
other, both of them must be equally null and void,
and of no effect. "
? ? ? ? 158 APPEAL FROM THE NEW
"As the estimation of all things is by comparison,
the Revolution of 1688, however from circumstances
it may have been exalted beyond its value, will find
its level. It is already on the wane, eclipsed by the
enlarging orb of reason and the luminous Revolutions of America and France. In less than another century, it will go, as well as Mr. Burke's labors,'to
the family vault of all the Capulets. ' Mankind will
then scarcely believe that a country calling itself free
would send to Holland for a man and clothe him with
power on purpose to put themselves in fear of him, and
give him almost a million sterling a year for leave to
submit themselves and their posterity like bondmen ana
bondwomen forever. "
Mr. Burke having said that "the king holds his
crown in contempt of the choice of the Revolution
Society, who individually or collectively have not"
(as most certainly they have not) " a vote for a king
amongst them," they take occasion from thence to
infer that the king who does not hold his crown by
election despises the people.
"' The king of England,' says he,'holds his crown'
(for it does not belong to the nation, according to Mr.
Burke)'in contempt of the choice of the Revolution
Society,'" &c.
"As to who is king in England or elsewhere, or
whether there is any king at all, or whether the people choose a Cherokee chief or a Hessian hussar for a king, it is not a matter that I trouble myself about,
- be that to themselves; but with respect to the doctrine, so far as it relates to the rights of men and nations, it is as abominable as anything ever uttered
in the most enslaved country under heaven. Whether it sounds worse to my ear, by not being accus
? ? ? ? TO THE OLD WHIGS. 159
tomed to hear such despotism, than what it does to
the ear of another person, I am not so well a judge
of; but of its abominable principle I am at no loss to
judge. "
These societies of modern Whigs push their insolence as far as it can go. In order to prepare the
minds of the people for treason and rebellion, they
represent the king as tainted with principles of despotism, from the circumstance of his having dominions in Germany. In direct defiance of the most notorious truth, they describe his government there
to be a despotism; whereas it is a free Constitution,
in which the states of the Electorate have their part
in the government: and this privilege has never been
infringed by the king, or, that I have heard of, by
any of his predecessors. The Constitution of the
Electoral dominions has, indeed, a double control,
both from the laws of the Empire and from the
privileges of. the country. Whatever rights the king
enjoys as Elector have been always parentally exercised, and the calumnies of these scandalous societies
have not been authorized by a single complaint of
oppression.
"' When Mr. Burke says that' his Majesty's heirs
and successors, each in their time and order, will
come to the crown with. the same contempt of their
choice with which his Majesty has succeeded to that
he wears,' it is saying too much even to the humblest
individual in the country, part of whose daily labor
goes towards making up the million sterling a year
which the country gives the person it styles a king.
Government with insolence is despotism; but when
contempt is added, it becomes worse; and to pay, or
contempt is the excess of slavery. This species of
? ? ? ? 160 APPEAL FROM THE NEW
government comes from Germany, and reminds me
of what one of the Brunswick soldiers told me, who
was taken prisoner by the Americans in the late war. 'Ah! ' said he,' America is a fine free country: it is
worth the people's fighting for. I know the difference by knowing my own: in my country, if the prince
says, "Eat straw," we eat straw. ' God help that country, thought I, be it England, or elsewhere, whose
liberties are to be protected by German principles of
government and princes of Brunswick! "
"~ It is somewhat curious to observe, that, although
the people of England have been in the habit of talking about kings, it is always a foreign house of
kings, -hating foreigners, yet governed by them.
It is now the House of Brunswick, one of the petty
tribes of Germany. "
"; If government be what Mr. Burke describes it,'a contrivance of human wisdom,' I might ask him
if wisdom was at such a low ebb in England that it
was become necessary to import it from Holland and
from Hanover? But I will do the country the justice to say, that was not the case; and even if it was,
it mistook the cargo. The wisdom of every country,
when properly exerted, is sufficient for all its purposes; and there could exist no more real occasion in England to have sent for a Dutch Stadtholder or a German Elector than there was in America to have done a
similar thing. If a country does not understand its
own affairs, how is a foreigner to understand them,
who knows neither its laws, its manners, nor its language?