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
?
to be exercised with sound discretion: that is to say,
it is to be exercised or not, in conformity to the fun
?
Edmund Burke
Burke's Reflections, from page 20 to page 50,* and then to attend to'lie following extracts from the trial of Dr.
Sacheverell.
After this, they will consider two things: first, whether the doctrine in Mr.
Burke's Reflections be
consonant to that of the Whigs of that period; and,
secondly, whether they choose to abandon the principles which belonged to the progenitors of some of them, and to the predecessors of them all, and to
learn new principles of Whiggism, imported from
France, and disseminated in this country from Dissenting pulpits, from Federation societies, and from
the pamphlets, which (as containing the political
creed of those synods) are ilidustriously circulated
in all parts of the two kingdoms. This is their affair, and they will make their option.
These new Whigs hold that the sovereignty, whether exercised by one or many, did not only originate from the people, (a position not denied nor worth
denying or assenting to,) but that in the people the
same sovereignty constantly and unalienably resides;
that the people may lawfully depose kings, not only
for misconduct, but without any misconduct at all;
that they may set up any new fashion of government
fbr themselves, or continue without any government,
at their pleasure; that the people are essentially their
own rule, and their will the measure of their conduct;
that the tenure of magistracy is not a proper subject
* Works, Vol. III. pp. 251-276, present edition.
? ? ? ? TOI'() THE OLD WHIGS. 121
of contract, because magistrates have duties, but no
rights; and that, if a contract de facto is made with
them in one age, allowing that it binds at all, it only
binds those who are immediately concerned in it, but
does not pass to posterity. These doctrines concerning the people (a term which they are far from accurately defining, but by which, from many circumstances, it is plain enough they mean their own faction, if they should grow, by early arming, by treachery,
or violence, into the prevailing force) tend, in my
opinion, to the utter subversion, not only of all governlment, in all modes, and to all stable securities to
rational freedom, but to all the rules and principles
of morality itself.
I assert that the ancient Whigs held doctrines totally different from those I have last mentioned. I
assert, that the foundations laid down by the Commons, on the trial of Dr. Sacheverell, for justifying the
Revolution of 1688, are the very same laid down in
Mr. Burke's Reflections, -- that is to say, a breach
of the original contract, implied and expressed in the
Constitution of this country, as a scheme of government fundamentally and inviolaLly fixed in King,
Lords, and Commons; --that the fundamental subversion of this ancient Constitution, by one of its parts,
having been attempted, and in effect accomplished,
justified the Revolution; -- that it was justified only
upon the necessity of the case, as the only means left
for the recovery of that ancient Constitution formed
by the original contract of the British state, as well as
for the future preservation of the same government.
These are the points to be proved.
A general opening to the charge against Dr. Sacheverell was made by the attorney-general, Sir John
? ? ? ? 122 APPEAL FROM THE NEW
Montague; but as there is nothing in that opening
speech which tends very accurately to settle the principle upon which the Whigs proceeded in the prosecution, (the plan of the speech not requiring it,) I proceed to that of Mr. Lechmere, the manager, who
spoke next after him. The following are extracts,
given, not in the exact order in which they stand in
the printed trial, but in that which is thought most
fit to bring the ideas of the Whig Commons distinctly
under our view.
lMr. Lechmere. *
"It becomes an indispensable duty upon us, who
appear in the name and on the behalf of all the commolls of Great Britain, not only to demand your Lordships' justice on such a criminal, [ Dr. Sacheverell,] but clearly and openly to assert our foundations. "
" The nature of our Constitution is that of a limited
monarchy, wherein the supreme power is communicated and divided between Queen, Lords, and Corn-'hat the
Constitution
imply and terms of such a Constitution do not only
express an
original con- suppose, but express, an original contract
tract.
between the crown and the people, by which
That the contract is mu- that supreme power was (by mutual consent,
tual consent,
and binding and not by accident) limited and lodged in
at all times
upon the more hands than one. And the uniform
parties.
Themixes preservation of such a Constitution for so
The mixed
Constitution many ages, without any fundamental change,
uniformly
preserved demonstrates to your Lordships the continufor many
ages, and is ance of the same contract.
a proof of
the contract. "The consequences of such a frame of
* State Trials, Vol. V. p. 651.
mons, though the executive power and adtermsofour ministration be wholly in the crown. The
? ? ? ? TO THE OLD WHIGS. 123
government are obvious: That the laws Laws the
common
are the rule to both, the common measure measureto
king and
of the power of the crown and of the obedi- subject.
ence of the subject; and if the executive part endeavors the subversion and total destruction of the government, the original contract is thereby CaseOffunbroke, and the right of allegiance ceases; hi,juy, and that part of the government thus fundamen- original contally injured hath a right to save or recover
that Constitution in which it had an original interest. "
" The necessary means (which is the phrase Words
necessary
used by the Commons in their first article) meansasey
lected with
are words made choice of by them with the caution.
greatest caution. Those means are described (in the
preamble to their charge) to be, that glorious enterprise which his late Majesty undertook, with an
armed force, to deliver this kingdom from Popery
and arbitrary power; the concurrence of many subjects of the realm, who came over with him in that enterprise, and of many others, of all ranks and orders,
who appeared in arms in many parts of the kingdom
in aid of that enterprise.
" These were the means that brought about the
Revolution; and which the act that passed soon after,
declaring the rights and liberties of the subject, and settling the succession of the crown, intends, when his late Majesty is therein called the glorious instrument of delivering the kingdom; and which the Commons, in the last part of their first article, express by the word
resistance.
" But the Commons, who will never be Regard of
the Cornunmindful of the allegiance of the subjects mons to their
allegiance to
to the crown of this realm, judged it highly the crowhn,
incumbent upon them, out of regard to the ancient Constitution.
? ? ? ? 124 APPEAL FROM THE NEW
safety of her Majesty's person and government, and
the ancient and legal Constitution of this kingdom,
to call that resistance the necessary means; thereby
plainly founding that power, of right and resist --
ance, which was exercised by the people at the time
of the happy Revolution, and which the duties of
self-preservation and religion called them to, upon the
NECES~SITY of the case, and at the same time effectually securing her Maijesty's government, and the due allegiance of all her subjects. "
All ages " The nature of such an original contract
have the
tme inter- of government proves that there is not only
vation of the a power in the people, who have inherited
contract, and
tnssaitution its freedom, to assert their own title to it,
but they are bound in duty to transmit the
same Constitution to their posterity also. "
Mr. Lechmere made a second speech. Notwithstanding the clear and satisfactory manner in which
he delivered himself in his first, upon this arduous
question, he thinks himself bound again distinctly to
assert the same foundation, and to justify the Revolution on the case of necessity only, upon principles perfectly coinciding with those laid down in Mr.
Burke's letter on the French affairs.
M/jr. Lechmere.
The Com- " Your Lordships were acquainted, in
mons strictly
confine their opening the charge, with how great caution,
ideas' of a
revolution to and with what unfeigned regard to her Majnecessity
alone and esty and her government, and to the duty and
self-defence.
allegiance of her subjects, the Commons made
choice of the words necessary means to express the resistance that was made use of to bring about the Rev
? ? ? ? TO THEE OLD WHIGS. 125
olution, and with the condemning of which the Doctor
is charged by this article: not doubting but that the
honor and justice of that resistance, from the necessity
of that case, and to which alone we have strictly confined
ourselves, when duly considered, would confirm and strengthen * and be understood to. * N. e. imhe
be an effectual security of the allegiance of ples, that
the subject to the crown of this realm, in would be inevery other case where there is not the same reout thison
necessity; and that the right of the people
to self-defence, and preservation of their liberties, by resistance as their last remedy, is the result of a case of
such NECESSITY ONLY, and' by which the ORIGINAL
CONTRACT between king and people is broke. This was
the principle laid down and carried through all that was
said with respect to ALLEGIANCE; and on WHICH FO UNDATION, in the name and on the behalf of all the commons of Great Britain, we assert and justify that resistance by which the late happy Revolution was brought about. "
"It appears to your Lordships and the world, that
breaking the original contract between king and people
were the words made choice of by that House of Commons," (the House of Commons which originated the
Declaration of Right,) " with the greatest deliberation
and judgment, and approved of by your Lordships, in
that first and fundamental step made towards the reestablishment of the government, which had received so
great a shock from the evil counsels which had been
given to that unfortunate prince. "
Sir John Hawles, another of the managers, follows
the steps of his birethren, positively affirming the.
doctrine of non-resistance to government to be the
? ? ? ? 126 APPEAL FROM THE NEW
general moral, religious, and political rule for the
subject, and justifying the Revolution on the same
principle with Mr. Burke,- that is; as an exception
from necessity. Indeed, he carries the doctrine on
the general idea of non-resistance much further than
Mr. Burke has done, and full as far as it call perhaps be supported by any duty of perfect obligation,
however noble and heroic it may be in many cases to
suffer death rather than disturb the tranquillity of
our country.
Sir John Hawles. *
"Certainly it must be granted, that the doctrine
that commands obedience to the supreme power,
though in things contrary to Nature, even to suffer
death, which is the highest injustice that can be done
a man, rather than make an opposition to the supreme power [is reasonable -], because the death of
one or some few private persons is a less evil than
disturbing the whole government; that law must needs
be understood to forbid the doing or saying anytlling
to disturb the government, the rather because the
obeying that law cannot be pretended to be against
Nature: and the Doctor's refusing to obey that implicit law is the reason for. which he'is now prosecuted; though he would have it believed that the reason he is now prosecuted was for the doctrine he
asserted of obedience to the supreme power; which
he might have preached as long as he had pleased,
and the Commons would have taken no offence at it,
* Page 676.
t The words necessary to the completion of the sentence are wanting in the printed trial,- but the construction of the sentence, as well
as the foregoing part of the speech, justify the insertion of some such
supplemental words as the above.
? ? ? ? TO THE OLD WHIGS. 127
if he had stopped there, and not have taken upon
him, on that pretence or occasion, to have cast odious
colors upon the Revolution. "
General Stanhope was among the managers. He
begins his speech by a reference to the opinion of his
fellow-managers, which he hoped had put beyond all
doubt the limits and qualifications that the Commons
had placed to their doctrines concerning the Revolution; yet, not satisfied with this general reference, after condemning the principle of non-resistance,
which is asserted in the sermon without any exception,
and stating, that, under the specious pretence of
preaching a peaceable doctrine, Sacheverell and the
Jacobites meant, in reality, to excite a rebellion in
favor of the Pretender, he explicitly limits his ideas
of resistance with the boundaries laid down by his
colleagues, and by Mr. Burke.
General Stanhope.
"The Constitution of England is found- Rights of the
subject and
ed upon compact; and the subjects of this the crown
kingdom have, in their several public and equally legal.
private capacities, as legal a title to what are their
rights by law as a prince to the possession of his
crown.
"Your Lordships, and most that hear me, are witnesses, and must remember the necessities of those times which brought about the Revolution:
that no other remedy was left to preserve Justice of
resistance
our religion and liberties; that resistance founded on
was necessary, and consequently just. " necessity.
"HIad the Doctor, in the remaining part of his
sermon, preached up peace, quietness, and the like,
? ? ? ? 128 APPEAL FROM THE NEW
and shown how happy we are under her Majesty's
administration, and exhorted obedience to it, lie had
never been called to answer a charge at your Lordships' bar. But the tenor of all his subsequent discourse is one continued invective against the government. " Mr. Walpole (afterwards Sir Robert) was one of
the managers on this occasion. He was anll honorable
man and a sound Whig. He was not, as the Jacobites and discontented Whigs of his time have represented him, and as ill-informed people still represent
him, a prodigal and corrupt minister. They charged
him, in their libels and seditious conversations, as
having first reduced corruption to a system. Such
was their cant. But he was far from governing by
corruption. He governed by party attachments.
The charge of systematic corruption is less applicable
to him, perhaps, than to any minister who ever served
the crown for so great a length of time. He gained
over very few from the opposition. Without being a
genius of the first class, he was an intelligent, prudent, and safe minister. He loved peace, and he
helped to communicate the same disposition to nations at least as warlike and restless as that in which
he had the chief direction of affairs. Though he
served a master who was fond of martial fame, he
kept all the establishments very low. The land tax
continued at two shillings in the pound for the greater part of his administration. The other impositions
were moderate. The profound repose, the equal liberty, the firm protection of just laws, during the long
period of his power, were the principal causes of that
prosperity which afterwards took such rapid strides
? ? ? ? TO THE OLD WHIGS. 129
towards perfection, and which furnished to this nation ability to acquire the military glory which it has
since obtained, as well as to bear the burdens, the
cause and consequence of that warlike reputation.
With many virtues, public and private, he had his
faults; but his faults were superficial. A careless,
coarse, and over-familiar style of discourse, without
sufficient regard to persons or occasions, and an almost total want of political decorum, were the errors
by which he was most hurt in the public opinion,
and those through which his enemies obtained the:
greatest advantage over him. But justice must bedone. The prudence, steadiness, and vigilance of
that man, joined to the greatest possible lenity in his:
character and his politics, preserved the crown to this
royal family, and, with it, their laws and liberties to
this country. Walpole had no other plan of defence
for the Revolution than that of the other managers,
and of Mr. Burke; and he gives full as little countenance to any arbitrary attempts, on the part of restless and factious men, for framing new governments
according to their fancies.
Mr. Walpole.
"Resistance is nowhere enacted to be Caseofresistance out
legal, but subjected, by all the laws now in of the law,
and the
being, to the greatest penalties. 'T is what highest ofis not, cannot, nor ought ever to be described, or affirmed in any positive law, to be excusable; when, and upon what never-to-be-expected occasions, it may be exercised, no man can foresee; and ought never to be thought of, but when an utter subversion of the laws of the realm threatens the whole
frame of a Constitution, and no redress can otherwise
VOL. IV. 9
? ? ? ? 130 APPEAL FROM THE NEW
be hoped for. It therefore does and ought forever to
stand, in the eye and letter of the law, as the highest
offence. But because any man, or party of men, may
not, out of folly or wantonness, commit treason, or
make their own discontents, ill principles, or disguised affections to another interest, a pretence to
resist the supreme power, will it follow
Utmost ne- from thence that the utmost necessity ought
cessity justifies it. not to engage a nation in its own defence for
the preservation of the whole? "
Sir Joseph Jekyl was, as I have always heard and
believed, as nearly as any individual could be, the
very standard of Whig principles in his age. He was
a learned and an able man; full of honor, integrity,
and public spirit; no lover of innovation; nor disposed to change his solid principles for the giddy
fashion of the hour. Let us hear this Whig.
Sir Joseph Jekyl.
Commons do In clearing up and vindicating the jusnot state the
limits ofsub- tice of the Revolution, which was the secmission. ond thing proposed, it is far from the intent of the CQmmons to state the limits and bounds of the
subject's submission to the sovereign. That which
the law hath been wisely silent in, the Commons desire to be silent in too; nor will they put any ease
of a justifiable resistance, but that of the Revolution
only: and they persuade themselves that the doing right
to that resistance will be so far from promoting popular
license or confusion, that it will have a contrary effect,
and be a means of settling men's minds in the love of
To secure the and veneration for the laws; to rescue and
laws, the
only aim of secure which was the ONLY aim and inthe Revolution.
? tention of those concerned in that resistance. "
? ? ? TO THE OLD WHIGS. 131
Dr. Sacheverell's counsel defended him on this
principle, namely, --that, whilst he enforced from
the pulpit the general doctrine of non-resistance, he
was not obliged to take notice of the theoretic limits
which ought to modify that doctrine. Sir Joseph
Jekyl, in his reply, whilst he controverts its application to the Doctor's defence, fully admits and even enforces the principle itself, and supports the Revolution of 1688, as he and all the managers had done before, exactly upon the same grounds on which Mr.
Burke has built, in his Reflections on the French
Revolution.
Sir Joseph Jekyl.
"If the Doctor had pretended to have Blamableto
state the
stated the particular bounds and limits of bounds of
non-resistnon-resistance, and told the people in what ance.
cases they might or might not resist, he would have
been much to blame; nor was one word said in the
articles, or by the managers, as if that was
expected from him; but, on the contrary, we Resistance
lawful only
have insisted that in NO case can resistance in case of
extreme and
be lawful, but in case of EXTREME NECES- obvious necessity.
SITY, and where the Constitution can't other.
wise be preserved; and such necessity ought to be plain
and obvious to the sense and judgment of the whole nation: and this was the case at the Revolution. " The counsel for Doctor Sacheverell, in defending
their client, were driven in reality to abandon the
fundamental principles of his doctrine, and to confess that an exception to the general doctrine of passive obedience and non-resistance did exist in the
case of the Revolution. This the managers for the
? ? ? ? 132 APPEAL FROM THE NEW
Commons considered as having gained their cause,
as their having obtained the whole of what they contended for. They congratulated themselves and the
nation on a civil victory as glorious and as honorable
as any that had obtained in arms during that reign
ot triumphs.
Sir Joseph Jekyl, in his reply to Harcourt, and the
other great men who conducted the cause for the Tory side, spoke in the following memorable terms, distinctly stating the whole of what the Whig House of Commons contended for, in the name of all their
constituents.
Sir Joseph Jekyl.
Necessity " My Lords, the concessions" (the concescreates an
exception, sions of Sacheverell's counsel) " are these:
and the
Revolution That necessity creates an exception to the
a case of
necessity, general rule of submission to the prince;
the utmost
extent of that such exception is understoood or imthe demand
of the Com- plied in the laws that require such submismons.
sion; and that the case of the Revolution
was a case of necessity.
" These are concessions so ample, and do so fully
answer the drift of the Commons in this article, and
are to the utmost extent of their meaning in it, that
I can't forbear congratulating them upon this success of their impeachment,- that in full Parliament,
this erroneous doctrine of unlimited non-resistance is
given up and disclaimed. And may it not, in after
ages, be an addition to the glories of this bright
reign, that so many of those who are honored with
being in her Majesty's service have been at youi
Lordships' bar thus successfully contending for thE
national rights of her people, and proving they are
not precarious or remediless?
? ? ? ? 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.
consonant to that of the Whigs of that period; and,
secondly, whether they choose to abandon the principles which belonged to the progenitors of some of them, and to the predecessors of them all, and to
learn new principles of Whiggism, imported from
France, and disseminated in this country from Dissenting pulpits, from Federation societies, and from
the pamphlets, which (as containing the political
creed of those synods) are ilidustriously circulated
in all parts of the two kingdoms. This is their affair, and they will make their option.
These new Whigs hold that the sovereignty, whether exercised by one or many, did not only originate from the people, (a position not denied nor worth
denying or assenting to,) but that in the people the
same sovereignty constantly and unalienably resides;
that the people may lawfully depose kings, not only
for misconduct, but without any misconduct at all;
that they may set up any new fashion of government
fbr themselves, or continue without any government,
at their pleasure; that the people are essentially their
own rule, and their will the measure of their conduct;
that the tenure of magistracy is not a proper subject
* Works, Vol. III. pp. 251-276, present edition.
? ? ? ? TOI'() THE OLD WHIGS. 121
of contract, because magistrates have duties, but no
rights; and that, if a contract de facto is made with
them in one age, allowing that it binds at all, it only
binds those who are immediately concerned in it, but
does not pass to posterity. These doctrines concerning the people (a term which they are far from accurately defining, but by which, from many circumstances, it is plain enough they mean their own faction, if they should grow, by early arming, by treachery,
or violence, into the prevailing force) tend, in my
opinion, to the utter subversion, not only of all governlment, in all modes, and to all stable securities to
rational freedom, but to all the rules and principles
of morality itself.
I assert that the ancient Whigs held doctrines totally different from those I have last mentioned. I
assert, that the foundations laid down by the Commons, on the trial of Dr. Sacheverell, for justifying the
Revolution of 1688, are the very same laid down in
Mr. Burke's Reflections, -- that is to say, a breach
of the original contract, implied and expressed in the
Constitution of this country, as a scheme of government fundamentally and inviolaLly fixed in King,
Lords, and Commons; --that the fundamental subversion of this ancient Constitution, by one of its parts,
having been attempted, and in effect accomplished,
justified the Revolution; -- that it was justified only
upon the necessity of the case, as the only means left
for the recovery of that ancient Constitution formed
by the original contract of the British state, as well as
for the future preservation of the same government.
These are the points to be proved.
A general opening to the charge against Dr. Sacheverell was made by the attorney-general, Sir John
? ? ? ? 122 APPEAL FROM THE NEW
Montague; but as there is nothing in that opening
speech which tends very accurately to settle the principle upon which the Whigs proceeded in the prosecution, (the plan of the speech not requiring it,) I proceed to that of Mr. Lechmere, the manager, who
spoke next after him. The following are extracts,
given, not in the exact order in which they stand in
the printed trial, but in that which is thought most
fit to bring the ideas of the Whig Commons distinctly
under our view.
lMr. Lechmere. *
"It becomes an indispensable duty upon us, who
appear in the name and on the behalf of all the commolls of Great Britain, not only to demand your Lordships' justice on such a criminal, [ Dr. Sacheverell,] but clearly and openly to assert our foundations. "
" The nature of our Constitution is that of a limited
monarchy, wherein the supreme power is communicated and divided between Queen, Lords, and Corn-'hat the
Constitution
imply and terms of such a Constitution do not only
express an
original con- suppose, but express, an original contract
tract.
between the crown and the people, by which
That the contract is mu- that supreme power was (by mutual consent,
tual consent,
and binding and not by accident) limited and lodged in
at all times
upon the more hands than one. And the uniform
parties.
Themixes preservation of such a Constitution for so
The mixed
Constitution many ages, without any fundamental change,
uniformly
preserved demonstrates to your Lordships the continufor many
ages, and is ance of the same contract.
a proof of
the contract. "The consequences of such a frame of
* State Trials, Vol. V. p. 651.
mons, though the executive power and adtermsofour ministration be wholly in the crown. The
? ? ? ? TO THE OLD WHIGS. 123
government are obvious: That the laws Laws the
common
are the rule to both, the common measure measureto
king and
of the power of the crown and of the obedi- subject.
ence of the subject; and if the executive part endeavors the subversion and total destruction of the government, the original contract is thereby CaseOffunbroke, and the right of allegiance ceases; hi,juy, and that part of the government thus fundamen- original contally injured hath a right to save or recover
that Constitution in which it had an original interest. "
" The necessary means (which is the phrase Words
necessary
used by the Commons in their first article) meansasey
lected with
are words made choice of by them with the caution.
greatest caution. Those means are described (in the
preamble to their charge) to be, that glorious enterprise which his late Majesty undertook, with an
armed force, to deliver this kingdom from Popery
and arbitrary power; the concurrence of many subjects of the realm, who came over with him in that enterprise, and of many others, of all ranks and orders,
who appeared in arms in many parts of the kingdom
in aid of that enterprise.
" These were the means that brought about the
Revolution; and which the act that passed soon after,
declaring the rights and liberties of the subject, and settling the succession of the crown, intends, when his late Majesty is therein called the glorious instrument of delivering the kingdom; and which the Commons, in the last part of their first article, express by the word
resistance.
" But the Commons, who will never be Regard of
the Cornunmindful of the allegiance of the subjects mons to their
allegiance to
to the crown of this realm, judged it highly the crowhn,
incumbent upon them, out of regard to the ancient Constitution.
? ? ? ? 124 APPEAL FROM THE NEW
safety of her Majesty's person and government, and
the ancient and legal Constitution of this kingdom,
to call that resistance the necessary means; thereby
plainly founding that power, of right and resist --
ance, which was exercised by the people at the time
of the happy Revolution, and which the duties of
self-preservation and religion called them to, upon the
NECES~SITY of the case, and at the same time effectually securing her Maijesty's government, and the due allegiance of all her subjects. "
All ages " The nature of such an original contract
have the
tme inter- of government proves that there is not only
vation of the a power in the people, who have inherited
contract, and
tnssaitution its freedom, to assert their own title to it,
but they are bound in duty to transmit the
same Constitution to their posterity also. "
Mr. Lechmere made a second speech. Notwithstanding the clear and satisfactory manner in which
he delivered himself in his first, upon this arduous
question, he thinks himself bound again distinctly to
assert the same foundation, and to justify the Revolution on the case of necessity only, upon principles perfectly coinciding with those laid down in Mr.
Burke's letter on the French affairs.
M/jr. Lechmere.
The Com- " Your Lordships were acquainted, in
mons strictly
confine their opening the charge, with how great caution,
ideas' of a
revolution to and with what unfeigned regard to her Majnecessity
alone and esty and her government, and to the duty and
self-defence.
allegiance of her subjects, the Commons made
choice of the words necessary means to express the resistance that was made use of to bring about the Rev
? ? ? ? TO THEE OLD WHIGS. 125
olution, and with the condemning of which the Doctor
is charged by this article: not doubting but that the
honor and justice of that resistance, from the necessity
of that case, and to which alone we have strictly confined
ourselves, when duly considered, would confirm and strengthen * and be understood to. * N. e. imhe
be an effectual security of the allegiance of ples, that
the subject to the crown of this realm, in would be inevery other case where there is not the same reout thison
necessity; and that the right of the people
to self-defence, and preservation of their liberties, by resistance as their last remedy, is the result of a case of
such NECESSITY ONLY, and' by which the ORIGINAL
CONTRACT between king and people is broke. This was
the principle laid down and carried through all that was
said with respect to ALLEGIANCE; and on WHICH FO UNDATION, in the name and on the behalf of all the commons of Great Britain, we assert and justify that resistance by which the late happy Revolution was brought about. "
"It appears to your Lordships and the world, that
breaking the original contract between king and people
were the words made choice of by that House of Commons," (the House of Commons which originated the
Declaration of Right,) " with the greatest deliberation
and judgment, and approved of by your Lordships, in
that first and fundamental step made towards the reestablishment of the government, which had received so
great a shock from the evil counsels which had been
given to that unfortunate prince. "
Sir John Hawles, another of the managers, follows
the steps of his birethren, positively affirming the.
doctrine of non-resistance to government to be the
? ? ? ? 126 APPEAL FROM THE NEW
general moral, religious, and political rule for the
subject, and justifying the Revolution on the same
principle with Mr. Burke,- that is; as an exception
from necessity. Indeed, he carries the doctrine on
the general idea of non-resistance much further than
Mr. Burke has done, and full as far as it call perhaps be supported by any duty of perfect obligation,
however noble and heroic it may be in many cases to
suffer death rather than disturb the tranquillity of
our country.
Sir John Hawles. *
"Certainly it must be granted, that the doctrine
that commands obedience to the supreme power,
though in things contrary to Nature, even to suffer
death, which is the highest injustice that can be done
a man, rather than make an opposition to the supreme power [is reasonable -], because the death of
one or some few private persons is a less evil than
disturbing the whole government; that law must needs
be understood to forbid the doing or saying anytlling
to disturb the government, the rather because the
obeying that law cannot be pretended to be against
Nature: and the Doctor's refusing to obey that implicit law is the reason for. which he'is now prosecuted; though he would have it believed that the reason he is now prosecuted was for the doctrine he
asserted of obedience to the supreme power; which
he might have preached as long as he had pleased,
and the Commons would have taken no offence at it,
* Page 676.
t The words necessary to the completion of the sentence are wanting in the printed trial,- but the construction of the sentence, as well
as the foregoing part of the speech, justify the insertion of some such
supplemental words as the above.
? ? ? ? TO THE OLD WHIGS. 127
if he had stopped there, and not have taken upon
him, on that pretence or occasion, to have cast odious
colors upon the Revolution. "
General Stanhope was among the managers. He
begins his speech by a reference to the opinion of his
fellow-managers, which he hoped had put beyond all
doubt the limits and qualifications that the Commons
had placed to their doctrines concerning the Revolution; yet, not satisfied with this general reference, after condemning the principle of non-resistance,
which is asserted in the sermon without any exception,
and stating, that, under the specious pretence of
preaching a peaceable doctrine, Sacheverell and the
Jacobites meant, in reality, to excite a rebellion in
favor of the Pretender, he explicitly limits his ideas
of resistance with the boundaries laid down by his
colleagues, and by Mr. Burke.
General Stanhope.
"The Constitution of England is found- Rights of the
subject and
ed upon compact; and the subjects of this the crown
kingdom have, in their several public and equally legal.
private capacities, as legal a title to what are their
rights by law as a prince to the possession of his
crown.
"Your Lordships, and most that hear me, are witnesses, and must remember the necessities of those times which brought about the Revolution:
that no other remedy was left to preserve Justice of
resistance
our religion and liberties; that resistance founded on
was necessary, and consequently just. " necessity.
"HIad the Doctor, in the remaining part of his
sermon, preached up peace, quietness, and the like,
? ? ? ? 128 APPEAL FROM THE NEW
and shown how happy we are under her Majesty's
administration, and exhorted obedience to it, lie had
never been called to answer a charge at your Lordships' bar. But the tenor of all his subsequent discourse is one continued invective against the government. " Mr. Walpole (afterwards Sir Robert) was one of
the managers on this occasion. He was anll honorable
man and a sound Whig. He was not, as the Jacobites and discontented Whigs of his time have represented him, and as ill-informed people still represent
him, a prodigal and corrupt minister. They charged
him, in their libels and seditious conversations, as
having first reduced corruption to a system. Such
was their cant. But he was far from governing by
corruption. He governed by party attachments.
The charge of systematic corruption is less applicable
to him, perhaps, than to any minister who ever served
the crown for so great a length of time. He gained
over very few from the opposition. Without being a
genius of the first class, he was an intelligent, prudent, and safe minister. He loved peace, and he
helped to communicate the same disposition to nations at least as warlike and restless as that in which
he had the chief direction of affairs. Though he
served a master who was fond of martial fame, he
kept all the establishments very low. The land tax
continued at two shillings in the pound for the greater part of his administration. The other impositions
were moderate. The profound repose, the equal liberty, the firm protection of just laws, during the long
period of his power, were the principal causes of that
prosperity which afterwards took such rapid strides
? ? ? ? TO THE OLD WHIGS. 129
towards perfection, and which furnished to this nation ability to acquire the military glory which it has
since obtained, as well as to bear the burdens, the
cause and consequence of that warlike reputation.
With many virtues, public and private, he had his
faults; but his faults were superficial. A careless,
coarse, and over-familiar style of discourse, without
sufficient regard to persons or occasions, and an almost total want of political decorum, were the errors
by which he was most hurt in the public opinion,
and those through which his enemies obtained the:
greatest advantage over him. But justice must bedone. The prudence, steadiness, and vigilance of
that man, joined to the greatest possible lenity in his:
character and his politics, preserved the crown to this
royal family, and, with it, their laws and liberties to
this country. Walpole had no other plan of defence
for the Revolution than that of the other managers,
and of Mr. Burke; and he gives full as little countenance to any arbitrary attempts, on the part of restless and factious men, for framing new governments
according to their fancies.
Mr. Walpole.
"Resistance is nowhere enacted to be Caseofresistance out
legal, but subjected, by all the laws now in of the law,
and the
being, to the greatest penalties. 'T is what highest ofis not, cannot, nor ought ever to be described, or affirmed in any positive law, to be excusable; when, and upon what never-to-be-expected occasions, it may be exercised, no man can foresee; and ought never to be thought of, but when an utter subversion of the laws of the realm threatens the whole
frame of a Constitution, and no redress can otherwise
VOL. IV. 9
? ? ? ? 130 APPEAL FROM THE NEW
be hoped for. It therefore does and ought forever to
stand, in the eye and letter of the law, as the highest
offence. But because any man, or party of men, may
not, out of folly or wantonness, commit treason, or
make their own discontents, ill principles, or disguised affections to another interest, a pretence to
resist the supreme power, will it follow
Utmost ne- from thence that the utmost necessity ought
cessity justifies it. not to engage a nation in its own defence for
the preservation of the whole? "
Sir Joseph Jekyl was, as I have always heard and
believed, as nearly as any individual could be, the
very standard of Whig principles in his age. He was
a learned and an able man; full of honor, integrity,
and public spirit; no lover of innovation; nor disposed to change his solid principles for the giddy
fashion of the hour. Let us hear this Whig.
Sir Joseph Jekyl.
Commons do In clearing up and vindicating the jusnot state the
limits ofsub- tice of the Revolution, which was the secmission. ond thing proposed, it is far from the intent of the CQmmons to state the limits and bounds of the
subject's submission to the sovereign. That which
the law hath been wisely silent in, the Commons desire to be silent in too; nor will they put any ease
of a justifiable resistance, but that of the Revolution
only: and they persuade themselves that the doing right
to that resistance will be so far from promoting popular
license or confusion, that it will have a contrary effect,
and be a means of settling men's minds in the love of
To secure the and veneration for the laws; to rescue and
laws, the
only aim of secure which was the ONLY aim and inthe Revolution.
? tention of those concerned in that resistance. "
? ? ? TO THE OLD WHIGS. 131
Dr. Sacheverell's counsel defended him on this
principle, namely, --that, whilst he enforced from
the pulpit the general doctrine of non-resistance, he
was not obliged to take notice of the theoretic limits
which ought to modify that doctrine. Sir Joseph
Jekyl, in his reply, whilst he controverts its application to the Doctor's defence, fully admits and even enforces the principle itself, and supports the Revolution of 1688, as he and all the managers had done before, exactly upon the same grounds on which Mr.
Burke has built, in his Reflections on the French
Revolution.
Sir Joseph Jekyl.
"If the Doctor had pretended to have Blamableto
state the
stated the particular bounds and limits of bounds of
non-resistnon-resistance, and told the people in what ance.
cases they might or might not resist, he would have
been much to blame; nor was one word said in the
articles, or by the managers, as if that was
expected from him; but, on the contrary, we Resistance
lawful only
have insisted that in NO case can resistance in case of
extreme and
be lawful, but in case of EXTREME NECES- obvious necessity.
SITY, and where the Constitution can't other.
wise be preserved; and such necessity ought to be plain
and obvious to the sense and judgment of the whole nation: and this was the case at the Revolution. " The counsel for Doctor Sacheverell, in defending
their client, were driven in reality to abandon the
fundamental principles of his doctrine, and to confess that an exception to the general doctrine of passive obedience and non-resistance did exist in the
case of the Revolution. This the managers for the
? ? ? ? 132 APPEAL FROM THE NEW
Commons considered as having gained their cause,
as their having obtained the whole of what they contended for. They congratulated themselves and the
nation on a civil victory as glorious and as honorable
as any that had obtained in arms during that reign
ot triumphs.
Sir Joseph Jekyl, in his reply to Harcourt, and the
other great men who conducted the cause for the Tory side, spoke in the following memorable terms, distinctly stating the whole of what the Whig House of Commons contended for, in the name of all their
constituents.
Sir Joseph Jekyl.
Necessity " My Lords, the concessions" (the concescreates an
exception, sions of Sacheverell's counsel) " are these:
and the
Revolution That necessity creates an exception to the
a case of
necessity, general rule of submission to the prince;
the utmost
extent of that such exception is understoood or imthe demand
of the Com- plied in the laws that require such submismons.
sion; and that the case of the Revolution
was a case of necessity.
" These are concessions so ample, and do so fully
answer the drift of the Commons in this article, and
are to the utmost extent of their meaning in it, that
I can't forbear congratulating them upon this success of their impeachment,- that in full Parliament,
this erroneous doctrine of unlimited non-resistance is
given up and disclaimed. And may it not, in after
ages, be an addition to the glories of this bright
reign, that so many of those who are honored with
being in her Majesty's service have been at youi
Lordships' bar thus successfully contending for thE
national rights of her people, and proving they are
not precarious or remediless?
? ? ? ? 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.
