MASTER 
 NEGATIVE 
 
 NO. 93-81162 
 
MICROFILMED 1 993 
 
 COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES/NEW YORK 
 
 as part of the 
 "Foundations of Western Civilization Preservation Project" 
 
 Funded by the 
 NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES 
 
 Reproductions may not be made without permission from 
 
 Columbia University Library 
 
COPYRIGHT STATEMENT 
 
 The copyright law of the United States - Title 17, United 
 States Code - concerns the making of photocopies or 
 other reproductions of copyrighted material. 
 
 Under certain conditions specified in the law, libraries and 
 archives are authorized to furnish a photocopy or other 
 reproduction. One of these specified conditions is that the 
 photocopy or other reproduction is not to be "used for any 
 purpose other than private study, scholarship, or 
 research." If a user makes a request for, or later uses, a 
 photocopy or reproduction for purposes in excess of "fair 
 use," that user may be liable for copyright infringement. 
 
 This institution reserves the right to refuse to accept a 
 copy order If, in Its judgement, fulfillment of the order 
 would involve violation of the copyright law. 
 
A UTHOR : 
 
 WARD, ROBERT PLUMER 
 
 TITLE: 
 
 AN HISTORICAL ESSAY 
 ON THE REAL... 
 
 PLACE: 
 
 LONDON 
 
 DA TE : 
 
 1838 
 
X 
 
 COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES 
 PRESERVATION DEPARTMENT 
 
 BTBLTOGRAPHIC MICROFORM TARGET 
 
 Master Negative # 
 
 9^ S^/fiZ-9 
 
 Original Material as Filmed - Existing Bibliographic Record 
 
 Restrictions on Use: 
 
 |942.067 
 Ti721 
 
 Ward, Robert Plumer, l'6o-1846. ^ ^^^ amount 
 
 An lustorical essay on the ^^1 <5narat ^^^ 
 
 of the precedent of the ^^e^'oJ^Jion of lb»S^ i ^^^^ 
 
 opinions of Mackintosh Price Hall^^^^^^ ^^^ ^.^.^^ ^^ 
 
 John Russell, Blackstone^ Burk^ ana i^^^ ^.^.^^^^^ ^^^. 
 
 Of Lord Russell, and 
 
 fiVcTdecree. /"^ 
 
 1. Gt. Brit— Hist.— V / 
 
 Library of Congress 
 
 Revolution of 1688. 
 DA43S.W26 
 
 2—24302 
 
 FILM SIZE: 
 
 IMAGE PLACEMENT: lA i\k IB IIB 
 
 DATE FILMED: l:^A INITIALS 
 
 FILMED BY: RESEARCH PUBLICATIONS. INC WOODBRIDGE. CT 
 
 TECHNICAL MICROFORM DATA 
 REDUCTION RATIO:__j[A1 
 
BIBLIOGIIAPHIC iiUlEG U L ARITIES 
 
 MAIN 
 
 enYry . toftiDj e^ygr ptOMiR . 
 
 Bibliogtaphic Irregula rities in the Original Document 
 
 List volumes and pages affected; include name of institution if filming borrowed text. 
 
 V P age(8) missing/not available : UOLOnt 1 j f^dJS ^"10 
 
 ^VolumesCs) missing/not available: 
 
 .Illegible and/ or damaged page(s):. 
 
 PageCs) or volumesCs) misnumbered:. 
 
 * 
 
 Bound out of sequence: 
 
 .Page(8) or illustraUonCs) filmed from copy borrowed from: 5lW?Wb OH }^NX^ft}f 
 
 Other: 
 
VOLUME 1 
 
FILMED IN WHOLE 
 OR PART FROM A 
 COP Y B ORRO WED 
 
 FROM 
 
 STANFORD 
 
 UNIVERSITY 
 
c 
 
 V 
 
 Association for Information and Image INanagement 
 
 1100 Wayne Avenue, Suite 1100 
 Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 
 
 301/587-8202 
 
 Centimeter 
 
 1 
 
 mi 
 
 iiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiil 
 
 8 
 
 'TT 
 
 Inches 
 
 1 1 1 I 
 
 ¥fmfFf 
 
 liiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiii 
 
 10 n 12 13 14 15 mm 
 
 .0 
 
 1.25 
 
 I I i I I I 
 
 3 
 
 I I I 
 
 IjmlmjlM^^ 
 
 4.5 
 
 2.8 
 
 ^ m 
 
 ■ 6.3 
 
 - Ill 3.6 
 
 180 
 
 I.I I 
 
 4.0 
 
 G^lbia, 
 
 1.4 
 
 2.5 
 
 2.2 
 
 2.0 
 
 1.8 
 
 1.6 
 
 MRNUFflCTURED TO flllM STflNDfiRDS 
 BY APPLIED IMRGE, INC. 
 
•.*•■ \«i*i«:*»^«« -:"t^"''^*~-!^**.s»?V^y*. -^.•►•••>-»P-«r.'' 
 
 . T^ -vv- •• --r"*»**- —'^ '■• V->-- 
 
 ^«^ 
 
 
 :t.-*^ 
 
 
 
 
 V *^5*~'.v 
 
 
 .*^:T^iS 
 
 
 
 iKfi: 
 
 i.^«w*iM«/^ • - • .m.».k4«^«*^^««^» 
 
 ^•«»««>f*%"«^».<*<.VM'^vt i -«• Ala^J*!^ 
 
THE LIBRARIES 
 
\ 
 
 ; 
 
 AN 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY, 
 
 &c. 
 
 VOL. L 
 
 :s 
 
 5Uf-. 
 
London : 
 
 Printed by A. Spottiswoodk, 
 New-Street-Square. 
 
 AN 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY 
 
 ON ' 
 
 ^THE REAL CHARACTER AND AMOUNT OF THE 
 
 PRECEDENT 
 
 OF) 
 
 THE REVOLUTION OF 1688 : 
 
 '^IN WHICH THE OEINIONS OF 
 
 MACKINTOSH, PRICE, HALLAM, MR. FOX, LORD JOHN RUSSELL, 
 
 BLACKSTONE, BURKE, AND LOCKE, 
 
 THE TRIAL OF LORD RUSSELL, AND THE MERITS 
 
 OF SIDNEY, 
 
 ARE CRITICALLY CONSIDERED. 
 A.DDREISED TO 
 
 THE RIGHT HONOURABLE CHARLES WILLIAMS WYNN, 
 
 M.P. FOR MONTGOMERYSHIRE. / 
 
 BY R! PLUMER ward, ''eSQ. 
 
 AUTHOR OP ** TREMAINE. 
 
 n 
 
 Opinionum coinmenta delet dies. 
 Natural ;iidicn» c<}nfinijat/ >/: " 
 
 4 / • • ■:) » J t • • 
 
 ••* ••» 
 
 « * 1 > > 1 •> 
 
 Vol. I. 
 
 
 ■J y i 1 
 
 > J a J 1 lit 
 
 J > 
 
 » » • . 
 
 ^ • .J 
 • • • > t 
 
 JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET. 
 
 MDCCCXXXVIII. 
 
\ 
 
 ^ 
 
 e.!e^ 
 
 PREFATORY REMARKS. 
 
 58571 
 
 29FEB'84 
 
 
 f c 
 
 I t 
 
 I « I 
 • I 
 
 < t 
 
 % » 
 
 • k , • 
 
 • J • I » » » 
 
 • , % % * » 
 
 > I 
 
 « ( 
 
 • ft 
 t 
 f « • 
 
 t « 
 
 I 
 
 • * 
 
 * 1 
 
 •'I 
 
 4 ^ 
 
 • • • 
 
 • » t * I • 
 
 * » .1 
 
 • » • 
 
 *{} 
 
 I COULD have wished that the following work 
 had been cast in a different form, for perhaps 
 its most interesting parts, if any are interesting, 
 will be found in the Appendix, and an ap- 
 pendix, except with a view to mere reference, 
 
 _ is seldom read. Yet the work being in the. 
 
 (|. form of an almost continuous narration, or, at 
 least, of a letter to the enlightened friend to 
 whom it is addressed, I could not conve- 
 niently stop its current, to make an excursion 
 into a criticism of the tenets of Mr. Fox, or 
 Locke, or the guilt or innocence of Lord 
 Russell. Yet these, perhaps, are the most 
 important and interesting parts of the whole 
 volume, and I beseech the reader's attention 
 to them accordingly. 
 
 While this work is printing, the news of 
 the events in Canada is arrived. All we can 
 
, VI 
 
 PREFATORY REMARKS. 
 
 say of it is, that if there wanted the most 
 complete example of the dangers, in practice, 
 of the precepts which we have been com- 
 bating, eminently of those respecting the re- 
 formatory revolt broached by Sir James 
 Mackintosh, it is here supplied to our hand. 
 
 Gilston Park, Dec. 30. 1837. 
 
 The Author. 
 
 CONTENTS 
 
 OF 
 
 THE FIRST VOLUME, 
 
 Page 
 
 SECTION L 
 
 The Right of Resistance 
 
 . 13 
 
 SECTION II, 
 
 Of the Sovereignty of the People, and the Social Compact. 126 
 
 SECTION III. 
 
 Revolution of I688 
 
 SECTION IV. 
 
 Character of the Revolution 
 
 . 146 
 
 - 180 
 
 SECTION V. 
 
 March of the Revolution after the Retirement of James - 245 
 
 /: 
 
AN 
 
 (•* 
 
 ERRATA. 
 
 Vol. L 
 
 Page 1. line 5. for " who admires," read « whom I admi^ for.'' 
 
 63. to « This was the head and front of the offence, add 
 
 «* as contained in the petition." 
 QQ. last line,/or "judicial," read ** executive." 
 67. line 16. f(yr « as,' read « an." 
 84. line 13. /or <* Fivirden," read « Twisden. ^^ 
 
 88. line 8. of note, f(yr ^« indicted," read ** tried. 
 
 89. line 11. for « treason," read ** evidence.|j 
 128. line 9. a/j?er *< reason," add « against it." 
 363. line 22. for "Whig," read " Whigs." 
 
 91 ? line 8. f(yr " this," read " his." , , . . 
 
 285." line 9. /or "his precious father-in-law," r^ "his son's 
 precious father-in-law." 
 
 Vol. II. 
 
 Paee 87. line 23. f(yr " daring attempting," read « daring to attempt." 
 74. line 2. for *« republicanism,*' read « democracy. 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY, 
 
 &C. &C. 
 
 My dear Sir, 
 
 As an old friend, a friend in public and in private, 
 with whom on questions the most stirring, and vital 
 to the security of society, when most old friends are 
 divided, I believe I have the good fortune mainly to 
 agree; and more particularly as a friend whom I 
 admire for your correct and deep knowledge of the 
 Constitution, and the firmness you have always 
 shown in defending it, perhaps I may be excused for 
 addressing you on some of the points of dispute, 
 which, after a century and a half's seeming settle- 
 ment, appear in our ill-fated Country to be more 
 unsettled, or, at least, more agitated, than ever. 
 
 What I particularly advert to, are those, what I 
 may call Revolutionary principles, which among all 
 ranks, in all places, and at all times — among men, 
 women, and children, morning, noon, and night — are 
 debated with more or less acrimony, (but generally 
 
 VOL. I. 
 
 B 
 
( 
 
 2 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 A^ith a great deal,) producing divisions among friends 
 and families, setting sons against fathers, and making 
 fathers wish their sons had never been born ; which 
 seem at present to be undermining all the happy 
 securities of life, and 
 
 « fright the Isle from her propriety." 
 
 One would have thought that all the dangerous 
 and visionary theories in regard to the origin ot 
 Governments ; the rights of kings, whether supposed 
 divine and indefeasible, or derived by election from 
 the people ; the right of resistance and insurrection 
 at the will of that people, and their power to f ny and 
 to punish sovereigns, as the French Assembly did by 
 Louis XVI, and as it was supposed that we did by 
 Charles I. ;-one would have thought, I say, that 
 all these questions, and the nature of the much- 
 abused term, the Sovereignty of the People, had long 
 been set at rest, and buried in the graves of those 
 who agitated them with so much ability and zeal on 
 
 both sides. ^ . . , 
 
 I certainly never expected, after the miseries and 
 atrocities of the French Revolution had spent their 
 force, and men had recovered from the dehnum 
 which had blinded them, and put the abuse of liberty 
 to shame, that the rash and daring prmciples of 
 Payne, Price, and others, of a right under the law, 
 or from history, to « choose our own governors, to 
 cashier them for misconduct, and to frame a govern- 
 ment for ourselves,"- that these principles should be 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 3 
 
 revived, and preached, and acted upon, or at least 
 recommended, as the kilown and admitted axioms of 
 the Constitution. 
 
 Yet the question of our great and happy Revo- 
 lution seems "never ending, still beginning;" and 
 there are not wanting high, and respectable names, 
 adorned with scholarship and research, and invul- 
 nerable to any reproach of factious, or rebellious 
 designs, as well as others to which the contrary may 
 be evidently imputed, which- advocate and dis- 
 seminate these dangerous doctrines. 
 
 Used and acted upon as they are, by the mis- 
 chievous and restless spirit which pervades most 
 ranks, and is, unhappily, rather encouraged than 
 resisted by those v/ho ought to know better, they 
 tend most markedly, and therefore most unhappily, 
 to unsettle all hope or expectation of again seeing the 
 sunshine of quiet in these agitated realms. 
 
 Am I wrong in saying those who should know 
 better^ when a man of accomplished mind and su- 
 perior mould, — a man believed by all to be the soul 
 of honour, and distinguished by education and ability 
 as much as by birth, rank, and fortune, — when such 
 a man, a peer, and Prime Minister,, proclaimed from 
 his place in parliament, that the bishops should put 
 their houses in order ; meaning (for that was the 
 clear inference,) that otherwise they should surely 
 die ; and when the same person held, that he was not 
 a wise man who did not legislate in the spirit of the 
 times, that spirit, at least in great numbers, being, as 
 
 B 2 
 
 i 
 
 ^ ( 
 
( 
 
 I 
 
 4 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 ^ know, the destruction of the Church, and the 
 subversion of the Constitution. 
 
 It \i in vain that this eminent poi-son, or \m friends 
 for him, say, that when he uttered these very faulty 
 maxims, he did not beUcve such to be the sp.nt he 
 
 alluded to. . , . . ^ 
 
 The maxim was general, and had it been pursued, 
 
 he must have abided all consequences. 
 
 Whether, if he held an opinion of its innocency 
 when he broached it, he holds it now, is a question 
 vhich may be answered by his having felt forced by 
 principle, and real fears for a country he loves, to 
 abandon the helm, and with it probably the doctrmc 
 
 '^ Vc ought, Uiercfore, to respect him for honour's 
 
 But there are otbens whose conduct, as well as 
 political preaching, rt>.embk^ the infatuation of sonic 
 men, who will not believe in the reality of an earth- 
 quake, until they are buricKl in its ruins. 
 
 Those hold tenets which they call and believe to 
 be constitutional law, and which, especially m tunes 
 such as T have described, might and may lead to 
 con^.quenccs so disastrous, tliat you will possibly 
 excuse me if I invite you to a consideration of the 
 OTOunds of their opinions- / 
 
 1 am the more impeUed to this from the cir- 
 cumstance that some of them are men, who from 
 their abilities and tlieir genius, their learning and 
 their accomplishments, are 6t to be regarded as 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 5 
 
 no inconsiderable authorities on the side they have 
 taken. 
 
 At the head of these I should place a person, 
 whom, I believe, both of us admired, when alive, as 
 an eloquent rhetorician, philosophic writer, and 
 amiable man, though we might not follow hira 
 through half the conclusions he has ventured upon, 
 in llie course of a long and busy life, valuable to 
 letters and to ethical, if not to political science. 
 
 You will perhaps at once perceive, that I allude 
 to the late Sir James Mackintosh. 
 
 His last work, ** the History of the Revolution of 
 168B," ha-s been perused by me with all that deference 
 and interest, which any work of his must always 
 conmiand. Never was a fuller mind, or i)oured out 
 with more facility, warmth, or energy on any subject 
 he chose to embrace; but more particularly that 
 which had enijacced and absorbed his earliest at- 
 tention, and touched and elevated his youthful con* 
 ceptions to a degree which never subsided, (as we 
 see by the work before us,) though advanced to, what 
 may be called, old age* 
 
 I mean the principles of that strong, vehement, and 
 eloquent Ebullition, which first made him known to 
 fame, and which all must admire, though few may 
 approve* 
 
 1 he Vindicfar <hUm iWsod ^1 c^tr W re^ « 
 a first-rate pro^ccoea ^ |y ii ii » bo^ nc f it W99 be 
 blamed for raaj^ loi vlki tWtfir^ s»d ts m ckifoc* 
 of errors in pi%(Ctef^ Iwirtr^ t* kantci wkkk IM 
 
 m 
 
if I 
 
 IM 
 
 g HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 subsequent advantages could ever compensate, much 
 
 Ipss excuse* 
 
 These principles, or at least the defence of many 
 of their consequences, were afterwards, we are told, 
 abandoned by him, or ceased to be brought forward 
 as his ruling motives of action in his brilliant career 
 On one eminent occasion, indeed, (the defence ot 
 Peltier for a libel upon Buonaparte,) the crimes 
 of the principal instigators of the Revolution were 
 blazoned and held up to just detestation, with a 
 fervour as well as depth, which few could equal, none 
 exceed ; and, but for the publication in question, 1, 
 for one, should have been happy to think that the 
 dangerous, and, as I think, untenable principles of 
 the Vindiciae Gallicae had been fairly and sincerely 
 
 recanted. 
 
 But, it seems, this is not so. ^ 
 
 In the history of our Revolution, many of the 
 do-mas which governed and caused that of France, 
 are°not only upheld, but impressed with undisguised 
 force, as truths in political science not to be disputed ; 
 and the all-engrossing, all-reaching, mahenable ^^. 
 responsible power of X^e people, (that nondescript and 
 ill-defined class of beings,) who, without being con- 
 trolled themselves, are to control every one else, 
 (even the laws and constitution, and of course their 
 sovereign,) this power is not only given them, but 
 every use of it defended, and the impossibility of an 
 abuse of it demonstrated ; so that while the tyranny 
 of the most tyrannous despots is made to fall before 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 7 
 
 them, a tyranny exceeding all despotism is exercised 
 by them, as lawful, justifiable, and not to be resisted. 
 We are told that kings can do no wrong. But 
 here the maxim is reversed : kings may be dethroned, 
 and killed, (for war may be waged against them,) 
 while the people (because people) must be always 
 right, just, and innocent. These, from what I am 
 able to collect from his work, are \he principles of the 
 British Constitution, professed and supported by our 
 accomplished, but surely mistaken friend. I do not 
 mean, that in so many words he has laid down the 
 positions I have detailed; but, from many direct 
 assertions, and many plain inferences from the pro 
 positions he holds, such are the opinions to be 
 collected. 
 
 For in various examples. 
 
 We collect how little in reality the visions of 
 the Vindiciae Gallicae, in regard to the absolute 
 despotism of whatever is meant by the mystic term 
 people, — 
 
 « Monstrum horrendum, informe, ingens, cui lumen ademptum,** 
 
 — how little this has been sobered down by ao-e, or 
 qualified by experience. 
 
 Of this we shall have abundant proofs, as well as 
 what beautiful theories may be erected, fair to the 
 eye, yet based upon such sandy foundations as cannot 
 for a moment stand the touch of the practical states- 
 man. 
 
 *B 4 
 
 II 
 
"'./^ 
 
 V •■3 
 
 !-4 
 
 . \ 
 
 i .^ 
 
 8 
 
 IllbTOKlCAL i:SSAV. 
 
 As a proof. 
 
 Weigh the consequences of the following sentencej^ 
 against tlie specious language in which thev are con- 
 veyed : — 
 
 ^* It nuist be owned that in civilized limes niarikind 
 have sull'ered less from a nuitinous spirit, than from a 
 patient endurance o^ had govcrnmmt'^ 
 
 Is this proved by the Revolution of France, or the 
 civil war in England ? 
 
 Again. " A nation mayjustly make war for the 
 honour of her flag, or for dominion over a rock, if 
 the one be insulted, and the other unjustly invaded. 
 But if these sometimes faint and remote dangers justify 
 an appeal to arms, shall it be blamed in a people who 
 have no other chance of vindicatiiiir the ritrht to 
 ^vorship God according to their consciences, to be 
 exempt from imprisonment and exaction at the mere 
 Avill and pleasure of one, or a few ; to enjoy as per- 
 fect a security for their persons, for i\\L\frce iwcrcise of 
 their industry, and for the undisturbed enjoyment of 
 its fvuils, as can he devised hj human xeisdoni under 
 equal laws and a pure administration ofjustice?"* 
 
 Thus, because every person in a nation has not as 
 j)erfect sccurifij as can he devised hij human irisdom for 
 the free exercise of his religion and industry, he may 
 inunediately take arms; and parliamentary taxes, 
 ';yhich are imposed by a comparative few, and the 
 
 * Hist. Kevol. vol. ii. p. 5U Paris edit. 
 
 
 S 
 
 i 
 
 If 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 It. 
 
 if 
 
 *■ 
 
 I 
 I 
 
 Si 
 
 I 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 ff 
 
 INTllODUCTION. y 
 
 restrictions upon trade by apprcnticesJiip, or tJie navi- 
 gation or revenue laws, justHy revolt .' 
 
 If these are Sir James's notices, what \s-onder if 
 lus Continuator bringing his history to perfection, 
 and talknig of a forcible resistance to oijpression, 
 Jiolds that the latofulness of it constitutes the main 
 strength of every opposition to mis-government I* 
 
 Here the very thin veil, which had hitherto perhaps 
 disguised the full extent of the doctrine, seems to be 
 dropped, and the lavfulness of forcible resistance 
 (that IS, a right under the Constitution,) is pro- 
 claimed in unequivocal terms. 
 
 Reason, prudence, moral necessity, natural self- 
 defence against unbearable illegal oppression, are 
 departed from as too undefined and ambiguous autho- 
 rity: and it is boldly assumed that 7ms-r/ovemmcnt sim- 
 ply, (which by no means implies either oppression or 
 illegal usurpation,) will Zat^/«% justify rebellion. 
 
 This principle is carried still farther by Sir James 
 himself, which we shall see more at large when we 
 come to examine his doctrine of what he calls A Ur.- 
 FOUMATORY Revolt ; meaning that although the 
 sovereign power, wherever it may reside, be adminis- 
 tered according to law, yet if it resti-ain liberty in the 
 opinion of those subjected to it, they may rise in 
 arms to obtain an rxtmsion of it. 
 
 Though far from going to such lengths, yet in the 
 doctrine of the right of resistance generally,' he seems 
 
 * Hist. Rcvol. vol. ii. p. . 
 *B 5 
 
 ■•■- Si 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 m^ 
 
 
 -< *• 
 
 ,.- ■■ . 
 
 >^ 
 
 
 
 
 
 'i' 
 
 •. - 
 
 --- .■ 
 
 ' ?.:i 
 
 ' '.■ 
 
 -V- 
 
 i-f '."->' 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 fr 
 
 
 
 
 '■ ^ -i 
 
 
 -^ 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 j^g' 
 
 
 -^ 
 
 
 
 
 -■-" 
 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 1 
 
 IP: 
 
 ft;*.- 
 
 ■'X 
 
 y 
 
 « 
 
 
 I 
 
 > 
 
 Hs-jt' !■ 
 
 
 ?W 
 
 
 ,;^->*sr; 
 
 i 
 
 
 .'"*' ' '' --ai /J"« n il . ; ii jt !f uni Mi j > ,.^ f 1^ .TV* j^i 'iii iiU I. J, ii ^ pwi ji > '»■ 
 
 
 ?V*J 
 
 "^*, 
 
 ■*rj^- 
 
 :ir. 
 
 
'.^J^ w« ' 
 
 4 
 
 !"--' , ><-i^- 
 
 
 1 
 
 ^ 
 
 1 
 
 ^ 
 
 10 
 
 HlSTOniCAI, ESSAY. 
 
 supported by tlio lucubrations of another vcrv emi- 
 iiciit but more sober asserter of this great privih^ije 
 of llie people; and tlie wildiiess about mis-froveni- 
 nieiit, (at least if I read hiin rioht,) seems carried so 
 far, that even \vhat may be thought unwise policy in 
 foieign alliiirs, tliougli unaccompanied l)y oppression, 
 may be a reason for revolution. 
 
 Yet ISlw Hallam is so fair and moderate in his 
 opinions, so deep in liis researches, and so generally 
 correct, that possibly I niay have mistaken him. 
 
 I, however, understand one of his reasons for the 
 expulsion of James to be, the impossihiUfu of Ids ever 
 being persuaded to join the lear/uc of Aitfjshvrr/ arjainst 
 Louis XIV, 
 
 England's natural position, says he, would be to 
 become a leading member of that confederacy. 
 
 Ikit Jjunes's prejudices opposed. "It was there- 
 fore the main object of the Prince of Orange to 
 strengthen the alliance, by the vigorous co-operation 
 of this kingdom ; and xoith no other view^ the emperor 
 and even the pope had abetted his undcrtahinf/ . 
 
 "Both with respect, therefore, to the Prince of 
 Orange and to the Knglish nation, James was to be 
 considered as an enemy, whose resentment could 
 never be appeased, and whose power consequently/ must 
 he wholhj taken axeayT 
 
 I do not mean to say that in these passages, had 
 there been no other cause for taking arms by his sub- 
 jects, Mr. Hallam asserts, riiat James might have been 
 lecjitiniatehj attacked ; but, at least, it should seem that 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 I 
 
 1 
 
 ■^ 
 
 I 
 
 V 
 
 li. 
 
 \ 
 
 \ 
 
 INTIlODUCnON. 
 
 11 
 
 l)is foreign policy entered far into the leasons f^jr 
 driving the Itevolution to the extremities that ensued. 
 
 Ihe object of die insurrection might possibly have • 
 been satisfied with less than dediroiiement; but the 
 continental politics of William, according to Mr. 
 Hallam, made it necessary to force on that cata- 
 strophe. 
 
 The emperor and the pope are said in terms to 
 have abetted the enterprise that was to produce the 
 llevolution,y/'om no other vicic : and thus a dilference 
 of opinion on foreign politics between a king and his 
 subjects, may be made one of the reasons, at least, that 
 justify insurrection. 
 
 Do not these loose speculations, both of Mr. Hallam 
 and Mackintosh (with proper and sincere deference 
 to them both, be it said), make us recalwith more re- 
 spect than ever the sound sentiment of Burke : " no 
 government could stand a moment if it could be blown 
 down with anything so loose and indefinite as an 
 opinion of misconduct." 
 
 Before, however, we'proceed to examine tlie several 
 specific conclusions, drawn from the specific facts 
 which occur in the History, it may be convenient to 
 canvass the subject as Sir James treats it in an ex- 
 press chapter on the " Doctrine of Obedience, and 
 llight of Resistance.'' 
 
 Such is its formidable title.* 
 
 I shall therefore, with your permission, divide what 
 
 * Mcickintosli's History of llic Revolution of 1G88, rliap. x. 
 
 B 6 
 
 *i':^ 
 
 /i<i^- 
 
 # 
 
 V^A 
 
 I 
 
 
 x 
 
 'y^r'^'^ ^ m ?.* > :. *-;•—» 
 
 
 •'•'"*^w«? 
 
 \r 
 
 : 
 
 
 
X 
 
 3 
 I 
 
 12 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY* 
 
 I have to trouble you witli, on what may be called tho 
 law of the case, into three sections. 
 
 I. As to the general proposition of the Right of 
 Resistance at the pleasure of the people, and the cases 
 when that right may be exercised. 
 
 II. As to the famous question of the Sovereignty 
 of the People itself; and as to their supposed compact 
 with their rulers. 
 
 III. As to the exact amount and force of the his- 
 torical precedent afforded by the Revolution of 1688, 
 and tho doctrines raised upon its various incidents. 
 
 To these I may beg to add two more on the cha- 
 racter of the Revolution, and n the means by which 
 it wa« brought about, with a view to ascertain 
 whedier the glory ascribed to it as an example of the 
 principles of plnlosophical liberty brought into prao 
 lice is really deserved. 
 
 In doing this I know full well the boldness of my 
 uiidertakiiig;_what difficulties, what opposition, what 
 prejudices I shall have to encounter; how little likely 
 I am to succeed ; how little popular the endeavour, if 
 I do. But as my opinion is not one of yesterday; as 
 it has been pondered for years, and has only been 
 confinned by the observation of a life neidier short 
 nor passed in ignorance of public affiiirs; as, in fine, 
 my object is uuth, and my sentiments sincere, I wjlJ 
 not shrink from tlie task. 
 
 / 
 
 19 
 
 SECTION L 
 
 TU£ RIGHT OF RESISTANCE. 
 
 With regard to this first question, we must agree 
 with Sir James, that it is what he has called it, " a 
 iremauloit;> prcMetHi which, though it requires the 
 calmest exercise of reason to solve, the circumstances 
 which bring it forward commonly call forth mightier 
 agents, which disturb and overpower tlie action of the 
 understanding/* 
 
 It should seem, then, that in the outset^ he an- 
 nounces at least very serious difficulty, if not despair, 
 of ever bringing it to a satisfactory conclusion even 
 in tlieory, much more in practice. 
 
 He allows tliat ^^ in conjunctures so awful, men 
 feel more than tliey reason ;*^ diat the duty of Aya/ 
 obedience seems to forbid that appeal lo arms, which 
 the necessity of preserving law and liberty allotcsy or 
 ratlier demands. In such a conflict^ therefore, he says, 
 ** tJiere « little quiet left for moral deliberatioiu** 
 
 Little, indeed ; so little, I should say, tliat it had 
 been better, perhaps, to have left the subject un- 
 
 {. 
 
 '• 
 
 k • 
 
 I 
 
14 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT* !• 
 
 BECT. I. 
 
 TUB RIGHT OF RESISTANCE. 
 
 15 
 
 touched, as one upon which the attempt were vain to 
 prescribe beforehand rule3 of moral conduct, in case^ 
 which must necessarily be exceptions to all ndes. 
 
 To your }>enetration and logical mind I nee<l not 
 point out the difficulty, I might say impossibility, 
 of reconciling the late of obedience to the duty of 
 taking arms for the preservation of law. 
 
 This is a confusion of terms which 1 own it is beyond 
 me to unravel, though I am very willing to suppose 
 what is meant, that there is a coiifliciion of duties — 
 on one side* thednty of obeying the laws of the land, 
 whatever they may be ; on the other, that of obeying 
 moral exi)ediency, or the general precepts of- reason 
 and Justice, sliould the laws of the laud be not 
 conformable to them. 
 
 Which of tliese is the superior, so as to extinguish 
 the other, he leaves no doubt in the following pas- 
 
 sages. 
 
 ♦* That there are some duties superior to others will 
 be denied by no one ; and tliat when a contest arises, 
 the superior ought to prevail, is implied in tlic terms 
 by which the duties are described. It can hardly be 
 doubted that the highest obligation of a citizen is 
 that of contributing to preseiTe the community, and 
 that every other political duty, even tliat of obedience 
 to Hie moffistratesy is derived from, and must be sub- 
 ordinate to it*'* 
 
 Of these simple truths there can be no doubt : but 
 observe the use he makes of them. **lt is a necessarv 
 consequence, (says he,) that no man who deems self 
 
 dvfrnce lawful in his own case, can by any engagement 
 bind himsi*lf not to defend his country against foreign 
 or domestic enemies/' 
 
 The blending of foreign and domestic enemies is 
 here skilfully introduced, because it sliould seem that 
 it meant, generally, enemies^ without particularising 
 their characters; and the proposition would therefore 
 pass without controversy. But we soon see wlmt his 
 true meaning (thus adroitly disguised) is, and that 
 by domestic enemies is designated a king. "For oaths,'' 
 he goes on to say, " to renounce the defence of our 
 country, were coiisidered as binding till the violent 
 collisions of such pretended obligations with the secu^ 
 rity of aU rights and institzttians, awakened the national 
 mind to a sense of their repugnance to the first prin- 
 ciples of morality/* 
 
 Do we not here at once detect the sophister, adroit 
 as he is? For myself I profess my profound igno- 
 rance; and I ask of your far greater stores of infoi*ma- 
 tion, to point out to me any oath recorde<l in our 
 history as binding men to rowume the defence ofthdr 
 country? Tlic search for such an oath, I am con- 
 vinced would be vain. But the search for tlie mean- 
 ing and motives of the assertion will not cost us a hmh 
 ment. The fallacy is unworthy so great a dialectician 
 as Sir James. By renouncing the defence of our coun- 
 try, is as plainly nu^anit im if llii» wumU Wi>ri* |irlntpd (|i 
 capital letters, ilii* oiitli whioh no himmt tnun I tiiiM 
 would refuse, rononni*!n^ tho lawriiihenii u( niioiuK 
 against our sMv»n'i|{ii nimply^ (uul fnfhout (oty ^VHop 
 
 H 
 
/ 
 
 16 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. * 
 
 SECT, I, 
 
 SECT. T. 
 
 THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE. 
 
 17 
 
 of words that may denote him a tyrant. Without such 
 addition, I own I look in vain to discover how such 
 an oath can be a pretended obligation, in collision 
 " with all our rights and institutions.*' 
 
 Yet it is thus he treats this oath. — " Maxims so 
 artificial and overstrained^ which have no more root 
 in nature than they have warrant from reason, must 
 always fail in a contest against the affections, sen- 
 timents, habits, and interests, which are the motives 
 of human conduct, leaving little more than compassionate 
 indulgence to the small number who conscientiously cling 
 to tltem.^^ 
 
 So then ! in the opinion of this great Whig light, 
 and certainly highly cultivated man, an oath not to 
 bear arms against your lawful Sovereign, that Sove- 
 reign, in the terms of the oath at least, not said to be 
 stained by any act, or any design against his people, 
 is an oath, to renounce the defence of your country, 
 and springing from maxims artificial and overstrained^ 
 having no more root in nature than warrant from 
 reason ; and the small number of honest fools who 
 conscientiously cling to this expression of their alle- 
 giance, are to be treated with compassionate indul- 
 gence. 
 
 Thanking Sir James for his compassion, let us ask 
 where were his scruples when he took the oath of 
 allegiance, as I dare say he often did, and swore he 
 would be true and faithful to his Majesty. 
 
 If true and faithful, could he rise in insurrection 
 against him? and if he swore to allegiance, could 
 
 t 
 
 there be any objection to swear that he would not 
 take arms against him to whom it was due ? 
 
 Had the oath indeed swore, in so many words, that 
 a man would not defend himself though illegally at- 
 tacked by the government^ the justice of the inculpation, 
 by the learned jurist and historian, would be admitted, 
 without comment ; but as the oath implies that the 
 resistance foresworn is only against lawful commands, 
 I am lost in wonder that any man, not an actual rebel? 
 much more that a man so versed in the nature of laws, 
 should have broached such opinions, which, but for 
 the name of the author, would need no refutation. 
 
 But he rests his proposition upon the right of self- 
 defence, which alone, he says, (and says properly,) is 
 the justification of foreign war, and may, and will 
 therefore justify taking arms in a war at home. To 
 take arms against the king may therefore be in defence 
 of your country, which by the oath you renounce. 
 
 But is that so ? Or is the oath not to attack the 
 king, the same as not to defend yourself if illegally 
 attacked ? 
 
 This I am yet to learn ; but this I have learned, 
 that these are thorny questions, which, admitting of 
 no general solution, are most unnecessary, and can tend 
 to no possible good, while they may practically do 
 much harm. 
 
 A sovereign whom one law tells you not to oppose, 
 and another law tells you not to obey, denotes, if not 
 a contradiction, at least so difficult a problem, and 
 such a collision of contrary forces, that it is very 
 
f 
 
 18 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. I. 
 
 SECT. I. 
 
 THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE. 
 
 19 
 
 wantonness to call for a discussion of them, unless 
 driven to it by the necessity of the case; and in a 
 time like the present, when there is any thing but an 
 attempt on the sovereign's part^ to overturn the laws, 
 such discussion, it should seem, is futile and gratuitous, 
 as well as dangerous to tranquillity. 
 
 Those, however, who wished to overturn the king, 
 but who are unhappily deprived, by his moderation 
 and respect for the laws, and the mildness and justice 
 of his reign, of all power to demonstrate that mis- 
 government which Sir James holds a %aZ justification 
 of rebellion, — those will gladly hail the discussion we 
 have deprecated, and insist upon proving what they 
 call the people's right to act as if they were perpetually 
 in extreme cases ; although as to oppression, it is evi- 
 dent, spite of bawling, there is no case at all. 
 
 The impossibility of ever laying down before-hand 
 a general rule, for what, as I have observed, must 
 always be beyond, and therefore an exception to all 
 rule, is, I think, a stumbling-block at the threshold 
 of the attempt, which even so excellent a sophister as 
 Sir James, in his delightful vision of metaphysical 
 liberty, cannot get over. 
 
 If he laid down boldly and fairly at once, (which I 
 must do him the justice to say he pretty nearly does,) 
 that although there may be rules and regulations for 
 conduct which men may agree to pursue as long as it 
 suits them, but that there are no such things as laws 
 binding them beyond their pleasure, (especially if 
 they are repugnant to what they ohoosQ to call reason, 
 
 of which reason they themselves are the sole judges, 
 so that what may be reason to-day may be folly to- 
 morrow,) if this were the fundamental proposition on 
 which he founds his right of resistance, I should at 
 least be under no difficulty to understand him. 
 The proposition would then be clear. 
 Why then not at once say the laws of a man's 
 reason are always above the laws of the land, and 
 therefore the latter may be disobeyed, resisted, and 
 changed, (or at least an attempt may be made to 
 change them,) at the will and pleasure of any in- 
 dividual whose reason tells him to do so ? 
 . This, in fact, is the gist and purpose of his whole 
 doctrine, avowed or concealed. For, from all I have 
 quoted, and still more from what is to come, it is 
 evident that he means a great deal more than the 
 mere right of self-defence^ if attacked. 
 
 To that doctrine no Englishman would object ; for 
 then, reason, justice,- and the law of nature, which 
 self-defence is, would rise above the law of the land ; 
 and did our jurist go no farther, we should agree with 
 him. But he here undertakes a task, in which no 
 man can be successful, if he is not, to reduce cases 
 which are obviously of necessity and unforeseen, and 
 therefore, from the terms, can only be met by a 
 departure from the law, to all the regularity of an 
 enacted code. His Continuator, improving upon this, 
 was for bringing James to " a full and fair trial," 
 
 * B 10 
 
 ( 
 
20 
 
 lUSTOmCAL KSSAY. 
 
 SECT. I. 
 
 SECT. 1. 
 
 TUB RIGHT OF RESISTANCE. 
 
 21 
 
 before the exalted justice and superior reason of the 
 rcalm% ouly he despaired of finding a sufficiency of 
 it, as we shall hereafter see. I mention it here 
 merely to show liow easily this vague and loose deal- 
 ing with the niost important principles of high justice, 
 and afiecting the very heart and soul of civil society, 
 may lead to the most dangerous absurdities. What 
 is meant by the exalted justice and sup^-rior reason 
 of the realm, it would not be easy to define, except 
 that a trial, perhaps such as tliat of Charles Uie 1-irst 
 was Intended, probably leading to tlie same con- 
 sequences. 
 
 'IV hether Sir James would have approved the ex- 
 tent to which his Continuator carries his principles, 
 cannot perhaps be known. I should hope not 
 
 Let II*, however, consider farther the argmnent on 
 whicii he builds his right of resistance. 
 
 Having, fairly and clearly, canvassed the right in 
 nations to wage foreign war with one another, tlie 
 nature of the injuries tlmi justify, and the rules by 
 which such war should be conducted, which he r«its 
 upon self-defence, he applies the same reasoning as 
 governing civil war.f 
 
 "A government, (s^iyg he,) U entitle<l to obedience 
 from the people, because, without obedience, it caruiot 
 perform the dutj' for which alone it exists— of protect- 
 ing them from each other's injustice. But when a 
 
 • Hist, of Uciglution, vol u. p. 280. f Ibid. ch. x. 
 
 government is engaged in si/stematically oppressing a 
 people, or in destroj/ing their securities against future^ 
 oppression^ it commits the same species of wrong to- 
 wards them which warrants an appeal to arms against 
 a foreign enemy.** 
 
 Tliis is abstractedly tnie; and were there any known 
 authority in tliu state, (wliich, from the nature of the 
 thing, is impoi^ible,) to decide when a sufficient case 
 of systematic oppression has arisen, a legal cause of war 
 miglu be given to the oppressed party. 
 
 But inasmuch as independent nations are bound 
 by no municipal laws to one another, and parties in 
 the same state are, the comparison does not hold. 
 
 France and England Imve no common laws, no 
 duties to bind them to one another, except those of 
 reason. Tlicv are to one another in a state of nature; 
 thev have sworn to no code by which each is bounds 
 and from which they cannot be released while it 
 
 exists. 
 
 If, therefore, thei"e is injury on either side^ there 
 are no previous duties to prevent the appeal to the 
 sword, the only one left, the ratio ultima regum. 
 
 Not so with a people and their governors. 
 
 They are bound togetJier by the strongest reci- 
 procal duties, expressly laid doum and expounded by the 
 volutne of the law* 
 
 It is to tills they arc to look in all cases of dispute; . 
 and if they cannot agree, neither party has a right to 
 claim to be its sole interpreter. 
 
 There may be mutual injuries, and mutual accu- 
 
20 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. I. 
 
 before the exalted justice and superior reason of the 
 realm*, only he despaired of finding a sufficiency of 
 It, as we shall hereafter see. I mention it here 
 merely to show how easily this vague and loose deal^ 
 ing with the most important principles of high justice, 
 and affecting the very heart and soul of civi] society' 
 may lead to the most dangerous absurdities. What 
 is n,eant by the exalted justice and superior reason 
 of the realm, it would not be easy to define, except 
 that a trial, perhaps such as that of Charles the First 
 was intended, probably leading to the same con- 
 sequences. 
 
 ./Whether Sir James would have approved the ex- 
 tent to which his Continuator carries his principles, 
 cannot perhaps be known. I should hope not. 
 
 Let us, however, consider farther the argument on 
 which he builds his right of resistance. 
 
 Having, fairly and clearly, canvassed the rir^ht in 
 nations to wage foreign war with one anothe!', the 
 nature of the injuries that justifv, and the rules by 
 which such war should be conducted, which he rests 
 upon self-defence, he applies the same reasoning as 
 governing civil war.f 
 
 "A government, (says he,) is entitled to obedience 
 from the people, because, without obedience, it cannot 
 perform the duty for which alone it exists— of protect- 
 ing them from each other's injustice. But when a 
 
 Hist, of Revolution, vol. u. p. 280. 
 
 f Ibid. ch. X. 
 
 SECT. I. 
 
 THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE. 
 
 21 
 
 government is engaged in systematically oppressing a 
 people, or in destroying their securities against future ^ 
 oppression^ it commits the same species of wrong to- 
 wards them which warrants an appeal to arms against 
 a foreign enemy.'* 
 
 This is abstractedly true; and were there any known 
 authority in the state, (which, from the natm'e of the 
 thing, is impossible,) to decide when a sufficient case 
 of systematic oppi'ession has arisen, a legal cause of war 
 might be given to the oppressed party. 
 
 But inasmuch as independent nations are bound 
 by no municipal laws to one another, and parties in 
 the same state are, the comparison does not hold. 
 
 France and England have no common laws, no 
 duties to bind them to one another, except those of 
 reason. They are to one another in a state of nature; 
 they have sworn to no code by which each is bound, 
 and from which they cannot be released while it 
 exists. 
 
 If, therefore, there is injury on either side, there 
 are no previous duties to prevent the appeal to the 
 sword, the only one left, the ratio ultima regum. 
 
 Not so with a people and their governors. 
 
 They are bound together by the strongest reci- 
 procal duties, expressly laid down and expounded by the 
 volume of the law. 
 
 It is to this they are to look in all cases of dispute ; 
 and if they cannot agree, neither party has a right to*^ 
 claim to be its sole interpreter. 
 
 There may be mutual injuries, and mutual accu- 
 
S8 
 
 Ul&TOntCAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. r. 
 
 SECT- I. 
 
 THE niGUT OF nESISTAXCE. 
 
 23 
 
 i 
 
 «ation<>, but the law remains the same, and can never 
 autliorise a departure from it at the will of either 
 party, or declare that a case has happoud where all 
 its provisions are abrogated, and itself annihilated. 
 It mv^hi describe the cliaracter of such a case; but 
 who is to pronounce upon its actual existence? 
 
 Not the parties ; if only because tliey are parties. 
 If it say the Kin^ shall judge, that ver) judgment 
 may form anotlier and siill greater case of oppression. 
 If the people, their decision may only increase (lie 
 factious conduct which may have been right or 
 wrong, imputed to them. For want of this judge of 
 the case, therefore, no constitution can ever contain 
 a provision for its own dissolution; and this Sir 
 James himself fully admits in some very able passa^res, 
 introduced however in order, as kings must be con- 
 • stituiionally irresponsible to the legal, to make them 
 responsible to the moral code. It is this moral code 
 tQ which I object in the light in which Sir James 
 represents it. For though it in reality nu^an nothing 
 but moral obligation, and the responsibility tlierefore 
 of the delinquent king is to hia conscience, and his 
 God, yet, as Sir James would manage it, it is en- 
 dowed with a body, has a court, judges, the axe and 
 executioner, to fulfil its behests. 
 ^ One would suppose that if a king could not be 
 tried by the law, he could be tried by nothing else. 
 He might be shot as an enemy or wild beast in tlie 
 act of invasion; but he could not be tried. Sir 
 James, then, must explain what he means by being 
 
 morally and raticnaUy responsible^^ If it be to run 
 the risk of being opposed, dethroned, killed in battle, 
 or even murdered, as some kings have been, we 
 agree, where the tyranny wai*ranis self-defence, in 
 going so far; but this is not responsihility^ which 
 means answering for some crime before a tribunal or 
 jndfff^^ having poicer to hear and determine^ 
 
 This is not salved by the fallacy of treating tl>e 
 governors and the governed as diflerent nations, 
 perfectly independent of one another, even after the 
 j>arties are bound together under a social compact, 
 from whicli, as soon as they enter, the law of tluU com- 
 pact forbids them from ever separating. 
 
 The instance which approaches nearest to it is a 
 clause in the Bill of Iligl its, which declares the subjc^cts 
 absolved from their allegiance, and that the crown 
 shall piss to the next heir, if the possessor of it shall 
 hold comrnmion with the church of Rome, or marrt/ 
 a Papist 
 
 This seems a distinct description; yet what Is 
 communion with the church of Romef? and who is 
 the proper judge, and wliat the jurisdiction* that is to 
 take cognisance of and decide when the case has 
 hapiK^ned ? 
 
 If this be not pointed out, the clause is nugatorj*, 
 though it may give rise to bitter commotions. 
 
 • VjimI. Gall. 
 
 f A pirty in Englttid might hold ttiat to bt* commuiiiotii u-liich Uio 
 cliuicli of Rome mi^t aconafblly njoet. 
 
 ♦b 12 
 
24 
 
 niSTOmCAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. I* 
 
 Suppose the king do not disclose or confess hia 
 comnuniion with the church of Romef Or suppose 
 he marry a concealed Papist, wlioin he may have 
 thouglit a Protestant when he married her, or who 
 may have changed her rdifficn after marriage I 
 
 Would that forfeit the crown ? or if it would, can 
 any body that pleases say the case lias happened, and 
 may every subject feel absolved from his allegiance 
 and take arms to enforce the Bill of Rights, witliout 
 a solenui adjudication somewhere of the fact? 
 
 Even if that sometchere is held to be the parliament, 
 may that not admit of discussion, and oppocsition from 
 the king, and even from otiier corporations? Might 
 not the Lord Mayor and common hall say it was for 
 the people to decide, and that they wi re the people 
 as tlK;y liave often said before* 
 
 But be it that the parliament have, or assume to 
 have, the jurisdiction, (for it i& not pointc^l out by the 
 Act,) must tliere not be a trial of the fact? Must 
 tliere not be tico triaU, one in the Lords, and one in 
 tlie Commons? -^ 
 
 jind may they not pronounce differaitly 9 At any 
 rate, must not the king be allowed to defend himself? 
 May he not be wrongfully accused ? Or if acquitted, 
 may he not be accused again and again, and thus 
 the whole government for ever be interrupted, till all 
 end in that very civil war, which by this ailempt to 
 legislate on a positive case of resistance it was in* 
 tended to prevent? 
 
 Yet Hallam, not perhaps having all these conse* 
 
 SECT, u 
 
 THE RIGHT OK RESISTANCE. 
 
 35 
 
 quences before him, thinks this vague and unguarded 
 provision in the Bill of Riglits " as near an approach to 
 a generalisation of the principle of resiblance, as could 
 be admitted with any security for public order.** • 
 
 What the security is, we see. 
 
 Observe then the impossibility of any constitution, 
 laying down beforehand a case for its own abolition. 
 
 But if it contain contradictory provisions; if it 
 enact that a sovereign is inviolable, and has a right 
 to allegiance, yet may be tried and judged by his 
 people, who may absolve themselves from allegiance 
 whenever their reason tells them to do so, that is, when- 
 ever they please, all disquisition is useless, for all is 
 absurdity. 
 
 The sovereign whom his subjects are ordered to 
 obey, is surely himself a subject — his subjects' so- 
 vereign. 
 
 Thu.s much tlien for the coni|>arison of the cau.ses 
 for war between foreign independent states, and be- 
 tween a sovereign and his .subjects; 
 
 We say they cannot be compared* 
 
 Take, however, the following propositions: — 
 
 " A magistrate who degenerates into a systematic 
 oppressor shuts the gates of justice on the people, 
 and thereby restores them to their oriyitial riyht of de- 
 fending theii*cht% Vj ijt^ '* 
 
 The first f«fi 4^lK^ •rpfkf^^r W Im#v WWa if %9 
 be understood bj fibt •••••^ ^^ 
 
 W1iat is t>ir cfifinJ f^Ni •/ ^ \^^ ^ 64mA 
 
26 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. I. 
 
 SECT. I. 
 
 THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE; 
 
 27 
 
 themselves by force? Where, in society^ did they 
 ever possess this right? No where. Then if they 
 had it, (and this is what is meant,) it must have been 
 before society existed^ and they cannot have it again 
 without society being completely dissolved. 
 
 It follows, then, that before oppression can be resist- 
 ed, all ties of union, all the laws, institutions, and public 
 and private rights and duties, must be broken up.* 
 
 See what it is to be a theorist, and to endeavour 
 ^o give the form and regularity of a code of law, 
 (whether municipal or natural,) to what must be 
 above all form or regularity. Oppression must, as 
 we have said, be resisted by force, and the case dis- 
 posed of one way or other. 
 
 But we are not on that account to fly to metaphy- 
 sical or extreme rights, and by only founding them 
 on the savage state, to return to that state. 
 
 How many young people (myself once among 
 them), have been dazzled with the seducive maxim 
 *' Salus populi suprema lex est !" When I read my 
 Oratio pro Milone, how did I not glow with the 
 incontrovertible sentiment on self-defence, "Est enim 
 liaec judices, non scripta sed nata lex ; quam non 
 didicimus sed accepimus ; etiam ex naturae penu 
 liausimus, arripuimus ; ad quam non pacti, sed facti ; 
 non instituti sed imbuti sumus ; ut si vita nostra in 
 tela, in latrones, in enses insideret, omnis honesta ratio 
 erit expediendi salutis." 
 
 Nothing in the world can gainsay this, in our 
 
 ♦ See this discussed more at large in the review of Locke, Appen- 
 dix, No. V. 
 
 closets, in the recesses of our minds, in investigating 
 the laws of nature. And what, says inexperienced 
 youth, is to prevent the insertion of whatever these 
 teach, in the codes of municipal or constitutional law ? 
 Age and experience tell you at once, the want of 
 an impartial judge, which cannot be yourself, who 
 assume to yourself to pronounce what is the salus 
 populi, what the honesta ratio expediendi salutis. 
 Wait therefore till the case arises, and act upon your 
 own responsibility, but also at your own risk : attempt 
 not to legislate, that is, provide for cases which are to 
 govern all, though, about them, all may disagree. 
 To Sir James's second proposition, as follows, we 
 
 agree. 
 
 « As he (the magistrate) withholds the protection 
 of the law from them (the people), he forfeits his 
 moral claim to enforce their obedience by the au- 
 thority of law."* 
 
 Now heaven forefend that we should question this 
 as a general axiom in political philosophy. But, 
 again, I say it is an axiom for the closet; to be kept 
 in the mind, and preserved in quiet, till the occasion 
 blazes out which absolutely requires it to be acted 
 upon : 
 
 <♦ Condo et compono quae mox depromere possim." 
 
 Like Honour, 
 
 « It aids and strengthens virtue where it meets her," 
 
 but ^^ ought not to be sported with." 
 
 * Mackintoshes History of the Revolution of 1688, vol. ii. p. 51. 
 
 *C 2 
 
 ( < 
 
I 
 
 28 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. I. 
 
 ^ 
 
 Never can it be laid down as a right, and as a 
 duty, to be perpetually borne in mind, and con- 
 stantly asserted, by every one who may think himself 
 aggrieved— in fact la sainte insurrection of the French 
 revolutionary madmen. 
 
 The total impossibility of laying down beforehand, 
 especially in a code even of natural law, what is the 
 systematic oppression, (for you see that even our 
 friend holds that it must be systematic,) which is 
 legally to authorise this resistance, ought to make us 
 abstain from the attempt. 
 
 Not less is it difficult, if not impossible, in a mixed 
 government like ours, where the sovereignty is in 
 three estates, to designate who is to pronounce that 
 systematic oppression has occurred, so as that the Con- 
 stitution is annihilated. 
 
 It cannot be the Lords, for they are but one in 
 three. 
 
 It cannot be the Commons, nor the King, for the 
 same reason. It cannot be any two of them. It may 
 certainly be in the three, but, as it is the oppression of 
 one that is complained of, he will hardly join in 
 authorising a revolt against himself. 
 
 Who then is to judge even under the moral law, is 
 a question ever arising, never to be answered : or we 
 must come to Paley's untenable answer, " Every one 
 for himself," which is to authorise perpetual confusion 
 and the right of the strongest. 
 
 In no definite case^ therefore, can resistance be au- 
 thorised beforehand. The Continuator of Sir James, 
 
 SECT. I. 
 
 THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE. 
 
 29 
 
 however, broaches, or rather hints, some wild notions 
 of a power in the Lords, and therefore, under the 
 Co7istitution^ oi trying James at the time of the Revo- 
 lution. 
 
 Where he found this power, he does not, indeed, 
 even pretend to say. 
 
 He is certainly prudent enough (whatever may be 
 inferred,) not to rest it in terms upon the infamous 
 mockery practised upon Charles I. But hear his 
 words, and the occasion of them. 
 
 " Upon the entry of the Prince of Orange with 
 an armed force into London, whence James at his 
 command had retired, he was met by all the peers 
 then in town, who attended him at St. James's on 
 the 2 1st of December, where he told them he had 
 sent for them to ask their advice how best to accom- 
 plish the ends of his declaration for a free parliament, 
 and the other purposes of his landing. 
 
 " Upon this, after making some arrangements of 
 form, and appointing officers, they agreed to assemble 
 the next day in their accustomed House, as if parlia- 
 ment were sitting." 
 
 Did this, their assembling in tJieir accustomed Houses^ 
 make them the lawful House of Peers even without 
 reference to the power thus assigned them by Sir 
 James's Continuator of trying their king ? 
 
 I think not: the utmost that this author himself at 
 first says of it is, that removing from St. James's gave 
 an air of independence, and meeting in their own 
 
 * c 3 
 
 (< 
 
 I 
 
so 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. 1. 
 
 house an air of authority to their declarations.* Thus, 
 in the opinion of this author, they had only an air of 
 legitimate power, not the reality of it 
 
 It seems, however, they were content with this air; 
 for, on assembling, they addressed the Prince in their 
 capacity as the House of Peers, to take upon him the 
 government, which he would not do without the con- 
 currence of the Commons ; and this could not be had, 
 because there were no commons to give it. 
 
 To the discussion of this whole affair, which gave 
 being to the Convention Parliament, we shall here- 
 after come. 
 
 At present, my business is with the strange, and 
 surely indefensible doctrine, that the Lords, even had 
 they been legally assembled in parliament, much less 
 as a mere set of individuals, as they then were, could 
 have brought James to trial. This, however, is broadly 
 implied from the dicta of the Continuator of Sir 
 James. 
 
 The king, when he was forced to leave the king- 
 dom, left, as is known, a paper or letter stating his 
 reasons. 
 
 This letter was laid before the Lords (such as they 
 were), who determined that it should not be opened, 
 and proceeded to the business of settling the nation. 
 
 In this, says the jurist, '* the Lords appear to have 
 exercised a sound discretion." 
 
 ♦ Continuation of Mackintosh's History of the Revolution of 1688, 
 vol. ii. p. 239, Paris edit. 
 
 SECT. I. 
 
 THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE. 
 
 31 
 
 " His (James's) removal once resolved*, there 
 were two modes of proceeding to effect it : either a ' 
 FAIR and FULL TRIAL, or a SENTENCE agaiust him 
 upon the notoriety of his acts. 
 
 " It is a dangerous precedent," says the Continuator, 
 " to condemn even a tyrant unheard ; but for the 
 former mode (pray observe this), there was not enough 
 of exalted justice or superior reason in the realm, and 
 the latter process alone remaining, the king's letter 
 could only produce barren or mischievous commiser- 
 ation." t 
 
 I own I was thunderstruck when I read these 
 words, and thought I was reading an ebullition of 
 Robespierre previous to the murder of Louis. 
 
 Yet even Robespierre seems to have been here a 
 better jurist; for he laughed at the bunglers, his 
 brother-murderers, who wished (what he knew was 
 impossible) to give an air of judicial authority to the 
 death they had resolved, and more consistently said 
 there could be no trial where all was a " coup d'etat.^* 
 
 Upon this Mignet, the historian of the Revolution, 
 sensibly observes he was right, and gives a lesson to 
 men who adopt these principles, which may deter 
 them from the wild enterprise to bring a case of 
 necessity under a regular code, be that code legal or 
 moral. "Les plus grands torts des partis," saysMignet, 
 
 * Query, by whom ? when ? where ? 
 
 f Continuation of Mackintoshes History of the Revolution of 1688, 
 vol. ii. p. 280. 
 
 * c 4 
 
32 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY* 
 
 SECT. I. 
 
 SECT. I. 
 
 THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE. 
 
 33 
 
 ^ apres celui d'etre injuste.s est celui de nc pas vou- 
 loir le paroitre. Le parti dc Robespierre se montra 
 beaucoup plu5 coDsdquent en ne faisant valoir que la 
 raison d'c^tat, ct en repoussant /« farmer comme 
 mensong^res." ^ 
 
 llie preacher, therefore, of the doctrine relative 
 to the trial of James, is greatly l>ehind llobespierre 
 in not fairly putting the case upon its true grounds, 
 and in endeavouring to give it the character of a 
 judicUd proceeding, he eqiuils him in his zeal for a 
 coup (PitaL 
 
 The " Vindicia^ Galliop," however, tliat warm and 
 eloquent apology for the atrocious departures from 
 justice which blasted and disfigured the French revo- 
 lution, would have better defended the sacred rights 
 of the people, to rise in what he calls " Virtuous 
 
 INSURRECrnON AND NOBLE DIS<>BKl)lKNCE.^*t 
 
 Upon these positions, and this apology for the 
 Lonls for not bringing their king to trial, much is to 
 be observed. 
 
 For when we talk of trials the very word (1 su|)- 
 pose it will not bo contested) implies a number of 
 important associations, familiar in Enghiiid to the 
 meanest mind. 
 
 * AJigfiHy xqL L p. dl(>. SI 7. 
 
 f ** The garriionj of tbc cities of Rcnncji, BordCBux, Lyoiu, aiij 
 Grenolilc refused. olnKKt at the some mocnent, to rosist the ^rivovs 
 ituurrtHion of tbclr fdlon'-<i(l«eiW. N<M)iitig but sympathy with iUic 
 DAtiooal jtplrit could have produced tlicir 1106/0 di^ohtditn^t.^^WnA^ 
 Gall. 
 
 Laws : competent authority^ legal power to inquire, 
 rules of evidence, kgal power to punisli, preceding 
 decisions, %a? judges, %a/ juries, and, above all, the 
 legal maxim tlmt accusers sliali not be judges. 
 
 Yet not one of tlicse, in the pure and sacred fury 
 of tills successor of Sir James in Wiiggism, ever 
 seems to have come across him. Though a lawj^er, 
 a man of research, and evidently habituated to 
 llie investigation of all the bearings of judicial max- 
 ims, the extent and the consequences of departing 
 from old, or of establishing new, precedents. 
 
 lie talks of bringing a hifig to trial by his stdgects 
 (who, the law says, can never be tried, and whom all 
 received notions have ever ueated as inviolate), 
 as if it was a matter of every day's occurrence, 
 and a court was always open for the prosecution of 
 
 monarchs* 
 
 «< lliere were but two modes of proceeding," he 
 
 jayg^ " either B^fair and/«// trial, or a s<m(ence upon 
 
 the notoriety of his acts,*^ 
 
 A most compendious way, it mtist be owned, of 
 disposiiTg of what he calls « this tremendous pro- 
 blem.'** 
 
 I need not say that " sentence without trial is the 
 ^i*ossest tyranny; this even James himself never 
 attempted. It therefore implies trial, or, at least, 
 inquiry. Uut what trial? ^Vluit inquirj? Why, into 
 
 ♦ Coiitinitttioo of M»cVinti)«h's Ili$t<ir> of the Rerolulion of l<J$S, 
 T0I. u. chap. 10. 
 
 »c 5 
 
 1 
 
34 
 
 HISTOniCAL ESSAY. 
 
 8£CT. I. 
 
 j 
 
 i 
 
 the notoriety of acts, not acts themselves; and who is 
 to judge? the accusers* 
 
 Who are the witnesses ? the accusers. Who the 
 accusers? any body f man, wonmn, or cliild. 
 
 What the evidence ? hearsay, report, common fame! 
 
 Can such a farce stand fur a moment in the justifi- 
 cation of a sentence tlial must at least l)e judicial? 
 
 Do we not here, on the contrary, see tlie dark- 
 minded, miscliief-brooding, intolerant Whig bigot, 
 St. John, who, preying hy illegal means, even unto 
 deatli, upon Strafford, the object of liis fear and of 
 his liato, did not blush to say that he had no right 
 to plead law, because he had broken law, and tliat 
 although we gave law to hares and deer, for they 
 were beasts of chace, it was neitlier unfair nor cruel 
 to destroy wolves and foxes, for they were beasts of 
 prey. He therefore thought that Strafford was to 
 be hunteil down in a different manner from lesser 
 criminals. 
 
 An excellent illusuation of Robespierre's cmip 
 ff^tat, and of the purity and superior virtue of popular 
 justice ! According to this dogma, worthy of Jeffries 
 or Nero, the breach of the law is assumed as proved: 
 and no man, however unjustly accused, could ever 
 have a trial. Yet this blooily man, a prototype of 
 Damon and the rest of the French patriots, was made 
 Chief Juiitice, and is worshipp*.d as a deity of liberty 
 by those who think we have still to go in quest of it. 
 He did to Strafford, what Jeffries did to Sidney. 
 
 SECT. U 
 
 THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE, 
 
 85 
 
 Tliode statesmen who think themselves free from 
 all laws, but of policy, may adopt the coup of liobc^ 
 pierre; but if they pretend to the character of jurist^ 
 let tliem explain, if they can, what is meant by a 
 sentence, founded on a notoriety of acts, and particu- 
 larly what tlie sentence on James might or might 
 not liave been. 
 
 No limit to it is at least stated by Sir James's 
 Conlinuator; and it might therefore have been, not 
 merely dethronement or banishment, but imprison- 
 mnent, or deatli itself. 
 
 But the laws of reason and morality are paramount 
 to tlie laws of the land ; and however low in the s<!ale 
 may be their interpreters, yet, with the gibbet^ and 
 the cry of a la lanterne to support them, they must 
 be obeyed. 
 
 Of a truth we have profited much by the march 
 of reason,* 
 
 As to notoriety of acts being a ground for a judg- 
 ment on James, it was only one of tlie French maxims 
 of justice, and as such had quite sufficient to war- 
 rant it. It, indeed, governed higher, or at least 
 more regular, tribunals tlian the mob. I remember, 
 hi the French Revolution, a Monsieur du PaQ'e 
 brought before a court erected in the south. The 
 jury (for there actually was a jury) said, neither the 
 court nor the prinnniM' niinl ir«n»M»- tj^i 
 it was known he wih f^inhvi t^Hti hi» yaa i h ■■ifpyt 
 
 • Was DOC Lonl A^irtil rlgM In nililni^, ^o 
 
 UMlth of rMtOO W(t« Uio fog^itfHi miirfli 1 
 
 • c 
 
SECT, r. 
 
 THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE. 
 
 37 
 
 36 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. I. 
 
 by a sentence founded on a notoriety of his actSj trans- 
 ferred at once to the guillotine. 
 
 Nor was this more than was done by those who, 
 in their zeal for liberty, would have destroyed every 
 vestige of it, — I mean the parliament of 1633, who 
 voted that common fame was ground for impeaching 
 the Duke of Buckingham of high treason. 
 
 The reason for not adopting the other alternative, 
 namely, bringing James to a " full and fair trial," 
 was, we see, the ivant of " enough of exalted justice^ 
 and superior reason^ in the realm." 
 
 That is, of course, (or it means nothing,) exalted 
 justice and reason to form and go through such an 
 exalted and reasonable undertaking, as to try James 
 and decapitate him as they had done his father. 
 
 Unhappy England ! to have so soon lost " the 
 breed of noble bloods" that once adorned and ele- 
 vated your character. 
 
 Not one Bradshaw, Cromwell, or Ireton left, to 
 form a high commission court to manufacture and 
 execute an ex post facto law, and destroy a life which 
 all law forbade to be attempted.* 
 
 But leave we these revolting doctrines, which can 
 
 ♦ It may not be irrelevant, in winding up this part of the subject, to 
 mention a conversation between a warm-minded young senator and 
 the cool- judging venerable Lord Eldon, on the disposal of Buonaparte, 
 when he was brought prisoner to Plymouth. " Might he not be tried 
 and executed as a murderer and treaty-breaker, under the law of 
 nations," asked the younger politician. " I should have no objection,*' 
 replied Lord Eldon, " to sit upon his trial, and even pass sentence, if 
 you will draw the indictment.*' The young senator was mute. 
 
 do no good ; and whose only effect can be to inflame 
 more violently brains already too much heated. 
 
 I am glad, therefore, to turn to something like 
 redeeming qualifications of the right of resistance, 
 which Sir James has preached ; and which, though 
 only arising from prudential motives, and recanting 
 no principle, however dangerous, are so wisely con- 
 ceived, and so clearly expressed, that it cannot but 
 do good to those who may be led away by his theo- 
 ries, to observe what mischiefs he himself allows they 
 may engender in the practice* 
 
 Having given, as we have seen, though, I think, 
 most incorrectly, the same right of war to a people 
 against their governors which belongs to independent 
 states against one another ; and having observed, that 
 in all wars, foreign and civil, there may be failures, he 
 adds, " But the evils of failure are greater in civil 
 than foreign war. A body of insurgents is exposed 
 
 to ruin." 
 
 The probabilities of success are more difficult to 
 calculate m cases of internal contest, than in a war 
 between states. 
 
 " An unsuccessful revolt strengthens the power, 
 and sharpens the cruelty of the tyrannical ruler:" 
 (ought he not to have added, — and also of the 
 tyrannical tribune, or rebel ?) 
 
 " It is almost peculiar to intestine war, that suc- 
 cess may be as mischievous as defeat. The victorious 
 leaders may he home along hy the current of events far 
 beyond their destination; a government may be over-. 
 
 f 1 
 
38 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT, I. 
 
 SECT, I, 
 
 THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE. 
 
 39 
 
 thrown^ winch ought to have been repaired ; and a new, 
 perhaps a more formidable tyranny, may spring out 
 of victory." 
 
 Pretty well this for the author of the " Vindiciae 
 Galllcae," who upheld all the acts of that Assembly, 
 ivhich, in one night's madness, overthrew all the 
 institutions of ages in an empire, so flourishing, that 
 it was impossible for all of them to be worthless or 
 unjust. How well these speculations were illus- 
 trated both by the actors in the rebellion of 1641, 
 and the French Revolution, to you I need not re- 
 mark. • Let us, however, go on. 
 
 " A regular government may stop before its fall 
 becomes precipitate, or check a career of conquest 
 when it threatens destruction to itself. But the 
 feeble authority of the chiefs of insurgents is rarely 
 able^ in the one case, to maijttain the courage^ — in the 
 other, to repress the impetuosity, of their voluntary ad- 
 herents. Finally, civil war brings the same, or worse 
 evils (than foreign) into the heart of a country, and 
 the bosom of families. It eradicates all habits of 
 recourse to justice, and reverence for law*: its 
 hostilities are not mitigated by the usages which soften 
 wars between nations ; it is carried on with " the 
 ferocity of parties who apprehend destruction from one 
 another ; and it may leave behind it feuds still more 
 deadly, which may render a country depraved and 
 wretched through a long succession of ages. As it 
 
 * No wonder when the object of one or both sides is to destroy the 
 law. 
 
 involves a wider waste of virtue and happiness than 
 any other species of war, it can only be warranted 
 by the sternest and most dire necessity!^ 
 
 Now, I ask again, Who is to judge of this stern 
 jand dire necessity? The answer is, Any man. 
 Necessity, thererore, is the rebel's as well as the 
 tyrant's plea. 
 
 " The chiefs of a justly disaffected party," he goes 
 on to say, " are unjust to their fellows and their 
 followers, as well as to all the rest of their country- 
 men, if they take up arms in a case where the evils 
 of submission are not more intolerable, the possibility 
 of reparation by pacific means more apparent, and 
 the chances of obtaining it by arms greater than are 
 necessary to justify the rulers of a nation towards 
 their own subjects for undertaking a foreign war, 
 A wanton rebellion is one of the greatest of crimes. 
 The chiefs of an ill-concerted revolt, however pro- 
 voked, incur the most formidable respcnsibility to their 
 followers and their country.^' * 
 
 So far Sir James in this masterly picture of the 
 horrors of civil war, enough, one would think, to 
 have made him pause longer than he did in explain- 
 ing or proving the right to commence it. 
 
 Of this in these passages he says nothing, and it is 
 obvious that the hesitation he touches upon is that 
 
 ♦ We shall see presently, on the enterprises of Argyle and Mon- 
 mouth which Mr. Fox approved, how totally he must have disagreed 
 with Mackintosh in these sensible observations. 
 
 Wild, therefore, as Mackintosh was, Mr. Fox appears wilder. 
 
 t t 
 
40 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. I. 
 
 which proceeds from prudence alone, not from any 
 consideration of legality, or any of the causes that 
 may in his mind justify it. In this indeed. he only 
 follows Mr. Fox, who, in the vehemence of debate ( I 
 trust it was no more), declared openly that it was 
 only a question of prudence whether or not the 
 people should obey the laws. Both, according to 
 my view, were wrong. 
 
 To be sure Sir James makes one admission, which 
 is of importance, and which I own I did not expect 
 in his zeal for the popular right. He does allow that 
 in the exertion of this right, a government may 
 be overthrown which ought only to have been re- 
 paired ; and this solitary and feeble qualification of 
 the right to rebel, is the only redeeming accom- 
 paniment to the doctrine we are examining. All the 
 other dissuasions from plunging a nation into the 
 miseries and dangers he so forcibly describes, are 
 founded upon prudential fears alone. 
 
 A wanton rebellion is one of the greatest of crimes : 
 the chiefs of an inconsiderahle and ill-concerted revolt 
 incur a formidable responsibility. Why ? Not because 
 rebellion is a crime per se ; not because revolt when 
 tkey choose to think it necessary, is not one of the in- 
 alienable rights of the people, but because the revolt 
 is- inconsiderable and ill-concerted. If extended and 
 well managed so as to promise success, then all is 
 fair, warrantable, and legitimate. 
 
 Hence he winds up in that generality of language 
 which befits an oracle, but is the bane of a jurist, 
 
 SECT. T. THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE. 
 
 41 
 
 and which his logic ought to have taught him was 
 the parent of error *, that " an insurrection, ren- 
 dered necessary by oppression, and warranted by a 
 reasonable probability of a happy termination (again 
 justification by success, or the right of the strongest,) 
 that such an insurrection is an act of public virtue^ 
 always environed with so much peril as to merit admir- 
 ationr Thus, whenever in the judgment of any 
 man a king's life ought to be attempted, though the 
 assassin may fail and be hanged, he will always merit 
 admiration, on account of his gallantry. In this 
 sentiment Sir James is at least practically supported 
 by the late attempts against the king of France, 
 which, though they failed, call forth the admiration of 
 some of our generous English patriots. 
 
 And are these the results of learning, of studious 
 and cool reflection, of thought, and philosophical 
 as well as historical research ? 
 
 Are these the apothegms of an experienced lawyer, 
 a senator, and a judge; or a wild youth, boiling over 
 with momentary enthusiasm and present feehngs, 
 and totally regardless of sober principles ? 
 What is oppression? 
 Still more, systematic oppression ? 
 Will, or can any constitutional code, can even Sir 
 James answer, so as to describe the exact case,^ when, 
 to what degree, and by whom it is to be perpetrated, 
 to justify revolt ? 
 
 » In generalibus versatur error. 
 
42 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. I. 
 
 SECT. 1. 
 
 THE EIGHT OF RESISTANCE. 
 
 43 
 
 The what, may be difficult to lay down as a prac- 
 tical case ; the who, still more so. 
 
 Is every act that may be irregular, or even illegal ; 
 IS every thing that demagogues may choose to call 
 misgovernment, (for that, we see, is one of thejustifying 
 causes in this profound casuistry,) — is even palpable 
 error universally acknowledged, to be a signal, and an 
 authority for rising and breaking up the social order? 
 for successful rebellion does no less. 
 
 Then as to the personality of the oppressor, is that 
 to be confined to the king? May it not he in other 
 irresponsible branches of the legislature, the Lords, the 
 Commons, theparliamentwithout the king? The laws 
 themselves though ever so regularly enacted ? 
 
 Such things are, and, still more, have been; and if 
 oppression, be that of which any one of the millions 
 who constitute the people, are, and ought (if Mack- 
 intosh is right,) to be legal judges, when or how can 
 any community be safe ? 
 
 The sword, and the musket, the axe and the gib- 
 bet, will be in perpetual employ; we must again em- 
 battle our houses against robbers in the form of pa- 
 triots ! and the guerre am chateaux, which desolated 
 France, may devastate the peaceable fields of Britain. 
 If oppression, too, (explained by every man's own 
 feehng) is to legalize revolt, may not the king himself 
 be the oppressed party, and revolt against his people ? 
 Suppose the Commons arbitrarily refuse supplies in 
 order to overturn the government, or repeal the 
 union with Ireland or vote any other madness — 
 
 their power to do this would be legal ; but would it 
 not be oppression, and according to the doctrine, 
 legalise civil war ? May not a king be reduced to 
 self-defence from moral causes as well as the people? 
 God knows there have been other quarters, besides 
 the king, from which oppression the most bloodyj 
 scandalous, ferocious, and unjust that ever was heard 
 of has emanated. Such an oppression has destroyed 
 all fair security for the people's liberties, though 
 perpetrated by the people's representatives. 
 
 For the truth of this, I need only refer to the pe- 
 riod preceding our Revolution ; embracing the history 
 of the Long Parliament of Charles I., and the latter 
 parliaments of Charles II. 
 
 Be not afraid ; I am not going to discuss the great 
 abstract question between perogative and law. I am 
 not about to examine who was originally right in the 
 quarrel— Charles or his parliament : for I am free as 
 Hampden or Pym could have wished me, had I then 
 lived, to say that the early acts of Charles were un- 
 justifiable and tyrannical; and though allowances 
 might be made for the errors of his education, a 
 yielding temper exposed to the influence of favourites 
 and evil counsellors, and, above all, for the darkness 
 of that unsettled time, when the Constitution was so 
 ill understood from the long, long prevalency of pre- 
 cedent against law ; yet this will never deliver him 
 from the charge of an exercise (though he was not 
 guilty of an assumption) of arbitrary power. This, 
 though not peculiar to him, justifies all that was don^ 
 
 IhIiK 
 
44 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT, i; 
 
 SECT. I. 
 
 THE RIGHT 0F RESISTANCE. 
 
 45 
 
 ^ Jirst by the parliament ; and what Falkland or 
 Selden proposed or approved, no free man wouldj I 
 think, disapprove. 
 
 ^ut when that parliament was triumphant ; when 
 the king saw his errors ; when all that was wrong, 
 was righted; when all possible security for good ruTe 
 was given ; and every reasonable desire of the Com- 
 mons was granted, consistent with the existence of 
 the monarchy ; — in short when men who began as 
 patriots, ended as rebels, and showed that every con- 
 cession made them not only more unreasonable, but 
 traitorous, then did they show, in their turn, that 
 the representatives of a people can be as selfish, 
 grasping, and dishonest — as arbitrary, cruel, and op- 
 pressive — as implacable, bloody and insolent, as the 
 worst monarch that the worst times ever saw. 
 
 The Commons in the Long Parliament, as we have 
 «een, murdered Strafford and Laud. 
 
 These guardians of the Constitution, who com- 
 plained of the wresting of the law, invented a law by 
 their own authority, which broke down all security, 
 by setting loose what was thought the palladium of 
 liberty, the definiteness of the law of treason. 
 
 This was done when they made the new crime, of 
 an endeavour to subvert the fundamental laws, on which 
 the Statute of Treasons was totaljy silent ; done still 
 more when, in order to destroy Strafford, they in- 
 vented, in the very spirit of legal murderers, a new 
 species of proof, called accumulative evidence, by 
 which many actions, either totally innocent, or cri- 
 
 minal in an inferior degree, were held, when united, 
 to amount to treason. 
 
 In what did the confessed wresting of the law, in 
 Sidney's case, exceed this infamy ? and when in that 
 case, or any other prosecuted by the crown, was it 
 ever proposed to prosecute the counsel for a man ac- 
 cused of treason, as partaking of it himself? 
 
 This was reserved for an immaculate representative 
 of the people, in the person of Strode. 
 
 Well might Hallam call this a monstrous proposal* , 
 yet it was but of a piece with many others. Need I 
 add the murder of the sovereign himself for treason 
 which was never heard of in the law, and could not 
 be committed? The scandalous injustice pursued 
 by the committee of management, to hunt out evi- 
 dence against Strafford, is also shocking to an Eng- 
 lishman's notions of law or fairness. 
 
 While the object of their rage was close prisoner 
 in the Tower, with no means to collect evidence on 
 his side (certainly not by compulsion), this com- 
 mittee of rancorous enemies had power to examine 
 witnesses upon oath, compel the production of papers, 
 and scrutinise the whole life of the earl. Does not 
 the feeling revolt at this, as base, cowardly, and tv- 
 r^nnical, and wh^it, if practised by a king against ^ 
 subject, would hav^ set the Commons in a blaze? 
 Practised by the Commons themselves, it was only a 
 noble defence of liberty. 
 
 It is true, in comwpn criminal cases, a grand jury 
 
 * Hallam's Constitutional Hist., vol. ii. p. 215. 
 
46 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. r. 
 
 examines upon oath, to say whether there is ground 
 for a trial; but, that found, what should we say 
 to a power given to the counsel for the prosecution, 
 to examine witnesses upon oath out of court, and, by 
 examination, tutor them ? 
 
 So sacred, however, is the flame of democracy that 
 it purifies the grossest breaches of decency and jus- 
 tice. 
 
 ^ They seized a judge (Berkeley) whilst sitting on 
 
 his very tribunal to make him answer, for what? 
 
 His opinion upon a point of law brought before him, 
 in his judicial capacity; and though that point was 
 ship-money, and he might be, and was, wrong in his 
 judgment, where would our rights be, and where the 
 use of writs of error, if this were legal power? 
 
 Their impeachment of Berkeley, as well as Lord 
 Finch, for high treason, is allowed by Hallam him- 
 self to have been as little justifiable in point of law 
 as that of Strafford. 
 
 But, as has been observed, the people can do no 
 wrong, nor (unlike in this the inviolability regarding 
 the king) their ministers either. 
 
 They then invented another new crime, called de^- 
 linquency; which, from its very indefiniteness, was 
 the height of tyranny. Under this, lieutenants of 
 counties, who had only exercised the powers necessary 
 for their offices, and warranted by precedent, were of 
 a sudden voted to be criminals. 
 
 Without a pretence of authority, and evidently, 
 therefore, becoming themselves guilty of delinquency, 
 
 * 
 
 « 
 
 SECT. !• 
 
 THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE. 
 
 47 
 
 they commissioned Harley, one of their body, to de- 
 stroy all altars, images, and crucifixes. * 
 
 All Papists and Arminians were declared capital 
 enemies to the commonwealth. 
 
 What here becomes of liberty of conscience, 
 when to doubt that God had predestined people to 
 damnation was made a political crime? 
 
 Petitioners in favour of monarchy, or the church, 
 were sent for, and prosecuted as delinquents, and 
 
 imprisoned. 
 
 What imprisonments of Charles were ever equal to 
 this ? and where would the nation be now, if this 
 were the assumed power of the Commons? 
 
 Reflections on Pym were treated as breaches of 
 privilege ; and Holies had the impudence, in a speech 
 to the Lords, to demand the names of those peers 
 who should vote against the sentiments of the Commons. 
 
 There were tumults enough, but Pym said, in his 
 place, that " the people must not be restrained in the 
 expressions of their Jms^ desires'^ 
 
 To be sure this was imitated by a minister of our 
 own day ; who, in defending a mob, who were said 
 to have carried a tricolour flag, and who, also, no 
 doubt, had just desires, asked, with amiable simpli- 
 city, " Who but must respect the expression of their 
 opinion by the people ?^^ 
 
 In those times, as now, there was an outcry against 
 
 * This was executed with such zeal by Harley, that he would not 
 allow any where one piece of wood or stone to lie at right angles upon 
 another. 
 
48 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. I. 
 
 SECT. I. 
 
 THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE. 
 
 49 
 
 ■p. 
 
 the bishops, immortalised by Butler, in a well-known 
 distich/' * 
 
 * On one occasion, in going to attend their duty in 
 parliament, they were set upon by a mob, insulted, 
 and prevented. 
 
 They complained to the House, that they had been 
 menaced and assaulted, and could no longer with 
 safety attend in their places ; and, in the mean time, 
 protested against all that should be done in their 
 absence. 
 
 This was unwise ; but was it illegal ? Still more, 
 was it treason ? . 
 
 But the Commons, who desired no better, imme- 
 diately impeached them of hiffh treason (according to 
 their own audacious usurpation of a power to make 
 a new law), for endeavouring to subvert the funda- 
 mental laws, and invalidate the authority of the 
 legislature. 
 
 What is more wonderful, the Lords had the weak- 
 ness, as well as injustice, to sequester them from 
 parliament, and commit them to custody. 
 
 If this were law, what petition to parliament might 
 not, with a very little ingenuity, be converted at 
 pleasure into an attempt to invalidate the power of 
 the legislature, and therefore into treason. 
 
 These, and many more instances of usurpation, 
 and a design to change the Constitution, have been 
 so well summed up, and with such fairness in, as I 
 
 » * ** The oyster wenches lock'd their fish up, 
 
 And trudg'd away to cry no bishop.'* 
 
 think I may call him, a determined enemy of Charles, 
 (Mr. Hallam,) that I think I cannot do better than 
 follow his words : — 
 
 " After every allowance," says he, " has been made, 
 he must bring very heated passions to the records of 
 those times, who does not perceive in the conduct of 
 that body (the Parliament) a series of glaring viola- 
 tions^ not only of positive and constitutional, but of 
 those higher principles, which are paramount to all 
 immediate policy. Witness the ordinance for dis- 
 arming recusants passed by both Houses, in August, 
 1641, and that in November, authorising the Earl of 
 Leicester to raise men for the defence of Ireland, 
 without warrant under the Great Seal, — both manifest 
 encroachments on the executive power; and the 
 enormous extension of privilege, under which every 
 person accused on the slightest testimouy of disparage 
 ing their proceedings, or even of introducing new- 
 fangled ceremonies in the church, a matter wholly 
 out of their cognisance, was dragged before them as a 
 delinquent and lodged in their prison. 
 
 " Witness the outrageous attempts to intimidate 
 the minority of their own body in the commitment of 
 Mr. Palmer, and afterwards of Sir Ralph Hopton to 
 the Tower, for such language used in debate as 
 would not have excited an observation in ordinary 
 times ; their continual encroachments on the rights 
 and privileges of the Lords, as in their intimation 
 that, if bills thought by them necessary for the public 
 good should fall in the Upper House, they must join 
 
 D 
 
50 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. I. 
 
 
 with the minority of the Lords in representing the 
 same to the King; or, in the impeachment of the 
 Duke of Richmond for words, and those of the most 
 trifling nature, spoken in the Upper House * ; their 
 despotic violation of the rights of the people, in 
 imprisoning those who presented or prepared respect- 
 ful petitions in behalf of the established Constitution, 
 while they encouraged those of a tumultuous multi- 
 tude at their bar in favour of innovation; their 
 usurpation at once of the judicial and legislative 
 powers in all that related to the church, particularly 
 by their committee for scandalous ministers, under 
 which denomination, adding reproach to injurj', they 
 subjected all who did not reach the standard of 
 puritan perfection to contumely and vexation, and 
 ultimately to expulsion from their lawful property. 
 
 " Witness the impeachment of the twelve bishops 
 for treason, on account of their protestation against 
 all that should be done in the House of Lords during 
 their compelled absence through fear of the popu- 
 lace: a protest not, perhaps, entirely well expressed, 
 but abundantly justifiable in its argument by the 
 plainest of law. 
 
 " These great abuses of power, becoming daily 
 more frequent, as they became less excusable, would 
 make a sober man hesitate to support them in a civil 
 war, wherein their success must not only consummate 
 the destruction of the crown, the church, and the 
 
 * Richmond was their known enemy, but his impeachment was for 
 merely saying, on a motion for adjournment, ** Why should we not 
 adjourn for six months?" v^ 
 
 SECT. I. 
 
 THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE. 
 
 51 
 
 peerage, but expose all who had dissented from their 
 proceedings, as it ultimately happened, to an oppres- 
 sion less severe, perhaps, but far more sweeping than 
 that which had rendered the Star-chamber odious'' * 
 
 To these forcible observations of Hallam, writing 
 expressly on the Constitution, let me add as forcible 
 a one of Hume, particularly forcible when we recollect 
 that they had extorted by wily professions from the 
 weakness of the king, that they should not be 
 dissolved but by their own consent: — "The whole 
 sovereign power was in a manner transferred to the 
 Ck)mmons, and the government, without any seeming 
 violence or disorder, was changed in a moment from a 
 monarchy almost absolute to a pure democracy, f 
 
 These instances of oppression and barefaced usurp- 
 ation have been confined to the period previous to 
 that when Charles, pushed beyond bearing by their 
 insolence and pretensions, tyrannising alike over him 
 and all the nation, drove him to take arms in his own 
 defence, and the defence of the Constitution. I 
 make this assertion, because after all that has been 
 written, said, or felt about liberty, and the glorious 
 struggles of these her virtuous champions, I hold 
 that they sought to gratify their own ambition, quite 
 as much (many of them more) as to obtain the 
 ostensible object proposed, with which they gulled 
 the nation : yet Lord John Russell, in his life of hi|i 
 respectable ancestor, (respectable and respected, with 
 a thousand faults,) says that the king's violence be- 
 
 * HaUam, ii. 256—259. 
 
 D 2 
 
 f Hume, vi. 375. 
 
 )l 
 
 ■ ■J; 
 
 
 If ■ 
 
f 
 
 52 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. I. 
 
 came the cause of a civil war, and his Insincerity 
 prevented any hope of a peace. * How either of 
 these assertions is proved we shall presently see. 
 
 As to the violence, Lord John, from the instances 
 given, might have done well to have settled first, 
 which party was the worst. Who really caused the 
 war, no dispassionate or unprejudiced man will, in 
 these days I think, doubt. 
 
 Every grievance had been redressed ; ship-money, 
 and tonnage and poundage, without grant of parlia- 
 ment, made illegal; the oppressive forest laws, 
 monopolies, and rights of purveyance, done away ; 
 martial law abolished, together with the jurisdiction 
 of the privy council, and the authority of proclama- 
 tions; the Star-chamber, the High Commission Court, 
 the Courts of the Presidents of the North, and of 
 Wales, those instruments of oppression, (not created 
 by Charles, but his ancestors,) these were all sup- 
 pressed; even the votes of the Bishops in parliament 
 were abolished ; and the famous Triennial Bill passed, 
 by which if the king did not summon a parliament 
 at the expiration of every three years, the Chancellor 
 was ordered to issue the writs, and if he did not, the 
 sheriffs might. Moreover, the parliament could not 
 be dissolved for fifty days after their meeting ; and as 
 if this were not enough, another act passed, as has 
 been observed, by which they could not be dissolved 
 at all without their own consent. This at once, 
 
 * Life of Lord Russell, vol. i. p. 37, 38. 
 
 SECT. I. 
 
 THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE. 
 
 L3 
 
 without a war, overturned the whole Constitution, in 
 favour of the people. What then remained to be done ? 
 Was not their work complete ? Or if there were 
 still a few minor abuses, would they not, after these 
 great conquests of liberty over the prerogative, so 
 easily, and some of them so fatally, granted by the 
 king, have been abolished for asking? 
 
 Hear what the candid Hallam (I repeat, no friend 
 of Charles,) says upon this most important epoch of 
 this most unhappy contest: — 
 
 "It is to be observed that by these salutary re- 
 strictions and some new retrenchments, of pernicious 
 or absurd prerogative, the long parliament formed 
 our Constitution nearly as it now exists. Laws of 
 great importance were doubtless enacted in subse- 
 quent times, particularly at the Revolution, hut none 
 of them perhaps were strictly necessary for the preserv- 
 ation of our civil and political privileges. And it is 
 rather from 1641 {that is, before the war commenced) 
 than any other epoch, that we may date their full 
 
 establishment.''* 
 
 Be it so. Then what occasion for the war ? Did 
 the king abrogate or break any one law that he had 
 conceded ? When he had yielded up his prerogative, 
 (which he had previously rather misunderstood to be 
 law because handed down from his predecessors, than 
 strained it higher than they had done,) did he ever 
 retract a single concession, or attempt to invade a 
 
 » Constitutional Hist., vol. ii. p. 203. 
 
 D 3 
 
54 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. I. 
 
 SECT. I. 
 
 THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE. 
 
 55 
 
 single right?* Let us speak out. The fault of the 
 war was the insatiable private ambition of the now 
 hypocritical patriots and lawless graspers, who, under 
 the name of the people's advantage, as they after- 
 wards amply proved, sought only their own. 
 Hence again the fair admission of Hallam. — 
 " From this survey of the good works of the long 
 parliament, we must turn our eyes to the opposite pic- 
 ture of its errors ^nd offences ; faults, which, though 
 die mischief they produced were chiefly temporary, 
 have yet served to obliterate from the recollection of 
 too many the permanent blessings we have inherited 
 through its exertions.*' 
 
 By Mr. Hallam's permission, the benefit they at 
 first conferred can never, on the other hand, obliterate 
 from our recollection the iniquitous price in blood, 
 and civil war, the rupture of all ties of kindred and 
 society, the universal desolation and misery, the 
 lasting mutual hatred and animosity among all ranks, 
 which this infamous personal ambition of theirs cost 
 us; I except not the popular Hampden, who perished, 
 as it is always said, for liberty in the field. He did 
 no such thing. Liberty was completely restored. 
 According to Mr. Hallam himself, our present Con- 
 stitution had not only been founded, but completed ; 
 and so fearful were the conspirators that the troubles 
 should subside, that they framed their famous remon-- 
 strance^ on the king's return from Scotland, in 1641, 
 
 ♦ There is no doubt he violated the petition of right ; but the reader 
 is to observe the above question relates to the year 1641, long after 
 that petition. 
 
 on purpose to keep them alive. All, or nearly all, 
 the abuses they complained of having been redressed, 
 far from conciliating the king, or doing him common 
 justice, they renewed the history of their grievances, 
 and, as there was little or nothing new, they opened 
 all the old wounds afresh. 
 
 With what view, again ask the constitutional his- 
 torian, any thing but a defender of Charles. His 
 own words are better than mine : — 
 
 « This (the remonstrance) being a recapitulation 
 of all the grievances and misgovernment that had 
 existed since his accession^ which his acquiescence in so 
 many measures of redress ought, according to the 
 common courtesy due to sovereigns, to have cancelled, 
 was hardly capable of answering any other purpose 
 than that of re-animating discontents almost appeased^ 
 and guarding the people against the confidence they were 
 heginning to place in the king's sincerity. The promoters 
 of it might also hope from Charles's proud and hasty 
 temper, that he would reply in such a tone as would more 
 exasperate the CommonsJ^ * 
 
 Can any thing be more full to my point that the 
 leaders of the Commons, Hampden at their head, 
 were factious demagogues, instead of patriots ? The 
 picture drawn proves them infamous plotters to pre- 
 vent all rational liberty ; and the irisiiicerity of the 
 king, supposing it proved, was nothing to theirs. 
 
 * Constitutional Hist., vol. ii. p. 229. In the same ^irit, he 
 observes, rumours of pretended conspiracies by the Catholics were 
 rather unworthily encouraged by the chiefs of the Commons. 
 
 D 4 
 
 f^ 
 
56 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. 1. 
 
 I 
 
 ' 
 
 Hampden, therefore, drew the sword for himself 
 and the rebellious, not the sound part of the people. 
 
 He fought not for liberty but power.* His best 
 friends, therefore, can only defend him by saying, 
 that he plunged (good moral man !) like a Jesuit, into 
 the depths of evil and deceit, to produce what to his 
 hot brain seemed good. 
 
 I fear this may alarm, if not draw upon me the 
 vengeance of a noble friend of ours, your near re- 
 lation, the writer of his life. Let him confute these 
 allegations, and I will confess my error. I am so far 
 like Brutus, that 
 
 " I shall be glad to learn from noble men." 
 
 On the subject, however, before us, the candid 
 author whom I have quoted cannot help saying : — 
 *^ In reflecting on the events which so soon clouded 
 a scene of glory, we ought to learn the dangers that 
 attend all revolutionary crises, however justifiable or 
 necessary; and that even when posterity may have 
 cause to rejoice in the ultimate result, the existing 
 generation are seldom compensated for their present loss 
 of tranquillity,^^ 
 
 He observes, indeed, that their very enemies con- 
 fess that the parliament that met in 1640 met with 
 
 • This picture of Mr. Hallam's of the factions, proves almost the 
 extent of Clarendon's supposed calumny of Hampden, applying to him 
 the character of Cinna — *' He had a head to contrive, a tongue to 
 persuade, and a hand to execute any mischief.'* 
 
 SECT. I. THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE. 
 
 57 
 
 almost unmingled zeal for the public good and loyal 
 attachment to the crown. 
 
 I doubt this on the part of not a few : Cromwell, 
 Hampden, Pym, Vane, Ireton, Strode, St. John, 
 Martin, and a long et ccetera. 
 
 These, had I been the king, I would have " trusted 
 as I would adders fanged ;" but let that pass. 
 
 Mr. Hallam adds that they were " not the dema- 
 gogues or adventurers of transient popularity, but 
 meii well born and wealthy, than whom there could, 
 perhaps, never be assembled 500 more adequate to 
 redress the grievances, or fix the laws of a great 
 
 nation. 
 
 I admit their fitness to redress grievances ; I deny 
 their qualifications to fix the laws of a great nation ; 
 or if the last be allowed, the greater was their guilt; 
 for instead of fixing, they unfixed every constitutional 
 law the nation possessed. 
 
 Their advocate, able as he is, fails in accounting 
 
 satisfactorily for this. 
 
 " They were misled," he says, « by the excess of 
 two passions (no one allows any thing for the king's 
 being misled), both just and natural in the circum- 
 stances wherein they found themselves— resentment 
 and distrust; passions irresistible when they^ seize on 
 the zeal and credulity of a popular assembly." * 
 
 All this is philosophically true ; but, as I need not 
 observe, accounts for their treasons, noi justifies them. 
 
 » Hallam, vol. ii. p. 204. 
 
 d5 
 
53 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. I. 
 
 n 
 
 I repeat, then, more confidently from having sub- 
 mitted it to examination, my assertion that Charles 
 drew the sword to defend — the parliament to destroy 
 — the Constitution ; and the more we pursue the acts 
 of each from the point where we left them, the clearer 
 will til is appear. 
 
 The immediate cause of the war, that which pro- 
 duced the king's retirement from London, and the 
 calling of the peers to the North, were, as you well 
 know, the contest respecting the militia; — in other 
 words, the power of the sword. 
 
 Beat out of every other hold of the monarchy, had 
 the king surrendered this, he might as well have 
 yielded himself in chains, have divested himself of his 
 crown, and by solemn acts permitted the change of 
 the monarchy into a republic. 
 
 Upon this there can be no contrariety of opinion, 
 any more than that whatever doubts may have been 
 started as to the king's power over the militia, as to 
 that of the parliament there could be none. 
 
 The pretension, therefore, of that body, or rather of 
 the Commons alone, was sheer, unqualified, traitorous 
 usurpation. 
 
 Their want of right is so clear, that I know not a 
 single passage in the history, nor any authority, 
 except their own, that ever countenanced the pro- 
 position. 
 
 " This question,'' says Blackstone *, " became the 
 
 * Vol. i. p. 412. 
 
 SECT. I. THE EIGHT OF RESISTANCE. S9 
 
 immediate cause of the rupture between the king and 
 his parliament; the two houses not only denying this 
 prerogative of the crown, the legality of which, 
 perhaps, might be somewhat doubtful, but also seizing 
 into their own hands the entire power of the militia, 
 of the illegality of lohich step there could never be any 
 
 doubt at alU^ 
 
 Hallam, also, whom for his candour, as well as his 
 research, though in many things I do not agree with 
 him, I love to quote, is full to this point : — " If the 
 power," says he, « existed at all, it manifestly resided 
 in the king. The notion that either or both Houses of 
 Parliament, who possess no portion of executive au- 
 thority, could take on themselves one of its most pe- 
 culiar and important functions, was so preposterous, 
 that we can scarcely give credit to the sincerity of any 
 reasonable person who advanced it." * 
 
 The aim, however, as he very properly adds, was 
 not so much to remove uncertainties by a general 
 provision, as to place the command of the sword in the 
 hands of those they could control f 
 
 And how was this to be done? Why, in the bill 
 presented to the king they themselves nominated the 
 lords lieutenants of every county, who were to obey the 
 orders of the two Houses and to be irremoveable by the 
 king for two years. ' 
 
 They also sent orders to Goring X> governor of 
 
 » Constitutional Hist., vol. ii. p. 248. 
 \ This was palpable treason. 
 
 D 6 
 
 t Ibid. 
 
60 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. 1. 
 
 « 
 
 Portsmouth, to obey none but the parliament, and 
 forced the weak king to displace his own officer, and 
 appoint theirs to the government of the Tower. 
 
 They usurped the government of Hull, in which 
 they collected magazines of arms and placed them 
 under the care of their own man Hotham, who re- 
 sisted soon after the legal authority of his king. He 
 afterwards repented, for which they cut off his head — 
 a lesson to all weak trimmers, but thrown away 
 upon many too near us, I fear, in the present time. 
 
 All this, be it observed, was before they had, by 
 the tumults they had encouraged, forced the king, for 
 his own preservation, to retire from his capital, and 
 therefore before he had been obliged to set up his 
 standard, which was that of the Constitution, against 
 their standard of revolt. 
 
 Tliis, therefore, I think is fatal to that opinion of 
 the " unmingled zeal for the public good^ and loyal at-- 
 tachment to the crown" which Hallam has attributed 
 to the Commons of 1640. * 
 
 This is so clear that we anxiously look for some 
 (deciding and sufficient cause for this total dereliction 
 of all loyalty and duty — this undeniable design to 
 destroy this part of the Constitution, by depriving the 
 kins: of his most valuable and most acknowledsed 
 privilege, and conferring it upon themselves. 
 
 And what was this cause? Mr. Fox gives, if not 
 the best, at least the most honest answer: — " When a 
 contest was to be foreseen, they could not, consistently 
 
 • See p. 57. 
 
 m 
 
 SECT. I. THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE. 
 
 61 
 
 with prudence, leave the power of the sword altogether 
 in the hands of the adverse party." * 
 
 I think so too ; and if prudence, how to obtain an 
 
 end, is to determine the character of that end, and 
 
 convert wickedness into virtue, the Commons were 
 
 virtuous and right. It is obvious also that the same 
 
 prudence would then make them equally virtuous 
 
 and equally right, not merely in not leaving the 
 
 sword in the hands of the king, but in usurping it 
 
 themselves; but according to this, prudence, by 
 
 turning crime into virtue, will justify any violence or 
 
 breach of law. A robber, seeing the object he is 
 
 about to attack, armed, shoots him from an ambush. 
 
 Foreseeing a contest, " he could not, consistently with 
 
 prudence," leave him the power of defending himself, 
 
 or annoying the assailant. But the accounts of all 
 
 who advocate the cause of the parlimentary leaders 
 
 affirm their distrust of the king's sincerity in all the 
 
 concessions he had made. 
 
 The irrefragable proofs of their- own insincerity I 
 have already given; but the discussion of this question 
 would lead us too far, though by no means irrelevant, 
 and would exceed the bounds I have prescribed to 
 
 myself. 
 
 Some of them, however, ought to be touched 
 
 upon. 
 
 They are chiefly founded upon two events, cer- 
 tainly of considerable consequence; but whether they 
 amount even to a proof of insincerity on the part of 
 
 • Hist, of James II. p. 10. 
 
 
62 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. I. 
 
 Charles, much more whether it can justify the usurp- 
 ation of the power of the sword, in my mind is no 
 question. 
 
 These events were first the associations of 
 some officers of the English army which had been 
 opposed to the Scotch, to engage their men to march 
 to London for the protection of both king and par- 
 liament against the perpetual tumults then going on. 
 
 Next, the memorable indiscretion of the king in 
 going with his guards to the House of Commons to 
 arrest in person the five members whom he had 
 charged with treason. 
 
 That either of these were defensible in point of 
 prudence, or perhaps in point of law, no one w^ill 
 pretend to say. That they amounted to a design of 
 the king to undo all he had done in favour of liberty, 
 much more to even a moral right to take from him 
 the sword and transfer it to themselves, thereby de- 
 stroying the Constitution, may be strenuously denied. 
 
 The attempt by the officers, though least remark- 
 able, is the least defensible, of the two, though neither 
 are defensible. The association formed was to engage 
 the men in a petition to the king and parliament, 
 representing the great concessions made by the 
 crown, the insatiable designs by turbulent spirits to 
 overturn the Constitution, and the tumults excited 
 bv these spirits, endangering the liberties of par- 
 liament; they therefore offered to come up and 
 guard that assembly. ^ So shall the nation, they 
 conclude with saying, be vindicated from preceding 
 
 SECT. I. 
 
 THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE. 
 
 63 
 
 innovations, and be secured from the future which are 
 threatened." 
 
 This was the head and front of the offence. 
 
 Now, if a set of constables, or an association of 
 gentlemen, or any description of persons not soldiers, 
 had presented such a petition, the usurping Commons 
 (agreeably to all we have been narrating) would 
 certainly have sent them all to prison, or probably 
 impeached them. But would they have been justified 
 in this? would the petition have been illegal? and 
 supposing the king had countenanced it, would that 
 have been a proof of his insincerity in all that he had 
 done ? I should say, no. 
 
 Then what difference, as to that question, is made by 
 the circumstance that the petition was to come from 
 soldiers instead of civilians ? 
 
 I do not justify the interference of soldiers in any 
 matter of state, or the propriety of their giving an 
 opinion on ani/ thing. Arguments or recommend- 
 ations at the point of the bayonet must ever be 
 condemned. Inter arma silent leges. This association, 
 therefore, was utterly unconstitutional, and cannot 
 be too severely reprehended; and the approbation 
 which the king gave to it, was only an additional 
 proof to the many he had given of his rashness, 
 weakness, total want of judgment, and entire ig- 
 norance of his true situation. But this is not the 
 question which only concerns his sincerity. 
 
 That by thinking he could protect himself, he meant 
 to make war upon the parliament, repeal the laws he 
 
64 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. I. 
 
 had passed, or retract apy thing he had done, could, in 
 my opinion, have only been held by those, who, for 
 their own purposes, had ah-eady made war upon ftim. 
 That it proved folly, indiscretion, and incapability 
 of surmountino: the cruel difficulties with which his 
 abler opponents (some of them as wicked as able) 
 had surrounded him, is most true. That it showed 
 dishonesty of purpose, and intention to resume his 
 power by the sword, is said, and by some may be 
 believed, but not proved. 
 
 Mr. Hallam himself, while he calls it (mistakenly, I 
 think,) a " demonstration of an intention to win back 
 his authority at the sword's point," with his usual 
 fairness allows that " it is equitable, on the other hand, 
 to observe, that the Commons had by no means greater 
 reason to distrust the faith of Charles^ than he had to 
 anticipate fresh assaults from them on the power he 
 had inherited, on the form of religion which alone he 
 thought lawful, on the counsellors who had served him 
 most faithfully, and on the nearest of his domestic 
 ties." * 
 
 A brave admission from an antagonist; and had 
 Charles really attempted what is imputed to him, might 
 have possibly justified it on the same principle of self- 
 defence, which Sir James assigns as the full justiji' 
 cation of a subject to take arms against his sovereign 
 
 We come now to that other case of invasion, in 
 appearance, far more overpowering at first sight, but 
 
 * Vol. ii. p. 250. This last was soon after verified by the impeach- 
 ment of the queen. By what law, or for what crime, God knows. 
 
 SECT. I. THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE. 65 
 
 I think a far less proof of. insincerity, or design to 
 make war, than that we have been examining. _ 
 
 In these days, that the king can enter either House 
 of Parliament, with or without an armed force, to ar- 
 rest any of its members, even convicted, much more 
 only charged with treason, will not bear stating. 
 It is as preposterous as Mr. Hallam holds the assump- 
 tion of the power of the sword by the Commons. 
 
 To violate the hall of free debate by such a pro- 
 ceeding, would deprive its members of all pow-er ot 
 debating. And, though much may be said ot the 
 difference of the times, the then unsettled state ot 
 the question between privilege and prerogative, and 
 the entire novelty of the case, there can be no doubt 
 whatever, that the conduct of Charles on the occasion 
 was still more rash, foolish, and illegal, than when he 
 so unwisely assented to the association of the oflicers. 
 
 But recollect, my comment (for it is any thing 
 but a defence,) is not to defend its legality, but to 
 question its being a proof of insincerity, or of a 
 resolution to make war upon the parliament. 
 
 How was it a war ? The attorney-genera, had been 
 ordered to prosecute the five members for high 
 
 I suppose it is possible for members of parlia- 
 ment to commit treason, and not illegal to be made 
 to answer for it. On the contrary, it never was 
 pretended,-no maxim of law, indeed was ever more 
 established, than that privilege of parliament did not 
 extend to treason, felony, or breach of the peace. 
 
66 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. I. 
 
 Members are at this day sequestered from the House, 
 for trial, when they are guilty of crimes, and yet 
 their privileges are not invaded. Wei), the House 
 was called upon to deliver them up to the judicial 
 power; but instead of sending the members, they 
 sent a message. This was a delay of that j ustice which 
 they exacted so rigorously from every body else : wit- 
 ness their seizing Judge Berkeley upon the bench 
 itself, in the very act of trying a cause.* 
 
 What was the executive power, thus eluded, to do? 
 As long as the accused remained among their col- 
 leagues, though they might have been guilty of a 
 hundred murders, were they to be held safe, and defy 
 the judicial power? Yes ! say we in these dmjs^ when 
 the nature and necessity for guarding privilege is 
 better understood ; and yes ! say I ; for it is safer for 
 the freedom of the Constitution to run the risk (an 
 impossible one it should seem) of the House securing 
 a traitor from justice, (if it be so unwise, and have 
 the power to do it,) than to give a right to the officers 
 of the executive to enter their precincts at pleasure, 
 and disturb them in the exercise of their functions. 
 
 But no House would now be so unwise, so unjust, 
 as this was, to aid and conspire to elude the demand 
 of the law against an accused member. They would, 
 as they actually do, virtually comply; for if a member 
 offend the law he is always amenable to it, the 
 judicial power apprising the House of the proceeding. 
 
 * Hallam's is the best defence for the non-rendering the members— 
 tiiQ want of regular process* 
 
 p 
 
 SECT. I. THE niGHT OF RESISTS "CE. 
 
 67 
 
 Thus far, then, there could have been no complaint 
 against Charles, for ordering the five members to be 
 prosecuted, and consequently arrested, had he, or 
 any one in his name, not entered the chamber itself 
 in the course of the process. His conduct in applying 
 to the House first was the reverse of vtrar ; it was a 
 decorous and praiseworthy consideration, which met 
 with an ill return. Set, as it were, at defiance, by 
 what he considered rebellion against his lawful au- 
 thority, he resolved, with his usual rashness and 
 impolicy, to overpower resistance in the bud, by 
 what, at very best, was a gross irregularity. 
 
 This is granted to its fullest extent. It was a 
 palpable and most violent invasion of privilege ; but 
 it was an invasion proceeding from mistake, fi-om 
 misunderstanding, not as intentional breach of the 
 law. It was any thing but intentional war. The 
 law itself was then obscure, or at least not so clear 
 as it is now : even now there are many cases of pri* 
 vilege, which, from their being apparently opposed to 
 justice, and liable to passionate discussion, are painful 
 and difficult to deal with. What must it have been 
 then, when the subject was so new, unprecedented, 
 
 and unsettled ! 
 
 Do I justify Charles? No! He was wrong, 
 rash, hasty, ignorant ; but he was not insincere, the ,, 
 only point I deal with. He planned no armed inter- 
 ference to do that by power, which he thought he had 
 a right to do hy law ; he recanted nothing that he 
 had admitted ; he cancelled no promise ; he attempted 
 
 i« 
 
 M iiH ' 
 
66 
 
 HISTORICAL £SSAV. 
 
 S£CT. X. 
 
 SECT. 1. TH£ RIGirr OF RESISTANCE, 
 
 67 
 
 
 Members are at this day sequestered from the House, 
 for trial, when tJiey are guilty of crimes, and yet 
 their privileges are not invaded. Well, the House 
 was called upon to deliver them up to the judicial 
 power; but inst«id of sending the members, they 
 sent a message* Tliis was a delay of that j uslice which 
 they exacted so rigorou:sly from every body else : wit- 
 ness tlieir seizing Judge Berkeley upon the bench 
 itself in the verj- act of trying a cause.* 
 
 What was the executive power, tJius eluded, to do? 
 As long as the accused remained among their col- 
 league^ though they might have been guilty of a 
 hundred murders, were they to be held safe, and defy 
 the judicial power? Yes f say we in these days^ when 
 tlie nature and necessity for guarding privilege is 
 better understood ; and yes ! say I ; for it is safer for 
 the freedom of the Const! luiion to run tlie risk (an 
 impossible one it should seem) of the House st»curing 
 a traitor from justice, (if it be so unwise, and have 
 the power to do it,) than to give a right to the oflBcers 
 of the executive to enter their precincts at pleasure, 
 and disturb them in the exercise of tlicir functions. 
 
 But no House would now be so unwise, so unjust, 
 as this was, to aid and conspire to elude the demand 
 of the law against an accused member. They would, 
 as they actually do, virtually comply; for if a member 
 ofiVud the law he \& always amenable to it, tlie 
 judicial power apprising the House of the procee<lin<T. 
 
 • H^lbra'* \^ the belt defence fw the noo-rcndcriog the inccnbci>— 
 tht want of rtgtdar prxKfu*. 
 
 Thus far, then, there could have been no complaint 
 against Charles, for onlering the five members to be 
 prosecuted, and consequently arrested, had he, or 
 any one in his name, not entered the chauiber itself 
 in the course of the process. His conduct in applying 
 to the I louse first was tlie reverse of war ; it was a 
 decorous and praiseworthy consideration, which met 
 witli an ill return. Set> as it were, at defiance, by 
 what he considered rebellion against his lawfiil au- 
 thoritv, he resolvc^l, with his usual rashnet?s and 
 impolicy, to overpower resistance in the bud, bj 
 what, at very best, was a gross irregularity. 
 
 This is granle<l to its fullest extent- It was a 
 palpable and most violent invasion of privilege ; but 
 it was an invasion proceeding from mistake, from 
 misunderstanding, not as intentional breach of the 
 law^ It was any tiling but intentional war. The 
 law itself was then obscure, or at least not so clear 
 as it is now : even now there are many cases of pri-^ 
 vilege, which, from their bemg apparently opposed lo 
 justice, and liable to passionate discussion, are painful 
 and difficult to deal with. AVliat must it have been 
 tlien, when the subject was so new, unprecedented, 
 and unsettled 1 
 
 Do I justify Charles? Not He was wrong, 
 rash, hasty, ignorant ; but be was not insincere^ the ^^ 
 only point 1 deal with. He planne<l no armed inter- 
 ference to do that by power, which he t/iouyht he had 
 a right to do by law ; he recanted nothing that he 
 had admitted ; he cancelled no promise ; he attempted 
 
 /, 
 
68 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. I. 
 
 no repeal of any thing he had conceded. Once set 
 right, as to this ill-understood and unfortunate pro- 
 ceeding, it never would have been repeated. Had 
 he meant war, or to put a force upon the parliament 
 to recover his authority^ his soldiers would have 
 entered the House with him, as they did with Crom- 
 well, who, perhaps, was the loudest in the outcry on 
 this occasion. He would not have confined his mea- 
 sure to a legal process against five members whom 
 he had accused of treason, but would hdi\e purged the 
 whole House of his enemies, as the same Cromwell 
 afterwards did through Colonel Pride. 
 
 I think this is decisive of the question of sincerity; 
 and I repeat, these observations are not to defend the 
 measure, either on the score of legality or prudence, 
 but to repudiate the stale and wily position which 
 was founded upon it by far greater hypocrites and 
 tyrants than Charles, that as he had appealed to the 
 sword, they had a right to take it from him. 
 
 Be it so. But will that confer upon them the right 
 to give it to themselves ? This is the nipping point. 
 Grant that he had no power over the militia. They 
 had already reduced it, by annihilating the power 
 at least of the lords-lieutenants. Their fears were 
 therefore groundless. But they sedulously and 
 cunningly kept them up, in order to seize the com- 
 mand of the military themselves, the only thing 
 wanting to crush the king, and render their own 
 power omnipotent. 
 
 Grant then all that is desired as to the intention 
 
 SECT. I. 
 
 THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE. 
 
 69 
 
 to make war ; load Charles with all the reproaches 
 that were vented upon him, and convert calumny 
 into truth ;— we will allow that the most accomplished 
 gentleman, and the best husband, father, and master 
 in England, was the most execrable of tyrants ; will 
 that do more than justify taking arms against him 
 (taking his life in battle if you will) ? Will it justify 
 you in the total overthrow of the whole Constitution, 
 and the arrogation of all power to yourselves ? Sup- 
 pose he had fallen in battle, would you not have 
 been delivered from his tyranny, which you allow was 
 only personal? Had his son no rights? Were not 
 the laws safe ? But no ! that would not have suited 
 your own ravin. You must yourselves be tyrants 
 over the people whom you pretended to secure from 
 
 tyranny.* 
 
 For observe the state to which things had been 
 reduced. By voting every thing that could be done 
 in public or private, within the scope of their privi- 
 leges, of which they were the sole judges, in the very 
 spirit of the corrupt and lawless tribunes of Rome, 
 they, the Commons, had usurped a power to interfere 
 in every function of government, and every private 
 proceeding of life. By the weakness of the king, 
 whom they so hypocritically pretended to fear, they 
 
 ♦ This word secure, we shall presently see, is of momentous conse- 
 quence in Sir. James's code of the law of resistance. He says you 
 have a right to take securiti/ from your kings for good government. 
 I suppose those modest exactions of Hampden, Pym, and the rest of 
 the virtuous patriots, are the sort of secivities meant. 
 
 \ 
 
70 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. I. 
 
 hadbecome independent forever, whether of him orany 
 other power in the state. Thus they were completely 
 tyrants in power as well as disposition ; and that their 
 tyranny might be above all chance of resistance, they 
 now claimed the power of the sword, and drove the 
 king to war rather than renounce it. 
 
 This was so palpably nefarious, that Hallam, who 
 throughout inclines to their cause, allows that no 
 man has a right, even for his own security, to subvert 
 his country's laws, or plunge her into civil war. But 
 this admission draws from him the somewhat extra- 
 vagant opinion, that Hampden, Hollis, and Pym, 
 might not absurdly consider the defence of English 
 freedom bound up in their own, assailed as they were 
 for its sake, and by its enemies.* 
 
 That these innocent persons might consider Eng- 
 lish freedom bound up in their own, is very likely ; 
 that they could so consider it without absurdity (if by 
 that phrase we mean reasonably) I do not admit, 
 any more than that having been charged with high 
 treason, of which it is more than probable they were 
 guilty, is a proof that they were assailed, because 
 friends to liberty, by its enemies. The excuse, then, 
 with submission to their apologist, absolutely fails. 
 
 Away then with all notion that this was a war in 
 defence of the people's rights! It was a war in de- 
 fence of the leader's wrongs, and all the blood that 
 was afterwards spilt was upon their heads. 
 
 » Vol, ii. p. 239. 
 
 SECT. I. 
 
 THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE. 
 
 71 
 
 From these considerations, the defence they set 
 up for their conduct, grounded upon iheirfears^ be- 
 comes absolutely ludicrous. Well might the king 
 say, " You speak of jealousies and fears ! Lay your 
 hands on your hearts, and ask yourselves whether I 
 may not likewise be disturbed with fears and jea- 
 lousies." 
 
 They had desired him not to quit London, where, 
 like the scoundrels of the French Revolution, they 
 knew they could rule him by their mobs. His an- 
 swer was : — 
 
 " For my residence near you, I wish it might be 
 safe and honourable, and that I had no cause to ab- 
 sent myself from Whitehall. Ask yourselves whether 
 
 I have not. 
 
 " What would you have ? Have I violated your 
 laws? Have I denied to pass any bill, for the care 
 and security of my subjects ? I do not ask what you 
 have done for me.^^ * 
 
 The whole defence of the king, at this period of 
 the history, as the whole guilt of the usurping hy- 
 pocrites, and the wretched fanatics who gave them 
 their power in London, may be summed up in 
 these affecting sentences, as cogent from the im- 
 plied argument they contain, as pathetic in the lan- 
 guage used. 
 
 Were I to stop hei-e (and I indeed fear you will 
 think it is time), I imagine enough has been said to 
 
 » Rushworth apud Hiime. 
 
72 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. I, 
 
 place the events of this too interesting period, and 
 the real character both of them and the actors, on 
 the right footing. That there were some real patriots 
 among them, well intending, but misguided men, I 
 should be loth to deny. That the most of them were 
 at best pernicious, and many of them wicked and 
 bloody enthusiasts — that the leaders were urged on 
 by a criminal and infamous ambition, when they had 
 forgotten the ardour for liberty which had originally 
 kindled them, was my opinion from the moment I 
 could read or think. It is so now ; and has been 
 only confirmed in my old age by all that I have 
 since read or thought, and all that I now see. 
 
 Still there may be something wanting to complete 
 the story of their villanies, and prove that the repre- 
 sentatives of the English people may be as corrupt, 
 unjust, and oppressive tyrants as any monarch whom 
 it was their glory to oppose. 
 
 Let us then pursue the history of these patriotic 
 Commons, after the king had escaped from their fangs 
 and summoned his peers and other friends to attend 
 him at York. Let us begin with the nineteen pro- 
 positions which were sent to him as the terms of 
 what, of x^ourse, they thought equitable conditions of 
 
 peace. 
 
 They amounted to what has justly been called a 
 total abolition of the monarchy, and afford a preg- 
 nant illustration of the correctness of the too hasty 
 opinion of the excellent writer I have so often quoted, 
 that this parliament had met with almost unmingled 
 
 SECT. I, 
 
 THi; RIGHT OF RESISTANCE. 
 
 73 
 
 zeal for the public good^ and loyal attachment to the 
 crown. 
 
 With the propositions you are familiar. To re- 
 fresh the memory of others, I presume to state them. 
 
 " No man to be a privy counsellor, not agreeable 
 to parliament. 
 
 " No deed of the king to be valid, unless it had 
 passed the council, and was attested under their hand. 
 
 " All officers of state, and principal judges to be 
 chosen with 'consent of parliament, and for life. 
 
 " None of the royal family to marry without consent 
 vf parliament^ or the council. 
 
 " Laws to be executed against the Catholics. 
 
 " Votes of popish lords to be excluded. 
 
 " The Liturgy and church government to have 
 place according to the advice of parliament. 
 
 "The ordinance in regard to the militia, to be 
 
 submitted to. * 
 
 " That the justice of parliament pass upon all de- 
 linquents.! 
 
 " General pardon to be granted, with such excep- 
 tions as should be made by parliament. J 
 
 a. 
 
 I 
 
 If 
 
 * That is, the power of it to be given to the parliament. 
 
 f Admirable attention to the rights of Englishmen. The justice 
 o^ parliament not of the known law. Who were delinquents, was in 
 their own breasts. If ever there was despotism, even of Nero, it wa$ 
 
 here. 
 
 i Whether any of their own side would come under these exceptions, 
 
 we may guess ; and as they had assumed the province of deciding who 
 were delinquents, who were always friends of the king, we may know 
 where the weight would fall. 
 
74 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT, I. 
 
 SECT. I. 
 
 THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE. 
 
 75 
 
 *« That the forts and castles be disposed of by con- 
 sent of parliament. 
 
 " That no peer he made but with consent of both 
 
 housesJ^ 
 
 Such were these famous propositions ; such the ho- 
 nest designs of the restorers of our constitution, and, be 
 it remembered, before the war had actually begun. It 
 is, therefore, a still more damning proof than any yet 
 cited, of their original intentions. 
 
 These propositions need only to be slated to give the 
 true character of the rebellion that followed — for re- 
 bellion it was, shameless and wicked, if ever there 
 was one. It will also show satisfactorily (or nothing 
 will show any thing), that, granting the whole question 
 as to the sincerity of the king, and their fears of his 
 designs through military power, their own true design 
 was to make themselves sovereigns, him their sub- 
 ject. 
 
 How was it necessary defence against an armed 
 force, that they should appoint the privy counsellors ? 
 that the king should execute no deed that they did 
 not ratify ? that the appointment of all officers of state, 
 and the creation of all peers, should be in them ? that 
 he should divest himself even of the power of a father, 
 and his children be not allowed to marry without their 
 
 consent ? 
 
 These things are so clear that 1 am really lost in 
 astonishment that any man of sane mind, on perusing 
 these conditions, after all that had been done^ should 
 for one moment undergo the illusion that they wer^ 
 
 dictated by any thing but the most scandalous am- 
 bition ; and by destroying the sovereign, and removing 
 all ancient landmarks, to arrogate all power to them- 
 selves. 
 
 The people ! ! What were tl>ey with these false 
 men, but the mere tools of their designs? I have 
 sometimes been wondered at for calling Hampden a 
 traitor. Was he not so when he could concur, much 
 more when he took too celebrated a lead, in this in- 
 famous conspiracy ? 
 
 The astonishment is that any man, who had the cha- 
 racter of honour, such as Essex, Northumberland*, 
 or the Montagues, could have lent themselves to such 
 
 palpable wrong ! 
 
 As my point was to show that there may be to the ^, 
 full as much corruption and oppression on the side of 
 
 * This NorUiumberland might have been a man of honour, but 
 seems throughout the war to have been a mere mass of pride, with 
 little force of understanding; mighty ideas of his own consequence, 
 and no reach of ability or foresight to support them. 
 
 Had he not been born the head of the Percys, he never would have 
 
 been the head of any thing. 
 
 While all the kingdom was in a struggle for life and death, to be 
 allowed to remain idle at V^estminster, a mere man of quality, not 
 discompose himself, but think all about him unmannerly knaves, seems 
 to have been his only ambition. A sort of Mr. Delville in Cecilia, or 
 a modern Exclusive. His pomp was a little taken down by Cromwell 
 in the act of administering to i<, by making lum o«c ©f lih lords, 
 which taking as an nffrt^nt, hcnevw would ait wiUi lib viJgar cotleaguc^ 
 liuch M Colond Pride tlie drayman. 
 
 He sccois to have b«rt of no real ettftgy, and n<* at ait worthy tb« 
 good fortune that attended him. 
 
 K 2 
 
 14 
 
76 
 
 SECT. I. 
 
 THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE. 
 
 77 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. r. 
 
 a people, as of a king, this might suffice : but there 
 are minor instances, — instances not unworthy of pe- 
 rusal in establishing the view I have taken. 
 
 The first I will mention was, perhaps, equal to 
 the insolent iniquity of the demands I have been 
 reviewing. What will the most furious of their 
 apologists say to the following vote? 
 
 " That when the Lords and Commons in par- 
 liament, which is the supreme court of judicature, 
 shall declare what the law of the land is, to have this 
 not only questioned but contradicted, is a high breach 
 of their privileges." * 
 
 This was as admirably supported as the doctrine 
 itself was constitutional; by turning critics in the 
 sacred cause of the people, and finding in the coro- 
 nation oath, that the king promises to maintain the 
 laws, which the people had chosen (in Latin, quos 
 elegerit vulgus). This elegerit they construed to mean 
 which the people shall choose.^ What had become 
 of their holy zeal in support of the Constitution, 
 when they attempted such a fraud to alter it? 
 Was the claim of the dispensing power, for which 
 James was dethroned, one particle more usm-ping 
 than this ? 
 
 When the war broke out, they impeached the 
 Queen of high treason. For what act ? 
 
 The bringing a supply of arms to the king, her 
 
 . ;. • Rushworth apud Hume, vol. vi. p. 288. 
 flbid. 
 
 husband and sovereign. Would not this have made 
 every man who adhered to the king, nay the king 
 himself, guilty ? But it was an affront, a mean stab, 
 which gratified spleen and low revenge : which we 
 want not this instance to show, are perfectly com- 
 patible with the purest and most exemplary patriotism. 
 It is well called by the historian of the Constitution, 
 " a violation of the primary laws and moral senti- 
 ments that preserve human society, to which the 
 Queen was acting in obedience." * 
 
 The next proof of iniquity was, the agreement of 
 nearly all the members, in order to purchase the trea^ 
 sonahle assistance of the Scots, to take the Scotch 
 covenant, which pledged them to overturn the Esta- 
 blished Church. 
 
 This they did, and either reduced it to beggary^ 
 which was the case with half the clergy ; or, what was 
 worse, forced them into perjury, to save themselves 
 from starvation. 
 
 Soon arose the murder of Laud. 
 
 He had been impeached, and lay in prison four 
 gears without trial : an admirable proof of their regard 
 
 for liberty. 
 
 He was now seventy, and was at last proceeded 
 
 against. 
 
 But the Judges, when consulted, declared there 
 was no legal treason against himj for there was 
 
 * Hallam, vol. ii. p. 279. 
 E 3 
 
 si 
 
78 
 
 HISTORICAL KSSAY. 
 
 SXCT. I. 
 
 no treason but what was enacted by the statute of 
 Edward III., which did not apply to his case. 
 
 So they cut off his head by an ordinance of the 
 Commons, witli which the wretched remnants of the 
 Peers complied, ^ 
 
 " But what excited the most universal complaint/' 
 (I Ude the words of Hume,) " was, the unlimited 
 tyranny and despotic rule of the country commit- 
 tees.'' 
 
 During the war, tlie discretionary pow^r of these 
 courts was excuse<l from the plea of necctssily. Again, 
 you see as favourite a plea with the rebel as with 
 the tyrant. But the nation was reduced to despair, 
 when it saw neither an end put to their duration, 
 nor bounds to their authority. They could seques- 
 ter, fine, and imprison, and corporally pimish with- 
 out law or reme<ly; they interposed in questions of 
 private proi)erty; under colour of malignanofy tliey 
 exercised vengeance against their private enemies; 
 to the obnoxious, and sometimes the Innocent, they 
 sold their protection; and, instead of one Star- 
 
 • Maynard wa^ the chief manan^ on the trial, urging thvs^* illegal 
 « ircis<irv% A^.iiii>5i liim." Who can etvr after thb respect Maynard, or 
 rvad, with nKiif a c tion, the unfounUed fine tbinfcs &ald ofbim \yy Ilurd* 
 who makes him the h«ro o^ ooe of his dioloi^ucs ? 
 
 Hallam truly remarks that Laud's ciccutioo, wiUiout the ilight<^ 
 piT(vt>ce of political necessity (o^ain tSc r<|i«l> n» well as thctymttt's 
 pl«;i), was a fiir znon* unjuuIBiihlc imtaixi^ of the abuse of pouer tlMin 
 any he himself bad oxhibiud. I kiKiw^ Dot which TrA5 most iitfamoiit 
 in tbit» triutmeat of Laud : the murder ibielfj or tbe manner of iL But 
 patriots can ne\'er be wrong. 
 
 AECT. I. THE RIGHT OP EESISTAN'CB. 79 
 
 chamber, which had been abolished, a great number 
 were anew erected, fortified with belter pretences, 
 and arme<l with more unlimited authority. 
 
 The same, or greater tyraimy, was exercised in 
 Scotland; where loans were exacted, often to the 
 ruin of families, from all who were ^rtf^y^^rterf of favour- 
 ing the king, though ever so inoffensive. This wa«, 
 as^it was said, to reach heart malignants. Kever, ia 
 this island, was known a more severe and arbitrary 
 government than was generally exercised by the 
 patrons of liberty in both kingdoms. 
 
 Could any thing have increased the indignation 
 against that slavery, into which the nation, from the 
 too eager pursuit of liberty, had faUen, it must have 
 been the refk^tion on the pretences by which the 
 people had so long been deluded. The sanctified 
 hvpocrites, who called tlieir oppressions " the spoil- 
 ing of the EgN'ptians," and their rigid severity " the 
 dominion of the Elect^ interlarded all their iniqui- 
 ties with long and fervent prayers; saved themselves 
 from blushing by their pious grimaces; and exercised, 
 in the name of the T.ord, all their cruelty on men. 
 An undisguised violence could be forgiven ; but 
 such a mockery of the understanding, such an abuse 
 of religion, were, with men of penetration, objects of 
 
 peculiar resentment. 
 
 They next declared, that the Commons of England 
 in as8enible<l parliament, btinff cliascn by the people^ 
 and represaitiiiff them, arc the supreme authority of 
 tbe nation; and that whatever is enacted and de- 
 
 B 4 
 
 \ 
 
 II 
 
80 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT, r.' 
 
 gECT. I. 
 
 THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE. 
 
 8i 
 
 clared to be law by the Commons, hath the force of 
 law, without the consent of King or House of Peers. 
 This was the sovereignty of the people with a venge- 
 ance, and, of course, no invasion of the Constitution ! 
 In the Treaty of Uxbridge, though they had by 
 no means yet conquered the king, who was sur- 
 rounded by a rival parliament at Oxford, their 
 exaction was as great, or greater, than in the nineteen 
 propositions. 
 
 They claimed not only the militia, but to name 
 all commanders by sea and land, including the 
 lord lieutenants of Ireland, and all governors of 
 garrisons for an unlimited time. What pretext had 
 they for this but their own ambition? Hallam is 
 excellently fair upon it, and allows that Charles had 
 now been reduced to an impossibility of ever again 
 pretending to arbitrary power. * Yet they required 
 the king to attaint and except from pardon forty of 
 the most considerable of his English, and nineteen 
 of his Scottish subjects, together with all popish 
 recusants who had borne arms for him. 
 
 Forty-eight more, with all members of his par- 
 liament at Oxford, all lawyers, and divines who had 
 embraced his party, were to be incapable of any office, 
 be forbidden the exercise of their profession, or to come 
 within the verge of the court, and were to forfeit a. 
 third of their estates. 
 
 The mind absolutely revolts at these infamous pro-» 
 
 * Hallam's Constitutional Hist., vol. ii. p. 303. 
 
 posals, and at the delusions of mankind, which could 
 incline any one then, but much more now, to sup- 
 pose those who made them anything but rebels. 
 
 That they were patriots acting for the good of 
 their country is mockery to all truth ; and we heartily 
 assent to the saying of Colonel White when Cromwell 
 sent him to clear the house of Harrison and other 
 saints, who told him " they were seeking the Lord,'* 
 " Then go elsewhere, for, to my certain knowledge, he 
 has not been here these many years." 
 
 One would suppose that those who could risk so 
 much character, and incur so much detestation in the 
 minds of moderate and good men, for the sake of the 
 people, were at least free from any imputation of a 
 love of filthy lucre for the sake of themselves : and, nd 
 doubt, our modern patriots who admire them, and 
 those who are ambitious of treading in their steps, 
 will be startled when they are told, that, having loaded 
 the people, whose deliverers from illegal imposts they 
 set out with being, with taxes far beyond those im- 
 posed by the most wasteful of monarchs *, they shared 
 openly among themselves no less than 300,000Z. 
 
 Will not the surprise increase when we estimate 
 
 what this really was ? 
 
 I am a bad computer of the real or relative value 
 of money ; but are we far wrong in supposing that the 
 pound, two hundred years ago, could command four 
 
 * It is said, though probably an exaggeration, by Clement Walker, 
 who, however, was a zealous parliamentarian, that they amounted in 
 five years to 40,000,000/. 
 
 E 5 
 
 >f 
 
 : f 
 
82 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. I. 
 
 SECT. I. 
 
 THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE. 
 
 83 
 
 times the amount in commodities that it can at 
 present? 
 
 If so, let our patriots of the present day, who admire 
 their brethren of these former times, say what they 
 think of them for filching from their masters, the 
 people, 1,200,000/. in the course of five years. 
 
 Pursue the same line of inquiry in the pensions 
 (that never-dying source of complaint and indignation 
 of the present time) which the parliament settled upon 
 those they wanted to get rid of. To console Essex for 
 dismissing him, they settled upon him 10,000/. (that 
 is, of our money, 40,000/.) a year. Upon Richard 
 Cromwell, 20,000/., equal to 80,000/. a year. 
 
 Even the little job of appeasing a would-be military 
 rival in Lambert, when he dismissed him from his 
 command, cost Cromwell 8000/. a year. 
 
 What would our present economists and reformers, 
 who feel such holy horror at the king's power to 
 bestow a few hundreds upon a decayed or drooping 
 family, or recompense a retired servant — much more, 
 if done in sheer munificence towards the objects of 
 it, — what would they think of their brother patriots if 
 they purchased the active services, or the mere ab- 
 stinence of individuals from action, at such a price ? 
 
 much more, if these patriots bestowed such sums 
 upon themselves? 
 
 This was mere robbery : what shall we say to their 
 tyranny ? Obvious and grinding in every thing, how 
 did it not press down its objects, as if with peine forte 
 et durey as exercised by those savage oppressors the 
 
 major-generals. They wanted only the power of life 
 and death, exercised by the French revolutionary com- 
 missioners, to be as cruel and grinding as they. They, 
 at least, deprived their French imitators of all pre- 
 tension to originality in the creation of a crime by no 
 means unimportant, — that o^hemg a suspected person. 
 This subjected him to the tyranny of decimation, or 
 the exaction of the tenth of his property hnposed upon 
 all royalists by that deliverer from oppression Crom- 
 well, which, to collect with greater facility these me- 
 morable offices of the twelve major-generals, were 
 instituted. These divided England into as many 
 parts, and, without regard to compositions, capitu- 
 lations, or acts of indemnity, reduced most of the 
 
 royalists to ruin. 
 
 But with the royalists the oppression did not stop. 
 Assisted by commissioners, they had power to subject 
 whom they pleased to decimation ; to levy all the 
 taxes imposed by the Protector and his council; and to 
 imprison any person who should be exposed to their 
 jealousy or suspicion : nor was there any appeal from 
 them but to the Protector himself and his council. 
 
 Under colour of these powers, which were sufficiently 
 exorbitant, the major-generals exercised an authority 
 still more arbitrary, and acted as if absolute masters 
 of the property and person of every subject 
 
 "All reasonable men," says Hume, now concluded, 
 that the very mask of liberty was thrown aside, and 
 that the nation was for ever subject to military and 
 despotic government, exercised not in the legal 
 
 E 6 
 
 '! 
 
 V 
 
 •J 
 
84 
 
 UISTOKICAL ESSAY, 
 
 SECT. t. 
 
 I 
 
 manner of European nations, but according to the 
 maxims of ICastcrn tyranny. Not only the supreme 
 magistrate owed his authority to illc^l force and 
 usurpation : he had parcelled out tlie people into so 
 many subdivisions of slavery, and had delegated to his 
 inferior ministers the same unlimited autliority whicli 
 he himself had so violently assumed.*' ♦ 
 
 In conformity with this, Cromwell imposed, or col- 
 lected, taxes unauthorised by law; and when one 
 Cony had, like another Hampden, refused to pay, 
 and, the tax being enforced, had sued the collector, 
 Cromwell (not like another Charles) committed the 
 counsel he employed, IVLiynard, Fivirden, and Wynd- 
 liam, to tlie Tower. He also erected a high court of 
 justice, with powers difFerent from those known to 
 tlie law, by which four legal murders were committed— 
 those of Gerard, Vowel, Slingsby, and Hewit ; " in 
 short," sa}^ Hallam (though the eager enemy of 
 hereditary despotism), *' no hereditary despot proud 
 in the crimes of a hundred ancestors, could more 
 have spurned at ewery limitation than this soldier of 
 a commonwealih/'f 
 
 His management of his parliament is almost still 
 more striking. He had exacted a recognition from 
 the members not to propose any alteration in tlie 
 government as settled in a single person and the 
 parliament; and he placed guards on the House, who 
 
 • Humet, Tol. vii. p. 245. 
 
 t Il^lUm's Cgmtituiiooiil IJisct, vol. il p, 414. 
 
 SECT, I. 
 
 THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCK. 
 
 85 
 
 turned away all members who had refused to sign 
 this recognition. Tliey complained to tlie speaker, 
 who, recjuiriiig of the clerk the indentures of all tlie 
 members, returned; and asking why the names of 
 those who had not taken their places were not en-^ 
 tered, was informed it was because they had not been 
 approved by the council ; — an admirable picture of a 
 free representation of the people, purchased by a civil 
 
 war. 
 
 The speaker then demanding of the council why 
 they were not approved, received this mojit satisfac- 
 tory answer, still more demonstrative of the liberty 
 which had been acquired by the death of the king: — 
 
 ** Whereas it is ordained by a clause in the instJ'U- 
 ment of government, that tlie persons who shall be 
 electe<l to serve in parliament shall be such, and no 
 other than such, as are persons of known integrity, 
 fearing God, and of good conversation, the council, 
 in pursuance of tlieir duty, and acccording to tlie trust 
 reposed in tliem, have examined the said returns, and 
 have not refused to approve any who liavc appeared 
 to tlicm to be persons of integrity, fearing God, and 
 of good conversation ; and those who are not ap- 
 proved, his higlmcss hath given order to some persons 
 to take care that tliey do not come into the House." ♦ 
 
 Well, you see the council here stand upon a trust 
 repose<l in them by the instrument of government ! 
 and though no where expressed, tliey implied it as 
 
 \ 
 
 :k 
 
 •^ 
 
 • JouriMils S3d September, op. HalUm. 
 
86 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. 1. 
 
 SECT. I. 
 
 THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE. 
 
 87 
 
 custodes morum ; and we have here an excellent prac- 
 tical lesson to those theorists (I by no means except 
 the great names of Locke or Mackintosh), who are 
 so fond of introducing implied trusts in the con- 
 struction of written laws. May we not say that 
 there never was an example in history of greater cant 
 and hypocrisy, with a view to a violation of right, 
 than this passage exhibits, compared to which all the 
 usurpations and instances of insincerity imputed to 
 Charles sink into nothing ? 
 
 I think we may here take our leave of this sad and 
 desolating picture of fraud, violence, hypocrisy, and 
 oppression, which the history of these patriots and 
 lawful representatives of the only true authority y as 
 they are called, the people, exhibits. 
 
 I have waded, and forced you to wade, through a 
 hideous swamp of traitorous designs, actions, and 
 characters, which by some zealots, some mistaken 
 men, and some villains, have been thought to have 
 adorned, but whicl), I trust, I have proved have dis- 
 graced our history. If I have, I have also proved 
 my point, that the tyranny and oppression which 
 justifies a war of his subjects against a king, may be 
 equally exhibited by the subjects themselves, and 
 equally, therefore, justify a war against them. 
 
 In short, it is not by tliat same vaunted name, the 
 people, that we are to be cozened. 
 
 It will not excuse, though it may varnish, crime In 
 the eyes of hot zealots or cool knaves. 
 
 Both their power and their disposition to rob, 
 
 murder, usurp, and oppress, are to the full as great, 
 if not greater, than in a king. It is a talismanic 
 word, which, like other talismans, may be broken, 
 and leave vice, if it exists, in all its naked deformity. 
 
 How greatly could I add to this picture if I bor- 
 rowed the colours disclosed by the French revolution; 
 but as my object is England, to England I will adhere. 
 
 Turn we, therefore, to the later parliaments of 
 Charles II., and, before everything, to the infamies 
 of the popish plot, — that dreadful scourge, which 
 created as much dismay, and violated as many prin- 
 ciples of justice, morality, and law, with quite as 
 much infatuation as any act of the dethroned James. 
 
 It even exceeded him in the cruelties of tyranny. 
 He seized no property, though he invaded rights ; he 
 took no life, though he violated laws. 
 
 I mean not by this even to palliate the legal crimes 
 of Jeffreys, or the military executions of Feversham: 
 they were horrors, not even extenuated by the un- 
 justifiable rebellion and invasion that raged at the 
 time ; but James was scarcely more answerable for 
 them personally than William for the still greater 
 horror of Glencoe.* Even Hallam, one of his most 
 severe judges, observes that " the strength of the 
 
 * It is true Jeffreys accuses him of much of the blood, and James 
 was unforgiving enough. But who believes in such an authority as 
 Jeffreys ; and as to William's abhorrence of blood, we shall pre- 
 sently see what Mackintosh thought of it. If Sir James's opinion is 
 founded, that the supposed murderer of De W^itt would not have 
 scrupled destroying James, the Whig king and the Tory king are 
 about equally matched. 
 
 
 t i 
 
88 
 
 HISnrORICAL ESSAV. 
 
 SECT. I. 
 
 SECT, i; 
 
 THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE* 
 
 89 
 
 Jacobite faction sprang from the icufU of apparent 
 necessity for the change of government The en- 
 croachments of James were rather felt in prospect 
 than much actual injury.** He allows, too, as to 
 Charles IL, that there were no such general infringe- 
 ments of libertv in his reiffn as had occurred before 
 the Long Parliament^ Both these seem strange 
 avowals in so determined an enemy to all the Stuarts. 
 Yet as to Charles II. even Lord John Russell seems 
 to agree with him, as we shall hereafter see. 
 
 In the Whig parliament, however, which brooded 
 over and hatched the Popish plot, neitlier life, nor 
 property, nor character were safe : all was violence, 
 prejudice, and blood; wilful perjury was rashly be- 
 lieved, if not suborned ; and men amiable in private 
 life, though violent in public (among them I em- 
 phatically mean Lord Russell, whom enthusiasts, as 
 mulled as himselt^ rank among the martyrsf), proved 
 
 , • CoastitutianAl Hia., vol. \U. p. 231. 
 
 t Mockmiixih caUthim the vtctim. Viotim of Trhat ? He plotted 
 f^lMlUoils and vras fairly^ tried for it, under the law tliat existed 
 Ifaii^ ttid «xht4 noir, atMl irhJch was not wrested aa In Uk* case of 
 Sidney. Dj iktr\y tried, I mean that the c^u'dcncc was legaU and 
 hirtj left by tht; judge to the jurj. Sec tbc wnrm <rnco«niuiD upon 
 tlM iBMgriiy ai>d law of tbat judge (Pcmbcrton) by Sir Vieary Gibbt» 
 w^iiIl* actually defecidiog liardy and Home Took, indicttd, like 
 RusM«l), for construdir^ treason. Thia, bowet«r, liasi noUiing to do 
 with that o4lier reasoa for the reremal of Russ«U*s atuinder, fovodcd 
 upon his jury not bang ffwhold*r§. Tills was itUid, but do« not 
 alter the moral guilt of RutM*!!. NVhcther Charlc« might not liavc 
 pardotscd bim with the approbation of the country and tsafcty to him- 
 adf, b another question. 
 
 themselves to be more bloody, ruthless^ and tyrannical 
 than all the Stuarts put together, » 
 
 In the trial of Lord Kussell, complaint was made 
 tliat constructive treason only was proved, and that 
 be was therefore condemned agauist law : and this 
 was the chief jiround of the reversal of his attainder. 
 But exclusive tliat this constructive treason was held 
 to be law even after the Revolution, and, to use Mr. 
 Hallam's own expression, "established for ever"* by 
 the correct Holt, it was upon this very species of 
 treason tliat that injured old man I>ord Stafford was 
 condemned^ Lord JtusseH hting atie of his prosecutors, f 
 
 * Ilallam^ x'oL iii. p. 209. 
 
 f Arc we wrong in pronouncing him iftjitrcd, wlwai Mr. I'ox, 
 whose party fceliiigs tnuiHH)rtad him beyond biK jiwigmcnt as much as 
 noy man, allows tlmt be wa* innocent, and tlie pop^h plot a allocking 
 trau:ww:tion, and on indelible disgrace upon the nation? — Hirt. of 
 
 James II.» p. S6. 
 
 Mr. Fox doea not ha«3Utc also to bay that the coodcmnatkin of 
 RtUBcll and Sidney was a flagrant violation of law and justice, Iwcaiwcf 
 they had committed no act indicating the imagining tbe king** deatfa» 
 etfen according to the mcH tlraincd <»ntiruciion of the statuta of 
 Kdward III.» much Im w» awch act k'gally proved; %o that it is iia- 
 pofiskiblc not to nincnt to the opinion of thow wl>o have crex 8tigmali«d 
 the oottdamnation and execution of Uusjcll and Sidney as a moft 
 flagrant violation of law and ju^tiee. — History of James 11., p. 3S. 
 
 X pjtu; the case of Sidney ; but this opinion as to RusscU» ail sobfr 
 Uwyeta, all judges, in short, all who are not moT« political partizana 
 than lawyers, deny. I^ird John Ruwcll. tbercfbrv, oomw to hi* aid 
 by staking Aif ovn authority in >ui>|>ort of that of Mr. Fox (neither 
 of them professional), agaiiwt th<« weight of tbe whole proteiion put 
 together. His words are reioarkabk: — •* 1 oopy, with gfttt atia- 
 faution, the recorded sentiments of Mr. Fox— an aitthorllyi in «^ 
 opinion^ not e4isily matched by that of«ay lawyer."— • Life of Lord 
 Russdi; ii. eS. i. 
 
 1 
 
90 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. I. 
 
 SECT. I. 
 
 THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE. 
 
 91 
 
 'I 
 
 1 
 
 Upon the trial, too, of this same violent nobleman, 
 complaint was made that his jury had been named 
 
 Now the question is, who are the lawyers wliose professional know- 
 ledge is thus to sink, in consequence of Lord John's opinion, before the 
 unprofessional but intuitive knowledge of Mr. Fox? Lord Hale, 
 Lord Holt (the last a Whig, both incorruptible), Sir Joseph Jekyll 
 (another Whig, and proverbially honest), Mr. Justice Foster (one of 
 the greatest authorities on the criminal law), Sir William Blackstone, 
 Chief Justice Eyre, and Chief Justice Gibbs, who, when counsel for 
 Hardy and Tooke, indicted for this very sort of treason, and laying 
 then the foundation of his after great reputation, could not breathe a 
 word against the law of Lord Russell's case, but, on the contrary, pro- 
 nounced the highest eulogium both upon the legal knowledge and the 
 integrity of Pemberton, who tried him. These are the lights, which, 
 according to Lord John, are to be extinguished by the superior, 
 though lai/ authority of Mr. Fox. Every one must venerate both 
 the abilities and the integrity of character of Mr. Fox, and we ought 
 so far to allow for the partiality and admiration of a young political 
 £uryalus, when he hazarded this rash but generous compromise of his 
 judgment in praise of his Nirus ; but the recollection of Mr. Fox's 
 failures, so fatal to himself and his party, on the subject of the Prince 
 of Wales*s claim to the regency, ought, one would think, to have made 
 Lord John pause, before he denounced for comparative ignorance in 
 their profession the brightest ornaments of that profession. However, 
 this devotion of himself (for it is not less) to the cause of his friend, 
 ought to spare farther criticism. It is sufficient that the spell with 
 which, for party purposes. Lord Russell's supposed martyrdom has 
 always been surrounded; is broken by those who have most pretension 
 and most right to pronounce upon his case, and who have pronounced 
 upon it. The idea that, because Lord R., when he planned insur- 
 rection, did not mean to take the king's life, he was not therefore 
 answerable in law for the probable consequences, is a puerility we 
 never should have expected; and if Lord John still persists in his 
 opinion, we hope he will not be offended if we advise him to read 
 
 by the Tory sheriff, North ; but when vengeance was 
 called for upon North by the victorious revolu- 
 tionists, they were stopped by finding that he had 
 only pursued the precedent set him by the " noto- 
 rious Whig sheriff, Bethel." 
 
 « Thus had the course of justice wheeled about. 
 
 it 
 
 But can we quit Lord Russell without noticing 
 what has always seemed to me a stain upon his 
 humanity, and only shows that tyrannical subjects 
 are as furious in the use of power as tyrannical kings. 
 I mean the doubt he expressed of the power of the 
 crown to remit the horrors of cruelty which form 
 part of the sentence upon treason, and confine it to 
 the infliction of death alone. The resolution of the 
 House upon this supposed usurpation of the king, 
 is most observable. " This House is content that the 
 sheriffs do execute William, late Lord Stafford, by 
 severing his head from his body ow7y." 
 
 carefully the reply of the solicitor-general on Hardy's trial, where 
 legal responsibility for crimes not originally contemplated, but conse- 
 quent to those that are, are irrefutably set forth. The surprising as- 
 sertion, therefore, of Mr. Fox (however he may have himself believed 
 it), that, " even according to the most strained construction of the 
 statute of Edward III., Lord R. could not have been condemned," 
 had long been ranked, and ranks still more than ever, with the consti 
 tutional and real judges of what is or is not law, among vulgai 
 errors. If Mr. Fox was right and the judges wrong, why did he not, 
 when a minister, why does not Lord John, now he is secretary of state, 
 among other reforms, set this absurd and crooked law straight? 
 
92 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. !• 
 
 SECT, I. 
 
 THK RIGHT OF RESISTANCE* 
 
 03 
 
 This House content! \Miat had tliey to do widi 
 it, content or not coiitcut? The execution of the 
 laws and the power of pardoning i$ in the king alone : 
 but the House here set itself above the Jaw, and hence, 
 according to Mackintosh's doctrine (not his lan- 
 guage), a right of war accrued to the king against 
 them. We say nothing of their address to the crown, 
 praying that it would give orders for ihe exccuthn of 
 Pickering and otlier condemned priests, — a request 
 which, as, with tlie exception of Pickering, their 
 fault was merely the exercise of tlieir religion, Lord 
 John Russell himself, in the life of his ancestor, dcno- 
 minalos, with reason, savage and inhiunan.* The 
 heart again sickens at these usurpations and cruelties 
 of the Commons. 
 
 But if this could belong to the character of so 
 amiable a person in private life as Lord Russell ; if 
 such a per^n could be so infuriate a party bigot, — 
 so outrageous a visionary, what could be expected 
 from his brother whigs, in the wantonness of assumed 
 power. 
 
 Probably the expelled tyrant James would be 
 obliged to yield the palm of infeuiated despotism, 
 to these cliampions of the people, and enemies of 
 oppression. 
 
 Look at the acts and votes of the Commons of 
 1680. 
 
 Their violence in the popish plot, and the general 
 
 • Life of Lord UussiH, vol i. p. 157. 
 
 violent spirit kindled by that iniquity, had produced, 
 as we know, petitions full of inflammatory language. 
 
 To balance these, the friends of the government 
 dealt largely in addresses in which they ahhorrf^d the 
 sentiments of the petitioners; hence the two classes 
 of petitioners and abhorrers. Tlie Commons, of 
 course, abhorred tlie abhorrers; and because one of 
 their body, Wiihens> encouraged one of these ad- 
 dresses, they expelled him. Will any man alive say 
 this was not a breach of one of the best of the natural 
 ^nd moral rights of man — the right to his opinion ? 
 Had it been perpetrated by a sovereign according to 
 the principles of our doctors, it would have been a 
 legitimate cause of revolt? 
 
 But Withens was one . of themselves : see how it 
 fared with st rangers • 
 
 They had no jurisdiction over real offences ; but 
 they could turn what they pleased into imaginary 
 ones, and punish them as breaches of privilege, 
 
 without appeal. 
 
 A despotism far beyond the king's, even if he were 
 not made constittuionally responsible in the persons 
 of his ministers. They had no ministers, and, in so 
 fer, were superiors to kings. How did they use their 
 power ? 
 
 Tliompson, a clergyman, preached a sermon in 
 which he traduced Hampden, and Queen Elizabeth, 
 both of them long in their graves. He might be a 
 fool ; he might be a madman ; a courtier ; a syco- 
 phant; but what law did he break? Nevertheless, 
 
] 
 
 94 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. I. 
 
 SECT. U 
 
 THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE. 
 
 95 
 
 % 
 
 i 
 
 i 
 
 (I ' 
 
 they voted this a breach of privilege, arrested, and 
 brought him to their bar to answer for a high mis- 
 demeanor, and compelled him to find security to 
 answer to an impeachment voted on these charges.* 
 
 Others were brought to the bar for remissness in 
 searching for papists. Where did the law pronounce 
 this a crime? It is scarcely exceeded by the crime 
 invented by the French murderers — the suspicion of 
 being suspected. 
 
 Sir Robert Cann was taken into custody for de- 
 claring there was no popish, but a presbyterian plot. 
 This assumed dominion over opinion beats, or at 
 least equals, Domitian or Nero* 
 
 A general panic spread over the country in conse- 
 quence of these infamous invasions of liberty by its 
 immaculate guardians; and even Lord John Russell is 
 forced to allow the practice became so oppressive, 
 that the people began to turn their suspicions of an 
 arbitrary king into Jears of an arbitrary parliament.f 
 At length, a Mr. Stawell of Devonshire refused 
 compliance with the Speaker's warrant, and defied 
 their tyranny. Their factiousness was now at its 
 height. They resolved nem. con. that no member 
 should accept of any place under the crown, or any 
 promise of one, under pain of expulsion. 
 , Where did the constitution give them this power, 
 •- by \nduch they mvaded deeply the rights and freedom 
 
 ♦ Journals, December 24. 1680. cited by Hallam. 
 f Life of Lord Russell, vol. i. p. 211. 
 
 of choice of the constituents of such members whoj 
 therefore, at least according to the doctrine, had, 
 from its oppression, a right to revolt ? Had sucii a 
 piece of tyranny been attempted by the king, revolt 
 by the Whig authorities would have been instantly 
 justified. 
 
 Again, without inquiry, much less a hearing, they 
 passed resolutions against Lords Worcester, Halifax, 
 Clarendon, Feversham, Lawrence Hyde, and Edward 
 Seymour, as dangerous enemies to the king and 
 kingdom, and promoters of poperj^ for having ad- 
 vised the king to refuse the Exclusion Bill, though 
 that bill had not proceeded so far as ever to be pre- 
 sented to him. 
 
 They resolved to refuse all supplies till the bill 
 passed; and that any one who should advance money 
 to the government on the security of the customs or 
 excise, should be judged a hinderer of the sitting of 
 parliament, and made responsible for the same. Yet 
 what law was here broken, and still more, w^hat law gave 
 them this power? By such usui-pation all govern- 
 ment, nay all society, was torn up by the roots. 
 
 They closed this with resolving unanimously, but 
 without even the mockery of the inquiry played off 
 in the murders they committed in the popish 
 plot, that they were of opinion that London was 
 burnt by the Papists in 1666, designing thereby to 
 introduce popery and arbitrary power. Yet after 
 this there came out a. just and modest vindication of 
 the two last parliaments. I should say Risum tene- 
 
II 
 
 96 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 BECT. f. 
 
 SECT. I, 
 
 THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE. 
 
 97 
 
 111 
 
 atis, but that Somers was supposed to have had a 
 hand in it, and our laughter is turned into regret. 
 
 ic Who would not laugh if such a man there be, 
 Who would not weep if Attius were he ? " 
 
 May we not apply to the last vote another line of 
 ihe same poet on London's column, which he says, 
 
 " Rising to the skies, 
 Like a tall bully, lifts its head and lies ? " - 
 
 What think you ? Could any state exist in com- 
 mon safety, much less peace and happiness, with 
 such thorns in its sides? Was there not here op- 
 pression, even " systematic oppression^'* to warrant 
 
 civil war ? 
 
 Are kings then the only oppressors, — the only 
 powers in the state whose acts can create a cause for 
 
 resistance ? 
 
 Hallam, less wild than Mackintosh, but a reason- 
 ably devoted Whig, is just enough to give its true 
 character to such a tyranny. 
 
 ^^ These encroachments," says he, " under the name 
 of privilege, were exactly in the spirit of the Long 
 Parliament, and revived too forcibly the recollection 
 of that awful period. It was commonly in men's 
 mouths that 1641 was come about again. There 
 appeared for several months a very imminent danger 
 
 of civil war." ^ 
 
 I ask, then, if an opinion of oppression authorises 
 
 * Hallam, vol. iii. p. 192. 
 
 civil war, who were here the oppressors ? Charles XL, 
 bad man as he was, or his virtuous subjects ? 
 
 It was time that this House of Commons should be 
 dissolved, and it was so ; but it was succeeded by a 
 worse, in the celebrated Oxford parliament ; which, 
 from its increased heat and violence, which Hallam 
 (no enemy to the rights of the people) observes, 
 served still more to alienate the peaceable part of the 
 community'^, and lasted but eight days. 
 
 The chief feature of this parliament was its im- 
 mitigable rage against the Duke of York, and its 
 persevering determination to exclude him from the 
 
 throne. 
 
 Yet he had offended no law ; he had usurped no 
 power ; he had been guilty of no oppression : his right 
 to the succession was undoubted. 
 
 His only offence was being a papist, — a matter 
 between himself and his God, and for which, at that 
 time, the law of the land did not exclude him from 
 the throne. 
 
 The oppression, therefore, here was on the other 
 
 side. 
 
 For this, however, our political casuists provide no 
 remedy by resistance : though, probably, a duke of 
 Lancaster in other times, if thus injured in his rights, 
 would have little scrupled to have asserted them, in 
 the same manner as he asserted his claim to his estates, 
 
 * Hallam, vol. iii. p. 193. 
 F 
 
 ! 
 
98 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT, I. 
 
 ^ 
 
 Mi 
 
 of which he had been deprived by oppression^ and with 
 them obtained the crown. 
 
 I do not hold that the Duke of York would, or 
 should, have imitated Henry IV. But had the 
 Exclusion Bill passed — if oppression justifies revolt 
 against the oppressor, whoever he is, I see not that 
 the theory would not have permitted him to have 
 raised a civil war, had he had the power and in- 
 clination to do it. 
 
 The rage of his enemies, the Commons, was without 
 bounds. 
 
 ]t evidently exceeded all limits of reason or justice. 
 
 It was offered to banish him for life five hundred 
 miles from England, and that if he succeeded to the 
 crown, the power should be administered by a regent 
 in his name. Even this sacrifice of himself to the 
 views of the Commons was rejected, and the king 
 might have been reduced to extremity, when a 
 quarrel between the two houses relieved, by giving 
 him a fair pretext to dissolve them. 
 
 They had impeached Fitzharris at the bar of the 
 House of Lords, who they insisted should try him. 
 The Lords refused as beneath their dignity, and re- 
 ferred him to the ordinary courts. The Commons 
 took fire, and voted that whatever court should presume 
 to try him would be guilty of a high breach of privilege. 
 
 These heats produced their dissolution after a 
 session (as we have said) of only eight days. But 
 suppose, like the Long Parliament, they could not have 
 
 SECT. I. 
 
 THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE. 
 
 99 
 
 been dissolved, might not the right of civil war con- 
 tended for, have instantly accrued ? 
 
 Were there not here systematic oppressors^ ^^who 
 shut the gates of justice on the people, and thereby re- 
 stored them to their original right of defending themselves 
 by force "^y"' and was there any power but force to 
 make them repair their wrong ? 
 
 Sir James must therefore either allow the " lawful-- 
 ness,^^ to use his own term, of resisting this misconduct 
 of the Commons, by force, or give up his position, f 
 
 And this brings me to deeper speculations. 
 
 The power of supplies is, we know, exclusively in 
 the Commons. Suppose, in order to carry some 
 great object of usurpation which they may have at 
 heart, that they are so mad as to stop them ! Suppose 
 that object were to make the king descend from his 
 throne, and turn the Monarchy into a Republic ! 
 That has been attempted. 
 
 Suppose it to be, to annihilate the House of Lords, 
 and leave themselves without check ! 
 
 That has been done. 
 
 Suppose it to be, to vest the whole Indian Empire 
 in commissioners, appointed by themselves ! 
 
 That has also been tried. 
 
 Suppose it be to banish all of a particular religion 
 possessed of a hundred a year ; or suppose it to be to 
 give themselves several thousands a year each ! 
 
 All these have been essayed. 
 
 Supra. 
 
 f Even Locke allows this. 
 F 2 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 'i 
 

 100 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. I. 
 
 Suppose it to be, to give themselves a right to other 
 men's wives and daughters ; to annihilate the national 
 debt, and produce national bankruptcy; or, which is 
 not so unlikely as these suppositions, not only to 
 annihilate the Protestant Church, but to establish 
 (;!atholicism in its stead ! 
 
 Suppose, finally, it be to make Mr. O'Connell king 
 of Ireland, after separating the two countries ! 
 
 If all, or any of these measures are not granted by 
 the rest of the legislature, suppose all supplies to be 
 stopt! 
 
 . We know the consequences. We should imme- 
 diately be left without army or navy ; all miscel- 
 laneous services would be at an* end; all business 
 would stagnate, and the wheels of the state would 
 stand still. 
 
 It may be said, that this could not be, for that these 
 despotic Commons might be dissolved. 
 
 True : but might not the same members again be 
 returned? The enlightened reformers of our late 
 corrupt Constitution, in order to imbue it with the 
 proper degree of unchangeable virtue, have given 
 such a preponderance to numbers over property, of 
 tribes over centuries, that, aided by the still more 
 liberal views of still farther reaching reformers, uni- 
 versal suffrage — that crowning object of every just 
 man's wish — may soon take place ; and then ! 
 
 Well, and then ? who is to say that the defensive 
 weapon of dissolution is not to fall from the king's 
 hands, and the eternal power of the Commons, by 
 
 SECT. la 
 
 THE right of RESISTANCE. 
 
 101 
 
 the eternal re-election of the same men, have the 
 same effect as that fatal error which gave the eternity 
 of power to the Long Parliament of Charles I. ? 
 
 My suppositions J then, are not so fallacious ; and 
 some of them may be realised. 
 
 And if they are, would there not be oppressioiiy and 
 a closing of the gates of justice, to Sir James's heart's 
 content, to justify our resuming our original rights of 
 defending ourselves by force ? 
 
 Cromwell did no more when he dissolved the Long 
 Parliament, and reproached them with their " mis- 
 conduct,'' which, we see in the oracle before us, justifies 
 revolt. You recollect his emphatic words, when he 
 entered with his soldiers. 
 
 He loaded thetn with the vilest reproaches for their 
 tyranny, ambition, oppression, and robbing of the 
 public : — one was a whoremaster ; another an adul- 
 terer ; a third a drunkard and glutton ; a fourth an 
 
 extortioner.* 
 
 Heaven forbid that such characters should be 
 found among our present chaste and temperate re- 
 presentatives, or justify any modern Cromwell in 
 using such language as this to the future represent- 
 atives of the people, purified as they must be by 
 
 universal suffrage. 
 
 « For shame !" said the would-be Protector, " get 
 ye gone ! give place to honester men — to those who 
 
 * See the histories. 
 F 3 
 
102 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. I. 
 
 will more faitlifidly discharge their trust. You are 
 no longer a parliament: the Lord has done with 
 you ; he has chosen other instruments for carrying on 
 his work." 
 
 Here we see the principles we have been investi- 
 gating completely carried into practice against a par- 
 liament as well as a king; nor do I perceive how 
 there can be any difference between the oppression 
 and misconduct of the one and the other ; for these 
 being the creating motives for action against the one 
 as well as the other, Cromwell was only right, nay, 
 praiseworthy in what he did; and, of course, Sir James 
 must approve. 
 
 This case, then, again shows that the represent- 
 atives of a people, as well as their monarch, may be 
 oppressors, and guilty of misconduct, and therefore 
 be punished. 
 
 Who, if any future House of Commons should at- 
 tempt any of the usurpations I have supposed, will be 
 the Cromwell to resume the original right of self- 
 defence, and put it in force against them, is a ques- 
 tion which I venture not to answer ; but this I think, 
 that if such a hreach of trust as stopping the supplies 
 were ever to be committed for the avowed purpose of 
 carrying any of the points 1 have supposed, according 
 to Sir James a right of war against them by those 
 who felt the misconduct would be instantly acquired, 
 and, according to Locke, the trust being abused, the 
 power would be forfeited, and devolve again upon 
 those who gave it. 
 
 SECT. I. 
 
 THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE. 
 
 103 
 
 The cases of unjust usurpation I have supposed, 
 are not all of them imaginary. 
 
 But are there no actual oppressions, or already en- 
 acted laws, esteemed to be such by many thousands, 
 perhaps millions, of the people ? 
 
 The game-laws, represented falsely, but doggedly, 
 as the tyranny of the rich over the poor ; the corn 
 laws, decidedly bearing, however unjustly, the same 
 character ; the poor laws, tyranny itself, and even in- 
 human ; the national debt, that incubus, which might 
 be annihilated at a stroke ; the trappings of the mo- 
 narchy, which republicans say would maintain many a 
 commonwealth; the pension list, emphatically "framed 
 for the worthless few, at the expense of the virtuous 
 many ; " the church-rates, the tithes, and a thousand 
 obnoxious taxes, particularly upon newspapers, mono- 
 polies, arrests for debt, and even the marriage act ; 
 both of these last, oppression, and invasion of man's 
 natural rights! Surely there are here grievances 
 enough, in our unhappy and rough-ridden country, to 
 make us, according to Sir James's doctrine, rise to a 
 man, and use our original power of resistance; or 
 at least of administering the physic of revolution to 
 the diseased and rotten body politic. 
 
 To be sure, the oppressions have all been authorised 
 by the law, and long acquiesced in without revolt. 
 But what then ? Does that take away the right, still 
 less the advisableness of revolting, provided, as ouf 
 jurist holds, the plan is not " ill-concerted^'' and we 
 can get reformers enough to warrant success ? 
 
 F 4 
 
104 
 
 SECT. !• 
 
 THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE. 
 
 105 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. I. 
 
 I am afraid, however, that the praise of originality 
 in this doctrine of insurrection does not belong to 
 Sir James. The patriot Hampden (he of 1688) 
 treats them as if of every day's allowance. When 
 examined before the House of Lords, as to his plea of 
 guilty, in his share of the Rye-House plot, he boldly, 
 and certainly unanswerably, says no man will think 
 he ought to be ashamed of it, who thinks that Lord 
 Jlussellwas murdered.— Thsit certainly must be allowed 
 to him who so thinks. But he adds, that the matter 
 {insurrection) was a very common thing, and quite 
 constitutional: — " This was the way," he says, " which 
 our ancestors alwaijs took when the sovereign authority 
 came to so great a height ; as might be made out by 
 many instances. Custom had made this the law of 
 England; and all civilised and icell governed nations 
 ahout us had used the like way'^ 
 
 So far the oracle Hampden, who thus makes in- 
 surrection part of our common law, and holds it even 
 to belong to civilisation and good government, — of 
 which, no doubt, all the well-governed states of the 
 world are duly sensible, and take care to put it in 
 practice. I will only add, that this opinion of Mr. 
 
 Hampden is quoted by a noble statesman of ours 
 
 himself a legislator and secretary of state, and there- 
 fore, of course, alive to all maxims of good govern- 
 ment, at least without any mark of disapprobation or 
 difference of opinion.* 
 
 , * Life of Lord Russell, by Lord John Russell, vol. ii. p. 166. ' 
 
 Yet, with the greatest possible deference to one 
 who, from his office of home secretary, must know so 
 much better how to govern than we simple folk whom 
 he governs, I would ask, in what state of happiness or 
 security that man would be whose tenants or servants, 
 if they chose to be discontented, were bred up in the 
 notion that they had a right, and were even encour- 
 aged by the law, to destroy him, provided they were 
 strong enough ? 
 
 What would become of confidence, or sense of 
 honour, or gratitude, the best ties of social order? It 
 is but justice, however, to Lord John, to say, that in 
 another place he qualifies these opinions ; not, how- 
 ever, as to the principle, but as a matter of prudence* 
 
 " I apprehend," says he, "few men will now deny, 
 that resistance to a government may sometimes be an 
 act not only justifiable as an enterprise, but impe- 
 rative as a duty." 
 
 I am sure, for one, I will not be of the few who 
 deny this. On the contrary, I should have been 
 glad, had I lived at the time, to have been thought 
 worthy of siding against James. 
 
 Lord John goes on, soberly and wisely, I think, 
 to condemn a doctrine of Lord Chatham, that it 
 were better for the people to perish in a glorious 
 contention for their rights, than to purchase a slavish 
 tranquillity, at the expense of one iota of the Con-* 
 stitution. Lord John thinks, that a single franchise 
 may be compensated, and abuses resisted, without 
 taking arms. 
 
 F 5 
 
II 
 
 106 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. I. 
 
 II' 
 
 So do you and I. " It is only," he goes on to say, 
 " when the channels of redress are choaked up, and in 
 danger of being totally closed, that it is the right of 
 all men to prepare for their defence." * 
 
 This, too, is undoubted. But cui hono^ such general 
 truths, unless accompanied with practical illustrations 
 in order to disclose your real meaning ? 
 
 These sentences were written by the noble author, 
 m discussing the question of the principle, as well as 
 of the fact of the Rye-House plot, and the share his 
 honourable and popular ancestor was supposed to 
 nave had in it. Well ; is he prepared to say, that 
 because the general principle, so generally laid down, 
 is undeniable, that Lord Russell was justified in pre* 
 paring for a defensive insurrection, because, not the 
 king, but the House of Lords, (though we will grant 
 him the king if he pleases,) had thrown out the 
 Exclusion Bill ? 
 
 Were the channels of redress in danger of " being 
 choaked and totally closed," because the undoubted 
 heir of the throne w as not set aside for being a Papist ; 
 there being no law against it ? 
 
 Yet this was the main grievance complained of, 
 spite of an enumeration of many others (and serious 
 ones too) made by Lord John. 
 
 For, as to some of them (for example, the removal 
 of judges for a particular purpose, and the eiTects, at 
 least, of the surrender of the charters) ; tliese Lad 
 
 • Life of Lord Uu»cll. 
 
 SECT. I. 
 
 THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE. 
 
 107 
 
 ti^ 
 
 not then taken place ; the abuse of the nomination of 
 juries by sheriffs had been begun, as we have seen, 
 by the Whig Sheriff Bethell, against the court*, and 
 the press was pretty much where it was. 
 
 Even Hallam admits, while also enumerating the 
 encroachments by proclamations, on the rights of 
 parliament, and of the subject, that there were no 
 such general infringements of liberty in the reign of 
 Charles II., as occurred continually before the Long 
 
 Pari lament, f 
 
 On the other hand, we are not to forget that the 
 association framed by Sliaftesbury against the go- 
 vernment, and the plan, hy force ofarms^ to continue 
 the Oxford parliament, spite of the dissolution, were 
 already contemplated, if not organised, long before 
 any of the enumerated grievances of Lord John had 
 
 been felt. 
 
 But strange to say, Lord John plainly and forcibly 
 answers himself in the following passages:—" It is 
 sufficient to justify the leaders of an insun-ection, 
 that the people should be thoroughly weary of suf- 
 fering, and disposed to view witli complacency a 
 change of rule. Wei-e they so in 168:3 ? It appears 
 to me that they icere not'' Tlien what could justify his 
 ancestor m plotting insurrection ? " Acts of oppres- 
 sion," Lord Jolm proceeds to say, "had bceti exercised 
 chiefly against a pany, many of whom Iiad become 
 unpopular ; the general character of the government 
 
 • Sctctvly and ja^tly bljoncd by Lord John himself, 
 t Coostitutkinal Hist., wl.iii. p. 130, 137. 
 
 F 6 
 
 1 
 
108 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT, I« 
 
 was not ttjramiical; the rtUgwn (vid the prop*:rt}j of the 
 sulyect had not t/et been attacked. Lord Russell seems 
 hirasolf to have eniertained little hojm of rousing the 
 people at this period ; and it is probable that, after 
 some consultation with his friends, he would eitlicr 
 l)avc persuaded them to remain quiet^ or have with* 
 drawn altogedier from their councils/' 
 
 Jf so, I repeat the question, Why did Lord Russell 
 consult about a rising, and wherefore does Lord John 
 make the enumeration of grievances that are supposed 
 to justify him ? Would the ix-fusal of the Exclusion, 
 would anf/ refusal of any bill by the king, or House 
 of Lords, (that refusal being in the exercise of their 
 
 constitutional rights,) justify the insurrection pro- 
 posed ? 
 
 If not, wliere was the necessity, or even the policy, 
 of introducing this abstract question as a defence of 
 Lord Russell? 
 
 Mackintosh, however, proceeds infinitely farther. 
 
 As James invaded liberty, he observes, the right 
 of a defensive war was clear. 
 
 ** It is needless, tlierefore, to moot the question, 
 whether arms may be as justly wielded to obtain^ as 
 to defeml libert}'/* 
 
 Cofi the question tlien Ife mooted ? 
 
 Tin's is most important, since it implies that, iii 
 the mind of our luminous histructor, if the legal con- 
 stitution of a state be not suflSciendy consistent witli 
 liberty, {oj whicli diffictdt matter every one i$ to judge 
 for himselfy) it may be at least mooted^ whether the 
 
 I 
 
 SECT. I. 
 
 THE BIQUT OF RESISTANCE. 
 
 109 
 
 subject, without farther cause of complaint, and 
 without any illegal attempt on the part of tlie sove- 
 reign, may not take anns to obtain what he thinks 
 is wanting to form a better constitution ? 
 
 Hence therefore, Uiough the governments of Russia, 
 Prussia, and Austiia, if despotic, are so by lawy and 
 are allowed to be well administered, the people, in 
 the midst of peace and happiness, may at any time 
 rise against their sovereigns and destroy them. 
 
 If this be not a removal of all landmarks — an 
 undermining of all security in a community, I don't 
 know what is. 
 
 According to this, the most wise, virtuous, and 
 patriarchal sovereign upon earth 'is not safe from a 
 lawfid revolt: for if the law give him more power 
 than it pleaseth any of his subjects to submit to, and 
 t]iey tJiinh they can make the Constitution better, it ia 
 only a moot point whether they may not rise in arms 
 agaiqst him. If that were so, I fear the mooting 
 would not last long. We ktiow the nature of a pam«* 
 pered prosperity to produce discontent; and, for 
 one, I was always struck with the forcible expressions 
 of old Walton on the usurpations of the Long Par-^ 
 liament: — " This nation," says he, ^* being tlien happy 
 and at peace, but inwardly sick of being well.*** At 
 any rate, what then are loyalty and submission to the 
 law»? Jkiih moro nound^ btriikd fnm iW lU^iodL 
 code by \\\\% Hm* lUlx^rii book ; fcr ap I ^kkik I 
 now cull ill 
 
 \ 
 
110 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. I. 
 
 SECT. I* 
 
 THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE. 
 
 Ill 
 
 But it is said, and is allowed, that the law by 
 
 ^ which this resistance is authorised, is not, and cannot 
 
 ^ j be, the law of any written constitution ; for that 
 
 would be a contradiction. It is one paramount to all 
 
 enactments of man, namely, the moral law, or law of 
 
 nature, written in our hearts. 
 
 Be it so ; but all law, whether positive, or moral, 
 must have an obligation to force obedience to its 
 ' enactments ; and what is the obligation of natural 
 law? 
 
 A great, diversified, and much agitated question, 
 ending, I think, (or ending in nothing,) in religious 
 obligation, which thus becomes the same with moral 
 obligation. 
 
 An excellent answer; for, no doubt, such an obli- 
 gation must bind all mankind, except those who have 
 no sense of religion. 
 
 But here, as every man that pleases, and when he 
 pleases, may rise in insurrection, amenable to no 
 tribunal but his own interpretation of the moral law, 
 all definiteness in moral (that is, religious) obligation 
 is set aside, and we are reduced to the commonwealth 
 of atheists, or of Hobbes, and all civil security 
 depends upon the fear of the axe and the gallows. 
 
 Am I doing Sir James injustice, in tracing this 
 consequence from a doctrine, that it is only a moot 
 question whether arms may not be wielded to obtain, 
 as well as defend, liberty ? 
 
 That there may be no doubt as to his meaning of 
 the word « mooting^' I beg to call your attention to 
 
 the following explanatory passages : — "It may be 
 observed, that the rulers who obstinately persist in 
 withholding from their subjects securities for good 
 government, obviously necessary for the permanence 
 of that blessing, generally desired by competently 
 informed men, and capable of being introduced 
 without danger to public tranquillity, appear thereby 
 to place themselves in a state of hostility against the 
 nation whom they govern. 
 
 " Wantonly to prolong a state of insecurity seems to 
 be as much an act of aggression as to plunge a nation 
 into that state. 
 
 " When a people discover their danger, they have a 
 moral claim on their governors for security against 
 it. As soon as a distemper is discovered to be dangerous^ 
 and a safe and effectual remedy has been found, those 
 who withhold the remedy are as much morally ans- 
 werable for the deaths that may ensue, as if they had 
 administered poison. 
 
 " But though a REFORMATORY REVOLT may in 
 these circumstances become perfectly just^ it has not 
 the same likelihood of a prosperous issue, with those 
 insurrections which are more strictly and directly 
 
 defensive." 
 
 Here, then, the mask is thrown off, and, under the 
 mild and innocent phrase of a reformatory revolt ^ we 
 may take arms against our governors whenever we 
 please ; not because they do not, but because they da 
 govern according to law. They may be the wisest 
 and best of princes— Trajans, Antoninuses, Alfreds^ 
 
112 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. I, 
 
 or Henri Quatres; but we may kill, burn, and 
 destroy them if they administer laws which, in our 
 opinion, might be made better. 
 
 This is what I understand by the ingenious term 
 V reformatory revolt. 
 
 What is specifically meant by many parts of the 
 language in which this doctrine is conveyed, I confess 
 I cannot tell. 
 
 I can only guess, from some of the expressions, 
 something very terrible and threatening from the 
 governed to the governors. 
 
 The ambiguities and obscure shadows contained in 
 the didactic parts, I in vain endeavour to make out ; 
 but when we come to acts of "^ aggression'^ on the 
 parts of rulers, though none are substantively speci- 
 fied ; and when a " reformatory revolt '' is talked of, 
 metaphysics are at an end, and there is something 
 which we could grapple with if we knew how they 
 came into the array where we find them. 
 
 What can we understand of rulers obstinately with- 
 holding from their subjects securities for good govern- 
 ment'i 
 
 What is the good government meant ? What are 
 the securities ? What the safe and effectual remedies ? 
 
 On these there may be ten thousand opinions. 
 
 They may mean a periodical national assembly, 
 periodically cancelling the government, in order to 
 make a new one: they may mean a periodical, or 
 perpetual dictator; a mixed monarchy, an elective 
 king ; any thing that any body pleases. 
 
 SECT. I. 
 
 THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE, 
 
 113 
 
 I know not what exactly is in the writer's mind 
 by the vague and indefinite term security^ applied 
 practically to a people, still less what is meant by the 
 competently informed men^ who are to decide. 
 
 In the wording of the sentence, too, it is doubtful 
 whether it is good government, or security for it, 
 which these competently informed gentlemen are said 
 so generally to desire. 
 
 All these branches of the proposition which is 
 attempted (for it is by no means perfect) must be 
 distinctly understood, before we can reach even the 
 idea of what is the aggression predicated, and what is 
 aimed at by the reformatory revolt. 
 
 Rhetoricians are seldom logicians, though our 
 friend had the reputation of both. 
 
 It must be owned that here, where, on account 
 of the muttering thunder from behind this cloud, 
 perspicuity was most wanted, he has most failed. 
 
 The generality of the phrase of competently informed 
 men, though these are the men who are to judge of 
 no less than what may be a lawful cause of civil war, 
 is still more markedly fallacious, and is of a piece 
 with all that vagueness and indeterminate phraseology, 
 in which, throughout. Sir James does not hesitate to 
 hazard the most dangerous propositions. 
 
 He, himself, is a storehouse of information ; and 
 what may appear to be competent information to me, 
 may seem ignorance to him. What I may think 
 ignorance, another may be content with. What he 
 may think information, I may think madness. 
 
M 
 
 !( 
 
 Jff 
 
 114 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SFXT. I. 
 
 Must we not therefore reject his proposition, for 
 want of more light, where he lays down in such unin- 
 telligible generality, though it may lead to domestic 
 horrors, that if securities Jbr good government desired by 
 competently informed men are refused^ revolt and civil 
 war may lawfully follow ? 
 
 Let us try this competency by its effects. 
 
 I have heard that Mr. Owen is not only com- 
 petently, but well informed. 
 
 Will Sir James elect him as a judge of good govern- 
 ment, or the securities for it ; and allow him to tell us 
 when we are to rise to claim it ? Will Mr. Bentham 
 do ? or will Mr. Muirson satisfy him ? 
 
 Who is Mr. Muirson ? — 
 
 A gentleman who has evidently, and deeply, studied 
 the subject, as well as Sir James ; and evinces quite 
 as much zeal upon it, though inferior to him, probably, 
 upon all others. Witness a pamphlet which he wrote, 
 and read at a meeting, sometime since at the Crown 
 and Anchor, of the working classes, on Spanish affairs ; 
 which, of course, they must have profoundly under- 
 stood. That they were at least competently informed 
 upon it, appears from their discovering that in Spain 
 there was no House of Peers ; and therefore " it would 
 be a national blessing if our House was swept away, 
 with all its appendant rubbish." ' 
 
 Mr. Muirson, however, was more particular. He 
 read from his pamphlet (sold at the door for one 
 penny) the following " Outline of a new constitution, 
 such as should be submitted to the British nation, 
 
 SECT. I. 
 
 THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE. 
 
 115 
 
 assembled as a people upon the principles of association^ 
 and in social union^ to form and enact a social com- 
 pact." 
 
 " It is decreed, by order of the people, in social 
 union assembled — 
 
 " That all kingly authority, all hereditary titles, 
 privileges, and all laws of primogeniture and entail, 
 be for ever abolished. 
 
 " That there be no state religion. 
 
 " A national legislative assembly, to be elected by 
 ballot and universal suffrage. Ireland, as well as 
 the colonies, shall constitute and legislate for them- 
 selves. 
 
 " All the Crown lands, Church lands, waste lands, 
 and whatever else at this time be constituted national 
 property, shall be immediately taken possession of in 
 the name of the nation. 
 
 " The people shall be armed, so that they shall be 
 at all times prepared to resist oppression and assert 
 their rights. 
 
 " Every soldier, who has co-operated in social union 
 with the people in order to re-conquer and obtain their 
 natural and just rights, to have sixteen acres of the 
 best land, rent free for life. * 
 
 " England looks up for, and wants a leader of 
 courage, capacity, and action, around whose patriotic 
 genius all men whose bosoms glow with the sacred 
 love of liberty, will unite their efforts to rescue their 
 
 * Is this one of Sir James's securities? 
 
 \ 
 
1 
 
 116 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. I. 
 
 SECT. I. 
 
 THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE. 
 
 117 
 
 i 
 
 suffering countrymen from the yoke of bondage^ ichich 
 has so long, and so cruelly oppressed, and which still so 
 shamefully degrades it." 
 
 Such was Mr. Muirson's address ; and surely he 
 must be one of the competently informed, particularly 
 on questions of constitutional law ; for the report said, 
 he was vociferously applauded by an audience, who 
 said that, with the assistance of the member for Kil- 
 kenny, they had no fear of being able to reconstruct 
 the British Constitution. * 
 
 I fear you will think I am trifling with your 
 patience, in intruding this apparent burlesque upon 
 you. Believe me, I never was more serious ; nor do 
 I think it would be possible to produce a more sound, 
 or practical comment upon almost all the constitutional 
 doctrines in Sir James's book, particularly the last I 
 have reviewed. 
 
 Wild, exaggerated, treasonable as the proposals 
 are, ridiculous as may seem the power, or the 
 knowledge of such an assembly, there is no one 
 feature of the transactions, nor one principle or 
 assertion of the address, which is not in unison with, 
 and founded upon the whole doctrine of resistance, 
 in all its ramifications, and emphatically on his last- 
 mentioned theories of a reformatory revolt, contained 
 in Sir James's work. 
 
 * See The Times, August 14. 1836. — The Sun subjoins, that the 
 audience, though composed of the working classes, handled the sub- 
 ject so well, as to leave no regret for the absence of parliamentary 
 orators. 
 
 It is true, with us, no aggression is, or can be 
 pointed out. The king is no tyrant. His is a reign 
 of law, of kindness, of moderation and good will; 
 and his measures have been the reverse of oppressive. 
 But what of that? — According to the advocate for 
 resistance, a mere desire in subjects to obtain more 
 liberty than they have, and without any attack upon 
 what they have, will justify their taking arms, provided 
 there is a chance of success; which these gentlemen of 
 the Crown and Anchor say they have. 
 
 We see they already cry out that they are in a 
 bondage, which has long and cruelly oppressed them. 
 Well ; have they not, according to Sir James, a right 
 to a reformatory revolt ? Have they not a right to 
 think as well as others ? The Sun newspaper says, 
 they think as well as the reformed Parliament. Are 
 they not, then, "men, competently informed?" and 
 may they not decide therefore on what are the best 
 securities for the good government they demand ? 
 
 Could I have supposed Mr. Muirson meant to 
 have laughed Sir James's proposition out of coun- 
 tenance, I should have thought he would have framed 
 the exact proposal for an amended constitution, and 
 called this meeting expressly for the purpose. 
 
 All falls in with the many other proofs, in the 
 book I am presenting to you, of how dark, how 
 ambiguous, and therefore how dangerous to be fol- 
 lowed on questions of political law, it is possible 
 for a mind to be; luminous, beautiful, and eminently 
 cultivated in all other respects. 
 
1 
 
 118 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. I. 
 
 But here I am aware of the saving clause in Sir 
 James's theory, of which it would be injustice to him 
 not to take notice. The securities to be demanded 
 must be « capable of being introduced without danger 
 to public tranquillity.^^ 
 
 Here, again, is the sad error of legislating " in 
 generalities," if the object is to legalise a given 
 practical case. 
 
 Amidst the thousand different feelings and opinions 
 which agitate mankind on political measures, the 
 party spirit, the blind prejudices, the personal in- 
 terests that ever prevail, (particularly in a mixed 
 government,) who is to say what will or will not be 
 " dangerous to public tranquillity?" Besides, if re- 
 fused by the ruling powers, (say, in England, the 
 King, Lords, and Commons,) that instant, according 
 to Sir James, " they place themselves in a state of 
 hostility to the nation. Wantonly to prolong a state 
 of insecurity, seems to be as much an aggression as to 
 plunge a nation into that state.'' We know pretty 
 clearly now, what are to be the consequences of this 
 
 aggression. 
 
 Is this then the wisdom that Sir James would teach 
 us — that we are to live in constant apprehension of 
 tumult and revolt, our security from which may be 
 destroyed whenever any fool, any visionary, or any 
 wicked person chooses to propose what he thinks may 
 be granted by the legislature without endangering 
 public tranquillity, but upon which, unfortunately, the 
 legislature may hold a different opinion ? In short, 
 
 SECT. I. 
 
 THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE. 
 
 119 
 
 that it IS never duty and allegiance, but mere pru- 
 dence, that is to preserve our safety in society? 
 
 With submission, this saving clause, that the se- 
 curity (that is, the alteration) in question, is to be 
 introduced without danger to tranquillity, yet give a 
 right of insurrection if not granted, is a contradictory 
 proposition. The mere demand of the security, 
 (however tranquilly it might be introduced if adopted 
 immediately,) if refused, breaks the tranquillity. 
 What should we say to a robber who demands a 
 man's purse, with this persuasive speech, — " You can 
 give it, if you please, without the least breach of 
 tranquillity ; but if you do not, I will blow your 
 brains out!" 
 
 Many demands upon the legislature may illustrate 
 the refutation of this wild doctrine. Take one. Voting 
 by ballot may, by many, be deemed a security for 
 good government. It certainly might be introduced 
 without danger to public security. But it is refused ; 
 and thereby an aggression is committed. 
 
 The legislature "has placed itself in a state of 
 hostility to the nation;" and those who think the 
 ballot a security for liberty, have an instant right of 
 insurrection. 
 
 Will this hold for a moment ? 
 
 These * are mere sophistries that j^annot be ad- 
 mitted in a code of law. 
 
 But how then, it may be asked, do you resist a 
 
 robber? 
 
 By sheer force, upon the sudden emergency ; the 
 
120 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. I. 
 
 !•» 
 
 ill. 
 
 right to which you have, (as I said,) by the law 
 of self-defence, which is the law of nature. But 
 before I do this, I do not attempt to reason about 
 his having broken a compact with society when he 
 entered it, or about my having retained a power to 
 take the law into my own hands when he did so. 
 
 You allow then, an antagonist may say, that you 
 would repress grievances by the sword, if there were 
 no other mode. Say rather, repel an attack ; which 
 I certainly would do, provided there were no other 
 
 remedy. , t i n j j 
 
 But I would do it on the principle I have alluded 
 
 to, of self-defence, when the case arises ; of which I 
 
 must judge at the risk of my neck : for if I am wrong, 
 
 or if I do not succeed, I shall certainly be either 
 
 shot by the robber or hanged by the law. I would, 
 
 therefore, not btsy myself with a metaphysical right, 
 
 or provide for cases of necessity which have not 
 
 arisen. 
 
 Should a king then attack your person, or house, 
 
 with no warrant of law « ! I would shoot 
 
 him, as well as the robber, if I could not defend my^ 
 self' without it; but not in virtue of my dormant 
 sovereignty, revived for the occasion. 
 
 How infinitely more rational, upon this subject, is 
 the clear and cool-judging Blackstone ! He is as fully 
 aware of the difficulty of treating a case of necessity as 
 Sir James ; but he extricates himself from it with pru- 
 dence, because he seeks not to generalise, or legislate 
 tiniversally for cares that cannot be foreseen, and 
 
 SECT. I. 
 
 THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE. 
 
 121 
 
 can only be met by temporary measures. He felt 
 and practised Sir James's own maxim, — which Sir 
 James himself did not. He did not attempt to " look 
 for regularity in a sudden and unprecedented crisis, 
 where all was irregular.* " He is as free as our jurist 
 in applying remedies where wanted, pro re nata ; 
 but he does not, on that account, endeavour to render 
 (to use a forcible illustration of Burke,) "the medi- 
 cine of the commonwealth its daily bread." 
 
 Locke, in his warm zeal for liberty and just 
 hostility to the divine right of kings, fell into an 
 extreme on the opposite side, which republicans are 
 fond of quoting. " There remains," says he, " still in- 
 herent in the people a supreme power to remove or 
 alter the legislative, when they find the legislative 
 act contrary to the trust reposed in them ; for when 
 such a trust is abused, it is thereby forfeited and 
 devolves to those who gave it."f 
 
 Here we are evidently again at sea. For, again, 
 supposing a fact which does not exist, that the people 
 in form assembled to frame a government, and, in 
 the first instance, resolved unanimously (I should 
 say women as well as men, and certainly many of 
 those called infants in the eye of the law J) to abide 
 by the determination of a majority, still the question 
 recurs, What is trust? what the abuse of it? and, 
 
 ♦ Mackintosh, vol. ii. p. 282. 
 f On Government, p. 2. s. 149. 227. 
 
 I If a boy of seventeen may be and act as an executor, or be a 
 father, why may he not vote in the formation of a government ? 
 
 G 
 
 
122 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. I. 
 
 SECT. I. 
 
 THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE. 
 
 123 
 
 above all, who is to judge? If every man, it is evident 
 you can have reliance on no man. 
 
 The name of Locke is such a host to whatever 
 side he takes, that it is not easy to grapple with it ; 
 but here his position is so obviously weak, that no- 
 thing but a theorist's enthusiasm for his theory could 
 have induced him to hazard it. As a theorem in 
 abstract philosophy, to be worked out, if it can, by 
 thought and reflection, — as a question to exercise the 
 mind in the closet, like other abstruse questions in 
 science, (the philosopher's stone for instance,) to a 
 cool, not a hot brain, there may be no danger in 
 treating it. As a practical position, ever to be laid 
 down fundamentally to guide the interpretation of 
 laws, and he pleadable in a defence for an unsuccessful 
 revolt, it can but entrap the judgment; and, if the 
 revolt is successful, it is unnecessary. It therefore 
 resolves itself into feeling, or the right of the 
 strongest, — which surely can have no place in a 
 treatise on law. 
 
 Well then has Blackstone observed upon it : 
 
 " However just this conclusion may be in theory, 
 we cannot practically adopt it, nor take any legal 
 steps for carrying it into execution, under any dis- 
 pensation of government at present actually existing. 
 ..^ For this devolution of power to the people at large, 
 - includes in it a dissolution of the whole form of 
 government by that people* ; reduces all the members 
 
 * Which form never was so established. 
 
 to their original equality * ; and, by annihilating the 
 sovereign power, repeals all positive laws whatsoever 
 before enacted. No human laws will therefore 
 suppose a case which at once must destroy all law, 
 and compel men to build afresh upon a new foun- 
 dation ; nor will they make provision for so desperate 
 an event as must render all legal provisions ineffect- 
 ual.'' f 
 
 This is excellent sense, and if their theories 
 are proclaimed, with a view to practical consequences, 
 blows the theorists to atoms whoever they may be. 
 
 There is one thing, however, in these passages 
 of Blackstone, which I do not understand; the 
 meaning of the words " under any dispensation of 
 government at present actually existing J^ Did it ever 
 exist ? Can it exist ? 
 
 Those who may agree with me will say, No. 
 
 For though a code of laws may foresee and describe 
 a case wherein a king may be deposed, (as where he 
 breaks any given law,) that king, whatever his title, 
 cannot be a sovereign. If he can be a legal delin- 
 quent, he must have a legal judge, and that judge is 
 sovereign over him. 
 
 This was exemplified in the Ephori of Sparta ; and 
 if we suppose the code to describe the functionary 
 who is thus triable as the real sovereign of the state, 
 who therefore can have no superior, the assertion is 
 a solecism, for he has one. 
 
 * Which original equality never existed, 
 f Comment, vol. i. p. 61. 
 
 G 2 
 
 fl 
 
I 
 
 124 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. I. 
 
 SECT I. 
 
 THE RIGHT OF RESISTANCE. 
 
 123 
 
 A sophism of this kind appears in the work of the 
 sophist Paine, I think in his Rights of Man. 
 
 He there held this (not even specious) contra- 
 diction, laying it down that the sovereignty might by 
 law be subject to the people ; and his exemplification 
 was the constitution of one of the American states, 
 in which there was a sovereignty with all legislative 
 and executive powers, but reviewable at the end of 
 fifteen years, by an assembly of the people who might 
 take it away. 
 
 Who did not see that the word sovereignty was 
 here inaccurate ? for that there were here two go- 
 verning powers, one paramount, one subordinate: 
 one, the Assembly, the real sovereign ; the other, its 
 deputy for a definite period. 
 
 It is five and forty years since I read this blunder, 
 probably a wilful one of a man who was supposed to 
 have the power of enlightening us. It glared upon 
 me, though then a young man, and I never forgot it. 
 
 Can I, or ought I to quit this division of the 
 subject, without investigating the far-famed question 
 of the Sovereignty of the People itself, founded upon 
 rights supposed by many, besides Mackintosh, to be 
 clear, admitted, inalienable^ and resumable^ because 
 paramount to all other authority, even though derived 
 from themselves?* 
 
 * How can any possession over which a man has the absolute control, 
 in his own right, be inalienable ? If it is, he has not that control. 
 Liberty is a possession of this kind. A man who has it, is lord of 
 himself; and being so, what is to prevent him from disposing of himself 
 
 To this therefore I hasten, and will close (not I 
 fear before you have wished,) what it has occurred to 
 me to remark, upon this first of the four sections into 
 which I proposed dividing my observations upon Sir 
 James's work. 
 
 for a valuable consideration, or no consideration at all : Jacob served 
 Laban seven years for each of his two wives (Leah's a dear purchase.) 
 The ancient Germans, according to Tacitus, were so fond of gaming, 
 that they sometimes staked themselves, that is, their liberty upon the 
 hazard of chance. If liberty is inalienable, how could this have been ? 
 Suppose an unfortunate but metaphysical gamester, had refused paying 
 the stakes, and resumed his power over himself on this plea, would 
 not his new master have accused him of having cheated at play ? 
 
 G 3 
 
 (I 
 
126 
 
 SECTION II. 
 
 OF THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE PEOPLE, AND THE 
 
 SOCIAL COMPACT. 
 
 Since the Revolution, and the celebrated debates 
 upon these questions, ending in the celebrated finding 
 of both Houses of Parliament, that there was such 
 a compact, and that James had broken it, all English- 
 men, at least all good Whigs would be scandalised to 
 hear it questioned. I ought therefore to fear and 
 tremble, when I confess that in this doctrine, I never 
 could see any thing more than a supposititious case, 
 which never really happened, but was created merely 
 for the better educing and illustrating the duties of 
 governments. 
 
 Abstract principles are generally more difficult to 
 demonstrate, particularly by arguments a priori, or 
 even by analogy, than to gather them by a plain 
 deduction from a tangible case. 
 
 The theories therefore of the political philosophers, 
 as to the reciprocal duties of sovereign and subject, 
 were infinitely more capable of practical demon- 
 stration by supposing what might, but what never 
 
 SECT. II. 
 
 sovereignty of the PEOPLE. 
 
 127 
 
 i. 
 
 did happen, that wild and independent men living in 
 solitary freedom, in woods and caves, left them for 
 the purpose of associating together, and framing a 
 government for their better security. Not only this, 
 but that these savages entered into a compact with 
 those whom they chose for their governors, in which 
 the ramified and mutual duties of obedience and pro- 
 tection, and the exact boundaries of power on one 
 side, and subjection on the other, were all pointed 
 out, with a defeasance, as the lawyers term it, should 
 the conditions be not observed. This, I say, was a 
 far more convenient way of elucidating the theory 
 and science of government, than mere speculative 
 truths without such an example to illustrate them. 
 
 As such a convenient mode of elucidation, I am 
 willing to adopt it. As a case that ever happened, 
 and as the actual origin of government, I never could 
 bring my mind to admit it. The utmost that can be 
 said for it is, that it may be implied from the reason 
 and nature of things, and, had the Convention Par- 
 liament voted that it was so implied, perhaps it would 
 not have been so objectionable; though about reason 
 and the nature of things how many are the differences 
 of opinion, I need not to your experienced mind 
 point out. 
 
 To be sure, the Convention voted it : but will that 
 make it binding upon our belief? 
 
 Suppose they had voted that there was no God : 
 would that have demonstrated such a proposition ? 
 
 G 4 
 
128 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. II. 
 
 In reference to the opinion quoted from Locke, I 
 have asked what is meant by a trust ? 
 
 Surely it is not meant to be that technical instru- 
 ment in law which appoints, by a known formulary, 
 one person to hold a benefit for the use of another ? 
 
 But, even if Locke meant it so, could he who 
 appointed the trust resume it himself, let it be ever 
 so much abused? 
 
 The reason is, because no man can be a judge in 
 
 ^ his own case. The law, therefore, in cases of abuse, 
 
 appoints other parties to take cognisance of, and 
 
 decide the question. But the word had not this 
 
 literal technical meaning, even with Locke. 
 
 It is evidently a metaphysical supposition, the 
 better to illustrate a particular doctrine in morals, as 
 well as in politics. 
 
 Under this, as a legal deed of trust enacts certain 
 duties to be performed, in failure of which, the 
 power may be resumed under a decree by competent 
 and known authority ; so, for the better exposition 
 of the reciprocal duties of governors and governed, 
 or of men generally, a case is supposed which never 
 actually happened, and a trust is impliedly granted 
 by one party to another, as if both were in a state 
 of civil society, when, in point of fact to have been 
 so, the trust supposed must have already been exe- 
 cuted. 
 
 For, to pursue this matter :— if we allow what is 
 falsely, I think, presumed, that there ever was a state 
 of man without government, that is, when every man 
 
 SECT. II. 
 
 SOVEREIGNTY OF THE PEOPLE. 
 
 129 
 
 A - 
 
 '^ 
 
 was his own absolute master, like any other animal; 
 it is clear that in such a state, from the very de- 
 scription of it, no such trust, express or implied, 
 could have existed, for there were neither governors 
 nor governed. 
 
 And when a government was at last constituted, 
 as is supposed by common consent, there must have 
 been a previous common consent to abide by such 
 institution; which instantly supposes a society al- 
 ready formed; and there must have been a still 
 earlier trust from every man to every man for that 
 purpose. 
 
 This, however, is a state which the most liberal 
 theorist, as to the origin of government, has never 
 ventured to suppose ; and is not only not supported, 
 but contradicted by whatever history remains to us 
 of the earliest times. 
 
 By this history it is fair to suppose, that the first 
 governments were patriarchal, which by no means 
 implies divine right; — a doctrine long exploded, 
 and reduced to mere speculation, amusing in the 
 reveries of contemplative men, but not admissible by 
 true philosophy. 
 
 Yet so, also, seems this supposition of an actual 
 trust, or contract, between people and their sove- 
 reign, entered upon by the respective parties: the 
 one executing, the other receiving it upon known 
 conditions. 
 
 I do not say that no instance of such a transaction 
 is to be found in history. 
 
 G 5 
 
130 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. II. 
 
 Exiles and outlaws have, I think, in one or two 
 instances, been known to have agreed to stand by 
 one another to find a settlement, and have elected 
 a chief; but with these exceptions, there is no proof, 
 that the general origin of states sprang from this 
 asserted trust or contract. 
 
 We, therefore, as has been observed, start an ima- 
 ginary transaction, only as a more convenient vehicle 
 to convey more clearly our notions of duty in our 
 ditterent relations one to another. 
 
 In this sense, we say we are stewards or trustees of 
 the fortune which God may have given us, for the 
 proper use and distribution of it; and Locke might 
 just as well, and with as much reason, have asserted, 
 that if we abuse the gift by waste or profligacy, the 
 law by which we hold it might take it from us, and 
 devolve it upon some other person more worthy. 
 
 Indeed, what is more common than for pious, or 
 merely moral men, to hold by a metaphor, as it were, 
 
 that the rich are only trustees or stewards for the 
 poor r 
 
 For the better expounding the rationale of our 
 duties, this IS convenient in a code of morals. 
 
 But what right it would give the poor, even had 
 they arms m their hands, to resume thei'r supposed 
 property from these their metaphorical trustees, I will 
 no mqu-e Yet if the trusteeship of sovereigns is also 
 only metaphorical, and not an actual fact, I see not why 
 he doctrine might not prevail in one case as well as in 
 the other; especially as in both, the ce,M<iui trust is 
 
 SECT. II. 
 
 SOVEREIGNTY OP THE PEOPLE. 
 
 131 
 
 the sole judge (according to the theory,) when the trust 
 is abused, and, therefore, when it may be resumed. 
 Hence, I entirely concur with the observation of 
 Hume, that, though the principle is noble in itself 
 and seems specious, that the people are the origin of 
 all just power, it is lelied by all history and expe- 
 rience *; and I recur again to the support of the 
 candid and liberal Hallam, who allows that the idea 
 of an original contract " seems rather too theoretical^ 
 yet necessary at that time^ as denying the divine 
 origin of monarchy, from which its absolute and 
 indefeasible authority had been plausibly derived." f 
 If this be the only reason that made the doctrine 
 necessary, the doctrine itself is evidently not genuine, 
 especially as from our improved knowledge it is 
 necessary no longer. 
 
 Upon the whole then, even the great Locke must, 
 I think, in this opinion be pronounced inaccurate ; 
 probably from being hurried on by zeal into another 
 extreme, at a time when boldness and extreme prin- 
 ciples of liberty were required to meet and confute 
 extreme principles of divine right. 
 
 It is certain, that to me the cooler judgment of 
 Blackstone on this question seems not only preferable, 
 but the true one. 
 
 Now to examine the nature of this sovereignty of 
 the people a little farther. 
 
 * Hist., vol. vii. p. 134. 
 f Constitutional Hist. vol. iii. p. 349. 
 
 G 6 
 
132 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. II. 
 
 SECT. II. 
 
 w 
 
 It is said that Frederick 11. king of Prussia, once 
 contemplating the turbulent character, and at the 
 same time the power and resources of the English, 
 exclaimed, " Gallant nation ! why am I not "your 
 king with an army of 80,000 men, and a score of 
 executioners in my train ! what would I not make of 
 you!'' 
 
 This bespoke gross tyranny on the part of Frede- 
 rick, and a pretty correct exhibition of the right of 
 the strongest. 
 
 Well ! a million of men, with arms in their hands, 
 find themselves subjects to a weak king. But though 
 weak, he is a just king; a lawful king; a king whom, 
 and whose ancestors, they and their ancestors have 
 always obeyed ! 
 
 But they think, or choose to think, they can be 
 happier without a king; so, as he cannot resist, and 
 the law has not a million of armed men on its side, 
 they dethrone— perhaps, for greater security, kill him. 
 Had they a right to do this, either by law or reason ? 
 or, if a right, is it not the right of the strongest, as 
 much as what we have supposed of Frederick II. ? 
 
 No! says a liberal jurist: for the million (that is, 
 the people,) are sovereigns; the king only their 
 servant, whom they have a right to dismiss when 
 they please. 
 
 And what gives them this right ? Their numerical 
 ^orce ? their swords if they choose to employ them ? 
 which the king cannot resist. 
 
 No! again says the jurist: for you forget that 
 
 SOVEREIGNTY OF THE PEOPLE. 
 
 133 
 
 each of the million, or his father before him, had an 
 absolute power over himself, of whom he was there- 
 fore sovereign ; and it is from this only, b^ delegation, 
 that a king, or government can assume dominion 
 over the whole; and the million has only delegated 
 this sovereignty to the government upon certain 
 conditions. 
 
 Which, if the king keep, it cannot be resumed except 
 by power? 
 Just so ! 
 
 Then how are the people sovereigns, who have 
 parted with their sovereignty ? 
 
 They are not, unless the conditions are broken- 
 when all is as it was, and each man again becomes 
 his own sovereign. 
 
 Till that happen then, at least, there is no sove- 
 reignty in the people, but what may be derived 
 from their physical force ; which if they use, they on 
 their side break their compact as much as a king who 
 sets himself above the law. 
 
 Not so ; for their sovereignty only lies dormant^ to 
 revive again, when those from whom, and for whom 
 alone it has been delegated, choose to alter their minds. 
 
 That is what I cannot comprehend. For it must 
 either be absolutely and for ever extinguished, or it 
 must be somewhere latent, with some known deposi- 
 tary; and who is to demonstrate that they have 
 altered their minds ? 
 
 Themselves. 
 
 That again seems strange. For I never heard of 
 

 134 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT* II. 
 
 SECT, II. SOVEREIGNTY OF THE PEOPLE. 
 
 f 
 
 a contract binding upon two parties, In which one 
 might be off whenever he pleased. 
 
 If not whenever he pleases, at least when the other 
 party breaks the conditions. 
 
 That is the same thing, if the discontented party is 
 to be the sole judge of the case when the conditions are 
 broken. But you say expressly " whenever he 
 pleases,'* when you talk of a reformatory revolt ; which 
 supposes only discontent with the conditions, not 
 that they are broken. The whole therefore is a string 
 of contradictions. 
 
 For the people are at first sovereigns ; then they 
 are not sovereigns, for they have given up the sove- 
 ^^ reignty ; then they are sovereigns again, because the 
 sovereignty they had parted with had always remained 
 in their own keeping, and they only parted with the 
 exercise of it for a time, of which time they were 
 themselves to be the masters. How can this be? 
 
 From their sovereignty being inalienable. 
 
 But your supposition says it has been alienated, 
 which comes to an absurdity. If resumed, therefore, 
 it cannot be from its having only lain dormant, but 
 from a new creation acquired by force, and is there- 
 fore what I set out with, the right of the strongest. 
 
 In short, argue as long as we will, no servant can be 
 master as well as servant, without a contradiction of 
 terms; and if a servant can sit in judgment on his 
 master, in any supposable case, of which he himself is 
 the judge^ there is an end of the relation between 
 them. 
 
 135 
 
 Granting this, says my opponent, what if the 
 master attempt to cut the servant's throat ? 
 
 The servant may knock him down ; but not in 
 virtue of a reserved right expressed in the contract, 
 still less of any supposed mastery over the master, 
 retained at the hiring. 
 
 Yet what is it, again replies my adversary, but the 
 case of two independent nations that go to war ? 
 suppose for the breach of a treaty. 
 
 Each being sovereign, each decides for itself, for 
 there is no common judge. This is the case between 
 a king and a people. 
 
 That again is a fallacy; for, by the supposition, 
 the people are not an independent nation, but owe 
 obedience to their rulers, which neither of your 
 independent states does to the other. The com- 
 parison therefore will not hold. 
 
 May I not then resist oppression ? 
 
 Yes, certainly, by the right of self defence; but 
 not by any provision of law, still less by any fanciful 
 notion, by implication from premises that do not exist. 
 Such, as that you have surrendered your sovereignty 
 yet still preserve it, and alienated a right which re- 
 mains inalienable. 
 
 Such I have presumed to suppose would be the 
 argument upon this question between a man of plain 
 sense, and a professor of, what is called, liberal 
 principles. The plain man, you see, is as great a 
 supporter as the other of the natural right of resist- 
 ance against a case of oppression sufficient to call for 
 
136 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. II. 
 
 it, when it happens ; but he does not entangle it, like 
 Mackintosh, by laying down beforehand what causes 
 are to justify this resistance; still less the outrageous 
 doctrine of a reformatory revolt, or the right to de- 
 mand securities beyond the existing constitution, at 
 the pleasure of the governed. The plain man, too, 
 lays aside all sophistical notions of the inherent, 
 never dying, inalienable, and unalterable right of 
 sovereignty m the people, which he thinks does not 
 exist; and, which if it did, would, and under bold 
 and visionary or wicked men, does involve us in 
 consequences destructive of all security. 
 
 The dangerous effects which may flow from this 
 doctrine are so well drawn out and displayed by, in 
 my opinion, the wisest intellect of his time, that I 
 think I shall do well in reproducing it upon this 
 occasion. It is Burke who will speak. 
 
 He is reviewing the position that the majority in a 
 state can never be wrong ; and that, therefore, what- 
 ever they will^ whether to erect, alter, or destroy a 
 constitution, and whatever miseries may flow from it, 
 
 must be right. 
 
 In discussing this, by way of showing how this 
 majority may be and often, unfortunately, is obtained, 
 he describes the steps that may be and often are 
 pursued. The argument for their position is thus 
 
 stated : — 
 
 " The sum total of every people is composed of its 
 units. Every individual must have a right to ori- 
 ginate what afterwards is to become the act of the 
 
 SECT. II. 
 
 SOVEREIGNTY OF THE PEOPLE, 
 
 137 
 
 majority. Whatever he may lawfully originate he 
 may lawfully endeavour to accomplish. 
 
 " He has a right, therefore, in his own particular, 
 to break the ties and engagements which bind him to 
 the country where he lives ; and he has a right to 
 make, as many converts to his opinions, and to obtain 
 as many associates in his designs as he can procure ; 
 — for how can you know the dispositions of the 
 majority to destroy their government, but by tam- 
 pering with some part of their body ? 
 
 " You must begin by a secret conspiracy ^ that you 
 may end with a national confederation. 
 
 " The mere pleasure of the beginning must be the 
 sole guide ; since the mere pleasure of others must 
 be the sole ultimate sanction, as well as the sole actu- 
 ating principle in every part of the progress." 
 
 So far the reasoning on the right of the people 
 to overturn a constitution. On this Burke ob- 
 
 serves : 
 
 " Thus arbitrary will, the last corruption of power, 
 step by step, poisons the heart of every citizen. 
 
 " If the undertaker fails, he has the misfortune of 
 
 a rebel but not the guilt. 
 
 " By such doctrines all love to our country, all pious 
 veneration and attachment to its laws and customs, 
 are obliterated from our minds ; and nothing can 
 result from this opinion, when grown into a principle, 
 and animated by discontent, ambition, or enthusiasm 
 but a series of conspiracies and seditions, sometimes 
 ruinous to their authors, always noxious to the state. 
 
138 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. II. 
 
 No sense of duty can prevent any man from being 
 a leader, or a follower in such enterprises. Nothing 
 restrains the tempter, nothing guards the tempted. 
 Nor is the new state, fabricated by such arts, safer 
 than the old. 
 
 " What can prevent the mere will of any person, 
 who hopes to unite the wills of others to his own, 
 from an attempt wholly to overturn it ? It wants 
 nothing but a disposition to trouble the established 
 order, to give a title to the enterprise^ 
 
 Again : — 
 
 " When you combine this principle of the tight to 
 change a fixed and tolerable constitution at pleasure, 
 with the theory and practice of the French Assembly, 
 the irregularity is, if possible, aggravated. There is 
 a far more commodious road to the destruction of an 
 old government, and the legitimate formation of a 
 new one. 
 
 " Get the possession of power ^ ly any means you can^ 
 into your hands, and then a subsequent consent (what 
 they call an address ofadhesion,) makes your authority 
 as much the act of the people, as if they had conferred 
 upon you originally that kind and degree of power which, 
 without their permission, you had seized upon. 
 
 " This is to give a direct sanction to fraud, hypo- 
 crisy, perjury, and the breach of the most sacred 
 trusts that can exist between man and man. * 
 
 *^ What can sound with such horrid discordance in 
 
 • This was exactly the case of Cromwell and Bonaparte. 
 
 SECT. II. 
 
 SOVEREIGNTY OF THE PEOPLE. 
 
 139 
 
 the moral ear as this position ? — That a delegate, with 
 limited powers, may break his sworn engagements 
 to his constituents, assume an authority never com- 
 mitted to him to alter things at his pleasure ; and 
 then, if he can persuade a large number of men to 
 flatter him in the power he has usurped, that he is 
 absolved in his own conscience, and ought to stand 
 acquitted in the eyes of mankind. On this scheme, 
 the maker of the experiment must begin with a de- 
 termined perjury. That point is certain. He must 
 take his chance for the expiatory addresses. This is 
 to make the success of villainy the standard of inno- 
 
 cence, 
 
 "Without drawing on, therefore, very shocking 
 consequences, neither by previous consent, nor by 
 subsequent ratification of a mere reckoned majority, 
 can any set of men attempt to dissolve the state at 
 
 their pleasure." 
 
 This reasoning, so cogent in argument, and so 
 perspicuous in style, seems to me irrefutable. Let 
 us now consider his notions of that mystical phrase 
 « The People," so entitled to our veneration, so ex- 
 travagantly abused. 
 
 '' Believing it therefore a question at least arduous 
 in the theory, and in the practice very critical, it 
 w^ould become us to ascertain, as well as we can, what 
 form it is that our incantations are about to call up 
 from darkness and the sleep of ages, when the supreme 
 authority of the people is in question. Before we 
 attempt to extend or confine it, we ought to fix in 
 
140 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. n. 
 
 SECT. II. 
 
 SOVEREIGNTY OF THE PEOPLE, 
 
 141 
 
 i 
 
 1 
 
 our minds, with some degree of distinctness, an idea 
 of what it is we mean, when we say the people. 
 
 " In a state of rude nature there is no such thing 
 as a people. A number of men in themselves have no 
 collective capacity. The idea of a people, is the idea 
 of a corporation. It is wholly artificial^ and made, 
 like all other legal fictions, by common agreement. 
 What the particular nature of that agreement was, 
 is collected from the form into which the particular 
 society has been cast. Any other is not their 
 covenant. 
 
 " When men therefore break up the original compact 
 or agreement, which gives its corporate form and 
 capacity to a state, they are no longer a people ; they 
 have no longer a corporate existence ; they have no 
 
 longer a legal coactive force to bind within, nor a 
 
 
 
 claim to be recognised abroad. They are a number 
 of vague, loose individuals, and nothing more. With 
 them, all is to begin again. Alas ! they little know 
 how many a weary step is to be taken, before they 
 can form themselves into a mass, which has a true 
 politic personality. 
 
 " We hear much from men who have not acquired 
 their hardiness of assertion from the profundity of 
 their thinking, about the omnipotence of a majority 
 in such a dissolution of an ancient society as hath 
 taken place in France. But amongst men so dis- 
 banded, there can be no such thing as majority or 
 minority, or power in any one person to bind another. 
 The power of acting by a majority, which gentlemen 
 
 theorists seem to assume so readily, after they have 
 violated the contract out of which it has arisen, (if 
 at all it existed,) must be grounded on two as- 
 sumptions : first, that of an incorporation produced 
 by unanimity; and secondly, by an unanimous agree- 
 ment, that the act of a mere majority (say of one) 
 shall pass with them, and with others, as the act of 
 
 the whole. 
 
 " We are so little affected by things habitual, that 
 we consider this idea of the decision of a majority, as 
 if it were a law of our original nature : but such a 
 constructive whole, residing in a part only, is one oj t/ 
 the most violent fictions of positive law that ever has 
 been, or can be made, on the principle of artificial 
 incorporation. Out of civil society, Nature knows 
 nothing of it; nor are men, even when arranged 
 according to civil order, otherwise than by very long 
 training, brought at all to submit to it. 
 
 " If men dissolve their ancient incorporation in 
 order to reo-enerate their community, in that state 
 of things each man has a right, if he pleases, to 
 remain an individual. Any number of individuals 
 who can agree upon it, have an undoubted right to 
 form themselves into a state apart, and wholly in- 
 dependent. If any of these {^forced into the fellow- j 
 ship of another, this is conquest, and not compact.'' 
 
 Again : — ^ 
 
 « As, in the abstract, it is perfectly clear that, out 
 of a state of civil society, majority and minority are 
 relations which can have no existence; and that in 
 
■v \'i 
 
 M 
 
 J 
 
 142 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. II* 
 
 SECT. II. 
 
 SOVEREIGNTY OF THE PEOPLE. 
 
 143 
 
 
 \ 
 
 civil society, its own specific conventions in each 
 corporation determine what it is that constitutes the 
 people, so as to make their act the signification of 
 the general will ; it is equally clear that neither in 
 France nor England has the original or any subse- 
 quent compact of the state, express or implied, con- 
 stituted a majority of men, told by the head^ to be the 
 acting people of their several communities. 
 
 " And I see as little of policy or utility, as there is 
 of right, in laying down a principle that a majority 
 of men, told hy the head^ are to be considered as the 
 people, and that, as such, their will is to be law." 
 
 Mr. Burke then argues that a people, possessing 
 such powers as are here ascribed to them, can only 
 be those who are divided according to the rules and 
 classifications of society, into which they fall from 
 the nature of things. 
 
 " Give once (says he) a certain constitution of 
 things, which produces a variety of conditions and 
 circumstances in a state ; and, there is in nature and 
 reason a principle which, for their own benefit post- 
 pones, not the interest, but the judgment of those 
 who are numero plures^ to those who are virtute et 
 honore majoresJ* 
 
 He then luxuriates in a noble as well as beautiful 
 and philosophical account of a natural aristocracy, 
 which, he says, is not a separate interest in the state, 
 nor separable from it. (Nothing more true !) 
 
 It is (he observes) an essential integrant part of 
 any large body rightly constituted. It is formed out 
 
 of a class of legitimate presumptions, which, taken as 
 generalities, must be admitted as actual truths. 
 
 " To be bred in a place of estimation ; to see nothing 
 low or sordid from one's infancy; to be taught to 
 respect one's self; to be habituated to the censorial 
 inspection of the public eye; to look early to public 
 opinion ; to stand upon such elevated ground, as to 
 be enabled to take a large view of the wide-spread 
 and infinitely diversified combinations of men 
 and affairs in* a large society; to have leisure to 
 read, reflect, and converse; to be enabled to draw 
 the court and attention of the wise and learned, when- 
 ever they are to be found ; to be habituated in armies 
 to command and to obey ; to be taught to despise 
 danger in the pursuit of honour and of duty ; to be led 
 to a guarded regulated conduct, from a sense that you 
 are considered as an instructor of your fellow-citizens 
 in their highest concerns ; to be employed as an ad- 
 ministrator of law and justice, and to be thereby 
 amongst the first benefactors of mankind ; to be a 
 professor of high science, or of liberal and ingenuous 
 art; to be amongst rich traders, who, from their 
 success, are presumed to have sharp and vigorous un- 
 derstandings ; these are the circumstances of men, that 
 form what I should call a Natural Aristocracy, 
 without which there is no nation, 
 
 " When great multitudes act together under this 
 discipline of Nature^ I recognise The People. 
 
 " In all things, the voice of this grand chorus of 
 national l^armony ought to have a mighty and de- 
 
 I 
 
^J 
 
 144 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT, II, 
 
 cisive influence. But when you disturb this harmony ; 
 when you break up this beautiful order, this array of 
 truth and nature, as well as of habit and prejudice ; 
 when you separate the common sort of men from their 
 proper chieftains^ so as to form them into an adverse 
 army ; I no longer know that venerable object called 
 the People, in such a disbanded race of deserters and 
 vagabonds. For a while they may be terrible indeed, 
 as wild beasts are terrible. The mind owes to them 
 no sort of submission. They are, as they have always 
 been reputed, Rebels. They may lawfully be fought 
 with, and brought under, whenever an advantage 
 
 offers. 
 
 "Those who attempt by outrage and violence to 
 deprive men of any advantage which they hold under 
 the laws, and to destroy the natural order of life, pro- 
 claim war against them." * 
 
 Thus far this admirable man on the point imme- 
 diately before us. But can I quit him, long as these 
 extracts are, without adding the sportive use he 
 makes, in winding up his argument, of the ludicrous 
 but important account which Walsingham gives of 
 the preaching of Doctor Ball to 20,000 men as- 
 sembled on Blackheath, by which he says it is plain 
 that the Abbe Ball understood (though so long 
 before him) the rights of men quite as well as the 
 Abbe Gregoire ; and, he might have added, as Tom 
 Paine himself. . 
 
 * Appeal of new Whigs to the old. 
 
 SECT. II. SOVEREIGNTY OF THE PEOPLE. 145 
 
 The Abbe Ball preached from this text, as all our 
 modern reformers do in this day. 
 
 « When Adam dalfe and Eve span, 
 Who was then the gentleman ? " 
 
 Walsingham then details the sermon as follows : — 
 " Nitebatur per verba proverbii quod pro themate 
 sumpserat, introducere et probare ab initio omnes pares 
 creatos a natura — servitutem per injustam oppres- 
 sionem nequam hominum introductam contra Dei vo- 
 luntatem. Quia, si Deo placuisset servos creasse, utique 
 in principio mundi constituisset, quis servus quisve 
 dominus futurus fuisset. Considerarant igitur jam 
 tempus a Deo datum eis (in quo deposito^'servitutis 
 jugo diutius), possent, si vellent, Hbertate diu con- 
 cupita gaudere. Quapropter monuit ut essent vivi 
 cordati, et amore boni patris familias excolentis agrum 
 suum, et extirpantis ac resecantis noxia gramina quae 
 fruges Solent opprimere, et isti in pr^senti facere festi- 
 narent, primo majores regni dominos occidendo ; deinde 
 Juridicos, justiciarios et juratores patriae perimendo ; 
 postremo quoscunque scirent in posterum communitati 
 nocivos tollerant de terra sua : sic demum et pacem 
 sibimet parerent et securitatem in futurum, si sublatis 
 majoribus esset inter eos, aequa libertas, eadem nobi- 
 litas, par dignitas, similisque potestas." 
 
 Here was reform with a vengeance; and 'so very 
 like the modern reforms, acted upon in France, and 
 proposed at many of our meetings here (not quite so 
 numerous indeed, but equally patriotic), that being 
 
 VOL. I. 
 
 H 
 
 I. 
 
 
146 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. II. 
 
 preached near 500 years ago, it must deprive our 
 reforming sages of all pretension to originality. 
 
 The similarity also holds in the effects ; for the ma- 
 jesty and sovereignty of the people on Blackheath 
 being thus moved, they all by acclamation declared that 
 the reformer Ball should be Archbishop and Lord 
 Chancellor ; a consummation which no doubt would 
 be vei'y agreeable to some of our present demagogues. 
 In sober seriousness, I see no reason why their 200,000 
 majesties on Blackheath, and the Apostle of Liberty 
 and Equality, Ball, had not as much a right to call 
 themselves the People, and as such, by virtue of their 
 sovereignty, to command the deaths of all the then 
 holders of property and power,, and change the 
 monarchy into a republic, as any of the self-elected 
 •apostles of liberty and enlightened philosophy now 
 in England. 
 
 And with this we close these great theoretical ques- 
 tions, in order to hasten to the practical, and perhaps 
 more important one, that still remains, and which, though 
 last in order, has been in fact the foundation of the 
 other two. I mean the real amount of the precedent 
 of 1688, and the doctrines that have been derived 
 from it, together with the real character of its 
 managers, stript of all extraneous glosses, with which 
 partiality, love of theory, blind admiration, or blind 
 condemnation have surrounded them. 
 
 147 
 
 SECTION IIL 
 
 revolution of 1688. 
 
 ji 
 
 Under this great settlement of our Constitution, 
 this nation has enjoyed, and may still enjoy (unless 
 destroyed by some suicidal act of its own), more, I 
 think, of rational liberty, and better secured, than any 
 other nation since time began. 
 
 But it was not obtained except at the expense of 
 political controversies which have lasted from that 
 time to this; a cheap purchase, if it end not, through 
 the madness of the controversialists, in the destruction 
 (though upon other and more extreme principles) 
 of what the Revolution had sought to secure. 
 
 Two parties, as you well know, have been em- 
 battled against one another ever since this great 
 event ; each of them extolling, each approving, but 
 at the same time drawing from it very different con- 
 clusions. 
 
 The one raising upon it all those doctrines, and 
 more, which we have been reviewing, respecting the 
 general right of resistance, the inalienable sovef-eignty 
 
 H 2 
 
 H 
 
 
Us 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY, 
 
 SECT, III. 
 
 of the people, and their rights beyond the law, over 
 their monarchs; the other contenting themselves 
 with looking upon it as a case of necessity, which was 
 met with the greater wisdom, because, as they 
 contend, no new or untenable principles in the 
 science of government were engendered, no dan- 
 gerous usurpations of force over law accomplished ; 
 so that, while our liberties were enforced, the harmony 
 and security of society were not disturbed. 
 
 Those who contend for the first, assert that it is 
 proved that we have a right " to revoke abused power, 
 cashier our governors for misconduct, elect others in 
 their room io frame a government for ourselves, and be- 
 stow the croivn'' as we please. 
 
 So said Mackintosh in his " Vindiciae Gallicae ; " so 
 ^aid Price in his famous sermon. 
 
 The opinions of Locke we have already noticed. 
 These tenets were all warmly ojoposed, and elo- 
 quently ^:rposed, by a number of statesmen and con- 
 stitutional lawyers, (Mr Burke their leader and 
 powerful chief,) who saw the danger of so destroying 
 all the foundations which support civil society, as 
 these principles, if carried as far as they would lead, 
 would inevitably do. Burke therefore met the whole 
 question in all its modifications, in perhaps the most 
 celebrated of his works, the "Reflections on the 
 French Revolution," and afterwards in several others 
 supplementary to it. 
 
 Let us examine these propositions, and see bow 
 they are borne out by the history ; we shall then be 
 
 SECT. III. 
 
 REVOLUTION OF 1688. 
 
 149 
 
 able' to tell, stript of their colours of rhetoric, to 
 what they really amount. 
 
 The doctrine of Locke upon the devolution of the 
 sovereignty to the people, when the trust, supposed, 
 in legal form, to have been committed to their go- 
 vernors, has been abused, and upon the consequent 
 right which he says they have to remove and alter the 
 legislature — as if all society were to begin again — this 
 has been so satisfactorily answered by Blackstone*, 
 that I shall not revert to it again in this letter, though 
 I may consider his whole philosophy on the subject, 
 more at large, in a question by itself.f But the am- 
 plification of this tenet by Sir James requires more 
 attention. 
 
 " The Revolution of 1688, " he observes, " is con- 
 Jessed to have established principles^ by those who 
 lament that it has not reformed institutions.'' | 
 
 Where is this confessed ? what principles has it es- 
 tablished, not known before? what are the institutions 
 which he wished it had reformed ?§ I profess I do 
 not know. 
 
 To resist oppression^ which means something 
 contrary to duty and moral obligation in the oppres- 
 sor, and destructive to rights in the oppressed, is a 
 law of our nature, and requires no precedent to give 
 
 * Comment, i. 161. f Vide Appendix, No. V. 
 
 I Vind. Gall. 
 
 § Did he mean the kingly government, or the House of Lords, or 
 
 to give universal suffrage ? 
 
 H .3 
 
 i 
 
150 
 
 SECT. III. 
 
 REVOLUTION OF 1689. 
 
 151 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. HI. 
 
 lis power to act upon it. This, then, was established 
 at the birth of man, and surely did not take its 
 origin from the revolution. * 
 
 What else did it establish hy way of precedent ? 
 
 Mackintosh answers, the right of the people to 
 revoke abused power* 
 
 This is a very general sweeping proposition, which 
 ought to be far more distinctly explained before we 
 can even understand, much more assent to it. If it 
 mean a right to resist an invasion of our legal secu- 
 rity, it is not only admitted, but, as has been observed, 
 asserted by the law of nature, not merely of the 
 Revolution ; but if it mean to resume a power ac- 
 tually ever enjoyed and actually delegated to another, 
 we dispute the fact. 
 
 Power, to be revoked^ must have been enjoyed; and 
 the people of England never did enjoy this power, 
 or delegate it in form to another. It is a fancy em- 
 bodied in argument, and, as we have before observed, 
 by implication, for the better illustration of the 
 science of government ; an imaginary case, which, as 
 a fact, never existed. 
 
 The word revoke, therefore, is improper, and the 
 doctrine founded upon it, as derived from the Bevo- 
 lutiouj still more so. The people of England neither 
 revoked^ nor resumed^ their political power : they used 
 their right of self-defence when attacked, given by 
 nature to all human and all other kind. 
 
 * For the eloquent proof of this, see Mackintosh himself in the 
 Vind. Gall. 
 
 
 But the consequence of this revocation in the 
 jurist's mind is still more indefensible. 
 
 The precedent, says he, gave them a right to 
 "frame the government, and bestow the crown;" in 
 • this, defending the assertion of Price, that it had esta- 
 blished a right" to choose our own governors, to cashier 
 them for their misconduct, and frame a government 
 for ourselves ; " adding, that the House of Hanover 
 owes the crown to the choice of the people, that is, that 
 the people might with equal right have chosen any 
 other family, or even Jeffries or Kirk, to be their king. 
 
 These memorable positions are what drew forth 
 the as memorable answers of Burke ; and it would 
 be gross affectation of incredulity to say that these 
 doctrines have not been held by many reasonable 
 and well-disposed persons since the Revolution, if they 
 were not first started and established by that evenL 
 
 But are they true ? That is the question. 
 
 That the House of Hanover owes the crown to the 
 Act of Settlement, made by King, Lords, and Commons, 
 and that it would be a poor subterfuge to deny that 
 what that act did, was, in part^ done by the repre- 
 sentatives of the people, I will not be the person to 
 hold ; but to say that it was given by election — such 
 election as the theories which have been combated 
 suppose, namely, a meeting of all the people, returned 
 to a state of nature, every individual his own sove- 
 reign, and about to delegate that sovereignty to a 
 particular man or family upon certain conditions, or 
 even an election by their representatives, so free from 
 
 H 4 
 
:\ 
 
 N' 
 
 ii 
 
 152 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. III. 
 
 all duty or guiding principle, that their choice could 
 have been uncertain or indifferent, — this I take leave 
 to deny. 
 
 For vi^as it more than what the parliament had 
 often done before to meet unexpected emergencies, 
 in regard to the throne, when either really or virtually 
 vacant, or the succession altered by a contingency, 
 natural or forced ? Did the House of Hanover suc- 
 ceed by election more than Henry IV., when it was 
 simply voted that " the inheritance of the crown and 
 realms of England and France, in all other the king's 
 dominions, shall be set and remain in the person of 
 our sovereign lord the king, and in the heirs of his 
 body issuing" — remainder to Prince Henry and his 
 heirs, then to Lord Thomas, Lord John, and Lord 
 Humphrey, his brothers, and their issue ? 
 
 Now, as Henry IV. liad no legal title of himself, 
 any more than King William or George I., and the 
 lawful heirs of the family of Marche were here set 
 aside, so William and George, though, like Henry, 
 they were in the succession, not being immediate 
 heirs, that succession was altered in their favour, to 
 the exclusion of those who were, namely, Anne and 
 the House of Savoy. Yet will any man alive, or did 
 any one who ever lived, suppose, much less promulge, 
 that Henry IV. came in by election of the people, or 
 that the people might, if they had pleased, and had 
 not been controlled by him on that occasion, have 
 placed any one of themselves (a Percy, for instance) 
 on the throne? Such is the opinion of Mackintosh, 
 who asserts, that, at the Revolution, the principle that 
 
 
 SECT. III. 
 
 REVOLUTION OF 1688. 
 
 153 
 
 justified the elevation of William, and the preference 
 of the House of Hanover, would have vindicated the 
 election of Jeffries or Kirk.* 
 
 The respect we owe to Sir James alone makes us 
 patient in refuting this most mistaken position. 
 
 The principle was the same on which, in various 
 periods of our history, the parliament regulated, that 
 is, altered, the course of succession, as to individuals of 
 the same royal family, but never supposed, or held 
 (or any one for them), that in that they could, or did, 
 set the reigning family aside, and elect a new one, or 
 abolish monarchy altogether. 
 
 To you, I need not dwell upon these alterations ; 
 but those who follow these strange tenets of Sir 
 James and his wild associates in doctrine, would do 
 well to consider how many of them there have been. 
 How they were produced is not the question: the 
 simple point is to show that parliament has often so 
 interfered, without the most remote notion in the 
 Mackintoshes or Prices of those days, that the power 
 of altering the succession as to the individual, pro- 
 ceeded upon the right to elect a new family, or a new 
 government altogether. 
 
 In Henry VH.'s case, he certainly had no riglit to 
 be considered even in the line of succession ; because, 
 though he descended from . the House of Lancaster, 
 it was through a stock that was illegitimate. But the 
 claim of the descent, and the assertion of it, were al- 
 
 • Vind. Gall. 
 H 5 
 
 
N 
 
 154 
 
 ttlSTOftlCAL ESSAir. 
 
 s£cT. ni* 
 
 SECT. ni. 
 
 REVOLUTION OF 1688. 
 
 155 
 
 III 
 
 lowed by the world, from the detestation born to 
 Richard. Henry was treated and estimated as the 
 true representative of John of Gaunt, and, as such, 
 was able to procure that power and following which 
 overturned the tyrant. No other man in the nation 
 was looked to, or could have done it. He suffered 
 himself to be crowned by his army * on the field ; and 
 the parliament voted, as they did in the case of 
 Henry IV., " that the inheritance of the crown should 
 restj remain^ and abide in him and the heirs of his 
 bodi/ ;" but will Sir James for a moment pretend that 
 all this was upon the principle of a free legalised 
 election by the people, who might, bi/ the law, have 
 elected Lord Stanley, or any other chief they had 
 pleased, instead of him ? 
 
 In the reign of his son, the king and parliament 
 were most busy with the succession. They set aside 
 his daughter Mary in favour of Elizabeth ; they set 
 aside Elizabeth in favour of the issue by Jane Seymour; 
 they then restored both Mary and Elizabeth; and 
 they even vested in the king, on failure of children, 
 the power of naming his successor. In strictness, 
 therefore, had the conjuncture arisen, he might have 
 exercised it to the exclusion of the Scottish princes, 
 -who were the undoubted natural heirs. 
 
 But would even this have amounted to the claim 
 
 * It is said that Sir William Stanley, after the battle of Bosworth, 
 having found a crown which Richard used to wear, placed it upon his 
 head, and saluted him king. 
 
 contended for in the people to dispose of the throne 
 absolutely as they pleased, or to set aside the reigning 
 dynasty? Certainly not; if only because the king 
 himself was a party to all these alterations, which 
 plainly deprives the people of any exclusive pretension 
 
 to such a right. 
 
 This also applies to the preference of the House ot 
 Hanover itself; for the warmest sticklers for an 
 election by the people cannot and do not pretend that 
 the same power that chose King William, placed Kmg 
 George in the remainder. The convention did the 
 first, but the second was effected by an act of par- 
 
 liament. • i, u 
 
 And this is a complete answer to what, with sub- 
 mission, is a fallacy of a noble author and secretary of 
 state— Lord John Russell. " Tbe hereditary suc- 
 cession of the crown," says this statesman, " was m 
 their eyes (the Whigs) a rule for the benefit of the 
 people, and not a dispensation of Providence for the 
 advantage of a single family. If at any time, there- 
 fare, the observance of the rule became dangerous to 
 the welfare of the community *, the leffislature was, m 
 their opinion, competent to consider whether that 
 danger was greater than the inconvenience of de- 
 viatino- from the established course." f 
 
 Were this all, who would doubt it, who profess 
 that the legislature could not remedy all evils or in- 
 
 • Who is to decide that question? 
 f Life of Lord Russell,!. 186. 
 H 6 
 
 I, 
 
 ft 
 
 I 
 
lil 
 
 !l 
 
 I ! 
 
 156 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. UK 
 
 Conveniences ? But if it is meant that by this word 
 Legislature, the people resumed their supposed and as- 
 serted inalienable sovereignty, the consequence does 
 not flow from the premises. For the Legislature^ though 
 compounded of the people, are not the people alone, 
 as the term is here meant; it is compounded of king 
 and hereditary senators, as well as people : these, 
 together, are omnipotent ; asunder, nothing. If, 
 therefore, Lord John, by Legislature, means the 
 people alone, it is not the fact. 
 
 Fortified by this junction with the king, the legis- 
 lature becomes, indeed, what the lawyers hold it to 
 be, omnipotent ; and as they once so altered the con- 
 stitution, as to give the proclamations of Henry VIIL 
 the power of laws, so, I apprehend, we must admit 
 that, in concurrence icith the hing^ they might overturn 
 the monarchy and enact a republic. But neither 
 would this give the people alone any such right, still 
 less that of deposing, or excluding at pleasure, the 
 whole of the reigning family. 
 
 The naming the power of exclusion brings us to the 
 famous question as to James, when Duke of York. 
 
 If any thing could countenance the supposed right 
 to cashier our kings for misconduct, and choose others, 
 it would be this attempt to cashier the next heir to 
 the crown. Had it been carried, the supporters of 
 Price and Mackintosh might have perhaps resolved it 
 into a precedent of this unconstitutional pretension.* 
 
 ♦ Unconstitutional! if attempted by any thing short of the whole 
 legislative power. 
 
 \ 
 
 SECT. III. 
 
 REVOLUTION OF 1688. 
 
 157 
 
 Yet, not to mention again that the king must have 
 been a party to this^ what would it have amounted to 
 more than those other instances of a regulation of the 
 succession in members of the same family ? not to any 
 precedent of a power in the people to create a new 
 government, or elect a new governor. 
 
 The contest about the exclusion was, as you know, 
 conducted with more heat and violence by the Com- 
 mons, than any question of our history. The ques- 
 tion as to James as king, was tranquil in comparison 
 with that regarding him as heir ; yet no one talked 
 of the inherent power of the people to cashier go- 
 vernors and elect new ones. Sir James, indeed, asks 
 rather triumphantly, whether Price was not right as 
 to a succession by choice in the Hanoverian family? 
 " Dr. Price," says he, " had asserted (I presume, 
 without fear of contradiction) that the House of 
 Hanover owes the crown of England to the choice of 
 the people.^^ # 
 
 I venture to say not ; at least, not in the full sense 
 that both Price and Mackintosh assert it, as arising 
 from the supposed new principles established at the 
 Revolution. Both of them forget that an act of 
 parliament had regularly passed by King^ Lords^ and 
 Commons, and not by the sole voice of the people, 
 (I mean the Bill of Rights,) by which all Roman 
 Catholics were disabled from succeeding to the throne. 
 This at once incapacitated the whole House of Savoy, 
 and brought forward the next protestant heir, who 
 
 * Vind. Gall. 
 
 'i 
 
 
i 
 
 i\ ■ 
 
 U 
 
 w 
 
 158 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. in. 
 
 by law might have asserted his claim ; and this heir, 
 as we all know, was George the First. But even 
 had no disabilities been enacted, it cannot too often 
 be noticed, that the necessary concurrence of the 
 Sovereign in the Act of Settlement, at once destroys 
 all notion of an Election by the people, whether by 
 themselves individually, or through their represent- 
 atives collectively. 
 
 Can any thing, therefore, be more wild, more 
 untrue, or more unsupported, than this triumphant 
 question of Sir James ? 
 
 Both of these jurists (if Price had any preten- 
 sion to be a jurist) might quite as well have sup- 
 ported the impudent and infamous falsehood of 
 the murderers of Charles, who told him he was an 
 elective prince, elected by his people, and account- 
 able to them for his conduct ; — upon which principle 
 they cut off his head. Neither of these authors, 
 indeed, expressli/ held this, and Sir James, at least, 
 would probably have hesitated in doing so ; but I 
 profess I can see no difference between these as- 
 sertions of the regicides, and the principles laid down 
 in the works I am canvassing. It is true, the family 
 of Hanover were called to the throne by an act of 
 parliament ; but what was this but to make assur- 
 ance doubly sure, and prevent not only all cavil as to 
 what, though clear, might have been started by the 
 family ^f Savoy, but to give the finishing blow to 
 the hopes of the family of Stuart. I repeat that the 
 Bill of Rights, having incapacitated the King of Sar- 
 
 SECT. in. 
 
 REVOLUTION OF 1688. 
 
 159 
 
 dinia, the right of the Electress Sophia established 
 itself at once, and would have prevailed without the 
 necessity for any confirmatory act to give it exist- 
 ence ; although such act, by doing away all difficulties, 
 and smoothing the way to the throne, was wise, ex- 
 pedient, and politic. 
 
 This argument, founded upon the previous dis- 
 abilities of all Roman Catholics, created by the 
 known sovereign power of England, is, 1 think, a 
 complete answer to all the warm declamation, as well 
 as the nice subtleties of Sir James, in regard to what 
 he calls the choice of the House of Hanover. Had 
 Victor Amadeus been a protestant as well as King 
 George, I have little, indeed no, doubt that the choice^ 
 as it is called, would have fallen upon him as nearer 
 to the throne. * 
 
 But the Convention, by the election of Williamj 
 set aside the claims not only of the son of James, 
 but of his daughters Mary and Anne.f 
 
 This is a great inaccuracy, and not what one 
 
 ♦ He was grandson of Henrietta Duchess of Orleans, daughter 
 of Charles I. ; George, grandson of the Queen of Bohemia, daughter 
 of James I., a generation further off. See a remarkable passage of 
 Lord Cowper's speech, in passing sentence on the rebel lords, 1715, 
 wherein he said the king (Geo. I.) succeeded to the crown, as it was 
 declared by the law some years before it was expressly limited to the 
 House of Hanover. What bears still more upon the point, one 
 reason for the Commons not joining the Lords immediately ia 
 William's reign, in selecting the House of Hanover, was that the 
 nearer but disabled heirs, by renouncing the Roman Catholic religion, 
 might remove their disabilities. 
 
 t Vind. Gall. 
 
 i 
 
 *i 
 
 \ 
 
160 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. III. 
 
 would expect from an historian. It is as known, as 
 remarkable, that the parliament took no notice of the 
 existence of a son, whose very birth was questioned 
 with different degrees of sincerity by most of the 
 actors on that busy scene. The claims of the son, 
 therefore, could not be set aside ; for the heroes of the 
 Revolution, bold and enthusiastic as they are sup- 
 posed to have been in asserting the people's right 
 of election, had not the courage to make them a 
 question : — like the chivalrous knight of LaMancha, 
 they were prudently satisfied with the helmet, with- 
 out putting its strength to the trial. Then as to 
 Mary, far from being passed over, her title was ex- 
 pressly acknowledged, and she was made sovereign 
 in her own right, in conjunction with her husband ; 
 though the latter was, for good reason, to exercise 
 the administration of the sovereignty. Her children 
 too, if she had any, were to succeed ; and though 
 childless by William, had she survived him, married 
 a<Tain, and had issue, that issue, 1 apprehend, would 
 incontestably have succeeded. She, therefore, was not 
 
 It is true, in the event of William's surviving his 
 wife (which happened), he was preferred to Anne; 
 but there is a remarkable and, I think, a most im- 
 portant circumstance, which ought not to have been 
 passed by by Sir James, that his children by any other 
 wife than Mary were postponed to her. This shows 
 exactly how deeply impressed the rarliament were 
 with the necessity of preserving the line of succession 
 
 1 
 
 SECT. HI. 
 
 REVOLUTION OF 1688. 
 
 161 
 
 in every Uiing but what the most absolute necessity 
 
 requh'ed. 
 
 Let us even suppose for a moment that Anne, 
 from infirmity of mind or body, (she was not very 
 strong in either,) had been unequal to the duties of 
 the sovereignty, and that William was, on that account, 
 elected for life, to the exclusion of the progeny of 
 Anne, whose right might have been protected by a 
 regency ; would that have immediately thrown down 
 the hereditary monarchy, and let in the sovereignty 
 of the people, as if it were elective ? Would it not 
 rather have been one of those regulations or altera- 
 tions in regard to individuals in the line of succession, 
 which we have just been noticing? ^^: 
 
 I am quite aware of the passage in Blackstone 
 which gives colour to the supposition, that, from the 
 finding of the Convention parliament that the throne 
 was vacant, the whole royal family ceased to be royal, 
 and was only renovated by positive enactments. 
 If with various deviations, therefore, the family were 
 replaced on the throne, it might be argued that it 
 was only from prudential regard to public feeling, 
 and not from absolute legal obligation. 
 
 ^' Perhaps^'' says the learned commentator, "upon 
 the principles before established, the Convention 
 might, if they pleasedy have vested the regal dignity 
 in a famihj entirely newy and strangers to the royal 
 blood; but they were too well acquainted with the 
 bcjiefits of hereditary succession, and the influ- 
 ence which it has by custom over the minds of the 
 
 i 
 
 / 
 
■:| 
 
 Ml 
 
 tl 
 
 
 162 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY, 
 
 SECT. Ill* 
 
 SECT. III. 
 
 REVOLUTION OF 1688. 
 
 163 
 
 people to depart any farther from the ancient line, 
 than, temporary necessity and self-preservation re* 
 
 quired."* 
 
 This is a most important dictum; and, were it 
 more positively laid down, than with the hypothetical 
 and cautious " Perhaps,'' with which the sentence 
 opens, would be a grave authority for the position of 
 Sir James. He would then have had the support of 
 a very enlightened man, when he said " the choice 
 (of William) was, like every other choice, to be 
 cfuided by views of policy and prudence, but it was 
 choice stillf;" and he might also have felt justified, 
 or at least countenanced, in so boldly pronouncing 
 that the elevation of William and the preference of 
 the House of Hanover, to the exclusion of nearer 
 heirs, might have vindicated the election of Jeffries 
 
 or Kirk. 
 
 But the very doubtful and doubting word with 
 which so momentous a doctrine is prefaced by this 
 otherwise cautious judge, throws all, if not into 
 confusion, at least into such uncertainty, as to de- 
 prive a man of all right to plead it as a direct au- 
 thority. 
 
 It is certainly true, even without a perhaps^ that 
 the Convention, having all power, and with their 
 opponents all at their feet, might, iftheij had pleased, 
 have vested the regal dignity in a family entirely 
 new; and the Judge might have gone farther, and 
 
 • Comment, i. 214. 
 
 f Vind. Gall. 
 
 1 
 
 added, or might have converted the monarchy into 
 a republic or any other form of government. But 
 would the poioer of doing this have given them either 
 a legal or moral right to it ? Would it not all have 
 been reducible to the right of the strongest, as 
 formerly alluded to ? 
 
 Burke himself admits the power (supported, says 
 he, by force and opportunity), but, as may be sup- 
 posed, gives it but little or no weight in a discussion 
 
 of principles. 
 
 The true way of estimating the real extent of the 
 precedent, is to inquire what were the opinions enter- 
 tained, what the principles actually laid down, by the 
 leaders and actors in the story. They at least knew 
 their own meaning. 
 
 If ever there was an opportunity of asserting the 
 supposed right ; if duty, policy, and fairness called 
 for the most explicit declarations upon it, it would 
 have been in the Bill of Rights, in which the whole 
 of the new constitution was founded. That Bill was 
 framed by the wisest statesmen and lawyers of their 
 time, and what is more, by mig (Lord Somers at 
 their head) at least as virtuous, and as much at- 
 tached to rational liberty, though perhaps not so 
 wild as those of the present day. Yet, though they 
 intensely scanned the whole subject of the people's 
 rights, and the principles on which the Revolution 
 was founded, no mention of such a pretension as is 
 claimed for them by our two political Apostles, is 
 made, either in the debates, or in that ample Bill in 
 
 *H 11 
 
164 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. III. 
 
 llHil 
 
 m 
 
 m 
 
 which all the other privileges which had been foughl: 
 for were so amply, and perspicuously laid down. 
 
 Is it on this account that the Continuator of Mack- 
 intosh, in a fit of virtuous spleen, and admiration of 
 the superior virtue of modem whiggery, denounces 
 the Whigs even of the Revolution, in language such 
 as the following : " The real secret, if it be any longer 
 a secret, is, that the Whigs of 1688 had no notion of 
 freedom beyond their sect or party ; that with liberty 
 on their lips, monopoly and persecution w^re in their 
 
 hearts." 
 
 In a virtuous strain of indignation also against the 
 dethroned family, he bespatters the whole English 
 nation. " Their vigour, and virtue, and character," 
 says he, " had dwindled, from the restoration of the 
 Stuarts. A degenerate race succeeded the men of 
 the Commonwealth. — The aristocracy seem to have 
 been born without that sense which is supposed to be 
 their peculiar distinction — a sense of honour." * 
 
 To what, then, in the minds of our Professors of 
 modern whiggery, are all our deliverers, the Whigs 
 of the Revolution, reduced ? Instead of patriots, 
 they were all mean, selfish jobbers. Vigour and 
 virtue had fled from the seven heroes (as we w^re 
 taught to think them), who, at the risk of their heads, 
 invited William' to aid their oppressed country ; 
 and the cow^ardly names of Shrewsbury, Devon- 
 shire, Russell, Sydney, and also of the enlightened 
 
 * Hist. Rev. ii. 149. 224. 
 
 SECT. Ill, 
 
 REVOLUTION OF 1688. 
 
 165 
 
 Somers, sink into dirt before the sturdy vigour and 
 virtue of the disinterested Commonwealth's men, 
 Cromwell, Ireton, Vane, Martin, and Hazelrigg. 
 Is it possible that this can find place in a history of 
 the Revolution. 
 
 To return to our point, let us consider Mr. Hallam's 
 view of it. '^ It could not be held,'' he observes, 
 " without breaking up all the foundations of our polity, 
 that the monarchy emanated from the parliament^ or 
 even from the people. But by the Revolution, and the 
 Act of Settlement, the rights of the actual monarcli 
 of the reigning family were made to emanate from 
 the parliament and the people. Hence," he adds, 
 " the rights of the House of Brunswick can only 
 be deduced from the Convention of 1688.' * 
 
 In this just remark of a gentleman, any thing but 
 an opposer of the rights of the people, or a favourer 
 of despotic power, I recognise nothing but my own 
 doctrine. The foundations of our polity would be 
 broken up, if the monarchy emanated from the 
 parliament, or even from the people; and the actual 
 monarch of the reigning family does derive his right 
 ultimately, by what was done at the Revolution. 
 For it was the Revolution that removed, not the 
 family, but the person of James and his son, and 
 placed others of that family in his stead on the 
 throne. It was the Revolution that incapacitated 
 Roman Catholics from succeeding^ and hence called 
 in^^o action the claims of the House of Brunswick^ 
 
 * Const. Hist. iii. 345, 
 *H 12 
 
166 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. III. 
 
 SECT. III. 
 
 REVOLUTION OF 1688. 
 
 167 
 
 1 V 
 
 III 
 
 ii 
 
 confirmed and sanctioned, though not, as I hold, 
 created, by the Act of Settlement. I see nothmg, 
 therefore, in this opinion of Mr. Hallam, either m 
 support of Blackstone's « Perhaps," or Sir James s 
 absolute assertion of the power to elect^afamdy 
 entirely new, and strangers to the royal blood. 
 In truth, as I have before remarked, what seems 
 decisive of the case is this total absence of evidence, 
 on the part of the most republican theorists (old 
 Commonwealth's men, like Maynard), and stil more 
 on the part of the rational but determined Whigs, 
 like Somers, that there was any pretension in their 
 minds to a right of election out of the reigning family. 
 On the contrary, as we shall presently see, these 
 very men disclaimed such a right, when reproached, 
 as they were in debate, with the tendency of their • 
 measures to produce it. To the particulars of these 
 debates in the Convention we shall hereafter come ; 
 meantime it is right to bear in mind that not one ot 
 the Revolutionists broached this modern doctrine ot 
 
 unlimited choice. , , \ 
 
 What do the votes, what does the address to 
 William and Mary in the Bill of Rights, say ? Uo 
 they talk of a neto election by the people .'' or ot 
 their power to choose a new family, or new frame the 
 government? No! even the vote of the Scotch 
 Convention, bold as it is, and not only not warranted 
 by law, but contrary to law, in saying that the king, 
 who could legally do no wrong, had " forefaulted his 
 crown;" not even this vote pretended to the right ot 
 
 the nation to extinguish the whole royal family, and 
 
 choose a new one. 
 
 The English vote did still less; for it ventured 
 not, it did not even nibble at, the doctrine of for- 
 feiture, nor dreamed of cashierinff ; it only found the 
 throne vacant in consequence of James's conduct, 
 and, as might naturally be expected, filled it up, in 
 the same manner as it would do again if all heirs 
 failed or were incapacitated. Nor is it any argu- 
 ment against this, that the vacancy was fraudulent, 
 or found by a forced construction, or contrary to the 
 fact (of which presently). In estimating the precedent 
 recorded, we cannot travel out of the record; the 
 vacancy is there stated as true, and, whether true or 
 false, so we must take it. This is the amount of the 
 precedent, and no more. To this, and this alone, are 
 we bound ; nor can any other use be made of it, than 
 that, in the same circumstances,— that is, if the throne 
 were again found vacant, — the same remedy would be 
 appUed. It is indeed true, that the vote of the Con- 
 vention added some theoretic positions, such as that 
 there was a compact between the king and the 
 people, which James had broken : that, in addition to 
 this, he had endeavoured to subvert the fundamental 
 laws ; and by this, and withdrawing from the realm, 
 he had abdicated the throne, which was thereby 
 vacant. But this, though it adds the history of the 
 case, does not alter it. The case remains simply the 
 same, in regard to the fact of the vacancy, and the 
 power as well as the necessity to fill it up. How it 
 
 ill 
 
jlli 
 
 168 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. III. 
 
 SECT. III. 
 
 REVOLUTION OF 1688. 
 
 169 
 
 ' 
 
 wi- 
 
 ti 
 
 was occasioned, is of no consequence to the argu- 
 ment founded upon it ; but it is quite sufficient for 
 the point before us, that, though the whole proceeding 
 of tlie Convention showed how much they were im- 
 bued with the spirit of opposition to arbitrary power, 
 and their own right to supply the vacancy of the 
 throne, by stopping suddenly short upon the question 
 of election, and not even glancing at Blackstone's 
 unproved supposition, they showed that they neither 
 did, nor could, broach such a pretension. 
 
 Yet, with all this clearly before him, a noble 
 person of the present day, to whom we cannot refuse 
 the attribute of much reflection, does not hesitate to 
 tell us, that " the peculiar distinction of the Revolu- 
 tion is not, as some have supposed, to have established 
 the riffht to depose the king and alter the succession, — 
 a principle often before asserted in our history^ — but to 
 have brought into easy and undisturbed practice'^ our 
 ancient rights and libertiesJ^ * 
 
 Is not this admirable? And can you ever be 
 thankful enough for so great a boon, of which you 
 possibly (myself certainly) were in total ignorance, 
 till this noble writer bestowed it upon us? For 
 according to him, at least, nothing is now more easy 
 or regular than to depose a king of England, which, 
 indeed, was always a part of the Constitution ; and the 
 Revolution did nothing new, in exercising this right. 
 Mr. Booth, indeed, had been before him, who dis- 
 
 ♦ Lord John Russell Life of Lord Russell. 
 
 covered, that before the Conquest the people set up 
 and pulled down as they saw cause.* 
 
 We only wonder that the noble Lord stopped here, 
 and did not tell us, as there were precedents for 
 murdering our kings as well as deposing them, and 
 that the one fatality generally accompanied the other, 
 as in the cases of Edward XL, Richard II., Henry VI., 
 &c., that it was also our undoubted right to make 
 away with them in prison, according to our ancient 
 and constitutional privileges, f 
 
 So much for the votes. 
 
 Then, as to the address to their new sovereigns, 
 (elected indeed, but out of the old family, as a 
 necessary condition to their power,) did they hint even 
 at the right of the people to look at any other fa- 
 mily? 
 
 No! they thanked God, not that they had an 
 opportunity of exercising their right of sovereignty, 
 thus devolved upon them, but that he had preserved 
 William and Mary to reign over them on the throne of 
 their ancestors. 
 
 Thus, then, according to the cogent observation of 
 Burke, if the right of the people to elect were ad- 
 mitted before, it was now taken from them; and 
 
 * Debate on' Exclusion Bill. 
 
 f Lord John Russell. Life of Lord R. i. 164. Will Lord John 
 pardon the liberty of telling him, that precedent and right are not the 
 same things ? If they were, all the crimes human nature ever com- 
 mitted might be justified. 
 
 VOL. I. I 
 
 I 
 
iniii I 
 
 170 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT, III. 
 
 SECT, III. 
 
 REVOLUTION OF 1688. 
 
 171 
 
 I 
 
 I 'ii, 
 
 iii' ill 
 
 hereditary succession, which had before existed by 
 common law, was now enacted by statute. 
 
 Surely one would suppose, that, if the Revolution 
 had developed this new power of the people, some- 
 thincr would have been said upon it when they 
 proceeded to put it in practice. But not a word 
 was ventured to that effect ; and they quietly pro- 
 ceeded to regulate the succession upon the emergency, 
 as their ancestors had often done before, selecting 
 what was most fit to meet the case, but never, for a 
 moment, thinking or pretending that the hereditary 
 monarchy was dissolved and rebuilt. Hence Burke s 
 observation is just, that the wisdom of the nation was 
 totoUy adverse to turning a case of necessity mio a 
 rule of law ; and, as to the preference of William, it 
 was also necessity, not choice ; for, without him, we 
 ■ could not have avoided a bloody war, which seems to 
 me to be the true account, and to put an end to all 
 the fine-spun notions in respect to deviations being 
 rules instead of exceptions. * 
 
 If this be so, (and I see not how it can be refuted,) 
 
 we may count little upon the subtleties hazarded by 
 
 ■Sir James to get rid of it. He attempts to reconcile 
 
 what he owns is a « repugnance between the conduct 
 
 and the laiiyuaye of the Revolutionists. Their con- 
 
 * It would swell this treatise beyond its intended limits to set forth 
 at lar.-e the debates upon this question of election, to which the 
 Tories%xpressly warned the Whigs that their proposed measure, 
 would lead ; all which the Whigs flatly denied. 
 
 
 duct," says he, " was manly and systematic, their 
 language conciliating and equivocal."* 
 
 How manliness and equivocation can be recon- 
 ciled, I don't know; but he goes on, "they kept 
 measures with prejudice which they deemed necessary 
 to the order of society. They imposed on the grossness 
 of the popular understanding, by a sort of compromise 
 between the constitution and the abdicated family. ^^ \ 
 
 So, then, all these great and high tenets of the 
 power and sovereignty of the people, and the actual 
 proof of their exercise, demonstrated to the minds of 
 every body then and ever afterwards, were, after all, 
 kept secret! They passed muster in the dark^ were 
 never prom\ilged or asserted, but silently pondered, 
 reserved in the cells of the brain of political philoso- 
 phers for a hundred years, and then brought out, like 
 silver cleared of dross, fresh from the mint. 
 
 Verily, these discoveries of Sir James, that our 
 ancestors equivocated us into rights, and compromised 
 us into a sovereignty, which we never thought of at 
 the time, this imposing upon the grossness of the 
 popular understanding:!:, from the fear that the people 
 would otherwise reject the sovereignty offered them, 
 are as beneficial as they are amazing ; and we owe 
 him the greater thanks for having fished up, after 
 a century's immersion, tenets, and principles, and 
 
 * Vind. Gall, f Ib»<*' 
 
 \ To continue the hereditary line, was, according to Sir James, to- 
 impose on the grossness of the popular understanding, 
 
 I 2 
 
172 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. III. 
 
 designs, and stratagems, from the minds of statesmen 
 and legislators, which they had themselves, it seems, 
 tor the sake of success, purposely concealed. 
 
 And this is the way in which doctrines the most 
 important and vital to the security of our consti- 
 titution, and the well-being of our society, are said 
 to have originated : their birth was kept secret, nay, 
 hid from the knowledge of those most concerned in 
 their promulgation, yet whose acts are supposed to 
 have received their chief impetus from a sense of 
 their truth. With submission, however, the silence 
 of our deliverers as to the existence of a prince of 
 Wales is completely decisive of our position, that 
 they never thought, but were the reverse of thinking, 
 of establishing the doctrine we are contesting, 
 namely, the right of the nation to set aside a whole 
 family for the fault of the sovereign. Had this 
 been held, why did they not manfully declare it, by 
 acknowledging the son of James as his natural heir, 
 and cutting him off with his father, by virtue of their 
 inherent inalienable power? Instead of this, what 
 have we but mean subterfuges to get rid of a question 
 which they were afraid to encounter, but which, 
 perhaps, they prophetically consoled themselves with 
 thinkin^T would be demonstrated for them a hundred 
 years afterwards by Price and Mackintosh. 
 
 But the best is, that Sir James himself immediately 
 refutes his whole supposition by showing its absurdity. 
 In particular, he well exposes the inconsistency of 
 the position of an election^ with the thanks to heaven 
 
 SECT. III. 
 
 REVOLUTION OF 1688. 
 
 173 
 
 that the new sovereigns had been preserved to sit on 
 
 the throne of their ancestors. This, says he, either 
 
 referred to their descent, which was frivolous^ or 
 
 insinuated their hereditary right, which vfdiS false. 
 
 Need I remark, that this mode of putting it begs the 
 
 whole question ? 
 
 The same inconsistency, he remarks, attenda the 
 
 choice of the family of Brunswick, beccmse of their 
 
 descent from James I. If, says he, this (that is, the 
 
 hereditary right,) were the sole reason, the right w^as 
 
 in Victor Amadeus; and he then asks, triumphantly, 
 
 what answers Burke or Lord Somers could make to 
 
 these charges ? * 
 
 According to us, the answer has already been 
 given. The Bill of Rights had incapacitated all 
 Roman Catholics, the House of Brunswick were the 
 next protestant heirs, and as there was no claim at 
 the time to this new right, (only lately discovered,) of 
 a power to frame a new government, and new 
 ruling families, but the intention was merely to fill 
 up a vacant throne out of the old one, so far from 
 inconsistency there is the most perfect conformity to 
 the proposition we have laid down, the election of an 
 individual, but no invasion of family rights; William 
 preferred before Anne, but Anne preserved; Han- 
 over before Savoy, because Savoy disabled. 
 
 Sir James, however, says, and not unfairly for one 
 who holds the argument he does, that "it is futile to 
 
 ♦ Vind. Gall. 
 
 I 3 
 
lii 
 
 174 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. UU 
 
 urge that the convention deviated very slenderly from 
 the order of the succession. The deviation was, 
 indeed, slight, but it established the principle, the 
 riffht to deviate. " 
 
 Yes, the right to deviate from the general rule as 
 to individuals in the line of succession, but not to 
 depart altogether from the constitution, not from the 
 choice of a particular family enjoying an inheritance. 
 If this were so, the precedents of William Rufiis, 
 Henry I., and Stephen, of Henry IV., Richard UI., 
 and Henry VH., all of whom were preferred to the 
 next heir, (besides the fluctuations between Mary 
 and Elizabeth,) would deprive the Revolution of all 
 the honour of this new principle of election. I have 
 already asked, if the precedents ever did so in the 
 doctrines of any constitutional lawyer before the 
 Revolution* 
 
 Sir James, proceeding in his defence of Price's 
 / notion of cashiering, next asks, whether the depo- 
 sition of King James, for the abuse of his powers, 
 does not establish a principle in favour of the like 
 deposition when the like abuse should again recur ? 
 
 Here, for principle we should read precedent^ or 
 else both are confounded, and all wickedness (for 
 which there is generally precedent enough) may be 
 defended upon a principle. 
 
 That the Revolution formed a precedent, nobody 
 can doubt, any more than that the deposition and 
 murder of Edward IL, Richard H., and Charles I., . 
 formed precedents. Will they, on that account, 
 
 SECT. 111. 
 
 REVOLUTION OF 1688, 
 
 175 
 
 furnish a principle^ that all other princes in the same 
 circumstances may be deposed and murdered? 
 
 We see, then, how dangerous it is to get entangled 
 in a labyrinth of difficulty, by endeavouring to 
 reduce cases of unforeseen and sudden emergency 
 to the forms of law. The amount of the precedent 
 of the Revolution is what did not require the au- 
 thority of that or any precedent to justify it — the 
 right of self-defence when attacked. This, and no 
 
 more. 
 
 Even Mackintosh himself admits that the ^'mis- 
 conduct " stated by Price, as warranting our power to 
 cashier our kings, must, in future, amount to " the 
 precise species of misconduct committed by James ; 
 and he is angry with Burke for fixing Price to so 
 feeble and loose a term as misconduct. 
 
 But Burke did not class petty faults under the 
 misconduct predicated by Price ; and if nothing short 
 of James's crimes amounts, in Mackintosh's under- 
 standing of it, to the meaning of misconduct, how 
 does he account for his own assertion, that " of the 
 justice of a war against Charles II. (meaning an in- 
 surrection) no man can doubt, who approves that 
 revolution on which the laws and liberties of England 
 
 now stand.* 
 
 What, then, was Charles as great a criminal 
 against the laws as James ? This, I own, I am to 
 learn. He was a bad man, and despicable prince: 
 
 M 
 
 * Hist. Rev. ii. 90. 
 
 1 4 
 
I 
 
 17G 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. III. 
 
 he wished to govern without parliaments ; his con- 
 nection with France was not only impolitic but in- 
 famous; the second Dutch war could not be defended; 
 the shutting up the exchequer was dishonest; and 
 many proclamations in the year 1672, such as those 
 concerning martial law, and various others, savoured 
 of arbitrary power; but, above all, the declaration 
 of indulgence, so pleasing to the Catholics and Dis- 
 senters, so terrific to the Church, filled the latter with 
 alarm. But, exclusive that for all these there were 
 legal remedies by the impeachment of his profligate 
 ministers (Shaftesbury, that child of rebellion, among 
 them), would these have given a right of war in his 
 subjects against him ? If so, what becomes of the 
 explanatory assertion, that kings must be precisely 
 in the same situation with James to justify the same 
 punishment of them by their subjects? But if we 
 grant the right of war against Charles, where is the 
 reign in which acts of impolicy or power might not, 
 with very little colouring, be made to amount to a 
 legitimate cause of insurrection ? The question of 
 general warrants, the late poor laws, or the marriage 
 act, so much complained of at the time, or the excise 
 (such an invasion of liberty, though imposed bylaw,) 
 — might not each of these, if Sir James or Price be 
 right, have been a call upon the subject to arm 
 against the throne ? There was immorality enough 
 in Charles ; but, as there was no personal oppression, 
 are we not warranted in demanding of this our in- 
 structor in the principles of resistance, to point out 
 
 SECT* in. 
 
 REVOLUTION OF 1G88. 
 
 177 
 
 the special case or cases of tyranny and misconduct 
 which would justify the right of war against him, 
 which, he says, was so undoubted ? We should, then, 
 force him from his stronghold of generalities, and be 
 able, at least, to understand him. 
 
 I will, however, give him one. The greatest 
 breach of the law, though, perhaps, not the greatest 
 instance of misconduct by Charles, vvas in governing 
 without parliaments spite of the triennial bill. This, 
 had there been a chance of success from union or 
 numbers, or the aid of the Prince of Orange, as in 
 the time of James, might have justified an armed 
 rising to force him to obey the law of the consti- 
 tution. But here was a specific attack upon the 
 rights of the nation, which might have been resisted 
 by the law of self-defence, without any recourse to 
 refinements respecting a dormant sovereignty of the 
 people, which none of them could understand. 
 
 On the other hand, we have seen the misconduct 
 of the popish plot parliament, which, if the invasion of 
 moral rights is to justify war, would have authorised a 
 thousand revolts against them ; and the rather, because 
 parliaments have no ministers to be responsible for 
 them ; but this it does not suit the advocate of the 
 people to notice. 
 
 As it is, if, as Sir James requires, the misconduct 
 cited by Price is to tally with the precise misconduct 
 of James, it at once destroys the axiom as a general 
 principle authorising us to cashier our rulers. Yet, 
 as a general principle, and with no explanation, it is 
 
 1 5 
 
 
178 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. III. 
 
 SECT. Ill* 
 
 REVOLUTION OF 1688. 
 
 179 
 
 i 
 
 laid down by the political divine, as if it were the 
 postive law of the Constitution, not merely a moral 
 
 right. 
 
 This, however, is confuted ably, but strangely, by 
 Sir James himself; strangely, because he is fully a 
 participator in the same doctrine. 
 
 " No man," he says, " can deduce a precedent of 
 law from the Revolution ; for law cannot exist in the 
 dissolution of government ; a precedent of reason and 
 justice can only be established on it ; and, perhaps, 
 the friends of freedom merit the misrepresentation 
 with which they have been opposed, for trusting their 
 cause to such frail and frivolous auxiharies, and for 
 seeking in the profligate practices of men what is to be 
 found in the sacred rights of nature." 
 
 Why, then, I have all this time been mistaking the 
 eloquent advocate for the Revolution, particularly 
 where he asserted, that the deposition of a king for 
 the abuse of his power established a principle in favour 
 of the like deposition when the like abuses should 
 again recur; all which, he says, was done by the 
 Revolution. 
 
 Now, I suppose, I need not observe, that to establish 
 is to form or create something new — something 
 that had not existed before. We certainly should not 
 say that we had established a monarchy in a country 
 where a hundred kings had reigned. The Revolution, 
 therefore, according to Sir James, hdiViwg created this 
 principle, was lauded with the eloquence due. 
 
 Who, then, could expect that its advocate should, 
 
 almost in the next sentence, denounce it as " a frail 
 and frivolous auxiliary," or that it arose from the 
 profligate practices of men, instead of being a sacred 
 right of nature." 
 
 This is, indeed, wild work, and a total contradiction; 
 for, if a sacred right of nature, the Revolution did not 
 establish it: it was known to every born man; and the 
 doctor has really very much to complain of in Sir 
 James for having, by the discovery, reduced his all- 
 conquering and resistless case to a frail and frivolous 
 auxiliary. 
 
 1 6 
 
 'I 
 
ISO 
 
 HISTORICAL £SSAV* 
 
 SECT- IV. 
 
 SECTION IV, 
 
 CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION* 
 
 ' ) 
 
 Hitherto we have been occupied with canvassing 
 principles, prompted, as is said, by the facts of the his- 
 tory; and, were those facts all as represented, my 
 task would be over. 
 
 But the object yet wants much for its completion ; 
 for though, as to the event, there can be no difference 
 of opinion, as to the character and colour of the facts 
 that led to it there may be a great deal. 
 
 The general impression from the history, as we 
 love to believe it ourselves, and to teach it to our 
 children, is, that James, being a tyrant, we were 
 driven not merely to oppose him in self-defence, but, 
 that using the rights of sovereignty vested by nature 
 in a great, free, and enlightened people, the nation rose 
 as a man, in judgment upon his acts ; and, folding 
 him guilty, deprived him of the power he had abused; 
 that they, therefore, withdrew an allegiance of which 
 he was unworthy, and filled his place with one better 
 deserving their confidence; that all this was done 
 
 \ 
 
 / '!< 
 
 SECT. IV» CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION. 
 
 181 
 
 upon principles well understood, gravely discussed, 
 and bravely as well as justly enforced, by a set of 
 heroes and sages, whose patriotism, courage, and ho- 
 nourable dedication of themselves deserve the admi- 
 ration and everlasting gratitude of posterity, and the 
 whole world, to whom they exhibited the august and 
 magnificent spectacle of a nation of freemen calling 
 to account, and punishing by forfeiture, its sovereign 
 magistrate for a breach of trust. 
 
 Farther, it appears that, being too weak to effect 
 this of themselves, they called in the aid of a great 
 and glorious military deliverer, who, out of pure love 
 of justice^ and a disinterested attachment to their 
 liberties, suppressed all inferior calls upon him of 
 duty and affection, as the son-in-law, friend, and ally 
 of King James, and sacrificed every private feeling to 
 this holy object. On this national invitation, the de- 
 liverer cheerfully hazarded his life and the resources 
 of his country, for no ambition of his own, but purely 
 to restore an oppressed people to their rights and in- 
 dependence, who used them, when recovered, unin- 
 fluenced by any fear or other motive than their own 
 will, to place him on the throne which the tyrant 
 had forfeited. Finally, that all this was done with- 
 out tumult, or the exertion of any force, but by the 
 people themselves, through their representatives in 
 parliament assembled, and, therefore, by their own free 
 and unbiassed voice; — a noble, and even stupendous, 
 example of the most stupendous, as well as beautiful, 
 theory of natural rights which the world ever saw. 
 
:'f. 
 
 I r; 
 
 HI 
 
 I' 
 
 182 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT, iv; 
 
 Such IS the account of this great event, which, as 
 was before observed, we endeavoured to believe our- 
 selves, and love to teach to our children. 
 
 Now 1 do not say the picture is altogether false ; 
 the result, happily for us, seems to warrant its cor- 
 rectness. 
 
 How far it is really just, is a question as momentous 
 as it is interesting. For, if we examine its details 
 with critical strictness, are we sure we shall find in it 
 that exhibition of patriotism or public virtue in the 
 actors, or even of disinterested generosity in the de- 
 liverer himself, which we fondly, and not unnaturally, 
 wish to believe? 
 
 Upon dissecting the character of the event itself, 
 and more particularly of its authors, what shall we 
 .say, if we find that the nation at large had at first 
 \| very little to do with it, that it was mainly promoted 
 by men who intrigued at least as much for their own 
 benefit as that of the people, (the usual character of 
 common -place patriots,) and that William himself 
 fomented the discontents, which were, in the end, to 
 aggrandize him, with a view to his personal ambitionj 
 
 Vand a passion of far more consequence to him than 
 the love of liberty which he professed ? 
 -^ The passion I mean was to liberate Europe, not 
 England, by humbling France; and that so stu- 
 pendous au enterprise as he undertook should be 
 only secondary in tliis pursuit, enhances our ideas of 
 the vastne^ of his genius, and the grandeur of hiii 
 mind. 
 
 SECT. rV. CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION. 
 
 183 
 
 Let us (for must we not) add to this, that even 
 our darling notion that our love of liberty, and the 
 defence of an invaded constitution, were the para- 
 mount and deciding causes of our resistance, is not 
 to be asserted without great qualifications. There- 
 fore, so far our merit, as Liberty's favourite sons, is 
 not so unmixed. 
 
 You will see, at once, that I mean how great a share 
 religion had in every feeling which, on tliis occasion, 
 prompted men to action. Had the love of Pro- 
 testantism and hatred of Popery not been interwoven 
 in the nature of almost every man concerned in the 
 Revolution, had the tyranny of James not meddled 
 with tlie religious faitli of his subjects, for one, I feel 
 warrante<l in thinking our fiir-famed Revolution would 
 never have existed. 
 
 It is very certain, I think, tliat, but for their re- 
 ligious jealousies, the troops at Hounslow would not 
 have grounded their arms, and, still more, that the 
 bishops would never have dreamt of petitioning ^ 
 again5t a declaration of the king. 
 
 We know how much the love of liberty, in the 
 great civil war against Charles, was sullied and stained 
 by the grossest and most disgusting fanaticism, 
 amounting often to bhuiphemy. 
 
 Without this fanaticism, is it 'unfair to question 
 wliether Cromwell, or Vane, or Harrison, could have 
 effected what they did ? Is it less so to make tlie 
 same question as to the full motives of our revo- 
 lutionists? 
 
 (I 
 
 I 
 
 II 
 
 / 
 
A 84 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. IV. 
 
 SECT. IV. CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION. 
 
 185 
 
 ii 
 
 Even Marlborough professed that, though he pre- 
 tended not to be a saint, he was able to die a martyr 
 for his creed. Would it be a great stretch of incre- 
 dulity to doubt whether he or another military enemy 
 of popery, the enlightened Kirk, felt such soreness 
 at the invasion of their civil rights as to draw the 
 sword against the master whom they had served, and 
 whose money they had pocketed so long, without any 
 protestation against it ? 
 
 We must not, therefore, look at the Revolution 
 with a pure unmixed Roman spirit, nor think that 
 love of country, and an enlightened understanding 
 of laws, alone incited our ancestors to this great 
 undertaking. Neither, on the other hand, can I 
 believe, with Lord John Russell, that James the first 
 embraced the Roman Catholic faith because he found 
 it most congenial to his own love of arbitrary power. 
 Of that love there is too abundant proof, — for no 
 one can deny that "Caesar was ambitious." Any. 
 more than that "grievously hath Caesar answered 
 it;" but the merits or demerits of his opponents is 
 an open question. We pass, therefore, the sins of the 
 king, as too glaring to be doubted, and also the 
 question as to his prudence or courage in meetino* 
 his difficulties ; but not so can we pass the conduct 
 of those subjects who advised or betrayed him, any 
 more than the moral conduct of his son-in-law, in 
 maintaining, for a great length of time, a corre- 
 spondence with those subjects for the purpose of 
 revolt. 
 
 Yet, during all this time, William was making' the 
 strongest protestations of duty and attachment to his ^"^ 
 father-in-law, whom he was thus preparing to de- 
 throne. At the. same time, in order to show the 
 spirit in which a modern Whig can write (for Mackin- 
 tosh is called by his Continuator emphatically a Whig 
 of the Revolution,) and, therefore, to appreciate the 
 impartiality of his judgment, I cannot help tran- 
 scribing a few passages in regard to the king and the 
 prince. 
 
 In his letters to William, James was brief and dry, 
 nor can we be surprised at it. " This betrayed the 
 violence he did to his nature in writing them." I 
 know not how it does so : but the Continuator adds 
 that James '^ combined with his harsh character that 
 common art in the education of princes, and exercise 
 of kingcraft, dissimulation."* 
 
 Well, was the prince (though iii him, being only 
 a prince, and at the same time a deliverer, there 
 could be no kingcraft,) exempt in a greater or in any 
 degree from this crime ? 
 
 See what the Continuator himself is forced to say 
 of him, in regard to his communications with the dis- 
 affected subjects of James. " Affecting towards him, 
 with an air of patient tranquillity, the deference and 
 duty of a son, he gained over the subjects, sapped 
 the throne, and, finally, made himself supreme arbiter 
 
 * Cont. of Hist. Rev. ii. 106. 
 *I 9 
 
 U^ 
 
 >fl 
 
 \ 
 
 /' 
 
186 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. ir. 
 
 Ill III 
 
 I 
 
 of the fate of his father-in-law, under the pretence of 
 zeal for a church, and affection for a nation, to neither 
 of which he belonged." 
 
 Again, in a letter from Fagel to Stuart, an agent 
 of the king, the pensionary says, " their highnesses 
 have ever paid a most profound duty to his majesty, 
 which they will always continue to do, for they con- 
 sider themselves bound to it both by the laws of God 
 and man." This was after concert had been made to 
 dethrone him, but, being in the cause of liberty, I 
 suppose it was not dissimulation. 
 
 In another passage, speaking of Dyckvelt's in- 
 structions from the prince, 1686, more than two years 
 before the invasion^ he says, only one article came 
 within the duties of an ambassador, " the rest icas a 
 warrant for improper practices with the hinges sidrjects*^ 
 No wonder that Sunderland, who had discovered the 
 whole design, though he basely concealed it from his 
 master, should observe to Barillon, that the most diffi- 
 cult of all things was concord between two persons 
 of whom one impatiently longed for the crown worn 
 by the other. 
 
 Excellent proof of disinterestedness in William ! 
 
 But then comes in the plea, that all deceit may be 
 excused in the cause of the sovereign people. " The 
 nearest interests of the Prince of Orange were at 
 stake : the subjects of James conspired with a foreign 
 prince for their laws and liberties ; and, in such a case, 
 men do not look very narrowly into the obligations ofin^ 
 
 SECT. IV. CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION. 
 
 187 
 
 temational and municipal jurisprudence J^^ No mo- 
 dern radicalism is made of sterner stuff. 
 
 Once more : — "He (Zuylslein) was sent over with 
 their congratulations to James and his queen, on the 
 birth of their son, at the very moment when the 
 prince, and, as far as she was competent or allowed, 
 the princess, were preparing to dethrone the parents, 
 and bastardize the child." 
 
 This startles the natural good feeling of the modern 
 Whig. 
 
 But mark how soon the man of nature is lost in 
 the man of the people. 
 
 " There is in all this," he observes, " something re- 
 volting at first sights (what, only at first sight !) con- 
 sidering the relations of blood and marriage between 
 the parties ; but it should be remembered, in extenu- 
 ation^ that James was trampling at the time on the 
 liberties and sentiments of a free people, that the 
 Prince of Orange had a contingent intei^est in the 
 sux^cession to the crown in his own person, and that 
 
 THE TIES OF NATURE ARE MADE ONLY FOR A FREE 
 PEOPLE." t 
 
 What the phraseology of this last observation 
 means, I do not exactly know. If that none but a 
 free people can feel the ties of nature, it is false. 
 Possibly they feel them less than others, for public 
 virtue, to be public virtue, must and does extinguish 
 
 uJ 
 
 * Vol. ii. 123. 
 
 t Hist. Rev. ii. 147. 
 
 I 10 
 
188 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT, IV. 
 
 the charities of kindred. This is proved by th^ 
 whole history of real and genuine patriotism ; witness 
 the Spartans, Timoleon, Junius and Marcus Brutus, 
 and many real or pretended patriots. I guess, how- 
 ever, that the sense intended is, that the ties of nature 
 ^"^ no longer bind where freedom is at stake, and that 
 therefore dissimulation, in the cause of liberty, is 
 heroic virtue, while, in a monarch, it is the exercise 
 of art and kingcraft. 
 
 In another place, the Continuator does not scruple 
 to hazard a conjecture, which I, at least, never re- 
 member to have met with in any other historian, that 
 the hero William, the greatest man of his time, (for 
 such I think him,) would not have hesitated to murder 
 his father-in-law if necessary to his object. 
 
 He had already said, that William had been sus- 
 pected of having connived at the destruction of the 
 De Witts, and it is thus he writes concerning his 
 possible disposal of James. 
 
 " If the existence of James presented itself as a 
 l)ar to the ambition of the Prince of Orange, can it 
 be supposed for a moment that the most aspiring of 
 ppliticians, and most phlegmatic of Dutchmen, would 
 have seen in his wife's father any thing but a political 
 unit of human life ?"* 
 
 What a mild wording is this of a hint that our 
 crreat deliverer would have had no scruple to murder 
 
 * Hist. Rev. ii. 245. 
 
 SECT. IV, CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION. 
 
 189 
 
 his father-in-law. I suppose, however, that for this 
 the former excuse would have been allowed, and 
 that " the ties of nature are made only for a free 
 people;" in other words, that murdering a king by his 
 son-in-law is no ,crime when in the cause of liberty^ 
 
 In asking why the confederates of Augsburg sub* 
 mitted so long to the aggressions of France, the 
 historian says, they were probably kept back by the 
 Prince of Orange, because " he had not yet sufficiently 
 concerted with his English partizans the dethroning of 
 James, the placing his crown on his own head, and 
 the embarking of England, with her national re- 
 sources and antipathies, in the league of Europe 
 against Louis XIV." * 
 
 Of a piece with this is the assertion of Burnet^ 
 that William aspired to the crown in 1686, more 
 than two years before the invasion, and long before 
 the measure of James's aggression against the laws 
 was full. 
 
 Lord Dartmouth told James, from the time of 
 Monmouth's invasion, he was confident the prince 
 would attempt it ; but the following is remarkable : — 
 
 The Prince at the time (1686) contemplated being 
 king of England, but could imagine it only on the 
 supposition that James was deposed, and the throne 
 vacaM. " If the crown devolved upon the princess 
 his wife, on her father's decease, he would not have 
 
 • Hist. Rev. ii. 110. 
 ♦l 11 
 
 i 
 
190 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT, iv; 
 
 the slightest ground to expect that the order of suc- 
 cession should be departed from, and the rights of 
 the Princess Anne sacrificed in his favour. Nothing 
 but the shock of a revolution, the necessities of the 
 time, and the merit of a deliverance, could warrant 
 a man of his sagacity in such an expectation ; and it 
 was only by a very small majority of one house of 
 parliament, that these causes, co-operating with others, 
 raised him eventually to the throne." 
 
 But William proved, at a much earlier period, that 
 he had little tenderness for the rights of his father- 
 in-law. 
 
 He declared his wish, « that the bill of exclusion 
 should be carried rather than the powers of the crowa 
 should be diminished." * He received " with pleasure 
 the proposition of enacting, that the princess should 
 be regent during the life of her father f f and it would 
 appear from a4etter of Montague to him, after he 
 became king, that he knew and approved " the Rye- 
 House plot" :j: 
 
 If this were so, we cannot wonder at the expressed 
 opinion that, "whilst other great political changes 
 in nations and governments have been achieved by 
 resolute spirits from motives of ambition, vengeance^ 
 
 * Letter of the Prince of Orange to Sir Leoliue Jenkins. Dall. 
 App. p. 306> et seq. 
 
 t Ibid. 
 
 \ Letter of Lord Montague to King William, Dall. App. part u. 
 
 p. 339. 
 
 SECT. IV. CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION. 
 
 191 
 
 love of liberty, or love of country, it will be found 
 that, in the ruin of James and elevation of William, 
 the dominant elements were intrigue, perfidy, and 
 intolerance." Possibly this is exaggerated, but as to 
 the motives of the patriots who invited the Prince, 
 we agree that the tone of the letters they sent to him 
 inviting him over, "was too like that of vassals 
 transferring their service from one absolute lord to 
 another. 
 
 " Religion is often mentioned, liberty and country 
 neverJ^ 
 
 We agree also, that " Viewing the Revolution of 
 1688 at this distance of time, and with the lights 
 of the present day, it is impossible to deny James 
 a certain superiority in the comparison of abstract 
 principles. 
 
 " His standard bore the nobler inscription. 
 
 " He proclaimed religious liberty impartial and 
 complete ; and had he not sought to establish it by 
 his own lawless will, had his proceedings been but 
 worthy of his cause, posterity might regard him, not 
 as a tyrant jusdy uncrowned, but as a beneficent 
 prince, who became the victim of an intolerant fac- 
 tion, an overweening hierarchy, and a besotted 
 multitude." 
 
 On the announcement of the intention to call a 
 new parliament, the prince is stated to have been 
 alarmed. — " Whilst a hope remained that rights 
 would be secured, and wrongs redressed, it wdi.% feared 
 
 *i 12 
 
192 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. IV, 
 
 SECT. IV. CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION. 
 
 193 
 
 at the Hague that the mass of the nation, and the 
 leading party chiefs, would shrink from the extremities 
 of foreign invasion and domestic war." * 
 
 How devoted here seems the prince to the hap- 
 piness and liberties of England ! 
 
 Of the virtuous fairness of the patriots, in their 
 clear cause, we may judge by their treatment of the 
 queen, and the doubt which they every where spread 
 of her pregnancy. This was placarded on dead walls ; 
 and a pasquinade, appointing a day of thanksgiving 
 for the queen's being great with a cushion, was fixed 
 to the pillars of a church. 
 
 The prince's declaration itself was criticised by 
 many zealous friends to liberty, among them Wild- 
 man, and Lords Mordaunt and Macclesfield, who 
 rested it upon its true basis, a reform of the political 
 government, and not the petty warfare of parties and 
 sects. \ But, with the exception of these three, it 
 should seem that there was little but self-interest to 
 kindle the exertions of that great mass of patriotism 
 which the nation was supposed to contain. 
 
 Take a specimen from the exhibition of political 
 virtue in one of the chief naval leaders, Herbert, 
 afterwards, for this virtue, made a peer. 
 
 Writing to William with offers of his support, some 
 months before the invasion, he says, " It is from 
 your highness's great generosity that I must hope 
 
 for pardon for presuming to write in so unpolished a 
 style, which will not furnish me with words suitable 
 to the sense I have of your Highness's goodness to me 
 in the midst of my misfortunes. I have a life entirely 
 at your devotion, and shall think every hour of it 
 lost that is not employed in" (my country's? No! in) 
 ^'your Highnesses service." * 
 
 Is this the letter of a dedicated martvr to his 
 country's wrongs, or of a sycophant courting a new 
 master ? 
 
 The Continuator of Mackintosh observes upon it, 
 that the misfortunes of this patriot consisted in his 
 being dismissed from places at court, which he held 
 at the king's pleasure, upon his refusal to support 
 the king's government f; to which Burnet adds, that 
 being sullen, proud, and morose, the preference of 
 Dartmouth to him in the command of the fleet was 
 the principal cause of his joining William. 
 
 A very pretty patriot in the minds, observe, of 
 other patriots, who record this of him ! 
 
 The declaration of the prince contained two great 
 pledges. 
 
 The calling a free parliament; and to inquire into 
 the birth of " the pretended Prince of Wales." 
 
 William fulfilled the first. Why did he not do so 
 by the second ? 
 
 He was afraid of the truth. Was this the justice, 
 the sincerity, or the grandeur of mind which are 
 
 * Vol. ii. 132. 
 
 f Burnet« 
 
 * Dall. App. p. 11. 
 VOL. L 
 
 f Bum. i. 762. 
 
 I 
 
194 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. IV. 
 
 SECT. IV. CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION. 
 
 195 
 
 said to have actuated the authors of our glorious 
 Revolution ? 
 
 What does Mackintosh's Continuator say of the 
 ^' seven distinguished patriots, who with Roman virtue 
 signed the invitation; and who, therefore, may be 
 considered as the leading specimens of our revolu- 
 tionary virtue?"* 
 
 They were ^^men who deserved well of their 
 country, but who wanted grandeur of achievement 
 and stature of mind, to figure as personages truly 
 historic; and whose names have failed to become 
 classic among the destroyers of tyrants, or the libe- 
 rators of nations."! 
 
 What does this mean? — that the writer would 
 
 ♦ They were Shrewsbury, Devonshire, Danby, Lumley, Compton, 
 Russell, and Sidney. Hallam calls them the seven eminent persons 
 who signed the Declaration. With the exception of Lord Devon- 
 shire, a noble gentleman, and Lumley, who was at least without stain, 
 they were all eminent rogues. Shrewsbury and Russell proved 
 themselves afterwards to be traitors to the cause they now espoused ; 
 Danby was guilty of the most io famous corruption, from private 
 motives, as he had before been (and lay five years in prison for it), 
 when as Lord Treasurer he connived at King Charles's taking bribes 
 from France. Compton, as we shall see, was a cowardly and deli- 
 berate liar, when taxed with signing this very Invitation. 
 
 f p. 149. From this reproach, he should have excepted the Earl 
 of Devonshire, a man, from every account of him, worthy of antiquity; 
 full of honour, full of courage, ardent for liberty, yet a friend to the 
 laws; in short, deserving the epitaph writien by himself, and placed 
 u^)on his tomb : 
 
 " BONORUM phincipum 
 SUBDITUS FIDELIS, 
 
 IXIMICUS ET INVISUS TYKANNIS. 
 
 ♦» 
 
 have wished them to assassinate James, as Brutus 
 (that classical name) did Caesar ? or legally murder 
 him, as Cromwell did Charles ? 
 
 He goes on thus: — "It is a remarkable fact that 
 not one great principle, or generous inspiration, 
 escapes them in that document. 
 
 " Their Invitation is a cold, creeping, irresolute 
 
 address/* 
 
 The imprisonment of the bishops, and imposition 
 of a spurious heir, were put forward as the grievances 
 which immediately provoked and justified the expe- 
 dition. But these incidents were merely seized upcm 
 as favourable (we might add false) pretences. The 
 prince had resolved upon it long before. The Decla- 
 ration itself was in fact one of those politic mani- 
 festoes which are issued by all invaders to mash^ not 
 disclose their purposes. 
 
 If any thing were wanting to prove this, William 
 writes to Bentinck his distrust of the English parlia- 
 ment, on whose mercy he must throw himself; and that 
 to trust one's destiny to them was no slight hazard. 
 Finally, he reveals to his Dutch counsellors that he 
 hated parliaments, like Louis and James." * Admi- 
 rable sincerity ! 
 
 Then as to those who signed the Invitation, as 
 one of the chief reasons of the increase of discontent 
 announced in the nation is not so mvxih the invasions 
 
 ♦ Letters from William to the Earl of Portland, quoted in Hist. 
 Re vol. ii. p. 164. 
 
 * K 2 
 
196 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. IV. 
 
 of liberty^ sk the attempt to impose upon them a sup- 
 posititious heir, they inform him that his compli- 
 menting the king on the birth of the child has done 
 V him some injury ; and instruct him, therefore, in his 
 declaration of the causes for entering the kingdom 
 in a hostile manner^ to rest his chief reason upon this 
 imposition.* 
 
 Thus roguery, deliberate falsehood, and cunning 
 glare out through all this veil of patriotism; but 
 being patriotism, it of course is excusable. 
 
 In the paper war that followed on this declaration, 
 that the prince aspired to the crown is positively 
 denied, which the Continuator himself of Sir James 
 thinks so untrue, that he points it out as remarkable.! 
 
 In all this, but particularly the plot as to the 
 Prince of Wales, I own I see a mean and miserable 
 conspiracy to mystify facts which none but a weak 
 zealot or designing knave ever said he disbelieved ; 
 and look in vain for that noble spirit of freedom 
 which calls a population to arms, spurning all pre- 
 tences but the true one, for the assertion of their 
 rights. 
 
 Whatever were the now proved designs of William 
 upon the crown, they were, at the time, concealed, 
 from the fear that an open profession of them might 
 endanger their success in the minds of the really 
 honest subjects of James, who sought to defend them- 
 selves but not destroy him. 
 
 ♦ See the Inyitation. 
 
 t ii. 204. 
 
 SECT. IV. CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION. 
 
 197 
 
 I do not blame this policy in^'' William or his 
 abettors, supposing the object defensible. "Dolus 
 an virtus, quis in hoste requirit?" It is the hy- 
 pocrisy of the pretence in persons who are supposed 
 champions of the sovereignty of the people, and the 
 meanness of their stooping to such low arts in the 
 assertion of a cause supposed so clear, and really so 
 noble, that move our indignation. Nothing of the 
 real design was avowed at first landing. On the 
 contrary profession was every where made that to 
 regulate, not destroy the existing government, and 
 bring back the constitution to its proper limits, were 
 all the objects desired. To meddle with the person 
 or crown of James, was jealously disavowed. 
 
 How true this was, may be gathered from the 
 conversation between a confidential agent of the 
 prince and Lord Halifax, when the latter was sent 
 by James to treat, only about a month after his 
 landing. 
 
 The agent reproached Halifax for attempting a 
 delusive negociation, when there was no room for 
 trust, and every thing must be built on new foundations^ 
 and a total change of persons* A worthy proof that 
 William only came as a deliverer, with no design 
 whatever to dethrone James or seize the crown 
 himself ! 
 
 Does not the mind revolt at these gross deceits ? 
 
 Not that the invasion itself was not fair, and even 
 
 
 ♦ Quoted in Hist, of Revol. p. 11, from Dalrymple. 
 
 *K 3 
 
198 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT, IV, 
 
 politic for the nation. It is the hypocrisy with 
 •^hich it was conducted that provokes our animad- 
 version. 
 
 We are shocked at this wretched hypocrisy and 
 the falsehood of the pretences under which it was 
 promoted. 
 
 The triumph of our patriotism fades as our in- 
 quiries proceed. We sicken to think of the truth ; 
 and we have httle exultation in being forced to confess 
 the error we have been in, as to the real character 
 and views of our glorious Deliverer. 
 
 Even in the conduct of this great enterprise (at 
 least in its commencement), we search in vain for 
 that supposed universal and simultaneous effort 
 which belonged to a great and aggrieved nation, 
 sensible of its rights, and determined to assert them 
 or perish. 
 
 On the contrary, all was not so much fear, as 
 apathy and indifference. 
 
 That at first, or at any time, it was a great and 
 //unanimous national movement, is at least not sup- 
 ported by the reception which the prince received. 
 
 Far from being warmly welcomed or welcomed at 
 all, he was forced to lay the country under con- 
 tributions, which he seems to have levied very un* 
 scrupulously. 
 
 This was little like a delivery. 
 
 His officer whom he sent to summon Exeter was 
 committed to prison by the mayor, and the gates 
 were closed against Lord Mordaunt who went with 
 
 &ECT. IV. CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION. 
 
 199 
 
 horse to take possession. Being an unfortified town, 
 without a soldier in garrison, it was soon surrendered, 
 but this showed any thing but good will. 
 
 The mayor would neither acknowledge nor hold 
 communication with the Deliverer^ who was received 
 where he advanced in person, no better than his 
 oflScers. The bishop and the dean retired, the first 
 to the king ; and when Burnet took possession of the 
 pulpit in the cathedral, and not over decently con- 
 verted it into a political club, by reading the Decla- 
 ration ; on commencing it, the canons, the choristers, 
 and the greater part of the congregation withdrew. 
 Kennet declares that when Burnet concluded his 
 address and said, « God save the Prince of Orancre/' 
 the major part of the congregation responded "Amen, 
 Amen ;" but even the Continuator construes this to be 
 only the major part of what remained^ a sneer not unre- 
 markable in so zealous an advocate for the invasion. 
 
 The presbyterian Ferguson met with still greater 
 opposition from his brother dissenters; for going 
 to the meeting-house to address them, he found the 
 door closed upon him, and could only gain admittance 
 by force. 
 
 In this situation the prince remained nine days 
 (an immense retardation), without progress or being 
 joined by a single person of distinction. Had James 
 possessed half his vigour, there would have been 
 an end of him, for any thing the nation did to 
 prevent it. 
 
 He gave commissions to Lord Mordaunt, Sir John 
 
 *K 4 
 
\ 
 
 200 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT, IV. 
 
 (II' 
 
 Guise, and Sir Robert Peyton to raise regiments, 
 but they could make no levies ; and he began to turn 
 his eyes to his mast-heads. So little was this great 
 cause of liberty upheld by those whose bosoms were 
 supposed to be all on fire to assert it. 
 
 While every thing was thus flat, and hope itself 
 almost deadened, the prince even suffered it to be 
 proposed to him that he should re-embark. 
 
 Did this look like the pronounced sense of a bold 
 and injured nation resolving to be free ? 
 
 In fact Lord Dartmouth says, William suspected 
 he was betrayed, and resolved, upon his return to 
 Holland, to publish the names of those who had in- 
 vited him, as a just return for their treachery, folly, 
 and cowardice. 
 
 So much for the heroism of our great patriots, and 
 the universal feeling of the injured nation. 
 
 Argue then as we please for the supposed wishes 
 of all^ or even some ranks, the success which afterwards 
 attended the Deliverer was owing chiefly, I should 
 rather say entirely, to the want of energy, the doubt, 
 and indecision of James himself, and the scandalous 
 treachery of those whom he had loved best, and who 
 professed most for his service. 
 
 This was far more efiicient than any general or 
 active feeling expressed by the community at large. 
 
 Had James with his army been in the neighbour- 
 hood of the prince when he landed, the probability 
 is he would have beaten him directly, if only from 
 the coldness and want of support of those whom he 
 
 ^ECT. IV. CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION. 
 
 201 
 
 came to deliver; while on the other hand at sea, had 
 the winds and tides permitted Lord Dartmouth and 
 the fleet to have engaged him in his passage, such 
 was the fidelity of the Admiral and the crews, and 
 such the point of honour of even the disaffected 
 officers, who all said that if they met the Dutch fleet 
 they must fight, that probably we should have heard 
 little of the landing in Torbay. 
 
 As we proceed with the enterprize, I fear, though 
 successful, it was any thing but glorious. "" 
 
 The Declaration having stated that the prince had 
 been invited over by several lords spiritual as well 
 as temporal, the king sent for the bishops and asked 
 if it was true. Compton, of London, who had siffned 
 the Invitation, staid away, pretending to be out of 
 town. No harm in that. But he appeared the next 
 day, and being questioned by James, told a delibe- 
 rate and wilful falsehood, in order to conceal his 
 treason ; and this he repeated upon being questioned 
 again the day after, which satisfied the king, who said 
 he believed them innocent. Soon after, this bishop 
 planned and effected the escape of the weak child of 
 James, the Princess Anne, and joined the Deliverer. 
 Compton, for this conduct, is canonized, if not as a 
 saint, at least as a hero and a patriot; to humbler 
 conceptions of the moral duties of clergymen it seems 
 that his conscience must have been not exactly that 
 of an apostle. 
 
 The Declaration was everywhere dispersed : it was 
 written by Fagel, and according to Burnet himself 
 
 *k5 
 
 / 
 
 N. 
 
202 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. IV.' 
 
 SECT. IV. CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION. 
 
 fi03 
 
 who shortened it, was long and dull. Dartmouth 
 says that though it was shortened, it preserved its 
 dulness. Answers were published, which the Con- 
 tinuator of Mackintosh allows had the superiority in 
 argument. " The prince employed pretences as well 
 as\he king. Ambition could, no more than tyranny, 
 dispense with a mask. There was a rejoinder on the 
 part of the prince. One sentence may be worth re- 
 membering ; the defender of the prince treats the 
 imputation of his aspiring to the crown, as a grievous 
 
 calumny." * 
 
 After what has been related, I need not ask you 
 why the Continuator of Mackintosh thought this was 
 worth remembering. It was a gross falsehood ; and 
 V/ he had said, and with no small, though at the same 
 time with natural indignation, that the Revolution 
 was brought about hy false pretences. 
 
 At length, encouraged by the supineness of the 
 king, the gentlemen of the south-west began to come 
 in. Sir Edward Seymour at their head, who then pro- 
 posed an association which was acceded to ; yet, so 
 little was the concert or the trust reposed in him that 
 the prince suspected, and ordered an officer to wcUck 
 him. He then reproachc<l them all with their dila- 
 toriness. His language was very memorable. He 
 did not address them so much as the protector of 
 suffering but liigh-minded patriots, resolved upon 
 liberty, as a ixirty himself concerned who had rights 
 and a cause of his own. 
 
 ♦ 11. S04. 
 
 His language was regal, if not insulting. It is at 
 least remarkable. " We expected," said he, « that you 
 that dwelt so near the place of our landing, would 
 have joined us sooner. Not that we want your 
 military assistance so much as your countenance and 
 presence, to justify our decldired pretensions, rather 
 than to accomplish our good and gracious designs.'* 
 
 He then proceeds, in a tasteless and hollow strain 
 of more than regal pomp : " Tliough we have brought 
 a good fleet and army to render these kingdoms 
 happy by rescuing aU Protestants, {etceeteroy) yet we 
 rely more on the goodness of God and iho Justice of 
 our cause than on any human force and power what- 
 soever.'* Here let us pause to inquire (for it is by 
 no means apparent) what he means by God and his 
 cause. What cause had /u*, whatever might be that 
 of a nation ? What claim to England, or the rights 
 even of the meanest citizen, unle^ naturalized, which 
 I do not find he was ? His cause therefore was that 
 of a conqueror, and his object ti)at which he liad dis- 
 claimed, the tlirone. 
 
 He finishes thus : "Therefore, gentlemen, friends 
 and fellow Protestants, we bid you and all your 
 followers most heartily welcome to our court and 
 camp,^ 
 
 Wliat think you ? Is this the language of a man, 
 however magnanimous, who as a lover of liberty, 
 armed for its defence from a generous disinterestc^d- 
 ness to aid the rights of oppressed sufferers, and 
 restore tliem to tlieir own ? or, of a prince pretender, 
 
 ♦ K 6 
 
204 
 
 HlSTORlCAi; ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. IV 
 
 i!'' 
 
 seeking his own objects, and making use of those he 
 pretends to relieve, to obtain them ? I own, had I 
 been a Devonshire squire I should, after this, have 
 hesitated before I joined him, on the principle of rather 
 bearing the ills we have, than fly to others which we 
 know not of. It is certain that such a squire would 
 have paused till he had obtained some explanation of 
 what was meant by a foreign prince, not even an 
 Englishman, when he t^]ked of the justice ofhispre-^ 
 tensions. Even the Continuator of Mackintosh is 
 provoked into the observation that ^Mie made very 
 light both of the previous invitation and the counte- 
 nance of his English friends, compared with his own 
 pretensions and the good and gracious obligations he 
 was conferring upon the three kingdoms ; and that 
 he, a distant contingent claimant, sought the crown 
 of these three kingdoms as a return, while he pro* 
 fessed to practise virtue as its own reward. He 
 departed, in addressing the English, from the manly 
 simplicity with which he was accustomed to address 
 the Hollanders. The English people, as if by a 
 tacit understanding*, are never, named ; none are 
 recognized beneath the condition oi gentlemen, unless 
 by the feudal and contemptuous denomination of 
 followers. It is a distinctive trait of the Revolution, 
 Jhat the people are not parties to it, even by name, as 
 a decent formality.'' f 
 
 * Evidently, as is meant, with the gentry, in contradistinction to 
 tl>e people, 
 f ii. 309. 
 
 SECT. IV, CHARACTER OP THE REVOLUTION. 
 
 205 
 
 So far the opinion of the historian of the Revo* 
 lution, on the conduct and views of its own hero; 
 who had as yet made little advance, still waiting, we 
 seppose, for the great and universal defection which 
 was to follow. Even in the defection which did follow, 
 I know not while James remained true to himself, 
 that we can detect any thing of that unanimity even 
 among the troops, still less in the efforts of the 
 unarmed population, which might entitle them to be 
 denominated national. Few or no civilians had 
 joined ; and, though some of the oflScers of sufficiently 
 high rank, being also men ofbirth connected with the 
 planners of the undertaking, took opportunities to 
 desert, they carried over with them few, nay, were 
 opposed by most of their men. The first patriot 
 deserter. Lord Colchester, could only " seduce'' four 
 troopers to accompany him. Lord Cornbury in- 
 deed, James's nephew by marriage, deeply wounded 
 him by joining the prince; but even he failed in 
 carrying over much of the military force. On 
 the contrary, he was forced to use stratagem and 
 falsehood to make them move. Being left in com- 
 mand of three regiments of horse at Salisbury, 
 he marched with them towards Exeter, pretending 
 to have orders to attack a post of the enemy. His 
 major, Clifford, demanded a sight of his orders ; and, 
 with major Littleton and other officers, questioned 
 him so closely, that he lost his presence of mind, and 
 fled from his own men with some officers indeed, but 
 only sixty troopers. Langston, who commanded one 
 
 * K 7 
 
 n 
 
206 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. IV. 
 
 SECT. IV. CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION. 
 
 207 
 
 m 
 
 of the regiments, now told them he had brought them 
 not to fight, but to join the prince ; upon which his 
 major, Norton, and several subalterns refused 
 obedience; for which they were dismounted, dis- 
 armed, and plundered, and with " much ado, " says 
 James, " got liberty to return on foot to the army. The 
 other two regiments, seeing themselves hretrayed^ fled 
 back in disorder. Most of the troopers of Langston's 
 regiment returned as they found opportunity, " which 
 showed," says the king, '' greater honour and fidelity 
 in the common men, than in the generality of the 
 officers, who usually value themselves so much for 
 these qualifications." * This is any thing but a proof 
 of a simultaneous effort of a resolved and unanimous 
 
 nation. 
 
 Lord Clarendon, Cornbury's father, apparently 
 in despair at the conduct of his son, ran to 
 throw himself at the king's feet, who received him 
 with kindness and pity, only to see him soon after 
 desert, more meanly than Cornbury himself. As- 
 suredly, neither father nor son were heroes nor 
 
 * Life of James II. There is also a very curious and a very in- 
 teresting account of this transaction drawn up by the major (Norton, 
 above mentioned}, which so graphically sets forth the hard and ne- 
 farious treatment of these men, and the scandalous means attempted 
 by the officers who deserted to seduce them from their allegiance ; 
 that, with a view to the important information it contains upon a point 
 rather slurred over than examined in almost all the histories, I have 
 thought it but right to throw it into an appendix. The narration is 
 in a letter from Norton, preserved in Carte's Memorandums, and pub- 
 lished by Macpherson — See Appendix to this, No. i. 
 
 men of honour, though they might be very virtuous 
 patriots. 
 
 A farther proof of the little alacrity that was shown 
 at first to join the prince, was in the capture of Lord 
 Lovelace, who, proceeding with seventy horse (who 
 probably knew not his intentions) to the army of 
 William, was attacked by the militia, and made 
 prisoner with thirteen of his men. 
 
 The rest of the army it should seem, with the ex- 
 ception of some of the officers, would have remained 
 firm to their duty, but were paralyzed by the total 
 incapacity of their general, Feversham, and the 
 vacillation of the king. On the first rumour of 
 desertion, Feversham abandoned all his posts, and 
 ;:etreated towards London. There the king remained, 
 confounded more (and with reason) by the treachery 
 he expected, than what he had already experienced. 
 Sunderland, Godolphin, Churchill, his ministers, 
 his military officers, his friends, to which add his 
 daughter, were all preparing to desert, nor did he 
 know whom to trust. One does not blame these 
 persons for taking part against him, but one abhors 
 the execrable treachery of continuing to serve only to 
 betray him. Where was the manliness, the devotion 
 to an heroic resistance of tyranny, exhibited by these 
 high persons in the following scene between them 
 and their master ? 
 
 After holding a council with his ministers he 
 summoned his general officers and colonels, and told 
 them he would call a parliament as soon as peace was 
 
 * k8 
 
208 
 
 HI8TORICAI. ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. IV. 
 
 I 
 
 ii 
 
 restored; and moreover promised every things his 
 subjects could desire in regard to tlieir liberties 
 and religion. He then made this remarkable con- 
 cession to them as individuals, that, if any among 
 them were not free and willing to serve him, he gave 
 them leave to surrender their connniss^ions, and go 
 where they pleased ; that he believed tliem men of 
 too much honour to hiiitate Lord Cornbury, but was 
 willing to spare them if they desired it, the discredit 
 of so base a desertion* 
 
 There was here something surely that pEU'took even 
 of greatness^ and one would have thought, must have 
 had a corresponding effect upon men of honour, if 
 such they were* 
 
 «« Accordingly, they* all,** continues the king, (for 
 from his memoirs this extract is compiled) "seemed to 
 be moved at the discourse, and vowed they would serve 
 him to the laU drop of their blood '^ The Duke of 
 Grafton and my Lord Cliurchill were the first that 
 made this attestation; "and the first," adds tlie compiler 
 of the Life of James, ** who, to their eternal infamy 
 broke it al'temards, as well as Kirke and Trelawn^^, 
 who were no less lavish of their promises/* So much 
 for the honour of these patriots ; which, liowever> as it 
 IS not tlic object of our strictures to criticise, we pass 
 for the present, to attend the march of events.* 
 
 * At tb« 9$xfkt ua>e k maj nol be Mm\s» to remember the letter of 
 CfaurchiUi wbo» if the militar}* glory of hiB after life hiid not gilded 
 oTCr thU cstrly tnr^MIOH^ vould have been only known in history as a 
 villain. I menu the letter to Williiim, in irhieh» \rhile he wiift \\\m% 
 
 11 
 
 IffiCT^ IV; CHARACTER OF THK REVOLCTION. 
 
 209 
 
 A petition was now got up by Lord Clarendon 
 (who had been in such despair at his son's dislionest 
 conduct,) in conjunction with several prelates^ to call 
 a free parliament, and spare the effusion of blood, 
 that is, to treat with the Prince of Orange- Tlie 
 parliament was promised, but not till the invasion 
 had been repressed ; in wliich who shall say the king 
 was wrong ? He afterwards set out for tlie army 
 meaning to oppose William, but was prevented from 
 advancing by an atUck of bleeding at the nose so 
 violent that he was utterly incapacitated from acting. 
 This he says was providential, for lie was afterwards 
 informed that Churchill, Kirke, Trelawney, and 
 others, who had been foremost as we saw in swearing 
 fidelity to him to the last drop of their blood, meant 
 to have seized and delivered him to William, or some- 
 thing worse. 
 
 The tact is contested; but no arguments other than 
 opinions are alleged against the belief of it which is 
 asserted. Coxe, the biographer of Marlborough, 
 merely disdains it, but I agree in a pungent remark : 
 " Tliat l|e should have remembered that his hero 
 
 j 
 
 continuing the trusted sMTMitattd friend of Jam vs, be deroled }iti»- 
 ^if and his lioaouri lu be eulWd lt« to tlie wtrnot of tbe IHiooe. Thk 
 •nd tbe oUier Infainu^ of ConOiury, Gredun, and tnnny otbon^ make 
 lh« heart sick tu think hciw ignoUif irtav Uie meaiki whidi |inklttetd 
 so noble an cud, LfKe FAliUff, vd nmy say, ^ If I be nut mhamed 
 of my soldiery I am a aoueod fumet.'* 
 
 • K 9 
 
210 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY, 
 
 SECT. ITn 
 
 was the last person in whose case a charge of perfidy 
 and meanness could be treated with contempt."* 
 
 We have said that it is not our purpose to inves- 
 tigate the military conduct of James or his more 
 faithful adherents in the steps they took to oppose the 
 advance of William. With so much rottenness and 
 .treachery in those he most trusted, much greater 
 faults might be excused, if excuse was the object of 
 these strictures. But my question is only as to the 
 true character of the Revolution, and whether in the 
 revolt of many commanding officers, in the imbecility 
 of others who remained faithful ; in the general 
 fidelity of the private soldiers, or in the apathy of the 
 greatest part of the gentry and common people not 
 in arms, we descry, even afar off, the traces of that 
 au«"ust and heart-stirring spectacle which the history 
 supposes; that of a great nation unanimously re- 
 solving to assert the great first principles of freedom, 
 and to relieve themselves by a universal effort to 
 resist and punish a tyrant. If, instead of this, we 
 find that success was chiefly owing to dishonour and 
 hypocrisy in the means, and that even the end was 
 as much to gratify private views of self-interest as the 
 nation's welfare, as philosophers, freemen, and lovers 
 of our country's fame, we may be bitterly disap- 
 pointed. 
 
 *ii, 217. We shall presently come to the investigation of this 
 very interesting question, and a more atrocious charge belonging to it. 
 
 Iliii 
 
 I! 
 
 J T 
 
 SECT. IV, CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION. 
 
 211 
 
 We have already seen how little th^ effort was 
 what the French called a rising " en masse." The 
 people {as such) were not considered; of the 32,000 
 men who composed the royal army, the king, thouc^h lie 
 had lost a large proportion of officers, was abandoned 
 by only a few hundred privates, and that « the prince 
 had received no efficient accession." It was to the 
 weakness, therefore, and personal dismay of James, 
 (dismay at being deserted by his best friends, and 
 even his children,) not to the vigour of the nation, that 
 the progress of William towards the capital was 
 chiefly owing. The desertion of Prince Georo-e 
 (called in derision by the king "Est il possible") 
 was intrinsically of no consequence, and James was 
 but right in saying that the loss of a good trooper 
 would have been more severely felt. On this im- 
 maculate patriot there is this observation, that « he 
 affords one of many proofs that the meanest faculties 
 suffice to practise knavery with success." One of 
 his flimsy reasons, stated in his letter to James for 
 abandoning him, was his alliance with Louis XIV. 
 He forgot, says the historian, that his own brother, 
 the king of Denmark, was at that moment also the 
 ally of France. 
 
 But the defection of Anne was a severer blow, and 
 
 prompted that pathetic exclamation from James, 
 
 " God help me, my own children have forsaken me ! " 
 
 He had, indeed, ever been to her, as well as her 
 
 sister, who also was cognizant of, and approved the 
 
 * K 10 
 
 I 
 
Ei 
 
 P^ 
 
 n* 
 
 } 
 
 2f2 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. IV» 
 
 enterprize to ddhrone thetr fathcry the kindest ot 
 
 ^parents. 
 
 But patriotism and love of liberty have been said 
 to be ixiramouiit virtues ; and the}^ are so. How far, 
 in the present case, they were mixed up with mere 
 penional ambition in the Princess of Orange, %vho was 
 to be a queen, or an intolerant zeal for her religion 
 in a mere bigot like Anne, may be made a question. 
 In regard to tlie last, " she was taught to look upon 
 ihe Church as grievously ill-usiKl in being deprived 
 of the pleasure of crushing and worrying papists and 
 dissentei-s.'' She also believed that her fixther liad 
 ^' Ixen base enough to impose a spurious heir upon the 
 kingdom, and, of course, so far to lessen her own 
 contingent expectations of the tlirone^ Are we 
 wrong then in venturing to believe, that the purity 
 of patriotism in these two princegses might be some- 
 what doubtful ? 
 
 The real characlers of the other leading patriots 
 who brought about the Ilevolution, we shall hereafter 
 have occasion to discuss; meantime, it is really curious, 
 in pursuing the narrative, to observe how these Whig 
 benefactors are handled by their Whig historian, 
 
 I^rd Balh, governor of Plymouth, having declared 
 for the prince, he says, " this lord had been some 
 time waiting to ascertain the sUonger side: and ad- 
 ded another example of intrigue and ingratitude." 
 
 The Duke of Orinond, Lord Drumlanrig, and 
 George llewet, having attended Prince George 
 
 ^ECT* IV. CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION. 213 
 
 in his flight to William, he was accompanied by others 
 of meaner rank, but not of meaner princij/les. The 
 duke figured in the gazette as volunteermg to raise 
 troops against the invasion, while he was deep in the 
 intrigues of the prince for corrupting the faith, not 
 only of the army, but of the fleet. Diumlanrig was 
 also a young man, and '' it is not easy to reconcile 
 with the frankness of youth the treachery witli which 
 these noblemen abused, up to the last moment, tlie 
 favour, confidence, and hospitality of the unfortunate 
 king." 
 
 This is at least strange in the eulogist of the Re- 
 volution ; but he makes it the channel of, to himself, a 
 more gratifying eulogy on former exertions of liberty ; 
 for he adds, "But the vigour and virtue of the 
 English nation and character Imd dwindled from the 
 restoration of tlie Stuarts. A degenerate race sue- 
 ceeded the men of the Commonwealth. The aris- 
 tocracy seem to have been born without that sense 
 which is supposed to be their peculiar distinction, ^ 
 the sense of honour.'* * 
 
 Such then is the opinion of, at least, one great cham- 
 pion of the Revolution, as to the virtue of many of its 
 most active partisans. We have seen the character 
 of Lord Cornbury ; let us add to it that of his fatlier 
 Lord Clarendon, an influential leader. 
 
 « Hn wim II iwmon of miNin nnderjiUindlng, md 
 still meaner comhiot* After invoking CoA hi hii 
 
 • II. «iM, 
 
 ♦ K 11 
 
 I 
 
i 
 
 if 
 
 <i 
 
 m 
 
 214 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. IV. 
 
 despair upon the calamity of beholding his son a 
 v/rebel*, he wrote to the Princess Anne, complimenting 
 her upon her desertion. Finding that neither he, 
 nor his brother Rochester, were likely to be appointed 
 to treat on behalf of James with the prince, he in- 
 dulged in pedant wisdom and ungenerous reproaches 
 agatnst the fallen king ; deserted the next day to the 
 prince ; was received without confidence or respect ; 
 had the baseness to suggest that James should be sent 
 to the Tower ; continued to be neglected, or despised 
 by William ; and ended in making professions of con- 
 science, loyalty, and Jacobitism." t 
 
 This was no more than what Marlborough did 
 afterwards. These benefactors to their country, and 
 champions of its civil rights, were certainly not of 
 
 Roman breed ! ^ _ 
 
 Was Halifax, the polished, the eloquent, the witty, 
 the vigorous, the highly cultivated, the philosophic, 
 the active, one jot better than they ? No ! Accord- 
 ing to our historian, his reputation needs all the 
 indulgence that can be derived from tiie iinwersal 
 degeneracy. Less daring than his uncle Shaftesbury, 
 les*^ corrupt than Sunderland, he was their equal in 
 the versatility of intrigue. 
 
 Why does he say he was less corrupt than Sun- 
 derland, though that infamous man, while he contri- 
 buted perhaps most to the Revolution, was the pattern 
 
 ♦ This appears in Clarendon's own diary. 
 
 f He was detected in the plot to restore James, might have been 
 put to death, and was exiled to his country house. 
 
 SECT. IV. CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION. 215 
 
 and father of all corruption ? Halifax was appointed 
 commissioner by the king to treat with the prince,^ 
 and no sooner was so, than he betrayed him. He 
 opened himself to the confidential agent of William, 
 and agreed to support all his measures. 
 
 It is worth while to consider how the real desio-ns 
 of the Deliverer had now begun to be unfolded. The 
 mask was dropt between this agent and the noble 
 commissioners. The pretence of a free parliament, 
 the chief reason urged for the invasion, by William in 
 his declaration, was thrown aside. The agent avowed 
 that new foundations and a total change of persons were 
 to be adopted ; for which purpose, it was urged in 
 print and conversation that the king would not adhere 
 to his engagements, and that it would be the greatest 
 folly to graft any thing on the old stock. Far from op- 
 posing this, the virtuous Halifax assured the agent 
 who had told him that his acceptance of his commission 
 would subject him to unhappy suspicions, on the part 
 of the prince, that he would act in such a manner as 
 not to incun. his censure.* 
 
 Is not this patriotism a fine thing, when it can gild 
 over such conduct, place such a man in the first ranks 
 of history, and inscribe him among the foremost of 
 those whom we look upon as the fathers of our 
 liberties ? Let it be remembered that, as is supposed 
 from fear, Halifax declined to inroU himself among 
 those who invited William to appear in arms ; and that 
 
 * ii. 234., where all the authorities are cited. 
 
 * K 12 
 
216 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY, 
 
 SECT. IV. 
 
 llWill 
 
 from this, and other instances of interested incon- 
 sistency, he obtained the inglorious epithet of Trimmer. 
 But to return to the narrative. 
 
 Defection, from the imbecility of James, was now at 
 its height. The prince had advanced to Hunger- 
 ford, where the commissioners from the king were ap- 
 pointed to meet him. There were joined to Halifax, 
 Nottingham andGodolphin; of whom the latter had the 
 dexterity or dishonesty to possess at the same time the 
 confidence both of James and William. Upon their 
 arrival the prince would not see them, but referred 
 them to commissioners of his own. Among these 
 {mirahile dictu) was the very Lord Clarendon whose 
 loyalty we have been describing. But this seems to 
 have been lo mark his (William's) contempt both of 
 Clarendon and Halifax, who were known enemies. 
 In truth, the negociation on the prince's part was 
 a mockery. He wanted nothing so much as delay, 
 for he now wanted the crown, which he could not 
 obtain by any negociation. His engines had for some 
 days been at work for it, and his means, adds the 
 historian, were unworthy his character. 
 
 .A spurious manifesto, called a third declaration of 
 '^ihe prince, was published. It did not, as is said, 
 proceed from the prince himself, but it was found too 
 useful to be contradicted; for it proclaimed that 
 all papists who had arms in their houses, or were in 
 office, should be treated as robbers, freebooters, and 
 banditti, refused quarter, and delivered to sum- 
 mary execution. It set forth that the papists were 
 
 SECT. IV. CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION, 217 
 
 in arms to destroy London by fire, and massacre the 
 protestants; called upon the magistrates to secure 
 them, who, if they disobeyed were themselves, to be 
 treated criminally. 
 
 All this was believed; copies sent to the lord 
 mayor and the king, who, with his courtiers, were 
 panic-struck, and, in fact, through a lie, did much 
 service. Was this the high-minded spirit of a ge- 
 nerous, lawful, and general insurrection? Didsopure i 
 a cause require the aid of false witnesses ? The De- 
 claration was afterwards, indeed, denied by William ; 
 but not only the advantage of it was pocketed, upon 
 the king of Prussia's principle, that a lie' sometimes - 
 does good for four-and-twenty hours, but Speke, who 
 claimed to be the forger, declared, after William's 
 death, that he showed it to him, and that he ap- 
 proved. His disavowal of it was, at least, only verbal, 
 and confined to those about him ; and his historian 
 himself winds up with these remarkable passages 
 '* The prince had already the reputation of being not 
 lonly a phlegmatic, but an unscrupulous politician. 
 jHis policy was charged by some with tolerating, by 
 (others with sharing, the practices which stim^ulated the ^^ 
 populace of the Hague, to massacre the patriot bro-' "^ 
 thers, De Witt, and give him undivided sway over the 
 republic. The profit he made of this impudent and 
 atrocious fabrication leaves an additional stain upon 
 his character.'** 
 
 VOL. !• 
 
 * Hist. Revol. ii. 235. 
 L 
 
.p 
 
 218 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. IV. 
 
 What can we say to this, but to ask in surprise, if . 
 this can be the opinion formed by our great historian 
 of Hberty, of Uberty's greatest champion, our glorious 
 
 deUverer ? 
 
 It is a grief to add what is stated of Lord Dart- 
 mouth—surely a man of loyalty and honour, though, 
 as it should appear, more weak and hesitating than 
 we wish to consider him. He had orders from James, 
 who had sent his son to Portsmouth to have him con- 
 veyed in a yacht to France. At first he promised to 
 obey, and then retracted: his excuse was the 
 strictness of the law against it *, and the bad conse- 
 quences in his mind of the measure. This we should 
 not notice to his disadvantage ; but in Dalrymple 
 there is a letter from the prince to him, taken by Byng, 
 urp-ing him to join him, and offering him, if he did, 
 to^continue him in the command, with an assurance 
 that Herbert should not be advanced over his head. 
 « This letter," says Byng, '' had some effect upon him. 
 From that time, he seemed inclinable to the prince's 
 party." The letter was laid privately on his toilet, 
 by his own captain, and he never instituted any 
 inquiry upon it, though an affront which few men of 
 honour but must have resented, being a direct 
 temptation to desert. 
 
 I am far in this from saying that there is the least 
 proof of even intended treason in Dartmouth ; nor do 
 I blame the prince for tempting him ; but in such a 
 
 ♦ Query, what law ? 
 
 SECT, IV. CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION. 219 
 
 system of bribery which do we recognise : the volun- 
 tary rising of the nation against invaded rights, or 
 the ambition, from personal interest of one prince, 
 to usurp the throne of another ? Had Dartmouth 
 accepted the offer, and joined the prince, would it 
 have been from public virtue ? 
 
 Defection, or distrust, having now become uni- 
 versal, James resolved, and attempted, to quit the 
 kingdom. This was precisely what the prince most 
 wanted : it was what was most conducive to his own 
 undisguised object — the crown of his father-inJaw. 
 
 It is not to our purpose to inquire by whose advice 
 he was in this chiefly influenced : it was said by that 
 of Halifax and Godolphin, his own commissioners, 
 who, knowing that it played the game into William's 
 hands, the Continuator of Mackintosh observes upon 
 It as « one of the meanest and most characteristic ^ 
 intrigues of theRevolution." * 
 
 Mean intrigue, then, is the characteristic of the 
 Revolution! What must have been its glory ? What 
 the triumph of the sovereign people ? 
 
 "Oodolphin's share in the advice is not questionable ; 
 but the baseness of Hahfax almost exceeds belief! 
 Burnet says that that lord, while transacting his com- 
 mission (proh pudor !) asked him if they had a mind 
 to have the king in their hands ; that he answered 
 no ; that Halifax then asked, what if he (the king) 
 
 * Hist. Revol. ii. 240. 
 
 •If. 
 
^9 
 
 111 
 
 I 
 
 !'l 
 
 220 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAV. 
 
 SECT. IV. 
 
 had a mind to go away ? Burnet answered, nothing 
 they so much wished. This he told the prince, who 
 approved both answers.* 
 
 Upon this, Halifax wrote to the king, informing 
 him of a design upon his life, which made him resolve 
 to withdraw ; and James himself says, that if he did 
 not go, the prince would, probably, find other means 
 to send him out of it (the kingdom) and the world 
 
 too." t . ^ ^ . 
 
 On the morning after his departure, which had 
 
 been concealed, his antechamber was crowded with 
 lords and gentlemen, who rushed in to attend his 
 levee. He was gone, and had addressed a letter to 
 Lord Faversham, thanking the army under him for 
 their services, and desiring them " not to expose them- 
 selves (for his sake) to a foreign enemy and poisoned 
 nation." This letter was read at the head of 4000 
 men at Uxbridge, many of whom, it was said, shed 
 tears. Tliese circumstances do not bespeak the una- 
 vjiimous hatred of a nation to a tyrant, still less its 
 desire to sit in judgment upon him. It is true that 
 upon his flight being known, the rabble of London 
 rose in their character of robbers, and committed 
 great excesses; but it was chiefly for the sake of 
 plunder, not of promoting their political rights. 
 
 It is not incurious to observe the spirit shown at 
 this time. "There was, even in the capital, no 
 
 ♦ Burnet. ^, .. ^^^ 
 
 t Memoir in Life, ii. 249; cited by M. u. 242. 
 
 SECT. IV. CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION. 
 
 221 
 
 public spirit, no democracy, no people, no magis- 
 tracy, worthy or conscious of its mission. All power 
 was divided between the aristocracy and the rabble. 
 When, upon the king's flight, the populace began the 
 work of plunder and devastation, the citizens and 
 their magistrates were alike supine." * — 
 
 Here, again, we are at a loss to discover the great 
 injured nation, acting upon first principles, and the 
 inalienable rights of resistance. So little so, that 
 there being no concert, nothing organised, the city 
 might have been fired and pillaged by ruffians, had 
 not the lords spiritual and temporal, at least those 
 who happened to be in town (many of them, pro- 
 bably, who had recently so crowded the king's ante- 
 chamber, to pay their duty to him, thinking him 
 there), proceeded, in their individual capacity (for 
 they had no collective one), to confer with the lord 
 mayor and magistracy of London with a view to 
 preserve order. Finding the magistrates (though we 
 must suppose them to have been so alive to the rights 
 of a reformatory revolt) utterly incompetent to act, 
 these lords took upon them the temporary govern- 
 ment, and, being obeyed, preserved things, for a time, 
 from destruction. 
 
 There was nothing to blame in this: it was 
 rather matter of praise. There was great confusion 
 the house was on fire; the owner had fled; and 
 whoever had influence enough to command, and be 
 
 t^ 
 
 if 
 
 I": 
 
 * ii. 250. 
 L 3 
 
ii 
 
 222 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. IV. 
 
 obeyed in restoring order, though he had broken a 
 thousand laws — such is the privilege of necessity — 
 
 only did right. 
 
 It was well the lords acted thus ; for though, as to 
 legal power, they were only so many private gentle- 
 men, they had influence from their names, and 
 obtained obedience from good will, when the law 
 could do nothing. 
 
 They assumed the whole government for a time, 
 like a provisional committee of safety, and were 
 luckily obeyed by the city, the army, and the fleet. 
 They took the command of the Tower by stratagem 
 from the king's governor Skelton, and issued warrants 
 to apprehend all popish priests and Jesuits in London ; 
 a still stronger proof of the rights of necessity. More 
 than this, they issued their famous Declaration, im- 
 puting the king's flight to popish counsels, which 
 was a falsehood, because it arose from the fears 
 purposely instilled into him by Halifax and Godolphin, 
 in league with the prince, though trusted by James. 
 In consequence of this, they resolved to " resorV to 
 /the prince; and the corporation of London joined 
 them in an invitation to him to vouchsafe to repair to 
 the city. This, Burnet, the partisan bishop, has the 
 effrontery to represent as an invitation in form, to 
 assume the government, and it was so believed by the 
 prince, who had already assumed the style of a sove- 
 reign, issuing orders, disputing those of the king, and 
 dating them from his court at Henley, from which he 
 moved, with all royalty, to Windsor. 
 
 SECT. IV. CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION. 223 
 
 Here the later historian of the Revolution breaks 
 orut into a most unwarrantable abuse, not only of 
 James, but of kings in general. 
 
 " James," says he, « like all tyrants, and most kings, 
 considered the nation as made for his use.'* 
 
 Indeed ! Most kings ! Did Agis, or Agesilaus, or 
 Codrus, did Numa, or Trojan, or Antoninus, did 
 Alfred, or Robert Bruce, or Henry IV. of France, 
 did our own princes of the present family think 
 nations made for their use ? I believe William did ; 
 for, with all his zeal for our liberties, it is clear, even '^ 
 in his historian's own opinion, that the great and 
 deciding cause of his invasion was, under false pre- 
 tences, to obtain the throne of England. 
 
 There is another inculpation which an enlightened 
 lawyer, versed in the law of nations, surely could not 
 mean to be serious. It implies, that when a person, 
 whether king or otherwise, is attacked in war, he is 
 not to consider himself at war, and avail himself of 
 his means of defence. Or does he mean, that being 
 civil war between the people and a king, the latter 
 is not to be considered as a legitimate belligerent ? 
 
 " James," this historian goes on to say, " therefore 
 (that is, because he so thought) did not scruple to 
 leave his people in a state of anarchy, with the selfish 
 purpose oi embarrassing his rival, and deriving advan- 
 tage from public confusion." * 
 
 * Mackintosh, vol. ii. 253. 
 * L 4 
 
224 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. IV. 
 
 ^i 
 
 liBigniii I 
 
 i 
 
 I do own this passage filled me with astonishment. 
 Selfish purpose ! What ! is it selfish to resist an 
 assailant ? Anarchy ! Who caused it ? Embarrassing 
 his rival ! was he then to facilitate his enterprise ? 
 Derive advantage from confusion ? Are we not to 
 confound an enemy ? One would suppose that this 
 historian thought it was the bounden duty of James 
 to fall at the feet of the man who came to rob him. 
 
 In the same spirit, having cancelled the writs for 
 the new parliament, and taken away the Great Seal, 
 he says that " he, (the king), vainly imagined that 
 there was some inherent power, not only in his person, 
 but the mere symbol of his will. Kings seldom reflect 
 that their great seals are but so much wax, and their 
 persons but ciphers, when they are no longer sup- 
 ported by the will of the nation or by hireling 
 
 force."* 
 
 This is only worthy of a mere declaimer against 
 kings, endeavouring to excite a mob. To you I 
 need not say how easy it is for demagogues to rail ; 
 and, were it worth while to dissect this fine passage, 
 should we be able to discover that it was even sound ? 
 Could James have embarrassed his enemy, he had a 
 right to do so ; and if we ask calmly for the proof of 
 the other imputation as to the inherent power which 
 he supposed to reside in his person, where is it to be 
 found but in the heated fancy of the writer ? As to 
 
 ♦ Mackintosh, vol. ii. 26^. 
 
 SECT. IV. CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION. 225 
 
 the last part of the assertion, that kings and seals are 
 but ciphers and wax, without the support of their 
 people, or a hireling force, it is as certainly true that 
 a vicious rebellion may succeed, as well as the most 
 holy insurrection. What then does this fine declama- 
 tion end in but the right of the strongest ? The 
 remark was gratuitous. 
 
 To come coolly to particulars, the question is, as I 
 have stated, who caused the anarchy ? Not James f ^ 
 Attacked and betrayed in the midst of peace, and 
 declarations of duty ; attacked by his innocent invader, ^' 
 nephew, and son-in-law ; 
 
 " Deserted in his utmost need. 
 By those his former bounty fed ;*' 
 
 informed by his own minister that his life was threat- 
 ened, without refuge, without power, what could he 
 do but fly? 
 
 Of all the accusations brought against him, well or 
 ill-founded, this last, as it is the most unexpected, so 
 it is least proved or provoked. As a king and as a 
 man, there are faults enough proveable against 
 James, who was no more than justly opposed in his 
 endeavour to subvert the laws ; but this attempt to 
 aggravate his sins against the nation, foir usingrMs 
 own rights of self-defence, partakes of the spirit of 
 the times and of contemporaneous partisans, rather 
 than the able and impartial judge at the distance of 
 a century and a half. 
 
 But to return. In the meeting of thd lord^^at 
 
226 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. IV. 
 
 Guildhall, not above thirty in number, and in the 
 voluntary obedience paid to them, we find a full 
 exemplification of the case of necessity. 
 
 Hitherto the acts of the prince had been purely 
 military, and if he had been obeyed or joined, it was 
 as Monmouth had been obeyed and joined, his fol- 
 lowers running the risk of what might be to come, 
 the sovereign power being still in the hands of the 
 
 king. 
 
 But the king having abandoned the helm, and the 
 
 ship without compass, in very necessity the assembled 
 peers took upon themselves, not so much to command 
 as to suggest, what seemed vital measures for the 
 safety of the vessel. In this they did no more than 
 any passenger might have done in the same circum- 
 stances, provided the crew had good opinion enough 
 of him to obey him. These lords addressed the 
 prince ; so did the city ; so did the lieutenancy ; and 
 it will be critical to canvass what it was they com- 
 municated. Did they broach the opinions of our 
 two great enlightened authorities, Price and Mackin- 
 tosh? were they even in circumstances to call, or 
 believe, themselves the nation ? I should say not. 
 
 Echard says, that of the lords " who were in and 
 about town (a sort of chance assembly themselves) 
 there were only about thirty, including seven 
 bishops. The names of all are given ; none of them 
 violent opposers of James, still less upholders of 
 Revolutionary doctrines; many, the direct reverse. 
 The Archbishop (Sancroft), the Bishop of Ely, 
 
 Hi 
 
 SECT. IV. CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION. 
 
 227 
 
 (Turner) the Lords Mulgrave, Rochester, North and 
 Grey, might even be denominated Jacobites. These 
 never could intend, in addressing the prince, to pro- 
 tect the state in its unlooked-for emergency, to alter 
 the whole frame of government, cashier the king, and 
 elect a stranger, —whether William, Je^eVs, ovKirk,xr~ 
 in his stead. Burnet, indeed, as we have said, has the 
 impudence, or bad faith, to call the addresses above 
 mentioned an offer of the government to the Prince of 
 Orange. Let the addresses speak for themselves. 
 
 After professing their regard for the protestant 
 religion, and their reasonable hope "that, the king 
 having issued his writs for a free parliament, they 
 might have rested secure under the expectation of 
 that meeting, the lords add, « But his majesty hav- 
 ing withdrawn himself, and, as we apprehend, in 
 order to his departure out of this kingdom, by the 
 pernicious counsels of persons ill affected to our nation 
 and religion, we cannot, without being wanting to 
 our duty, be silent under these calamities, wherein 
 the popish counsels which so long prevailed, have 
 miserably involved these realms. 
 
 We do therefore unanimously resolve to apply our- 
 selves to his highness the Prince of Orange who with 
 so great kindness, to these kingdoms such vast ex- 
 penses, and so much hazard to his own person, has 
 undertaken, by endeavouring to procure a free par- 
 liament, to rescue us with as little effusion as possible 
 of christian blood from the imminent danger of 
 popery and slavery." 
 
 L 6 
 
 J 
 
 i\ 
 
228 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. IV. 
 
 « And we do hereby declare that we will with our 
 utmost endeavours,"— (do what? cashier James, and 
 place the crown on William's head? ISlo \) — assist 
 his highness in the obtaining such a parliament 
 
 with all speed."* 
 
 The addresses of the city, and of the lieutenancy 
 
 of London, are equally worthy of notice. 
 
 The former, after complimenting the prince on all 
 he had done for the protestant religion, and thanking 
 him for appearing in arms to rescue the country from 
 popery and slavery, observes that they had hitherto 
 looked for remedy from his majesti/s concessions and 
 concurrences with the prince's just and pious purposes 
 expressed in his gracious Declaration, f 
 
 If so, then had the king not withdrawn, but gone 
 on with his concessions and concurrences, it was 
 clear that they thought all wounds would have been 
 healed. At any rate there was no thought of setting 
 up their undeniable right of calling kings to account 
 and dethroning them for misgovernment. 
 
 What, then, prompts them to apply to the prince ? 
 Not the continuation of the tyranny of James, but his 
 leaving them without remedy, by withdrawing from 
 the exercise of his power. Herein, being finally 
 disappointed (not by the continuation of the tyranny, 
 but the desertion of the king) "we presume," they 
 say, " to make your highness our refuge^'' and they 
 
 SECT. IV. CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION. 
 
 229 
 
 • Echard, iii. 931. 
 
 f Ibid. 931. 
 
 accordingly, invite him (to assume the crown? No !) 
 to repair to the city, where he will be received with 
 joy and satisfaction. 
 
 No doubt of it, when the government seemed broke 
 up, and there was no other refuge at hand. 
 
 It is remarkable that the address of the lieu- 
 tenancy was infinitely more pointed, and spoke more 
 decidedly than either that of the thirty lords or the 
 city magistrates. They are concerned, they say, 
 that they had not before an opportunity of testifying 
 their resolution to venture all to attain the gloriou'J 
 ends which the prince had proposed for settling these 
 destracted nations. 
 
 What the prince had proposed to the world, (I 
 speak not of himself) is only to be found in his Declara- 
 tion; a free parliament, and an inquiry into the birth 
 of the Prince of Wales. In all the three addresses 
 was there any thing of bringing the king to trial to 
 answer for his misgovernment, through the means of 
 the prince, or was any reason assigned for inviting 
 him to the city, but its having been abandoned by 
 the king? 
 
 What now, then, becomes of Burnet's silly, or 
 wicked, misrepresentation, that these addresses were 
 an offer of the government to the prince? The 
 lords talk of assisting him. That a man should 
 assist another to assist himself to obtain his own 
 object, is indeed a remarkable phrase ; but it is any 
 thing but an offer to place himself in subjection to 
 him. I do not deny that these thirty lords, who 
 
230 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. IV. 
 
 happened to be « in and about town" were looked up 
 to by the deserted people in their vicinity as au- 
 thorities whom, for the sake of their safeties, they for 
 a time obeyed ; and that by their conduct they de- 
 served well. Neither do I question that in these ad- 
 dresses the intention was to propose pro tempore, and 
 until the desired free parliament should meet and provide 
 for the exigency of the deserted government, that the 
 addressers°wished William to exercise a provisional 
 power, in the same manner as they had done them- 
 selves. But that they intended to overthrow the 
 dynasty of James, or deny that he was still their 
 sovereign, still more that they could ever pledge the 
 nation,°or claim to represent its resolves to this effect, 
 no whiggery that then existed ever supposed or 
 asserted. That such was the opinion whether at 
 Guildhall where these lords assembled, or in the 
 great majority of the nation, is contradicted by the 
 protracted and stormy debates of the Convention 
 itself, where the still existing sovereignty of James, ■ 
 and his^ right to the throne, under whatever modifica- 
 tions, were asserted, defended, and contested by those 
 who were personally most opposed to him, and were 
 active in calling in and siding with the prince as then- 
 ally and deliverer. We are not, therefore, even yet 
 near that great revolutionary doctrine, supposed to 
 have been so incontestably established by these 
 
 wonderful events. 
 
 But what shall we say to the intentions and temper 
 against the king, supposed to be so clearly manifested 
 
 SECT. IV. CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION. 
 
 2.31 
 
 by the mass of the nation, when we consider the re- 
 action which, from an unforeseen (and to William 
 unwelcome) accident, took place almost immediately 
 after the addresses had been dispatched. 
 
 The story of the arrest of the king at Feversham, 
 in his endeavour to escape to France, is known. The 
 incident, which might have terminated his life, ended 
 in a momentary triumph. Having escaped the mob, 
 he was persuaded by Lord Winchelsea, the Lord Lieu- 
 tenant to return to London. The consequence of 
 this I cannot relate better than in the words of old 
 Echard. 
 
 " This strange adventure had various effects upon 
 the Prince of Orange and the city of London. The 
 former seems to have desired that the king should not 
 have been stopt nor brought back, and the latter ap- 
 peared filled with a joyful surprise; most people 
 there being glad of an opportunity to convince the 
 king, that there was never any ill design against his per- 
 son. As for the peers and privy council, they were 
 likewise variously affected by this news, more es- 
 penally by reason of the advance they had made to the 
 Prince of Orange. However, after some debates, they 
 appointed four of their members, namely, the Earls 
 of Middleton, Ailesbury, Yarmouth, and Feversham 
 to wait upon his Majesty, and to invite him to his 
 palace at Whitehall; to which, though at first he 
 showed some reluctance, yet at last he condescended. 
 " The peers also dispatched an express to the Prince 
 of Orange, to acquaint him that the king was still 
 
232 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. IV. 
 
 SECT. IV. CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION. 
 
 If 
 
 in England; at which time his highness came to 
 Windsor, and lodged in the prince of Denmark's 
 apartment, which was prepared and made ready for 
 
 his reception. 
 
 " As his highness was much surprised, so it is easy 
 to believe that he was not very well pleased to meet 
 with new obstructions when his affairs necessarily 
 called him to London. 
 
 « Therefore, after a long consultation with the chief 
 of the nobility and gentry about him, he dispatche^ 
 Monsieur Zuylestein to the king to desire him to 
 continue at Rochester ; but this express missing his 
 way, his majesty left that place on Sunday morning, 
 the 16th of December, and about four in the after- 
 nopn entered the city of London, as it were in 
 triumph, and went to Whitehall, attended by several 
 noblemen and a great number of guards, while mul- 
 titudes of people that crowded to see him welcomed 
 his return with their loud acclamations; and the 
 night concluded with the ringing of bells, illumin- 
 ations, bonfires, and other such like demonstrations 
 of joy and satisfaction."* 
 
 In all this we look in vain for the acts of a resent- 
 ful nation, conscious of their strength, and resolved 
 to use it for the punishment of a delinquent king. 
 Yet, though thus received, what might still be his 
 fate from the arms of his invading rival may be 
 questionable. Probably, deprived as he was of all 
 
 » Echard, iii. 931. 
 
 233 
 
 military aids, he would have been conquered in the 
 field; but so much was he encouraged by this' appa- 
 rent return to loyalty in his subjects, that he thought 
 his power had revived, and he not only summoned 
 a privy council, but it was well attended, and an 
 important order, which he immediately made, was 
 signed by several members, among them the Duke 
 of Hamilton, who soon after, without any new act of 
 aggression on his part, took the lead against him in 
 Scotland, and joined in the memorable vote of that 
 country, that he had forfeited the throne. A more 
 important person in regard to Whiggery set his name 
 also to this order; the great patriot Godolphin, 
 whose Janus face looked quite as much towards 
 William, though he here acknowledged James to be 
 still his master. It was also signed by Trevor, 
 master of the rolls, and by Titus ; the last any thing 
 but a tool of tyranny.* 
 
 The reflection of Mackintosh's Continuator upon 
 this incident is worth commemorating. " Reigning 
 princes," he says, "are not selected for their virtues, 
 or selected at all. James II. was really one of the 
 less despicable princes of his time ; and the mass of 
 the people in all countries were as low in the scale of 
 reason and knowledge as their sovereign." t Our 
 revolutionary ancestors are at least obliged to him. 
 
 He goes on to review the effects of the king's 
 
 * Echard, iii. 931 . The other signers were Lords Craven, Berkeley, 
 Middleton, and Preston, 
 t Vol. iii. 
 
 *L 9 
 
234 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. IV. 
 
 ilii 
 
 return on the prince's court at Windsor. It startled, 
 he says, these enemies of James. The prince, asto- 
 nished at the sudden change, and alarmed by the 
 inconstant genius of the English people^ desired the 
 advice of his principal friends. Clarendon, taking 
 conquest for granted, advised the Tower, and, as 
 Sheffield writes, hinted at something farther. The 
 prince preferred holding the king to his avowed pur- 
 pose of withdrawing. '^ It was thought necessary^'' says 
 Burnet, " to stick to the point of the king's deserting 
 his people ; and not to give up that by entering into a 
 treaty with him'' In other words, adds Sir James, 
 to dethrone him for that, as a voluntary act, inspired 
 by popish counsellors. 
 
 So then, after all, it is confessed, that James de- 
 throned himself not the sovereign injured people ; and 
 the whole glittering precedent of the inalienable 
 right of resisting tyrannical sovereigns has crumbled 
 to nothing. This was, in fact, the policy finally 
 pursued. The flight of James was critical upon the 
 question, for it produced the vote of abdication, by 
 which the throne was vacant ; " so that," as Echard 
 observes, "the people fell into their original right 
 (of cashiering ? No ! ) of filing the vacancy. Thus 
 the Prince of Orange," adds he, " succeeded unspotted 
 by any parricide." * 
 
 But the Continuator cannot restrain his indigna- 
 tion at this. James II., he says, "by assuming a 
 
 * Echard, vol. iii. 941. 
 
 ;'i 
 
 rr 
 
 V- r 
 
 SECT. IV. CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION. 
 
 235 
 
 power above the laws, assuredly incurred the penalty 
 of forfeiture of the throne. But he should have 
 been unhinged by an ingenuous^ just^ and national 
 proceeding upon principles worthy of a nation exer- 
 cising the most sacred of its rights, and not upon 
 false pretences^ and perfidious arts J'* 
 
 The Revolution then, according to this gentleman, 
 was not an ingenuous, just, and national proceeding, 
 but brought about hy false pretences and perfidious arts. 
 
 I think here is enough (added to what has preceded) 
 to show that in the opinion of those themselves whom 
 we oppose, our Glorious Revolution was a very in- 
 glorious thing, or, at least, not quite so glorious, or 
 cogent, in the support of the doctrines erected upon 
 it by modern Whigs, as we in general consider it. 
 The task, however, will be only better performed if we 
 attend upon the march of its history a little farther. 
 
 In compliance with the scheme avowed by Burnet, 
 to get James out of the way, without the further trouble 
 of considering certain grand first principles of the 
 sovereignty of the people, which were not then so 
 perfectly understood as by our more enlightened 
 modern instructors, every artifice of terror, treachery, 
 and chicanery, was put in practice against the weak 
 and infatuated king. The Dutch guards were sent 
 in the night without notice to take possession of 
 Whitehall and dispossess those of England. The stout 
 old Earl Craven, who commanded the last, would 
 
 * Hist. Rev. ii. 263. 
 *L 10 
 
236 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. IV. 
 
 I! 
 
 I 
 
 have fought them ; but the king, to spare bloodshed, 
 prevented him, and went to bed, but was roused from 
 his sleep by an order from the prince, borne by the 
 Lords Halifax, Shrewsbury, and Delamere, to give 
 up his palace and retire the next morning to Ham. 
 The Continuator of Mackintosh calls this a hlack 
 ' transaction on the part of the three noblemen con- 
 cerned : I cannot conceive why, at least upon his own 
 principles ; for if James had given his subjects a right 
 of war, so that he might have been tried and sen- 
 tenced even upon mere notoriety of acts*, he might 
 have been killed in the field, or judged to death by 
 his subjects. How, then, was it a black transaction 
 to wake him at night, with an order to retire from 
 London ? But what shall we say to the conduct of 
 Halifax? 
 
 He is more correct in what he says of the conduct 
 /of Halifax, which, he observes, was indescribably base. 
 Having, as commissioner of the king, secretly betrayed 
 his trust, he now, adding open shame to hidden per- 
 fidy, came back to the king, commissioner or something 
 worse from the prince.f 
 
 It is stated that William could not help smiling — he 
 who smiled so rarely — at the willingness with which 
 
 * Vide supra. 
 
 f Sheffield Duke of Buckingham's Account of the Revolution. 
 Apud Continuation of Mackintosh, vol. ii. It is difficult to separate 
 truth from opinions in a conflict of parties, even when it did not 
 produce civil war. Here the war was raging, and we must attach 
 much to this insinuation of Sheffield, though one of the honestest of 
 the grandees, as times went. 
 
 SECT. IV. CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION. 237 
 
 Lord Halifax consented to play so mean a part. He 
 was nominated, it appears, by the prince, as «an easy 
 trial of his new faith, and as an expiation of bis 
 refusal to jom those who invited the Deliverer. 
 Perhaps, continues Sir James's Editor, William had 
 already resolved to employ him, and thought the 
 dishonoured peer would be so much the more useful 
 a minister.* 
 
 William was now in London ; his entry triumphant, 
 and the behaviour of his new sovereigns, the people, 
 instructive. St James's Palace was thronged to do 
 him homage, as Whitehall had been thronged the day 
 before to do homage to James. He rather avoided 
 than courted, the shouts of the populace, disgusted 
 perhaps with their versatility: but he had equal 
 reason to be disgusted with the mob of the court 
 Upon the departure of the king, Whitehall again 
 became a desert. Those who h^d^Jlocked to him upon 
 his reappearance, rushed now to St. James's to make 
 their eager court to William, exemplifying in this 
 little of the supposed august scene of a nation re- 
 suming its suspended rights, but very much the correct 
 estimation made of the multitude :— « An habitation 
 giddy and unsure hath he that buildeth on the vulgar 
 heart, O, thou fond many !" 
 
 Meanwhile, though the self-exiled king was at 
 Rochester m his way to voluntary banishment, he was 
 pressed by all his protestant friends still to stay, and 
 to summon a parliament, assuring him that there was 
 
 Aputm^'^ '^"'" "^ ^"'^^'^'^^'^ Account of the Revolution. 
 
 *L 11 
 
I 
 
 238 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. IV. 
 
 SECT. IV. CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION. 
 
 239 
 
 -M || 
 
 a great turn in the minds of the city, and of the 
 English army, and that pity and compassion foi' him 
 then generally prevailed ; what is more, Echard 
 l/adds*, that it was in a great measure true. It so, 
 what again are we to say of the universal feehng, the 
 universal resolution, to dethrone him? 
 
 Could the advice have prevailed, there can be little 
 doubt as to the event, and the Tower, probably would 
 have been the palace to which James would have 
 been consigned. But if the reaction was a fact, 
 which the Editor of Mackintosh himself seems to 
 admit, are we far wrong in thinking this imprison, 
 xnent would have proceeded more from the efforts of 
 the Dutch guards, than the wishes or the energies of 
 the great English people ? , 
 
 In his then situation James did wiser m rejecting 
 the advice, and proceeding to France, leaving free 
 scope to all that collision of high but discordant 
 principles, theories, and discussions which foUowe^d, 
 and which, though nothing new to you, but, on the 
 contrary, long since settled in your excellent judg- 
 ment, I cannot help asking you, as a proper close to 
 these strictures, to examine. 
 
 Previous to this, however, it may not be amiss, nay, 
 it is only justice to James, to take a glance at his 
 famous letter from Rochester, containing his reasons 
 for quitting the kingdom, and in so far affording an 
 answer to the argument afterwards raised upon it, 
 that he had made a voluntary renunciation ot the 
 throne. If his retreat was occasioned by treachery, 
 
 ♦ Vol. iii. S40. 
 
 force, threat, or stratagem, it was evidently not vo- 
 luntary, and we are but right in saying that this 
 national proceeding was founded on " false pretences 
 and perfidious arts." 
 
 " The world," says the king, <^ cannot wonder at 
 my withdrawing myself now this second time. I 
 might have expected somewhat better usage, after 
 what I writ to the Prince of Orange by my Lord 
 Feversham, and the instructions I gave him; but 
 instead of an answer such as I might have hoped for, 
 what was I to expect, after the usage I received, by 
 making the said earl a prisoner against the practice 
 and law of nations ; the sending his own guards at 
 eleven at night, to take possession of the posts at 
 Whitehall, without advertising me in the least manner 
 of it ; the sending to me at one o'clock, after mid- 
 night, when I was in bed, a kind of an order, by 
 three lords, to be gone out of my own palace before 
 twelve that same morning ? 
 
 " After all this, how could I hope to be safe, so 
 long as I was in the power of one who had not only 
 done this to me, and invaded my kingdoms without 
 any just occasion given him for it, but that did, by 
 his first declaration, lay the greatest aspersion upon 
 me that malice could invent, in that clause of it which 
 concerns my son ? I appeal to all that know me, nay, 
 even to himself, that, in their consciences, neither he 
 nor they can believe me in the least capable of so 
 unnatural a villany, nor of so little common sense, as 
 to be imposed on in a thing of such a nature a& 
 that. 
 
 ♦ L 12 
 
1 
 
 r >. 
 
 kl 
 
 240 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. IV* 
 
 K 
 
 « What had I, then, to expect from one who, by 
 all arts, hath taken such pains to make me appear as 
 black as hell to my own people as well as to all the 
 world besides ? 
 
 " What effect that hath had at home, all mankind 
 have seen by so general a defection in my army, as 
 well as in the nation, amongst all sorts of people. 
 
 ^* I was born free, and desire to continue so ; and 
 though I have ventured my life very frankly on se- 
 veral occasions, for the good and honour of my 
 country, and am as free to do it again (and which I 
 hope I yet shall do, as old as I am, to redeem it from 
 the slavery it is like to fall under), yet I think it not 
 convenient to expose myself to be so secured as not 
 to be at liberty to effect it ; and for that reason do 
 withdraw, but so as to be loithin call whenevei^ the natiorCs 
 eyes shall be opened^ so as to see how they have been 
 abused and imposed upon by the specious pretences of 
 religion and property '^ 
 
 Such is this famous letter ; and whoever now reads 
 it, now that the prejudices, the fears, and the excite- 
 ment of the times which produced it are over, will 
 not refuse, I think, to admit that, however we may 
 \ rejoice in the effects of the throne's being voted vacant 
 by a voluntary abdication, the vote itself was founded 
 Viq)on anything but truth. 
 
 Burnet says the facts the letter complains of were 
 aggravated or misrepresented. In what were they 
 so ? Was not Lord Feversham imprisoned contrary to 
 all law of nations ? Would William have dared to have 
 
 SECT. IV. CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION. 241 
 
 done so by any messenger from Turenne or Luxem- 
 burg ? Were not the Dutch guards sent without notice 
 W^T n'o''^'^"' ^' "^'^^' • ^^^ h^ ""^^ forced from 
 
 Could William have himself believed, though he pre- 
 
 tended to do so for the better carrying on his own 
 
 ends, that the birth of the Prince of Wales was a 
 
 wicked imposture ? If he did, why did he send an 
 
 express embassy to congratulate James upon it ? Anne 
 
 beheved it for a time; but Anne was a weak bio-ot 
 
 (though a Protestant), as great as her father wa^ a 
 
 Catholic. The letter to William formerly cited*, 
 
 admonishes him that he would lose ground by not 
 
 supporting the lie, and he did support it. Was this 
 
 the magnanimous deliverer, or a political trickster? 
 
 In this point, at least, James will bear a comparison. 
 
 He might be arbitrary, he might be a tyrant, but he 
 
 was a man of honour. William landed with a lie in 
 
 his mouth, and chiefly by means of that lie became 
 
 king. 
 
 It is hence, I think, that what James so emphati- 
 cally complains of was true. He could expect no 
 safety from those who, knowing it to be false, endea- 
 voured to make him appear to his subjects « as black 
 as hell.'* 
 
 Do I in this defend the cause of James? No ! but 
 not the less do I blame our supposed high-minded 
 and clear-sighted ancestors. Not the less do I re- 
 
 iumaS*.'-.- 
 
 VOL. I. 
 
 * Supra. 
 • M 
 
242 
 
 HISTOniCAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. IV. 
 
 pudiate being one of those wiseacres who halloo one 
 another into the thought that James was a monster, 
 William a disinterested deliverer, and those who acted 
 with him patterns of wisdom and public virtue. 
 
 With all my cautions in admitting, and still more 
 in exercising, the right of resistance, I am free to say 
 that the vote of the Scotch convention, that James 
 « had forefaulted his right to the throne," was in- 
 finitely more consistent, and more worthy of the 
 principles of liberty which have been contended for 
 by the jurists we have been reviewing, than the 
 Jesuitical niceties and scholastic pedantry on which 
 the palladium of our happy constitution was, at last, 
 
 actually founded. 
 
 The steps by which this was produced were of a 
 piece with the production itself. Every thing was 
 marred and incrusted with such irregularities, such 
 unfounded assumptions, such semblances of reality 
 where no reality was, that the mind seems bewildered 
 in pursuing them. We follow them with difficulty, 
 and part from them witliout satisfaction. Decies 
 
 repetita non placebit. 
 
 The prince and his followers had every thing in 
 their power. There was not a possibility of resist- 
 ance to any thing they might propose. As they had 
 gained all, so they might have modelled all by suc- 
 cessful force. The laws were mute ; all rights at the 
 foot of the conqueror (for conqueror he was), and as 
 such implied to be, even by such Whig lawyers as 
 PoUexfen and Holt, who, however blamed, no more 
 
 SECT. IV. CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION. 243 
 
 than consistently (I do not say wisely) advised 
 William to assume the crown as Henry VII. had 
 done before him. I repeat, this would not, perhaps, 
 have been wise ; but if an easy and early settlement 
 of a distracted state betokened practical wisdom in our 
 earlier ancestors, it is not clear that it would have 
 been the contrary on this occasion ; as, on the other 
 hand, it would have saved us the examination of a 
 thousand failures and bewildering derogations from 
 reasoning and regularity, which marked the whole 
 progress of our sage politicians, from the commence- 
 ment of their sayings and doings to their final and 
 lucky settlement. 
 
 Had this been done, in what would it have been 
 different from the origin of many other states, go- 
 vernments, or usurped powers, now consecrated bv 
 time ? ' 
 
 But though this would have been more consistent 
 and intelligible than what was afterwards done, it 
 could not have been without the acknowledgment of 
 the bold right of force which our learned ancestors 
 wished (I by no means say improperly) to evade. 
 They resolved, therefore, to do every thing they 
 wanted, yet pursue, as much as possible, old" forms 
 and a beaten track. Hence the incumbrances with 
 which they surrounded themselves, and the difficulties 
 from which (as critics in legislature, not practical 
 statesmen) we are not even at this day satisfactorily 
 relieved. 
 
 Our deliverers resolved to remedy the exigency 
 
 * M 2 
 
244 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. IV. 
 
 that had occurred through the old, known, and re- 
 spected medium of a free parliament, so dear to 
 Englishmen, and the chief object and cause of the 
 Declaration itself. The deliverer, however, did not 
 foresee, when he published it, all that was to happen. 
 He did not think, perhaps, of a parliament without a 
 king ; and whatever his secret designs, he probably 
 did not exactly cast beforehand how he was to get 
 rid of the king, and yet create a parliament. 
 
 The unforeseen loss, therefore, of the presence of 
 the king before the parliament ivas summoned, occa- 
 sioned the difficulty. Was it solved ? Let us 
 inquire. 
 
 245 
 
 SECTION V. 
 
 MARCH OF THE REVOLUTION AFTER THE RETIRE- 
 MENT OF JAMES. 
 
 We have seen how the lords, who had assembled 
 themselves for excellent purposes, though without 
 character, at Guildhall, and had addressed William 
 to advance to London, had returned to James, when 
 James returned to them. We have seen, too, upon 
 the second withdrawal of James, how instantly they 
 returned to William. 
 
 They were now all again at his beck at St. James's ; 
 for they had laid down whatever power they had 
 assumed, and were no longer an assembly except of 
 individuals. Yet these, disjointed as they were, 
 without a character, without a capacity to do any 
 one legislative or representative act, were the first 
 set of people (I do not mean to blame him) whom 
 
 • *M 3 
 
 M 
 
246 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. V. 
 
 William pitched upon to address as the nation^ and 
 ask their advice to carry his Declaration into effect. 
 This, and their having gone from the palace to their 
 own house by a sort of magic, charmed them into 
 the belief that, instead of being some eighty or ninety 
 titled gentlemen, they were one of the estates of the 
 realm, lawfully assembled, by the only power which 
 could assemble them, the king's writ. 
 
 Let us pause here to ask by what talisman, what 
 strange metamorphose, this could be that consti- 
 tutional meeting which formed one third part of the 
 leo-islature ; much more how it could pretend to be 
 any part at all of the representation of the people's 
 will, beyond the eighty or ninety units of which they 
 were individually composed ? 
 
 Yet this collection of individuals were, as we have 
 yseen, that solemn court which was supposed to be 
 endowed with the power of sentencing their king 
 on the notoriety of his acts, and would have given 
 them power to order him to be tried, had there 
 been " exalted justice and superior reason enough 
 in the nation" to have gone through with such an 
 
 undertaking.* 
 
 Hitherto we have neither heard nor seen any thing 
 of the people, either in their collective or individual 
 capacity, whether set free from their government, or 
 not. 
 
 * Vide supra. 
 
 SECT. V. MARCH OF THE REVOLUTION. 
 
 247 
 
 We have witnessed the march of armies, heard 
 the sound of trumpets, and seen the struggles of 
 contending parties ; we have beheld the ascendancy 
 of a foreign prince, and the retirement of a native 
 king ; but of any organized appearance of a people, 
 acting numerically, or by representation, we have 
 been in total darkness. Does the meeting of indi- 
 vidual lords, even though they had taken possession 
 of what they called their own house, which gave an 
 air of greater independence and authority to their 
 deliberations, does this enlighten us? Again, I say, 
 I think not 
 
 Certainly, if William had no right to assemble them, 
 and they no right to assemble themselves, as a House 
 of Peers, it was not the chamber where they did 
 assemble that could supply the defect. 
 
 Assemble, however, they did, and whether their 
 old walls enlightened, or their own virtue encourao-ed 
 them, they assumed the port and privileges of the 
 peers of the realm in parliament assembled. They 
 chose a Speaker, the immaculate and consistent 
 Halifax, and named other officers. Did this make 
 them the legitimate House of Peers? still more, a 
 constituent part of a parliament, not only to which 
 a House of Commons w^as wanting, but which had 
 never been called together by the proper autho- 
 rity ? 
 
 Defective, however, as their construction, and 
 
 * M 4 
 
248 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. V. 
 
 SECT. V. MARCH OF THE REVOLUTION. 
 
 249 
 
 liil 
 
 il 
 
 therefore their authority, evidently was, they made 
 use of their usurpation for acts of the highest con- 
 sequence to the nation. They addressed William to 
 assume the whole government of the kingdom in his 
 person, and, as such, to issue summonses to all 
 parts of the kingdom for the meeting of a parlia- 
 ment, which they thus thought would be regularly 
 
 assembled. 
 
 I entreat you to observe, that in this I am far from 
 blaming the proceeding of the lords ; for even without 
 parliament, the peers have a known constitutional 
 character: and if an individual peer can claim to 
 give advice to his sovereign, much more may the 
 whole peerage united. But this requires a real and 
 known sovereign, and extends to adviccy not power, 
 though an opinion is recorded by Echard, that the 
 peers have an intrinsic power, which, like a spring, 
 may be kept down by the weight of the sovereign ; 
 yet, when the weight is removed, as it was here, the 
 spring recovers its force, and resumes its elasticity. 
 
 Ingenious as this may be, where it is to be found 
 in our books of constitutional law, I in vain seek to 
 
 discover. 
 
 You will perceive, however, that I direct this criticism 
 on the powers assumed by the peers, only against 
 those jurists, who, waving the argument from necessity 
 (the only real or justifiable one on this occasion), at- 
 tempt more, I think, than the question requires, in 
 
 the endeavour to prove that these peers, thus as- 
 sembled, were the old legitimate upper house of 
 parliament, and acted as such. 
 
 Was it this which prompted observations as devoid 
 of justice, as I think they are of liberality, from a 
 democratic oracle from across the Atlantic, who 
 seems to regard us with no friendly eye, yet 
 is so good as to instruct us as to our constitution 
 in the tone of a master ? I mean Mr. Cooper, whom 
 I mean any thing but to offend, when I say that I 
 like his novels better than his law. That an American 
 should not be in good humour with a House of Lords, 
 does not surprise ; but there is method even in mad- 
 ness, A democrat has a right to wish lords at the 
 bottom of the sea ; but while upon earth, and tolerated 
 by less elevated creatures than republicans, they 
 have a right at least to fair play. Where in history 
 does this great person find that " The peers of Great 
 Britain, considered as a political body, are usurpers 
 in the worst sense of the word?'' Where that 
 they are usurpers at all? Where authority for 
 saying the authority they wield, and the power by 
 which it is maintained, are the resuUs neither of 
 frank conquest, nor of legally delegated trusts, but of 
 insidious innovations effected under the fraudulent 
 pretences of succouring liberty. He allows they were 
 " the principal, and at that time the natural agents 
 of the nation in rescuing it from the tyranny of the 
 Stuarts ; but profiting by their position, they have 
 
 *M 5 
 
 L 
 
 . % 
 
250 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. V, 
 
 I 
 
 gradually perverted the institutions * to their own 
 aggrandisement and benefit. This," he adds, "is 
 substantially the history of all aristocracies, which 
 commence by curbing the power of despots, and end 
 by substituting their own."t N.B. This is the 
 exact account of the democrats of the Long 
 Parliament. Yet as a not unjust criterion of human 
 nature at large, it may be allowed; but a republican 
 is the last man in the world to presume to attribute 
 it exclusivehj to aristocracies. Mr. Cooper would do 
 better, perhaps, to defend his democratic brethren, for 
 their cruel abuse of power in rciaining the Slave 
 Trade, than invituperatingthearislocracy of England, 
 who contributed so much to its annilnlation. At 
 any rate he is forced, we see, to allow the Englisli 
 House of Peers the merit of having been the principal 
 and natural agents in rescuing the nation from 
 the tyranny of the Stuarts, a call upon hJm, one 
 would think, to demonstrate by proofi, an assertion 
 which, till proofs are produced, we may consider ^ 
 mere commonplace declaration ad captmidtan. 
 
 But to return to the peers of 1689. Most 
 certainly they did not only what they might liave 
 done had their meeting been regular, but a gi-eat 
 deal more. They, standing single, and without the 
 support of the other house, addressed the prince, as 
 we liave bc^fore related; but as to the people, it 
 
 \ Set' Mr. Cooper's irorit upon BvgUmL 
 
 \ 
 
 SECT. V. MARCH OF THE REVOLUTION. 
 
 251 
 
 would be most diflBcult to find them, except in the 
 mobs in the street, who, from time to time, and as 
 they thought they could succeed, used the sovereignty 
 which had reverted to them, by making free with 
 other people s property now without safeguard from 
 the law, which, we are told, was annihilated. 
 
 In fact, though the interests of many leaders indi- 
 vidually, of corporations, of the church, and of the 
 magistracy had bc^en talked of, and, in some measlut^, 
 stipulated fur, the people were wholly overlooked. 
 Not a word was said about them or their authority 
 collectively, eitJier by the deliverer, or those who 
 invited him, or the bisho|>s, or the magistrates, 
 or tJie corporation of London, or any otlier cor- 
 poration. 
 
 These first principles of autliority, this only source 
 of power, which have been the theme of our enthusi- 
 astic admiration a hundred years after them, were 
 never thought of at the time, much less mentionet^ 
 by any of the parties concerned. 
 
 As it was, William was hugely unnpted, but at tlie 
 same time embarrassed by tin's address of tlie lords, 
 His embarrassment, however, only arose from the 
 difficulty of dallying between accepting the offer 
 from the lords alone, and waiting Ibr a House of 
 Commons to join in it 
 
 This was unfortunate, for there were then no Com- 
 mons in existence; and if the lords, who were all 
 
 ♦m 6 
 
 %ft^ 
 

 SECT. V. MARCH OF THE REVOLUTION. 
 
 253 
 
 ii;;i»' 
 
 252 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. V. 
 
 personally recognised as the individuals who must 
 form the House of Peers, when properly assembled, 
 had no collective character, still less could any set of 
 men pretend to be the Commons, who had all melted 
 into air on the dissolution of the last parliament. 
 
 This was a sad dilemma ; but when things, right or 
 wrong, are resolved upon, and have power to back 
 them, resource is not wanting. 
 
 So all the old members who had sat in any 
 parliament of Charles II., who could be found in 
 toicn, were ordered to assemble, and caU themselves 
 the House of Commons, and, by way of a Corin- 
 thian capital to this clumsy base, the aldermen and 
 fifty common councilmen of London were brought 
 from their shops, and ordered to assemble with 
 
 them. , . • 1 
 
 Does not this remind you of the Revolution in the 
 
 Rehearsal, where the two usurpers enter the chamber 
 of the two kings of Brentford, sit in their chairs, and, 
 in the twinkling of an eye, are transformed into 
 sovereigns? Even the author of this part of the 
 history'' seems ashamed of his puppets, for puppets 
 they were, and did as they were bid, and took pos- 
 session of the Commons House, as the peers had 
 taken possession of theirs, and chose a Speaker, the 
 patriot Powle, one of the pensioners of Lewis, XIV., 
 and thus the two Houses called themselves Lords 
 and Commons. 
 
 This was to William a great satisfaction, and dis- 
 pelled his doubts, for they desired him to administer 
 the government, and issue summonses for a parlia- 
 ment, which he cheerfully did. 
 
 In the Commons, however, there was a not unna- 
 tural anxiety to know how they came there, and how 
 they could be the Commons of England, when none 
 of them had been elected. 
 
 But this false modesty was soon repressed ; and it 
 was resolved that the prince's warrant was quite suffi- 
 cient to salve their consciences. I need not ask what, 
 except the sword, gave the prince a right to issue 
 this warrant ? 
 
 One member indeed (Sir Robert SouthweU), had 
 the temerity to say he could not conceive how it was 
 possible for the prince to take upon him the adminis- 
 tration without some distinguishing name or title. 
 
 But he was silenced by Serjeant Maynard (whom 
 Swift calls an old rogue, and who in the Long Parlia- 
 ment seems to have deserved the appellation), who 
 said they should wait long and lose much time, if they 
 waited till Sir Robert conceived how that was possible. 
 
 But Mackintosh defends his own "spurious and 
 motley assembly" by saying this sarcasm had « some 
 reason ; for it would have been in vain to look for regu- 
 larity where all was irregular." * 
 
 Thus he seems, like Jaques in the play, to have 
 discovered that " Motley's the only wear." 
 
 * Mackintosh, vol. ii, 282. 
 •f-M 7 
 
 I 
 
254 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 ** I met 41 f<Kil i* the fon!st> 
 A motley fool, a mben»Mc x-arlct^ 
 A worthy fool ; mo<lt>*s the o«ly wear. 
 O, that I were a fool 
 I am ambitious for a motley- cool.** 
 
 SECT. V* 
 
 Upon the wliole, if we come to consider the lawfid 
 authority of the meeting I have described, I see not 
 why, if William had thrust a regiment of Dutch 
 guards into the Commons House, and made them 
 deliborate, as Cromwell would have done in the same 
 circumstances, why they would not have been invested 
 with quite as much lefful right to be called and thought 
 the Commons of England, as this "spurious and 
 
 motley meeting/* 
 
 The reasons for their legitimacy would be quite as 
 good: «*It would be in vain to expect regularity, 
 tchere all teas irrvffuhrJ* 
 
 And this is the first indication we liave of an ap- 
 pearance of a recognized power, having even a sem- 
 blance of the people, being introduced on the theatre 
 of the Revolution. 
 
 Wliether this assembly liad any right to be called 
 representatives, or whether any thing it could do 
 deserved that glorious character which we are usually 
 so fond of bestowing upon the event, the exhibition of 
 the solemn act of a great and wise nation, assembled 
 before the world to pronounce, on the greatest crisis 
 which could happen to it, the dissolution of one go- 
 vernment, and the establishment of another, this i3 
 
 / 
 
 SECT. v. MARCH OF THE RE^'OLUTION. 
 
 255 
 
 a question which, from the premises detaile<l, we liave 
 no great satisfaction in asking. Most indubitably 
 the PEOPLE have not yet appeared. 
 
 However, all was soon cured by this bastard 
 meeting, engendering another, which, though also a 
 hj^tard, seemed, if not legitimate, yet something 
 more like a representation of the people, in the 
 ordinarj' form. 
 
 For the " spurious and motley *' by voting the 
 prince into the government, and desiring him to 
 sunnnon a more regular meeting (wliich he did), 
 produced the great Convention Parliament, whose 
 first act was to vote themselves the real people, and 
 then to dethrone James, and make William king, 
 who then summoned another parliament, who thus, it 
 was said, became a real one, and, by their first vote, 
 declared the convention to be so too, with a con- 
 vincing argument of pains and penalties upon all 
 who doubted it, which was pretty much the same 
 as Lord Peter^s declaration, that whoever denied 
 ;hi3 brown loaf to be a leg of mutton, should be 
 damned* 
 
 Previous, however, to this meeting, such as it w^as, 
 of the representatives of the numerous individual 
 sovereigns who then composed the sovereignty of 
 England, the prince, in virtue of his delegated power 
 fi'om the no delegates, borrowed t200,000/« from 
 the City, chiefly, as it was said, for securing the 
 
 • M 8 
 
256 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. V. 
 
 protestant interest in Ireland. But to this purpose, 
 or at least in the proportions contemplated by the 
 lenders, it was not applied. Here, then, was there 
 not an abuse? and an abuse in a king, much more 
 in a nondescript locum tenens^ is misgovernment ; 
 and misgovernment, as we have seen, gives a right of 
 war. William, therefore, was in the outset, arid 
 before he became a king, a tyrant, according to all 
 legal description of one. 
 
 For now were issued search warrants against 
 printers and pamphleteers who had abused him, 
 though only when in charge of the provisional 
 government, and before things were settled by his 
 assumption of the crown. 
 
 If any thing could have justified the most free 
 exercise of the liberty of the press, it was surely the 
 exigencies of such a time as this, when the very life 
 blood of all that had been done, or was doing, de- 
 pended so entirely upon public opinion. If really th^ 
 Revolution was just, virtuous, and necessary, the fullest 
 liberty to discuss it was imperative on both sides^ 
 especially by the lovers of philosophic liberty, who 
 rested their cause upon the arguments, not the bayo- 
 nets, of the Deliverer. 
 
 Yet what was the fact ? Mobs were arrayed against 
 
 all who differed from them, with weapons far different 
 
 from reasoning, the use of which weapons also they 
 
 far better understood. These were what, under the 
 
 SECT. T. MARCH OF THE REVOLUTION. 
 
 257 
 
 guidance of the honest and just demagogues of the 
 Long Parliament, drove the king to seek refuge in 
 arms, and then they denounced him for taking them : 
 and why should not the same means produce the 
 same effect? — Sherlocke, however, had the honour to 
 be answered not by a bludgeon, but a pen, though 
 that pen was Burnet's. Sherlocke was dean of St, 
 Paul's, was for recalling the king, and wrote cogently 
 in favour of it; among other topics, he doubted the 
 assertion of a treaty with Louis for the destruction 
 of the protestants. « This,'* said he, « did more to 
 drive the king out of the nation than the prince's 
 army." This, therefore, ought to be examined, 
 as, if it should prove a sharn^ as some say it is, it 
 seems half an argument to invite the king back 
 
 again. 
 
 Fearing impression from this, Burnet was ordered 
 to reply to it, which the obsequious doctor willingly 
 obeyed ; so that the paper war raged with sufficient 
 violence, and, as it should seem, the prince nad the 
 worst of it. 
 
 The pensionary's letter to Stuart on the subject of 
 the tests abounded with expressions of affection, 
 gratitude, and duty on the part of the prince and 
 princess to the king. They declared, through Fagel, 
 that they were resolved to continue in the same 
 sentiments of affection and duty to his majesty, or to 
 increase them if possible. 
 
 * M 9 
 
258 
 
 HISTOniCAL ESSAY. 
 
 ISECT. V. 
 
 ^ The passages expressing these unalterable or in-^ 
 creasing sentiments of love and duty were selected 
 and reprinted, with commentaries insidiously re- 
 spectful, and the following memorandum appended 
 by way of note. — " These singular expressions of 
 affection and duty to the king their father were sent 
 after those irregular and offensive measures of quo 
 warranto charters, the dispensing power, closeting, 
 the ecclesiastical commission, and Magdalen College, 
 were practised. It is scarcely necessary to add, that 
 these were the leading grievances urged by the 
 prince in justification of his enterprise." 
 
 The Prince of Orange had his full proportion of 
 pamphleteers in the field, and he was personally a 
 sort of idol whom none dared to attack, — to whom 
 all parties offered homage from inclination, interest, 
 or fear. Yet the prince and his Whig advisers, 
 who had printed in Holland, and circulated in Eng- 
 land, the most scandalous libels upon the king, 
 issued a search warrant, worthy of James II., the 
 Charles's, and the Star Chamber, after authors, 
 printers, and sellers of unauthorised books and pam- 
 phlets. 
 
 " But the proofs," continues Mackintosh's Con- 
 
 tinuator, " are numberless, and the fact indubitable, 
 
 >/^ that the men of the Revolution of 1688 were as little 
 
 disposed as their adversaries, whether Tories or papists^ to 
 
 concede the free exercise of either human reason or religious 
 
 \ 
 
 fiEGT. V, MARCH OF THE REVOLUTION. 
 
 259 
 
 conscience:' f He goes on in a strain remarkable for 
 such a champion of liberty. 
 
 " Hitherto, the assumption of a power to suspend 
 oi- dispense with laws, was the main grievance speci- 
 fically urged against the king, and the sheet-anchor 
 of the designs of the prince. To these were now 
 added the imprisonment of the bishops, and the im- 
 position upon the nation of a spurious heir to the 
 crown. James II. is sufficiently odious, and his 
 deposition from the throne sufficiently warranted, 
 without injustice or aggravation. It may be right 
 here to pause for a moment upon these three chief 
 heads of accusation. 
 
 " James affected to be above the law, and was 
 therefore a tyrant. He did not, however, assume 
 the right of suspending or dispensing with all laws, 
 as, according to the popular notion, he is supposed to 
 have done, but only those penal enactments which 
 interfered with his prerogative of commanding the 
 services of all and any of his subjects. His lawyers 
 told him this was a prerogative inseparable from his 
 person, which no statute could limit or invade. The 
 same prerogative had been claimed by Charles II., 
 vindicated by Shaftesbury, and withdrawn from ope- 
 ration rather than renounced. James, then, did not 
 assert it without precedent, or without law authority. 
 
 t Hist. Revol. vol. ii. 296. 
 * M 10 
 
260 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAYt 
 
 SECT. V* 
 
 SECT, V, march: of the revolution. 
 
 261 
 
 He did not assert it without appeal. He submitted 
 the question to the competent jurisdiction, and eleven 
 of the twelve judges decided in his favour. Such a 
 prerogative, it is true, was equivalent thus far to 
 arbitrary power ; but this admission would only prove, 
 that arbitrary power had countenance from the law of 
 England. The judges, it will be said, misinterpreted 
 the law from fear or favour, and were appointed for 
 the purpose. But discarding, as a delusive phrase, 
 the maxim, that the king can do no wrong, and 
 holding James responsible of right, as he was held in 
 fact, still he was not the sole criminal, but the accom- 
 plice, and, in some measure, the victim of corrupt or 
 craven judges, and of an anomalous system of juris- 
 prudence, which allows judges to make law under 
 the name of expounding it. In fine, of the eleven * 
 judc^es who decided the case of Hales, four only were 
 named by the king." 
 
 " To come to the case of the bishops : — they 
 refused compliance with an order of their king, 
 whilst they professed passive obedience to him, as a 
 tenet of their church ; and, after having in precisely 
 the same matter obeyed the royal mandate implicitly 
 in the late reign, they presented a petition to the 
 king desiring to be excused. They considered their 
 petition legal and dutiful, as most assuredly it was. 
 The king considered it a seditious libel ; committed 
 them, in default of bail, upon their refusal to enter 
 
 even into their own recognizances ; submitted the 
 question to trial by a jury of their common country, 
 and the verdict was against him. His proceedings, 
 then, against the bishops, however vexatious and op- 
 pressive, were not illegal, and therefore not tyrannical. 
 The surest test will be to suppose James, for a 
 moment, a true son, not of the church of Rome, but 
 of the church of England, and the objects of his 
 prosecution, not protostant bishops, but dissenters 
 or papists, would not hia conduct be very dilferontly 
 viewed, though the question of its legality would 
 remain the same ? The charge respecting a suppo- 
 sititious heir was one of the n)ost flagrant wrongs 
 ever done to a sovereign or father. The son of 
 James II. was, perhaps, the only prince in Europe of 
 whose blood there could be no rational doubt, con- 
 sidering the verification of his birth, the un impeached 
 life of his mother, and the general morality of courts 
 and queens. 
 
 " The imprisonment of the bishops, and imposition 
 of a spurious heir, were put forward as the grievances 
 which immediately provoked and justified the expe- 
 dition of the Prince of Orange ; but these incident 
 were merely seized on as favourable pretences. The 
 prince had resolved upon it long before, and waited only 
 for a favourable conjuncture, and was already making 
 his arrangements in concert with the States of Hol- 
 land, his allies abroad, and his friends in England. 
 
 ♦m 11 
 
 ( 
 
262 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. V. 
 
 SECT. V. 
 
 MARCH OF THE REVOLUTION. 
 
 263 
 
 Viewing the Revolution of 1688 at this distance of 
 time, and with the lights of the present day, it is 
 impossible to deny James a certain superiority in the 
 ■comparison of abstract principles : his standard bore 
 the nobler inscription. He proclaimed religious 
 liberty impartial and complete; and had he not sought 
 to establish it by his own lawless will, — had his pro- 
 ceedings been but worthy of his cause, — posterity 
 might regard him not as a tyrant justly uncrowned, 
 but as a beneficent prince who became the victim of 
 an intolerable faction^ an overweening hierarchy^ and a 
 besotted multitude^ 
 
 What are we to say to this powerful apology for 
 James by his most determined opponent ? What of 
 the opinion expressed of the glorious enterprize ? 
 
 Surely, if this was the real character of the Revo- 
 lution, drawn by its most determined defender, those 
 who have nursed themselves into an opinion that it 
 was the unanimous effort of a great and enlightened 
 nation, so deeply versed in the principles of philosophic 
 liberty, and so alive to the infraction of those prin- 
 ciples by their sovereign, that they rose, to a man, to 
 assert and resume their abstract and inalienable 
 rights, — those, I say, when they come to the facts, 
 will probably be disappointed. 
 
 Nor will they be less so, I fear, who have conceived 
 notions which the heart would warmly welcome, but 
 is forced totally to reject on examination, of the pure 
 
 patriotism, contempt of danger, and generous devo- 
 tion of self to the public weal, in those whom cursory 
 readers of the common histories of the times have 
 dignified with the characters of deliverers. I except 
 not the great Deliverer himself; in respect to selfish 
 views, sincerity, or a bold assertion of liberty, not less 
 unworthy than the hypocrites who used him, as he 
 used them, each to serve himself, under what we have 
 seen stigmatized as perfidious arts and false pre- 
 tences,^ 
 
 The effect of late discoveries has been woeful to 
 our national feelings and national pride. The great- 
 est names sink to nothing ; and characters we have 
 been used almost to adore, become the sorriest 
 knaves and veriest of pretenders that have appeared 
 in history. 
 
 You may remember in one of Voltaire's wittiest 
 satires upon the illusions of the world, (I think 
 " Babouk, ou Le Monde comme il va,") Babouk, at 
 Paris, going to a celebrated tragedy, full of glowing 
 sentiments, is so struck with the energy and pathos of 
 the principal actress, a persecuted princess and model 
 of conjugal virtue, that he conceives the most ardent 
 desire to be acquainted with her, in order to offer 
 his adorations. 
 
 Accordingly, he waits upon the princess the next 
 
 * JSupra. 
 t M 12 
 
 \ 
 
264 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. y. 
 
 SECT V. 
 
 ^ 
 
 day ; and to his astonishment and horror, finds her, 
 instead of a palace, in a sordid lodging, up two pair 
 of stairs, living in adultery, and with child by her 
 keeper. ^ • - ' 
 
 I dare not apply this to our glorious Revolution or 
 its immaculate heroes ; certainly not to all its actors, 
 many of whom charm us in the history, as the princess 
 did Babouk. 
 
 But if we really coolly inquire into the genuine 
 character, either of the Revolution itself, or of those 
 who accomplished it ; the manner in which it was 
 brought about, or the duplicity, treachery, and per- 
 sonal views of its principal leaders, I am afraid some 
 of our happiest prejudices will be overset, and there 
 will be laid bare many ^' a mean heart that lurk'd 
 beneath a star." 
 
 I am sorry for this, and would rather that I had 
 not, like Babouk, undeceived myself by calling at the 
 heorine's lodmnfirs. 
 
 Say what we will of our innate love of liberty, of 
 our free constitution and our Roman spirit, as they 
 appeared in those times, it cannot be denied that they 
 all of them nearly originated (certainly received most 
 powerful aid) from either contemptible selfish views 
 or tlie detestation of popery. 
 
 " Though the nation in general," says Macpherson, 
 " were offended with the king, very few dreamed of 
 depriving him of the throne. 
 
 MARCH or THE REVOLTJTION. 
 
 263 
 
 ^^ Their present defection arose from their appre- 
 hensions of the popery of the king, not from any 
 aversion to the legal authority of the crown. That 
 republican enthusiasm which had overturned the 
 throne forty years before, was either altogether ex- 
 tinguished, or softened down into the more practicable 
 principles of limiting the royal prerogative. 
 
 " A breach upon the regular succession, though 
 perhaps the nearest way to the absolute security 
 of public freedom, was neither understood nor de-, 
 sired. 
 
 "Men judged of the future by the past. A dis- 
 puted title to the crown had dyed the annals of 
 former ages with blood. 
 
 " No declaration of the legislature could alter at 
 once the principles of mankind, or induce the nation, 
 m general, to relinquish the first maxim in govern- 
 ment delivered down from their ancestors. 
 
 " Few had yet arrived at that philosophy in politics 
 which gives its necessary weight to authority^ without 
 deeming obedience a moral duty."* 
 
 These sentiments, if they are not perfectly correct 
 in the abstract, are so far founded on the fact, that 
 they seem to have animated the great bulk of th^ 
 people from the highest to the lowest. We know 
 what fanaticism did in exciting and pointing the cou- 
 rage of the saints against Charles I., and so here, 
 
 VOL. I. 
 
 * Macpherson, vol, i. 547. 
 *N 
 
266 
 
 -HISTOBICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. r. 
 
 SECT. y. 
 
 MARCH OF THE REVOLUTIOII. 
 
 y^' 
 
 j**^" 
 
 had the nation been catholic, we should, probably, 
 never have heard of the Revolution. 
 
 The excitement continued long after the fears of 
 liberty were appeased. 
 
 For when a spirit of returning love for James, and 
 the unpopularity of William, prompted perpetual in- 
 quiries into the feasibleness of an invasion, a very 
 sensible friend tells him there is no doubt his well- 
 wishers, were it not for his popery, formed the ma- 
 jority of the nation, particularly among the upper 
 ranks ; but that the bulk of the people continued in 
 such fear and detestation of his religion, that they 
 would rather bear the oppression of William than 
 join him. 
 
 Even Marlborough, professing to be ready to die 
 for his master, asserts that he is still more ready to 
 die for his faith ; and that, though he cannot live the 
 life of a saint, he is able, should there be occasion 
 for it, to show the resolution of a martyr.* He did 
 better, he continued to profit by the places, and 
 betray the confidence of James while James had 
 places to bestow, — changed sides with fortune (that 
 guide of the base), and has left the name of Marl- 
 borough, like that of Bacon, a perpetual memorial 
 of the excellence of human capacity and the infirmity 
 pf human re£ison."| 
 
 ♦ Letter to Prince of Orange, 1 7th May, 1688, in Coxe. 
 t Mackintcsh, vol. ii. 130. 
 
 26f 
 
 No ! Marlborough was no patriot ; but with grief, 
 be it said, a base time-server, who stuck by place as 
 long as he thought place would stick by him. Laying 
 the ground, however, for obtaining all proper rewards, 
 for changing sides, at the proper prudential moment ; 
 that is, when to continue where he was seemed hope- 
 less. Hence his letter to the prince of the 4th 
 August: — 
 
 " Mr. Sidney will let you know how I intend to 
 behave myself. / think it is ivhat I owe to God and 
 my country r 
 
 What ! to continue in the service of James, 
 direct his counsels, and command his troops, with 
 a view to betray them both to James's determined 
 enemy? 
 
 Whatever he may say of the country, supposing 
 him sincere, is this the way of serving God— the God 
 of truth, the detester of hypocrites ? 
 
 He goes on: — 
 
 " My honour I take leave to put in your royal 
 highness's hands, in which I think it safe." (Very 
 lucky for him that he could find any one to take 
 care of it for him.) " If you think there is any 
 thing else I ought to do, you have but to command 
 
 me. 
 
 »# 
 
 This was four months before he left James, whose 
 confidence and pay he all that time continued to 
 pocket; and here Mackintosh's Continuator again 
 
 • Letter 4tli August 1688. See Coxe. 
 
 ♦n2 
 
268 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. V. 
 
 &ECT, V. 
 
 MARCH OF THE REVOLUTION. 
 
 269 
 
 well observes, " This letter, without any other testi- 
 mony, would prove that he was in the confidence 
 of the projected invasion. No zeal, pretended 
 or real, for God or his country, can cover the 
 infamy of continuing to command the troops, be- 
 tray the confidence, and abuse the kindness of 
 King James for several months after he had de- 
 posited what he calls his honour with James's 
 enemy." 
 
 There is another letter of his (better known) to 
 James himself. In this he asserts that he acted con- 
 trary to his interests ; implying, therefore, that he 
 was sincere in resting, as he did, his desertion upon 
 his religion. 
 
 If he really did act contrary to his interests, it was 
 a particular reason with him to be believed ; for se- 
 veral years after, so well was his attachment to his 
 interests known, that the Duke of Shrewsbury, writing 
 to William in his favour, observes, " It is so unques- 
 tionably his interest to be faithful, that that single 
 article makes me not doubt it" * 
 
 But was it really contrary to his interest to desert 
 a falling, in order to attach himself to a rising, 
 master ? And as to his religion, with such a high 
 principle, we must agree that he should have been 
 long before in the court or camp of William.f 
 
 Biting, overwhelming as these observations are, it 
 
 ♦ Shrewsbury Papers, Ap. Coxe*s Marlb. vol. i. 72. 
 t Mackintosh, vol.ii. 253. 
 
 is no more than what is deserved by this far-famed 
 person, who, let his military reputation be what it 
 will, can never get from under it, and is damned to 
 eternal fame for this mode of showing his patriotism. 
 
 It is unnecessary, after this, to go into the several 
 other questions in regard to his honesty ; to discuss 
 whether he wilfully gave his advice to James to quit 
 the field, in order to ruin him, or his mean overtures 
 to be taken into favour again, when he found that he 
 did not succeed so well with William, who, like many 
 other leaders of armies and parties, loved the treason, 
 but despised the traitor. It is needless to inquire 
 into the degrading imputations of De Torcy. 
 
 Yet Marlborough became so prominent a character 
 in the history of Europe, and is supposed, by the 
 glory he afterwards acquired, to have contributed so 
 much to the ghry of the Revolution^ that it is impera- 
 tive, upon the spirit of historical truth, to inquire into 
 the extent of the credit and the lustre which he may 
 have shed upon that great transaction. 
 
 In compliance with this duty, ought we, or not, to 
 notice the fearful, the terrible imputations, cast upon 
 him in respect to his designs, not only upon the per- 
 sonal liberty, but even the life of James? 
 
 James himself, whose testimony. Mackintosh says, 
 is most deserving of respect, narrates that " it was 
 generally believed " that Lord Churchill, Kirk, Tre- 
 lawney, and some others, had formed a design to 
 seize his person, and deliver him to the Prince of 
 Orange. Father Orleans, who wrote under the eye 
 
 N 3 
 
 \ 
 
27a 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAV* 
 
 SECT. V. 
 
 of the king, states it more confidently ; Reresby saya 
 it was generally believed, and that its failure caused 
 Marlborough's flight. 
 
 The bleeding with which the king was seized, oc- 
 casioned this failure ; and hence James calls it provi- 
 dential. 
 
 The king himself says nothing of the intended 
 assassination ; Coxe, the biographer of Marlborough, 
 is equally silent ; and charity, together with its being 
 totally foreign to his acknowledged want of ferocity, 
 in Churchill, would lead us to disbelieve it, upon any 
 thing short of irresistible proof. 
 
 Whatever that proof, it is to be sought in the papers 
 of Carte, published by Macpherson, vol. i. p. 280., in 
 which appears a death-bed confession by Sir George 
 Hewett, communicated to CartebyMr. Malet, of Comba 
 Flory, dated September 3. 1745, and stating that it 
 was found in his uncle's pocket-books. The paper 
 states, on the information of the deprived bishop of 
 Kilmore, Dr. Sheridan, given in November, 1709, 
 (thirty-six years before) th^it several years before that 
 he had seen, at the old Earl of Peterborough's house, 
 this death-bed confession of Hewett, who died at 
 Chester, of a sickness contracted at Dundalk Camp 
 in Ireland; which, therefore, takes it still farther 
 back, to 1690. Thus the evidence for this extraor- 
 dinary accusation had lain dormant fifty-five years 
 before it had reached Carte. 
 
 __ If these difficulties are got over, and all the parties 
 mentioned are to be believed, Hewett is held to have 
 
 l?ECT. V. 
 
 MARCtif OF THE REVOLUTION. 
 
 271 
 
 said that his conscience was troubled for having as- 
 sisted at a meeting of Lord Churchill, the Bishop of 
 London (Compton), Kirk, and others, in which it 
 was resolved to seize and deliver James to the Prince 
 of Orange; and if Maine, the staff officer on duty, 
 should oppose it, then Churchill should stab or pistol 
 him. 
 
 In another paper, there is another version of it, 
 upon the same authority (Dr. Sheridan), in which 
 Salisbury was the place indicated where the deed was 
 to be perpetrated. 
 
 This is again confirmed by a Colonel Ambrose 
 Norton, who relates it upon the authority of the 
 same Sir George Hewett, not in confession, but con- 
 versation, in which he said it was resolved to seize 
 James when Lord Churchill was gold stick in waiting, 
 and in the coach with him, and that if any of the 
 papist officers should endeavour a rescue, Hewett 
 was to shoot him ; or if that missed, Churchill was 
 provided with a pocket pistol and dagger to despatch 
 him. " But it pleased God," says Hewett, " that his 
 nose bled, so that he was prevented from going to 
 Warminster." 
 
 From all this it appears, that there is a chain of 
 five links to be gone through before the account 
 reaches Macpherson : Carte, Mallet, his uncle. Co- 
 lonel Norton, and Sir George Hewett. 
 
 These accounts may be criticised, but there is one 
 other still more striking, on account of the consider- 
 ation of the parties vouched ; it is from the respect- 
 
 ♦ n4 
 
272 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. V. 
 
 SECT. V. 
 
 MARCH OF THE REVOLUTION. 
 
 273 
 
 able Erasmus Lewis, the faithful secretary and friend 
 of Oxford. Of him Carte writes thus : — 
 
 " Erasmus Lewis told me at the same time, (this 
 very day, April 10, 1749,) that Lord Delamere and 
 E. Warrinorton had been in the secret of the design 
 of assassinating K. James II. at Warminster, at the 
 review : and told it frequently, that when at the 
 consult among them about executing it, several me- 
 thods were proposed, the Duke of Marlborough said, 
 I see plainly these will not do ! I must stab him 
 myself in the chariot as I go with him.''* Lord 
 Delamere here, therefore, adds one more to the 
 witnesses already enumerated. 
 
 Such is the relation of Carte; valeat quantum. 
 If truth, the heart sickens to think that so black a 
 spirit could belong to such a man as Marlborough ; 
 and yet to the truth of facts so succinctly stated, and 
 from such various quarters, there is nothing to op- 
 pose but that Carte must have forged them. For, 
 as we have seen, there are six other authorities cited ; 
 so that if Carte is honest, all six must have concurred, 
 though with intervals of years, in forging and pro- 
 pagating the slander. That Coxe should not con- 
 descend to mention it, even though to defend his 
 hero, may not surprise us; but that Hallam and Fox, 
 who were no friendly critics of the duke, should pass 
 this pointed and heavy accusation without notice, is, 
 at least, remarkable. 
 
 * Macpherson's State Papers, vol. i. 181 — 184. 
 
 But though we may be loath to believe that 
 Marlborough was capable of designing to murder 
 his king and benefactor with his own hand ; of his 
 proved treason to his new master and his country, 
 ending in the slaughter of his gallant fellow-soldier, 
 the brave Talmashe and his little army, there can 
 be no doubt. 
 
 You will perceive that I allude to his revealing to 
 France the designed expedition against Brest; for 
 which, if ever traitor was hanged, he deserved to be 
 so. His biographer, Coxe, admits the fact with all 
 its aggravation, for it was only a few days before he 
 offered his services a^ain to William, with whom he 
 was deservedly in disgrace. * 
 
 The endeavour to explain it by Coxe is admir- 
 able. " We are far from attempting,'* says he, " to 
 palliate this act of infidelity ; yet from the time and 
 circumstances of the communication, we are forced 
 to regard it in no other light than as one of the 
 various expedients adopted by Marlborough and 
 others to regain the good will of their former sove- 
 reign, that their demerits might be overl^k^d in the 
 event of a restoration. f 
 
 In no other light ! ! I grieve for Cox#*s ethics. For 
 if time and circumstances can palliate crimes lead- 
 ing to the deaths of hundreds of brave men, what 
 crime may not be palliated ? There is this, however, 
 to be said for the archdeacon : his apology was only 
 
 * Life of Marlborough, vol. i. 76 
 
 N 5 
 
 f Ibid. 
 
274 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. V 
 
 SECT. V. MARCH OF THE REVOLUTION. 
 
 275 
 
 for want of a better, which Mackintosh could have 
 supplied him; but when Coxe wrote, he had not 
 had the benefit of the doctrine respecting " Re- 
 formatory Revolt */' which, if Marlborough found 
 William's government too galling, gave him a right 
 to take arms to alter it. If so, the duke, being justi- 
 fiably at war with the king, only used the rights of 
 war to ruin him. 
 
 Does Macpherson, however, mend the case by 
 saying the " zeal of the Earl of Marlborough for the 
 service of the late king, or his aversion to the reigning 
 prince^ induced that nobleman to become, upon this 
 occasion, an informer against his country J^ \ 
 
 How mild is this way of describing one of the most 
 infamous treasons against his country for which ever 
 man died on a gibbet ! Where was his zeal for the 
 late king when he sold himself, or, what he called his 
 honour, to William ? Where, when, if unrefuted re- 
 port be believed, he gave him false counsel in order 
 to betray him ? Where, when, being commander of 
 his body guard, he conspired to seize him ? and 
 where his aversion to William till, from his justly bad 
 opinion of his truth, he found he would not promote 
 him ? 
 
 Those who take the duke upon trust, or know 
 him only as a general, would do well to consider the 
 details of this treasonable letter relative to the de- 
 sign upon Brest. The minuteness of them shows 
 
 * Vide supra. 
 
 f Macpherson, vol. ii. 67. 
 
 how deep and determined was his roguery, and jus- 
 tifies the insertion of the whole letter. 
 
 He informs James, that twelve regiments encamped 
 at Portsmouth, with two regiments of marines, all 
 commanded by Talmashe, were designed for destroy- 
 ing Brest and the ships of war in that harbour. 
 He owned, that success in the enterprise would prove 
 of great advantage to England; but that no consider^ 
 ation could now hinder^ or ever should prevent him, from 
 informing his majesty of all that he believed to be for 
 his service. He desired the late king to make the 
 best use of the intelligence. He told him, that he 
 might depend on its being exactly true ; but he con- 
 jured him, for his own interest, to keep the secret 
 to himself and the queen. He informed him, that 
 Russell was to sail the next day with forty ships ; and 
 that the rest of the fleet, with the land-forces, were 
 to follow the admiral in ten days. He had endea- 
 voured, he said, to learn the whole from Russell ; 
 but he always denied the fact, though he was no 
 stranger to the design, for six weeks before. " This,'* 
 continues the earl, " gives me a bad sign of this 
 man's intentions." Sackville, who transmitted the 
 letter, formed, for the same reason, a like unfavour- 
 able opinion of Russell. He mentioned, " that the 
 man had not acted sincerely ; and that he feared he 
 would never act otherwise" 
 
 Such is the brilliant light in which two of the 
 greatest worthies of the Revolution appear. One, 
 breaking all trust ; complaining that the other was 
 
 N 6 
 
 
276 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. V. 
 
 5ECT. V. MARCH OF THE REVOLUTION. 
 
 277 
 
 
 not to be trusted, because not hearty enough in 
 baseness. 
 
 Russell, let it be remembered, was one of the 
 signers of the Invitation. Let us see what other 
 men of judgment think of Churchill. " As for Lord 
 Marlborough," says Hallam, "he was among the 
 first, if we except some Scots renegades, who 
 abandoned the cause of the Revolution. He had so 
 signally broken the ties of personal gratitude in his 
 desertion of the king, on that occasion, that, accord- 
 ing to the severe remark of Hume, his conduct 
 required for ever afterwards the most upright, the 
 most disinterested, and most public-spirited be- 
 haviour, to render it justifiable. What, then, must we 
 think of it, if we find in the whole of this great man's 
 political life nothing but ambition and rapacity in 
 his motives, nothing but treachery and intrigue in 
 his means ? He betrayed and abandoned James be- 
 cause he could not rise in his favour without a sacri- 
 fice that he did not care to make; he abandoned 
 William and betrayed England, because some ob- 
 stacles stood yet in the way of his ambition. I do not 
 mean only, when I say that he betrayed England, 
 that he was ready to lay her independence and liberty 
 at the feet of James IL and Louis XIV., but that, in 
 one memorable instance, he communicated to the 
 court of St. Germains, and through that to the court 
 of Versailles, the secret of an expedition against 
 Brest, which failed in consequence, with the loss of 
 the commander and eight hundred men. In short, 
 
 his whole life was such a picture of meanness and 
 treachery, that one must rate military services very 
 high indeed, to preserve any esteem for his me- 
 mory. 
 
 " The private memoirs of James IL, as well as the 
 papers published by Macpherson, show us how little 
 treason, and especially a double treason, is thanked 
 or trusted by those whom it pretends to serve. 
 
 " We see that neither Churchill nor Russell ob- 
 tained any confidence from the banished king. Their 
 motives were always suspected ; and something more 
 solid than professions of loyalty was demanded, 
 though at the expense of their own credit." * 
 
 These strictures of Hallam are not necessary to 
 tell us how Marlborough would have used the em- 
 ployment he was then seeking, had he obtained it: 
 he would have been a second Sunderland. 
 
 There is an account preserved among Nairn's 
 papers, published by Macpherson, which, with others 
 of the same nature, admirably describe the fidelity 
 
 * Constitutional Hist. vol. iii. 387. As for Russell, the hero, and one 
 of the seven eminents, who invited William, no baseness or infamy 
 recorded in history exceeds his conduct in the business of Sir John 
 Fenwick. That unhappy person, to save his own life no doubt, ac- 
 cused the future Lord Oxford, as well as other ministers of William, 
 of being his accomplices in his treason in favour of James^, and there 
 is little doubt but that the accusation was founded, though not legally 
 proved. Believe it, men of honour, if you can, that this Russell was 
 the man to move the bill of attainder against Fenwick. Well might 
 Hallam say, that the last was the victim of fear and revenge. Vol. ill. 
 399. 
 
278 
 
 Historical essay. 
 
 SECT. V. 
 
 M 
 
 and honour of character of these boasts of the Re- 
 volution. It is from Floyd, a confidential agent of 
 James, and of course of the French government. 
 The worthy persons to be treated with by this agent, 
 were, in addition to Churchill and Russell, Shrews- 
 bury himself, who, it will be remembered, also, 
 signed the Invitation* Shrewsbury was then secre- 
 tary of state ; Russell, admiral of the fleet, and cele- 
 brated for his valour (would we could say his honesty) 
 at La Hogue. 
 
 Can we, without regret, add to these Godolphin ? 
 
 By all these Floyd was entertained in confidential 
 communication ; and quite sufficient pasced to prove 
 that they were all knaves. 
 
 What should have made them so, enjoying or 
 expecting all that their ambition could desire, is a 
 riddle in human nature ! The only clue that can be 
 conjectured for it is, either the excuse assigned by 
 Coxe, that they expected a restoration, and were 
 unwilling not to profit by it ; or they had anticipated 
 Mackintosh, in his doctrine of the legality of a re- 
 formatory revolt. 
 
 Any way the guilt is certain, and the particulars 
 
 curious. 
 
 In describing the real characters of our patriotic 
 
 deliverers, the pen falters as it proceeds. 
 
 What can it say of Danby ? — a burning meteor, 
 
 raging in every part of the heavens : at one time the 
 
 father of corruption, the scourge of honest men, the 
 
 tool of a tyrant ; at another, the champion of liberty 
 
 SECT. V. 
 
 MARCH OF THE REVOLUTION. 
 
 279 
 
 and the right of resistance. Again, the obsequious 
 placeman ; the bribed of the India Company ; twice 
 impeached for enormous dishonesty, imprisoned for 
 years, screened, but not acquitted, yet accomplishing 
 the first honours of the state, which he had thus per- 
 petually betrayed. 
 
 I need not say that, having betrayed the people 
 when the tool of Charles, he was not true to them 
 when the servant of William. The proofs are 
 abundant of his tergiversation from every cause he 
 espoused. 
 
 Having taken arms against James, and figured as 
 one of the seven champions (for he, too, signed the 
 Invitation), William could not hold him though he 
 made him a duke. Accordingly, we find him listen- 
 ing favourably to schemes for revolutionising the 
 Revolution, and embarking in them with the other 
 patriots, of whom we have just made such honourable 
 mention.* Can we wonder at the satirical ballad, 
 said (though erroneously) to have been composed by 
 Dryden ? 
 
 " Clarendon had law and sense, 
 Clifford was fierce and brave ; 
 Bennett's grave look was a pretence; 
 And Danby's matchless impudence, 
 Helped to support the knave.'* 
 
 Of Compton, the lying bishop of London (another 
 signer)^ we have already spoken. 
 
 ♦ See Macphers. State Papers. Hallam thinks his conduct so much 
 against his interest, that he feigned treason himself, in order to detect 
 it in others. 
 
 *n8 
 
 I 
 
280 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. T* 
 
 Of him, the later historian of the Revolution says, 
 " he seems to have been a thoroughgoing partisan, 
 ready to say or do any thing required of him by his 
 party, his ambition, or his safetyP He signed the 
 Invitation, and, in the presence of King James, fore- 
 swore, in the worst form, that of an equivocation, his 
 knowledge and his deed. He was ready to sign any 
 thing, like the libertine, and swear any thing, like 
 the Jew in the dramatic chef-d^ceuvre of Sheridan, 
 " The School for Scandal." For these merits he 
 was named the Protestant Bishop, and enjoyed a vast 
 reputation. 
 
 To show how he deserved it, take another instance 
 of his hypocrisy. Though one of the inviters to de- 
 throne James, and writing full of attachment to 
 William, he prays for him, he says, among other 
 reasons, for his usefulness to the crow^n ; for, adds he, 
 '* if the king should have any trouble come upon 
 him, which God forbid^ (to invade him with a fleet 
 and army was, to be sure, no trouble,) we do not 
 know any sure friend he has to rely upon abroad 
 besides yourself." 
 
 At that moment he was planning the invasion with 
 William, who must either have laughed in his sleeve 
 at him or thought him mad. We cannot but agree 
 to the remark upon it, that it was either a simplicity 
 so gross that it could not be believed, or an hypocrisy 
 to a pitch of grimace which could not be supposed 
 even in so bold a prevaricator.* 
 
 ♦ Hist. Revol, toI. ii. ISl. 
 
 SECT. V. 
 
 MARCH OF THE REVOLUTION. 
 
 281 
 
 Would that I had not another failure to examine 
 among the managers of the Revolution, who were 
 betrayers of James rather than the defenders of the 
 people. 
 
 It is impossible, however, in such a catalogue, to 
 omit the name of Godolphin. " Clarum et venerabile 
 nomen!^ A name that, for the most part, stands for 
 integrity and public virtue, sufficiently, indeed, 
 proved by his later life, — a name which Pope has 
 consecrated in the lines, — 
 
 «* Who would not praise Patricio's high desert, 
 His hand unstained, his uncorrupted heart ; 
 His comprehensive head, all interests weighed, 
 All Europe saved, yet Britain not betrayed? " 
 
 But was this always so ? And though, probably, 
 no money bribe ever went into his coffers, was Britain 
 never betrayed ? was his ambition pure ? In short, 
 was his conduct, as the minister of James or Charles 
 stainless, whatever it might have been as the treasurer 
 of Anne ? Was he true either to James or William ? 
 The answer to these questions is to be found in his 
 cognisance and participation of the most infamous of 
 all transactions, — the bribery, by Louis, of his 
 master James, to enable him to govern without his 
 people. He did not, indeed, like the corrupt and 
 base Sunderland, take a pension of 2400Z. a year 
 from France, and ask for more as a price for farther 
 treachery, but he fostered and assisted, by all the 
 powers of his office, the iniquitous mendicity of 
 James. That unfortunate man, having agreed to 
 
282 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY, 
 
 SECT. V, 
 
 S£CT. V. 
 
 MARCH OF THE REVOLUTION. 
 
 283 
 
 betxay Europe to France for the lucre of gain, and 
 received 500,000 livres as a deposit, sent the virtuous 
 Churchill, with the privity of the virtuous Godolphin, 
 to solicit for more. Under this degradation of both 
 personages, take Fox's forcible description of them 
 from Barillon. When the 500,000 livres arrived, 
 ^ the king's eyes were full of tears, and three of his 
 ministers, Rochester, Sunderland, and Godolphin, 
 came severally to the French ambassador to express 
 the sense their master had of the obligation, in terms 
 the most lavish. 
 
 In another place Fox says, " Thus ended this dis- 
 gusting piece of iniquity and nonsense, in which all 
 the actors seemed to vie with each other in pros- 
 tituting the sacred names of friendship, generosity, 
 and gratitude, in one of the meanest and most 
 criminal transactions which history records." * 
 
 Fox goes on : — " The principal parties in the 
 business, besides the king himself, to whose capacity 
 at least, if not to his situation, it was more suitable, 
 and Lord Churchill, who acted as an inferior agent, 
 were Sunderland, Rochester, and Godolphin, all men 
 of high rank, and considerable abilities, but whose 
 understandings, as well as their principles, seem to 
 have been corrupted by the pernicious schemes in 
 which they were engaged. With respect to the last- 
 mentioned nobleman, in particular, it is impossible, 
 without pain, to see him engaged in such transactions. 
 With what self-humiliation must he not have reflected 
 
 » Fox's Hist. 88. 92. 
 
 upon them in subsequent periods of his life. How 
 little could Barillon guess that he was negotiating 
 with one who was destined to be at the head of an 
 administration, which, in a few years, would send the 
 same Lord Churchill, not to Paris to implore Louis 
 for succours towards enslaving England, or to thank 
 him for pensions to her monarch, but to combine all 
 Europe against him in the cause of liberty ; to rout 
 his armies, to take his towns, to humble his pride, 
 and to shake to the foundation that fabric of power, 
 which it had been the business of a long life to raise 
 at the expense of every sentiment of tenderness to 
 his subjects, and of justice and good faith to foreign 
 nations. It is with difficulty the reader can persuade 
 himself that the Godolphin and Churchill here men- 
 tioned are the same persons who were afterwards — 
 one in the cabinet, one in the field — the great con- 
 ductors of the war of the succession. How little do 
 they appear in one instance, how great in the 
 other ! " t 
 
 As it was not Mr. Fox's design, in his history, to 
 go farther than James, he did not pursue Godolphin 
 into the reiijns of William or Anne. Had he done 
 so, his eloquent regrets at his lubricity (to call it by 
 no harder name) would not have been appeased 
 even by the splendid reputation which latterly be- 
 longed to this doubtfully charactered earl. With all 
 his fair seeming, we might say to him, as the Duke 
 
 f Fox, 96, 
 *N 10 
 
 \ 
 
284 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. T. 
 
 of Lerma to Gil Bias, that he exhibited a little of the 
 piccaroon. As to his attachment to liberty and re- 
 volutionary principles, it is notorious that he sup- 
 ported or gave the countenance of his office to all 
 James's measures, and, in particular, concurred in 
 the prosecution of the bishops. Tliat he betrayed 
 James to William we have seen ; that he afterwards 
 betrayed William to James, in the affair of Brest, has 
 been equally stated. That he was in correspondence 
 with the Pretender during the time of his glory 
 under Anne is not to be doubted. Yet Burnet says 
 of him that " all things being laid together, he was 
 one of the worthiest and wisest men that has been 
 employed in our time ;" and, when he died, adds, 
 that " he was the most uncorrupt of all the ministers 
 of state he had ever known." After what we have 
 seen, that is not saying much. While employed 
 as commissioner to William, where was his love 
 of liberty when he wrote his advice to the king to 
 retire ? This might have been right or wrong ; but 
 mark the reason. He assured him that his subjects 
 would, before a year, invite him back upon their knees. 
 The king took the advice, and was ruined. 
 
 Perhaps this was a mere error in judgment; 
 but that judgment was too clear to believe itself 
 sincere; and we may observe that, if sincere, he 
 could never have been the friend of the people. 
 It was the very advice charged by Burnet, and 
 also by William's partisans, as a crime upon the 
 Catholics and the queen. More probably, thinks 
 
 SECT. V. 
 
 MARCH OF l^E REVOLUTION. 
 
 285 
 
 Sir James, that, as he was accused, long before, of 
 betraying the counsels of James to tlie prince, his^ 
 object must have been to remove him out of the way 
 of the course the prince was pursuing. Either way 
 he was not true ; if he was playing the prince's game, 
 he was false to his master ; if sincere to his master, 
 false to the revolution. When afterwards he was 
 the leading minister of Anne, he joined with his pre* 
 cious father-in-law, Marlborough, in correspondence 
 with the exiled family, having before joined him 
 when both were in the service of William, in betray- 
 ing the expedition to Brest.f 
 
 I grieve at all this : the characters of our great 
 statesmen and supposed patriots have received irre- 
 parable wounds by the publications of modem times. 
 Their private lives, their secret motives, are brought 
 to light, as if dug out of the ruins of a moral Hercu- 
 laneum. I would rather have remained in illusion 
 and ignorance, like Horace's madman. 
 
 " Pol ! me occiJistis amici, non servastis. 
 
 * 
 
 Can we wonder at the complaint of Macpherson, 
 who, in the course of his inquiries, though granted 
 access to public papers, was generally refused the aid 
 of private records ? " Men who have become dis- 
 trustful," says he, "of the principles of their ancestors, 
 are interested in their reputation. With a prepos- 
 terous show of attachment to their progenitors, they 
 
 f Coxe's Marlborough, vol. i. 76. 
 •Nil 
 
286 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT, v; 
 
 seem to think that to conceal their actions is the only 
 way to preserve their fame."* 
 
 And here I would make a close, but that the 
 great Deliverer himself claims " our meed of 
 praise," not, I fear, without alloy. Yet was he so 
 great in most things ; so profound in his views ; so 
 vast in his designs ; so ardent and determined, and 
 yet so cool and wary in their execution, that both 
 wisdom and heroism at once seem to belong to 
 him. Every thing he did, every thing he wished to 
 do, was grand. The mere first magistrate of a 
 comparatively not powerful state, nothing less than 
 Europe itself, formed the scope of his operations. 
 When his country despaired, and in the eyes of every 
 one seemed lost, he uttered that gallant and patriotic 
 sentiment, *' We will die in the last ditch." For this 
 alone he would have been immortalised by Plutarch, 
 and ranked with his most dazzling characters. In 
 creating and organizing the league of Augsburg, 
 where kings, and emperors, and a pope himself 
 played a subordinate part, he displayed a governing 
 mind for which the same Plutarch would have set 
 him at the head of his sages. In truth, if greatness is 
 shown by doing the greatest things with the smallest 
 means, he was in every sense not merely great but 
 the greatest of his time. 
 
 And this will account for what seems the most 
 astonishing part of his character and his history, 
 
 ♦ State Papers, vol. i. 8. Introduclion. 
 
 SECTV. 
 
 MARCH OF THE REVOLUTION. 
 
 287 
 
 that his attempt upon England, one of the most 
 stupendous designs that history records, was only 
 secondary, — only subservient to his vaster object of 
 humbling Louis XIV., the Philip of Europe. That 
 the mere director of a small federal commonwealth, 
 his own power by no means unembarrassed, but 
 clogged with many opposing interests, should conceive 
 and execute the design of dethroning a great king 
 in the^midst of seeming despotic power, with a fleet, 
 an army, and a treasury at his command, and 
 that he should do this not as an insulated or final 
 object, to end in himself, but merely as ancillary 
 to one much greater, — not as a means to deliver 
 England, but as an end to liberate Europe! This 
 seems unparalleled ; yet all was conceived by almost 
 his single head, and executed by almost his single 
 arm. The attempt alone would place him in the 
 very first ranks of the Temple of Fame. 
 
 But though, with a view to the great field of 
 Europe, where he reaped nothing but glory, this 
 character of him is incontestible, did he really, in 
 regard to England, and his love for English 
 liberty, merit the title we are so glad to bestow upon 
 him of our glorious Deliverer ? Deliverer he was,- 
 but was he in this point glorious? 
 
 In part we liave already answered this in the 
 partial notices we have taken of him, by which it 
 should appear, beyond all doubt, that he was as /^ 
 hypocritical as daring; that his high, his magnificent 
 views were kept from the open light of day, by 
 
 * N 12 
 
288 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT, v; 
 
 dissimulation, and something worse ; for no one can 
 deny that wilful and deliberate falsehood formed one 
 of the bases of his Declaration.* All now agree 
 that pretending to rescue a country from the chains 
 ^^f another prince, he only wanted to impose upon 
 it his own ; and that he sought his grand object by 
 mean deceptions of those he had to manage, and be- 
 came the pander and encourager of a faction, rather 
 than the generous ally of a nation of freemen. 
 
 Such, 1 am bound to say, the same history which 
 proclaims his elevation demonstrates, with equal 
 truth, to have been the littleness of William. In 
 particular, the deceptions practised on the kings his 
 uncles, one of them his father-in-law, whose subjects 
 he was seducing, while he denied all sinister views 
 upon them, stamp him with a stain not a little re- 
 sembling dishonour. 
 
 We have seen in one of his letters written by his 
 orders on the subject of the Test laws, only a few 
 months before the invasion, that he and the princess 
 considered themselves bound, both by the laws of 
 God and nature, to show profound duty to James. 
 
 Upon this we agree in the following observa- 
 tion :— " The Revolution, as between James and his 
 subjects, requires no justification ; but the relations of 
 father and children between him and the prince and 
 Princess of Orange are essentially distinct, and the 
 
 ♦ Can we suppose him to have anticipated a modern discovery in 
 political lying, that it is a j^ostponeTnent of the truth to serve a tem- 
 porary purpose ? 
 
 SECT. v. 
 
 MARCH OF THE EEVOLUTION. 
 
 289 
 
 obligations, which in this sentence they so solemnly 
 avow, contain, perhaps, the strongest case which could 
 be made against them by their enemies.''* 
 . But in regard to William's treachery to his father- 
 in-law, eases multiply. Tlie infamous Sunderland 
 was in his pay, and, it should seem, he was in some 
 degree the author of the measures that made James 
 unpopular. To encourage his zeal for popery was to 
 ruin him, and this service, according to Macpherson, 
 was performed by Sunderland with a strange kind of 
 fidelity. Sidney his uncle was sent to the Hague to 
 facilitate their intercourse; and while William encou- 
 raged James in his most imprudent and arbitrary 
 schemes by means of Sunderland, he kept Dyckfelt 
 his minister in England to promote i-evoltf 
 
 Long previous to this, in 1681, we have a sort of 
 profession of faith from William, with which his actual 
 conduct afterv^^ards is irreconcilable, consistently with 
 honour. 
 
 It seems at the crisis of the Exclusion Bill (which, 
 as we have seen asserted, the prince approved) a con- 
 ference was held upon it between him and his uncle 
 Charles XL, of which Seymour, Hyde, and Conway 
 were witnesses. The particulars are curious. 
 
 * Mackintosh, vol. ii. 134, 
 
 t Macpherson, vol. i. 477. He cites the Life of James and D'Avaux 
 for this, and it falls in with the general character of his proceed- 
 ings. The guilt of William, however, is here so particularised, that 
 it would have been better if the details of the proofs had been 
 given. 
 
 VOL. I. O 
 
290 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY, 
 
 StCT. V. 
 
 SECT. V. 
 
 MARCH OF THE REVOLUTION. 
 
 291 
 
 % 
 M 
 
 I 
 
 The prince had desired assistance against France, 
 or Flanders would be lost. " When the prince had 
 finished, the king asked, whether a parliament meet- 
 ino" on no better hopes of agreement than the last, 
 tvrould contribute to the support of his allies ? 
 
 He desired him to consider their demands, and to 
 give fairly his opinion, whether these demands should 
 be granted. He asked him, whether he would advise 
 the exclusion I 
 
 He replied, that he abhorred the thought. 
 
 He inquired whether the prince would propose 
 limitations. 
 
 " The crown must not be tied," replied the prince. 
 
 " Ought I to place the militia, the sea-ports, the 
 judges, out of my own power?" 
 
 "I shall never advise that measui'e,'' said the pritice. 
 
 " Shall all the ministers and officers suspected to be 
 the Duke of York's creatures be removed, and con- 
 fiding men, true Protestants, be raised to their place ?'^ 
 
 The prince said, "he disclaimed it all/' " These," 
 resumed the king, " were substantially the demands 
 of the two last parliaments ; atid if a parliament is 
 necessary, I desire you to propose somewhat toward a 
 better agreement." The prince replied, "that he knew 
 things only as they were mentioned abroad; but 
 that he understood not their real condition at home." 
 Being pressed to propose some plan, he desired time 
 to give his answer. * 
 
 * Macpherson, vol. 1. 36G. 
 
 Another case of deceit seems still worse than 
 this. 
 
 The prince assured the emperor, in a letter a 
 short time before he sailed, " that whatever reports 
 may have been, or might be, circulated to the con- 
 trary, he had not the least intention to injure the king,^ 
 or those who had the right of succession ; and still less 
 to make any attempt on the crown, or wish to ap- 
 propriate it to himself." This was both a direct, 
 wilful, and deliberate falsehood; and a paltry equivo- 
 cation. As far as regarded James I., we have seen 
 it was a glaring untruth ; as regarded his son, a still 
 meaner equivocation : for, though he might explain, 
 if pushed, that, in his opinion, the child was supposi- 
 titious, and, therefore, was not meant to come within 
 his notion of the right of succession ; yet, as he knew 
 the emperor was a bigoted Roman Catholic, Mack- 
 intosh holds (probably rightly) that he was inte- 
 rested for the son of James as well as himself, and 
 would construe the words so as to include him. 
 
 Another charge is of a deeper die ; for as early 
 as the Exclusion Bill, full five years before the inva- 
 sion, he had machinated with those who favoured it, 
 ^ and it would appear, by a letter from Montague 
 to him, after he became king, that he knew and ajn 
 proved of the Rye House Plot."* If this be so, two 
 important inferences arise from it ; extreme guilt on 
 his part, and the total refutation of the doubts which 
 
 * SlipTA. 
 
 • o2 
 
) 
 
 '■ • 
 
 292 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. V. 
 
 SECT. V. 
 
 MARCH OF THE REVOLUTION. 
 
 293 
 
 \ 
 
 almost all extreme Whigs pretend to throw over the 
 existence of that plot. 
 
 Ever dissembling, yet ever pursuing, his great 
 object, the crown of his father-in-law, under what- 
 ever disguises, his negotiation with the pope himself, 
 to incline him against James, is a consummation 
 
 of art. 
 
 The pope (Innocent XI.) was the enemy of Louis, 
 and so far was inclined to the prince's designs ; but 
 the interests of the papists in England interfered. 
 With uncommon adroitness William outwitted the 
 holy father, even in this. Through his friend, the 
 prince of Vaudemont, whom he sent to Rome for the 
 purpose, he explained to his holiness, that he was 
 wrong to expect any advantages to the catholics in 
 England from James; because, being a declared 
 papist, the people would not support any of his mea- 
 sures. But^br himself, should he mount the throne^ he 
 might take any step in their favour without jealousy; 
 and would certainly procure them toleration, if the 
 pope would join the emperor and king of Spain in 
 favouring his attempt. What is surprising, this thin 
 veil blinded the holy father, and our great Deliverer, 
 who certainly never afterwards thought of his pro- 
 mise, obtained money from the Roman church for 
 the express purpose of dethroning a Roman catholic 
 
 king.* 
 
 I pass by the numerous evasions by which he 
 
 • Mftcphcnon, voL i. 495. Ht cites the MSL 
 
 parried his father-in-law's reiterated demands, that 
 he should not encourage the English malcontents, 
 who all flocked to him, and were all entertained and 
 protected. I cannot pass a proceeding, more, indeed, 
 appertaining to the morals of private life than to 
 public conduct, but yet so obviously the effect of a 
 deep political scheme, for the sake of which he 
 stooped to a degradation both of himself and his 
 pious consort, that it ought to be mentioned. Had 
 it been in France, under the regent or Louis XV., it 
 might have carried no scandal with it; but William, 
 and still more his wife, were, or pretended to be, of 
 the strictest and most exemplary behaviour in all the 
 decencies and duties of religion: who then could 
 believe that, in order still more to conciliate the 
 Duke of Monmouth, one of his most useful tools in 
 intriguing with England, he obliged the princess to 
 receive with uncommon marks of honour the ludy 
 publicly known as Monmouth's mistress; and, though 
 of a most jealous disposition, to receive visits alone 
 from Monmouth himself?* 
 
 Where he complied with the requisition of the 
 Lords, and their motley compeers the e:p-commons, 
 to take upon him the government, he descended to 
 the merest coc^uctry. 
 
 How unworthy a magnanimous Deliverer who had 
 armed and come from far for the \<'V'^' purpose ! 
 
 * D*Av4iux, ^. Macphcr^. i. 437. Th# lady ir«) J^^ HarrtH 
 WcntwoTtb. 
 
 • o3 
 
294 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY* 
 
 SECT, V. 
 
 II 
 
 
 He affected to say the thing was a matter of 
 weight, and must be considered ; that thing which had 
 for years been the object of his ardent longings ; for 
 which he had for years been laying the ground ; and 
 for which for years he had sacrificed his private cha- 
 racter for openness and honour. 
 
 However he soon found that whatever was the 
 weight, he was able to bear it, and accepted the offer ; 
 " affecting to confer an obligation, by taking upon 
 him a laborious trust in the sovereignty of the 
 English nation, the first object of his ambition, and 
 
 of his life.'^ 
 
 By some it was said that the offer, even though 
 made by turn-coat peers, and his own spurious 
 progeny, the temporary commons, was thought to 
 have been tardy in coming. Sheffield says, they 
 were quickened by the presence of Schomberg's 
 troops, and also by a murmur that went about, 
 " that the city apprentices [were coming down to 
 Westminster, in a violent rage, against all who voted 
 against the prince of Orange's interest. There 
 appears, indeed, no ground to suppose that the 
 prince directly suspended over their deliberations the 
 terrors of his army or of the populace ; but it is far 
 from being equally probable that the benefit of these 
 terrors was not felt on that, and employed on other 
 occasions. The fury of the rabble was soon regarded 
 as a familiar engine of policy to promote the objects or 
 interests of the prince. It was associated with the 
 policy of William^ both in Holland and in England^ by 
 
 SECT. V. 
 
 MARCH OF THE REVOLUTION. 
 
 295 
 
 an odious by-word so well understood as to be employed 
 in a document signed by five prelates. Referring 
 to the author of a libel upon them, they say, * he 
 (the author) barbarously endeavours to raise in 
 the English nation such a fury as may end in De 
 Witting us, — a bloody word (they add) but too well 
 understood.* * 
 
 These sad instances of a falling off from honour, but 
 for which the character of William would have been 
 perfect, must still be increased by one transaction 
 more, which will sufficiently demonstrate how little 
 he cared for the cause of England, except as it con- 
 tributed to his own views ; I allude to his consent in 
 negotiating the peace of Ryswick, to the abandon- 
 ment of all that he had professed to be his object 
 in assuming the crown ; namely, delivering the coun- 
 try from a family of papists, and the disgrace of a 
 spurious heir. 
 
 It is remarkable, that none of the contemporaneous 
 historians knew, or, at least, have mentioned this, 
 although James himself has recorded it in his life, — 
 strange that it should have taken a period of seventy 
 years before it was published to the world ! The ac- 
 count by Macpherson is as follows : — 
 
 '^ While negotiating the peace, the two hostile ar- 
 mies lay opposite to one another in the neighbourhood 
 of Brussels. The Earl of Portland, on the part of the 
 king of England, and De Boufilers, in the name of 
 
 ♦ Hist. Revol. vol. ii. 284. 
 
 * o 4 ^ 
 
296 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. V. 
 
 t* 
 
 V 
 
 Louis, met between the armies and held a confer- 
 ence in the open field, on the tenth of July. They 
 met again on the fifteenth and twentieth of the same 
 month, in the same manner; but, on the twenty- 
 sixth of July and the second of August, they retired 
 to a house in the suburbs of Hall, and reduced to 
 writing the terms to which they had agreed in the 
 field. The world have hitherto been no less ignorant 
 of the subject of these interviews than Europe was 
 then astonished at such an uncommon mode of ne- 
 gotiation. As William trusted not his three pleni- 
 potentiaries at the Hague with his agreement with 
 France, mankind justly concluded that a secret of 
 the last importance had been for some time depend- 
 ing between the two kings. Time has at length 
 unravelled the mystery. Louis, unwilling to desert 
 James, proposed that the Prince of Wales should 
 succeed to the crown of England, after the death of 
 William. The king, with little hesitation^ agreed to 
 this request. He even solemnly engaged to procure the 
 repeal of the Act of Settlement ; and to declare, by 
 another, the Prince of Wales his successor in the 
 throne. 
 
 " Those who ascribe all the actions of William 
 to public spirit, will find some difficulty in reconciling 
 this transaction to their elevated opinions of his cha- 
 racter. In one concession to France, he yielded all 
 his professions to England ; and, by an act of indis- 
 cretion, or through indifference, deserted the principles 
 to which he owed the throne. The deliverance of the 
 
 i 
 
 SECT. V. 
 
 MARCH OF THE REVOLUTION. 
 
 2&7 
 
 nation was not, however, the sole object of this prince. 
 Like other men, he was subject to human passions ; 
 and, like them, when he could gratify himself, he 
 served the world. Various motives seem to have 
 concurred to induce him to adopt a measure, un- 
 accountable on other grounds. The projected peace 
 was to secure the crown in his possession for his life. 
 He had no children, and but few relations; and 
 those he never loved. The successors provided by 
 the Act of Settlement he either despised or abhorred ; 
 and he seems, hitherto, not to have extended his 
 views beyond the limits of that act. Though James 
 had displeased the nation, he had not injured 
 William. The son had offended neither; he might 
 excite compassion, but he could be no object of 
 aversion. The supposed spuriousness of his birth 
 had been only held forth to amuse the vulgar ; and 
 even these would be convinced by the public ac- 
 knowledgment intended to be made by the very 
 person whose interest was most concerned in the 
 support of that idle tale." 
 
 These reflections of Macpherson seem so just, 
 that nothing need be added. They confirm, in an 
 eminent degree, all that I have ventured to hazard 
 on the defective side of the character of a man who, 
 but for these defects, would have been as great 
 and glorious as we wish to consider him ; and who, 
 as it was, was, as I have allowed, the greatest of his 
 fime. 
 
 * o 5 
 
 -11 
 
 h 
 
298 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 «ECT. V. 
 
 He, has, perhaps, detained us too long from the 
 concluding scenes of the Revolution ; with which, 
 and the reflections they prompt, I will close these 
 strictures, already, I fear, too long. 
 
 NOTE. 
 
 In page 63. no notice is taken of the unjustifiable design of the 
 officers, as far as it went, to coerce the parliament by marching to 
 London. It is passed in silence, not only because it was never con^ 
 ceived by more than the three or four officers who canvassed it, but 
 l>ecause no proof whatever beyond the assertion of those who 
 answered their own purposes by it is given that it was with the 
 privity of the king. His privity was confined to the jyetUion, which 
 he certainly approved, and who can either blame or wonder, whatever 
 its prudence ? 
 
 END OF THE FIRST VOLUME. 
 
 London : 
 
 Printed by A. Spottiswoodb, 
 New-Street- Square. 
 
 I 
 
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES 
 
 This book is due on the date indicated below - 
 expiration txf a defip'^ ^ '^' * ' # ?*> 
 
 'Ji. 
 
 COLUMBIA UN 
 
 VERSITY LIBRARI 
 
 0023837349 
 
 ' iii » i %. f i . pi i 
 
 ^A2.0C7 
 
 ?*»■ 
 
 V/2.\ 
 \ 
 
 I . 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 h- 
 
 
 
 
 r-l 
 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 <t 
 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 p^ 
 
 
 
 
 sO 
 
 •-4 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 • 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 CM 
 
 ^-4 
 
 C3£ 
 
 
 4- <NJ 
 
 < 
 
 
 O^ 
 
 "X 
 
 IC 
 
 ill I iinm m^tiilimtimmim 
 
 lAtm-^' 
 
 AOb 11841 
 
THE LIBRARIES 
 
>•»■, 
 
 AN 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY 
 
 ON 
 
 THE REAL CHARACTER AND AMOUNT OF THE 
 
 PRECEDENT 
 
 OF 
 
 THE REVOLUTION OF 1688: 
 
 IN WHICH THE OFIKIONS OF 
 
 MACKINTOSH, PRICE, HALLAM, MR. FOX, LORD JOHN RUSSELL, 
 
 BLACKSTONE, BURKE, AND LOCKE, 
 
 THE TRIAL OF LORD RUSSELL, AND THE MERITS 
 
 OF SIDNEY, 
 
 ARE CBITICALLT CONSIDERED. 
 ADDRESSED TO 
 
 THE RIGHT HONOURABLE CHARLES WILLIAMS WYNN, 
 
 M.P. FOB MONTGOMERYSHIRE. 
 
 BY R. PLUMER WARD, ESQ. 
 
 AUTHOR OF ** TREMAINE." 
 
 iv 
 
 
 Opinionum con)incnt& d^let dfCB^ ; ' [ ^ -* \ ; 
 Nature judicisl con fitinaih. ' ' "^ 
 
 • - « « • • V « t 
 
 IN TWO VoMJl&ESi • - 
 
 VQL. Jli-. :•. 
 
 • • * * * > 
 
 • • , • • • 
 
 • • • * t • 
 
 • • • 
 
 • « « • 
 
 i ■ 
 
 » 
 
 * 
 • • « 
 
 > • 3 • 
 
 LONDON: 
 JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET. 
 
 MDCCCXXXVllI. 
 
 1 
 
 \ 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 OF 
 
 THE SECOND VOLUME. 
 
 f^ C\ ^ ;•; ^ 
 
 5 80/0 
 
 SECTION VI. 
 
 Page 
 
 D 
 
 
 Debates in the Convention 
 
 
 
 
 * • 
 
 « 
 
 
 
 
 > • 
 
 i 
 
 * . • • 
 
 I 
 
 ) i 
 
 • • •«••• • 
 
 < • • , • • 
 
 ,• . - • • • • 
 
 • •' 
 
 I « * 
 
 , c • , • 
 
 • » • • 
 
 « • > > 
 
 
 London : 
 
 Printed by A. Spottiswoode, 
 New-Street-Square. 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 Is^. I, Copy of a letter from Colonel Ambrose Norton^ 
 
 Major in the Duke of St. Albans's regiment of dra- 
 goons, giving an account of the desertion of some of the 
 troops, and the means used to seduce them to join the 
 Prince of Orange. Taken from Carte's memorandum 
 book, marked * vol. xii. 4to., and published in Mac- 
 phersons State Papers, i. 287- 
 
 .No. II. The Speech of Denzill Holies, one of the Com- 
 missioners of the House of Commons, in I66O, to 
 King Charles II., announcing the proclamation that 
 he had returned to his throne 
 
 - 41 
 
 - 55 
 
'•V 
 
 IV 
 
 CONTENTS- 
 
 Page 
 
 No. III. — Opinions of Mackintosh and Hallam upon 
 the Debates in the Convention Parliament, l689 - 58 
 
 No. IV. — Opinions of Mr. Fox * 
 
 No. V. — Opinions of Locke • 
 
 No. VI. — Of Lord Russell, and Algernon Sidney 
 
 No. VIL— The Oxford Decree 
 
 - 72 
 
 - 136 
 • 200 
 
 - 322 
 
 AN 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY, 
 
 &c. &c. 
 
 
 SECTION VL 
 
 DEBATES IN THE CONVENTION. 
 
 It is by no means either my intention, or my wish, 
 to tread over again a road so beaten, as that which 
 led to what I may call the finding of the Convention 
 Parliament upon the case of James. The arguments, 
 pro and con, in respect to a king defactOy or dejure ; 
 the expediency of creating a regent, or establishing 
 another monarch in his own right; the differences 
 of opinion between the Lords and Commons upon 
 the many important branches of the original great 
 verdict of the latter, which, at length, they carried : 
 all these are too well known to be more than referred 
 to. 
 
 But the real amount of the precedent established ; 
 
 VOL. II. B 
 
 N 
 
HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. VI. 
 
 the inferences fairly to be drawn from it, and the , 
 doctrines raised upon it by those who voted it, com- 
 pared with those of its modern expounders ; although 
 in a great measure already canvassed, we maty, at 
 parting, be allowed to sum up. 
 
 If it had not already been accomplished, as we 
 went along, I should wish to dwell still upon the 
 sources of authority upon which those who assumed 
 to pronounce so mighty a judgment felt themselves 
 
 empowered to act. 
 
 1 have called the Convention the bastard ot a 
 '^bastard. I still think it was so. I, at least, under ^.^- 
 all its metamorphoses, its bolstering, its plastering,-* 
 its visors, its jury masts, see not the real people, or 
 their real representatives in the two assemblies which 
 gave us (nor am I ungrateful) our present excellent 
 
 constitution. t i j 
 
 There is an old saying, more true than polished, 
 that « no pains will wash a blackamoor white." Ten 
 thousand votes of an after Parliament would not, in 
 my mind, give legitimacy to the Convention as the 
 real people of this land. It is the old story of the 
 world, the elephant, and the tortoise; what sup- 
 ported the tortoise could never be made out. 
 
 That the Convention assumed and exercised a 
 nower by which (no matter whether true or false) 
 thev declared that James had abdicated his throne, 
 which was thereby vacant, and that they filled up the 
 vacancy with William ; to which, after some severe 
 contests in argument, and still severer in the field, 
 
 SECT. VI. DEBATES IN THE CONVENTION. 3 
 
 the whole nation, at length, submitted ; — all this is 
 clear, as well as that we are now bound by it. But 
 that the assembly which did this were the legitimate 
 Lords and Commons of the realm, endowed with 
 powers from the people to do it in their name; or, in 
 fact, that they were any thing more than what they 
 called themselves, a Convention^ which means merely 
 a meeting of persons who took upon themselves to 
 risk what they did, and trust to their fortunes after- 
 wards ; I cannot be persuaded. 
 
 To try this, let us suppose that James had suc- 
 ^ceeded in any of his projected invasions; suppose 
 w William, instead of conquering, had been conquered 
 at the Boyne ; not only that Ireland, but England, 
 had been recovered, and that James had returned in 
 triumph to London ! We have seen what his unex- 
 pected return had before effected when, though he 
 had been a prisoner, robbed, insulted, and given 
 ever for lost; though his rival with his army was 
 within twenty miles of him, and had even been ad- 
 dressed by the Lords, and all the magistracy of the 
 metropolis to take possession of it, with a promise to 
 support him as their refuge ; — yet, in one little day, 
 without arms, without attendants, with no support 
 but his kingly character, he was received with accla- 
 mations by the populace, submission by the authori- 
 ties, and more than the usual portion of respect from 
 his court and council. 
 
 Was there any form adopted for this ? any rescind- 
 ing of votes; any solemnity of retraction of what 
 
 B 2 
 
 M 
 
 1?. 
 
 
HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. vr. 
 
 SECT. VI. DEBATES IN THE CONVENTION. 
 
 VV 
 
 had been done against him, to enable him to resume 
 his powers ? No ! he had only to appear, and was 
 king again. Ay ! as far as submission went, " every 
 inch a king." 
 
 A republican will say he was but a " king of shreds 
 and patches;" but that is as it turned out, when 
 force was again applied. It was not the laiv^ but the 
 sword that made him so; and this incident is an 
 ilkistration not less strong, on that account, of the 
 position I am laying down. 
 
 That position is that, notwithstanding the all-de- 
 ciding vote of the Convention as to compacts and the 
 violation of compacts, the abdication and the vacancy 
 of the throne, notwithstanding the choice of William to 
 fill it, and even the oaths of allegiance and the Bill 
 of Rights ; had James been able to return to his 
 kingdom without conditions, as Charles had done 
 y before him, he would, as Charles had done, or as he 
 himself did on his return from Feversham, have 
 remounted the throne, and resumed his kingly ofBce 
 as a thing of course, without rescinding in form any 
 of the votes or acts of the Convention declaring his 
 forfeiture. In this he would have resembled his 
 ancestors of York and Lancaster, who, as they alter- 
 nately were successful, resumed their lost power, and 
 used it to make or abrogate laws as they thought 
 fit. 
 
 I have mentioned the return of Charles. This is 
 most important as a precedent. The manner of it 
 implies much. He and all his race had been over- 
 
 whelmed by proscriptions. Vote after vote had 
 passed under every ruling power in the state for the 
 time being, by which one would have thought it 
 impossible for a Stuart to exist in safety, much more 
 to reign. There was a parliament actually sitting, 
 in which, as to form, was vested all the sovereignty 
 of the nation. It is usual to say, they recalled him. 
 That is a mistake. In point of form (I do not say 
 in substance) he recalled himself. The nation was 
 distracted ; they knew not what to do. They longed 
 for his return to heal their disorders. This makes 
 no difference in the argument; no more than that 
 the form of his restoration, by which I mean the 
 marcli of his proceeding, was contrived by Monk 
 and others beforehand. 
 
 See, however, what the Lords and Commons them- 
 selves published to the world in the proclamation 
 which, upon a conference held for the purpose, they* 
 agreed to issue. The form and wording of it are of 
 the last importance in regard to the doctrine to be. 
 founded upon it. 
 
 " Although it can no way be doubted but that 
 his Majesty's right and title to his crown and king- 
 doms is and was every way completed by the death of 
 his most royal father of glorious memory, without the 
 ceremony or solemnity of a proclamation ; yet, since 
 proclamations in such cases have been always used, 
 to the end that all good subjects might upon this 
 occasion testify their duty and respect ; and, since the 
 armed violence^ and the other calamities of many 
 
 B 3 
 
 If 
 I 
 
 
 i 
 
4 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSASr. 
 
 SECT. VK 
 
 II 
 
 years last past Lave hitherto deprived us of any such 
 opportunity whereby we miyht express our loyalty and 
 allegiance to his Majesty : we, therefore, the Lords 
 and Commons now assembled in parliament, togetlicr 
 with the lord mayor, ahlermen, and commons of 
 the city of London, and other free men of this king- 
 dom now present, do, according to our duty and 
 allegiance heartily, joyfully, and unanimously, pro- 
 claim, that immediately upon the decease of our late 
 sovereign lord Kiny Charles^ the imperial croicn of the 
 reahn ofEnyland^ and of all the hinydoms^ dominions, 
 and riyhts belonyifiy to tlie same did, by inherent hirlli^ 
 riyht and lawful undoubted succession descaid and come 
 to his most excellent Majesty Charles the Second, as being 
 lineally, justly, atid lawfully next heir of the blood royal 
 of this rexdvx ; ami that by the goodness and providence 
 of Almighty God lie is, ofEiigloJid, Scotland, and Ireland 
 the most potent, mighty, and und/yubted King ; and 
 tlierewito tee most humbly and faithfully submit and 
 oblige ourselves, our heirs, ojul posterity for ever, 
 
 « God save tJie Ki^igr ♦ 
 Such were the opinions of persons who had many, 
 or most of tliem, concurred in dethroning their ku)g, 
 proscribing every brancli of his family, and ruining the 
 monarchy to its foundations. For, if ever a total sub- 
 versionofone constitution and the setting upof another 
 had been completely effected, and all return guarded 
 against by the most solemn and deliberate acts, it 
 
 SECT. Vt. DEBATES IN THE CONVENTION. 7 
 
 surely was this. It was fortified, too, not merely by 
 a ten years* acquiescence and obedience by the bulk 
 of the nation, but by two great and successful wars 
 with Scotland and Ireland ; by the most lawful ad- 
 judications of courts of justice; the change of the 
 whole magistracy, and tlie relentless support of tlio 
 public executioner. 
 
 What then could piwluce this wonderful change? 
 this return to all the old homely docuines of the 
 Constitution? 
 
 One would suppose nothing but acts equally so- 
 lemn and formal, rescinding all former acts, and 
 proceeding by some new election of the whole nation 
 to recall Charles, and place him upon a throne which 
 would be thus of his own acquiring. Did the Con- 
 Tcnlion then write to him? No; he wrote to /Awi; 
 and he wrote as then- king, claiming the throne as 
 a ri'^ht " which God a7id nature had made his due^ • 
 
 Did ll>ey answer that his right had passed away by 
 a tliouifand votes of tlie nation or their represent- 
 atives, but that tliey would rescind them all, and elect 
 him anew? No ! besides die proclamation, in their 
 own letter to him they allowed his right, acknow- 
 ledged him tlieir sovereign as if his power had never 
 been interrupted, and hailed his return without any 
 conditions. They began by calling him their " most 
 royal sovei-eign ; they trusted, and, in aU humility, 
 were bold to affirm that his Majesty would not be de- 
 
 * Dc^aratiodi from Brtda. 
 B 4 
 
8 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. VI. 
 
 Ill 
 
 i\\ 
 
 ceived in them, and that they would never depart 
 from that fidelity which they owed him, that zeal 
 which they bore to his service, and their constant 
 endeavour to advance his honour and greatness." * 
 
 They disclaimed, too, in the name of the preceding 
 parliament, the violence which had been done to the 
 sacred person of his father, which they laid upon a 
 few ambitious and bloody persons, not on a parliament 
 which had vowed his defence. 
 
 But the miraculousness of the change, as also the 
 evidence that no new election or recall of old pro- 
 scription was necessary to make him remount the 
 throne, is most pointedly to be collected from the 
 speech to him of Denzill Holies, one of the most 
 active and leading members of the Long Parliament, 
 who began the war against his father, and who, be it 
 remembered, was, therefore, one of the five whom 
 Charles attempted to arrest in person, in the midst 
 of the House of Commons. This great champion of 
 the people, at the head of a deputation of the House, 
 sent to Charles at Breda, addressed him as their 
 dread sovereign^ said that they prostrated themselves 
 at his royal feet by command of those who sent them, 
 who would all be there in person, but that the duty 
 of their offices and of his service demanded them 
 elsewhere ; that never parliament made greater de- 
 monstrations of zeal, affection, and loyalty to any of 
 their kings than this; their hearts were filled with 
 
 * Answer to the Declaration from Breda, 
 
 ft 
 
 SECT. VI. DEBATES IN THE CONVENTION. 9 
 
 veneration of him ; longings for him ; confidence in 
 him; " your majesty," he added, " cannot imagine 
 nor can any man conceive it but he who was present 
 to see and hear it, with what tellings out of the soul 
 a stupendous concourse of people heard the pro- 
 clamation, ' proclaiming you to be our most potent, 
 mighty, and undoubted king.' " Finally, he was 
 the light of their eyes and the breath of their nos- 
 trils.* 
 
 It may be said that this was all management ; that 
 the Commons might have made what conditions they 
 pleased ; that the king was at their mercy. No 
 matter : they did not make those conditions ; and, 
 without even glancing at the different modifications 
 of the constitution, which had all received the nation's 
 sanction for ten years together, they received him, 
 with all his prerogatives entire, without any new in- 
 vestiture or solemn abrogation of the votes against 
 his family. 
 
 The mode in which the House of Peers, which 
 had been voted useless, was restored, was curious.. 
 One morning they found the doors of their chamber 
 open ; and ten or a dozen walked in as if nothing 
 had happened, took their seats, and began to vote. 
 
 So I hold, it would have been with James, or 
 James's son, had he conquered a restoration or been 
 
 * Chandler, i. 13. The whole speech is such a wonderful eluci- 
 dation of the vicissitudes of history, that I have set it forth in the 
 Appendix, No. TI. ^ 
 
 B 5 
 
10 
 
 UISTOUICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. VI. 
 
 ir 
 
 admitted without opijosition ; and if so, the validity 
 of the acts of the Revolution Convention would have 
 been not so niucli destroyed by fresh votes, as pas^d 
 by without notice, as if they had never been.* Could 
 this liave been, if really these acts had been the work 
 of the people at large, resuming their trust, as Locke 
 thinks, or their inalienable rights, as Mackintosh 
 holds ? No ! As tliere must have then been a return 
 to the individual personal sovereignty of every man 
 composing tlic nation, in order to delegate it to a 
 new family, as these jurists have supposed they did, 
 80 if they had chosen to renounce the new family and 
 return to James or his lieir, whetlier forced to it by 
 conquest or receiving him by choice, a rteic election 
 and a previous abrogation of tHe preceding one would 
 have been necessary. 
 
 But with usurped power, such as that of tl)e Long 
 Parliament, or such a defective and irregular as- 
 sumption of it as by a convention to produce a con--^ 
 vention such as we have dctscribed, no such new 
 election would have been required. The proclam- 
 ation (say for the son of James) might have pursued 
 the same tenor as that for Charles, and it would have 
 been bruited by the sound of the trumpet, " tliat im- 
 mediately upon the decease of our late sovereign lord 
 King James IL, the imperial crown did, by inherent 
 
 * The steps by vhich Charles If. muniref the throne, (I asc that 
 woord M hkntc appropriate Uian rtstrntd,) it is very n)a(<!rial to cson- 
 »dcT : for (he sake of conveniences therefore^ to thoetwbo think ibcm 
 vorth examining, I h*>'c thrown tbem into the Appendix. 
 
 1(11 
 
 :i 
 
 SECT, VI. DEBATK IX THE CONVENTION* 
 
 1\ 
 
 birthright, descend and come to his most excellent 
 majesty King James III/' 
 
 Had the parliament, indeed, been lawfully con- 
 vened by James, wlio alone had tlie lawful right to 
 summon it, and he had then really abdicated his 
 throne, the power of remedying the evil by filling up 
 the vacancy, would have devolved upon both houses, 
 as of course, and they would only liave used their 
 power constitutionally and according to precedent ; 
 but, in the Convention, which really met on an emer- 
 gency created by tlie sword, and unauthorised except 
 by that sword, I see nothing but a provuio?ial go- 
 vernment^ to be afterwards confirmed by the j>eopIe, 
 but not as was emphatically the case, by themselves; 
 who thus, as before alluded to, w^ere tlic tortoise that 
 supported the elephant that supixirted the world but 
 was itself supported by notliing. 
 
 Do I say that we of the present day are not bound 
 to this, by not merely the municipal, but the moral 
 law ? Certainlv not. 
 
 Tliere are two ways, and two only, I thluk, by 
 Mrhich power can be derived from the people : either 
 by their actually assemblmg and enacting tlie mode 
 in which it shall be administered; or by long acquies- 
 cence and obedience (no matter how the power was 
 acquired) confirming and ratifymg it as if it had 
 been originally their free choice. 
 
 Of the first, the election of Pharamond to be king 
 
 of the Gauls *, the creation of the American States, 
 < 
 
 * He was eiccud by his arm>-, wbo pfaK«d him CO a ibxM, and 
 
 B 6 
 
 II 
 
I 
 
 12 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. VI. 
 
 SECT. VI, DEBATES IN THE CONVENTION. 
 
 13 
 
 and those semblances of unrestrained elections, by 
 which Bonaparte acquired the different gradations of 
 his power, may be considered as instances. Of the 
 last, almost all the governments of Europe as now 
 derived: — the Carlovingian and Capetian kings of 
 France, who erected new dynasties, and our own 
 line from the Norman and Saxon families, none of 
 whom had any right but of the sword when they 
 conquered the Saxons, the Britons, the Normans. 
 Hence the sentiment of Blackstone, that " the exe- 
 cutive power in England is vested in a single person 
 by the general consent of the people, the evidence of 
 which general consent is long and immemorial usage^ 
 Hence, also, he says of King Egbert, that he found 
 himself in possession of the throne from an undis- 
 turbed possession by his ancestors of 300 years, 
 whether by force, fraud, or election it matters not to 
 inquire. "His right must be supposed indisputably 
 good " because we know no better J^ * As to William 
 the Conqueror, or, as the lawyers wish to consider 
 him, the acquirer (for that they say is the meaning of 
 conquestor), he had no right from the will of Edward 
 the Confessor (the one he pleaded), because " absque 
 generali senatus et populi conventu et edictof;^^ and 
 though the Saxon line was held to be restored in the 
 person of Henry II., yet as that made no difference 
 
 showed him to one another as their king, 
 people, who were all soldiers. 
 • Commentaries, i. 190. 195. 
 
 But the army was the 
 
 t Ibid. 198. 
 
 in his claim, which was ostensibly derived alone from 
 his Norman grandfather Henry L, the whole Norman 
 title, through all the Plantagenets, seems in reality 
 to have been of the nature of that we are describing, 
 an acquisition, whether by the sword or otherwise it is 
 too late or unnecessary to inquire, because deriving its 
 best force from long acquiescence and regular usage. 
 
 Such, if I may be allowed an opinion for all the 
 reasons adduced, I hold to be the real source of our 
 present happy government. I say real source because, 
 disguise it as we will and with whatever exertion of 
 ingenuity or semblance of law authority, although we 
 are all bound by the laws establishing the changes 
 made at the Revolution, and although we should 
 justly incur both the guilt and punishment of treason 
 if we warred against them ; that they were derived 
 originally either from the people in their collective 
 state or through their legal representatives, is not 
 the fact. The right of the Convention to do what 
 they did is acknowledged by us as we acknowledge 
 Kinff Egbert's, "because we knew no better." Cer- 
 tainly, at the time, none better offered, and it has 
 since been confirmed, as we have said, by usage. 
 
 Consent, then, proved by acquiescence after the 
 change, is the better, if not* the true source of our 
 present constitution. By that consent, so proved 
 we are bound as much as if there had been a polling 
 of the people in primary assemblies, and thence a 
 regular emanation of their power through real and 
 legitimate representation; and I may conclude, as 
 
— » 
 
 14 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. VI. 
 
 SECT. VI. DEBATES IN THE CONVENTION. 
 
 15 
 
 well as the most orthodox upholders of the legitimacy 
 of the Convention, with the sincere wish " Esto per-- 
 petua^ 
 
 These things being premised, I will proceed, with 
 your leave, to consider the facts stated to have been 
 found and proved by the celebrated vote of the va- 
 cancy of the throne, and the doctrines supposed to 
 be elicited from the debates, which led to its reinte- 
 gration in the person of William. 
 
 Of this vacancy, as lawyers, senators, or citizens, 
 we cannot be suffered to doubt; and no man but 
 must hold that it has become a fundamental axiom 
 of the constitution, that James abdicated, that the 
 throne was vacant, that the Convention filled it up, 
 diat the nation at large acquiesced, and, therefore, 
 TOnsented, and that we all are bound constitutionally 
 to take the truth of these propositions for granted. 
 In our closets, and using our reasoning faculties 
 upon the facts of the history, I doubt every one of 
 them. 
 
 Upon the abdication^ and, therefore, the vacancy 
 (for so the Commons argued it), Somers was the 
 leading authority : to him it was confided. 
 
 I have attended with the deference that becomes 
 me to the whole of his argument, and all his learned 
 authorities, Grotius, Calvin, Brissonius, and Budaeus. 
 But, though his explanation of the word, whether as 
 a lawyer or grammarian, must be granted, as well as 
 that it was quite as good as the word chosen by the 
 Lords, deserted^ we may still be at issue as to the 
 
 application of it to James, and still more so as to the 
 consequences, namely the vacancy of the throne, 
 which Somers drew from it. 
 
 To abdicate is to renounce : granted. And the 
 renunciation may be by deeds as well as words: 
 granted. By inference as well as direct admission : 
 granted also. On the other hand, the addition to 
 this explanation, by the Bishop of Ely, Turner, was 
 equally valid, nor did, or could Somers, in my mind, 
 deny its validity. The bishop allowed that an ab- 
 dication might be inferred from overt acts ; but " I 
 desire to know," said he, " whether Grotius, that 
 great author, in treating on this subject, doth not 
 interpose this caution: — ' If there be a yielding to 
 the times, if there be a going away with the purpose 
 of seeking to recover what is for the present left o^jf^ 
 forsaken^ — in plain English, if there were any thing 
 of force or just fear in the case, that doth void the 
 notion of abdication.' " * 
 
 I own 1 look in vain for any answer that was given 
 to this shrewd question, supposing it not denied that 
 James was under force and fear, and yielded to the 
 times when he withdrew, of which all may judge 
 from the account already given. Hence the Continu- 
 ator of Mackintosh gives the meed of praise he de- 
 serves to the bishop, who,^ he says, " discussed the 
 question on broad principles, in a tone of good faith, 
 
 VOL. II. 
 
 * Chandler, ii. 214. 
 *B 8 
 
 t^ 
 
16 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. VI. 
 
 V' 
 
 which contrasted very perceptibly and favourably 
 with the manner of the Commons.'* * Nor did any 
 of them even attempt to reply to the forcible illustra- 
 tion of Lord Pembroke, who compared the flight of 
 James to a man who ran out of his house because it 
 was on fire, or a merchant who threw his goods over- 
 board in a storm to save his life. 
 
 Old Maynard, indeed, buckled on his rusty armour, 
 and attempted a reply, such as it was. But did he 
 deny that James was under duress ? did he assert 
 that he was free when he fled ? Far from it : he might 
 as well have held that when he was ordered by 
 William at the head of his troops to quit London, 
 he was free to remain. He, therefore, contented 
 himself with a poor, mean, and quibbling equivo- 
 cation. He said that as James had caused the 
 troubles which occasioned his withdrawing, by this 
 he had renounced his trust, and, therefore, his place 
 was vacant. 
 
 To you I need not observe that, to break a trust, 
 and to renounce it, by which the old man wished 
 (though he dared not go so far) to infer abdication, 
 are by no means the same thing. Why did he not 
 at once say forfeit ? Indeed, so it was retorted by 
 the Lords ; and no schoolboy but must perceive the 
 despicable sophistry as well as cunning of such an 
 answer ; and it is matter of grief as well as surprise. 
 
 * ii. 315. 
 
 SECT. VI. DEBATES IN THE CONVENTION. 
 
 17 
 
 that in this glaring fallacy he was supported by such 
 a man as Holt. However, riem quocunque modo 
 seemed the motto of our Whig deliverers : they lost 
 their reputation, but they gained their object. 
 
 Not content with this, Maynard stooped to another 
 quibble, infinitely more degrading. For the law 
 declaring that no man while living can have an heir 
 {nemo est hceres viventis), the old rogue, as Swift calls 
 him, did not blush to argue that as James was alive 
 he could have no heir, and therefore^ there being no 
 heirs, the throne was vacant. 
 
 What can we say to this miserable reasoning — this 
 affront to common sense? — but that the men of 
 enlarged sense on Maynard's own side disdained to 
 take it up. 
 
 It was in vain replied that the whole argument of 
 the Commons was, that James was civilly dead, and 
 that the heir succeeded, as if by lunacy or incurable 
 infirmity he was incapacitated from governing. 
 
 Another pretence denoting the same poverty of 
 argument of the Commons was, that unless you could 
 point out who the heir was there could be none, and 
 hence again the throne was vacant. 
 
 To this it was replied, and a question asked, If 
 two persons are in a room, one of whom is certainly 
 a ffiven individual, but which is which is not, for the 
 moment, known, would you say therefore the indi- 
 vidual is not there ? * 
 
 VOL. II. 
 
 y 
 
 * Lord Pembroke. 
 *B 9 
 
18 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. VI. 
 
 SECT. VI. DEBATES IN THE CONVENTION. 
 
 19 
 
 To this subtlety was added another, proving still 
 more, I think, the deficiency of logical argument in 
 .the Commons. 
 
 They conceive, say they to the Lords, that they 
 need not prove the vacancy to their lordships, be- 
 cause they had already admitted it by their address 
 to the prince — to do what? assume the crown? 
 No; to take upon him the administration of public 
 affairs ! 
 
 So, then, to administer the public affairs in the 
 absence of the king, proves that there is no king 
 at all. Surely it does not require even an inferior 
 schoolboy's mind to refute such a fallacy. 
 
 The great difficulties were three : — first, whether 
 allowing the word abdication to be more proper than 
 desertion, it meant voluntary abdication or not ? To 
 this the Commons never did, and never could be 
 got to reply, though Maynard indulged in vague 
 common places, and the analogies of vulgar advocacy 
 at the bar. 
 
 The next difficulty was, how the vacancy, as to all, 
 
 Svas necessarily occasioned by the abdication of one ? 
 
 which is expressly made to appear by the words of 
 
 the resolution, " hath abdicated the throne^ which is 
 
 thereby vacant^ 
 
 V The third. Whether the throne's being vacant, if 
 it was so, meant vacant in regard to James alone, or 
 to his whole family and race ? 
 
 All these difficulties, we must agree with the Con- 
 
 tinuator of Mackintosh in thinking, were occasioned 
 by the confused and illogical language of the resolution. 
 Most of the Lords, who spoke very candidly, said, 
 that if the vacancy applied to James alone, they be- 
 lieved their House would soon be brought to agree ; 
 but if to his heirs, it would make the throne elective, 
 to which they would not consent. 
 
 This was intelligible, plain, and manly on their 
 parts; but in vain did Lord Rochester and others 
 beg of the Commons to explain their own meaning*; 
 the Commons, from design, which did them no 
 honour, shrank from answering it. Not one grappled 
 with the question, but reiterated the assertion of an 
 unexplained abdication and an ambiguous vacancy. 
 Even Somers condescended to an unworthy evasion ; 
 he said that to answer what was meant by vacancy 
 was not in their commission, for they came there only 
 to maintain their expression in their vote against the 
 amendments of the Lords. A poor subterfuge, and 
 more like a feed lawyer confined to his brief than an 
 enlightened statesman, discussing one of the greatest 
 crises that could befal a nation. At the same time it 
 was a virtual acknowledgment that to answer the 
 question honestly was not in his power. 
 
 He added, that if the Lords would agree to the 
 fact, it would then be time enough to explain what 
 was meant.t 
 
 • Oiandler, ii. 228. 
 
 f Id. ii. 238. 
 
 VOL. II. 
 
 B 10 
 
20 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY, 
 
 SECT. VI. 
 
 SECT. VI. DEBATES IN THE CONVENTION. 
 
 21 
 
 Is It not disgusting that these high and vital ques- 
 tions, decisive of the rights of a whole nation, nay, 
 almost of human nature itself, should thus be made 
 a subject of chicanery and special pleading, as if, 
 instead of boldly asserting and demanding the rights 
 of freemen, we were to be tricked into them, from a 
 cowardly fear of not being able to prove them by 
 convincing arguments ? 
 
 In the same spirit Somers relied on the case of 
 Richard IL, who had abdicated, but was afterwards 
 dethroned, and the throne declared vacant, on which 
 Henry IV. was elected to fill it. But his case was 
 totally overthrown by Clarendon, who in this, and, 
 indeed, in his whole conduct of the argument upon 
 this occasion, might have redeemed himself from 
 the contempt in which the Continuator of Mackintosh 
 
 held his abilities. 
 
 He showed that Richard's abdication was by a 
 formal deed of resignation, and that leaving no heir 
 of his body, the Duke of Lancaster claimed the crown 
 
 as of riff ht. 
 
 In this celebrated conference. Lord Clarendon also 
 relied upon the known and admitted maxim that the 
 king could do no wrong. Meaning, of course, what 
 is always meant by it, leffal, not moral wrong, and 
 that for legal, his ministers, not himself, were answer- 
 able. This is surely very clear ; yet in the history it 
 is called a pernicious ambiguity, calculated to delude 
 kings.* 
 
 • ii. 317. 
 
 Is that really so ? Is the writer prepared to deny 
 that the maxim is constitutional, or to say that it is 
 not even wise ? You, perhaps, may think it among 
 the wisest known to our laws ; being in fact inter- 
 woven most essentially, nay almost synonymously, 
 with the greatest of the safeguards of society, the in- 
 * violability of sovereigns. 
 
 Our boasted statesmen and lawyers, indeed, allowed 
 that the king's ministers, not himself, were the persons 
 constitutionally responsible ; but, with the silliness, or 
 rather ignorance of a child, added an explanation, 
 that it was only so where the instances of mis-govern- 
 ment were slight and few. 
 
 Where they got this modification of the rule, it 
 would puzzle the best of them to make out. As it 
 was, its despicable vagueness as an argument must 
 strike, I was going again to say, a schoolboy ; but I 
 will say a schoolgirl. 
 
 To proceed : Sir George Treby, though, equally 
 with his fellows, he avoided the questions so search- 
 ino-ly, yet so fairly made by the Lords, spoke loudly 
 enough of the conduct of the king. He said he had 
 abdicated not only by endeavouring to set aside the 
 laws, but was bound by his religion to do so. 
 
 This might make his dethronement justifiable, but 
 how it was abdication, baffles conjecture. 
 
 So also another of his positions. For he did not 
 hesitate to renew the pretension of the Long Par- 
 
 VOL. II. 
 
 *B 11 
 
 1 
 
22 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. VI. 
 
 .1 
 
 II 
 
 liament, that the coronation oath olliged the king to 
 consent to such laws as the people should choose^ which, 
 as the House of Commons are the people's repre- 
 sentatives, reduces him to a mere register of their 
 edicts. Need I say that there is no such coronation 
 oath, and that such a construction of the words quos 
 vulgus elegerit^ was either a gross error, or grosser 
 falsehood. But error and falsehood did not stop 
 
 here. 
 
 The gist of the argument of this great lawyer and 
 pure Whig to prove a voluntary abdication was, that 
 James withdrew, not because he was afraid to remain, 
 but because he did not choose to govern according to 
 
 law. 
 
 Need I say more upon such a mendacious tortur- 
 ing of the fact ? 
 
 The chief argument of the Lords against the 
 vacancy of the throne was, that by filling it, it would 
 make it elective. 
 
 That it did so is one of the points most strenuously 
 laboured by Whig writers, and, as we have seen, 
 scarcely denied by Blackstone; who, we may re- 
 member, says that perhaps the Convention might 
 have filled it with a totally new family. Yet this 
 was mooted with vigour by the Commons, even 
 by Maynard himself, whose principles leaned enough 
 to the sovereignty of the people, but who said 
 such a thing was never in the thoughts or inten- 
 tions of the Commons, who only wished to avoid 
 
 I 
 
 SECT. VI. DEBATES IN THE CONVENTION. 23 
 
 the anarchy which would ensue on the vacancy of 
 
 the throne. 
 
 In this he was supported by Sir Richard Temple, 
 Sir George Lee, and Treby. The last contended 
 against the argument that the filling up of the va- 
 cancy would make the sovereignty elective, by sup- 
 posing a case of two children, whose seniority could 
 not be decided, yet one must be the eldest, and 
 
 therefore the heir. 
 
 To fix who should ba this heir, could only, he said, 
 be by election ; yet this would give no pretence that 
 in common cases, heirs were to be nominated by 
 election. He, however, unambiguously held (and it 
 throws a light upon the whole doctrine of the modern 
 Whigs which we have been considering), that though 
 there were many interruptions in the line of succes- 
 sion, there being scarce three reigns without some 
 interference in Parliament, yet the monarchy always 
 continued hereditary, and not elective.* Advocate 
 as he was for the dethronement of JameS by virtue 
 of the people's rights, he seems, in his anxiety to 
 guard against the notion that regulation was election, 
 to undervalue what sometimes was urged, that the 
 form of election was pursued at the settlement of the 
 
 crown on Henry IV. 
 
 It is true, he says, that the Archbishop did propose 
 him {as was usual at coronations), and he did there 
 actually ask them whether they did choose him for 
 
 • Chandler, ii. 249. 
 
 f\ 
 
24 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. VI. 
 
 SECT. VI. 
 
 DEBATES IN THE CONVENTION. 
 
 25 
 
 their king ; but this does not alter his argument that 
 the monarchy is hereditary. 
 
 Thus far Sir George ; and, as to any argument 
 drawn from the ceremonial of the coronation, I need 
 not to you observe that it is completely answered by 
 the universally allowed maxim of law, that the 
 moment the king dies, his heir is king as much 
 before or without a coronation as after that form is 
 gone through. 
 
 Hence I suppose it was that Sir Robert Howard 
 let out the reason why the Commons were so anxious 
 to declare the throne vacant, in generalibus^ without 
 specifying whether vacant merely as to James, or as 
 
 to all his race. 
 
 " For," said Sir Robert, " if there is a known heir, 
 could your Lordships have assembled without his 
 writ? or could you have desired the Prince of 
 Orange to take upon him the administration ? 
 
 " Pardon me for saying, if there were a known 
 heir, you have all been guilty of high treason.** . i 
 
 Here then was the secret ; and in good truth I am 
 not surprised at the fears and wariness of the Com- 
 mons. 
 
 All these difficulties were occasioned by the 
 aversion, either from cowardice or cunning, both in 
 Whigs and Tories, to decide manfully and openly 
 upon the question of the birth of the Prince of 
 Wales ; and, in so far, derogates woefully from the 
 merits, as bold defenders of liberty, of all the Re- 
 volutionists. 
 
 It was hence, no doubt, arose that important omis- 
 sion, in the new oath of allegiance, of the emphatic 
 words rightful and lawful sovereigns, the oath being 
 simply confined to allegiance to their Majesties King 
 William and Queen Mary. The editor of Mackin- 
 tosh says it was wisely done to leave an opening for 
 real, or an excuse for capitulating, scruples of con- 
 science.* 
 
 Perhaps so; but what, then, becomes of the all 
 triumphant, all inherent, and inalienable right of the 
 people to dispose of a government as they please. 
 This was certainly not exemplified by this feature 
 of the Revolution. , 
 
 Treby points out varfous instances of interference, 
 to which and more we have formerly adverted f; but 
 there is this defect attending them all, except the 
 instance of Henry IV., that the king, de facto, was 
 joined with the parliament in whatever was done. 
 
 Nor is the Convention of 1660 an exception ; for, 
 as we have shown, there was neither election nor 
 regulation in their operations, not even in the recal 
 of Charles IL, who wrote to them claiming his right 
 from the death of his father, which was instantly and 
 humbly admitted. 
 
 The notion, therefore, that the finding the throne 
 vacant made the monarchy elective was denied by 
 the revolutionists ; and, if I cite these particulars, it is 
 only to show, that the construction put upon the Re- 
 volution as a precedent, by our modern expounders, 
 
 * Vol. ii. 327. 
 VOL. II. 
 
 f Supra. 
 
 I- 
 
26 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 is not the same, but the direct contrary, of that as- 
 serted by the authors of it themselves. 
 
 Let the disciples of Mackintosh and Price look to 
 it, and demonstrate, if they can, that the principles 
 of any one of the managers of the Conference could, 
 by possibility, have persuaded them that they might 
 have elected Jeffreys or Kirk into the vacant throne 
 instead of William. 
 
 Upon the whole, whether in this important con- 
 ference we look to the meaning of the words dis- 
 cussed, the authorities and cases quoted, or the 
 representation of the sheer facts regarding the po- 
 sition of James, I think, now that passion is at an 
 end, and party feeling out of the question, we shall 
 be forced to admit that the Lords triumphed in the 
 argument. 
 
 This seems to have been allowed by Hallam, even 
 in his elaborate and vigorous defence of the Whigs, 
 to which I shall hereafter come.* 
 
 * His language is, «' In this conference, however, if the Whigs had 
 every advantage on the solid grounds of expediency, ox rather, political 
 necessity,^ the Tories were as much superior in the mere argument, 
 either as it regarded the common sense of words or the principles of 
 our constitutional law." Constit. Hist. iii. 352. 
 
 In the same strain the editor of Mackintosh observes, " The Whigs 
 acted to a much greater extent than they avowed upon the principle 
 since called the sovereignty of the people ; but the Lor^s were, of the 
 t\io, the more ingenious and consistent in their principles and argu- 
 ments." — Hist. Rev. ii. 319. 
 
 ^ Necessity we see here can be the insurgent's as well as " the 
 tyrant's plea.'* What would Milton say to it? 
 
 SECT. VI. DEBATES IN THE CONVENTION. 
 
 27 
 
 The Lords, also, in what they did contest bore 
 away the palm of manliness, openness, and consistency. 
 The Commons never could explain whether abdi- 
 cation must not, in their minds, mean a voluntary 
 act, free from the influence of terror. Those, 
 therefore, who think that it did (which, I should say, 
 comprehends all thinking men,) must feel that one 
 of the two great findings of the Convention, the 
 abdication of James, was a falsehood. The Com- 
 mons were equally false, though equally astute, to 
 their purpose, in avoiding to comply with the fair 
 question, whether, though the throne might be va- 
 cated^ it was, therefore, vacant ; that is, though James 
 might have renounced it, (supposing he had done so,) 
 that, therefore, there was no heir who had a right 
 to fill it. The fact was undoubted, that either the 
 son or the daughter of James was the lawful heir 
 against all competitors. The finding, therefore, that 
 there was no heir at all (which was meant by find- 
 ing the vacancy) was another prevarication, and a 
 very mean one. 
 
 Not one of the managers for the Commons did or 
 could answer Lord Nottingham, when he thus wound 
 up the case of the Lords : — " You seem to under- 
 stand your own words to mean less than they really 
 import. You would not make the kingdom elective ; 
 and yet you talk of supplying the vacancy by the 
 Lords and Commons. 
 
 " You do not say that the King has abdicated the 
 
 c 2 
 
28 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SFXT. VI. 
 
 SECT. VI. DEBATES IN THE CONVENTION. 
 
 29 
 
 crown for himself and his heirs ; and yet you speak 
 of a vacancy, saying nothing of a succession. 
 
 " You do not tell us what you mean. If you 
 mean only that the King has left the government, 
 and it has devolved upon his next heir, we may 
 agree. Any government is better than none. 
 
 " I desire earnestly to preserve our antient con- 
 stitution."* 
 
 It is true, by this verdict, they avoided much 
 inconvenience, evaded many embarrassing ques- 
 tions, and stifled many claims that stood in the way 
 of their object ; but they did not, after all, deliver 
 themselves from the dangers they hoped to escape 
 by getting rid of a disputed title. That danger they 
 were forced to encounter, and their posterity after 
 them, with to the full as many sacrifices as if they 
 had boldly declared, as Mackintosh would have had 
 them, the right of the people to sit in judgment 
 upon their rulers, cashier both them and their fami- 
 lies, and choose another dynasty, or even another 
 form of government. 
 
 Some (a very few, and those the lowest among them,) 
 would have done the last ; but this would not have 
 suited either William or the aristocracy ; and they 
 chose rather to involve themselves in all the intricacies 
 w^e have seen, and dabble in false pretences, to bring 
 about what might have been better supported by 
 simple truth. 
 
 * Chandler, ii. 253. See the whole of this excellent speech. 
 
 In resting part of a case, which wanted no such 
 support, upon the scandalous invention as to the 
 birth of the Prince of Wales, they acted with a mean- 
 ness which covers them with disgrace. 
 
 In voting the throne vacant, with the heir stand- 
 ing at their elbow, they astounded, yet must have 
 excited the ridicule of, all thinking, all honest men. 
 I can liken this to nothing so well as to an incident 
 after the Irish rebellion in 1798, related with great 
 humour, in a novel, it is true, but which is so replete 
 with the true original humour, as well as the virtues, 
 of the true Irish character, that all who wish to 
 know Ireland, or, knowing it already, love it, ought 
 to read it. 
 
 Some may doubt the story; but I have heard from 
 authority that, though Mr. Lover has engrafted it 
 in his delightful fictitious tale of Rory O'More, it is 
 not itself a fiction. 
 
 Perhaps the reader will not believe it, when he is 
 told that the innocent, though rebel, Rory is tried 
 for murdering a man who actually walks into court 
 during the trial, and proves his innocence ; yet the 
 jury insist upon their right to give a verdict, and find 
 him guilty. ^ ' 
 
 When chid for this absurdity by the judge, they 
 say they know he is innocent of the murder; but, 
 having been in the rebellion, it is right to make an 
 example. 
 
 They therefore persisted, and the judge is forced 
 to obtain a pardon for the accused. 
 
 c 3 
 
 
f 
 
 SECT. VI. DEBATES IN THE CONVENTION. 
 
 31 
 
 80 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. vr. 
 
 Just SO, it seems, with the Convention of 1689. 
 They find a contract with the people which never 
 existed, but which would have been very decisive had 
 it done so : they state abdication which never took 
 place, but which would have been convenient if it 
 had ; and they create a vacancy of the throne, where 
 the heirs, like the man Rory murdered, were in open 
 court, but without which they could not have filled it 
 
 with William. 
 
 Even as it was, the Commons might, possibly, have 
 not been able to overcome the better arguments of 
 the Lords, had it not been for aids somewhat dif^ 
 ferent from the theorems of the logician and the 
 
 philosopher. 
 
 For the logic of the mob, if not expressly called in 
 to their support, was offered, and, according to some 
 accounts, by no means disdained, to bring about 
 conviction in the Lords. 
 
 The weapon resorted to was the usual one of a 
 petition^ got up in the city by threats and violence^ 
 with the palpable design of intimidating the Peers. 
 It was carried from house to house, presented to 
 persons in the streets and other public places, for 
 signature, and borne or escorted by the mob to the 
 very doors of the Convention. The prayer, or rather 
 admonition^ of the petitioners was, in substance, that 
 the Protestant interest was in extreme peril, and 
 could be secured only by the immediate elevation of 
 the Prince and Princess of Orange to the throne. 
 
 The Prince and his friends were suspected of 
 
 having contrived this turbulent movement to over- 
 awe the Lords. They defended themselves by show- 
 ing that they had desired a prohibition of the petition 
 by the lord mayor. But this the Continuator who 
 seems on no occasion to be eager to repel attacks 
 upon the Deliverer, proves to be impossible ; for the 
 petition was presented the 3 1st of January, and thelord 
 mayor's proclamation, dated the 4th of February, states 
 that the prince's pleasure for it was only received on 
 that day. " Thus," significantly adds he, " there 
 was a delay oi Jive days, for the terror of being De- 
 witted to operate upon the fears of the refractory 
 lords, and almost all the bishops* 
 
 But, exclusive of menaces by petition, there were 
 menaces still more cogent of another kind, and from 
 Another quarter. King William, impatient, perhaps 
 indignant, at the delay of his object, the crown in 
 his own right, caused it to be signified that he would 
 neither be regent for his rival nor king consort 
 to his wife ; or, to use Fagel's emphatic expression, 
 his wife's gentleman-usher. This threat had its 
 effect with some, and a still more strong one with all ; 
 for he gave out that, if the Convention did not close 
 their debates, he would leave them to the mercy of 
 James, and return with his army to Holland. The 
 plan succeeded to a miracle. The Lords, who had 
 obtained the victory in the debates, surrendered all 
 the advantages of it in practice. They yielded ; and 
 the bungling resolution of the Commons became the 
 law of the land. 
 
 VOL. II. * c 4 
 
32 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. VI. 
 
 Is this expression too strong ? Consult Blackstone 
 for the effect upon him by the passages relating to 
 the vacancy of the throne. 
 
 Be this as it will, whether by terror, or manage- 
 ment, or both, the triumphant arguments and scruples 
 of the Peers gave way ; and the famous vote of the 
 Commons, with all its errors as to principles, and all its 
 falsehoods as to facts, was accepted by the Lords, and 
 thus became the foundation of our new constitution. 
 This vote is cited by Blackstone as justifying the 
 legality of the Convention Parliament, which, ac- 
 cording to the views I have hazarded, wants no such 
 justification. He seems to think that, having been 
 assembled without writ (that is the king's writ), their 
 meeting could not be defended, except upon the 
 principle of necessity. 
 
 In this we have agreed; but the cautious judge 
 goes on to show, not the necessity for assuming the 
 character of a provisional government of a nation 
 standing on its defence against oppression, but of 
 meeting in consequence of the vacancy of the throne, 
 after the abdication of the King. 
 
 " For let us suppose," says he, " that the whole 
 royal line had become extinct, that would certainly 
 vacate the government; in which case the Lords 
 and Commons, it should seem, would have a right 
 to assemble and settle the government anew, other- 
 wise there would be no government at all." 
 
 This may be granted ; but, though the Lords are 
 always provided by the Constitution, the learned 
 
 SECT. VI. 
 
 DEBATES IN THE CONVENTION. 
 
 33 
 
 Commentator had still to point out who were the 
 Commons. They could only be known by being 
 properly summoned by some legally ruling power, 
 and properly elected by the people, their constituents. 
 If not summoned, and not elected, therefore, who is 
 to know them ? where are thev to be found ? The 
 vacancy of the throne, had it been bond Jide^ and not 
 a forced and false construction, would give no right 
 to any set of men to represent the people without 
 the people's fiat ; and how that was to be obtained, 
 except by voluntary meetings, as if all had returned 
 to a state of nature, would puzzle ingenuity to ima- 
 gine. Certainly the farce of the spurious and motley 
 meeting, as played with such applause in the Com- 
 mons' theatre, by the command of his Majesty, 
 would not confer upon them the rights of the 
 Commons themselves ; and Blackstone would be still 
 to seek to find them, in order to bring them within 
 his case of necessity. 
 
 As, however, we own all the powers of such a 
 case, we all own that any meeting'of awy individuals, of 
 influence enough to be obeyed ad interim, might as- 
 sume the direction of affairs, subject to the appro- 
 bation of the people, afterwards given, either by some 
 formal recognition from their various bodies, or by 
 quiet acquiescence and uniform usage ; and this, one 
 would think, would meet the exigency of a case of 
 necessity in a more plain and intelligible mode than 
 Blackstone's requisition of a House of Commons, 
 which could not, by possibility, be found. 
 
 VOL. II. 
 
 c 5 
 

 34 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. VI. 
 
 The judge, however, (still cautious,) required, and 
 very properly, that the throne should be really va- 
 cant before his case of necessity could arise to justify 
 a Convention, though the Commons' part of it might 
 be ever so regular. 
 
 And how does he demonstrate this vacancy in 
 1689? By the fact, proved by the event? No! 
 proved by the finding of the Convention itself! 
 
 Here, therefore, with submission, there is an ab- 
 solute contradiction ; for his Convention can only be 
 justified by the fact of a vacancy of the throne ; and 
 that vacancy is only proved by the vote of Conven- 
 tion. 
 
 And thus I have endeavoured to set in a pro- 
 minent point of view some of the most important 
 objections which, in reading the history of our Re- 
 volution, deprive it, in my mind, of that character of 
 perfection and glory which our Whig ancestors were 
 fond of attributing to it, but which our modern Whig 
 doctors begin to deny. I deny it, too ; but for very 
 different reasons. They think it did not go far enough : 
 / am content with what was done, but think it was 
 not well done ; certainly that it might have been 
 better done. All was faulty, defective, disingenuous, 
 hypocritical; the hero often dishonest, the actors 
 almost always so. The most important benefits were 
 obtained, but obtained on false pretences, and, as 
 is said, by perfidious arts, as if the sages and 
 patriots who brought it about were ashamed of their 
 principles, or had not courage to act up to them. 
 
 SECT. VI. DEBATES IN THE CONVENTION. 
 
 35 
 
 Are we not founded, then, in thinking that, if the 
 betrayed King had been commonly firm, he, probably^ 
 would have repelled his enemies in the field, as the 
 Tories certainly did in the argument? Upon the 
 whole, it is an ample exposition of the French re- 
 volutionary maxim, exposed by Burke, " Get but 
 possession of power, no matter how, and get a sub- 
 sequent consent to your keeping it, and it makes it 
 as much an act of the people as if they had originally 
 given their consent to what you seized without it.* 
 
 This seems to be the real character belonging to 
 this far-famed event : the end was glorious not the 
 means. Success has gilded it, and we take the 
 glitter for gold ; but so thinly spread, that one is only 
 astonished at its weathering the storm which, in its 
 infancy, raged above, and below, and all around it. 
 
 Certainly we look in vain for anything like una- 
 nimity, unity of purpose, or universality of principle, 
 in the debate at the Conference. It seems like the 
 Lucretian philosophy respecting the formation of the 
 world, — a conglomeration of atoms, which fell toge 
 by a happy fortuity, and acquired consistency and 
 strength by time. 
 
 Still more in vain do we look into it for those 
 doctrines for the support of which Price ventured all 
 his effrontery, and Mackintosh all his genius. If 
 these doctrines ever had place in the minds of the 
 revolutionists, surely theirs was the time and the op- 
 
 * Supra. 
 
 Ui 
 
36 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY, 
 
 SECT. VI. 
 
 SECT. VI. DEBATES IN THE CONVENTION. 
 
 37 
 
 y^ 
 
 portunity for producing them. But though the Bill 
 of Rights was full, to display all the rights and pri- 
 vileges of Englishmen, and though the king was re- 
 moved, and another chosen in his place, the bill and 
 its fraraers, who had all power to do it if they pleased, 
 were altogether silent, and did not dare even to 
 glance at the power of cashiering when they pleased, 
 still less to hold that the monarchy was elective. 
 
 To observe this is the more important, because all 
 the different interferences of Parliament with the 
 succession were canvassed. Turner of Esly, one of 
 the ablest of the Tory champions, allows of seven 
 instances ; and the cases of Henry IV. and Henry VII. 
 had their full share of notice. Yet nowhere are 
 these modern doctrines to be found as the con- 
 sequences that flow from those cases. On the con- 
 trary, as is well and wisely observed by Burke, " the 
 Act of Settlement itself was cautious not to turn 
 cases of necessity into a rule of law/' 
 
 At the same time, I am aware that, on such a 
 subject, I should be wanting in duty to its eluci- 
 dation, as well as respect for two names, highly 
 distinguished by the deepest researches and powers 
 df criticism upon this very point, if I did not give 
 all the benefit that can be derived from them (and 
 that is not a little) to those who may feel interest 
 enough in it to probe the matter to the bottom. 
 
 The names I mean are those of Mackintosh and Hal- 
 lam, whose abilities, and depth of inquiry, have obliged 
 me so frequently to turn aside and encounter them 
 
 (I know not with what success). As my shafts, how- 
 ever, are all sped, and it would be inconvenient, 
 perhaps unjust, to myself to alter my course, after 
 being so near home, I have judged it best to con- 
 sider them apart. * 
 
 Perhaps these opinions of mine may startle many, 
 but not you. They may even, I fear, hurt some 
 generous, and particularly young, minds, warm with 
 the spirit of liberty, and dazzled, as I once was 
 dazzled myself, with very splendid theories, very 
 weakly supported. The foundation laid for them 
 has, with me, long given way. We have national 
 rights, and we owe much of their development, and 
 still more of their security, to the Revolution. The 
 Bill of Rights alone, though it contained little new, 
 is a treasure so precious, for the security it gave to 
 our liberties, that it would be almost useless, certainly 
 ungracious, to inquire too minutely by whom and 
 how it was brought about. Rather, perhaps, we 
 ought to think of Babouk, and be silent. 
 
 But what, then, (I think I hear a constitutional 
 lawyer say,) is the Convention Parliament to be called 
 nothing but the bastard of a bastard ? Was it not the 
 true people? Is its solemn adjudication of the truth of 
 all those memorable facts, which they found as pre- 
 liminary to their final decision that James had ab- 
 dicated the throne, which was thereby vacant — is all 
 this to be considered as nothing ? Can it be not 
 
 * Vide Appendix, No. III. 
 
38 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 SECT. VI. 
 
 SECT. VI. DEBATES IN THE CONVENTION. 
 
 39 
 
 true, when so voted, that he did endeavour to sub- 
 vert the fundamental laws; that there is a compact 
 between the king and the people, which he broke ; 
 and that he did all this by the advice of Jesuits, and 
 other wicked people ? i, 7 7 
 
 To this, these strictures answer, that the legal 
 consequerwes of this vote it is not competent for any 
 one to deny; in other words, that, the throne being 
 declared vacant, and King William chosen to fill it, 
 his title cannot be disputed. But, these legal con- 
 sequences being granted, we may beheve as much or 
 as little as we please of the propositions on which 
 they were founded. We may believe or not that 
 James actually abdicated; that the throne was, there- 
 fore, actually vacant as to his family ; that there was a 
 compact between the king and the people, or even 
 that Jesuits are wicked persons. 
 
 AH these may be true or false in the abstract ; but 
 neither their truth nor falsehood, any more than any 
 other truth or falsehood, can be proved by a vote m 
 parliament. The credibiUty, therefore, of these 
 questions, although they have become part ot the 
 law of the land, is left just where it was before this 
 memorable vote; which no more binds our mental 
 belief than the internal religious faith of the soul is 
 bound by the infallibility of popes, or the authority 
 
 of general councils. 
 
 And so much for the amount of this celebrated 
 
 precedent, from which have sprung so many warm 
 theories, so many violent_struggles. So much, also, 
 
 for its real character, and the character of those who 
 were its authors. Yet, if reverence for these may be 
 somewhat diminished in the minds of those (if any) 
 who may agree with these strictures, not the less 
 ought we to congratulate ourselves on the lasting 
 benefits which the Revolution has conferred upon 
 us. But for William and the protestant ascendancy, 
 not only our religion but our liberties might have 
 been lost. We ought, therefore, to be grateful for 
 what was done, though not blind to the manner of 
 doing it. Still less ought we to be carried away by 
 mistakes as to facts, or by supposed but fallacious 
 authorities, to countenance doctrines that never were 
 conceived, much less asserted, by those who, in our 
 wild and dangerous theories, it is a habit to suppose 
 were their enhghtened authors. If I have succeeded 
 in the endeavour to put our liberties upon their true 
 ground, as pointed out by the light of reason and 
 nature, and to disentangle them from that vast web 
 of sophistry with which some historical visionaries, 
 and many theoretical patriots, have surrounded them, 
 my object will be gained. Should I even fail with 
 many, and you approve, I shall have no regret for 
 having undertaken a task which will not then have 
 been undertaken in vain. 
 
APPENDIX. 
 
 No. L 
 
 COPY OF A LETTER FROM COLONEL AMBROSE NOR- 
 TON, MAJOR IN THE DUKE OF ST. ALBANs's REGI- 
 MENT OF DRAGOONS, GIVING AN ACCOUNT OF THE 
 DESERTION OF SOME OF THE TROOPS, AND THE 
 MEANS USED TO SEDUCE THEM TO JOIN THE 
 PRINCE OF ORANGE. TAKEN FROM CARTE's ME- 
 MORANDUM BOOK, MARKED * VOL. XII, 4tO., AND 
 PUBLISHED IN MACPHERSON^S STATE PAPERS, I. 
 
 287. 
 
 Sir, 
 
 November, 1688. 
 
 At the last camp which King James had at Houn- 
 s low-heath, which was in part of July and August 
 1688, the Earl of Dumbarton, one of his Majesty's, 
 lieutenant-generals, sent for one of the field-officers 
 of every regiment that were Roman Catholics, and 
 
42 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 the majors of the regiments where neither the co- 
 lonels nor lieutenant-colonels were Roman Catholics ; 
 and his lordship told me, and, as I presume and 
 heard, he did all the rest, that his Majesty had com- 
 manded him to send for me, to give him a list of 
 all the officers and soldiers in the regiment that were 
 Roman Catholics, which I was ordered forthwith to 
 do, because his Majesty expected an account of it 
 from his lordship. The number of Roman Catholics 
 was then very inconsiderable in our regiment, being 
 but one lieutenant, a quarter-master, and thirteen 
 troopers. 
 
 This order proved of fatal consequence, and was 
 a very great furtherance of the business of our asso- 
 ciating officers, who, daily and openly, in the camp, 
 aggravated it with all the rancour and malice imagin- 
 able ; affirming, with voUies of oaths, that it was in 
 order to turn out all the Protestant officers and soldiers 
 in the army, and to have none but Roman Catholics 
 in military employments. That, in order thereto, 
 the Irish regiments were sent for hither, and the 
 English would be exchanged, at several times, and 
 be reformed in Ireland, that not a Protestant would 
 be left in them. 
 
 This was so credited that it brought over many to 
 their party, as I have often heard ; but, being con- 
 fined by you in this relation to send nothing but 
 mere matter of fact, to my own knowledge, I must 
 confine myself more narrowly to what related to the 
 Duke of St. Albans's regiment, in which I served. 
 
 APPENDIX I. 
 
 43 
 
 His grace, both before and at the time of the late 
 great Revolution, being in France, his lieutenant* 
 colonel, Thomas Langston, having the command of 
 the regiment, and being deeply concerned in the 
 association, was very diligent to aggravate the afore- 
 said order, with all the spleen and rancour that malice 
 could invent, to most of the officers and soldiers of 
 the regiment; and seldom failed expressing it under 
 several heads, the truth of which he affirmed, with 
 voUies of oaths, to be to his own knowledge : — 
 
 First, that, in a very short time, the King would 
 not have one Protestant officer or soldier in his 
 whole army ; and that he had entered into a closr 
 league with France to have all the Protestants' throats 
 cut in England and Scotland. 
 
 Secondly, that the Prince of Orange had his 
 own taylor, that was a papist, and his boy, in custody, 
 that were hired by King James and the Earl of Sun- 
 derland, Father Petre, and Sir Nicholas Butler, to 
 poison the Prince of Orange's waistcoat ; which was 
 discovered by the boy the very morning the prince 
 was to have worn it ; and, also, that his master had 
 confessed the same. 
 
 Thirdly, that the Prince of Orange had also in 
 his custody the true mother of the Prince of Wales, 
 who had sufficiently proved the same in Holland, 
 and would do the like here. 
 
 Fourthly, that King James, so soon as his army 
 was modelled to his purpose, would set up a mass 
 in every church of England and Scotland ; and he 
 
44 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 APPENDIX !• 
 
 43 
 
 that was not a thorough papist would be hanged, 
 quartered, or burnt. 
 
 With these discourses, he frighted and wheedled 
 several officers and soldiers to undertake with him 
 in his design of deserting his Majesty, who had 
 made him lieutenant-colonel, and, if I have not 
 been mis-informed, gave him twice money to pay 
 his debts, under which he was very uneasy. The 
 further to confirm his officers to effect what was 
 designed, he introduced some of them into the 
 company of the Treason-club, as it was commonly 
 called, at the Rose Tavern, in Covent Garden, where 
 they frequently met to consult with the Lord Col- 
 chester, Mr. Thomas Wharton, Colonel Talmash, 
 Colonel Godfrey, Mr. William Jephson, and many 
 others of their party ; and there it was resolved, that 
 the regiment under the aforesaid Lieutenant-colonel 
 Langston's command should desert entire, as they 
 did, on Sunday, November, 1688. The which was 
 the better effected, because the Lord Churchill, one 
 of the lieutenant-generals, had ordered those re- 
 giments to go on the advanced post nearest the 
 enemy. The day before we deserted, a private 
 cabal was held at Salisbury to agree on the time 
 and manner of doing it. Of which cabal was the 
 Lord Cornbury, colonel of the royal regiment of 
 dragoons. Sir Francis Compton, lieutenant-colonel 
 to the Duke of Berwick's, formerly the Earl of 
 Oxford's, regiment. Lieutenant-colonel Langston, 
 commandant of the Duke of St. Albans's regiment, 
 
 and some few others of their trusty associating offi- 
 cers ; and, among the rest, it was agreed to put their 
 design in execution very early next morning ; and 
 not to intrust it to Lieutenant-colonel Sutherland, 
 who commanded Sir John Fenwick's regiment, but 
 to deceive him and all the rest of the officers that 
 were not in their interest. , 
 
 Orders were given at the setting of the watch, 
 being at ten at night, that the quarter-masters and 
 adjutants of the foresaid three regiments should wait 
 for the coming of the post, by which, they gave out, 
 they expected marching orders. They accordingly 
 did so. About twelve the post came in, and Colonel 
 Langston also, who had, accordingly to the agree- 
 ment of their late consult, the counterfeit sham 
 marching orders from Mr. Blathwayt, secretary of 
 war. He called for the bag before the officers, and 
 broke it open, and conveyed the orders so cunningly 
 amongst the letters, that none of those discovered it 
 whom he had employed to help him to look for them. 
 He immediately carried them to Lord Cornbury, the 
 commandant; and, thereupon, orders were presently 
 given out for the regiment to be ready to march, at 
 five o'clock the next morning, towards the enemy ; 
 and, the better to disguise the matter, it was given- 
 out that several other regiments were to come im- 
 mediately into our quarters, and refresh themselves, 
 and follow us. Two days and a night we marched 
 very hard, not keeping the direct road, and had very 
 little time allowed us for rest ; so fearful were they 
 
46 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 APPENDIX I. 
 
 47 
 
 of being pursued. In the march, they were very ap- 
 prehensive that the Earl of Feversham, the Duke of 
 Berwick, or Sir John Fenwick might overtake them, 
 and countermand their march ; which, if any of them 
 had, or any other general officer that was not of 
 theu' party, they were resolved to have shot them, as 
 both Lieutenant-colonel Langston and others told 
 me, when they were got into the Prince of Orange's 
 quarters; and, in order to it, Francis Langston, 
 captain lieutenant to Lord Cornbury's troop of 
 dragoons, and brother to Lieutenant-colonel Lang- 
 ston, commanded an advanced party of dragoons in 
 the front, and Lieutenant-colonel Tliomas Langston 
 another in the rear, of the three regiments that he 
 drew out of his own troop, which, he pretended, were 
 to keep the men up together, but were, in truth, to 
 have executed the aforesaid design. 
 
 In our march, the Earl of Abingdon, Sir Walter 
 Clerges, and several others, came in to Sir Francis 
 Compton, under pretence of being volunteers with 
 him, and marched with him to Axminster, within 
 six miles of the enemy's quarters, where we halted the 
 most part of that day; and, in the evening, it was 
 given out that they had discovered a design of the 
 enemy's beating up our quarters. In order to pre- 
 vent it, orders were given out for our being in 
 readiness, in the evening, to beat up theirs ; and, 
 accordingly, at the time, the trumpet sounded, and, 
 the dragoons' drums beat to horse. After which, 
 having sat three or four hours on horseback, which 
 
 was chiefly occasioned by Major Littleton, of the 
 Duke of Berwick's regiment, and Major ClifFord, of 
 Lord Cornbury's regiment, who had information given 
 them by some of their soldiers that the pretence of 
 beating up the enemy's quarters was but a sham, 
 and that it was a design to desert the king ; assuring 
 them that some of their fellow-soldiers had been 
 persuading them to go in along with them. Upon 
 which the two majors so threatened Sir Francis 
 Compton and the Lord Cornbury that, though they 
 were the two forwardest officers for deserting with 
 the regiments at Salisbury, yet Sir Francis Compton 
 hung an arse, and sneaked away back to Salisbury 
 with almost his whole regiment ; and Lord Cornbury 
 stole away with his. Lieutenant-colonel Heyford, who 
 was more resolute, stayed, with most of his troop and 
 some few others, not exceeding fifty in the whole. 
 The regiment marched back to Salisbury under 
 Major ClifFord, to whom his Majesty gave the regi- 
 ment. The whole time of being on horseback at 
 Axminster, the Duke of St Albans's regiment was 
 drawn up in a yard and back street ; and at such a 
 distance from the other two regiments, and being 
 very dark, that they knew nothing of what happened 
 to the other two regiments. 
 
 About ten at night, being the 12th of November, 
 Colonel Langston came to the head of the regiment, 
 and commanded them to march, which accordingly 
 they did ; and, about twelve, we marched into Honi- 
 ton, the enemy's quarters ; where, instead of beating 
 
48 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY, 
 
 APPENDIX I. 
 
 40 
 
 them up, we were received as friends, to the great 
 surprise of those that were not instructed with the 
 business. Brigadier-general Tahnash commanded in 
 chief, where his regiments of Scots were drawn up, 
 as, also, small parties of horse of the Prince of 
 Orange's garde du corps, Mr. Bentinck's regiment, 
 and a party of Gray's dragoons. There were no 
 regular quarters assigned for the deserters that night, 
 but they were all ordered to shift for themselves, and to 
 be on horseback, near the market- cross, at eight next 
 morning. Every officer had time given him till 
 then to give his answer, whether he was willing to 
 stay with the Prince of Orange or not; and those 
 that would had all manner of encouragement and 
 promise of preferment. Those that were not willing 
 were promised leave to return, with their horses, 
 arms, and baggage ; but, before the time was expired, 
 their answer was demanded ; and Major Ambrose 
 Norton, Lord John Metham, Cornet Archibald 
 Clincard, Cornet Dennis Ashburnham, and Quarter- 
 master David Brady, upon their refusal to embrace 
 the service, were all made close prisoners. 
 
 At the time appointed the regiment was on horse- 
 back ; and the confined officers, being just against 
 them,' they could see what past ; which was Colonel 
 Langston riding through the ranks bare-headed, ha- 
 ranguing and persuading the soldiers to stay with 
 him ; but about thirty-three, refusing to serve, were 
 immediately sent prisoners to the main guard, which 
 was kept in the market-hguse ; so that the number 
 
 of soldiers that embraced the service, besides officers, 
 were, of the Duke of Berwick's regiment, twenty-five 
 mounted, and two on foot; of the Duke of St. Alban's 
 regiment, one hundred and one mounted, and fifty 
 dragoons; in all, one hundred and seventy-eight : a 
 very inconsiderable number to make so much noise 
 as it did through the kingdom, of three regiments 
 deserting in a clap. But they, being the first that 
 broke the ice, valued themselves extremely upon it, 
 and reviled the King their master, whose money and 
 commissions they went off with in their pockets, with 
 such base and opprobrious language, as is too inde- 
 cent to be repeated. They were so far from keeping 
 their promise, of letting the officers and soldiers 
 return, with their horses, arms, and baggage, that 
 they plundered them of all they had, that only 
 excepted which was on their backs ; and with such 
 inhumanity to their fellow officers, that they would 
 not suffer them to change their foul linen for clean, 
 nor let them have their papers and money, or any 
 thing else, that was in their portmanteaus. The 
 fore-mentioned time, that the officers had given them 
 to consider whether they would embrace the service 
 or not, gave them opportunity to inform themselves 
 in what condition the enemy was ; and the account 
 given them, by several officers that came over with 
 the prince, was, that they were between thirteen and 
 fourteen thousand; but that they were in a very ill 
 condition, with their horses, by reason of the great 
 storms at sea ; and that the Prince of Orange had 
 
 VOL. II. D 
 
50 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 APPENDIX I. 
 
 51 
 
 f 
 
 long expected his friends in the army, not setting a 
 value upon the country's coming in to him. That 
 this would be extreme welcome news to his High- 
 ness at Exeter; and that we had exactly nicked the 
 time ; for, had we not come when we did, he was 
 resolved to embark at eight next morning, and go 
 back, which had been the result of three councils of 
 war. But just at the breaking up, it was carried to 
 stay twenty-four hours longer, to try if any of the 
 army would come in ; and so little hopes had they, 
 till this party came in, that the Prince had not so 
 much as brought his cannon ashore. 
 
 The Scotch soldiers of colonel Talmash's regiment, 
 that had the guard of the Duke of St. Alban's regi- 
 ment, treated them very civilly, and gave them drink, 
 and drank King James's health to them, on their knees, 
 and they declared to them their great dislike of the 
 service they were engaged in. They said they were 
 all one king's subjects, and were very sorry it was 
 their fortune to be in the service against their own 
 kin tr. They complained of their hardships and small- 
 ness of their pay ; and they wished they were so 
 happy as to be in the King's service ; and, if he would 
 but pardon them, it should not be long before they 
 should be with us : that they knew a great many more 
 that were of their minds, if they were sure of their 
 pardon and of being employed. 
 
 Many persuasive arguments, with great promises of 
 favour and advancement, were often repeated to the 
 officers, in the time of their confinement, to induce 
 
 8 
 
 them to embrace the Prince of Orange's service; and, 
 among many others, they assured them, that the 
 Prince's coming into England was upon the earnest 
 request and invitation of the lords spiritual and tem- 
 poral, the army, navy, and most considerable body of 
 the nation, to redeem them from slavery and popery. 
 They also, with many oaths and vows, assured major 
 Norton, that a lieutenant-general, under whom he 
 had served, was the deepest in the association, and 
 was the first who proposed to them the undertaking, 
 and had faithfully promised them, and sent the Prince 
 *ord, that he would be there that night, or to-mor- 
 row morning at farthest ; and not he only, but many 
 others also, the most considerable officers in the army, 
 and with the better part, if not all, their regiments ; 
 the Duke of Grafton's foot guards and the old regi- 
 ment were certain to come in to them; and that,1n 
 a few days, we should see the King the most deserted 
 prince that ever lived. Some of the deserting officers 
 wrote to their friends what progress they had made, 
 to encourage them to come in to them ; and with 
 these letters and a pass, after three days' confinement, 
 they dismissed the officers, and, soon after, the soldiers. 
 But within an hour or two, they sent a party of 
 twenty dragoons after them ; upon what design the 
 late prisoners know not; but they followed them a 
 day's journey, and lay but three miles short of the 
 officers ; only cornet Ashburnham and two troopers, 
 going a-foot, lay short, and fell into their hands. 
 They took from them their money, and the cornet's 
 
 D 2 
 
 I', 
 
 I I 
 
 ft" 
 
 
52 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 cloak, which was all that was left before, but just the 
 clothes on their backs. They told them their business 
 was with monsieur, their major, and were very in- 
 quisitive after him. But no account of him, they 
 
 returned back. 
 
 These officers and soldiers thus coming away, so 
 much discouraged many of them, that they sneaked 
 away again. His Majesty, and the Earl of Feversham, 
 his lieutenant-general, received the officers and 
 soldiers, that were so trepanned into the enemy's 
 quarters, and returned to their duty, most extra- 
 ordinarily kindly at Salisbury; and, after the major 
 had acquainted his Majesty with all the discoveries he 
 had made, by being in the enemy's quarters, which 
 were further confirmed by several letters which fell 
 into his Majesty's hands, he was graciously pleased to 
 make the major lieutenant-colonel of the Duke of 
 St. Alban's regiment, and advanced all the rest of the 
 officers, and gave to each two hundred days' pay to 
 equip themselves, and also five pounds to each 
 trooper ; and orders were given, that the corporals 
 should be made quarter-masters ; and as many of the 
 troopers as were fit, and vacancies, to be made corpo- 
 rals; and each to have twenty pounds more to 
 remount him, and the regiment recruited. The 
 officers and soldiers received all this money at Salis- 
 bury, without any deduction of poundage ; so affec- 
 tionately kind was the King to those of his army as 
 did their duty ; which, together with many of the 
 regiment that were not able to get up, by reason of 
 
 APPENDIX I. 
 
 53 
 
 .tv. 
 
 the hardness of the march, made up above eighty 
 soldiers, who were afterwards at Higbgate. But by 
 reason of his Majesty going away, that regiment was 
 not recruited; lieutenant-colonel Norton paying con- 
 stant attendance to his Majesty, even to his last 
 departure from Rochester. A corporal or two, and 
 several trumpeters, that had marched a-foot from 
 Honiton to Salisbury, followed him to Rochester, to 
 tender their service there. But, it being then too late, 
 they returned home to their own country, which was 
 Derbyshire, where they had been raised by the Earl 
 of Scarsdale. Several of the loyal soldiers were of 
 the Peak. Had not these things gone on so fast, 
 these soldiers had discovered a spy or decoy, in their 
 march from Honiton to Salisbury, which might have 
 been of service to his Majesty. The spy treated them 
 very kindly with all that the place afforded, and 
 insinuated himself very much into them, under pre- 
 tence of desiring to be a trooper with them; and, 
 after having drank very hard with them, desired to 
 know what pay they had. When he was told two 
 shillings and sixpence a day, he said it was very small ; 
 and that he had been at Exeter, and was there 
 pressed five shillings a-day to be a trooper, with two 
 leather pouches full of money, to buy him a better 
 horse. By this discourse, they believed he designed 
 to decoy them back again. After which he slipt from 
 them. But they, acquainting their officers with it, 
 were ordered by them to make inquiry after him, 
 which they were very diligent in doing; and, after 
 
 D 3 
 

 '■ 1 
 
 54 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY, 
 
 APPENDIX II. 
 
 55 
 
 some short time, found him attempting the same 
 thing on the foot-guards, where, by order, he was 
 confined on the main guard in the session-house at 
 Salisbury. Notice whereof being given to lieutenant- 
 colonel Langston, he went and examined him there ; 
 and, reflecting on what he had said to the troopers, 
 and by some papers found in his pocket, it appeared 
 that he was a captain or master of a ship, a Taunton 
 man, and undoubtedly what he was suspected to be. 
 Lieutenant- colonel Norton acquainting the King with 
 it, he ordered one of the secretaries of state to go and 
 examine him again, and commanded the lieutenant- 
 colonel to attend him ; which being accordingly done, 
 he was convinced that he was one of the Prince of 
 Orange's decoys or spies; and gave him till next 
 morning, about eight, to confess or die. But that 
 night, the Lord Churchill, who had been till near 
 twelve in his Majesty's bedchamber at a council of 
 war, deserting with some others, his Majesty 
 altering all his measures, and retiring from Salisbury, 
 our spy was lost; or, at least, I never heard of him. 
 These are all the remarkable passages that I can 
 remember to have been acted by the Duke of 
 St. Alban's regiment, relating to the late great 
 Revolution. 
 
 No. IL 
 
 THE SPEECH OF DENZILL HOLLES, ONE OF THE COM- 
 MISSIONERS OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS, IN 1660, 
 TO KING CHARLES IL, ANNOUNCING THE PROCLA- 
 MATION THAT HE HAD RETURNED TO HIS THRONEr 
 
 Dread Sovereign, 
 Your faithful subjects, the Commons of England, 
 assembled in parliament, have sent us hither, twelve 
 of their number, to wait upon your Majesty, and, by 
 their commands, we are here prostrate at your royal 
 feety where themselves are all of them present with 
 us in the sincere and most loyal affections and desires 
 of their hearts, and would have been in their per- 
 sons, if your Majesty's service, and the trust reposed 
 in them by all the several parts of the kingdom, did 
 not necessarily require their attendance and con- 
 tinuance in the place where they now are, and where 
 all their thoughts and endeavours are wholly taken 
 up and employed in those two great and main works, 
 which are the proper and genuine ends of all parliar 
 ments, the advancement of their king's service, and 
 the discharge of their country's trust. And cer- 
 tainly, Sir, we can speak it with a great deal of joy, 
 and with no less of truth, that never parliament made 
 greater demonstrations of zeal, affection, and loyalty 
 to any of the Kings of England, than this parliament 
 
 D 4 
 
 i-'.i 
 
56 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 APPENDIX II. 
 
 hath done, and doth, and we hope, and doubt not, 
 _ nay we know it, that it ever wUl do unto your 
 Majesty, our liege lord and king. 
 
 Their hearts are filled with a veneration to see 
 and serve vou ; and their tongues do, upon all occa- 
 sions, express it ; and in so doing they are (according 
 to the nature of parliaments) the true representative 
 of the whole nation ; for they but do that in a more 
 contracted and regular way, which the generality of 
 the people of the land, from one end of it to the 
 other, do in a more confused and disorderly manner : 
 yet, as heartily and as affectionately, all degrees, and 
 ages, and sexes, high and low, rich and poor (as I 
 may say), men, women, and children, join in sending 
 up this prayer to heaven,— God bless King Charles ! 
 Long live King Charles ! So as our English air 
 is not susceptible of any other sound, and echoes 
 out nothing else. Our bells, bonfires, peals of 
 ordnance, vollies of shot, the shouts and acclama- 
 tions of the people, bear no other moral,— have no 
 other signification, but to triumph in the triumphs of 
 our King in the hearts of his people. 
 
 Your Majesty cannot imagine, nor can any man 
 conceive it but he who was present to see and hear 
 it, with what joy, what cheerfulness, what lettings 
 out of the soul, what expressions of transported 
 minds, a stupendous concourse of people attended 
 the proclaiming of your Majesty, in your cities of 
 London and Westminster, to be our most potent, 
 mighty, and undoubted King. 
 
 57 
 
 The oldest man living never saw the like before ; 
 nor is it probable, scarce possible, that he who hath 
 longest to live will ever see the like again, especially 
 (and God forbid he should) upon such an occasion ; 
 for we wish and heartily pray that your Majesty may 
 be the last of men of the generation now in being 
 who shall leave his place to a successor. 
 
 We have the Proclamation itself to present unto 
 your Majesty, and the order of the two Houses en- 
 joining it to be proclaimed throughout England, 
 Ireland, and your dominion of Wales ; and, likewise, 
 their orders for all ministers in their public prayers 
 to pray for your Majesty, and for the illustrious 
 Prince the Duke of York, your Majesty's brother, 
 and for the rest of the royal progeny. And another 
 order of theirs, for taking down every where the 
 assumed arms of the late pretended Commonwealth, 
 and setting up the arms of your Majesty in their 
 stead. 
 
 You are the light of their eyes, and the breath of 
 their nostrils, their delight and all their hope. To 
 have been so long banished from them into a strange 
 land, it is no wonder that the news of your return 
 should put a new life into them. What then will it 
 be when their eyes shall be blessed with the sight of 
 your royal person ? And, therefore, are we commanded 
 humbly to acquaint your Majesty with the earnest 
 desires of both Houses for your speedy return unto 
 your parliament, and the exercise of your kingly office. 
 
 
 vol,. II. 
 
 D 5 
 
 4 
 
% 
 
 ^:lte-v . 
 
 ; f 
 
 58 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY- 
 
 APPENDIX III. 
 
 59 
 
 No. IJI. 
 
 OPINIONS OF MACKINTOSH, OF THE CONTINUATOR OF 
 HIS HISTORY, AND OF HALLAM, UPON THE DEBATES 
 IN THE CONVENTION PARLIAMENT, 1689. 
 
 The opinions asserted in these strictures upon the 
 famous vote of the abdication and vacancy of the 
 throne, are not in unison with those of the jurists 
 named above. Let us see how they differ. On the 
 question whether the declaring the throne vacant, 
 would not make it elective, the Continuator of Sir 
 James observes, that Maynard, having argued that 
 the Commons did not mean to say that the crown 
 was always and perpetually elective, he left it to be 
 understood by implication, that they did mean it to be 
 
 elective for that time. 
 
 It is never to be forgotten that the position of 
 Sir James is, that the proceeding of the Convention 
 established as a principle, that a total stranger to the 
 family of James (emphatically Kirk or Jeffries) might 
 have been elected as well as William. This we have 
 denied, and deny also that Maynard even thought so 
 in what he said. His speech is guarded and cautious 
 against the notion of election. He says, pointedly, 
 the word " elective " is none of the Commons' word ; 
 neither is the making the kingdom elective the thing 
 they had in their thoughts : all they mean by this matter 
 
 is to provide a supply for the defect of the govern- 
 ment. This provision must be made, and if it be, that 
 would not make the kingdom perpetually elective. / 
 stand not upon any word, but am for the thing, that a 
 provision be made to supply the defect* 
 
 I think I may safely leave it to the judgment of any 
 enlightened person, whether this was more than a fair 
 anxiety to fill up the vacancy (supposing it to exist) 
 by some fit person, who, from being among the heirs of 
 the crown, might have a claim to be appointed in the 
 room of one not so fit. To suppose that Maynard's 
 language, as above given, could warrant, even by im- 
 plication, that he agreed with Mackintosh in holding 
 that Kirk or Jeffries had as much legal qualification 
 as William, is to me astonishing. 
 
 In his review of the errors in reasoning of the 
 managers for the Commons, which led to the final 
 vote, one would suppose the Editor of the History of 
 the Revolution was arguing on our side, and he argues 
 ably. 
 
 *' The resolution of the Commons," says he, " was 
 so deficient in perspicuity and logic, that one of their 
 managers, after, as has been observed, calling the ab- 
 dication a premise, admitted it to be a conclusion ; 
 and then sought refuge in the solecism of a double 
 conclusion. The substance of it in a logical form may 
 stand thus : — The King, by violating the original 
 contract, abdicated ; and, by abdicating, vacated the 
 throne. It was a sort of sorites^ in which the abdica- 
 
 VOL. II. 
 
 * Chandler, ii. 233. 
 *D 6 
 
 f 
 
60 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 APPENDIX III. 
 
 61 
 
 tion was intended to be a conclusion as to what goes 
 immediately before, and a premise as to what imme- 
 diately follows. But, in point of fact or logic, it was 
 neither the one nor the other. It is of the essence of 
 abdication, that it should be free. Every abdication 
 recorded in Livy, from the first Dictatorship down 
 to the abdication of Sylla, is voluntary. Grotius 
 says it must be voluntary and free, whether done by 
 overt act, or by express renunciation. The Com- 
 mons said that King James had, even in this sense 
 of the term, abdicated, because he, of his free will, 
 committed those violations of the original contract, 
 of which his abdication, so called, was the conse- 
 quence. Now, if this be admitted, and King James 
 voluntarily deposed himself, it will follow that the 
 judicial execution of a criminal is a suicide ; for the 
 criminal voluntarily committed the crime by which his 
 life became forfeit. Here the language of the law and of 
 the community suggests the proper word, « forfeiture,' 
 which should have been applied to James the Second. 
 Forfeiture, not abdication, is the true conclusion, from 
 the violation of the original contract as a premise. 
 To take abdication as a premise : Did King James, 
 by abdicating (supposing for a moment that he did 
 abdicate), thereby vacate the throne ? Grotius, in the 
 very citation of Somers, says, ^jure natural i quisque 
 mum potest abdicare.' But a life-right only, not a 
 perpetuity, was vested in King James, who therefore 
 could abdicate only the life-right^ and not the inherit- 
 ance. Abdication, therefore, was not a premise from 
 
 which the vacancy of the throne would follow as a 
 consequence. Let the word forfeiture be substituted, 
 and the vacancy will follow as a resistless conclusion. 
 It is true, Serjeant Maynard tried to prop up the 
 false consequence deduced by the Commons with the 
 maxim, " nemo est haeres viventis ;" but the men of 
 more enlarged sense and principles, on his side, dis- 
 dained to take it up."* 
 
 These passages for the most part confirm the cri- 
 ticism I have ventured upon this famous vote. 
 One of them, however, I venture to question; viz., 
 " Let the word forfeiture be substituted (for abdi- 
 cation), and the vacancy will follow as a resistless con^ 
 elusion." 
 
 With submission, if the vacancy mean more than 
 as to James himself, the conclusion is by no means 
 resistless. The forfeiture of a man who has but a 
 life interest, does not, and, it should seem, cannot, 
 carry with it the forfeiture of his children. Nothing 
 short of a known and express law can effect this; 
 such, for example, as that which attends treason ; and 
 in such a case as that before us there was no such 
 law. 
 
 It is, besides, contrary to every principle of known 
 justice; and even in treason can only be excused, if 
 excusable, by the necessity of increasing the hazard 
 to any one balancing whether to commit it or noU 
 A father would certainly pause somewhat longer be- 
 
 VOL. II. 
 
 * Hist, of Revol. ii. 219, 220. 
 *D 7 
 
62 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 APPENDIX III. 
 
 63 
 
 fore he rebelled, when his punishment would fall 
 upon his posterity, than if upon himself alone. So 
 far, therefore, from its being a resistless conclusion, 
 it is so contrary to all our notions of justice, such a 
 sacrifice of innocence for the fault of the guilty, that 
 without a positive enactment I should say the con- 
 clusion, prima facie, was the very reverse. The 
 Editor of Mackintosh, indeed, rather strangely sup- 
 plies his own refutation, in what he says of abdica- 
 tion, that James could only abdicate his own life-right, 
 — the only possession he had. If this be so, and 
 James only had a life-right, what difference does the 
 word forfeit make ? How could he forfeit, any more 
 than abdicate , what he did not possess ? 
 
 In other remarks of the Continuator, his reasoning 
 seems more sound to his purpose of inculpating the 
 Whio-s. " They took," he says, " a narrow view of the 
 national emergency, and their own mission. They 
 should have achieved the Revolution as a great original 
 transaction, and sought precedents to justify it among 
 similar transactions in the annals of mankind. Gro- 
 tius, whose authority was often quoted, and implicitly 
 respected on both sides, would have supplied a his- 
 toric precedent of more weight than his abstractions. 
 Philippo ob violatas leges imperium abrogatum. It 
 appears that the republicans in the interest of the 
 Prince of Orange, proposed that a formal sentence of 
 forfeiture should be pronounced against James, and 
 that the Prince should be as formally elected king." 
 But this, says Burnet, was over-ruled in the begin- 
 
 ning. The word « forfeiture" was thrown out in the 
 debate ; but by whom does not appear. 
 
 " The Whigs of 1688," continues the Editor of the 
 History, « were secretly as jealous as the Tories of 
 admitting, whilst for their purposes theg acted upon it, 
 the natural inherent and inalienable right of the com- 
 munity over its government Hence their adoption of 
 the poor quibble, that James had deposed himself" 
 
 Bishop Burnet, the historian of the party, said, 
 they meanly used the ambiguous word abdication^ for 
 its very ambiguity. 
 
 Now, as far as this reasoning applies to the incon- 
 sistency of the vote of the Convention with the facts, 
 we concur in it. However we may differ as to the 
 right of the community (if by that is meant only a 
 part of it, though called by the name of people,) to 
 destroy its constitution, we cannot but agree that the 
 Commons did flinch from, nay, disavowed, those 
 principles which their acts implied. To have been 
 consistent they ought to have gone the whole leno-th 
 of Mackintosh's doctrine. But they did not go that 
 length ; and they, in terms and in form, refused to 
 do so. By this they stultified themselves, if you 
 please; but not the more, on that account, has any 
 one a right to force upon them doctrines which they 
 expressly repudiated. 
 
 With regard to the precedent in Grotius, of more 
 weight than his abstractions, the " Philippo ob violatas 
 leges imperium abrogatum," I know not that it will 
 bear the construction put upon it by the Editor of 
 
 VOL. II. 
 
 D 8 
 
64 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 APPENDIX III. 
 
 65 
 
 «' 
 
 the History, that it means forfeiture. " Abrogare " 
 certainly means to take away, to annul, to revoke, 
 abolish, repeal, destroy^ if you please ; but I nowhere 
 find to forfeit among its meanings. In seeking the 
 Latin for forfeited^ I find " confiscatus," but not 
 " abrogatus." But granting the whole benefit of this 
 interpretation, how will the " imperium abrogatum 
 Philippo'^ extend the same consequences it implies 
 for himself to his heirs, any more than the abdication, 
 or forfeiture of James, to his ? In no way, therefore, 
 can any one, if the eternal rules of justice are obeyed, 
 make this case of Philip, or any other that I know of, 
 support the theory, of a natural, inherent, inalienable 
 right of the community over its government. If for 
 government we read governor, (that is, the individual 
 offender, but not the lawful dynasty,) there might be 
 little difference between us, for I have acknowledged 
 all the rights of self-defence. 
 
 Thus much for the doctrine of Sir James. 
 
 If we now turn to Mr. Hallam, we shall find many 
 of the same opinions, as to the necessity and justifi- 
 cation of resistance to James, which are held by 
 Mackintosh; but developed in a manner far more 
 sober, and therefore more weighty. As a partizan, 
 even to wildness in daring, we may admire, but are 
 not dazzled, by the high-soaring flights of the Vin- 
 diciae Gallicae. In the Constitutional History; though 
 we may not agree with him, we wait upon the rea- 
 soning of the discriminating judge. 
 
 Preliminary to the account of the steps by which 
 
 the Convention proceeded, there is an argument in 
 Hallam, of some curiosity, on the necessity for the 
 dethronement of James, after his power had been 
 completely reduced. He notices, very fairly, that 
 there was an opinion against abjuring him, " which 
 misled half the nation :" a great admission, and di- 
 minishing much of the force of the argument founded 
 upon the universality of the feeling in favour of the 
 Revolution. 
 
 This opinion was, that the constitutional mode of 
 redress by parliament was not taken away ; that writs 
 were ordered for one to assemble before the actual 
 invasion ; and that the sincerity of the promises of 
 redress ought to have been tried.* 
 
 Upon this Hallam owns, that, even before the in^ 
 vasion, "James had made little progress j he had even 
 sustained a signal defeat in his endeavours to place 
 the professors of his own religion on a firm and 
 honourable basis." f He also thinks, that, from the 
 parliament he had promised to call, he would have 
 encountered the same warm attacks upon his admi- 
 nistration as had distinguished the parliaments of 
 his father and brother. But as he was in no want of 
 money, he would have determined more decidedly 
 * than ever to govern without them. " The doctrine/' 
 says he, " imputed of old to Lord Strafford, that, after 
 trying the good-will of parliament in vain, the king 
 was absolved from the legal maxims of government, 
 
 I 
 
 \ 
 
 * Constitut. Hist. iii. 335. 
 
 f Id. iii. 336. 
 
66 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 APPENDIX in. 
 
 6^ 
 
 was always at the hearts of the Stuarts." He goes 
 on to state, " that from his army being numerous, and 
 in progress to become papists, together with his alli- 
 ance with France, he might have put down insurrec- 
 tion, and enslaved the nation." * 
 
 Now upon this, the first thing that strikes us is, 
 that though possibly the supposition might be true, 
 yet the whole is assumed without proof. It is not 
 proved that James would necessarily have quarrelled 
 with his new parliament, and resolve to govern with- 
 out one. It is not proved that his army would have 
 become papists; or, if they had, that they would have 
 enslaved the nation ; and, above all, it is not proved, 
 though so sweepingly stated, that the maxim imputed 
 to Lord Strafford would have been pursued by James. 
 
 Hallam, however, thinks his suppositions suffi- 
 ciently warranted to justify what was done ; nor am 
 I prepared to gainsay it. But when he goes farther, 
 and doubts whether William absolutely expected to 
 place himself on the throne, we look at the history, 
 and feel that he is contradicted. 
 
 Of the Revolution, as a precedent, the opinion of 
 this able author is remarkable. " Except in the 
 article of the dispensing prerogative, he admits that 
 he cannot say, on comparing the Bill of Rights with 
 what is proved to be the law by statutes, or generally 
 esteemed to be such on the authority of our best 
 writers, that it took away any legal power of the 
 
 ♦ Constitut. Hist. iii. 337. 
 
 crown, or enlarged the limits of any popular or par- 
 liamentary privilege.'** 
 
 What becomes here, then, of the inalienable right 
 to resist, cashier, and elect, established by the pre- 
 cedent of the Revolution? He thinks the success 
 of the Revolution (from a number of unforseen lucky 
 incidents, such as the withdrawal of James,) ought 
 not to seduce other nations into the sanguine per- 
 suasion that it would be easy to follow our example. 
 As it was, he says, the return of the King from 
 Feversham produced a schism among the revolution- 
 ists, dangerous to the final settlement; because it 
 forced on that intimidation on the part of WiUiam, 
 which drove his rival from the kingdom, made hi^^ 
 flight excusable and defensive, and brought out ''too 
 glaringly the undeniable fact that the Convention 
 deposed and expelled their sovereign.'* f 
 
 That their Sovereign was virtually deposed and 
 expelled, cannot be denied; but formally, and by 
 whom, except by William, or the fears produced by 
 him, still remains a problem. The vote of the Con- 
 vention, which simply fills a throne made vacant by 
 James himself, denies that they did it. 
 
 Be that as it will, what really in Hallam's opinion 
 was done for us by the Revolution, was not so much 
 a change in the laws, for that he does not think was 
 effected in any groat degree; nay, he thinks that 
 statutes even more remedial than the Bill of Rights 
 
 * Constitut. Hist iii. S6I. 
 
 t Id. ii. 343. 
 
68 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 might have been obtained from James himself; 
 neither was it by proving abstract, metaphysical, 
 inalienable rights of sovereignty and resistance in 
 the people (for that he but little dwells upon) ; but 
 that it broke a spell that had charmed the nation* 
 " It cut up by the roots/* says he, " all that theory of 
 indefeasible right of paramount prerogative which 
 had put the crown in continual opposition to the 
 people." Before this, he proceeds to say, " It could 
 not be held, without breaking up all the found- 
 ations of our polity, that the monarchy emanated 
 from the parliament, or even from the people ; but 
 by the Revolution, and the Act of Settlement, the 
 rights of the actual monarch of the reigning family 
 were made to emanate from the parliament and the 
 people. In technical language, in the grave and 
 respectful theory of our constitution, the Crown is 
 still the fountain from which law and justice spring 
 forth ; its prerogatives are, in the main, the same as 
 under the Tudors and Stuarts; but the right of the 
 House of Brunswick to exercise them can only be 
 deduced from the Convention of 1688.''* 
 
 Plausible, nay, cogent and convincing, as this may 
 to many appear, it is susceptible of much critical 
 observation, which I venture to offer. 
 
 In the first place, that the Act of Settlement con- 
 
 firmed the rights of the Brunswick family, and that 
 
 that act was deducible from the Convention, cannot 
 
 be denied. But if it be meant that those rights do 
 
 * Hallam, iii. 345. 
 
 APPENDIX III. 
 
 69 
 
 now " emanate from the parliament and the people,'* 
 ^ if^I/f^^^ election, which the parliament and people 
 could have prevented by any means, except by a^&r- 
 cible departure from the law, that is, by the right of 
 strongest, I presume to differ from this opinion. 
 
 We have already seen that all Roman Catholics 
 were deprived of their claims by the Bill of Rights, 
 which was a regular act by king, lords, and com- 
 mons ; and, if I am right in the consequence deduced 
 from it, the right of the Brunswick family instantly 
 accrued. For although the Act of Settlement acknow- 
 ledged this right, I hold that it did not create it; any 
 more than the frequent acts regulating the succession, 
 so often alluded to, created, by free and new election, 
 the titles of Edward III., Henry IV., Edward IV., 
 Richard III., Henry VII., Mary, or Elizabeth. The 
 title of the Brunswick flimily, therefore, if this view 
 of it be correct, did not emanate from the parliament 
 and the people, any more than the titles of those 
 other monarchs, whom no one certainly ever sup- 
 posed to have come in by election. Let us suppose 
 that James, instead of being held to have abdicated, 
 had, by the verdict of the Convention, forfeited his 
 crown, and, by a regular sentence of the Convention, 
 had been deposed, and the succession given, in their 
 own right, to Mary and Anne, in preference to Wil- 
 liam. Could the right of those princesses have been 
 said to emanate from parliament and the people, and 
 not from their claim as heirs ? Did Anne's right so 
 emanate, and not as heir, because she was postponed 
 
70 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY* 
 
 to William, in the same manner as Elizabeth of York 
 was postponed, or rather not noticed, when Henry 
 VII. was preferred ? 
 
 Just so we hold it was with George l^ when all 
 Roman Catholics had been set aside. 
 
 But the great advantage of the Revolution, Hal- 
 lam goes on to say, or, as in his own language, he 
 " would explicitly affirm^^ consists in that winch was 
 reckoned its reproach by many, and its misfortune by 
 more, tixat it broke ilic line of succession. No oilier 
 remedy, he says, could have been found, according to 
 tlie temper and prejudices of tliosc times, against tlie 
 unceasing conspiracy of power. Rut when the very 
 tenure of power was cotiditioniJ^ when the crown, as 
 we may say, gave recognizaixces for its good hehamour^ 
 tlie sereriU parts of the constitution were kept in 
 cohesion by a tie far stronger than statutes, — tliat of 
 a common interest in its preservation.* 
 
 Well : all this is very well a.s policy, but is it law? 
 It only renews an argument tliat has been sometimes 
 used for preferring a usurper upon tlie throne in- 
 stead of tlie right heir, beaiuse he is upon his good 
 behaviour ; the rod of a defective title is kept over 
 him ; and if he offends, an avenger is always at hand, 
 in the true prince, to keep him in order. 
 
 But were the house of Brunswick usurpers? If 
 their religion set aside the house of Savoy, did they 
 not come in at once as the next nearest descendants 
 of James L ? 
 
 APPEXDIX III. 
 
 71 
 
 Will Mr. Hallam be good enough to explain what 
 he means by the ^* very tenure of their power being 
 condiiiomd ?" 
 
 Suppose they behaved ill ! Suppose tliey revived 
 the battle of prerogative ! WTiat arms have the peo- 
 ple from the Act of Settlement, more tlian they had 
 against James? Wiat security has the breaking of 
 the line by the Rc-volution given us, which we did 
 not possess before? How^, indeed, was the line itself 
 broken more thaji it was in the older times, in the 
 reigns formerly enumerated? 
 
 All these questions, I venture to think, ought to be 
 answered before we can say that the title of our kings, 
 even now, emanate from the pai'Iiament and from the 
 people in an\^ manner different from what they did 
 before ; and I presume to question the soundness of 
 tlie position, however ably supported, tlmt the trans- 
 actions of tlie Revolution, and tlie Act of Settlement, 
 amounted not only to a deposition of the reigning 
 sovereign, but ** an election of a new dynasty by the 
 representatives of the nation in parliamenu" * 
 
 ♦ IlnDum, Ui. 347. 
 
72 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 No. IV. 
 
 f 
 
 OPINIONS OF MR. FOX. 
 
 On such a subject as we have been discussing, it 
 would not be easy to pass in silence the sentiments 
 of a man who so loved the hberal parts of our Con- 
 stitution, and so venerated the Revolution, as Mr. Fox. 
 Even without this love and veneration, and were his 
 conclusions merely those of a cool and unenthusiastic 
 judgment, that judgment was so clear and profound 
 upon every thing which engaged it, that he would 
 not do prudently or fairly, who, in treating any sub- 
 ject touched upon by him, should pass on without 
 examining his opinions, whether in consonance or 
 
 opposition to his own. 
 
 ' As may be expected, this extraordinary person 
 brought to the contemplation of the events we have 
 been examining all that could give them consequence, 
 or ennoble their character, drawn from the warmest 
 feeling for liberty, and the highest sense of popular 
 rio-hts. Accordingly, though in his History of James 
 IL, unfortunately for letters, and the lovers of his- 
 tory, he did little more than commence the subject 
 of the Revolution, we find every thing that can pre- 
 pare us for its panegyric, as well as the assertion of 
 all those principles in favour of republicanism and 
 republicans, and in condemnation of crowns and 
 crowned heads, which those who call themselves 
 liberals hx the present day are so fond of displaying. 
 
 appendix IV. 
 
 73 
 
 With all the reverence, however, which I have 
 expressed for the abilities of this high character, and 
 his thousand attainments both in public and private 
 life, — his openness, his integrity, and a simplicity 
 surprising, considering how nursed he was from 
 infancy in both the business and pleasures of the 
 world; — with all this, his public character was public 
 property, and, like any other person, he is to be tried 
 at the bar of public opinion. 
 
 When at this bar, a judge would probably pro- 
 nounce, that — considering the habits and colouring of 
 his life, for ever, almost, (whether justly or not) 
 debarred from office, and forced (whether he would 
 or not) into perpetual, and often very violent strug- 
 gles on the popular side against the Court, — he was 
 too much of a partizan in politics, too habituated to 
 the hottest fire of debate in the Commons, to forget 
 himself on the same subjects when started in the 
 closet Whatever his wishes to be impartial when 
 he assumed the character of an historian, on a con- 
 troversy between the crown and the people it was 
 scarcely possible for him to put off the character of a 
 demagogue. An able reasoner he could not fail to be ; 
 a dispassionate one he could not be. 
 
 Accordingly, we are perhaps not unjust in saying, 
 that what we have found in his history, is no more 
 than what we expected; — prejudice in his general 
 principles and maxims; prejudice on particular facts; 
 prejudice against James as a king; prejudice as a 
 Stuart. He criticises the partiality of Hume for 
 
 VOL. II. 
 
 E 
 

 74 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 APPENDIX IV. 
 
 75 
 
 kings, as amounting to childishness. His own fond- 
 ness for republicanism as the chief source of virtue, 
 if arguing from feeling, instead of reason, proves it, 
 is not less childish. 
 
 Were we, however, to search for a pregnant in- 
 stance of his soundness or fairness in his estimate 
 of men or things, we could not select one more 
 pertinent than what he here says of Hume : — "He 
 was an excellent man, and of great power of mind, 
 but his partiality for kings and princes is intolerable; 
 nay, it is in my opinion quite ridiculous ; and is more 
 like the foolish admiration which women and children 
 sometimes have for kings, than the opinion, right or 
 v/iong, of a philosopher."* Let the reader judge 
 from this criticism of the zmpartiality and clearness 
 from prejudice in him who vents it. Whoever reads 
 merely the appendix of this great writer to the reign 
 of James L, in which the history of the Constitution 
 is discussed, must, from its fairness and truly philo- 
 sophical character, be filled with the glaring and 
 crross injustice (so as to excite surprise, and, I had 
 almost said, indignation,) at the above sentences. 
 
 In the course of those vehement struggles for 
 power, or the enforcement of popular doctrines, in 
 which Mr. Fox passed nearly the whole of his political 
 life, he pushed extreme principles to the utmost verge. 
 Moderation was unknown to him. Like Lord 
 Russell, kind, amiable, and generous in private life, 
 his feelings on party questions became ebullitions, 
 
 * p. 21. 
 
 amounting almost to rage. Hence, from his disdain 
 of every thing that thwarted his favourite theories 
 on any reigning object, he overdid his part : and 
 it was not ill said of him, that though he might 
 sometimes drive the right nail, he drove it till he 
 split his work. It is certain, that his devoted admir- 
 ation of the French Revolution, pushed to extre- 
 mity, and persisted in long after its defence had 
 been abandoned by men equally impressed, though 
 more rational in their love qf liberty, did him 
 great and lasting harm. This might have pro- 
 ceeded, and probably did so, from the serious con- 
 victions of his mind; but what can be said to the 
 mischievous power of party over his soul, which 
 could make so genuine a lover of his country put on 
 the demeanour of indifference and apathy towards 
 her in her utmost need ? I allude to those appalling 
 moments of the mutiny at the Nore. The mischief 
 he did himself in endeavouring to set the House of 
 Commons above the Crown by his India bill,— a mea- 
 sure, as to usurpation, the very counterpart of the 
 Long Parliament, — need not be remembered. Nor 
 will I go through the fifty-seven articles of desenved 
 impeachment against him, so fearfully and forcibly 
 drawn up by one who had so long fought by his 
 side.* But the chief of them, his most suspicious 
 and most unenglish conduct in exciting and encour- 
 aging Russia to resist the government of his own 
 country in a dispute between them, impressed many 
 
 * Burke. A wonderful and powerful performance never answered. 
 
 £ 2 
 
76 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 APPENDIX IV. 
 
 even of his admirers with a sense of his rashness, 
 which was never eradicated. In a word, nothing 
 short of this extreme violence, with which he pushed 
 all his principles of action till they became danger- 
 ous to all whom they affected, could have indisposed 
 towards him, during so long a public life, myriads of 
 his countrymen, who, from his wonderful abilities, 
 his high and generous qualities, and utter contempt 
 for every thing false or mean, were otherwise eager 
 and anxious to see him at the head of the state. 
 Soured and worn out^ yet not instructed or made 
 wiser, by this want of success, he only became more 
 imprudent, in very anger, as it were, that so many 
 essential great qualities to obtain the suffrages of his 
 country should fail. Hence, at one time he pouted 
 like an angry lover, and thought to avenge his 
 wrongs upon his country by abstaining from her 
 service, when he seceded from parliament. At an- 
 other, if he did not (as was eloquently said by one 
 who knew the constitution quite as well as himself, 
 though he took a very different view of it,*) unfurl 
 the standard of rebellion^ it was not his fault [that the 
 people did not rise in arms against the laws, since 
 he told them plainly, that it was only a matter of pru- 
 dence (and therefore, by implication, not of duty,) 
 that made them obey them. 
 
 From this sketch of the violence which formed 
 the derogations from an otherwise perfect character 
 in this great man, we perhaps might suppose that 
 
 * Lord Colchester, when Mr. Abbot. 
 
 77 
 
 his opinions upon the events, transactions, and cha- 
 racters of the period which he chose for his theme, 
 were by no means neutral. On the contrary, that 
 they would be what we find them, tinged with mis- 
 representation, and bent and biassed to the popular 
 side, in all the ardour, and sometimes, in all the 
 blindness of a partizan.* • 
 
 Let us see if this animadversion (a bold one I allow) 
 
 ♦ The following are opinions upon this extraordinary and gifted 
 person, not more just than candidly expressed, and which it may not 
 tlierefore be unacceptable to the reader to reperuse. 
 
 " With perfect rectitude and impartiality of intention, a man in a 
 particular political situation can hardly form impartial opinions ; 
 maintaining with his party certain general political positions, and 
 hearing, in the society of that party, a set of particular sentiments, 
 which the interest of some, the enthusiasm of others, and in general 
 the very war of opposition which they have maintained in common, 
 have tended to heigliten and confirm : in such circumstances it were 
 scarce to praise a man's heart or disposition to suppose him perfectly 
 unbiassed : his very virtues^ friendship, confidence, and social affections 
 are likely to betray him. 
 
 " Those virtues form the panegyric of Mr. Fox with his friends ; 
 they have been acknowleded by the most strenuous of his opponents. 
 In the midst of those friends, a man with less pliancy of disposition, 
 and less warmth of affection, than Mr. Fox, is inclined to imbibe 
 opinions unfavourable to the strict impartiality of historical discussion : 
 he breathes an atmosphere of party, with which the constitution and 
 temperament of his own mind can hardly fail to be affected. 
 
 " Mr. Fox's habits and political contests were also unfavourable to 
 historical impartiality. A man accustomed to debate is too often apt 
 to argue more for victory than for conviction ; and to look more to 
 the advantage or fame of defeating his adversary, than to the justice of 
 the cause for which he fights. He has been accustomed to contend 
 and to dispute, rather than to discuss and to deliberate ; and will much 
 more easily form or refute arguments, than set up or weigh opinions." 
 
 Rose's Observations on Mr. Fox*s Historical Work, Introduct. p. 9. 
 
 E 3 
 
 ;i 
 
 i 
 
 H 
 
 y 
 
78 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 is undeserved: and the better to accomplish the 
 object, it will perhaps be no more than right to follow 
 Mr. Fox's own divisions of his subject. 
 
 In the introductory chapter of his work, he of course 
 notices, though he does so very cursorily, the civil 
 wars, " so intemperately^'' he says, "denominated rebeU 
 lion, by Lord Clarendon."* " That they (the parlia- 
 ment)" he adds " according to the general principles of 
 morality^ had justice on their side, cannot fairly be 
 
 doubted.'' 
 
 Now for one, I not only doubt, but, for reasons 
 already given, I am convinced the other way. 
 
 That many however may agree with him in this, 
 cannot be denied. But to those who think the ob- 
 servation misapplied, and proceeding from the ultra 
 modern doctrines of the rights of insurrection, not 
 founded upon the real nature of the facts, I can only 
 refer for proof to the discussion of the conduct of 
 the Long Parliament given in the body of these 
 strictures.f From that conduct, if any one can doubt 
 that rebellion is the true and proper epithet belong- 
 ino" to it, from the epoch of the nineteen propositions, 
 little likely is it that we can agree with him. 
 
 The defence of those of the propositions that 
 concern the militia, is such as might be expected from 
 the extreme opinions of Mr. Fox. " Though there 
 may be more difference of opinion," says he, " upon 
 their (the parliament's) proposed regulations in re- 
 gard to the militia, yet surely tvhen a contest was to be 
 
 ♦ Hist. Jas. II, p. 11. t Supra, 72, et infra. 
 
 I -I. 
 
 APPENDIX IV. 
 
 79 
 
 foreseen, they could not, consistently with prudence, leave 
 the power of the sword altogether in the hands of the 
 adverse party."* 
 
 Here it is obvious that the question is begged by 
 extreme Whiggery; for the soundness of the sup- 
 position must depend upon the justice of the 
 quarrel. If it were not just, the reasoning would be 
 that of a burglar, who, being resolved to rob a house, 
 first murders the master, SiS, surely where resistence is 
 foreseen, it could not be consistent loith prudence to leave 
 him alive to defend his property. Unless the Com- 
 mons, then, had clearly a right to ruin the monarchy, 
 they were, in the demand of the sword, in the situation 
 of this burglar. If Mr. Fox thinks they had this 
 right, which probably he does, his defence of them is 
 sound according to his own principles. If not, never 
 was so weak an excuse espoused by so powerful a mind. 
 But exclusive of this, what is to be said to the posi- 
 tion of Blackstone, before alluded to, though the King 
 might not legally be invested with the power of the 
 sword, it was clear the Commons had no right to it 
 at all. Mr. Fox's answer reaches this also. As there 
 was to be a contest, it would not be consistent with 
 prudence, not merely to deprive the King of it, but 
 not to give it to themselves. So said Macbeth when 
 he killed Duncan's grooms, whom he accused of 
 murdering their master, for 
 
 " It would have anger*d any heart alive, 
 "To hear the men deny it." 
 
 * Fox, 10. 
 £ 4 
 
 :■: 
 
80 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 In Mr* Fox's language, it would not have been con- 
 sistent with prudence in Macbeth to have left tliese 
 
 grooms alive. 
 
 In the case of Lord SiralTord, whose attainder he 
 condemns, Mr. Fox is more just; nay, admirably 
 lureible. Yet even here he lets out much of the 
 lawfulness, or rather praiseworthiness, of insurrection. 
 "If such cases have existed,'* he says, (meaning punish- 
 ment by death in violation of law,) " they must have 
 been in instances where trial has been wholly out of the 
 question, as in that ofCtBsar and other tyrants.''* 
 
 Mr, Fox then justifies the asixissination of Ca?sar, 
 or any other king who sets aside the laws, for such b 
 the usual definition of a tyrant ; and as James could 
 not be tried, according to him^ he might be dispatched ; 
 and so, any king. For as the people (that is, any 
 body who choows so to decide.) are to be the judges 
 when the laws are exceeded, any man who sits upon 
 a throne, or, indeed, any private man, if guilty of an 
 offence which cannot be tried, (which is possible,) 
 may be cut off by private assassination. 
 
 This goes beyond Mackintosh, or even the Re- 
 gicides, for both those paities were for tnjuiy the 
 sovereign, thougli, tlie thing not bemg usual, they 
 did not know how. 
 
 But if this exemption from trial justifies assassinar 
 tion, what becomes of the people themselves, acting 
 upon Mr. Fox's maxim, that in a given case it was 
 only a maUer of prudence whether they should obey 
 
 • Fox, 11. 
 
 APPENDIX IV. 
 
 61 
 
 the laws? They were in that case sovereigns, and 
 above the Jaws, and could not be tried. Were they 
 to commit excesses, therefore, they might be killeil 
 witliout trial. 
 
 To such dilemmas does wild theory, in warm ima- 
 ginations, lecid the best of us. 
 
 Mr. Fox makes a question, though he does not de- 
 cide it, whether the suspicion of the insincerity of 
 Charles I. was not a justificatiun of his rebel parlia- 
 ment — (rebel we must always call it, after the nine- 
 teen propositions,) Of course he holds tliat those 
 suspicions amounted to a moral certaintv-* Whv? 
 Bec^iuse he violated the petition of right. 
 
 No doubt he did, and his conduct was indefi^isi- 
 ble, But those violations had been committed ten 
 years before. Tlieir consequences were such as must 
 have opened liiseyc^s, for dearly had he paid for it, by 
 allowing himself to be bound hand and foot by his 
 dutiful Conimoas, who had annihilated, one after the 
 other, every grievance complained of; had, in their 
 turn, been guilty of many gross usurpations ; had 
 forced him to the great blot of his life, the joining 
 them in the murder of SualTord; and had given the 
 finishing stroke to their o\^ii ix)wer, by depriving him 
 of the incontestible, as well as most potent preroga- 
 tive of his crown, that of dissolving them. 
 
 These circumstances it would only liave been 
 candid in Mr. Fox to have mentioned, when he as- 
 serted, tliat of the insincerity of this King tliere was 
 
 • Fox, is. 
 E 6 
 
82 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 a moral certainty, with a view to justify the proceed- 
 ings of the usurpers. For though he says it is a 
 question, whether the failure of the treaty of the Isle 
 of Wight is to be imputed to the suspicions justly 
 entertained of the King's sincerity, or to the ambition 
 of the parliamentary leaders, he takes no notice at 
 all of any of these circumstances, which, added to 
 years of experience and of misfortune, after tlie 
 offence against the petition of right had been com- 
 mitted, must have been, and were, so influential in 
 producing a change of character. Still less does he 
 for a single moment suspend his attacks upon the 
 King, or turn aside to examine the question himself 
 had started, as to the ambition of his enemies, — an 
 account of which has been given in the course of 
 these strictures.* This, in an author claiming to be 
 an historian, is a great fault; for of an historian 
 impartiality is the most essential of all his qualifica- 
 tions; and it has well been said, that one of his 
 greatest duties is, not merely to speak the truth, but 
 not to conceal it. Are we wrong, then, in thinking 
 that Mr. Fox, great as he is, is, like Mackintosh, on 
 paper, only a great pariizan. 
 
 We come now to, perhaps, the most important 
 observation of his whole work ; and that, I own, is 
 astounding. It is, that that gross murder of the 
 
 King, 
 
 << Murder most foul, as in the best it is, 
 
 " But this most foul, strange, and unnatural." 
 
 ♦ Supra, p. 72, et infra. 
 
 \\\ 
 
 APPENDIX IV. 
 
 83 
 
 that murder, which not only destroyed the life of a 
 king, but tore up by the roots every security of law, 
 every tie which holds society together, — ^poisoned the 
 sweet fountains of justice, and reduced all principles 
 of government to the maxims of the assassin, — that 
 that murder was a far less violent measure than the 
 attainder of Strafford. 
 
 That attainder, as all ex post facto laws are, is a 
 bad thing, all must allow; and Mr. Fox, with his 
 usual acumen, when not mystified by party feeling, 
 has eloquently demonstrated, that nothing can justify 
 it, but the impossibility of bringing a delinquent to 
 trial, whom it was also impossible to render harmless 
 without it. 
 
 Is it not remarkable that this favourable reasoning, 
 which was thus extended to Strafford, was so far 
 denied to Charles, that his execution (God knows, a 
 hundredfold greater violation of law than Strafford's) 
 should be held by this enlightened person to be a 
 less violent measure ? 
 
 But one was a king^ the other a subject. Is it in 
 this difference of denomination, — in other words, in 
 the prejudices of Mr. Fox, — that we are to look for 
 the difference in his opinion ? Shall the illegal exe- 
 cution of a subject, amenable to law, be a cause of 
 greater lamentation than that of one whose life no 
 law can reach, because, and merely because, the last 
 
 is a king ? 
 
 1 can account for this difference from no other 
 
 circumstance. 
 
 £ 6 
 
 il 
 
84 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 APPENDIX IV. 
 
 85 
 
 The reasoning and remarks of the historian, as he 
 goes along, I should say, are curious, and certainly 
 characteristic. 
 
 He says, the execution is to be considered in two 
 points of view. First, was it not just and neces- 
 sary? Secondly, was it likely to be salutary or 
 pernicious? 
 
 As to the first, he cites Hume as having given, he 
 says, " not perhaps intentionally, the he^t justification 
 of it, (mark the word !) by saying, that while Charles 
 lived, the projected republic could never be secure." 
 Had he said explanation^ instead of justification, our 
 quarrel with Mr. Fox had probably been less. As 
 it stands, to destroy the monarchy, and establish a 
 republic, by the murder of the King, though not 
 absolutely held to be the justijication of the murder- 
 ers, is yet, in Mr. Fox's mind, the best justification 
 that has been given. 
 
 In the same strain, in canvassing what, as republi-- 
 cansj the parliament had a right to do, or were wise 
 in doing, he says, that " to take away a life in self- 
 defence, the danger must not be problematical and 
 remote, but evident and immediate." * 
 
 Upon this it is to be observed, that, though pro- 
 fessing to be the reviewer of the times, he totally 
 passes by the question, of the right in the parliament 
 to constitute themselves republicans ; but merely dis- 
 cusses what it was competent for them to do when 
 they had assumed that character. 
 
 ♦ Fox, 14. 
 
 This is, again, the case of the burglar I have sup- 
 posed. What should we say to a magistrate who had 
 to sit in judgment upon such a culprit, who, instead 
 of sentencing him to punishment, should pronounce, 
 that being afraid of being killed himself in breaking 
 open the house, he killed the master of it in self- 
 defence ; and only qualified the right to do so, by 
 saying, the danger from the master to the robber 
 was evident and immediate. 
 
 I do not by this mean to say that Mr. Fox 
 absolutely approves or defends the parliament for 
 destroying the monarchy; but to point out how 
 completely he passes over that question, and confines 
 himself to the expediency of putting the King to 
 death when in their power, without at all discussing 
 the legality of the measures by which that power was 
 attained. 
 
 It may be said, this was not Mr. Fox's object; and 
 it is that precisely of which I complain. As a matter 
 of curiosity, a very loyal man might canvass the 
 question: professing to write history, no unpreju- 
 diced man would dare to pass it by unnoticed. 
 
 Having assumed this privilege, however, he gives 
 full scope to what he supposes it would rejoice a 
 republican to contemplate; and granting that the 
 King was to die in order to fortify the new order of 
 things, he glorifies Cromwell for the manner of the 
 sacrifice. Coolly he observes, that " among the modes 
 of destroying persons in this situation^ (one would sup- 
 pose he was talking of destroying rats,) there can 
 
86 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 be little doubt but that adopted by Cromwell and 
 his adherents is the least dishonourable.'^* 
 
 The word is, is here remarkable. Had he said 
 was, it might be thought merely a part of the passing 
 narration ; but is immediately converts it into a rule 
 of conduct proper to be used on a like occasion, — 
 as if the occasion itself were usual, or of frequent re- 
 currence, in the history of nations. 
 
 He goes on, in the language of the fanatic Har- 
 rison, to laud it as it deserves. " Edward II., Richard 
 II., Henry VI., and Edward V.," he says, " had none 
 of them long survived their deposal ; but this was the 
 first instance, in our history at least, where, of such 
 kn act, it could be truly said, that it was not done in 
 
 a comer.*' t 
 
 After this, though with a redeeming accompani- 
 ment, that the death was not necessary, he indulges, 
 not without complacency, in a notion, that it has 
 possibly, " as much as any other circumstance, served 
 to raise the character of the English nation in the 
 opinion of Europe in general ; that, even in the minds 
 of those who condemn the act, the impression made 
 by it has been far more of respect and admiration, 
 than of disgust and horror." He adds, in praise of 
 Cromwell, that the guilt of the measure is what most 
 men would have incurred ; " what there is of splen- 
 dour and of magnanimity in it, I mean the publicity 
 and solemnity of the act, is what few would be capa- 
 ble of displaying." % 
 
 i\ 
 
 • Fox, 15. 
 
 + Id. 15. 
 
 \ Id. 17. 
 
 APPENDIX IV. 
 
 87- 
 
 AIl that we observe upon these passages is, that, 
 however critically and philosophically true, to present 
 them in a history without an accompanying repre- 
 sentation of the infamy belonging to the same cha- 
 racter, is unfair and reprehensible. Cromwell was 
 infamous, as well as great : infamous, from the mean- 
 ness of his hypocrisy, from his false pretences, his 
 indifference to blood in support of an execrable 
 ambition, which broke all ties, and laid liberty pros- 
 trate ; that liberty which he only espoused in order 
 to raise himself upon her ashes. That no one word, 
 therefore, of all this should be hazarded by a writer 
 claiming to lead our opinions in estimating the true 
 nature of the events he reviews, while the dazzling 
 parts of his hero's character are alone recorded, and 
 dwelt upon with a seeming gust and triumphant 
 panegyric, is, to a cooler mind, seeking only for 
 truth, not less melancholy than surprising. 
 
 Many thieves, manyassassins, many impostors, many 
 tyrants, have had great qualities, — Caesar, Muley 
 Moloch, Alva, Richelieu. Even Colonel Blood, in 
 endeavouring to steal the crown, and, with a refine- 
 ment of vengeance and excess of daring, attempting 
 to hang the Duke of Ormond at Tyburn, contrived 
 to inspire, by the boldness of his enterprises, an 
 opinion of greatness, which produced his pardon. 
 But should we, on that account, hold him up only 
 as an example of bravery and contempt for danger, 
 and not also as an atrocious and infamous ruffian, 
 unworthy the impunity he met with. 
 
 ;!' ;!B 
 
 
88 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 Cromwell was, as we have said, a great, but he 
 was also a bad man. Mr. Fox thinks fit to speak of 
 him only in his first capacity, and to enlighten his 
 posterity by dwelling upon his greatness alone : comr 
 mending him to our admiration, not our execration. 
 But, could this be passed over, what shall we say to 
 a man, whom his friends and admirers boast of as the 
 best versed of his time in knowledge of the Constitu- 
 tion, who gravely asserts, that the blame of Crom- 
 welPs usurpation was founded, though not exclusively, 
 in prejudice. " The great talents of this extraordi- 
 nary person," he observes, " had supported, during 
 his life, a system condemned equally by reason and 
 by prejudice : by reason, as wanting freedom ; by 
 prejudice, as an icsurpation." Thus, according to 
 this great authority on the nature of the government 
 and the constitution, to condemn the usurpation of 
 a throne by a subject, is prejudice. One can hardly 
 believe the words were written by a reflective man, 
 much less by a publicist, which convey this sentiment 
 
 to the mind. 
 
 He is more reasonable, and less dangerous, in his 
 panegyric on the success of Cromwell's administra- 
 tion. Our complaint, however, here is the old one. 
 He treats him as a hero only ; not as a tyrant, a 
 rebel, and a usurper ; and hence proves the old and 
 sensible maxim : . 
 
 " Decipit exemplar vitiis imitabfle.** 
 
 " It must be confessed," he says, " to be no mean 
 testimony to his (Cromwell's) genius, that the splen- 
 
 APPENDIX IV. 
 
 89 
 
 dour of his character and exploits render the aera of 
 the Protectorship one of the most brilliant in English 
 history ;" and then, that nothing may be wanting to 
 his hero, he adds, that among those who raised them- 
 selves to supreme power by force of their genius, (he 
 says nothing of his wickedness, his crimes, and his 
 murders,) that, even in respect to moral virtue, with 
 the exception of the most degrading of all human 
 vices — hypocrisy, he will be found one of the least 
 exceptionable.* 
 
 This is so startling that we cannot help pausing 
 for a moment, to ask ourselves whether this can 
 possibly be the language of Mr. Fox ? Well, at least, 
 has Mr. Rose, in his examination of his history, ob- 
 served, " that he has thrown over the usurpation of 
 Cromwell a veil, which, speaking only of its emrgy^ 
 and not of its injustice, naturally interposes between 
 that and our feelings. He has given the same air 
 of grandeur to the execution of Charles I., which he 
 favourably compares with the unjust sentence on 
 Strafford, without stating the distinction between 
 the violation (though gross) of the laws and forms 
 of criminal procedure in the one case, and the over- 
 throw of the constitution itself, from which those 
 laws emanated, in the other."f 
 
 It may be supposed from the bias of Mr. Fox's 
 
 • This reminds one of a quarrel at Billingsgate. One woman said 
 
 to another, " I grant 1 am a thief and a ; but barring that, I 
 
 am an honest woman.*' 
 
 + Rose*s Remarks on Fox's History. 
 
 fit 
 
90 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 APPENDIX IV. 
 
 91 
 
 mind, and all that we have seen of his opinions on 
 government, that Monk was no favourite of his. 
 Accordingly, he says, "that after Cromwell's death 
 all was in the army, and that army had fallen into the 
 hands of one than whom a baser could not be found 
 in its lowest ranks."* 
 
 Is this sober, philosophical judgment, or the decla- 
 mation of the opposition benches in the House of 
 Commons ? 
 
 The virtue of Monk in contributing what he did 
 to restore the monarchy, may be certainly ques- 
 tionable : that he was full of wariness and conceal- 
 ment, taciturn and close, is true. Yet so was, per- 
 haps, the greatest man of his time, the first Prince of 
 Orange, the heroic and noble founder of the Dutch 
 republic, whom Philip feared more than all the world, 
 and who, from his guardedness in talking, was sur- 
 named Le Taciturne. That Monk went all lengths 
 with Cromwell is also true ; and if he had not re- 
 marked that the prevailing spirit of the nation was 
 to put dovm both the parliamentary and military 
 usurpers, and restore the King, that he might have 
 been tempted to become one of them is not impro- 
 bable. But in all this he was no more base than 
 almost every actor and every anarch in that anar- 
 chichal time. It certainly should not seem from this, 
 that he was baser than the basest, as Fox represents 
 him, any more than for that other reason given by 
 Mr. Fox, that, having gained his rank and reputation 
 
 * Fox, p. 20. 
 
 in the service of what, however falsely^ he called the 
 cause of liberty, he made no scruple to lay the 
 nation at the feet of a monarch without a' single 
 provision in favour of that cause. 
 
 Well, did he do more in this than the high-minded 
 Holies, or those thousands who had fought in the 
 same cause, and rued it ; and will this subject them 
 to the imputation of being the basest of mankind ? 
 Does not Mr. Fox himself imply that the cause was 
 falsely called liberty ; and might they not repent, and 
 think with him on that point, without being subjected 
 to this violent abuse? Then on what is this terrible 
 invective founded ? 
 
 On his conduct on the trial of Argyle ? In that 
 trial, while other proof had failed, and he was nearly 
 acquitted, it is said that he sent down letters, affirmed 
 to be written to him in confidence by the marquess, 
 when they were both republicans, and, as is asserted, 
 friends. These letters, according to Burnet, con- 
 victed him. 
 
 That such conduct should call up the ire of a 
 man, himself the reverse of base, is not wonderful, 
 though it is not more than upon a par witJi the 
 baseness of the Vanes, who made use of notes (taken 
 without his knowledge) of his opinions at a privy 
 council to destroy Strafford. But is the fact respect- 
 ing Monk as Mr. Fox states it ? or has this most 
 scrupulously anxious of all historians, as he is repre* 
 sented by his noble editor and nephew, been guilty 
 of rashness in his indignation, and covered a character 
 
 I 'J' 
 
 :> 
 
92 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 which, perhaps, for other reasons he disliked, with 
 unmerited abuse? 
 
 Even supposing the fact, as Monk was now at the 
 acme of his fortune, loaded with honours and 
 wealth, what are we to think of the accuracy, any 
 more than of the justice of the observation, that he 
 " surpassed in infamy those wretches who to save 
 their own lives are sometimes persuaded to swear 
 away the lives of their accomplices."* The obser- 
 vation is not correct, for the Duke being not under this 
 necessity to save his own life, or save any thing, his 
 proceeding could have had no motive of infamous 
 self-interest. But is it even correct ? Let us examine, 
 and say whether the eminent share which he had in 
 restoring a Stuart may be supposed to have had any 
 influence in urging Mr. Fox to make this charge, 
 without inquiring farther for a proof of it than in the 
 assertion of such a man as Burnet. 
 
 Of Burnet's fidelity, or rather infidelity, as to many 
 of the facts he relates, in what Lord Dartmouth 
 called "The Bishop's Story Book," with the ex- 
 ception, perhaps, of Mr. Fox, there seems to have 
 been but one opinion. The only question is as 
 to his sincerity in his own belief of them ; and that 
 question one would be inclined to decide in his 
 favour. For such was the vehemence of a sanguine 
 temper, and a partizanship equal to that of Mr. Fox 
 or Mackintosh themselves, though without their 
 ability, that, even when the pen was in his hand to 
 
 ♦ Fox, 201. 
 
 APPENDIX IV. 
 
 93 
 
 alter (as it is said he did) characters and incidents 
 as might best suit his feelings, we are told, and it is 
 pretty clear from the internal evidence of his work, 
 that he was too prone to believe what he wished, and 
 exercised a sort of honesty in deceit. 
 
 This he himself confesses, or something very like it, 
 in what he says of his sharpened feelings against some 
 of his brethren of the church. The passage is very 
 frank, and as follows :— " Indeed, the peevishness, the 
 ill-nature, and the ambition of many clergymen, have 
 sharpened my spirits perhaps too much against them ; 
 so I warn my readers to take all I say on those 
 heads with some grains of allowance.''* On this the 
 rogue Swift makes a note,—" I will take his warn- 
 
 ing. 
 
 » 
 
 Again, Mr. Godwin, of Baliol College, transcribes 
 in the margin of his copy of Burnet's History, now 
 in the Bodleian, the following letter from Lord Ailes- 
 bury to Mr. Addlestrop, concerning the death of 
 Charles 11. " Bishop Burnet is a notorious liar from 
 beginning to end, to my knowledge. When we came 
 to the bedside we found the Queen there, and the 
 impostor says it was the Duchess of Portsmouth." 
 
 Again, in regard to Magdalen College, the Bishop 
 says the order for the restoration of the fellows was 
 countermanded. Mr. Godwin says, " This is false ;" 
 and relates that the Bishop of Winchester went to 
 Oxford, and fixed up a citation to restore the fellows; 
 but, being summoned to London to attend the birth 
 
 ♦ Preface to fol. edit, 1724, p. 3. 
 
 f. ii 
 
94 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 of the Prince of Wales, he left it undone, and was 
 reproved by the King for coming without having first 
 restored the fellows. Dr. Clarke gave this account 
 to Dr. Jenner, and it is preserved among his books 
 in Worcester College library.* 
 
 These passages I have given, more for their curi- 
 osity, than as amounting, ivithout other proofs^ to such 
 evidence of the gossipping credulity of the Bishop, 
 as ought to deprive him of all his authority as a 
 narrator. What he states of his own knowledge we 
 ought not to doubt, though that might be much 
 coloured by his prejudices; but what he relates upon 
 the mere report of others, though set off with an air 
 of belief, as if it were certainly true, every thing 
 we know of his officious meddling character, and un- 
 balanced party feelings, forbids us from crediting 
 merely because he wrote it ; and such seems to have 
 been the opinion of many of his contemporaries. 
 Mr. Fox gives him more credit than most, yet for a 
 reason that appears more to support than oppose the 
 general opinion. Speaking of Seymour's suggestion^ 
 in his speech upon a grant to James, to inquire first 
 into the validity of the elections, Burnet says, he 
 made a motion to that effect ; which was not correct ; 
 and upon this Mr. Fox makes the following observa- 
 tion : — " It will be found, as well in tliis, as in many 
 
 * The above is taken from the European Magazine, January and 
 April 1795, which authority, having never seen the documents referred 
 to, I give, lest I should myself be suspected of the same crime charged 
 upon Burnet. 
 
 APPENDIX IV. 
 
 95 
 
 other instances, that an unfortunate inattention on the 
 part of the reverend historian to forms has made his 
 veracity unjustly called in question.* 
 
 Authority would have been a better word, for no- 
 body suspects him of wilful falsehood ; only a little 
 heightening of facts, according to his humour, when, 
 according to his own expressions, above given, his 
 spirit, were sharpened upon a particular object But 
 even inattention to forms carries often along with it 
 matter that may involve the very essence of truth. 
 If regardless of forms, why not of dates, perhaps of 
 names ; and how important they may be, we know. 
 Voltaire was this sort of historian. He once abused 
 a person for setting him right as to the time of a 
 certain battle. « Blockhead," said he, « was not the 
 battle fought ?" « Yes !" " Then what signifies when 
 it was fought" 
 
 Upon the whole, though Mr. Fox throws his broad 
 shield over the Bishop, it does not entirely cover 
 him. Burnet, therefore, was the last man in the 
 world whose hearsay (for it could have been no 
 more) a man, intending to be so candid as Mr. Fox, 
 should have vouched as an authority for such revolt- 
 ing language as he has applied to Monk. The 
 extraordinary anxiety after the truth of every thing 
 he should insert in his history, ascribed to him by 
 bis noble editor, one would have thought would have 
 induced him to have made every inquiry, and ran- 
 sacked every accessible document, before he branded 
 
 ♦ Fox, 149. 
 
96 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 •:i 
 
 
 4 
 
 a man in the manner in which he has branded the 
 Duke of Albemarle. : 
 
 Did he make this inquiry? If he did, with his 
 asserted research and incontestible acumen, how 
 could the authorities referred to by Mr. Rose in his 
 forcible, and, I think, unanswerable refutation of 
 Burnet's account, escape him? 
 
 The Bishop was but eighteen years old when 
 Argyle was tried and condemned, and, with all his 
 precocity and meddling, could hardly (and, indeed, 
 he does not pretend to it,) have known of these let- 
 ters of Monk, and their effect, of his own knowledge. 
 His assertions, therefore, are from hearsay ; and his 
 proneness to adopt hearsay for what he wished, we 
 have already discussed. Tliat he wished to inculpate 
 Monk is known. 
 
 Still, however, the hearsay might be true ; but if 
 so, being of no ordinary matter, but of the most 
 solemn and vital proceeding that can belong to the 
 actions of men, nothing less than a trial for life, end- 
 ing in the deprivation of it, in the case of one of the 
 greatest nobles of the land, how is it possible that no 
 record was made of this decisive evidence, upon 
 which, according to the Bishop, the condemnation 
 turned ? 
 
 The question was amply discussed before Mr. Fox 
 wrote ; and he was, or was not, aware of the discus- 
 sion. If he was, though he might not have been 
 convinced by it himself, he was bound, in duty to 
 the justice he worshipped, to lay it before his readers. 
 
 APPENDIX IV. 
 
 97 
 
 If not, what are we to say of his anxiety for the 
 strictest inquiry before he hazarded a fact, much 
 more one upon which such an excess of vituperation 
 was founded. 
 
 We would willingly shorten this discussion, by 
 referring merely to the argument (a most able one) 
 in Mr. Rose's book* ; but, to satisfy the reader, we 
 may perhaps be excused for laying before him an 
 outline of the particulars. 
 
 In the first place, Woodrow, an historian attached 
 to the Presbyterian cause, to which Argyle was a 
 martyr, who lived but a short time after the event, 
 and who was remarkable for industry in searching 
 records, especially those affecting the leaders of his 
 party, is entirelt/ silent on the subject of the letters. 
 , In the next place, search was made in the records 
 of the parliament, council, and justiciary, but, from 
 a chasm in the documents of the time, nothing was 
 found. 
 
 This proves nothing one way or the other; but a col- 
 lection was in Mr. Rose's possession, supposed com- 
 plete, of all the publications during the civil war and 
 some years after the Restoration, several of them writ- 
 ten after the death of the Marquess, by devoted friends, 
 ffivinff accounts of what was most interesting respecting 
 him, and of what passed at his trial, to his latest 
 moments, in no one of which is the remotest allusion 
 
 * See Observations on Mr. Fox's History, pp. 21, 22,23, 24, and 
 Appendix, Nos. 3. and 4. 
 
 VOL. II. F 
 
98 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 to papers having been read in aggravation of his 
 offence, previous to his sentence 
 
 What is still more convincing, in the British 
 Museum are no less than seven different tracts 
 respecting the trial and execution of the Marquess, 
 published in London and Edinburgh, one of which 
 is entitled the last proceedings against him, containing, 
 inter alia, a speech of his, in which he denies having 
 had any epistolary intercourse with Cromwell, or any 
 of the sectarian leaders of his army.* 
 
 The next proof is, that there is nothing in Tlmrloe 
 relative to these letters; and a stronger one still, 
 that the newspapers of the time have been searched, 
 in which particular accounts of what passed upon the 
 trial at Edinburgh are given from day to dmj, and not 
 a syllable of this communication from Monk is men- 
 tioned. 
 
 Such is the strength of the negative proof against 
 the supposed fact. And what is there opposed to it ? 
 
 the hearsay, and therefore loose assertion of the 
 
 gossipping Bishop, who himself, on the very subject, 
 is convicted of an error, showing how little accurate 
 he could be on the identical case. For he says, the 
 Marquess wrote to the King the day before his 
 execution : whereas the date shows it was on the very 
 morning tlxat it took place. This may be said to be 
 
 * We presume the speech was after condemnation, though 
 Mr. Rose does not say so, for otherwise it would not be proof, as he 
 might have made the denial to save his life. 
 
 APPENDIX IV. 
 
 99 
 
 of not much importance, and to his veracity it is not. 
 To his reputation for accuracy in reporting, it is of 
 the greatest. 
 
 But the argument of Dr. Campbell seems most 
 decisive of all. Campbell, both from his clanship 
 and his private feeling, was said to be most favourable 
 to his ancient chief. Yet he says, that the assertion 
 (^ the Bishop cannot be true ; and he winds up his 
 argument upon it by noticing that the Marquess, in 
 his letter to the King, protesting his innocence of all 
 connection with Cromwell's government, which the 
 letters to Monk are said to have proved, appeals to 
 God for the truth of his assertion. ITiis was on the 
 morning of his death. Could he have done so just 
 after^ the production of letters which Burnet asserts 
 convinced his friends, who would have saved him if 
 they could, but staid away from the judgment, after 
 such irresistible proof. 
 
 If Mr. Fox was aware of these arguments, it seems 
 that they did not deter him from venting this calumny 
 upon the restorer of the Stuarts. It w^ere vain, there- 
 fore, to rely upon other arguments drawn from the 
 conduct of the latter towards other delinquents. Yet 
 we must not omit what Mr. Fox either did not know, 
 or strangely thought it no set-off against his opinion, 
 that Monk was the basest of mankind, because he 
 contributed to destroy one fellow delinquent. « He 
 was," says the writer of his life, « an advocate for 
 mercy to the regicides in the House of Lords: though 
 no regicide himself, he was silent on the bench when 
 
 F 2 
 

 100 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY, 
 
 commissioned to try them ; and he saved Sir Arthur 
 Haslerig's life and estate, (the bitterest personal 
 enemy he had in the world,) by owning a promise 
 to him, which, some say, he never made."* 
 
 Lastly, it appears, says Campbell, from Thurloe's 
 papers, that Monk never considered the Marquess as 
 a friend to Cromwell, but always represented him as 
 the secret friend of the King, and an enemy to the 
 
 Protector's government.! 
 
 I own these considerations, so many in number, and 
 
 so powerful in argument, incline me to reject the 
 story in Burnet as one of those belonging to his 
 scandalous chronicles ; and if so, to think Mr. Fox's 
 opinion and language any thing but warranted by 
 reason or the fact. If he was aware of them, he was 
 most unjust in not placing them before his readers : 
 if ignorant, he was at Jeast wanting in the research 
 and industry of an historian : and we find in it one 
 proof more that his book is only that of a partizan, 
 which, without the splendid authority of his name, 
 could not be dignified with the attributes of history. 
 There was another reason assigned for this out- 
 rageous charge upon Monk. He acquiesced in the 
 insults so meanly put upon the illustrious corpse of 
 Blake, under whose auspices he had performed the 
 most creditable actions of his life-J This, if Bishop 
 Kennet's account is to be credited,— and it is to the 
 
 * Sliinner's Life of Monk, quoted by CampbeU. 
 Appendix, No. 3, 
 
 t Ibid. \ Fox, 21. 
 
 See Rose, 
 
 :f I- 
 
 APPENDIX IV. 
 
 101 
 
 full as much an authority as Neale's History of the 
 Puritans, where it is named, — is nota faithful relation. 
 The remains of Cromwell and Ireton were insulted, 
 and, we agree, meanly, but not those of Blake, They 
 were removed from Westminster Abbey, but re- 
 interred, says Kennet, with great decency in St. Mar- 
 garet's churchyard.* And thus the proofs of the only 
 two facts on which Mr. Fox thought fit to found an 
 accusation against Monk, of the very worst kind, 
 couched in the most intemperate language, have com- 
 pletely failed. It must proportionably lower his 
 authority even as a partizan, for historian, with so 
 many omissions and so many misrepresentations, we 
 cannot allow him to be. 
 
 What credit for either the impartiality or the 
 enlightened views of government, or even the com- 
 mon knowledge of things which ought to belong to 
 an kistorian, can be awarded to him who calls the 
 soldiers of a country, employed by its government to 
 repress insurrection, by the odious name of " autho- 
 rized assassins ?''t 
 
 • Kennet's Histor. Register, iii. 536, apud Rose. 
 
 f We were so startled with this, that we ahnost believed we were 
 mistaken; and, as others may think so too, we give the passage in ques- 
 tion. Speaking of the disappointment of Argyle*s hopes of being 
 joined by the persecuted in Scotland, he says, " those even whose 
 situation was most desperate, who were either wandering about the 
 fields, or seeking refuge in rocks and caverns from the authorized assas- 
 sins who \f ere on every side pursuing them, did not all join in Argyle*s 
 cause with that frankness which was to be expected." (page 197.) 
 These men were the old covenanters and conventicle men, who were 
 persecuted, (I use the word as Mr. Fox would have me) by a cruel 
 
 F 3 
 
102 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 The admirers of Mr. Fox may attribute this to his 
 warmth and indignation against James, though even 
 that was not justified by any thing James had then 
 done as King, for it is in the account of Argyle's 
 invasion, when he was scarcely warm on his throne, 
 where he was the undoubted legitimate monarch, and 
 had as yet been guilty of no tyranny. But allow- 
 ing that the feelings and principles of the politician 
 ran away with the author, is it the part, is it the 
 duty, is it even becoming in an historian, — will it 
 not overturn all his authority, not merely as such, 
 but as a writer pretending to any thing but the power 
 of invective, — so to miscal, so to calumniate, the 
 servants of their country, who only obeyed the laws 
 in repelling insurrection, however praiseworthy that 
 insurrection may be deemed by the calumniator ? 
 
 When we read this aberration of Mr. Fox from 
 all the most received notions of what is due to the 
 
 government, whose acts I am not the one to defend. But to call the 
 soldiers who only executed the orders of their lawful governors, assas- 
 sins, breaks down all principle, and all meaning in words. It is the 
 rant of rioters suppressed. He might as well have called the execu- 
 tioner, when he does his duty, by the same name. 
 
 As to executicmers, indeed, he had before called the condemnation of 
 the military officers who had attended the trial (and of course, upon 
 the same principle, the executioners) of Charles I., " a violation of 
 every principle of law and justice." (p. 24.) How then can he convert 
 the soldiers who performed their duty to their lawful government into 
 assassins? One of these military officers, be it remembered, Axtell, who 
 commanded the guards at the trial, ordered his men to fire into Lady 
 Fairfax's box, because she denied the act to be that of the whole peo- 
 4)le. He, to be sure, then, was not an assassin, only a regicide. 
 
 11 
 
 APPENDIX IV. 
 
 103 
 
 character of a soldier, acting in his country's service, 
 and see him vilify such a character with such epithets, 
 we are seized with astonishment that a mind so great, 
 an understanding so acute, and abilities every way so 
 resplendent in all other things, should, from the 
 blindness of party feelings, so fail in propriety of 
 thought. For this, and a multitude of similar im- 
 pressions, we are forced to dethrone him from the 
 place he held in our minds, and to pronounce, reluc- 
 tantly, that, from very passion, his authority is gone. 
 
 We say reluctantly, because there are some pas- 
 sages in his book which revive all our notions of his 
 natural disposition and the elegance of his mind, and 
 tell us, in delightful characters, (O ! si sic omnia) how 
 well he deserved all that his friends said of him.* 
 
 But these gleams are evanescent: the political bias 
 perpetual. Thus, the condemnation of Argyle and 
 Weir, the latter for associating with a rebel whom it 
 was not proved that he knew to be such, resembles, 
 he says, more the acts of Tiberius and Domitian, 
 
 * Take for example the following of Temple, in which, perhaps with- 
 out meaning, but probably not without knowing it, he pourtrays himself* 
 " When he had reason to think that his services could no longer be 
 useful to his country, he withdrew wholly from public business, and 
 resolutely adliered to the preference of philosophical retirement, whicli 
 in his circumstances was just, in spite of every temptation which 
 occurred to bring him back to the more active scene. The remainder 
 of his life he seems to have employed in the most noble contemplations, 
 and the most elegant amusements ; every enjoyment heightened, no 
 doubt, by reflecting on the honourable part he had acted in public 
 afi^rs, and without any regret, on his own account, (whatever he might 
 feel for his country,) at having been driven from them." 
 
 F 4 
 
 : 
 
 ■ 
 
 * 
 
104 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 than those of even the most arbitrary governments.* 
 And yet he allows the sentences were not carried 
 into effect. One escaped; and the other, he tells you 
 himself, was reprieved. Did Tiberius or Domitian 
 €ver reprieve ? 
 
 His broad condemnation of the sentence against 
 Russell we have elsewhere considered ; and his vio- 
 lent declamation against the King, the ministry, the 
 court, and the jury, for the prosecution of Sidney, 
 we are so far from blaming, that it must be shared 
 by every lover of justice. Even that he carries it a 
 little farther than may be precisely warranted, as well 
 as quarrels warmly with Hume for the thinness of the 
 veil he throws over the King in that execrable affair, 
 neither surprises nor revolts us. Still, as usual, he 
 pushes it too far in this, — that he argues as if the 
 King and the government, knowing the defect of 
 evidence, had planned beforehand all the atrocities of 
 the lawyers. That Sidney was, at very least, as guilty 
 as Russell, or any other of the Council of Six, (per- 
 haps a little more, for he planned and conducted the 
 communication with Scotland,) there can be no moral 
 doubt ; therefore there was at least moral certainty in 
 the minds of the King and his ministers, that Sidney 
 designed rebellion; and if so, that they should order 
 his prosecution, leaving the lawyers to conduct it, is 
 neither surprising nor blameable. There is no 
 
 • p. 48. What the phraseology exactly means I don't know. 
 Were not the governments of Tiberius and Domitian arbitrary ? Did 
 not the murders of the popish plot equal them in injustice ? 
 
 it;; 
 
 I 
 
 APPENDIX IV. 
 
 105 
 
 proof adduced by Mr. Fox that, in this Jirst instance^ 
 they did more; and his accusation of them in tliat 
 part of the procedure which concerns the evidence is 
 therefore not warranted. I notice this, however, only 
 to show how much of a piece, as to violence and 
 extremes, all his censures are. God knows the objects 
 of them here have enough to answer for ; for though 
 they might not contrive the snare beforehand, yet, 
 after the sentence, by executing it, they made the 
 iniquity their own. 
 
 With his attack upon the Oxford decree we have 
 this quarrel, that even if it were (as it is not) revolt- 
 ing to truth, to history, and to common sense ; why 
 churchmen will " abuse the name of religion," more 
 than politicians or demagogues the name of liberty, 
 when it suits their policy, we are yet to learn, and 
 certainly shall not learn it from the treatise before us.* 
 A minor, but yet a fault, though belonging more 
 to criticism as to the style and method than the mat- 
 ter of the work, is the comparison of the doctors of 
 Oxford, when they framed this decree, to Dogberry 
 and Verges, when they declared that to receive a 
 thousand ducats for a false accusation vf^%Jiatlvxglary. 
 This, diverting over a table, is unworthy of the dignity 
 of history ; though, but for the excellent taste which 
 Mr. Fox possessed, and the extreme anxiety he is 
 said to have shown to keep his composition true to the 
 
 ♦ Fox, p. SQ, " Such tlie ncanner in which churchmen will abuse, 
 when it suits their policy, the holy name of that religion," &c. But 
 see this fully discussed, No. vii. in the Appendix. 
 
 7 5 
 
 I 
 
106 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 simplicity of remark and narration which he deemed 
 essential to the character of an historical work, it 
 would not be noticed. 
 
 To proceed with the examination of this store- 
 house of exaggeration, let us consider what is said 
 of the memorable ebullition of Charles on the suicide 
 of Essex, « that he owed a life to his family;" imply- 
 ing that he would have pardoned him had he been 
 
 guilty. 
 
 Mr. Fox thinks, seemingly without a shadow of 
 
 reason, though with abundant prejudice, that this 
 
 declaration being made after Essex was dead, and not 
 
 followed by any act evincing his sincerity^ is not to be 
 
 believed by men of sense. 
 
 It is plainly not believed by Mr. Fox, but why not 
 by others? What acts would he require? " Some 
 mark of kindness,'' he says, " to the relations, or some 
 act of mercy to the friends of the deceased !" Why 
 so ? If I tell a man I am sorry for his father's death, 
 am I not to be believed unless I provide for the son ? 
 This is going pretty far. Perhaps, to produce belief 
 in the historian, it would have been necessary to 
 pardon Lord Russell, or advance Essex's son in the 
 peerage! The true answer is by a question, Did 
 Charles, by implying that he would pardon Essex, 
 because his father had died for him, promise to pardon 
 any body else, or prefer Lord Essex's family ? If not, 
 why was the non-performance of what never was 
 promised to be the proof of a sincerity, otherwise to 
 be doubted ? . 
 
 APPENDIX IV. 
 
 107 
 
 The opening of James's reign is no more than 
 characteristic of the favourite notions of the writer, 
 but contradicted, I conceive, in the minds of most 
 readers of history, — that the new King's ruling pas • 
 sion was despotism rather than popery, and that the 
 one was subservient to the other. Hence the gra- 
 tuitous assumption, always made by prejudice, that the 
 pleasure James took in the popularity which greeted 
 the commencement of his reign, was owing, no doubt, 
 (why no doubt ?) to its being a powerful medium for 
 establishing his system of arbitrary power. With 
 regard to the Roman Catholic religion, he says, it is 
 by no means certain that he yet thought of obtaining 
 for it any more than a complete toleration. 
 
 In the same spirit, writing of the motion for an ad- 
 dress to execute the laws against dissenters, he says, 
 " the zeal for persecution in the Tories made them fall 
 into the snare." Here the character for a zeal to per- 
 secute, is the assumption of the writer, for he gives no 
 proof of it. Yet he possibly would feel, and has felt 
 aggrieved, when any partizan on the other side has 
 talked of Mr. Fox's zeal to unfurl the standard of 
 rebellion. At any rate, what spirit of persecution in 
 Tory members of parliament ever equalled the head- 
 long infamy of the Whig persecutions in the Popish 
 Plot, or of the Long Parliament? 
 
 In his observations on the bill for the preservation 
 of Jameslsi^person, which certainly extends the law of 
 treason most nefariously, though it never passed, he 
 
 F 6 
 
108 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 quits history altogether to vent a little of old House 
 of Commons rage against some of our modern sta- 
 tutes, made to repress a spirit of rebellion consequent 
 to the French Revolution. Into Mr. Fox's opposi- 
 tion to these, it is not our business to inquire ; but 
 the allusion to them, except as a modern partizan, in 
 a history of James IL, is extraordinary, and at least 
 out of place. Before indulging in the insinuation at 
 all, it would have been the duty of at least a fair 
 reasoner to have pointed out the particular statutes 
 for which the one in question, he says, might serve for a 
 model. But thus it is, though in the sober character 
 of an historian, he seems never for one moment to 
 forget the declaimer of opposition in the House of 
 Commons. Even the obnoxious statute had for some 
 of its clauses, (e. g. those against the title of Mon- 
 mouth) a precedent in 13th of Eliz. ch. 1., which was 
 actually followed by 6th Ann. ch. 7. sect. 1. 
 
 When he comes to Argyle's invasion, his fondness 
 for that unfortunate, generous, and injured, but 
 rash and indiscreet, and may we not add tveak man, 
 (spite of the historian's admiration of him,) hurries 
 him into numerous misrepresentations. These (the 
 greatest) which regard Sir Patrick Hume, have 
 been so perfectly refuted by Mr. Rose, in his most 
 sensible review of Mr. Fox's history, that I can only 
 refer to it. 
 
 What strikes one most, is the force of prejudice on 
 account of Argyle's party and insurrectionary virtue, 
 
 APPENDIX IV. 
 
 109 
 
 which, added to his constancy under suffering, makes 
 the historian bestow upon him the epithet of great. 
 
 If rashness in adopting an ill -concerted expedition 
 to invade his country with fire and sword, in revenge 
 for his own personal injuries, and to recover his pri- 
 vate fortune, — if the very weakest and most imprudent 
 conduct in pursuing it,— if obstinacy, impatience, 
 improvidence, and vacillation, — can entitle a man to 
 the appellation of Great, he certainly deserves it. His 
 faults, indeed, are much redeemed by his generosity, 
 his openness, and the manly fortitude as well as 
 calmness which he shewed in his last trials; but 
 greatness is the last character which the truth of 
 history would award him. Even Burnet makes but 
 poor account of him, and says, " it appeared that he 
 was not made for these designs."* 
 
 We can, however, account for and excuse the 
 highly-charged colouring which Mr. Fox has given 
 to many points in his account of him. He was 
 amiable, honourable, and brave ; which is enough to 
 create the interest with which a man who was him- 
 self all three regards him; and he suffered in at- 
 tacking James, which is quite enough to explain 
 Mr. Fox's partiality ; but not enough to justify his 
 torturing language, to add one more exaggeration to 
 those already enumerated of the sins of the tyrant 
 
 The warrant for proceeding to extremities against 
 Argyle is surely no more than any King who had 
 defeated an insurrection against himself would have 
 
 * Burnet, i. 633. 
 
110 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 issued. It directs that all ways should be taken to 
 know from him those things which concern our 
 government most, as his assisters with men, arms, 
 money, his associates, correspondents, designs, &c. 
 
 This, to a plain man, would surely convey nothing 
 extraordinary, nothing cruel, or even tyrannical. 
 But because torture was allowed, and had been in- 
 flicted by the law of Scotland, be sure, in the mind 
 of Mr. Fox, the words " all ways " must mean the 
 rack, the thumbekins, and the boots. If such had 
 been the intention, might it not have been left to the 
 administrators of the law ; or, if they wanted quick- 
 ening, would so cruel a tyrant have left it to so vague 
 a hint? Would it not have been expressed without 
 ambiguity? The best answer to the accusation is, 
 that the hint was not taken, and that Argyle was 
 not tortured. But Mr. Fox's prejudices never ex- 
 hibited themselves so glaringly, and, may we not say, 
 so weakly, as in this account. 
 
 Assuming, as usual, conjecture as true, and that 
 torture was clearly ordered, he enters into a grave 
 and solemn question of " the cause of this seeming 
 disregard to (what he chuses to call) the royal injunc^ 
 tions"* He assigns many possible reasons for it. 
 James miyht be struck with remorse ! But then there 
 is no trace of this ! How should there, if the torture 
 was never ordered ? Then the managers themselves 
 miffht have had sympathy for one of their own order, 
 which they showed not to men of inferior station. ^ 
 
 * Fox, 217. 
 
 APPENDIX IV. 
 
 Ill 
 
 Ingenious, but no proof even attempted ; and con- 
 tradicted withal by the horrible torture inflicted by 
 Whig tyrants upon Montrose in the prolongation of 
 his death.* 
 
 In pursuing the history of Argyle to his lament- 
 able end, there seems most extraordinary and un- 
 warrantable reasoning upon an interesting anecdote 
 transcribed from Woodrow. 
 
 The Earl had dined and conversed calmly with 
 Mr. Chatteris, and had retired to get some sleep. 
 This was just before his execution. While on his 
 bed, one of the council who had ordered his death 
 desired to speak with him, and disbelieving the 
 attendant, who told him he was asleep, was shown^ 
 through a door, " in a sweet and tranquil slumber, 
 the man who (Mr. Fox says,) by the doom of him 
 and his fellows, was to die within the space of two 
 short hours." 
 
 The counsellor, it is said, struck with the sight, 
 precipitately left the castle, and hid himself in a 
 friend's lodgings, w^here, flinging himself on the first 
 bed that presented itself, he had every appearance 
 of suffering the most excruciating torture. His 
 friend, thinking him ill, offered him wine, but he 
 refused, saying, " No ! no ! that will not help me : 
 I have been in at Argyle, and saw him sleeping a$ 
 
 * He was ordered by ihe then Whig government, and the order was 
 obeyed, to be half hanged repeatedly till life was spent. See Carte, iv. 
 630, apud Rose. 
 
 'H 
 
III 
 
 
 112 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 pleasantly as ever man did, within an hour of eter- 
 nity. But as for me, " 
 
 Upon this anecdote Mr. Fox absolutely revels, in 
 the triumph of what we will allow him to call a Whig 
 hero, over what he is most unjust and bigoted in 
 representing as a Tory oppressor. " Who is there," 
 he says, " that would not wish this to be true ? What 
 a satisfactory spectacle to a philosophical mind ! To 
 see the oppressor, in the zenith of his power, envying 
 his victim ! What an acknowledgment of the supe- 
 riority of virtue ! What an affecting and forcible tes- 
 timony to the value of that peace of mind which 
 innocence alone can confer ! We know not who the 
 man was ; but when we reflect, that the guilt which 
 agonized him was probably incurred for the sake of 
 some vain title, or at least some increase of wealth 
 which he did not want, and possibly knew not how 
 to enjoy, our disgust is turned into something like 
 compassion for that very foolish class of men whom 
 the world calls wise in their generation." * 
 
 Now, if it be fallacious to take a number of con- 
 jectures for granted, without the smallest foundation 
 for them stated, every line of this eloquent burst is 
 nothing but fallacy. 
 
 Respect, alone, for Mr. Fox, prevents one from 
 calling it by its right name. 
 
 With a want of skill, (if he sought an opportunity 
 to be pathetic,) which is surprising, he tells you that 
 
 ♦ Fox, 220. 
 
 Ii 
 
 APPENDIX IV. 
 
 113 
 
 ■m 
 
 the very name of this member of the council is un- 
 known. " We know not," says he, " who this man 
 was ; and the truth of it may, therefore, be fairly 
 considered as liable to that degree of doubt with 
 which men of judgment receive every species of tra^ 
 ditional history."* Thus, in the outset, he tells you 
 that not one word he writes is to be taken for granted. 
 
 Indeed, if it were otherwise, and the man known, 
 what is imputed to him is obviously an unsupported 
 calumny. 
 
 It is a charge branching into a variety of details, 
 without even an attempt at proof. 
 
 Yet Mr. Fox, for himself, and, still more, his noble 
 ' editor for him, claim, nay, make it their pride, that 
 he was anxiously strict in hazarding nothing but 
 "v»rhat was carefully sifted to the bottom before it was 
 admitted. Here, to be sure, it is not asserted that 
 all the suppositions are proved ; but the glowing 
 declamations upon them are good for nothing without 
 that proof. Yet, even improved, why was this coun- 
 sellor an oppressor? Because, being a judge, he 
 fulfilled a judge's duty, in awarding the sentence due 
 to treason ? 
 
 How does it appear that Argyle was his victim ? 
 
 How, that he envied him. 
 
 Every thing is assumed for the sake of the decla- 
 mation. 
 
 
 i 
 
 I 
 
 ♦ p. 219. He adds, however, the belief of Woodrow, who says he 
 had it from unquestionable authority. Woodrow ought to have told 
 his authority. 
 
/l 
 
 br 
 
 114 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 APPENDIX IV. 
 
 1J5 
 
 ti 
 
 >!l 
 
 It is assumed, that what agonized him was gititt. 
 It is assumed, that he incurred that guilt for a vain 
 title, or increase of wealth. It is assumed, that 
 he probably did not want either ; it is assumed that 
 he possibly knew not how to enjoy them! Upon 
 the whole, there never was such an instance, in the 
 history of the mind of man, how totally genius and 
 imagination may be bereaved of judgment, and there- 
 fore forfeit all pretence to authority, as in this ebul- 
 lition, which would justify Hamlet's exclamation — 
 
 " He tears his passion all to rags.'* 
 
 But there is another charge against Mr. Fox. 
 He says, (again assuming the motive^ that he may 
 blacken the parties,) '' In order that the triumph of 
 injustice might be complete, it was determined that, 
 without any new trial, the Earl should suffer upon 
 the iniquitous sentence of 1682.'' * 
 
 Here, then, we see that to punish a man as a traitor 
 who is taken in arms against his country, is, in the 
 mind of Mr. Fox, injustice, per se ; for it is here only 
 a^ygravated by referring to the sentence of 1682. 
 
 That reference, in Mr. Fox's mind, made it more 
 complete, but the fact was already injustice. 
 
 Will Mr. Fox's private opinion on the right of in- 
 surrection deliver him from this ? 
 
 If Argyle was right, because he thought the country 
 
 oppressed, every man who rebels is right, for no 
 
 ' doubt he thinks so too. And then in Mr. Fox's 
 
 opinion it is unjust to punish treason. Burnet, how- 
 
 * Fox, 218. 
 
 ever, who recounts the reasons for his invasion, given 
 by Argyle himself in his last moments, makes no 
 mention of the wrongs of the country, nor of any 
 wrongs but his own. I 
 
 " He justijied^'^ says he, " all he had done." 
 How ? By any tyranny of James after he was King? 
 No ! Because " he had been unjustly attainted by 
 Charles^ which had dissolved his allegiance; so it was 
 justice to himself and to his family to endeavour 
 to recover what was so wrongfully taken from him, 
 He also thought that no allegiance was due to the 
 King till he had taken the oath, which the law pre- 
 scribed at the coronation."* So, then, Mr. Fox's 
 patriot hero rested his cause on his own personal 
 wrongs ; and is withal a madman, who tells you, that 
 until the King is crowned and takes the oaths every 
 government is dissolved, and every subject who has 
 any thing to complain of may take arms against his 
 country ! 
 
 Was Argyle right, then, in Mr. Fox's mind, in 
 denying James's title to the throne, which he derived 
 from his ancestors, and on which he was seated but a 
 few months before with the fullest approbation of all 
 the organs of the people? 
 
 What but madness, or rebellion for rebellion's sake, 
 could make this sanguine indiscreet man declare war 
 upon " James Duke of York and Albany," as if he 
 was not King of Scotland ? 
 
 What refinement of metaphysics, what scheme of 
 
 * Burnet, i. 632. 
 
116 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 APPENDIX IV. 
 
 117 
 
 i 
 
 the rights of man, could justify, or even explain this to 
 common sense? How then will Mr. Fox justify his 
 assertion, in calling the resistance to Argyle unjust? 
 For if his punishment was unjust, his enterprise was 
 just; and it would have been unjust to oppose him. 
 
 Of all the futile, as well as dangerous opinions 
 which Mr. Fox exhibited in the course of his life 
 upon popular questions, this upon Argyle's expedition 
 seems to be the most dangerous, most futile, and 
 most indefensible. 
 
 But, farther, Mr. Fox seems ignorant of what he 
 must have known, that a man lying already under 
 sentence for one treason, cannot be tried and sen- 
 tenced again for another. 
 
 Aro-yle had already been condemned, and, I will 
 allow with Mr. Fox, most iniquitously condemned; but 
 being condemned, no new injustice was committed in 
 not executing him on another sentence, which, had he 
 been tried, he legally deserved. Would it have sof- 
 tened his death to have granted him a pardon for the 
 first crime, in order the next moment to behead him 
 for the second ? It was the case of Sir Walter Raleigh 
 over again, which, though it might be execrable and 
 hard, was neither the one nor the other in point of 
 form. He had before been condemned for treason, 
 and though the sentence was not executed, liable to 
 
 be so at any moment. 
 
 The hardship was in being allowed to remain four- 
 teen years with the axe suspended over his head, 
 after which the sentence seemed virtually remitted, 
 
 by his being released from prison and entrusted with 
 a command. 
 
 Notwithstanding this he was kept liable in law to 
 the execution which finally was inflicted. 
 
 In this situation he had committed new crimes, and 
 might have been tried and condemned for piracy*, but 
 the law interposed, and claimed him as a man al- 
 ready doomed, and not therefore triable. Do I defend 
 the driveller who kept the law so long in force against 
 him ? God forbid ! 
 
 But not the less would it be unjust to say, that if 
 punishment for his second offence was deserved, the 
 fulfilment of the forms prescribed by the law was the 
 " triumph ofinjusticeP 
 
 Mr. Fox winds up the account of the last moments 
 of Argyle with a prayer, in the very spirit of a disci- 
 ple of insurrection against a lawful King, which 
 James, who had then committed no great act of 
 tyranny, certainly was.f 
 
 * The name of Raleigh is so splendid, that the mind is unwilling to 
 contemplate the dark spots in his character. Many there were, which 
 it is not necessary here to dwell upon. But with regard to the case 
 which enforced the former sentence upon him, after reading Hume's 
 most able analysis of it, there can be no doubt of his guilt. 
 
 f He had for a few months after his accession, till parliament met, 
 levied the excise and customs of his own authority, and that in a most 
 ungracious and arbitrary manner. But they were all regularly given 
 to him about the very time of Argyle and Monmouth's invasion. 
 Neither of them mentioned, possibly did not know, any thing of this 
 act of tyranny. But if they had, would it have justified insur- 
 rection ? Then general warrants would have done so in the time of 
 George III. 
 
 Iiil' 
 
 ill 
 
 i. 
 
 VOL. II. 
 
 F n 
 
118 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 « Such," says our historian, ^'were the last hours, 
 and such the final close of this great man's life. May 
 the like happy serenity in such dreadful circumstances, 
 and a death equally glorious, be the lot of all 
 whom tyranny, of whatever denomination or description, 
 shall in any age or in any country call to expiate their 
 virtues on the scaffold^* 
 
 Thus, it is tyranny, in Mr. Fox's opinion, to try 
 and execute a rebel taken in arms against his lawful 
 sovereign. How will he defend the many executions 
 in the ''reigns of William and the House of Bruns- 
 wick ? . 
 
 But even with red-hot fervour, such as was in the 
 mind of a Sidney, a Ludlow, a Madame Roland, 
 or a Mrs. Macauley, with all the partial zeal shown 
 by Mr. Fox himself against the Stuarts, it is not 
 possible to warp a mind of the commonest judgment 
 into the opinion that Argyle's expedition was justi- 
 fiable by any law, eyen of nature or self-defence, 
 setting the law of the land wholly out of the 
 
 question. 
 
 For it cannot be too often impressed, that at the 
 time of the invasion James had done nothing to 
 excite revolt in the least loyal of his subjects. 
 
 Even Wildman, that rough commonwealthsman, 
 praised for being one of the very few who objected 
 to the Prince of Orange's declaration, as not con- 
 taining the true grounds of the invasion ; even he, 
 in a declaration framed by himself to correct 
 
 * Fox, p. 222. 
 
 ^1 
 
 APPENDIX IV. 
 
 119' 
 
 the other, did not count much upon the acts of 
 tyranny in James. He even allowed the dispensing 
 power, and fairly avowed, that though it had of late 
 been stretched too far, the stretching of a power 
 that was in the Crown was not a just ground for 
 war. He added, that the King had a right to bring 
 any man to trial ; that the Bishops had had one, 
 and were acquitted and discharged; in all which 
 there was nothing contrary to law.* 
 
 James, then, according to his greatest enemy, even 
 at the time of the Dutch invasion, much more, there- 
 fore, at that of Argyle, was a King, and no tyrant ; 
 and unless to be a King, in Mr. Fox's mind, is to 
 commit sin, and therefore be liable to be cut off by 
 the sword of a subject, Argyle, with all his virtues, 
 was a traitor. Nor had his treason the excuse which 
 alone could ennoble it, — resistance to a tyrant for 
 breaches of the law. 
 
 From his own dying declaration, he only sought 
 redress for his own private injuries; and for this he 
 was ready to deluge his country in blood. 
 
 If his death, therefore, was glorious, in Mr. Fox's 
 eyes, there is no rebellion which in his opinion may 
 not be glorious, defended, practised, praised, and ap- 
 
 * Burnet, i. 780. Wildman's view was upon a far more extensive 
 principle than that of mere self-defence. 
 
 He seems to have been actuated by Mackintosh's doctrine of a 
 Reformatory Revolt. 
 
 The Whig Bishop himself is forced to say of this period, that, " the 
 King had not yet done that which would justify extreme counsels.** 
 i. 629. - 
 
 • 4 
 
120 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 proved ; for no rebel but could find reasons equal 
 to those, whatever they were, for supposing James 11. 
 was only Duke of York, and not King of Britain. 
 
 Upon the whole question of Argyle, if it was 
 Mr. Fox's object to interest us for him under his 
 hard fate, he has succeeded; but he would have 
 interested us more if he had attempted less. 
 
 By endeavouring to prove too much, he has weak- 
 ened our sympathy for Argyle as a patriot, and our 
 admiration of him as a hero; and, what is more, has 
 weakened his own authority as an historian, an ob- 
 server of men, and a guide in constitutional law. 
 
 in 
 
 Monmouth's rebellion. 
 
 In narrating the progress of Monmouth's rebellion, 
 our illustrious champion for the cause of insurrection, 
 has not the same scope for enthusiastic declamation 
 as in the case of Argyle. For Monmouth, the weak- 
 est of men, though personally brave, and equally 
 amiable, had not the same injuries to complain of as 
 the chief of the Campbells, nor were the circum- 
 stances of his death attended with so much interest 
 He seems to have been the tool of the Whigs, who 
 must have thought him a convenient instrument for 
 their purposes, when, to try what a beautiful person 
 could do for them in exciting the people against his 
 father's government, they sent him to make a pro- 
 gress in the western midland counties, under what 
 pretence, except as an experiment of his title against 
 
 APPENDIX IV, 
 
 121 
 
 that of the true heir, James, it would perplex the 
 wisest of the historians to determine. 
 
 Yet if this were so, there was not a Whig among 
 them that did not wilfully deceive his own heart, for 
 not one of them ever presumed to assert, in public 
 at least, that Monmouth was the true heir to the 
 Crown. , 
 
 The progress, therefore, of the Whig Duke, was 
 either a piece of unmeaning vanity, or the effect of 
 a deep-laid conspiracy by the Whigs to effect that 
 by falsehood (in the same manner as they did in 
 regard to the real Prince of Wales at the Revolution,) 
 which they could not procure by fair exertion, the 
 exclusion of the Duke of York. 
 
 This having failed, and Monmouth in exile, after 
 the miserable exliibition he made of his feebleness in 
 the Rye House plot, — now confessing, now retract- 
 ing, now asking pardon, now bullying, it was yet 
 tliought best by the malcontents to retain their hold 
 over him, and, though they were not generous 
 enough to join fortunes, to maintain correspondence 
 with him and elevate his hopes, on the chance of 
 their being realised upon some future occasion. 
 
 The poor Duke was therefore caj oiled into an 
 enterprize, for which he was not only totally unfit, 
 but which he himself disapproved, and for which 
 there was not die slightest pretence. We may say, 
 indeed, of him, as FalstafF said of Worcester, 
 
 " Rebellion lay in his way, and he found it," 
 VOL. II. a 
 
 1 1 
 
 1:- 
 
 I'l 
 
122 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 i 
 
 it 
 
 i 
 
 It is neither necessary, nor is it my intention, to 
 revert to the details of a career so well known, ex- 
 cept to attend upon Mr. Fox in his few observations 
 upon it; remarking only, in the outset, that it is 
 difficult for any sober person, not absolutely in love 
 with the doctrine of a reformatory revolt, to fabri- 
 cate arguments, any thing like satisfactory, on die 
 around of injured rights, which could justify this 
 unfortunate man in an invasion of James. Even it 
 he had been at the head of a powerful army, and 
 invited by powerful demagogues in England, much 
 more with the contracted means he possessed, and 
 the total want of preconcerted plan, or reasonable 
 expectation of an effective support after he should 
 land, the question in limine occurs, on what pretence 
 was this enterprize undertaken? If only with a view 
 to destroy tyranny, in what had James then shown 
 himself a tyrant? In what had he oppressed? In 
 what was his title defective ? 
 
 Unless Monmouth had set up his own title against 
 his, which, in his secret heart, he believed was just, 
 for so he declared it;— unless he absolutely aspired to 
 the crown, as he afterwards did, spite of previous 
 disavowals,— it is absolutely embarrassing to ingenuity 
 itself, much more to common sense, to find the re- 
 motest plea to justify the undertaking. It is certain 
 Mr. Fox is not able to furnish any such plea. 
 
 This is important to consider, because Mr. Fox 
 seems not to conceal that he approves the expedition. 
 
 ■^1 
 
 APPENDIX IV. 
 
 123 
 
 In speaking of Sir Patrick Hume, one of the most 
 active advisers of Monmouth to the measure, he says, 
 he was " looked upon as a principal ally by such of 
 the English patriots as had at any time entertained 
 thoughts, whether more or less ripened, of delivering 
 their country." * 
 
 Delivering from what ? The having levied the cus- 
 toms of his own authority till parliament met and gave 
 them to James, — the chief or only stretch of power 
 he had shown. 
 
 - But will even that justify an invasion by his own 
 subjects ? 
 
 Yes ! says Mr. Fox, for, speaking of Burnet's disap- 
 probation of Monmouth's views, he observes, " It is 
 difficult to accede to his opinion, that, though particular 
 injustices had been committed, the misgovernment had 
 not been of such a nature as to justify resistance by 
 arms."t According to Mr. Fox, therefore, James 
 ought to have been dethroned, or at least have been 
 exposed to an invasion, for doing a thing, afterwards 
 allowed, in a wrong manner ; and those many acts for 
 which a minister so frequently and so easily obtains 
 an act of indemnity, justify immediate insurrection. 
 Yet he allows, that, to justify resistance, the cause of 
 the insurgent must be " intrinsically just. " Such, 
 then, must have been the cause of Monmouth, in the 
 opinion of one who is held, by a large and respec- 
 table party in the nation, to have been one of her 
 
 ♦ p. 173. 
 
 G 2 
 
 t p. 184. 
 
12i 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 most enlightened statesmen. And yet he blames, iri 
 the terms which such wicked folly deserves, the ma- 
 nifesto issued by the Duke on his landing, accusing 
 James of burning the city, murdering Godfrey and 
 Essex, and poisoning his brother, as well as assertmg 
 his own right to the crown. He, (Mr. Fox,) there^ 
 fore, would have made a better manifesto ; and to 
 have seen how he would have penned it 'would have 
 edified us in the science of democratic policy. 
 
 Would it have begun thus? " Whereas myself, and 
 Sir Patrick Hume, and Sir John Cochran, and Fer- 
 gusson, had all endeavoured to rise against King 
 Charles, but failed ; for which, in fear of the unjust 
 laws that punish treason, we have become exiles m 
 the time of King James ; therefore King James ought 
 to be dethroned." 
 
 Or would it have been, « That whereas there is no 
 law preventing a Papist from being King of England; 
 and King James is a Papist, therefore he ought to 
 be dethroned?" Or perhaps, or best of all, ^^ Whereas 
 the Kings of England take certain oaths at their 
 coronation, and therefore, before they take those 
 oaths, they are not Kings of England, and the sub- 
 jects owe them no allegiance: and whereas King James 
 was some months before he was crowned and took 
 the said oaths : therefore, although he has now taken 
 them, he ought to be dethroned ?" 
 
 This was very little different from the declarations 
 Argyle, and others of the invaders ; but would 
 
 APPENDIX IV. 
 
 125 
 
 
 Is 
 
 ii 
 
 this, we may ask, have satisfied those Whigs who did 
 not join Monmouth, better than the proclamation he 
 actually published ? 
 
 For this backwardness in the Whigs seems to sur- 
 prise Mr. Fox ; and he endeavours to account for it, 
 by saying, « Their present coldness might be im- 
 puted to the indistinctness of his (Monmouth's) 
 declarations with respect to what was intended to b6 
 the future government." * 
 
 Thus, then, that James's government ought to 
 have been overturned, though he had been only a 
 few months on the throne, and his first parliament 
 only commencing their duties, seems, in Mr. Fox's 
 mind, to have been no more than an acknowledged 
 .principle of the Whigs, and of course his own, pro- 
 vided only that they had known what was intended 
 as to the future government. 
 
 , With great submission to Mr. Fox, he might, 
 without much oflfending the patriotism of the Whigs, 
 or the justice of the case, have given a better reason for 
 their neutrality, in their loyalty and good sense ; — 
 loyalty to a lawful sovereign, who was as yet not a 
 tyrant; — good sense, which saw through the totaji 
 want of justice in the invasion, and the imbecile 
 character of its leader. 
 
 Imbecile as he was, and imprudent in claiming the 
 crown, that claim was at least a more intelligible 
 reason for the invasion than any that had been urged 
 
 * p. 245. 
 G 3 
 
126 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 by Argyle. When he himself, indeed, in Holland, 
 expressed to those who persuaded him to the expe- 
 dition his doubts of success from the paucity of his 
 numbers, he was reminded, in answer, of the few 
 followers by whom Henry IV. was attended when he 
 landed, and yet his success was complete. 
 
 Mr. Fox, however, preferred the Whiff reasons, 
 which actuated, he says, a part of those who joined 
 him, who considered the destruction of Jame^s 
 tyranny as the object which^ at all hazards and with^ 
 out regard to consequences^ they were bound to pursue. 
 This phantom of tyranny glares perpetually upon 
 Mr. Fox, whether in existence or not. For James, 
 as we have observed, had then reigned but a few 
 mouths ; he was only just crowned, and he was then 
 busy with his parliament : and yet one would imagine, 
 from this raised mode of expression, that he had cut 
 off thousands of heads, and levied millions of money, 
 by his sole will and arbitrary power. 
 
 I own, in this common place invective, though I see 
 abundant proof of the partizan, I look in vain for the 
 statesman, or that searching mind and overwhelming 
 power of argument which all justly allow to Mr. Fox. 
 As it was no part of the plan of these strictures to 
 pursue the details of Mr. Fox's historical work as 
 facts, but only such observations as he makes upon 
 them, which appear unwarrantable, from the strong 
 bias of his mind ; and as he closes with the death of 
 Monmouth, which now fast approaches, little remains 
 
 APPENDIX IV. 
 
 127 
 
 to be added but a few notices of sentiments and ex- 
 pressions of the same nature as those we have already 
 enumerated. 
 
 His excuses for Monmouth's errors, weaknesses, 
 and instances of pusillanimity, are very poor; nor 
 was he bound to make them as an historian ; but, 
 being a Whig, the history is made secondary, and to 
 defend the character of Monmouth as a deliverer^ is 
 made the chief object of the disquisition, while his 
 injustice as an invader is not remembered. In a sort 
 of exculpatory tone, therefore, as if it was almost 
 merit, he says he was a man against whom all that 
 has been said by his most inveterate enemies, both 
 to him and his party, amounts to little more than this, 
 — that he had not a mind equal to the situation in 
 which his ambition placed him. Burnet says he was 
 gentle, brave, and sincere, to which we add generosity ; 
 " and surely those qualities go a great way in making 
 up the catalogue of all that is amiable and estimable in 
 human nature."* 
 
 Allowing the amiable, with submission, this by no 
 means goes a great way to all that is estimable. For* 
 titude, resolution, decision, resource, and, above all, 
 truth ; independence of the flattery or cajoUery of 
 others; in short to be Justus et tenax propositi; — • 
 in all these he was lamentably deficient His sub- 
 mission to the counsels of others, even after they 
 had proved themselves unworthy, had the weakness 
 of a child, particularly in the case of the infamous 
 
 • p. 287. 
 G 4 
 
128 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 Lord Grey ; upon which, and this whole part of his 
 character, the language of Mr. Fox, from viewing 
 him, no doubt, chiefly as an unfortunate Whig, is 
 remarkable. 
 
 " One of the most conspicuous features of his 
 character," says he, " seems to have been a remark- 
 able, and, as some thinks a culpable degree of flexibility.'* 
 
 As some think ! Does Mr. Fox, then, dovbt that 
 this flexibility, which drove him into such a rash 
 and unlawful undertaking, which caused his own 
 ruin, and shed the blood of thousands, is culpable to 
 the highest degree? Or do Whiggery and the 
 insurrectionary spirit salve this ? 
 
 He goes on still more extraordinarily with the 
 apology; and, with a zeal which does not, however, 
 conceal the fallacy, observes, — what bears nothing 
 upon the question, — " that such a disposition is pre- 
 ferable to the opposite extreme will be admitted by 
 all who think that modesty, even in excess^ is more 
 nearly allied to wisdom^ than conceit and self-suffi- 
 ciency." Well ! It needed not the authority of 
 Mr. Fox to make this discovery. But how does it 
 defend Monmouth ? Was it excess of modesty that 
 made him create himself King, and by so doing 
 break all his promises to his best friends ? Was it 
 excess of modesty to accuse James of what he knew 
 to be false ? There is even ridicule attending the 
 application of this sentiment by Mr. Fox. 
 
 But this modesty is allied to wisdom. Was it wisdom, 
 then, that made him undertake an enterprise, having 
 
 APPENDIX IV. 
 
 129 
 
 for Its object nothing less than the revolt of nations, 
 and the dethronement of kings, and yet to act like a 
 baby in leading-strings ; swayed from his purpose at 
 every turn, and obeying the suggestions of every fool, 
 every knave, and every coward ? 
 
 Mr. Fox says, that " a willingness to be convinced, 
 or, in some cases, even without conviction, to concede 
 our own opinion to that of other men, is among the 
 principal ingredients in the composition of practical 
 wisdom ;"* and for the illustrations of this sentiment, 
 he instances the ^ayaciVy of Shaftsbury, the honour 
 of Russell, and the genius of Sidney. Against the 
 honour of Russell not a word can be said. But as for 
 the sagacity of Shaftsbury, what did it do but murder 
 Russell and destroy himself? The greatest rogue of 
 his time, he would have made Monmouth, first a 
 robberf , next an incendiary ; as Sidney would have 
 made him a republican. Poor Monmouth would 
 have been well off by conceding his own opinion, 
 against his conviction^ to such illustrious guides. This 
 whole passage astonishes, from such an able head as 
 Mr. Fox, particularly in his admiration of the saga- 
 city of this violent rebel. Burnet, at least, had a 
 different opinion, and knew men. He says Mon- 
 mouth gave hxm^eK fatally up to Shaftsbury's conduct. 
 
 But let the abstract principle laid down be true ; 
 
 ♦ p. 287. 
 
 f He went headlong with the iniquitous Cabal, and, if not the 
 author, concurred in the scheme of shutting up the Exchequer. As 
 it was, Burnet says Monmouth gave himself fatally up to hira. 
 
 G 5 
 
ifl* 
 
 130 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 then it was wise in Monmouth to be governed by 
 such a knave as Fergusson, It was wise, being a 
 man naturally of truth, honour, and sincerity, to 
 adopt and publish the most atrocious accusations 
 against James, which, Mr. Fox himself says, he knew 
 to be false. It was wise, having had the strongest 
 proofs of Grey's cowardice and incapacity as a soldier, 
 (himself the bravest of soldiers,) to continue him in 
 the most important and trustworthy command he had 
 to give ! Does Mr. Fox cure this absurdity, this 
 weakness, by saying that he " had suffered flexibi- 
 lity, so laudable in many cases^ to degenerate into a 
 hahitj which made him often follow the advice or 
 yield to the entreaties of persons whose characters 
 by no means entitled them to such deference." As 
 well might he apologise for drunkenness, because an 
 original love of liquor had been suffered to degenerate 
 into a habit ! He adds, too, (mirabile dictu !) that 
 the partiality of friendship, and the conviction of his 
 firm attachment, might be some excuse for his listen- 
 ing so much to Grey ; a man whom, be it observed, 
 Mr. Fox had before represented as deeply stained, 
 and known to be so, with private vices. 
 
 All this laboured apology, drawn from abstract 
 truisms, may explain, but never can defend, the con- 
 duct of the poor weak nobleman, which caused so 
 much woe, both to himself, and the many victims 
 of his criminal ambition, disguised not even in the 
 shape of specious patriotism. To elevate him into 
 the character of a hero, instead of being a tool, baf- 
 
 APPENDIX; IV. 
 
 131 
 
 fles the genius, and, what is more, even the party 
 spirit of Mr. Fox, who has toiled to procure for him 
 the approbation of his readers, and toiled in vain. 
 
 And yet, if the death of Argyle was glorious^ be- 
 cause he perished, as is said, in the cause of liberty, 
 on the scaffold, I see not that the death of Mon- 
 mouth was not equally so. For both equally perished 
 on the scaffold, and both in the same cause, — whether 
 of liberty or not, is another question. 
 
 No one, indeed, can charge Argyle with the prac^ 
 iical icisdom of conceding his opinions to others, for 
 his obstinacy and jealousy are imputed to him as 
 mainly contributing to his destruction. But, in other 
 respects, may not the Duke's case vie with his, and 
 equally challenge the praises of posterity, at least in 
 the opinion of Mr. Fox ? 
 
 Both aflSrmed themselves to be intended deliverers 
 of their country ; from what acts of tyranny by James, 
 both failed to point out ; both denied James's title to 
 the crown, declaring they made war on the Duke of 
 York, who was therefore a usurper; both had private 
 injuries and objects which had nothing to do with 
 the country, — the one wanted his estate, the other 
 the crown. Again, both were equally and absurdly 
 remiss in preparing for so vast an undertaking with 
 such inefficient means. Both trusted to chance, and 
 both found the chances against them. Finally, both 
 failed, as might be expected, and both lost their 
 heads without the intervention of a jury, — the one 
 by a former sentence, the other by an act of attainder. 
 
 G 6 
 
 Ul 
 
132 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 ii 
 
 If this be not a comparison quite worthy of Plu- 
 tarch, it is at least made up of home truths ; and 
 though Argyle showed much of real heroism in his 
 prison, redeeming many of the faults he showed in 
 the field ; and Monmouth, whether in field or prison, 
 was no hero at all ; yet still, in the visions of party 
 enthusiasts, they were equally esteemed the victims 
 of oppression, and therefore equally entitled to places 
 in Mr. Fox's temple of fame. ^ 
 
 Mr. Fox, in his attempt (with what success we 
 have seen) to canonize the Duke, will not allow of 
 any advocatus diaboli, and therefore is angry with 
 Echard, and sneers at Burnet, for some of their ex- 
 pressions concerning him in his last hours ; and the 
 divines who attended him have at least their full 
 share of that sneer. 
 
 Monmouth's well-known letter to James implores 
 mercy in terms any thing but worthy a great and 
 patriotic champion of an injured people. He looks 
 upon his attempt with horror, and abhors those who 
 put him upon it. In short, spite of Fox's excuses, 
 he is any thing but a Sidney, or a Brutus. This 
 letter. Archdeacon Echard calls, and, as I think 
 truly, after such outrageous accusations, pusillani- 
 mously submissive; which Mr. Fox says, was, perhaps, 
 not so seemly in a churchman^ . 
 
 Why a churchman may not judge of pusillanimity 
 as well as another, I know not, nor can I conjecture 
 a reason for the insinuation against Echard, unless 
 the hope expressed by Monmouth, in addition to 
 
 APPENDIX IV. 
 
 133 
 
 n^eaner topics, that God would strike the King with 
 compassion, makes it unseemly in a churchman to 
 meddle with any part of such a composition. 
 
 In regard to other incidents;, more interesting as 
 concerning domestic morals, there is the same indefen- 
 sible partiality to remark upon. Monmouth's notorious 
 and open adulterous connection with Lady Harriet 
 Wentworth, who might certainly have loved him with 
 the tenderness of a wife, but who as certainly wa^ 
 nothing but a mistress, is at least spoken of without 
 blame. The sophistries, indeed, with which they 
 disguised their oflFence against the moral decencies of 
 life are not even observed upon ; and yet when the 
 injured real wife is introduced on the scene, she is 
 dismissed with a harsh, and underserved sarcasm. 
 
 Noticing the account of her visit to her husband 
 in prison given by Burnet, that they met, and parted 
 very coldly, Fox says, " it is a circumstance, which, 
 if true, gives us no very favourable idea of the lady's 
 character." Good God ! Why ? Is no allowance td 
 be made for a woman of a character never reproached; 
 a real wife, who had endowed him with princely riches, 
 but whom he had early wronged, cast off, and, as far 
 as possible, disavowed, while he pocketed her fortune^ 
 under pretence that he had been too young to have had 
 a free choice, and therefore transferred that choice to 
 another woman, and openly maintained it to her face ! 
 One would have thought that the known g6od na- 
 ture of Mr. Fox alone would have spared this remark. 
 
134 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 But to such lengths will indifference, or hostility to 
 
 legitimacy, carry us. 
 
 Again, and to have done: in speaking of Tennison's 
 visit to the Duke, and Burnet's account of the man- 
 ner in which he expostulated with him upon his 
 crime, he says, " that that divine did (not his duty, 
 but) what the right reverend historian conceives to 
 have been such, in a less peremptory manner than 
 the others." If this mean any thing, it means that a 
 clergyman, sent for expressly by the condemned him- 
 self to prepare him for death, ought not to have 
 thought it his duty (his crime being treason) to set 
 the heinousness of it before him. 
 
 In the same spirit he makes it matter of grave 
 surprise, and therefore of blame, against the other 
 divines who attended him, for being so intent upon 
 doctrine that they did not exhort him to retract the 
 calumnies of his manifesto. 
 
 The answer is clear: as no man believed the calum* 
 nies, it was not necessary ; but it concerned James, 
 and the community too, that doctrines so subversive of 
 public security as those declared by the invaders, 
 should be publicly disavowed. The thing is not 
 of much consequence, and it is only noticed in order 
 to show how entirely, from first to last throughout his 
 performance, Mr. Fox has sacrificed to party feelings. 
 
 His words and sentiments in this parting observa- 
 tion (for here the history closes) are quite as re- 
 markable a$ anywhere else. 
 
 APPENDIX IV* 
 
 135 
 
 " They were so intent," he says, " upon points more 
 immediately connected with orthodoxy of faithj that 
 they omitted pressing their penitent to the (mly de- 
 claration by which he could make any satisfactory 
 atonement to those whom he had injured."* Now I 
 do not defend the pertinacity of the divines, which 
 was unfeeling and almost cruel. But the orthodoxy 
 of faith, that is, of religious faith, was scarcely in ques- 
 tion. It was the political creed of resistance to the 
 government which was the chief object of those upon 
 whose attempts Mr. Fox has made this remark. 
 
 And thus, the closing remark in this eventful history 
 amounts to this, — that when a traitor invades his coun- 
 try on false, because unfounded pretences, and avows 
 penitence, personal slanders (not credited and not 
 credible,) are the only things for which he is to express 
 his sorrow, and not the right claimed, to arm against 
 his lawful sovereign, whose title he had disputed. 
 
 Upon the whole, with every possible deference for 
 this great intellect, and every possible respect for his 
 sincerity in his principles, as well as admiration of 
 the beautiful parts of his character, are we far wrong 
 in thinking that the political principles laid down, the 
 sentiments hazarded, and the criticisms indulged, 
 both upon events and characters, in his history, are not 
 SUCH as establish Mr. Fox's claims to impartiality as 
 an historian, any more than they will add to his 
 reputation as a practical statesman, a philosophic 
 observer, or a constitutional lawyer? 
 
 • p. 290, 
 
136 
 
 HISTORICAL KSBAY. 
 
 No. V. 
 
 THE OPINIONS OF LOCKE. 
 
 The intellect of this great man was so profound, 
 his reputation as a reasoner so deserved, as well as 
 so widely extended, and the knowledge which he 
 brought to any subject so exact, that even if he were 
 not, as he is, the head and father of those doctrines 
 which we are examining, it would be a sort of cow- 
 ardice, as well as an unpardonable disrespect, if we 
 did not notice them. Certainly, if the arguments 
 ao-ainst the tenets we oppose are, as they ought to 
 be, sound, it is not a name, however high, that will 
 overset them ; truth must prevail, even against autho- 
 rity ; and if our notions are true, he who has not 
 been afraid of venturing to question Fox or Mackin- 
 tosh, ought not to flinch in examining Locke. 
 
 This venerable name fills every one who has heard 
 it with respect and deference; for ability and in- 
 tegrity, however, more, perhaps, than impartiality. 
 The friend, confidant, and admirer of such a rash 
 incendiary,a3wellas volatile genius, as Shaftsbury; — 
 himself, too, an object and instance in his own per- 
 son of, possibly, the most shameful and arbitrary 
 persecution, though not the most important, that dis- 
 <Traced the reign of James;— could not, perhaps, have 
 approached the subject of resistance to tyranny alto- 
 gether without strong preconceived notions, not 
 favourable to dispassionate or calm inquiry. He 
 
 APPENDIX v. 
 
 137 
 
 had not, indeed, like Fox or Mackintosh, been so 
 accustomed to the Pythian violence, which always 
 and necessarily belongs to public declaimers on 
 popular subjects; but it is not unfair to suppose that 
 the honest opinions of his mind borrowed both fancy 
 and vehemence from zeal, kindled by personal feel- 
 ings, in addition to all that was excited by the spirit 
 of the times. Accordingly, though we must allow 
 for, we must not shut our eyes to those extreme and 
 Utopian notions of the power and exactly defined . 
 rights of the people, and the subserviency of sove- 
 reigns, which belong to the celebrated Essay on 
 Civil Government. 
 
 With his preliminary essay, demolishing the rope 
 of sand, as he justly calls it, with which Sir Robert 
 Filmer endeavoured to bind up the system of the 
 divine right of kings, and the derivation of monarchical 
 power from Adam, we can have no quarrel. On the 
 contrary, as that system has long been considered, 
 and deservedly, (to use* a phrase of Swift's when 
 he triumphed,) down among the dead men, so incon* 
 ceivably prevalent was that doctrine in those days, 
 that the world were obliged to the great abilities of 
 Locke for stooping to refute it. 
 . But the second essay, upon the general nature of 
 government, and the many startling consequences 
 which Locke derives from his premises, as well as 
 the premises themselves, are a very different matter. 
 I am not going to review or analyze this treatise at 
 large, but will merely examine a few of its leading 
 
138 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 principles, and the results which he makes to flow 
 from them practically considered. 
 
 Eminently, in the first place, must we notice his 
 theory of the state of nature, as it is called, or a 
 state, as is supposed, where each individual man, 
 lord of himself, lives, acts, and resolves in a manner 
 wholly free from all social law or the restraints of 
 civil polity. The natural liberty of man, he says, 
 is to be free from any superior power upon earth, 
 and not to be under the will or legislative authority 
 of man, but to have only the law of natm'e for his 
 
 rule.* 
 
 By his favour, I should say this was the character 
 of a wild beast, certainly of a mere wild man, who 
 never knew the relations of kindred, or that there were 
 other men in the world, rather than of a being, 
 though living only in his nature, made for marriage, 
 and to create a family. 
 
 This state, however, is said to be that of perfect 
 freedom, — to order our actions, and dispose of our 
 persons and possessions^ as we think fit, within the 
 bounds of the law of nature^ without asking leave^ or 
 depending upon the will of any other nuin.\ 
 
 Upon this our first remark is, that the whole sup- 
 position is assumed. In the body of this work we 
 have already asked, was there ever such a state? 
 
 * On Government, 189. Lond. Edit. 1821. And again, 269. 
 " Men being by nature all free and independent, no one can be put out 
 of this estate, and subjected to the political power of another, without 
 his own consent." 
 
 I On Government, 189. 
 
 APPENDIX V. 
 
 139 
 
 Could there ever have been such a state ? Unless 
 the world had been peopled by dragons' teeth, like 
 Jason's field, every one of which produced a full- 
 grown armed man at once, we say it could not be. 
 Those who believe the Bible account, or who, withr 
 out that account, think (as is likely from the history 
 of nations) that mankind sprang from a single pair, 
 say it never was. 
 
 It is quite evident, that if Adam was the only as 
 well as the first full-grown man in the beginning of 
 time, and if Eve brought forth mere infants, as at 
 present, and not adults, that there could not, for 
 many years at least, have been such a state. The 
 children, as Locke himself allows, must have obeyed 
 their parents ; and thus the family, from the begin- 
 ning, would have been always in a social state, of 
 which the father would have been absolute master, 
 without a thought of natural rights, whether of 
 liberty or resistance, on the part of its members. And 
 though in process of time the children grew up, and 
 branched off, becoming themselves fathers of other 
 children, which would form other families, indepen- 
 dent, possibly, but not necessarily so, of one another ; 
 yet each of these families, granting them the utmost 
 latitude of independence, would form so many civil 
 societies or polities, in the same manner as therer 
 are now in the world a number of small distinct 
 states, which acknowledge no chief but their own ; 
 but the individuals of which are by no means masters 
 
140 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 of their actions, persons, or possessions, to dispose 
 of them as they please, without the restraints of law. 
 Nor is there any reason to suppose, — no proof of it 
 at least is offered, (on the contrary, the probability 
 lies the other way,) that each of the sons of Adam, 
 and each of their sons, ad infinitum, would thus 
 branch off regularly as they came to manhood, so as 
 to form that tribe of solitary individuals which this 
 far-fetched hypothesis supposes ; which, if it is not 
 80, tliis darling notion of our popular theorists, of an 
 actual polling of every man's consent to choose this 
 or that system of government, must be given up. 
 And though, undoubtedly, as the world came to be 
 peopled, there must have been, and were, instances of 
 an election^ by independent families, of chiefs or govern- 
 ors (usually military ones), and sometimes lawgivers; 
 yet, for a long time before those elections were made, 
 it is presumable that mankind remained under the 
 paternal or patriarchal government; and, conse- 
 quently, the scheme of universal freedom from every 
 law but a man's own, is an imaginary state which 
 never existed. 
 
 Against this presumption, Locke asks, with some* 
 thing like triumph, whether all independent princes 
 are not at this moment in a state of nature one to 
 another ? " Hence," he says, ^' it is plain the world 
 never was, nor ever will be, without numbers of men 
 in that state."* 
 
 ♦ p. 198. 
 
 APPENDIX v. 
 
 ut 
 
 With submission, this is no answer ; for the ques- 
 tion is not, whether some men may not have been, or 
 are not even now, in a state of even the wildest inde- 
 pendence ? but whether all were so before the insti-* 
 tution of governments? According to us, from the 
 moment the first man and woman agreed to live 
 together, government began, and continued ever 
 since, wherever there were men and families: and 
 tliough the heads of families might be, and often were, 
 independent of one another, yet as these, from the 
 premises, never coalesced in a community, the pre- 
 cedent of consent to constitute a sovereign never 
 could be tried, for such sovereign, as to them, never 
 existed. 
 
 Yet, even these heads of families, whom we may 
 call sovereigns, were not such despotic masters of 
 themselves, or so independent of one another, as 
 Locke supposes ; for they were all governed by a law 
 of nations, such as it was, but to which they never 
 consented in form ; and this law, in many instances,^ 
 according to the Scriptures, was the revealed law of 
 God. 
 
 With these Scriptures, Locke himself deals plenti- 
 fully to prove instances of the consent he advocates. He 
 is driven for it also to the Brazils, and other Indian na- 
 tions; and he quotes the colony led away from Sparta by 
 Palantus, recorded in Justin, to show that there have 
 been early examples of such consent. Does any body 
 doubt that there are such examples ? The fact is not 
 denied. The only wonder is, as it is to prove a 
 
142 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 universal law, (which the law of nature must be,) that 
 the examples are not greatly more in number ; nay, 
 that they are not exhibited by every early govern- 
 ment under the sun. But could they be multiplied 
 tenfold, very far would they be from amounting to 
 what this fanciful theory requires ; namely, that by 
 the law of nature^ (which must be gathered from un^ 
 deviating and innumerable facts,) consent inform by 
 all the individuals of a commonwealth, is or was ever 
 necessary to establish a lawful government, so that 
 no government is lawful without it.* In his very 
 first page he says, that William's title is the consent 
 of the people, ''which being the only one of all lawful 
 governments^ he has more fully and clearly than any 
 prince in Christendom." 
 
 Thus, the succession of our princes from King 
 Egbert, which had continued near 800 years ; of the 
 houses of Oldenburg in Denmai k, and of Capet in 
 France, which had existed for nearly as many ; and 
 even of the Emperors, who were always by election, 
 (though of sovereigns like themselves, and therefore, 
 of course, not pure,) — these were all unlawful go- 
 vernors, and usurpers upon the people's rights. 
 
 Certainly, where such formal consent has been 
 given, the government is manifestly lawful ; but it 
 by no means follows, that where no such consent can 
 be traced, it is therefore the reverse; and that tlie 
 people may take arms (which is what Locke means, 
 or he means nothing,) to force their rulers into such 
 
 ♦ Locke, passim. 
 
 APPENDIX y. 
 
 143 
 
 measures as all may approve. The various modes of 
 testifying consent are wholly conventional, and, in 
 every nation, depend upon their own peculiar laws 
 and customs. Long usage and peaceable acquies- 
 cence are indications surely as valid as an express 
 polling of votes. This is all the foundation we have 
 for our own common law, by which our most sacred 
 and important civil institutions, and all our rights of 
 property, are pointed out and secured. Are all these 
 unlawful because we cannot trace the consent given 
 to them by our ancestors by any formal act of recog- 
 nition ? Upon what other foot stood our Constitution 
 itself, of King, Lords, and Commons ? Where are we 
 to find, where even to look for, the record of positive 
 formal consent by the nation to be ruled by a king, 
 with the advice and participation in power of a na- 
 tional council, call it Parliament, Witenagemot, or 
 by whatever you please ? If this cannot be shown, 
 according to Locke, all crowned heads from Carac- 
 tacus (and probably long before him) were usur- 
 pers. Alfred himself, and even Egbert, cannot 
 escape, for there is no account of the election of either 
 of them. Do we not therefore, of necessity, recur 
 to the proposition of Blackstone, quoted in the body 
 of this work, — Egbertfs title cannot be demonstrated 
 beyond a possession of 300 years; and we take it for 
 granted that it was originally a good one on that 
 account, y?>7' we know no better. 
 
 Now, were these tenets of Mr. Locke to hold for 
 a moment, and all rights be exploded that could not 
 
144 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY, 
 
 be derived from the positive consent of parties, what 
 would become of the security of the world ? We see 
 how anxiously sensible of the dangers of such a doc- 
 trine are all our lawgivers, from their attention to 
 what are called statutes of limitation. Were acquies- 
 cence never allowed to be available in proof of a 
 right to property, what property could ever be safe ? 
 The perpetual changes in titles, and the overthrow 
 of estates, would be so galling to all happiness or 
 independence, that one of the objects (the greatest) 
 of civil society, security, would faiL Hence it has 
 been wisely ordered, that a given number of years of 
 undisturbed possession shall bar all claims, however 
 originally just. So favourably, and so properly 
 disposed is the legislature to ground consent upon 
 acquiescence ; so much better is it for the peace of 
 mankind, and therefore for the ends of justice itself, 
 to submit to what may have been anciently and ori- 
 ginally wrong, than, by perpetual commotion, and 
 never-ending strifes, to render security a mockery, 
 and law a mere ceremony. 
 
 It may be asked, if this hold good in public ques- 
 tions of the title to thrones, or particular forms of 
 government, what period of time is to close upon 
 claims, so as to make the acquiescence contended for 
 amount to consent? 
 
 With that, if it even were not difBcult to solve, we 
 have nothing here to do. Our business is with the 
 doctrine of Locke, who demands a positive formal 
 proof of consent by a people to give the title of law^ 
 
 APPENDIX V. 
 
 145 
 
 ful to its government, whether the time of the acquis 
 escence be long or short. Nay, not content with an 
 ancient compact, however distinct, on the part of the 
 people who are gone, he demands its perpetual re- 
 newal by those who are to come. For he lays it 
 down broadly, clearly, and without modification, that 
 consent itself can only bind those who give it, not those 
 who are their successors; that a father, therefore, 
 cannot bind a son, who is free to vacate for himself 
 all that his father had done before him. Hence, he 
 denies all allegiance from the circumstance of ouv 
 birth-place; distinctly asserting, that it is not "any 
 more hindiance to the freedom of mankind, that tbev 
 are born under constituted and ancient politiets, that 
 have establislied laws and set forms of government, 
 than if ihey were born in the woods, among the un- 
 confined uiliabitants tliat run loose in tliem. For 
 those,'^ he proceeds to say, "who would j>ersuade us, 
 that by being born under any government we are 
 naturally subjects to it, and have no more title or 
 pretence to the freedom of the state of nature, have 
 no other reason (bating that of paternal power, which 
 we have already answered,) to produce for it, but 
 only because our fathers or progenitors j^assed away 
 their natural liberty, and thereby bound up them- 
 selves and their posterity to a perpetual subjection to 
 the government which they themselves submitted 
 to*'* ♦ lliis extraordinary independence of the laws 
 of a coimtry where we reside is carried to a strange 
 
 pw 288. 
 
 » 
 
 VOL. n. 
 
146 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 height in another exemplification of the law of 
 nature, which if correct, all jurists, and, indeed, all 
 men, have been buried in wonderful error. 
 
 For having laid down that every man has a right 
 to punish offenders against the laws of nature, and be 
 their executioner (which may be abstractedly true), he 
 asks, how else can any prince or state punish an alien 
 for any crime he commits in their country ? His lan- 
 guage is remarkable. He says, their laws " reach 
 not a stranger. They speak not to him ; nor, if they 
 did, is he bound to hearken to them. Those who 
 make laws in England, France, or Holland, are to 
 an Indian but like the rest of the world, — are men 
 without authority ; and therefore, if, by the law of 
 nature, every man hath not a power to punish offences 
 against it, I see not how the magistrates of any 
 community can punish an alien of another coun- 
 try." * 
 
 So then, according to this, an Indian coming here 
 
 under the protection of our municipal laws, may 
 offend every one of them with impunity ! Was this 
 oreat light to be told, that every man who comes 
 tnto a country, though only a sojourner, is for the 
 time bound by its laws ? What are we to say to this, 
 but that aliquando bonus dormitat ; the rather, be- 
 cause, with strange inattention to his own positions, 
 he, in another place, arguing for a tacit consent to 
 the laws of a country, holds, that a man lodging in it 
 for a week, or barely travelling on the highway, is as 
 
 * p. 194. 
 
 APPENDIX V. 
 
 147 
 
 much obliged to obey the laws of its government as 
 any one that lives under it. * 
 
 Locke proceeds to say, that a man cannot, by any 
 compact whatsoever, bind his children or posterity ; 
 for a son, when a man, is altogether as free as his 
 father, who can no more give away the liberty of his 
 son than that of any other man. ^ 
 
 Granting that this may be true, if by liberty we 
 mean the opposite of slavery, (though there are not 
 wanting advocates for the paternal power in this 
 respect,) it is obvious that the liberty here mentioned 
 as given away by the father is not what is meant by 
 such mere freedom from slavery, but the power of 
 throwing off allegiance to the government under 
 which we live. 
 
 " Thus," says our author, «it is plain by the prac- 
 tice of governments themselves, as well as by the law of 
 right reason, that a child is born a subject of no 
 country or government. He is under his father's 
 authority till he comes to the age of discretion, and 
 then he is a free man, at liberty under what govern- 
 ment he will put himself."f 
 
 Where Mr. Locke found this dictum in the prac- 
 tice of governments, with the law of England staring 
 him in the face, which enacts the direct reverse, it 
 would be vain to inquire ; equally vain, I think, to 
 discover it as a law of right reason. It is, indeed, 
 carrying the rights of nature to extremity with a 
 vengeance ; and the consequence would be, that no 
 
 * p. 291. 
 
 H 2 
 
 t p. 290. 
 
148 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 country would ever be able to know its own citizens, 
 no government its subjects, unless every individual 
 man and woman who enjoys the protection of the 
 laws should (as the men formerly did) take the 
 oaths of allegiance to the sovereign of the state. 
 But without that precaution, Locke thinks that the 
 all-powerful and inalienable rights of nature would 
 prevail against all old-fashioned and unjust notions 
 of allegiance being founded upon birth, if the liege- 
 man should change his mind, which upon certain 
 conditions he holds he may do, and might withdraw 
 his fealty whenever he pleased. 
 
 This argument, we are to observe, is adopted in 
 answer to an objection, which, he says, is made to his 
 theory of the necessity of consent in the people to 
 render a government what he calls lawful ; the objec- 
 tion being, that the people in any commonwealth 
 having always been in subjection, either to their 
 fathers or their sovereigns, never had this freedom. 
 Hence his necessary proposition, that even when 
 united together under a government, they were still 
 always free to continue so or not. 
 
 But, as if sensible of the inconvenience of this 
 impracticable theory, our philosopher has a salvo 
 which is to bring every thing round again. 
 
 This is, that though the father cannot bind the 
 son, yet he may annex such conditions to the enjoy- 
 ment of the estate he may leave him as will bind 
 him to consent, by swearing allegiance to the govern- 
 ment that is to protect him in it As long, the^ 
 
 APPENDIX V. 
 
 14& 
 
 fore, as he enjoys the property he must be a faithful 
 subject ; but if he pleases, and when he pleases, he 
 may withdraw from this duty and the country to- 
 gether, only by selling his property, and settling 
 under any government he may like better, or seek- 
 ing new habitations in vacuis locis. 
 
 We wonder Mr. Locke, in his zeal for the rights 
 of a community, made even this concession, and 
 allowed a man such a property in his own estate as 
 to have the power of bequeathing it even to his 
 child. For property, or at least the inheritance, or 
 power of bequeathing it, is, as we know, the mere 
 creature of municipal law, and varies as to its rules 
 all over the world. It is not derived from the law of 
 nature, and so all jurists tell us. Yet Locke, in another 
 place, seems to deny to the father any right to annex 
 conditions to his bequest of an estate to a son, or 
 rather, he denies the necessity of making any be- 
 quest at all to enable the son to enjoy it. For when 
 he comes to treat of conquest^ he, with a want of pre- 
 cision that seems astonishing, denies the power of a 
 conqueror over the possessions of any, — not even of 
 the conquered nation, — who have not joined in op- 
 posing him ; nor even of more than the life interest 
 of those who did, because by the law of nature^ after 
 those life interests ceased, they passed to the chil- 
 dren as of right. There is no such right under the 
 law of nature ; for succession, as we have said, is the 
 creature of positive, not natural, law. The children, 
 indeed, generally, but not always, take^ but because 
 
 H 3 
 
 
150 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY, 
 
 they are for the most part the next occupants, not 
 because they are acknowledged heirs.* 
 
 But upon our immediate subject of conditions to 
 a bequeathed estate, how if there is no estate to 
 bequeath? This, I apprehend, must be the case 
 with by much the greatest number of citizens of any 
 nation existing. What estates in land or money have 
 thousands of honest Englishmen, who yet never 
 dream of renouncing their allegiance to the state 
 which protects their persons, though they may have 
 no property ? If the meanest of them be harmed 
 in their bodies or their liberty, by nobles or princes, 
 or even the King himself, the law gives him the 
 same redress as it would to one of the high- 
 est degree. Are they not, then, bound to own and 
 obey the law ; that is, the government which protects 
 them ? And are not protection and allegiance, in 
 the language of all the most devoted radicals, al- 
 ways reciprocal ? 
 
 This, however, Locke himself admits to an extent 
 so strangely inconsistent that it overturns nearly his 
 whole theory, in regard to the right of renouncing 
 an allegiance to a government to which a consent 
 has not been given. 
 
 He allows two sorts of consent; one in form, 
 the other tacit. Between the consent in form and 
 the tacit he makes a great distinction. The first, 
 he says, binds for ever; and the man who gives it 
 " can never be again in the liberty of a state of 
 
 * See Blackstone on Title by Occupancy. -- 
 
 APPENDIX V. 
 
 151 
 
 nature.*" But the last being only the consequence 
 of the possession of property, whether in lands or 
 goods, or of inhabitancy, even though only for a 
 time, it ceases, and may be withdrawn whenever, by 
 sale or donation, the property is parted with; in 
 which case the allegiance becomes merely local and 
 
 transitory.* 
 
 Now, the first observation upon this is, obviously, 
 that the whole hypothesis, as to the necessity of 
 consent to constitute a lawful government, is, if not 
 retracted, at least rendered nugatory; because we 
 here see, that the mere circumstance of sojourning 
 in a country, much more the possession of lands or 
 goods within its pale, testifies an implied or tacit 
 consent and promise of obedience to the government, 
 quite sufficient during the possession to make it a 
 duty to obey it, as if oaths to that effect had been 
 actually taken. The whole doctrine, therefore, 
 (granting all that is asked for the freedom en- 
 joined by the law of nature,) is reduced to this,— 
 that allegiance, or implied consent, does not, as ac- 
 cording to our laws it does, depend upon birth : an 
 axiom which in the closet, perhaps, though not in 
 our law courts, might be granted without much 
 damage to the cause of justice. 
 
 On the other hand is to be considered how totally 
 it alters the whole nature of patriotism, and extin- 
 guishes the love of country, by reducing our local 
 preferences to mere self-interest, without one spark 
 
 * p. 292, 293, 294. 
 H 4 
 
 m 
 
152 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 of that generous flame which has kindled so many 
 great and noble actions, and excited all the charities 
 of kindi'ed, so as to exalt us into superior beings* 
 Warmed by such feelings, how may not a few acres 
 of rough uncultivated soil, a sea-beat promontory, a 
 barren rock, be made to appear a heaven upon earth, 
 the abode of wisdom, and the nursery of heroes ! It 
 was this that kept up the courage of Ulysses through 
 twenty years of persevering struggle, in order to re- 
 visit his beloved Ithaca. It is this which supports 
 the rugged Highlander through the long exile of 
 immerous campaigns, fully rewarded by the mere 
 hope of once again setting his foot upon the heather ; and 
 it is this that, while it increases, cheers the exertions 
 of the Swiss to regain his native mountains, although 
 the thought of them melts him into tears if he but 
 hear the air that charmed his youth, when it called 
 home the wandering herds of his village to their 
 nightly shelter. 
 
 All these are really the inalienable rights of na- 
 ture ; yet all these would Locke extinguish, by setting 
 up a theory which, for the sake of making men, as 
 he thinks, more independent, destroys their love of 
 their native soil ; and, by converting them into citi^- 
 zens of the world, under the notion that the world, 
 by this natural equality, is before them where to 
 choose, deprives them of every impetus to action but 
 that of sordid self-interest. 
 
 Xhis endeavour to erect our knowledge of liberty 
 into a regular science, to create a scheme of princi- 
 
 APPENDIX V. 
 
 153 
 
 pies, and demonstrate what we think neither requires, 
 nor ever receives, demonstration a priori, (the right 
 of self-defence against a violator of law, whom we 
 cannot otherwise resist,) is, in our opinion, the first 
 and fundamental error in the book of this great man. 
 There are other what to us appear errors also, which 
 we shall now proceed to consider. 
 
 One of them may be classed under the same head 
 as the last we have noticed, namely, the deduction 
 of what, every one will agree, is convenient, is wise, 
 and obviously proper, (but which he is not content 
 to take under that recommendation,) from a positive 
 law of nature; — I mean the governing by standing 
 known laws, not extemporary decrees, which last is 
 despotism.* Every body must feel that despotism, 
 according to our general experience of human na- 
 ture, is, for the most part, a very bad thing. I say, 
 for the most part, because it is not invariably so. 
 Were Trajan or Alfred always to reign, or were 
 Socrates a king, we might question whether the 
 " salus populi,'' — that loose, vague, and unprecise 
 phrase, which has often been the father of so much in- 
 justice, so many errors, so many murders, and which is 
 the favourite authority for most of Locke's theories, — 
 would not be better consulted than by the myriads 
 of standing laws made and administered for our pro- 
 tection by demagogues. 
 
 Be it, however, that known laws are better than 
 arbitrary power, which no one will dispute. Why not 
 
 ♦ The rules. 
 H 5 
 
154 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 APPENDIX V. 
 
 155 
 
 be content with the reason of the thing ? Why make 
 it necessary to fortify that principle, by making it an 
 absolute law of our nature, which it is not, any more 
 than to drink wine^ or eat animal food, which most 
 of us find conducive to health, or at least is agree- 
 able to the palate. This we are certainly not bound 
 
 to do* 
 
 Most persons think despotism is a bad form of 
 government, (I am sure I do ;) but there are others 
 who have thought differently, — witness the Danes, 
 the Spaniards, and the Portuguese. If consent, or, 
 in other words, choice, is to decide all, why may it 
 not be competent for these people to choose to live 
 under a despot, who, they think, will administer their 
 affairs better than a tumultuous assembly, though 
 composed of themselves ? 
 
 It was the apothegm of Rousseau, that if men were 
 angels, about to choose a government, they would 
 decide for a republic. Others, with better reason, 
 think, that if men were angels, they would choose 
 autocracy, the autocrat being God. 
 
 This liberty of choice, however, does not please 
 Locke, who lays it down as nothing short of the 
 natural law, that nothing arbitrary should or can be 
 permitted in a government. Hence, he says, " the 
 obligations of the law of nature cease not in society, 
 but only in many cases are drawn closer. Thus it 
 stands as an eternal rule to legislators, as well as 
 others. The rules they make must be conformable 
 to the will of God, of which the law of nature is the 
 
 declaration, and the fundamental law of nature being 
 the preservation of mankind^ no human sanction can 
 be valid against it"* 
 
 What may, or may not, be for the preservation of 
 mankind, may be made a question which Moses, 
 Lycurgus, Appius Claudius, and the tribunes of the 
 people at Rome, might disagree about: quot ho- 
 mines tot sententiae. But we are willing to take 
 these maxims as truisms. Still the question will be 
 as to the practices founded upon them, upon which 
 (from the various, differing, and sometimes contradic- 
 tory notions of what is, or is not, prescribed by the 
 natural law,) we are left as much at sea as ever. It 
 is remarkable that Locke himself, in a very few lines 
 after, has this language : — " For the law of nature 
 being unwi'itten, and so nowhere to be found but in 
 the minds of men^ they who, through passion or in- 
 terest, shall miscite or misapply it, cannot so easily 
 be convinced of their mistake, where there is no 
 established judged f 
 
 This also is true ; but the remedy proposed, and 
 its asserted foundation, which, he says, is in the law 
 of nature itself, may and does admit of much ques- 
 tion. 
 
 For he holds, that, on account of this uncertainty, 
 " the legislative or supreme authority cannot assume 
 to itself a power to rule by extemporary arbitrary 
 decrees, but is hound to dispense justice and decide the 
 
 p 
 
 p. 305, 
 
 f p. 306. 
 
 H 6 
 
156 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 APPENDIX V. 
 
 157 
 
 rights of the subject by promulgated standing laws 
 and authorized judges.^^ * 
 
 That this is wise and advantageous to the commu- 
 nity, is clear ; but how we are bound to do it by the 
 law of nature, conveying the will of God, remains 
 still to be proved. Even the conclusion in its favour, 
 which forms its basis, is not clear, much less irresis- 
 tible. For who is to say, with certainty, that these 
 promulgated standing laws, merely because they are 
 promulgated, are in conformity with, — that they may 
 not even be opposed to, — the law of nature ? It is at 
 least certain, that the predicates of promulgation and 
 permanency do not necessarily denote, much less prove, 
 such conformity. It was a promulgated and standing 
 law of some ancient people, that strangers were to be 
 considered as enemies ; and so we translate ^stpScfpoi 
 or barbarous, at this day, although its real meaning 
 was only strangers. The droit d'aubain (jus alibi 
 natus) in France was promulgated and standing ; yet 
 what more contrary to natural equity, — that is, the 
 will of God? Again, who is to answer for judges, 
 merely because they are authorized? The judges of 
 Israel were authorized, yet they had the power of 
 kings. Samuel was arbitrary enough, who repre- 
 sented and spoke the will of God himself. Kings 
 originally, for the most part, were authorized judges^ 
 yet they pronounced what decrees to them seemed 
 best. All depended upon their personal virtue, or 
 
 * p. 307. 
 
 
 personal wickedness. Jeffries was an authorized 
 judge. 
 
 We see, then, into what diflSculties and inconsis- 
 tencies the wisest may be betrayed, when they desert 
 practical wisdom for theory, especially if the theory 
 be to support a favourite doctrine. The whole of 
 this system of Locke is merely to beat down the law- 
 fulness of any thing like arbitrary power, (the object 
 of his and every body's just hatred,) even although 
 it may be the lawful constitution of a state, and that 
 even authorized by his favourite requisite — consent. 
 But for this purpose, finding this in the way, he will 
 not allow consent in these cases to have its fair in- 
 fluence, and therefore sets up the law of nature 
 an^ainst it, which, being the mode (how loosely he 
 cares not) of declaring the will of God, " no human 
 sanction," he says, " can be valid against it." 
 
 The phrase of the law of nature has a deserved 
 popularity attending it; but it also has this defect, 
 that, being, as Locke himself allows, " unwritten, and 
 only to be found in the minds of men," each indivi- 
 dual mind is the judge of it. We have seen how 
 Locke himself judges of it in regard to arbitrary 
 decrees : but this seems less wild than his notion of 
 the rights of conquest, and the right to property in 
 the children of the conquered. 
 
 In the first place, he makes a distinction between 
 conquest in a just and an unjust war : as usual, very 
 proper in the abstract ; very uncertain in the applica- 
 tion. For who is to judge of the justice or injustice 
 
158 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY, 
 
 APPENDIX V. 
 
 159 
 
 of a war ? Mr. Locke will say, himself. If so, any 
 man ; and if any man, the party supposed by him to 
 be in the wrong. The appeal, therefore, is to the 
 fortune of arms, which, except according to the old 
 notion of the specific express interference of Provi- 
 dence upon an appeal to him, now justly exploded, 
 
 is no appeal at all. 
 
 Well, however, fortune favours the wrongdoer, and 
 the injured party is conquered, submits, and, to escape 
 death or slavery, — which, Mr. Locke, with other 
 jurists, allows it is the right of the conqueror to 
 inflict, — agrees to terms, upon which his life and 
 liberty are spared. Mr. Locke says that the cause 
 being originally unjust, he may break those terms 
 whenever he can, because they were imposed upon 
 him by force, and against his will ; and if he cannot, 
 his children, or their children, to the farthest genera- 
 tion, may. 
 
 The consequence of this would be, that no con- 
 queror, be his cause just or unjust, would ever con- 
 sent to grant terms ; and universal massacre, or eter- 
 nal slavery, would, as it once almost did, become the 
 law of the nations of the world.* 
 
 How dreadful this would be need not be asked, 
 and all this is owing to the radical fault of popular 
 jurists, like this gifted person, in always pushing 
 abstract notions to extremity in practice. Grant 
 
 ♦ As well might a breach of parol, after life had been spared in 
 battle, be excused by a reference to the opinion of him who is spared 
 on the cause of the war. 
 
 that a wrong cause cannot be made right by con- 
 quest; grant, even, that the terms accepted were 
 imposed by the conqueror, and not sought for by the 
 conquered (which is by no means clear) ; having 
 accepted and profited by, is he not bound to fulfij, 
 them ? As to its being in a wrong cause, from 
 the want of a common judge, it being impossible to 
 decide, all jurists agree, that when the contest is 
 begun, each party, as far as the laws of war are, if 
 we may so say, technically concerned, are to sup- 
 pose themselves and act as if they were in the right, 
 and all neutrals ate bound to conduct themselves on 
 the same supposition. 
 
 However this may be, our philosopher holds that 
 the original justice of the cause of the vanquished 
 (about which he allows, as we see, no doubt,) can 
 never be waved, but prevails to eternity to be 
 asserted by posterity, whenever opportunity offers. 
 " Who doubts," says he, " but the Grecian Chris- 
 tians, descendants of the ancient possessors of that 
 country, may justly cast off the Turkish yoke, which 
 they have so long groaned under, whenever they have 
 an opportunity to do it f^ * 
 
 That they, or anybody, may or would cast off a 
 yoke too galling to bear, ought not to surprise us ; 
 but that they would have a right to do this, contrary 
 to a convention made 500 years ago, by which their 
 fathers' lives were spared, by which, and only by 
 which, they themselves are now in existence, and to 
 
 * p. 354, 
 
 I 
 
160 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 APPENDIX V. 
 
 161 
 
 which they and their ancestors during all that time 
 had submitted, — and that they may do this of right, 
 because they now discover that the original cause of 
 their conquerors was unjust, — is, according to our 
 principles, wild, unsound, and dangerous doctrine. 
 If Locke were asked to prove the title of these 
 Grecians themselves, whose descendants had been 
 conquered by the Turks, what could he reply ? 
 
 But the cause of this theory is evident. As man- 
 kind, according to him, were by the law of nature 
 born, under whatever circumstances, free and equal, 
 so they always remain so under that law ; and all 
 alterations in their state being palpable encroach- 
 ments of power in an unjust cause, they may be for 
 ever opposed, — by arms, if necessary, — until the free- 
 dom and equality are recovered, no matter what 
 sanctions they or their fathers may have given to a 
 new settlement ; such sanctions., says the philosopher, 
 beino" contrary to the law of nature, that is, (where 
 it can be understood,) to the will of God. 
 
 Strange and wild as all this generality of doctrine 
 appears, it is harmless in comparison with what fol- 
 lows in the practical details. For, first, even where 
 the conquest is in a lawful^ much more in an unlawful 
 war, he makes a distinction (as novel, we apprehend, 
 as it is surprising,) between those of the offending 
 state (though all belong to and are incorporated with 
 it,) who actually " concur, assist, and consent to op- 
 pose " the conqueror in the war, and those who do 
 not. > 
 
 His reason for this contravention of all our no- 
 tions upon the subject is, as usual, drawn from the 
 law of nature ; and, as usual, without adverting to 
 the fact, that, the interpretation of it in particular 
 cases being left to every individual, what may or 
 may not be thought lawful or just, as far as it is to 
 influence a particular conduct, cannot be satisfac- 
 torily determined between the parties concerned. 
 ** The people," he says, ^* having given to their gover- 
 nors no power to do an unjust thing, {for tluy never 
 had such a power in themselves^) they ought not to be 
 charged with the injustice of an unjust war, any 
 farther than they actually abet itr 
 
 Now, in the opinion of all jurists, where there is 
 no common judge, (as there is none between nations,) 
 each state interpreting the laws of justice as they 
 think right, that is, in their oAvn favour, both are 
 to be deemed in the right so far as the laws and 
 consequences of the war are concerned. 
 
 But even this is not necessary to show the error 
 of the strange paradox, that men who have united 
 themselves to stand or fall in a given society, and 
 have a community of interests, and therefore of con- 
 duct, (being in these respects one and indivisible,) — 
 men, who, if the event of the war had been favour- 
 able, would have profited in common with those who 
 actually fought, — do, nevertheless, if the event is 
 adverse, preserve their individual capacity^ as if they 
 were still personally free, and had never so united 
 themselves. Nay, he goes farther than this ; and 
 
 1)1 
 
162 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 f 
 
 though he allows the conqueror a right over the 
 lives and persons of those who oppose him, that is, 
 though he may kill or reduce them to slavery, he 
 has no right over their property. Can this hold 
 for a moment? Is it common sense, much more 
 common justice ? If it is, what errors have all belli- 
 gerents been in, particularly the English, when they 
 have made prize of innocent merchants, who never 
 joined their own country, it seems, in the wars 
 against them ! How have all our courts of admiralty 
 disgraced themselves by their infamous judgments of 
 
 confiscation ! 
 
 And upon what is this confounding of all relations 
 of rights and duties founded ? Again, upon the law 
 of nature, — from its vagueness, a most convenient 
 anvil upon which to hammer out any theory we 
 please to entertain on political philosophy. 
 
 Locke allows a conqueror, indeed, so far a right to 
 make free with the possessions of the conquered as to 
 indemnify himself for the expenses to which the 
 aggressor has put him. But even this with some 
 hesitation. " Perhaps^ he says, " he may have 
 same right to them (the goods), to repair the dam- 
 ages he has sustained by the war, and the defence of 
 his own right ;" and this he illustrates with this ad- 
 mirable sophistry, " that because I may kill a robber 
 who sets upon me in the highway, I have no right to 
 take his money, which would make me a robber too." 
 When I read these passages fifty years ago, I shut 
 die book, and asked if this could be the reasoning of 
 
 APPENDIX V. 
 
 163 
 
 Locke? That even in war we are not to do unneces' 
 sary mischief, is one of the most sacred duties of the 
 Christian law of nations ; but, not to advert to the 
 immensity of the damages which the conqueror may 
 have sustained, particularly in a long war, is he not, 
 as a matter of justice, entitled to deprive his enemy, 
 though he has spared his life, of all means of re- 
 newing his aggression, and therefore to take posses- 
 sion of his country, much more of his goods and 
 wealth, should that be necessary for his security ? In 
 addition to this, may not the possession of the coun- 
 try wrongfully detained from him be the very cause 
 of the war ? 
 
 The last French war lasted nearly twenty years, 
 and cost our country many hundred millions; the 
 indemnification of which alone would have exhausted 
 all the wealth we ever took, or ever could have 
 taken, from France. 
 
 In the first war waged by Frederick II. of Prussia 
 against Austria, Silesia was the very bone of conten- 
 tion. The King being successful, was he not to retain 
 the object for which he was driven to arms? 
 
 What has Locke to oppose to this ? Certain visions 
 concerning rights in a state of nature, which we will 
 now consider. 
 
 " Let the conqueror,^' says he, " have as much 
 justice on his side as could be supposed, he has no 
 right to seize more than the vanquished could for- 
 feit His life is at the victor's mercy ; and his service 
 and goods he may appropriate, to make himself 
 
^ 
 
 APPENDIX V. 
 
 165 
 
 164 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY, 
 
 reparation ; but he cannot take the goods of his wife 
 and children ; they, too, had a title to the goods he 
 enjoyed, and their shares in the estate he possessed. 
 For example ; I, in the state of nature, (and all com- 
 monwealths are in the state of nature, one with an- 
 other,) have injured another man, and refusing to 
 give satisfaction, it comes to a state of war. I am 
 conquered, and my life is at mercy, but not my wife's 
 and children's. Thei/ made not war^ nor assisted in 
 it I could not forfeit their lives; they were not 
 mine to forfeit. My wife had a share in my estate ; 
 that neither could I forfeit. And my children also, 
 being horn of me, had a right to be maintained out of 
 my labour and substance. Here, then, is the case. 
 The conqueror has a right to damages, and the chil- 
 dren to their father's estate for their subsistence ; for 
 as to the wife's share, whether her own labour or 
 compact gave her a title to it, it is plain her husband 
 could not forfeit what was her^s. What must be done? 
 I answer, the fundamental law of nature being, that all 
 (mankind), as much as may be, should be preserved, 
 it follows, that if there be not enough ^5^% to satisfy 
 both, viz. for the conqueror's losses and children's 
 maintenance, he that hath and to spare must remit 
 something of his full satisfaction, and give way to 
 the pressing and preferable title of those who are in 
 danger of perishing without it*' * 
 
 Now, upon this exuberant power attributed to 
 natural law, we have only to remark, that it assumes, 
 
 * p. 349, 
 
 as a right of nature in its wildest state, what, we 
 have said, is the creature only of a state of society. 
 Such is the law regulating property, which is alto- 
 gether conventional, and might, or might not, assign 
 to the wife and children what is here supposed to be 
 theirs by a fundamental law, before any laws were 
 known. 
 
 As to the axiom, that he that hath and to spare 
 must give way to the preferable title of those who 
 are in danger of perishing, the first remark that oc- 
 curs is, that the conqueror himself may be the person 
 in danger of perishing. But admitting the axiom as 
 a moral duty, the case must be first established, that 
 either party would actually be in this danger, before 
 we are called upon to decide; for, whatever huma- 
 nity might determine, the extreme of necessity alone 
 could establish the demand as an absolute right At 
 the same time it is to be observed, that the case de- 
 mands, as a right of nature, that these persons who, 
 we say, have no rights but those of convention, should 
 be even fully satisfied^ before the conqueror's claim 
 should be heard. According to this dogma, there- 
 fore, by the fundamental law of nature a man, not 
 merely who has been at war, but any beggar who 
 has nothing, is not merely to be relieved, but fully 
 satisfied^ out of the estate of him who is rich, when- 
 ever it shall please the needy man to apply for it 
 
 The question as to property, however, is of far less 
 consequence than the inroad he would make in, 
 perhaps, the most universally received axiom in iall 
 
166 
 
 HISTOEICAL ESSAY. 
 
 APPENDIX V. 
 
 ]67 
 
 lit 
 
 •5.1 
 
 
 
 ■i V 
 
 1 
 
 .in 
 
 the laws of nations, and one which this very treatise, 
 in other parts, mainly supports,— that all the subjects 
 of a state, be they ever so numerous, have towards 
 other states but one individual character. Without 
 this, even among themselves, what becomes of the 
 favourite, and, we allow, indispensible maxim, that a 
 majority binds the minority, even though only of 
 one ? How would our own revolution have been car- 
 ried? How would King William's title (the only 
 lawful one in Christendom according to Locke) 
 have been established, but for this inseparableness 
 of character among the individuals forming a nation ? 
 The question for a king against a regency, that is, 
 for William to the exclusion of James, in the House 
 of Lords of the convention, was carried but by two 
 voices. Were, then, the fifty-nine who voted for it 
 to be considered as Englishmen, and the forty-nine 
 against it to be citizens of the world ? In the Ameri- 
 can and last French wars, Mr. Fox and his party 
 voted invariably against the measures of the majority. 
 Was this majority, alone, the nation, and Mr. Fox 
 
 no part of it? 
 
 It would be the same as to the proportion of the 
 people who sided with one or other of the state par- 
 ties in 1689. Were the Jacobites, after the Revolu- 
 tion, ever spared by William under the plea that 
 they were independent individuals, separated from the 
 state? Yet his champion, Locke, holds distinctly, 
 that a conqueror, even in a just cause, " over those 
 who opposed him not, and the posterity of those who 
 
 
 did, hath no right of dominion; they are free from any 
 subjection to him; and if their j^rmer government be 
 dissolved, they are at liberty to begin and erect an- 
 other for themselves.'' * According to these subtle- 
 ties, several millions of the inhabitants of the British 
 isles, who did not oppose William or the revolution- 
 ists in 1689, but who neither approved of him nor 
 the revolution, had a right, their old government being 
 dissolved, to begin and erect another for themselves. 
 In other words, the state ought to have been separated 
 into two communities. 
 
 But, again, should it be said those Jacobites con* 
 sented, Locke has an admirable resource. For, first, 
 he says, then, his doctrine of the necessity of eon- 
 sent to make a government lawful is proved. Next, 
 that the consent was forced, and therefore, by the 
 law of nature, not binding, f These consequences 
 of his doctrines, affecting his favourite event, for which 
 they were expressly written, he certainly did not 
 intend. But, even without such consequences, they 
 seem (mirabile dictu ! in such a man) to be absolute 
 puerilities. 
 
 In the same spirit of generalizing without refer- 
 ence to given cases, (always so dangerous,) and of 
 applying the ready instrument of the law of nature 
 to cases which may be exceptions to its rules, he 
 
 * p. 851. 
 
 f ** The government of a conqueror, imposed by force on the sub- 
 duedj against whom he had no right of war, or who joiTied not in the 
 war against him where he had a right, has no obligation upon 
 them." p. 352, 353. 
 
168 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 APPENDIX V. 
 
 169 
 
 says, that « granting that all members of a body 
 politic are to be considered as one, and so to have 
 forfeited their lives, this will not affect their children. 
 For a man has no power over the life of his child, 
 and therefore no act of his can forfeit it. So that 
 the children, whatever may have happened to the 
 fathers, are freemen ; and the absolute power of the 
 conqueror reaches no farther than the persons of 
 those he subdued, and dies with them. And though 
 he may make them slaves, he has no such right ot 
 dominion over the children." * ^ 
 
 This may be abstractedly true, but practically 
 contradicted a thousand times over. Many reasons 
 may occur under the same law of nature,— which, he 
 justly says, is only the law of reason, which every 
 man must interpret for himself,-wherein such a man 
 mav think it right to imitate the Deity, who visits 
 the" sins of the fathers upon the chUdren. How many 
 children have not been destroyed and cut off from^ 
 the land of their fathers, on account of their fathers 
 wickedness, by the express command of the Almighty ; 
 not by way of punishing the fathers, who could not 
 feel it but because it was reasonable to suppose the 
 children had been, or would be, bred to the same 
 crimes, and would so breed their own progeny. Ot 
 this we need not, as examples, point at the Deluge, 
 the fate of Sodom, the extirpation of the Canaanites, 
 and the dispersion of the Jews to this day. Yet the 
 law of nature, if, like no other law, it is to have no 
 
 * p. 353. 
 
 
 exceptions, no latitude of interpretation, would, in 
 this part of it, be inconsistent with another part, 
 quite as pressing, and still more important, — the 
 right of self-defence. Did we seek in our own law 
 a justification for this, (the authority for which, how- 
 ever, as it contributes to the power of kings, Locke 
 would probably deny,) how otherwise can the law of 
 forfeiture for treason by the father be justified to- 
 wards the son ? How does Locke himself reconcile 
 this doctrine with his darling measure^ — the election 
 of William to be our king, to the disinherison of 
 Anne, the child of James ; or with the preference of 
 our present house to that of Savoy ? 
 
 In a neighbouring country we lately saw a mo- 
 narch and his whole family dethroned and exiled for 
 an atrocious invasion of the law. But though the 
 fate of Charles X. might have been just, how, upon 
 Mr. Locke's principles, could the exclusion of the 
 Duke of Bordeaux be justified? He was a youth, in 
 a state of pupillage, and could not possibly have 
 shared in the crime which ruined his family. 
 
 But, above all, in a similar case, can we forget the 
 argument of all the Whig lawyers and statesmen, when 
 reminded of the son of James, — that, even if he was 
 not supposititious, as he would probably be bred to 
 popery and arbitrary power, it was better to pass 
 him by, and elect a dynasty totally new. They had 
 ^^ scotched the snake, not killed it," while Fleance 
 lived* 
 
 VOL. II, I 
 
170 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 These considerations alone, one would have thought, 
 would have repressed these startling doctrines, which, 
 from over-fondness for theory, this great reasoner has 
 hazarded. 
 
 But nearly the whole of his notions of the law of 
 nature, in regard to property, and succession of pro- 
 perty, may be contested. That nature tells us to 
 take care of our children, is true ; and he that would 
 let them want, is worse than the brutes. But that 
 she obliges us to endow them with more than we 
 think necessary for their sustenance, or deprives us 
 of our discretion in distributing our fortunes, I am 
 yet to learn. A son may be an idiot, a profligate, a 
 traitor, a brute. Is he, notwithstanding, to set his 
 father at defiance, and force his way, as of right, into 
 his possessions after his decease ? By no part of the 
 law of nature, therefore, that I know of, has the son 
 a right to inherit the fortune of his father. In some 
 countries, especially in the east, (despotic, if you 
 will,) the emperor is the heir of all his subjects; in 
 some, the eldest son succeeds ; in some, the youngest ; 
 in some, all. When there is a will, however, though 
 made from caprice, or in a fit of spleen, or revenge, 
 the heir-at-law (I will not say forfeits, but) has no 
 right to the estate. And thus the whole reasoning 
 of this great reasoner upon all other subjects, as far 
 as it founds the rights of a child against the con- 
 queror of his father upon the natural law, is based 
 upon premises egregiously false. 
 
 APPENDIX v. 
 
 171 
 
 The notion, that only those who are found in arms, 
 or who are ready to assist those who are against a con- 
 queror in a just war, are punishable, and that those of 
 the same nation can be considered as if they were not of 
 the same nation, if they did not arm or assist, is equally 
 fallacious. Every citizen of a state arms in its defence, 
 or is bound, and must be ready, to do so, whether 
 the cause be right or wrong, or else he is a traitor. 
 What should we say to the soldier who deserted his 
 post, or left the field where his countrymen were 
 engaged, because he did not approve the cause that 
 brought him there ? What army could act, or what 
 nation be safe, where this division of its members 
 could be tolerated. Every man must act, or be ready 
 to act, as the state orders him, or renounce the pri- 
 vileges belonging to that state. 
 
 Mr. Locke, however, appeals to Scripture in sup- 
 port of one of his most startling positions, — namely, 
 that no promises of fidelity, no treaties, no length of 
 subjection, no indulgences, no incorporation with the 
 conquering state, can oblige the vanquished nation, 
 if the war was without just cause, not to violate 
 every tie they may have submitted to, and redeem 
 what they have thus so solemnly surrendered, at any 
 distance of time. Nor, even if the war had been 
 just on the part of the conqueror, can the posterity 
 of the wrong-doers, according to him, be bound by 
 any treaties or submission of their fathers. 
 
 This we have already canvassed, but not a Scrip- 
 
 I 2 
 
 i 
 
 if 
 
 fl 
 
 i 
 
 I 
 
 /I 
 
172 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 1. 
 ttj' 
 
 tural authority, on which he, in part, founds this 
 unheard-of doctrine. 
 
 The precedent, if precedent it can be called, is 
 that of Hezekiah, King of Jerusalem; but how it 
 supports the doctrine in aid of which it is cited, it 
 baffles the understanding to comprehend- 
 
 It is founded on a single, the seventh, verse of the 
 eighteenth chapter of the second book of Kings, 
 " And the Lord was with Hezekiah, and he pros- 
 pered. Wherefore he went forth, and he rebelled 
 against the King of Assyria, and served him not." 
 
 To rebel, is with many a very wide, and some- 
 times a very popular phrase ; but with nothing but 
 this naked verse before us, I imagine it would be 
 diflBcult for any one, the most ingenious, to gather 
 more, than that the Lord favoured Hezekiah in a 
 contest with the King of Assyria^ brought on by his 
 not serving him ; whatever that means, for whether 
 bound in justice to do so or not, does not appear. 
 
 Mr. Locke's comment upon it, however, is this : — 
 « Whence it is plain, that shaking off a power, 
 which force, and not right, hath set over any one, though 
 it hath the name of rebellion, yet is no offence before 
 God, but is that which he allows and countenances, 
 though even promises and covenants, when obtained by 
 force, have intervened ; for it is very probable, to any 
 one that reads the story of Ahaz and Hezekiah at- 
 tentively, that the Assyrians subdued Ahaz, and 
 Reposed him, and made Hezekiah king in his father's 
 
 ">i 
 
 APPENDIX V% 
 
 173 
 
 lifetime ; and that Hezekiah by agreement had done 
 him homage, and paid him tribute all this time." * 
 
 Now, in this comment, it is evidently assumed by 
 Locke, that force, and not right, had created the 
 power of the Assyrian over Hezekiah, for not one 
 word is said, before or after, of the manner in which 
 it arose. For, waiving for a moment the conclusion 
 drawn from these suppositions, (for mere suppositions, 
 and those very far fetched, they are,) I have looked 
 attentively at the story of Ahaz and Hezekiah, and 
 I cannot find a vestige of the probability as&erted, 
 either as to conditions imposed upon them by power 
 and not right, nor that the Assyrians deposed Ahaz, 
 and made Hezekiah king in his father's lifetime. On 
 the contrary, being pressed by the King of Syria, he 
 sent to the King of Assyria, saying, ^' I am thy serr 
 vant and thy son, come up and save me out of the 
 hand of the King of Syria." This may probably 
 denote, that he was bound by some obligation to the 
 Assyrian, but by no means that it was through an 
 unjust force. 
 
 The account goes on to say, ^f And the King of 
 Assyria hearkened unto him." 
 
 He did so by laying siege to Damascus, where 
 Ahaz joined him, and committed great idolatries; 
 but not a word is said of dethroning him, and mak- 
 ing Hezekiah king during his lifetime. On the 
 contrary, tb^ concluding verse of the chapter says, 
 it And AhaZ slept with his fathers, and Hezekiah^ 
 
 * p. 358. . 
 
 I 3 
 
 M 
 
 
 m 
 
174 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 II- 
 
 i ' 
 
 1 
 
 his son, reigned in his stead;" — an extraordinary 
 way of relating that a son mounted his father's throne 
 during that father's hfe.* 
 
 The account in the Chronicles varies a little, and 
 but a little, — certainly not in essentials, — from this. 
 The King of Assyria is there made to distress Ahaz, 
 but did not strengthen him. He distressed him, by 
 inducing him to make him great presents; yet he so 
 far relieved him, as to take Damascus. But no word 
 is said of dethroning him ; and though he was not 
 buried in the sepulchres of the kings, yet no reason 
 is assigned for it, unless his abominable idolatries 
 may be supposed one. Certainly his being dethroned 
 is not a reason mentioned ; and the chapter concludes 
 in the same manner as in Kings, — " He slept with 
 his fathers, and his son reigned in his stead." f 
 
 This being as stated, (and I have taken pains not to 
 mis-state it,) I am really at a loss to discover the rea- 
 sons for Mr. Locke's " very probable " supposition as 
 to the dethronement of Ahaz; the making his son 
 king during his life; the agreement to do homage 
 and pay tribute to the Assyrian ; in short, the power 
 imposed upon Hezekiah by Jbrce, not right; and the 
 consequent favour of Heaven to his enterprize, in 
 shaking off that power. For the sake of Mr. Locke's 
 accuracy, and from the veneration due to his name, 
 it is probable that I am myself mistaken; but sa 
 It is. 
 
 But even should Mr. Locke be right in this extra* 
 
 • 2 Kings, 15. f 2 Chron. 28« 
 
 
 APPENDIX v. 
 
 175 
 
 ordinary, and, as at present we are bound to think, 
 groundless comment, will it serve his purpose, or prove 
 his point, that God, as a general proposition, ap- 
 proves and favours the breach of the most solemn 
 treaties and covenants of fidelity made for a valuable 
 consideration, viz. the sparing of life, perhaps of pro- 
 perty, because the original cause of war may have 
 been unjust on the conqueror's part ? Still more, will 
 it prove that these violations of covenants may, by 
 the sanction of Heaven, be effected at any distance 
 of time, and by the most far off descendants of the 
 party originally aggrieved? 
 
 The instance quoted, at least, does not bear out this 
 last supposition ; for Hezekiah, whom God favoured, 
 was himself the party injured. He did not rebel to 
 avenge his ancestors. So far, therefore, the authority 
 palpably fails. Yet, after all, supposing the fact as the 
 extraordinary and exaggerated commentary states it, 
 will it amount to that approbation of the Almighty 
 which is asserted ? 
 
 The ease with which texts of Scripture may be 
 tortured into almost any meaning and any prece- 
 dent, is proverbial, and never more obvious than in 
 the comment before us. In the deep scheme of Pro- 
 vidence, by which all the actions of men are governed 
 without trenching upon their free will, who is to say 
 what is really to influence the Almighty in the vast 
 scheme of his government ; or what, upon the whole, 
 to him appears right or wrong ? If success in wicked- 
 ness be a proof, how often does he seem to favour 
 
 I 4 
 
 i 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 I 
 
 # 
 
 /. 
 
 

 m 
 
 \f 
 
 I \ 
 
 n4 
 
 HISTORICAL ElSdAY. 
 
 Wickedness? His being with Hezekiah iri this revolt^ 
 does not necessarily show more than that he chose it 
 should succeed J for what after ptvrpose, who can 
 tell? Possibly^ may another commentator say, to 
 punish the Assyrian for having broken many treaties^ 
 through the means of a treaty-breaker. Thus, mere 
 retribution. If favouring, or being with^ a person/ 
 mean, that his moral conduct is approved, and Locke's 
 supposition is right, that Hezekiah had been injured, 
 the moral conduct of the Assyrian, when he did the 
 injury, was equally approved, for he was equally suc- 
 cessful, and God, therefore, was equally with him. 
 If so, God approved and countenanced the tyranny, 
 oppression, and injustice practised on Hezekiah, as 
 well as his revolt against them. Nay, he did so iri 
 an infinitely greater degree ; for as no wickednessv 
 through the most infamous cruelty, idolatry, and de- 
 bauchery of every kind, was ever greater than that of 
 the kings of Assyria, so no empire was more success^- 
 ful or extended throughout the world. Can we forget 
 the exclamation in Isaiah, beautiful as forcible, " O ! 
 Assyrian \ rod of mine anger.^ Or the burst of Miltoi^ 
 
 « The supreme good, tVhom aU things evil*, 
 " Are but the slavish oflScers of vengeance.*' 
 
 Here, then^ as there is no proof to the contrary, 
 Hezekiah nright with equal probability be called this 
 slavish oflScer, as well as a defender of righ t against 
 Oppression. 
 
 ' lliere is another citation of Locke from Scripture, 
 which ought to have shown him (I speak it with 
 
 ' 
 
 I i 
 
 APPENDIX V. 
 
 177 
 
 i^verence,) the inconvenience (to say no more) of 
 relying upon particular texts or narratives, in sup- 
 port of doctrines as to what, abstractedly, God does 
 or does not approve, and the danger of inferring ap- 
 probation from success. If ever there was, to our 
 apprehensions, an unjust seizure of a country, it was 
 when the Israelites, in their march through the wil^ 
 derness, destroyed the Amorites, and took possession 
 of their land. For what? Because Sihon, their 
 king, refused them passage (we think prudently, for 
 they were hundreds of thousands strong). Grant 
 that they might have forced their way, they could- 
 do no more. But they seized the whole land and 
 kept it. Years afterwards the descendants of these 
 Amorites, now the children of Ammon, took arms 
 to recover it. But Jephtha the judge of Israel said no, 
 for it was God's doing, who gave us the victory. 
 They fought, and Jeptha conquered and kept the 
 land. What does Mr. Locke say to God's approba- 
 tion of revolt afler any length of submission ? But 
 who does not know the diflSculty {I do not say the 
 impossibility,) of reconciling the prosperity of evil- 
 doers with the moral government of Providence? 
 How long ago was the sentiment uttered, " Crimen 
 deorum. Sylla tarn felix !'' To reason about it would 
 be vain ; we have nothing to do but to wonder, reve- 
 rence, and submit, Mr. Locke, as it seems to us, 
 had better have left his appeal to Scripture alone. 
 
 We turn with more satisfaction to his account of 
 tyranny^ which is no more than justly. described as 
 
 I 5 
 
 ■I 
 
 i 
 
 ■A 
 
; ' 
 
 I 
 
 ! i 
 
 ; .1 
 
 I 
 
 4 
 \ 
 
 178 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 the usurpation of power, whether in the executive or 
 legislative, either not warranted by or against law. 
 In this light he is no more than correct when he 
 says that wherever law ends tyranny begins. 
 
 Two particulars, however, are here remarkable from 
 so great a champion of the rights of a people over 
 delinquent sovereigns. First, that the persons of sove- 
 reigns cannot be otherwise than sacredy unless they 
 themselves descend to personal violence, which can 
 only be resisted by force. Upon this sacredness, he 
 allows, must depend much of the security of the laws. 
 
 Next, what in the body of this work we have 
 laboured to prove, that the legislative, by usurping 
 authority not intrusted to them, can break their 
 trust, and, therefore, forfeit it, as well as the exe- 
 cutive, or a king. And this they do when they 
 misuse their power, or assume one over the lives 
 and properties of the community, who only made 
 them delegates for their own general benefit and 
 preservation, not their destruction. 
 
 Yet this position is laid down in all that abstract 
 generality always so dangerous from its liability to 
 be misapplied. For the question here, as with a mo- 
 narch, perpetually occurs, — what is general benefit, 
 what preservation ? Of these there may be such 
 different judgments, that what one man may think 
 preservation another may deem destruction. Those 
 who supported the late French war thought it would 
 preserve the nation ; those who opposed, thought it 
 would destroy it. 
 
 APPENDIX V. 
 
 179 
 
 Locke, indeed, in some measure, attempts to qua- 
 lify his proposition, by saying, that " he who appeals 
 to Heaven, must be sure he has right on his side." * 
 
 Another fallacy : for being the party, as well as 
 judge, how can he be sure? 
 
 He adds : " It must, too, be a right that Is worth 
 the trouble and cost of the appeal." Again, " who 
 that goes to war can ever calculate this ?" 
 
 There is a still farther condition : for this is to be, 
 as " he will answer at a tribunal that cannot be de- 
 ceived, and will be sure to retribute to every one 
 according to the mischiefs he hath created to his 
 fellow-subjects ; that is, to all mankind. From whence 
 it is plain, that he that conquers in an unjust war, 
 can thereby have no title to the subjection and obe 
 dience of the conquered." f 
 
 This plainness we do not perceive; for the conse- 
 quence does not flow from the premise. God does 
 not always, nor nearly always retribute the mischiefs 
 done. Witness Poland and a thousand other in- 
 stances. A conqueror too in an unjust war may not 
 have a title to the obedience of the conquered ; but 
 it does not follow, that because a man, with a just 
 cause of war, chooses to make it, even though it may 
 not be worth the trouble and cost of the appeal, (of 
 which he is the best judge,) he has, therefore, no 
 rio-ht to the obedience of those unjust persons whom 
 he has conquered. 
 
 All this deficiency in satisfactory result is the 
 
 p. 342. 
 
 J lb. 
 
 I 6 
 
 
 i 
 
 
 ( 
 
■3 
 
 ■'I 
 
 i' 
 
 V 
 
 K 'it 
 
 180 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 mere consequenee we have adverted to, of bending 
 j)ractical cases to theories in favour of liberty, to 
 which they do not belong. 
 
 Thus, though Locke allows that the legislative 
 may betray their trust and usurp, (that is, become 
 tyrants,) as well as a single sovereign ; yet (preserving 
 the bias of his mind,) he has the salvo, that it cannot 
 be so often attempted, from the want of means ; which 
 may be true. But while the delinquencies of James 
 are broadly designated in his general theorems, the 
 thirty tyrants of Athens and the decemvirs at Rome 
 are the only examples he adduces of tyranny in the 
 many. He wholly passes by the infamous judgments 
 upon illustrious patriots which so often disgraced the 
 ancient popular assemblies, Socrates, Phocion, and 
 others ; and, as for the Long Parliament and the 
 Popish Plot, which teem with usurpation, they seem 
 never to have occurred to his contemplation. 
 
 We approach to a conclusion, but cannot take our 
 leave of this important and interesting work, (inter- 
 esting, from what appears to us its very defects, on 
 account of the deserved celebrity of the writer for 
 integrity and patriotism, as well as intellect,) — we 
 cannot take leave of it, without adverting once more 
 to its radical fault. Such must ever be the attempt 
 to reason upon facts or propositions as proved to 
 come under certain truisms or general principles, 
 although there may be endless differences of opinion 
 as to the proofs of their doing so. 
 
 This possibly cannot be better illustrated than by 
 
 i'* 
 
 APPENDIX v. 
 
 181 
 
 the perpetual allusions in the work to the injunc- 
 tions of the law of nature and the will of God. 
 
 No doubt of the forcible truth, that when we dis- 
 cover them, — which Locke properly holds can only be 
 done through our reason, — we are bound to obey 
 them. But, alas ! what is the reason of man ? Ever 
 varying, ever inquiring ; never resting, never satis* 
 fied; different in different men; often so in the 
 same man ; and although its nature and attributes 
 may be unchangeable, its" conclusions liable to per- 
 petual, and even momentary changes, as passion or 
 the senses present the same things under different 
 appearances. 
 
 Hence, though all must be eager to obey the law 
 of nature, and adore the will of Heaven, what two 
 men can be certain of the agreement of their opi- 
 nions concerning them? We have seen, in the use 
 he makes of the passages in Scripture respecting 
 Hezekiah and Jephtha, into what a contradiction of 
 practical deductions Locke himself fell. And if he 
 failed, who can succeed? 
 
 This radical fault alone causes him to embrace 
 another opinion, which, however favoured by the 
 besotted and pufFed-up vanities of the self-called 
 godly and elect among the Puritans and Covenanters 
 of older times, one would have thought it would be 
 impossible for such an unshackled thinker as Locke 
 to have entertained. I mean, that an appeal to 
 arms, whether in foreign or civil war, is an appeal 
 to Heaven. I mean, not a submission to the general 
 
 ( 
 
 
 '«\ 
 
182 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY, 
 
 II 
 
 m 
 
 '■■ \ 
 
 providence of God over the events of the world, with 
 a view to general and final consequences, but to his. 
 immediate determination on the question immediately 
 passing, and judging it as a human judge would decide 
 a cause before him. In this view, il is neither more 
 nor less than the old exploded trial by battle ; but 
 were the question of the efficacy or justice of that 
 trial brought before Locke, little doubt can be en- 
 tertained of his decision. Still he maintains it in 
 the course of discussing, perhaps, the two most im- 
 portant and critical questions of his work, prerogative 
 and conquest ; and he risks consequences in this rea- 
 soning which are surprising. 
 
 Cromwell, that great man, and greatest of hypo- 
 crites, in order to encourage his fanatic soldiers, used 
 to say of the enemy — " The Lord has delivered him 
 into our hands.'* So did his antagonists, the Scotch 
 Covenantors ; but Cromwell generally succeeded. He 
 might therefore believe himself (certainly made many 
 of his followers believe,) that their appeal to arms 
 was an appeal to Heaven. Had he failed would the 
 same belief have prevailed ? Is it not astonishing 
 that such a man as Locke should give into such a 
 
 puerile fallacy ? 
 
 But that we may not be supposed to he giving an 
 opinion only, let us see how he actually trusts this 
 tenet in applying it to the above subjects of prero- 
 gative and conquest. 
 
 « Prerogative," he says, " was given to be used 
 for the good of the people, not to harm them.'' 
 
 
 APPENDIX v. 
 
 183 
 
 Agreed. " But it is often used to their detriment !" 
 That cannot be denied, any more than that one 
 party may think it is detrimentally used, while 
 another may think the contrary. If, then, there is 
 no judge, except the parties themselves, how is it to 
 be decided ? Locke says, in the same manner as a 
 dispute between independent states, — an appeal to 
 Heaven, that is, to arms; and he again instances 
 Jephtha against the Ammonites, where Heaven 
 determined for him. 
 
 As the sum and scope of Locke's whole treatise is 
 contained in his argument upon this point, we will 
 give it at length, in order that every man may judge 
 of it for himself. 
 
 ^' The old question," says he, " will be asked in 
 this matter of prerogative. — But who shall be Judge 
 when this power (prerogative) is made a right use. 
 of? 
 
 " I answer, between an executive power in being, 
 with such a prerogative, and a legislative that de- 
 pends upon his will for their convening, there can be 
 no judge on earthy as there can be none between the 
 legislative and the people, should, either the execu- 
 tive, or the legislative, when they have got the power 
 in their hands, design, or go about to enslave or 
 destroy them. 
 
 " The people have no other remedy in this, as in all 
 other cases where they have no judge on earth, but 
 to appeal to Heaven : for the rulers, in such attempts, 
 exercising a power the people never put into their 
 
 (!'■ 
 
 
\ 
 
 184 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY, 
 
 APPENDIX V. 
 
 185 
 
 hands, (who can never be supposed to consent that any 
 body should rule over them for their harm) do that 
 which they have not a right to do. And where the 
 body of the people, or any single man, is deprived of 
 their right, or is under the exercise of a power with* 
 out right, and have no appeal on earth, then they 
 have a liberty to appeal to Heaven, whenever they 
 judge the cause of sufficient moment, 
 
 " And therefore, though the people cannot be judges^ 
 so as to have, by the constitution of that society^ any 
 superior power to determine and give effective sen- 
 tence in the case, yet they have, by a law antecedent and 
 paramount to all positive laws of men, reserved that 
 ultimate determination to themselves which belongs 
 to all mankind, where there lies no appeal on earth; 
 that is, to judge, whether they have just cause to 
 make their appeal to Heaven. 
 
 " And this judgment they cannot part with, it being 
 out of a maris power so to submit himself to another as 
 to give him a liberty to destroy him ; God and nature 
 never allowing a man so to abandon himself as to neglect 
 his own preservation : and since he cannot take away his 
 own life, neither can he give another power to take it. 
 Nor let any one think, this lays a perpetual founda- 
 tion for disorder: for this operates not till the incon- 
 veniency is so great that the majority feel it, and are 
 weary of it, and find a necessity to have it amended."* 
 * Now, upon this remarkable creed we have first to 
 observe, that the tyranny to be resisted is not con- 
 
 - . ♦p. 334. 
 
 ' 
 
 fined to a king, or the executive, but extends to the 
 legislative, which combines the representatives of th^ 
 people themselves ; and therefore were the House of 
 Commons itself to abuse its trust given, as Locke 
 truly says, for the especial benefit of the people, the 
 people may resist them, as well as the King.*" 
 
 This is but fair. In other respects, with one or two 
 important exceptions, these sentiments are truisms. 
 It is true that if the executive and legislative quarrel, 
 there can be no judge under the constitution, be- 
 tween them. It is true therefore they can appeal to 
 no one upon earth. 
 
 It is true that if the people put their power into 
 the hands of rulers, they could not mean harm to them- 
 selves by so doing. It is true, therefore, that if harm, 
 instead of good, is done to them, they can appeal to 
 no one upon earth, and may appeal to Heaven if 
 Heaven will hear them. 
 
 But here comes the practical misapplication of these 
 truths. It is not true that an appeal to arms is an ap^ 
 peal to Heaven; or, if it is. Heaven has so often 
 determined against the people, by allowing unjust 
 governments to quell and punish insurrection, and 
 unjust conquerors to enslave independent nations, 
 that it were better to suppose iio appeal was made, 
 than that justice from a just being was refused. It 
 is not true that God and nature never allow, though 
 
 * See instances of the gross abuse of this trust in vol. i. p. 44 et infra 
 of this Essay, in the case of the Long Parliament, and that of 1679 j 
 and illustrations of what would be such abuse, p. 99 et infra. 
 
 I 
 
 t^: 
 
186 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 ^ ;^ 
 
 they may not prescribe, to a man, « so to abandon him 
 self as to neglect his own preservation." 
 
 This is contradicted by the whole history of man ; 
 and the common and well-founded observation,' 
 " Quem Deus vult perdere prius deraentat." 
 
 It is remarkable that Locke only mentions one 
 instance of direct successful appeal, that of Jephtha; 
 while on the other hand he nowhere adverts (strange 
 omission!) to those cases of successful wickedness 
 which have been alluded to, and to which many many 
 more may be added. 
 
 Who were ever more oppressed, or more gallant in 
 their resistance to oppression, than the Hugonots who 
 defended Rochelle ? Who more confident in their 
 appeals to Heaven ? Who more tyrannical than the 
 other appellant, Richelieu ? But the appeal, if it was 
 to Heaven, was determined against the Rochellers. 
 
 If ever there were confident appealers, or who 
 believed themselves under special protection from 
 above, it was the Scotch Conventiclers. Yet they were 
 allowed, in the inscrutable behests of Providence, to 
 be the victims of the most cruel persecutions, by the 
 most profligate of governments. 
 
 These examples might be multiplied ad infinitum, 
 and we would fain again, but dare not, touch upon the 
 horrors of Poland. 
 
 What then becomes of the value, the certainty, the 
 justice of this appeal, though to Heaven it be ? Had 
 Locke said that it was, what it is, an appeal to the 
 sword, which is the right of the strongest, where no 
 Other right is acknowledged, it would be nearer the 
 
 / 
 
 APPENDIX V. 
 
 187 
 
 truth. But to judge of an appeal to the all-seeing 
 power, who j udges by rules of his own, unfathomable 
 by man, as if he descended from his height to sit in the 
 judgment-seat below, to dispose of an earthly cause, 
 is only another proof of the many he has given, that, 
 however just his notions may be in theory, the use 
 he would put them to in practical illustrations 
 lamentably fails. 
 
 How many erroneous judgments, how many crimes, 
 may not be, and are defended by the delusive gene- 
 rality of that supposed axiom, that God never allows 
 a man to neglect his own preservation ? Predestina- 
 tion itself could scarcely be better supported, and 
 this alone would demonstrate the defects we complain 
 of in the reasoning of this treatise. For though 
 instinct may lead us, as well as other creatures, to 
 avoid danger, yet every man, by his free will, 
 being left to judge for himself what will or will not 
 hurt or preserve him, how often does he not from 
 appetite, or bad passions, revenge, ambition, lust, 
 avarice, rush headlong on his own destruction ? Of 
 this no page in history but affords examples, particu- 
 larly sacred history ; every chapter of which seems a 
 lesson on the improvidence and deliberate design of 
 man to seek his own perdition, instead of safety, — • 
 Sampson, Solomon himself, among the Jews ; Pharaoh, 
 Sennacharib, at the head of the heathen, 
 
 I mention the sacred history in preference, because 
 Mr. Locke seems fond of it, as conveying more dis-* 
 tinctly the government and intentions of Heavem 
 
 (i! 
 
 ^ 
 
 / 
 
 iii 
 
 .'■•: 
 
 -I 
 
 k. 
 
 ^•t 
 
188 
 
 •ai 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 But should We turn to profane story, examples would 
 be beyond numeration. Alexander, Antony, almost 
 all the Roman Emperors ; in more modern times, 
 eminently, Bonaparte ; and, as an instance most appo- 
 site for Mr. Locke's consideration, the object of his 
 animadversions, James II. 
 
 As to the "antecedent \di%^^ paramount to all posi-* 
 five laws of merij by which the people reserved that 
 ultimate determination to themselves which belongs 
 to all mankind, where there is no appeal on earth, 
 that is, to judge whether they have just cause to make 
 their appeal to Heaven," that is, to arms; from the 
 very terms of the proposition, there could be no 
 such reservation. For as it is said to be antecedent to 
 all the positive laws of men, and therefore to society, 
 it is supposed to be a reservation of power, from a 
 delegation of power, before any such delegation was 
 made. Most strange that a refutation of any posi- 
 tion of Locke can be made by the argument ex 
 absurdo ! 
 
 The pertinacity, however, of this doctrine as to the 
 appeal to Heaven, and the perfect certainty of its 
 being favourably decided at last, is not the least re- 
 markable feature of the creed. For whatever the 
 number or strength of the unfavourable decisions, we 
 are never to despair. Sure of our cause (for we are 
 sole judges of its real merits) we are to repeat the 
 appeal for ever and for ever, till Heaven either relents 
 or has satisfied those other objects which for a time 
 prevented it from listening to us. 
 
 A 
 
 APPENDIX V. 
 
 189 
 
 This he illustrates by the case of a robber, against 
 whom, from either a denial of justice, or our own 
 poverty occasioned by the robbery, we cannot obtain 
 redress. " If God,"says he, "has taken away all means 
 of seeking remedy, there is nothing left but patience. 
 But my son^ when ahle^ may seek the relief of the law, 
 which / am denied ; he, or his son, may renew his 
 appeal till he recover his right ; but the conquered or 
 their children have no court, no arbitrator, to appeal 
 to. Then they may appeal, as Jephtha did, to Heaven, 
 and repeat their appeal till they have recovered the native 
 right of their ancestors^ which was to have such a legisr 
 lative over them as the majority should approve and 
 freely acquiesce in,^^* ^ 
 
 So here is a conquered people, (conquered in a war, 
 confessed, if you please, by the conqueror himself 
 to have been unjust) but who have acquiesced, even 
 by treaty, in the conquest, say for 500 years ; who yet 
 are to preserve their entirety as a distinct and inder 
 pendent nation, having laws and representatives of 
 their own, with power to bii>d by a majority of votes ; 
 and who are still to maintain their original right of 
 resistance during every year of that period ; and after 
 treaty upon treaty may have been made, probably 
 favourable to themselves, can rise whenever they are 
 abje against the power under whose dominion they 
 have so long covenanted peaceably to live.^ 
 
 Can such a thing be ? can this be a theorem in th^ 
 
 i\ 
 
 / 
 
 p. 342. 
 
Il ^ 
 
 > flll i« 
 
 190 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 Iv 
 
 
 ft 
 
 II 
 
 law of nations ? " can it be the law of nature, or the 
 law of God?" 
 
 If this be sound. Heaven preserve us, (I speak to 
 the honourable ancient Briton, to whom this Essay 
 is addressed,) — Heaven preserve us still from the in- 
 roads of the Welsh ! , 
 
 " Ruin seize thee, ruthless king" 
 
 was in the language of inimitable poetry, the sup- 
 posed cry of this injured and gallant nation six hun- 
 dred years ago; and justly. For if ever there was a 
 ruthless tyrant to his neighbours, it was the atrocious 
 though magnanimous Edward. 
 
 Well, according to Locke, though the Welsh had 
 made innumerable appeals to Heaven, and had been 
 denied justice ; though their princes had, to save the 
 remnant of their rights, made treaties of condition as 
 honourable in their circumstances as could be ob- 
 tained by the oppressed from an oppressor ; though 
 by these treaties they have been incorporated with 
 their oppressors, and have a share of the legislation 
 of the w hole empire, yet these treaties having been 
 extorted by force or fear, they may even now appear 
 in arms against us, " until they have recovered the 
 ancient rights of their ancestors.** Nor are there 
 wanting many high-minded scions of their ancient 
 stock of princes to lead them on, — the Ap Rices, the 
 Ap Shenkins, the Gwillims, Griffiths, and Owens, 
 who still boast, and have a right to do so, of the royal 
 blood that flows in their veins. These ancestors, like 
 their bards, Cadwallo, Urien, and Modred, 
 
 A 
 
 APPENDIX V. 
 
 191 
 
 ** Whose magic song, 
 *' Made huge Plenlimmon bow his cloud top't head." 
 " These do not sleep, 
 
 " On yonder cliffs, a grisly band, 
 " I see them sit ; they linger yet, 
 
 " Avengers of their native land. 
 " With me in dreadful harmony they join, 
 
 " And weave with bloody hands the tissue of thy line." 
 
 To be sure, the gracious and youthful beino- who 
 now represents this line on the throne of Edward, 
 might think it (and we for her) very hard if Lord 
 Dynevor, for example, should attack her in her pa- 
 lace, till she had restored the rights of his fathers 
 ravished unjustly from them. She might, it is true, 
 plead that she descended from the first Prince of all 
 Wales, King Edward II., but that being a title im- 
 posed by force, Locke would have no mercy upon the 
 plea. 
 
 To be serious. The Jews are a people who would 
 best illustrate these Utopian notions of this great, 
 but, surely here, mistaken man. 
 
 According to themselves, (the proper judges, be it 
 observed, in Locke's doctrine,) the cause of the Ro- 
 mans, who destroyed them, was most unjust. Cer- 
 tainly they, not without reason, thought that Pompey, 
 their original conqueror, had no right to enslave 
 them. And though they had appealed to Heaven 
 various times, and always unsuccessfully, yet they 
 continued to exercise this right, spite of repulse after 
 repulse, till Heaven, who is supposed never to allow 
 a person to abandon himself, so as to neglect his own 
 
 
> I 
 
 .1 I 
 
 1 1 
 
 17 
 
 192 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 preservation^ allowed them, by that sacrilegious mur- 
 der they committed upon Heaven's own Messenger, 
 to neglect this preservation, and court their destruc- 
 tion, by hundreds of thousands, from the signal ven- 
 geance of Titus. 
 
 This is now some seventeen hundred years ago. They 
 are dispersed, and have been persecuted all over the 
 world ; and though they have submitted to the laws, 
 and professed allegiance to many states which have 
 tolerated them, they call themselves still a nation 
 awaiting another appeal. According to Locke, they 
 have the fullest right to do so. Heaven may at last 
 think the time is come when it may be proper to do 
 them justice, for the usurpations of Pompey and 
 Titus ; and all governments under which they now 
 Jive can only look upon them as conjcealed, — not rebels 
 to the laws that protect them, (for that Locke will 
 not permit,) — but legitimate enemies, between whom 
 and such governments the state of war never ceased. 
 
 Again, I ask, can this be so ? 
 
 There remain but two divisions of this famous trea- 
 tise to touch upon, and after what has been already 
 done the task will be short. 
 
 In treating of despotic POWEii, and the dissolution 
 of governments, we think we perceive the same ex- 
 aggerated notions of the natural state of man, and 
 the same inconsequential application of the theory to 
 practical cases which we have ventured to point out 
 in the previous discussion. 
 
 Despotic power Locke defines to be an absolute, 
 
 appendix v. 
 
 193 
 
 arbitrary power one man has over another to take 
 away his life whenever he pleases." This, he says, 
 is what neither nature gives, nor compact can con^ 
 vey.* The reason ? Because nature makes no such 
 distinction between one man and another; and as a 
 man can only give to another that power which he 
 possessed himself, and he had none over his own life, 
 he could not convey it. 
 
 This latter reason, we obviously see, can only be 
 convincing to those who deny the lawfulness of sui- 
 cide, and might, therefore, be denied by all the 
 ancient world, and a considerable part of the pre- 
 sent. For its lawfulness is not anywhere expressly 
 denied by revelation; and on the prohibition by 
 natural law there are great differences of opinion, 
 involving much argument, research, and erudition! 
 By this, I desire not to be thought one of those who 
 deem suicide lawful ; I only mean to remark, that 
 there are even now very many virtuous and well 
 instructed persons who deny its unlawfulness in 
 theory. In practice, it need not be observed, that 
 the instances of it abound. The use we make of 
 this IS, that one, an important part of Locke's rea- 
 soning against despotism over the lives of men, is 
 unphilosophical, and not logically conclusive. 
 
 Then as to nature making no such distinction be- 
 tween man and man, how is this proved ? 
 
 That there are the strongest and most marked 
 distinctions in other respects, all denoting distinctions 
 
 VOL, II. 
 
 • p. 338. 
 K 
 
194 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 in power, is clear. Strength of body, of mind, genius, 
 eloquence, sagacity, courage, passions of all sorts ! 
 all these demonstrate that the intentions of nature are 
 any thing but to create equality in the human more 
 than any other species. 
 
 But the great proof is to be drawn from what no 
 jurist, or advocate for equality, except Mrs. Wollston- 
 croft and the Amazons, have ever denied — the in- 
 equality of the sexes. 
 
 Why are not women endowed with the same rights 
 of citizenship as men ? They have equal, and some 
 of them very superior reason. They may be queens, 
 and choose ministers. Why not be ministers them- 
 selves ? They may be executors, guardians, trustees. 
 Why not voters? They may summon parliaments. 
 Why not be members ? 
 
 The same reasoning applies to minors. Why are 
 they in a state of tutillage after they can speak, walk, 
 and have a choice ? Why is the power of choice con- 
 fined to any particular age, to give them the right of 
 consenting who shall govern them, whether their 
 fathers, before they are in society, or their chiefs 
 afterwards? Why does the age differ in different 
 countries? A youth of twenty may judge as well as 
 one of twenty-one; of eighteen as of seventeen. At 
 eighteen indeed he may be a king, and command an 
 army, but cannot exercise an elective franchise. 
 
 Thus all these arguments for equality under the 
 law of nature are contradicted in practice, and are, 
 therefore^ mere arbitrary assumptions. 
 
 APPENDIX V. 
 
 195 
 
 But we all are equal in the eye of Heaven ! That, 
 we see, in the case of the sexes and of minors, is 
 disallowed by the theorists themselves. 
 
 How then is it known ? By reason ? If we reason 
 
 on the differences of our lots that seems to contradict 
 it. 
 
 By the justice and equal love of his creatures in 
 the Creator ? 
 
 That immediately brings us to religion, which is 
 of a far higher consideration then natural law. 
 
 But passing these as over-refinements, and only 
 mentioned as answers to the over-refinement of 
 Locke, let us see what does, in his mind, permit the 
 exercise of this right over the life of another. 
 
 And this is ''forfeiture, which the aggressor makes 
 of his own life when he puts himself into the state of 
 war with another."* 
 
 Well then, there is a lawful cause for despotism ; 
 and as wars are the most frequent occurrences in the 
 history of man, and, in the antient times especially, 
 there seem to be few others, will not this at once 
 account for the despotic constitutions of most states 
 in the world? The Assyrian, Egyptian, Persian, Mace- 
 donian, and Roman Empires sprang from wars that 
 were ceaseless. Were those of Charlemagne, or the 
 Caliphs, or the Turks, derived from the soft arts of 
 peace ? 
 
 So much, then, for foreign wars, in which the con- 
 quered having all forfeited their lives, the sentence 
 
 * p. 348. 
 K 2 
 
-V** 
 
 196 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 was mitigated on their submission to absolute power 
 in the conqueror. 
 
 Miffht not domestic wars or rebellions come within 
 
 the same rule ? 
 
 The language against aggressors in war is strong 
 enough. " Having quitted reason," says Locke, " which 
 God hath given to be the rule betwixt man and man, 
 and the common bond whereby human kind is united 
 into one fellowship and society, and having renounced 
 the way of peace which that teaches, and made use 
 of the force of war to compass his unjust ends upon 
 another, where he has no right; and so revolting 
 from his own kind to that of beasts, by making force, 
 which is theirs, to be his rule of right, he renders him" 
 self liable to be destroyed by the injured person^ and the 
 rest of mankind that will join with him in the execu- 
 tion of justice, as any other wild beast or noxious 
 brute with whom mankind can have neither society 
 nor security. And thus, captives, taken in a just and 
 lawful war, and such only, are subject to a despotical 
 power, which, as it arises not from compact, so 
 neither is it capable of any, but is the state of war 
 continued," 
 
 Now, it is obvious that this strong language applies 
 itself to the full as much to the aggressors in domes- 
 tic as in foreign wars. For may not the people, or 
 a large part of them, put themselves in a state of war 
 with their governors, and act like wild beasts or 
 noxious brutes^ and so forfeit their lives, and submit to 
 absolute power like captives ? Have there been no 
 
 APPENDIX v. 
 
 197 
 
 Jack Cades, no Jacqueries among nations? And 
 though this would not justify despotism over the 
 sound part of a nation, it would apply at least to the 
 unsound. I do not say that despotism can ever be 
 defended on general principles, but on this reasoning 
 of Locke it can, for thus, subdued rebels are legiti- 
 mate slaves. 
 
 But Locke has a salvo for this, as for all other 
 difficulties, in the law of nature, as he interprets it. 
 But we have seen, and we hope demonstrated, the 
 wildness of the strange doctrine, which even in this 
 politically free-thinking age seems to have no abettors, 
 -—that there is a distinction to be made among the 
 individuals of the same nation ; that the rights of a 
 conqueror even in a just war can extend no farther 
 than over those who actually oppose him ; and that 
 those who do not, and the children of those who efo, 
 are all exempt from the effects of those rights. 
 
 Those who espouse this reasoning are safe from 
 the fears of any very lasting despotism ; but Heaven 
 forbid that such safety should depend upon the truth 
 of such positions. 
 
 We now come to the subject of a dissolution of a 
 government, which, he says, may be produced by two 
 ways : 1st. Conquest from without : 2d. Commotion 
 within. 
 
 With the latter only are we to treat. 
 
 This is brought about, he says, " when the legisla- 
 tive is altered^ 
 
 Put thus nakedly, with submission, this account is 
 
 K 3 
 
 \ 
 
 \) 
 
198 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 incorrect. For the legislative may alter the mode 
 ill which its power is administered, and thus create at 
 different or altered legislative, and yet the government 
 will not be dissolved. For, from his own account, 
 when such dissolution takes place, every man returns 
 to his independence and the exercise of his own wilL 
 
 Now, suppose that from an obstinate withholding 
 of the supplies, or by swamping the House of Lords, 
 the House of Commons, by the disorder this would 
 create, should force the Lords to consent to a law for 
 their own abolition ! 
 
 This would alter the legislative with a vengeance, 
 yet the government would not be dissolved. We 
 should still remain in our social state; still be governed 
 by laws. 
 
 In 1 689 the experiment was tried. The King fled ; 
 the throne was vacant; men neither summoned by 
 the king's writ, nor elected by the people, called 
 themselves the Lords and Commons, and created a 
 temporary governor, who then summoned what he 
 called a parliament, which was no such thing. 
 
 Here was an alteration in the legislative, or there 
 never was one; yet the community stood, the laws 
 remained, and England was England as it is at pre- 
 sent. So much for this principle. 
 
 Locke then enumerates different causes which 
 would occasion the dissolution of the government, 
 being, in fact, a record of the sins of James H. against 
 his people; and very fairly (as we have before 
 observed) allows that the legislative as well as ex- 
 
 APPENDIX V. 
 
 199 
 
 ecutive may incur this guilt. This, he says, " they 
 do whenever they endeavour to destroy the pro- 
 perty of the people, or reduce them under arbitrary 
 power; the consequence of which is, that the power 
 returns to the people who put it into their hands, who 
 may resume their original liberty, and establish a new 
 legislative."* 
 
 In respect to breaches of trust producing this dis- 
 solution of things, he goes farther than, perhaps, it 
 would be discreet to follow him, when he says, " that 
 to corrupt the representatives through the force, 
 treasures^ or offices of the society ; or openly pre- 
 engage electors, and prescribe to their choice those 
 whom the executive has won to his designs ; this cuts 
 up the government by the roots, that is, dissolves 
 
 it."t 
 
 If this be so ; if bribery and corruption either of 
 
 the electors or the elected, if the disposal of the trea- 
 sure or offices of the society by a minister, will 
 dissolve the government, at what moment of time 
 was the government of England, or of any other 
 countrv, ever not dissolved? 
 
 Seriously to refute this wildness would be any thing 
 but serious; we mention it only (though with every 
 possible respect for the writer) as the crowning 
 vision of this visionary treatise. 
 
 * p. 378. t P* 380. 
 
 K 4 
 
 11 
 
 t 
 
 ill ^ 
 
200 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 No. VI. 
 
 Veritas obvia, sed requlrentibus. 
 
 OF LORD RUSSELL AND ALGERNON SIDNEY. 
 
 Perhaps I may be forgiven if, whatever may be 
 thought of the opinions contained in this work, I 
 imagine it would be incomplete without some notice 
 taken of questions which belong to the above names 
 in themselves of the greatest importance, and which 
 seem to have divided mankind ever since they were 
 started. 
 
 Yet none, in the history of our jurisprudence, of 
 our constitution, or the political conduct of former 
 governors, are of more consequence to the settle- 
 ment of our notions upon the legal rights of sovereign 
 and subject. 
 
 From the time of the Revolution to this hour it 
 has been customary for one great party among us to 
 hold that the existence of the Rye House Plot itself 
 was by no means clearly proved, and that Lord 
 Russell, and Sidney, were martyrs, victims, sacrifices 
 in the cause of liberty, their trials breaches of the 
 law, their executions murders. 
 
 Of this opinion are Mr. Fox, Lord John Russell, 
 and Mackintosh ; Price, and all republicans, of course. 
 It is in fact one of the sacred articles of the creed of 
 Whiggism, and the act itself reversing Lord Russell's 
 attainder does not scruple to record it as a murder. 
 
 APPENDIX VI. 
 
 201 
 
 Of the breach of the law in the case of Sidney, 
 whatever his intentions, no one can doubt ; and he 
 was therefore, in our opinion, legally murdered. 
 But with what justice this is so constantly asserted, 
 nay proclaimed, by the legislature in regard to Lord 
 Russell, we propose to inquire. 
 
 That there was a plot, denominated Rve House, 
 from an imputed intention to attack and assassinate 
 the King at that spot, (so convenient, as was said, for 
 the design,) will not be disputed. That such a 
 design was broached, canvassed, and more or less 
 entertained by several persons, some of whom were 
 also in communication with others of a higher class, 
 on the possibility of a general insurrection, is equally 
 to be believed. 
 
 These last were composed of various leaders of the 
 Whigs, discontented with the government, but having 
 no direct desiga on the person of the King. Their 
 chief, however, was the turbulent Shaftsbury, who 
 kept up an intercourse with both parties through 
 agents, some of whom were among the plotters against 
 the King's life. 
 
 Thus the two conspiracies seemed blended to- 
 gether, though of very different characters. 
 
 The one had assassination for its object ; the othei 
 (as Mackintosh would call it,) a mere ^' reformat 
 tary revoltJ^ 
 
 But, vdth these differences in the minds of the 
 parties, that a conspiracy of a treasonable nature did 
 exist, called by the common name of the Rye House 
 
 K h 
 
 '/ 
 
202 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 Plot, is clear. If this was an invention, then all his- 
 tory is an invention. 
 
 This is admitted by Mr. Fox and Lord John 
 Russell themselves, and also by Hallam. 
 
 The lan^ua«:e of the former is remarkable. 
 
 ^' Of the Rye House Plot," he observes, " it may be 
 said much more truly than of the Popish, that there 
 was in it some truth, mixed with much falsehood ; 
 and though many of the circumstances in Kealing's 
 account are nearly as absurd and ridiculous as those 
 in Oates's, it seems probable that there was among 
 some of those accused, a notion of assassinating the 
 King ; but whether this notion was ever ripened into 
 what may be called design, and, much more, whether 
 it were ever evinced by such an overt act as the law 
 requires for conviction, is very doubtful."* 
 
 The question is, what was the extent of the design 
 had the attack at the Rye House taken place? 
 Whether it formed a part of the intended general 
 insurrection? Whether even that was ever really 
 designed? And, above all, whether Lord Russell 
 had any, and what share, in either of these supposed 
 conspiracies ? 
 
 Were the inquiry of a common occurrence in the 
 history of ordinary crime, there would probably be 
 little occasion for discussion ; but being of a high 
 political nature, involving, not only the lives of kings, 
 but the revolution of states, and the most vital 
 questions on the principles of government ; — as the 
 
 * History of James II., p. 50. 
 
 ■■■ii 
 
 APPENDIX Vr. 
 
 203 
 
 t> 
 
 
 greatest, as well as very mean names were brought 
 into peril, and experienced consequences from it 
 fatal to themselves, their families, and their party; — 
 as these consequences extended themselves afterwards 
 so as to influence the fate and condition of the whole 
 nation ; — there is scarcely an epoch or event in our 
 history which has been so pov/erfully searched, or so 
 passionately discussed, as political bias, principles, or 
 prejudice animated the various disputants who have 
 embarked in the contest 
 
 One would have thought that, at this distance of 
 time, passion, as well as self-interest, would have 
 long subsided, and left the historian, the lawyer, or 
 the statesman, free from all influence, but the simp^ 
 love of truth, in making the inquiry. But the rea- 
 sons above enumerated account for the perpetuation 
 of the feelings which prompted the pens as well as 
 the conduct of the original and contemporaneous 
 champions for or against this historical problem. 
 Lord Russell, besides having sealed his principles 
 with his blood, has become the head, as it were, of a 
 sect in political controversy; and, like other heads of 
 sects, has filled his followers with an enthusiasm, 
 both blind and ardent, not easy to be extinguished. 
 Moreover, in addition to his party disciples, he is 
 represented by an extensive and distinguished pos- 
 terity, all of whom very naturally embalm his history 
 in their memories ; so that the question of his legal 
 guilt or innocence continues to be agitated with 
 almost as much fervency as ever. Not a little, too, 
 
 K 6 
 
4^ 
 
 204 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 is contributed to this ardour, both in attack and de- 
 fence, by his extreme and acknowledged religious 
 and political bigotry on the one hand, and the merited 
 enjoyment of as much private virtue, probity, and 
 honour as ever existed, on the other. 
 
 Even, therefore, granting his legal guilt, that such 
 a man should be cut off by the axe of the execu- 
 tioner, of itself engages our tenderest sympathy. 
 But can we fail to add to this the pathetic interest, 
 amounting to absolute veneration, inspired by the 
 noble yet tender virtues, the conjugal yet energetic 
 exertions, of his matchless consort More of the 
 interest about Lord Russell is owing to this admirable 
 woman than perhaps we acknowledge or are aware 
 of. To have possessed so much of her devotion, so 
 much of her love, makes us enhance merits which 
 were certainly mixt with many defects. When we 
 read in her letters to him of her fondness for the pil- 
 low on which his dear head had rested^ every man 
 who knows the value of a virtuous woman'^s affection, 
 feels his heart thrill, and in thinking of Lord Russell 
 we think not of the indiscreet and rash patriot, but 
 only of the happy husband. 
 
 Lord and Lady Russell in fact, from their cha- 
 racters and their fate,notwithstanding his faults, have 
 become the favourites of history. His legal guilt is 
 forgotten, even by those who blame him, in his moral 
 probity. By those who approve him he is elevated 
 to a pitch of almost adoration. 
 , When he fell, therefore, his friends were struck to 
 
 \ 
 
 APPENDIX VI. 
 
 205 
 
 the heart; and many of his opponents (I for one) 
 would have been glad had he been spared. 
 
 Mackintosh calls him the man of most unspotted 
 virtue who ever suffered on an English scaffold. If 
 this mean in allusion to his integrity in private life, 
 and his sincerity in his mistaken public conduct, 
 probably he was so. But if, by unspotted, is 
 meant, that he never intended insurrection, or that 
 he was either just, compassionate, or wise in the 
 political measures he pursued, it may not only be 
 doubted, but must be strenuously resisted. He was 
 as bigoted, and almost as indifferent to blood or real 
 justice, in his violence against popery, as Mary 
 against protestantism; and few but bigots, on the 
 other side, will deem Mary unspotted. Of this, his 
 public doubt of the King's power to remit the most 
 cruel parts of the sentence against Stafford, and his 
 whole violent conduct in the Popish Plot, are irre- 
 fragable proofs. 
 
 With all his virtues, therefore, we are not to shut 
 our eyes to truth, if we can find it, which, I think, 
 we can. We are not to be dazzled by a colourino- 
 which seems to be false. Above all, we are not to 
 
 join in the foolish intoxication of the party cry, 
 
 « the cause for which Russell bled on tlie scaffold^ 
 and Hampden in the field." 
 
 Of the cause of Hampden this work has already 
 ventured an opinion. Into the real cause and real 
 case of Russell we will now proceed to inquire. 
 
 In doing this, it is not our intention, nor is it 
 
206 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 necessary, to rake up the trials of the under conspi- 
 rators adjudged to death for the plot against the 
 King's life at the Rye House. Many of them died 
 confessing the guilt of having intended it ; but it is 
 the less necessary to canvass the question of the par- 
 ticipation in it by Lord Russell, Monmouth, and 
 other leaders; because, after due consideration, I 
 think it must be cheerfully conceded, that none of 
 them had any share in that design. We believe the 
 dyinfT asseveration of Lbrd Russell, that such an in- 
 tention was abhorrent from his nature. We, or, at 
 least, /, do not believe him when he declares, on his 
 trial, that he went to the meeting of his fellow leaders 
 at Shepherd's, who conferred about the rising, and 
 the feasibleness of attacking the King's guards, " by 
 accident;" and purely to taste wine, the landlord of 
 the house being a wine-merchant As little can we 
 believe, that being of the Council of Six, which directed 
 the treasonable communications with the Scotch mal- 
 contents at home, and with Argyle abroad, they 
 assembled at each other's houses (his among them) 
 merely to talk of news. However we may forgive 
 this assertion with a view to save his life when 
 upon his trial, (and, in so far, proving how inferior 
 he was in heroism to Sidney,) no man who has read, 
 not merely the trial itself, but his own account of his 
 conduct in his petition to the King, but must be 
 fully convinced that these declarations were untruths, 
 and that ho joined the other Whig leaders at Shep- 
 herd's, viz. Monmouth, Grey, Fergusson, and Arm- 
 
 1 
 ^ 
 
 APPENDIX VI. 
 
 207 
 
 Strong, and also the Council of Six afterwards, with 
 a view to discuss a scheme of insurrection a«:ainst 
 the government.* 
 
 In treating of this question, for the present I totally 
 throw out of the case all that was sworn by the two 
 witnesses most objected to on the trial, Rumsey and 
 Lord Howard. I also /or the present lay aside the ac- 
 counts of Lord Grey, and of Sprat, so much, but not 
 at all, I think, conclusively, oppugned by the Whig 
 writers. I do so, not because they are proved to be 
 unworthy of credit, (as Mr. Fox thinks of Lord Grey, 
 and Lord John Russell both of him and Sprat,) but 
 because I wish first to canvass what may be called the 
 morale not legal, guilt of Lord Russell, and confine 
 myself therefore to what may be called moral proofs, 
 drawn from Lord Russell's own and his friends' ac- 
 counts, particularly that of Burnet, the confidant of, 
 his latest moments, and participator of his party prin- 
 ciples. 
 
 For to treat this question methodically, it may be 
 proper in the outset to observe, that there are two 
 points of view in which it is to be considered. One, 
 as to the leffal ; the other, as to the rational proof of 
 the fact. My intention is to treat of the last, first ; 
 because the real intention forms the real guilt or 
 innocence of Lord Russell in the eye of truth and 
 reason, though not of law. 
 
 For if he was morally guilty of a design to control 
 
 * It was not less to discuss a scheme of insurrection against the 
 government, that he went to dissuade Shaftsbury from the mad one he 
 proposed. 
 
 II 
 
208 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 APPENDIX VI. 
 
 209 
 
 the government by an armed force, and the law was 
 not strained to convict, but the evidence fairly left to 
 his jury, (to all which we shall come in due time^) 
 there must be an end of the outcry against that go- 
 vernment for defending itself. In that case the 
 honour of martyrdom, and of having been sacrificed 
 by a tyrant to his love of vengeance, must be denied 
 him ; even although his profession be believed, (as I 
 am sure it is by me,) that he had formed no design 
 against the life of the King* 
 
 The fact, then, of his intention, and the nature of 
 his consequent conduct, is the real fact, after all, into 
 which, with our views, we are first to inquire, inde- 
 pendently of the question of law and law proofs, 
 w^hich, though of immense consequence as another 
 question, (which we by no means mean to evade,) has 
 nothing to do with the merits or demerits of Lord 
 Russell towards the country. 
 
 In the first place, then, read his owti words in his 
 petition to the sovereign, whom he confesses he had 
 offended; how, except by having offended against 
 the law, it would be diflBcult to comprehend. 
 
 « Your petitioner does once more cast himself at 
 your Majesty's feet, and implores, witli all humility, 
 your mercy and pardon, still avowing that he never 
 had the least thought against your Majesty's life, nor 
 any design to change the government ; but humbly 
 and sorrowfully confesses his having been present at 
 those meetings^ which he is convinced were unlawful, and 
 justly provoking to your Majesty ; but being betrayed 
 ty ignorance and inadvertence, he did not decline them as 
 
 he ought to have done, for which he is truly and heartily 
 sorry ; and, therefore, humbly offers himself to your 
 Majesty, to be determined to live in any part of the 
 world which you shall appoint, and never to meddle 
 any more in the affairs of England, but as your 
 Majesty shall please to command him.'* 
 
 Such was the petition of this supposed injured 
 and innocent victim; this guiltless sacrifice to the 
 vengeance of laws which he is said never to have 
 offended ; or which, if he did offend, it was from a 
 noble sense of duty to his oppressed country, which, 
 to relieve, he sacrificed his life. 
 
 It is plain all this evaporates and becomes nothing 
 from his own account, and that far from a thought 
 of risking any thing for the sake of the country, much 
 less of hazarding his life for it, he was betrayed into 
 attending, or rather not declining, these patriotic 
 meetings, by ignorance and inadvertence. 
 
 It is far from our wish to deteriorate from this 
 honourable but mistaken man's real merit, by point- 
 ing at, what must strike every one, how little of the 
 hero was here mixed with the patriot ; nor would a 
 word of this humiliating document be republished 
 but for two important considerations, which the mere 
 truth of history, if it would be useful, absolutely 
 requires to be impressed, — First, that he could 
 not be the martyr to liberty who could thus humble 
 himself before the tyrant who destroyed it, and who 
 only showed himself on the side of his country from 
 ignorance and inadvertence. Next, that far from 
 asserting that he was falsely accused, (I speak not 
 
210 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 APPENDIX VI, 
 
 211 
 
 here of illegality,) he owns plainly, and beyond all 
 
 cavil, that he did attend meetings (for the word is 
 
 plural) which he knew to be unlaicfuh 
 
 So far, therefore, he confesses that he had offended 
 
 the law, to what extent may be otherwise ascer- 
 tained ; but this is a complete answer to his own 
 
 assertions upon the trial, that his attendance at the 
 consult at Shepherd's was by accident^ to taste wine ; 
 and that the meetings of the Council of Six were 
 merely to talk of news. 
 
 The confession in the petition does honour to his 
 candour, but establishes his guilt, for guilt it was, 
 whatever its amount ; and must for ever silence the 
 strange prejudice, that he went to the scallbld inno- 
 cent and unspotted^ however pitied. 
 . What, therefore, shall we say to those who. knowing 
 these facts, hold him up to this day as a man who 
 had justly incurred no punishment, because he had 
 committed no crime? What to Burnet, who, writing 
 with this very confession before him, has the profli- 
 gacy to say that he was convicted of treason for being 
 present by accident^ or for some innocent purpose, 
 where treasonable matter was discoursed, without 
 bearing a part in it ?* Both the Bishop and Lord 
 Russell himself allow that this amounted to mis- 
 prision of treason, riiough no more. This, if true, 
 that he took no part, and was there by accident^ 
 might be allowed by the law. But the fact of its 
 being accidental is contradicted, we shall see, by the 
 Bishop himself, who had forgot it ; and at any rate if 
 
 * Burnet, i. 554 ; followed by almost all the Whig writers. 
 
 /I 
 
 there was misprision of treason, it establishes the 
 mooted point, that something amounting to treason 
 was actually contemplated. 
 
 What share in that contemplation Lord Russell 
 had, independent of his attendance at Shepherd's, we 
 will now proceed to inquire on the authority of tfee 
 same right reverend partizan, who, though he could 
 advisedly misrepresent in his favour, cannot certainly 
 be suspected of doing so against him. 
 
 I have said that we throw out of the case, for the 
 present at least, the obnoxious evidence of Howard 
 and Rumsey, and also the accounts by Sprat and 
 Lord Grey. The relation of Burnet will of course 
 be thought a purer source of information. 
 
 Lord Shaftsbury, whose treasons are not dil^^" 
 puted, had been in communication with Monmouth, 
 Russell, Essex, and many others of a lower class, the 
 latter, by the avowal of all, ripe for rebellion, and 
 only waiting for leaders. 
 
 What sort of communication this was, may be 
 gathered from Burnet's own words. " The Duke of 
 Monmouth, who understood what a rabble was^ and 
 what troops were^ looked on this,"— as what ? Treason 
 which he ought to disclose to the state ? No ! " A 
 mad exposing of themselves and of their friends ! The 
 Lords Essex and Russell were of the same mind''* 
 
 Now, I would rest the whole ' case of the moral 
 proof of their guilt upon this simple account. Un- 
 derstood what a rabble was ! and what troops were ! ! 
 Do men usually estimate the power of rabble against 
 
 ♦ Burnet, i. 537. 
 
 \ 
 
 »-"^ 
 
 "*«: 
 
 v-'j 
 
 -'V 
 
r 
 
 212 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 troops, both obeying the same King, from mere 
 curiosity? As the troops are not even accused of 
 any design against the rabble, the inference is plain, 
 that the comparison was made to ascertain the chances 
 of the rabble against the troops, and with what view 
 cannot be doubtful. 
 
 Here, then, is incontestible proof, out of the mouth 
 of the Whig confidant of these lords himself, that 
 they were in confidential communication with the 
 arch-rebel Shaftsbury, and knew of his projected 
 treason, which, though they did not approve, they 
 only disapproved because they were averse, not to the 
 treason, but to " a mad exposing of themselves and 
 their friendsr 
 
 So far, therefore, we have got, that to the treason 
 itself they were friendly, provided they could get 
 over the danger from troops. They were in commu- 
 nication with Shaftsbury about it ; and, though they 
 are represented as disapproving of his immediate plan, 
 no man in his senses can believe, from this account of 
 Burnet, that the object of this communication was to 
 deter him from more than waiting for a better time 
 to commence the insurrection. 
 
 In this situation the Duke of Monmouth, says 
 Burnet, " gave an appointment to Lord Shaftsbury, 
 or some of his friends^ to meet him and some others 
 that he should bring along with him, at Shepherd's, 
 a wine-merchant in whom they had entire confi- 
 dence. The night before this appointment Lord 
 Russell came to town on account of his uncle's illness, 
 The Duke went and told him of the appointment, 
 
 % 
 
 APPENDIX VI. 
 
 213 
 
 and desired he would go thither with him. He con- 
 sented, the rather because he intended to taste some 
 of that merchant's wine. At night they went with 
 Lord Grey and Sir Thomas Armstrong. When they 
 came they found none there but Rumsey and Fer- 
 gusson, two of Lord Shaftsbury's tools that he 
 employed ; upon which, seeing no better company, 
 they resolved immediately to go back, but Lord Rus- 
 sell called for a taste of the wines, and while they 
 were bringing it him ui^ Rumsey ^nd Armstrong fell into 
 a discourse of surprising the guards. Rumsey fancied 
 it might have been easily done. Armstrong, that had 
 commanded them, showed him his mistakes. This 
 was no consultation," says Burnet, « of what was to be 
 done, but only of what might have been done. Lord 
 Russell spoke nothing upon the subject; but, having 
 tasted the wines, went away."* 
 
 So far the Bishop's account, which, in justice to the 
 case of Lord Russell, we have set forth at large, that 
 every possible advantage may be given to it, and that 
 every one may judge for himself of this the very 
 utmost that can be said in its defence. 
 
 And what do we gather from it ? In the first place, 
 an incontestible proof that they had entertained, 
 with Shaftsbury, a design to rise in arms as soon as 
 it could be done, without « a mad exposing of them, 
 selves or friends^ 
 
 Next, a meeting appointed with Shaftsbury, or 
 some of his fiends, to confer upon it; and the attend- 
 ance of Lord Russell at that meeting, fullg apprised 
 
 * Burnet, i, 537. 
 
 j^ 
 
n 
 
 2U 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 and invited to it by the Duke of Monmouth, with 
 whom he had previousli/ been in the habit of discuss- 
 ing these plans of Shaftsbury. Although, therefore, 
 they might have gone for the express purpose of 
 dissuading him from this particular plan^ not the less, 
 the premises considered, was the purpose to discourse 
 of treason ; not the less shameful is the disengenu- 
 ousness of Burnet's assertion, that the attendance 
 was either accidental^ or for an innocent purpose. 
 Grant that Lord Russell came to town on his uncle's 
 illness ; grant that he went to Shepherd's the rather 
 because he wanted to taste his wine ; is this in the least 
 incompatible {the premises^ as I have said, considered) 
 with the most treasonable intentions ? If not, the 
 remark is a mere blind, set up by the Bishop, easily 
 seen through, and impossible to be believed even by 
 himself. What should we say to that man's inno- 
 cence, who, being asked to help in blowing up a 
 house, only disapproves it, and refuses, because there 
 may be in it a mad exposure of himself ? 
 
 But Rumsey and Fergusson were tools employed 
 by Shaftsbury ! 
 
 They might be so ; but whom else did they expect 
 to meet? Was not Shaftsbury desired by Monmouth 
 to come himself, or send his friends? And are tools 
 and friends such very distinct characters, especially 
 in party, and still more in conspiracy, that the tools 
 are not to be used? Rumsey, at least, had been a 
 distinguished officer ; and Fergusson, however revolt- 
 ing, was the favoured adviser of Shaftsbury, as he 
 afterwards became of this very Monmouth, who is 
 
 APPENDIX VI. 
 
 215 
 
 stated so to have despised him. Nay, on the evi- 
 dence of Shepherd, which is not impugned like 
 Rumsey's or Howard's, he was, on this identical 
 occasion, the very messenger sent by Monmouth to 
 ask the loan of Shepherd's house for the meeting. 
 Shepherd, too, tells you, that he had notice before- 
 hand that Rumsey and Fergusson, as well as Mon- 
 mouth, Russell, Grey, and Armstrong, would be at 
 the meeting, which, be it remembered, was appointed 
 by Monmouth. Thus, all were there who were ex- 
 pected to be there, and none who were or might 
 not be expected. Shepherd adds, he was desired 
 by Armstrong to keep his servants out of the way, 
 so that he served them himself.- Was this indi- 
 cation of that " innocent purpose," which the Bishop 
 talks of; or does it tally with that asserted aversion 
 to Shaftsbury's tools which would have made Mon- 
 mouth and Russell retire immediately had it not 
 been for the tasting of the wines ? 
 
 Then, as to the seizing the guards, the Bishop, 
 good, easy, and ingenuous relator, would have you 
 believe it was a mere random casual discourse, a sort 
 of interlude, between Armstong and Rumsey, who 
 " fell upon it" by chance, while they were bringing 
 up Lord Russell's wine, who said nothing on the 
 subject. But what is the testimony of the wine- 
 merchant himself, who certainly could not have heard 
 the conversation if it only passed while gone for the 
 sample? Why, (I quote the words of the trial,) 
 speaking of the whole company, he says, " the sul^- 
 
 * 
 
216 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 APPENDIX VI. 
 
 217 
 
 stance of their discourse was how to sui'prise the 
 King's guards ; and, in order to that, the Duke of 
 Monmouth, my Lord Grey, and Sir Thomas Arm- 
 strong, as I remember, went one night to the Mewg, 
 or thereabouts, to see the King's guards ; and the 
 next time they came to my house I heard Sir Thomas 
 say the guards were very remiss in their places, and 
 not like soldiers ; and the thing was feasible if they 
 had strength to do it" * 
 
 This obviously points at something which had been 
 previously done by Monmouth himself, though not 
 by Russell, who was no soldier. But there were but 
 two meetings at Shepherd's, and this " next night" 
 mentioned must have been that when Russell was pre- 
 sent, for by Burnet's own account it passed while he 
 was by, though he said nothing. Let any man there- 
 fore judge, after this actual visit by the officers, Mon- 
 mouth, Grey, and Armstrong, with a view to the 
 enterprise, which they reported as feasible had they 
 strength for it, whether this bears the colouring which 
 this reverend partizan would give to it, as a mere 
 casual conversation fallen upon by two individuals 
 only, as if upon a chance subject, and while the 
 person who deposes to this conversation was absent 
 fetching the wine. 
 
 Upon the whole there is scarcely a word of this 
 
 ^* Lord Russell's trial, Shepherd's evidence ; which thus completely 
 supports Lord Grey's, \f ho in his history tells you in detail the visit of 
 himself, Monmouth, and Armstrong, to inspect the guards, previous to 
 this meeting at Shepherd's. (History of the Rye House Plot.) 
 
 i I 
 
 defence of Lord Russell, (defence against the charge 
 of having been engaged in a treasonable design, and 
 cognizant of such a design in others, his colleagues,) 
 that can bear the touchstone of common sense, or is 
 not refuted by itself. From its own showing it is 
 false that the attendance at Shepherd's was accidental ; 
 it is false that its purpose was innocent; it is false 
 that the business discussed was new and unexpected; 
 and if Shepherd's evidence, which is not broken into, 
 is considered, it is false that the presence of Fergus- 
 son could be unknown to Monmouth, who had sent 
 him to announce the meeting. But it is particularly 
 false that the subject of seizing the guards was con- 
 fined to the two persons mentioned, fallen upon by 
 chance in the absence of Shepherd, and not connected 
 with the very purpose of the discussion.* 
 
 That Lord Russell spoke nothing " on the point,'^ 
 by no means proves that he was not cognizant of it ; 
 and, considering the object of the conclave, that he 
 did not entertain it. He himself allows that he heard 
 it : he does not say he opposed, though he affirms 
 he disapproved it. If he did so, he confined it to his 
 own breast ; he confesses that he concealed it.f 
 
 * It was probably one pf the plans of SJiaftsbury which they had 
 denominated « a mad exposing of themselves," though h^re Mon- 
 mouth, who had found the guards remiss, did not seem to think so. 
 
 f " It is, I know, inferred from hence, and pressed to nie, that I 
 was acquainted with these heats and ill designs, and did not discover 
 them. But these would be but misprision of treason at most."-^(Lord 
 Russell's paper delivered to the sheriff). We doubt exceedingly, con- 
 sidering the preliminaries, this law of Lord RusselL 
 VOL, IL L 
 
218 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 APPENDIX VI. 
 
 2ia 
 
 Upon the whole, the looseness, credulity, and blind- 
 ness (I had almost said the wilful blindness) of the 
 Bishop, never evinced themselves so palpably as in 
 this most lame and impotent account. 
 
 Pursue it : it will be found all of the same character; 
 and this very defence of Lord Russell sinks him for 
 ever under the weight of truth, however his crime is 
 sought to be disguised. 
 
 That crime, again recollect > is not, in aiming in 
 his own person at the death of the King; but con- 
 curring and being instrumental to raise insurrection ; 
 which, though he did not intend, might possibly end 
 
 in it. 
 
 Even Mr. Fox allows " that in regard to the con- 
 spirators (he is forced to use the word) of a higher 
 rank, there is unquestionably reason to believe that 
 they had often met and consulted, as w^ell for the 
 purpose of ascertaining xhemeans they actually possessed^ 
 as for that of devising others for delivering their 
 country from the dreadful servitude into which it 
 had fallen ; and thus far, their conduct appears clearly 
 to have been laudable."* 
 
 By ''" means they actually possessed," we suppose 
 Mr. Fox here intend^ peaceable means. High as he 
 carries the right of the subject in abstract theory, he 
 cannot by this intend an armed insurrection as lau- 
 dable, and warranted by the law. If he does, he may 
 quite as well defend the killing of the King, which 
 is a part of an armed insurrection, or it is nothing. 
 
 * History of James II., 50. 
 
 If he does not, we shall see that Lord Russell is far 
 from being covered by the shield he throws ov^r him. 
 At the same time, *« means actually possessed,'' and 
 " devising others,'' are words so ambiguous, that they 
 scarcely, certainly not exclusively, express legal 
 
 means. 
 
 After the meeting at Shepherd's, which was about 
 October 1682, Lord Shaftsbury, from both fear, and 
 disgust at his allies failing to come up to his views, 
 (not, as we have seen, that they were unwilling froni 
 principle, but because it was " a mad exposing of 
 themselves,") fled to Holland, where he died. " He 
 had, however," says Burnet, " one meeting with the 
 Earls of Essex and Salisbury before he went out of 
 England. Fear, anger, and disappointment had 
 wrought so much upon him, that Lord Essex told 
 me he was much broken in his thoughts. His no- 
 tions were wild and impracticable, and he was glad 
 he was gone out of England; but said he had done 
 them already a great deal of mischief and would have 
 done more if he had stayed."* 
 
 No doubt he had ; for, by what they all confess, 
 (Russell and Burnet among them, and eminently 
 Essex himself, from this very passage,) he had in- 
 volved them, if not in positive treason, yet in that 
 traitorous misprision of it which amounts to a capital 
 offence, and, in fact, is high treason itself, f 
 
 * Burnet, i. 537. 
 
 + « If there be any probable circumstances of assent, as tfone goes 
 to a treasonable meeting, knowing beforehand that a conspiracy is intended 
 
 . L 2 
 
 9 
 
 tl! 
 
 M 
 
 m.' 
 
\i 
 
 220 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 APPENDIX VU 
 
 221 
 
 Being, then, thus compromised, what, according 
 to the same historian, do these lords do ? Do they 
 repent, or reveal their traitorous meetings, or Sh^fts- 
 bury's actual treason ? No ! that would be too 
 much to expect. But do they abandon their own 
 designs ? We shall see. 
 
 " At Jirst^^ says Burnet, " the lords, and all the 
 chief men of the party, (of course Russell and Essex 
 among them,) saw their danger, from forward sheriffs, 
 willing juries, mercenary judges, and bold witnesses. 
 So they resolved to go home and be silent, to speak 
 and to meddle as little as might be in public busi- 
 ness ; and to let the present ill temper the nation 
 was fallen into wear out." 
 
 So, then, according to the Bishop, not to rise 
 against the King in arms, was ill temper in the 
 nation ! But not to mention that the national feel- 
 ing was here confessedly against them, and, therefore, 
 denominated ill temper^ it will be curious to observe 
 the reason assigned, as follows, for this temporary 
 quiescence. 
 
 " For they did not doubt but the court, especially 
 as it was now managed by the Duke, would soon 
 bring the nation again to its wits, by their ill con- 
 duct and proceedings."* 
 
 against the king ; or being in such company once by accident, and hav- 
 ing heard such treasonable conspiracy, meets the same company again, 
 and hears more of it, but conceals it ; this is an implied assent in law , 
 and makes the concealer guilty of actual high treason,^' ( Blackstone*s 
 Comment, iv. 120, under Misprision of Treason.) 
 * Burnet, i. 558. 
 
 Such was their thought. May we not say, their 
 « wish was father " to it ? 
 
 We, here at least, see in Burnet, an exemplification 
 of the character of a thoroughgoing, theoretical, or 
 ambitious reformer. He is angry if a nation dare 
 to be contented against his permission or principles ; 
 and if they are too satisfied to join him, lies by 
 in ambuscade, praying for the happy moment when 
 they may change their satisfaction for discontent. 
 We have already pointed out that even Lord John 
 Russell (of course interested for his ancestor's repu- 
 tation) allows that the temper and even the griev- 
 ances of the nation * did not then justify insurrec- 
 tion. 
 
 . But to proceed : what conduct did these lords, dis- 
 contented with the nation's content, pursue to prove 
 their resolution to be quiet ? They secretly plotted 
 preparations for an insurrection as soon as their 
 hopes of a change from this ill temper should be 
 realized, and happier times be riper for revolt, Happy 
 had they waited longer. 
 
 In proof of this I would rather give the Whig his- 
 torian's words, in his narrative of their practices, than 
 convey a mere opinion of my own. 
 
 « The Duke of Monmouth," he observes, " resolved 
 to be advised chiefly by Lord Essex. He would not 
 be alone in that, but named Lord Russell, against 
 whom no objection could lief; and next to him he 
 
 * Supra. 
 
 t This loose mode of expression, though only characteristic of th» 
 
 L 3 
 
 t 
 
 
 m 
 
\i 
 
 222 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 APPENDIX VI. 
 
 223 
 
 named Algernon Sidney*, a man of most extraor- 
 dinary courage, &c. He (Sidney) prevailed on Lord 
 Essex to take Lord Howard into their secrets, though 
 Lord Essex had expressed such an ill opinion of him 
 a little before to me, as to say that he wondered how 
 any man would trust himself alone with him. Lord 
 Russell had the same ill opinion of him ; yet Sidney 
 overcame both their aversions. Hampden, also, was 
 taken into their secretJ^-f 
 
 It is obvious, then, that there was a secret ; and 
 what it was the Bishop goes on to explain. 
 ' It is obvious these men were the Council of Six, 
 and " with these, '* says Burnet, " the Duke of Mon- 
 mouth met oJienJ'X He also, from his connection and 
 mfluence with Scotland, " met often with Lord Argyle 
 while he was in London, and had many conferences 
 with him on the state of that kingdom, and of what 
 might be done there." Here the reader need not be 
 reminded that Argyle was, justly, the determined 
 enemy of the government, and watching every oppor- 
 tunity to avenge the wrongs he had suffered ; wrongs, 
 however, which the Duke and the other lords had 
 never experienced. " What might be done there," 
 (in Scotland) needs, therefore, no interpretation. 
 
 writer, we do not understand. Does he mean that Essex named him, or 
 the Duke? and against whom does he mean that any objection did lie? 
 
 * Qy. Who named ? but no matter. 
 
 f Burnet, i. 539. The above account is abridged, but not as to 
 any fact. 
 
 \ Lord Russell said they met but twic6. The Bishop, his friend, 
 therefore contradicts him. 
 
 But that it may be the less necessary, Burnet adds, 
 that they assumed a mask to disguise their designs. 
 « And he (the Duke) thought the business of Caro- 
 lina was a very proper blind to bring up some of the 
 Scotch gentlemen, under the appearance of treatimj 
 about that* So, upon this, they agreed to send one 
 Aaron Smith to Scotland, to desire that some men ot 
 absolute confidmce might be sent up for that end. 
 
 We pause here for a moment, to say that this again 
 confirms the testimony of Grey and Howard, who, 
 though they might be villains, might also speak truth. 
 « In the beginning of April (1683)," proceeds the 
 Bishop, « some of them came up. The person that 
 .was most entirely trusted, and to whom the journey 
 proved fatal, was Baillie (of Jervoisewood). f I^ent 
 to him in great simplicity of heart, thinking of 
 nothing but Carolina. But in a few weeks I found 
 they came not to me as they were wont to do, and 1 
 heard they were very often with Lord Bussell I was 
 apprehensive of this, and Lord Essex being in the 
 country, went to him to warn him of the danger I 
 
 . A great colony of Presbyterians in Carolina was very much patro- 
 nised aLt that time by Shaftsbury, and became what was called the 
 Znt by which he and his associates disguised their operations. 
 
 t He was a great man, and a patriot, and the cruelties and oppres- 
 sion exercised upon his country justified all he did, or could do, to 
 sion exercise f shamefully betrayed by his 
 
 r Lr:7suff:reTdeath L the cause. But the cause of Scotland 
 Zno that of Lord Russell ; nor if it had been, does it alter the view 
 Ifthe question, which, be it always recollected, is not wheth« Eng^nd 
 i'd TSfy In insurrection, but whether Lord Rus^U had been 
 
 guilty of intending one ? 
 
 L 4 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
324 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 feared Lord Russell might be brought into by this 
 conversation with my countrymen," 
 
 Why was this fear ? The answer is plain. His 
 countrymen were traitors in the eye of the law. 
 * Essex seems to have discountenanced this inter- 
 ference, and with reason, for he was as much in- 
 volved as Russell, and afterwards, as we shall find 
 from this history*, confessed to his wife that the 
 allegations against him were true, which occasioned 
 his self-murder in the Tower. He assured Burnet he 
 need not fear Lord Russell, who would do nothing* 
 without him (which was true, for both were equally 
 embarked). He (Essex) agreed, too, "that things 
 were not yet ripe enough, and that an ill-laid and ill- 
 managed rising would be our ruin."f Again, then, 
 we see that their whole mind was bent upon a rising, 
 though this might be premature; and how Lord Russell 
 (man of truth, as I believe he was,) could represent 
 these meetings as merely to talk of news, except, 
 indeed, as a blind to his jury, no one can explain. 
 
 That Essex, however, on this occasion, was merely 
 parrying Burnet's ofEciousness, is plain ; for at that 
 time the Council of Six, from the Bishop's own ac- 
 count, had become thoroughly involved with their 
 Scotch allies, the men oi absolute confidence. 
 
 " What passed," says the Bishop, " between the 
 Scotch and the English lords I know not, only that 
 Lord Argyle, who was then in Holland, asked, at 
 first, 20,000/. for buying a stock of arms and ammu- 
 
 * Burnet, i. 552. f Id. i. 541. 
 
 APPENDIX Vl. 
 
 225 
 
 jiition, which he afterwards brought down to 8,000/., 
 and a thousand horse to be sent into Scotland. 
 Vpm which he undertook to conduct that matter. I 
 know no farther than general hints of their matters."* 
 This is more than usually candid of this reverend 
 politician ; but farther, I think, it is not necessary 
 to know; for if this intercourse with Argyle and 
 the Scots, whom they themselves had sent for, was 
 not treason in the Council of Six, and, therefore, of 
 Lord Russell, there never was a traitor. 
 
 Here, however, we may refer to the confession of 
 Carstairs, one of the Scotch agents, made, indeed, 
 in fear of torture, but nowhere contradicted, forming 
 the evidence against Baillie, and preserved among 
 the documents in Spratf Let any man read that 
 confession, and doubt, for a moment. Lord Russell's 
 treasonable correspondence with Argyle-J " Havmg 
 acquainted Sir John Cochrane," says Carstairs, 
 « with the Earl's demands of 30,OOOZ. sterling, and 
 1,000 horse and dragoons, Sir John carried him to 
 the Lord Russell, to whom the deponent proposed 
 the affair, but being an absolute stranger to the 
 deponent, had no return from him at that time ; but 
 afterwards, having met him accidentally at Mr. Shep» 
 herd's house, where the Lord Russell had come to 
 speak to Shepherd about the money above mentioned, 
 
 ♦ Burnet, i. 541. 
 
 f History of the Rye House Plot. 
 
 \ i. 541. Will Mr. Fox, or LGrd Jolin, any lawyer, or any man 
 of sound mind, say here was no treason intended, because the proposal 
 was not adopted. 
 
 L 5 
 
226 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 ABPEIJDIX VI. 
 
 227 
 
 as Mr. Shepherd told the deponent, the deponent^ 
 when they had done speaking, desired to speak to 
 the Lord Russell, which the Lord Russell did; and 
 having reiterated the former proposition for the 
 30,000/. sterling, and the 1,000 horse and dragoons, 
 he, the Lord Russell, told the deponent they could 
 not get so much raised at the time, but if they had 
 10,000/. to begin, that would draw people in, and 
 when they were once in they woidd soon be brought to 
 more ; but as for the 1,000 horse and dragoons he 
 could say nothing at present, for that behoved to be 
 <ioncerted on the borders."* 
 
 After this, what are we to think of the blindness 
 oi party historians, men of truth and honour, though 
 they be, — Mr. Fox, Lord John Russell, and Sir 
 James, — in breathing a doubt of Xhe proved gm\i of 
 Lord Russell ; I speak not here of the trial at law, 
 but in foro conscientiae. How, after this, can Mack- 
 intosh gravely adopt Lady Russell's I'epresentation, 
 that it went no farther than talk. 
 
 To return to Burnet: he goes on to say, that 
 Hampden offered to give him all particulars; but 
 this the wily priest, with the penalties of misprision 
 fully before his eyes, prudently refused. "I told 
 him," says he, " that till by an indemnity the whole 
 matter was buried, I would knoic none of those secrets^ 
 which I might be obliged to reveal, or to lie and 
 deny my knowledge of them." He adds, however, 
 
 * Carstair's Deposition, apud Sprat, 119, and Trial of Caillic of 
 Jervoisewood. 
 
 that lie knows no money was raised; but the thing 
 got some vent in Scotland, which was let out by 
 some of their teachers.* ., r c- 
 
 To conclude this account of the Council ot bix, 
 we have to add, on the same authority, that when 
 the Rye House Plot for the assassination of the King 
 had got wind, and there were universal suspicions 
 and arrests of all whose names were imphcated, 
 whether in that particular plot or not, Bailhe and 
 the two Campbells, who came to confer with the 
 Council of Six, were seized in London, and exa- 
 mined by the Kinghimself, and being questioned about 
 the design against his person, denied all knowledge 
 of it. But being asked « if they had been m any 
 consultations with lords or others in England, tn 
 order to an insarredim in Scotland, BaiUie faultered 
 at this, for his conscience restrained him from lying."t 
 I know not what additional support this opinion 
 of the existence of the plot will receive from it ; 
 but we here may recollect what Mackintosh relates, 
 (and at least does not refute,) on Montague's autho- 
 rity, that King William was aware of it. % 
 
 We finish this part of the story with the account 
 of the melancholy and honourable, but too conscious 
 Essex. Being brought before the council he was « in 
 much confusion;" and when sent to the Tower "fell 
 under a great depression of spirit." He sent a very 
 melancholy message to his wife, that what he was 
 charged toith was true; he was "sorry tlmthe had ruinsd 
 
 • Burnet, i. 541. t ". p. 532. i Supra. 
 
 L 6 
 
 t 
 
228 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 APPENDIX VI. 
 
 229 
 
 her and her children'' He afterwards, indeed, denied his 
 guilt to his brother in law, Lord Clarendon, but this 
 he did by desire of his wife to reveal nothing till she 
 had seen him.* That never happened, for his un- 
 happy and well known catastrophe by self-murder, 
 put an end to all farther investigation. 
 
 Can we wind up this account of the Council of 
 Six without touching on the confession of their guilt 
 by Monmouth and Hampden. The latter, to save his 
 life, when Grey, taken in Monmouth's invasion, was 
 prepared to testify against him, pleaded guilty and 
 craved mercy. But this he did, says Burnet, " in a 
 manner so mean and humiliating, that it gave his 
 spirits a depression and disorder which he never 
 could quite master, and had a terrible conclusion, for 
 about ten years after, he cut his throat." 
 
 With regard toMonmouth's confession, after the other 
 proofs which have been adduced of the guilt of himself 
 and colleagues, it becomes a mere matter of curiosity^ 
 nor is it of the smallest consequence to know whether, 
 or what he confessed. But Mr. Fox has affixed the 
 authority of his name to an opinion that " when we 
 reflect upon all the circumstances of his communications 
 with the King, they deserve not the smallest attention." 
 This, like many other opinions of Mr. Fox on the 
 transactions of these times, which we have noticed, 
 seems adopted without due care, or at least without 
 due fairness, evidently the result of the bias of his 
 mind, rather than the impartial judgment of a sober 
 
 . * Burnet, i. 552 , 
 
 historian. He has not even vouchsafed to give his 
 reader any light whatever as to any one of those cir- 
 cumstances which he says render the communications 
 of Monmouth " unworthy the smallest attention." 
 It may not^ therefore, be foreign to the object of this 
 inquiry to examine what warrant there is for this 
 confident assertion. 
 
 Here, again, shall we do wrong on looking for the 
 history of the facts in the same historian, whom, for 
 his total absence from all inclination towards the 
 XJourt, we select as the best support of our opinions 
 on the conduct of Lord Russell and this very Duke 
 of Monmouth. This reference, with others, at least 
 as little prejudiced against Monmouth, will enable 
 the reader to judge for himself. 
 
 From Burnet's account, then, Halifax, to serve 
 himself, wishing to make Monmouth a balance against 
 the power of the Duke of York, induced the King, 
 who still " passionately loved hifh," to promise him 
 forgiveness and restoration to favour on his making 
 confession of the share he had in the conspiracy. 
 " Upon which he consented to satisfy the King f 
 and " as was agreed, made a humble confession of 
 his offences in general wordsJ' These words are not 
 given ; but the next day the King said he had con- 
 firmed all that Howard had sworn. This was carried 
 to the Duke, who denied it, adding, « that Lord 
 Howard was a liar and a rogue." Liar and rogue as 
 he might be, the conspirators on their trials upheld 
 his truth when they thought it told for them ; that 
 
 
230 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAV. 
 
 A1>MND1X VI. 
 
 231 
 
 is, when atjirst he asserted, (though one of the Coun- 
 cil of Six,) that there was no plot Whether that 
 council were innocent, after what has been stated, the 
 reader may judge. 
 
 The next Gazette, however, mentioned, " that the 
 King had pardoned him on confessing the late plot'' 
 *< Plot," as Lord Halifax himself said, to comfort 
 him, " might signify as much, or as little, as a man 
 pleased ;" but it cannot be denied that it, at least 
 where the state is concerned, means something against 
 that state, though not necessarily high treason. This 
 is left to every man's judgment, who ponders what 
 has gone before. 
 
 However this may be, after Monmouth's pardon 
 had passed, so that he had no personal fear to influ- 
 ence him, Halifax, telling him they had had dangerous 
 consultations, (which, indeed, is no more than what 
 Russell himself had confessed,)* " got him to write 
 a letter to that purpose^ which he carried to the King, 
 and the King was satisfied'' Could he have been 
 satisfied, after Monmouth had so flatly denied his 
 public assertion, unless he had retracted the denial ? 
 
 That he had retracted that denial, and revealed 
 his own guilt, and that of his associates, is pretty 
 clear, from the agony with which he was immediately 
 seized ; " an agony^" says Burnet, " like despair," 
 which made him demand his letter back airain. Tliis 
 -was granted, and he was immediately forbidden the 
 court, f 
 
 • Supra. . I Burnet, i. 575. 
 
 \\ 
 
 '■ So far the Bishop ; and even from him, I confess, 
 I see no warranty for the sweeping assertion of 
 Mr. Fox, that these communications of Monmouth 
 deserve not the smallest attention. Coupled with 
 all the preceding narrative of the transactions of the 
 Council of Six, they deserve every attention; nor 
 would it be easy for the most blunt understanding 
 to refuse its assent to the proposition, that, from this 
 mere showing of Burnet alone, the guilt of a con- 
 spiracy [that with Scotland, at least,) had been 
 confessed by Monmouth. 
 
 What shall we say, then, when we turn to other 
 authorities, and fuller accounts, as we now think it 
 right to do, particularly that of Sprat, which pro- 
 bably would be thought by Mr. Fox to be equally 
 unworthy of attention ? Where he sets forth proofs, 
 however, and not opinions, Mr. Fox will not deny 
 his veracity. From his, and other authorities, still 
 less questionable, because drawn from actual letters, 
 journals, and written documents, I find the real case 
 of Monmouth's confession so clearly elucidated by 
 Lingard, that I venture to transcribe much of his 
 account, and the evidence he vouches for it. 
 
 In Monmouth's first letter to his father he con- 
 fined his protestations of innocence to the charge of 
 an intent to murder. Of this, indeed, those who 
 actually confessed that charge, and even the most 
 adverse of the witnesses against him, acquit him. 
 We have, in truth, already and cheerfully acknow- 
 ledged that that charge could only be founded on 
 
232 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 legal consequences, and not on a positive actual in- 
 tention, whether in him, or Lord Russell, or Sidney 
 himself. But, by confining his protestations of inno- 
 cence to this charge, the inference of Lingard is no 
 more than sound, that he tacitly acknowledged the 
 design of exciting insurrection, which, be it remem- 
 bered, was emphatically insisted upon on the trials 
 both of Russell and Sidney. 
 
 In a second letter, quoted by Sprat, Monmouth beg- 
 ged he might be spared the ignominy of a prison and 
 a trial, and requested advice how he might best 
 implore the forgiveness of the Duke of York, " which 
 he would do as an outward form, but with all the 
 sincerity in the world."* Why this, if there was no 
 conspiracy ? 
 
 Upon this he was introduced to the two brothers, 
 and on his knees confessed and condemned, though 
 innocent of any design against the royal life, the part 
 which he had taken in the disloyal plans and practices of 
 the conspirators. The detail of this, taken in writino- 
 by James at the time it occurred, is too remarkable 
 not to be set forth. 
 
 " He first threw himself at his Majesty's feet, ac- 
 knowledging his guilt, and the share he had in the 
 conspiracy, and asked his pardon : then confessed 
 himself faulty to the Duke, asked his pardon also ; 
 assured him, if he should survive his Majesty, that he 
 would pay him all the duty that became a loyal 
 subject, and be the first should draw his sword for 
 
 ♦ Sprat, 189, 
 
 fl 
 
 APPENDIX VI. 
 
 233 
 
 him, should there be occasion.* He then desired his 
 Majesty would not oblige him to be a witness ; and 
 then gave an account of the whole conspiracy, 
 naming all those concerned in it, which were more 
 than those who had already been mentioned by the 
 
 several witnesses."! 
 
 So far James's memorandum. Other authorities, in 
 greater detail, say, with the King, that he confirmed 
 the truth of Lord Howard's testimony, with the 
 exception of one unimportant particular ; named the 
 chief persons on whom the conspirators depended in 
 Cheshire, Yorkshire, and the West; and unfolded the 
 designs of Argyle in Scotland. | 
 
 What the King said, then, was true, and he didcon^ 
 firm what Howard had sworn. 
 
 Yet after this, having first waited till his pardon 
 past, and fearing infamy, he denied it, 
 
 This falsehood excited the anger of his father, who, 
 at the suggestion of Ormond, required from him a 
 written contradiction of the report of the denial. He 
 obeyed, but his letter was deemed evasive, and Charles 
 crave him another form, written by himself. This 
 
 # This was in Nov. 1683. How well he kept his promise, when 
 less than two years after he undertook his sUly and wicked invasion of 
 him, disputing his title to the crown, may be remembered. In tru.n 
 Monmouth is the poorest character in history ; yet being the enemy ot 
 James, Fox does what he can to whitewash him. 
 
 + Sprat, 136. ' . _ „ . » 
 
 i Sprat, 1 36. Life of James, i. 742. James's Letter to Prmce of 
 
 Orange, 27th Nov., in Dalrymple, Appendix S3, and Reresby 168. 
 
 All, apud Lingard, xiii. 350. 
 
234 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 having copied and returned to the King, though with 
 many a pang, is absolutely conclusive; and how 
 Mr. Fox can say it is undeserving the smallest atten- 
 tion, he only can explain. The letter will speak for 
 itself. 
 
 " I have heard some reports of me, as if I should 
 have lessened the late plot^ and gone about to discredit the 
 evidence given against those who have died by justice.'' 
 From this, then, it appears that he did not mean to 
 lessen the plot, or discredit the evidence. But again : 
 " Your Majesty and the Duke know how ingenuously/ 
 have owned the late conspiracy; and though I was not 
 conscious of any design against your Majesty's life, 
 yet I lament having had so great a share in the 
 other part of the said conspiracy. Sir, I have taken 
 the liberty to put this in writing for my own vindi- 
 cation, and I beseech you to look forward and 
 endeavour to forget the faults you have forgiven me. 
 I will take care never to commit any more against 
 you, or come within the danger of being again misled 
 from my duty, but make it the business of my life to 
 deserve the pardon your Majesty hath granted to 
 your dutiful Monmouth."* 
 
 Now here, it may be said, there are no particulars, 
 and, what is more, that the letter is the dictation of 
 the King. 
 
 As to the first, let those who have read all the 
 trials, and Hampden's confession, deny, if it be possi- 
 ble, whatever glosses are put upon it by Mr. Foxj 
 
 ♦ Sprat, 141. 
 
 r 
 
 APPENDIX VI. 
 
 235 
 
 Lord John, or Sir James, that there had been no 
 treason, whether legal or moral, not merely m con- 
 templation, but in positive overt acts. 
 
 As to the last, that any difference can be made 
 between signing at the dictation of another, and 
 si-ning of one's own accord,-not only is the subter- 
 Ce a mean one, but the proof is enhanced by it. 
 Nothing short of the most overwhelming self-convic- 
 tion could induce a man of the commonest spirit to 
 stoop to such degradation, if the fact confessed, 
 though at another's dictation, was not true. ^ 
 • The reproaches of his friends, however, particularly 
 of Hampden, who called this letter his death warrant, 
 occasioned on the part of Monmouth the agony be- 
 fore mentioned, and the recall of this important 
 document ; as if the recall could alter the fact For^ 
 bidden the court, and retired to the country, this very 
 weak and foolish person, at the advice or entreaty oi 
 his duchess, now offered to recall his recall, retrace 
 his steps, and sign a similar paper: but it was too 
 late, and Charles rejected the proposal.* 
 
 Are these light circumstances? Are the communi- 
 cations nothing? Were the confessions inventions^^to 
 save his own life, by sacrificing his associates ? 1 hat 
 could not be, because the pardon had passed before 
 this critical letter had been sent. Is this, then, what 
 Mr. Fox means, by saying it deserved not the small- 
 est attention? Perhaps Lord John Russell thought 
 so too ; for, remarkable as the communications were, 
 
 ' ♦ See all the authorities for this, apud Lingard, xiii. 351, 352. 
 
 i 
 
236 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 appi:ndix VI. 
 
 237 
 
 It 
 
 II 
 
 and bearing so pointedly upon the question of the 
 conspiracy, though not of the assassination, he passes 
 them over (perhaps wisely, for they pinch hard,) 
 With this meagre notice : " The Duke of Monmouth 
 was persuaded by Lord Halifax to make his confes- 
 sion. He did this in a letter, in very general terms; 
 but being told that he might hurt Mr. Hampden' 
 and others of his friends, he went to the King, and 
 desired to have it back. The King gave htm his 
 letter, but accompanied it with some severe expres- 
 sions, and forbade him the court." And this is all 
 that is said upon this most important and detailed 
 disclosure of the most remarkable event of the times, 
 by the writer professedly the most interested in its 
 history, in defence of an ancestor, upon whose real 
 <ionduct in the cause depends much of the fame and 
 consequence of his family. 
 
 The confession, general as it was, is made parti- 
 cular, by being at least a groundwork for all those 
 details of evidence given in the various trials ; evi- 
 dence to discredit which we see is disclaimed in the 
 very first lines of it; and, if we might be forgiven 
 the liberty of the observation. Lord John should have 
 therefore ransacked the world for every document in 
 existence respecting it, before he dismissed it with 
 so poor and hungry an account. 
 
 I do not mean by this, that it is possible to sup- 
 pose an honourable person like Lord John, in pro- 
 fessing to state an historical feet of such importance^ 
 could mean to suppress any part of it; but, after what 
 
 has been detailed, let any one say, whether he, or 
 Mr. Fox, have, in what they have said of these im- 
 portant passages, fulfilled the whole duty of histo- 
 rians, — that is, not only not to hazard falsehood, 
 but severely to examine truth. The alternative 
 seems, (strange to say,) that neither of them could 
 be aware of the extent of the authorities for this 
 confession ; or aware, have repudiated them. 
 
 This, indeed, in regard to some of them, Lord 
 John has attempted ; whether with success, the world 
 must judge. It is, however, not a little remarkable, 
 that the two authorities which he has selected for 
 repudiation, are precisely those that most cogently 
 support the confession of Monmouth, and bear hard- 
 est upon the case of Russell. 
 
 These are Lord Grey, and Sprat, Bishop of Roches- 
 ter. "In the examination which I have made," 
 says Lord John, " into the truth of the Rye House 
 Plot, I have placed no reliance on the authorities of 
 Lord Grey and Bishop Sprat" To be sure he 
 
 would not ! 
 
 As an advocate, like other advocates, bound to do 
 the best for his client, and therefore to keep out of 
 sight every thing that may condemn him. Lord John 
 was no more than wise in this. As an historian, 
 the wisdom, as well as the duty, of it may be ques- 
 tionable. He should at least have allowed his reader 
 to examine the case as well as himself. 
 
 Of Bishop Sprat, he says, he " wrote, at the desire of 
 Charles and James, a history of the Rye House Plot ; 
 
II! 
 
 / 
 
 238 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 but after the Revolution he published two exculpatoinj 
 letters to Lord Dorset, in which he says, James, after 
 his accession, called for his papers ; and having read 
 them, and altered divers passages, caused them to be 
 published by his own authority. Sprat also," adds 
 Lord John, " retracts all that he had insinuated 
 against Lord Russell's veracity. His authority must, 
 of course^ be equally disregarded with that of Lord 
 
 Grey." * 
 
 To Lord Grey we shall presently come. Mean- 
 time, this is a very easy way of getting rid of a 
 troublesome authority. But, with submission, much 
 more ought to have been done by Lord Jchn, who 
 was well qualified to do it, before an unbiassed reader 
 would be prepared to follow him. In the first place, 
 it was due to Sprat to set forth these exculpatory let- 
 ters to Lord Dorset at large, in order that the world 
 mio-ht judge what was incontrovertible fact as to his 
 delinquency ; what mere opinion on the part of the 
 naturally partial author. Not one word of these 
 letters is set forth, except that James made some 
 alterations in the papers, and then published them 
 by liis own authority ; which might be explained, had 
 the context been given. 
 
 What was the bitter and just complaint of Sidney, 
 but that garbled extracts from his papers were given, 
 though Jeffries offered to read what he pleuijc^d ? Is 
 Ix»rd John less just than Jeffries ? 
 
 Tlie letters, liowever, are exlaiu ; and, for one, I 
 
 ♦ Life of Kuiv-I), ii. 173, ITi. 
 
 ^i\ 
 
 APPENDIX VI. 
 
 23d 
 
 am far from coming to the conclusion, which Lord 
 John evidently surmises, that either Sprat, or King 
 James, recorded something wilfully false, or for 
 which there was not sufficient warranty. With re- 
 (Tard to King James, — covered as he is with abuse, 
 —plunged from head to foot in error,— indefensible, 
 arbitrary, hateful, bigoted, dark, unmerciful, — his 
 bitterest enemies allow him honesty. In fact, with the 
 exception of the foul and cowardly calumny as to 
 the birth of his son, no one has ever attacked his 
 veracity. On the contrary, even Mackintosh allows 
 it as his almost only virtue; and, bold as it may 
 appear to say so, in this virtue, as far as ujideviatiiiff 
 uniformity was concerned, he was not equalled by 
 
 Lord Russell. 
 
 In this, however, I allude solely to Lord Russell's 
 account of his own conduct on his trial. As to the 
 meeting at Shepherd's he said, " I know litde of 
 the matter, for it was the greatest accident in the world 
 I was there ; and when I saw that company was there, 
 I would have gone again." 
 
 I came there accidejitallt/ to speak to Mr. Shep- 
 herd. 
 
 Now, by his own after-confession, he knew, as wc 
 have seen, that company was to be there, and went 
 expressly to meet them, though the rather because he 
 also wanteii to taste wine.* 
 
 Aware, therefore, tliat tins was not so, and niiglit 
 appear disingenuous, he endeavours to explain it iu 
 
 ^ State Trtais» ts. 714. 
 
 
240. 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 I ) 
 
 his paper to the sheriffs, at his execution, wherein he 
 he says, " I never said that was my only reason." 
 
 This, if I may use such expressions to such a man, 
 was an equivocation. For though he did not say it, he 
 evidently meant, and wished it to be so inferred. 
 
 Again, in regard to the Council of Six, whose com- 
 munication with the Scotch malcontents, with a view 
 to insurrection, is now incontrovertibly established, 
 and Howard's testimony therefore supported, he said 
 that the meeting was " only to talk of news, and talk 
 of things in general."* 
 
 Now, we do not say that when a man is accused 
 and tried for his life it is a proof of moral turpi- 
 tude and general disregard of truth to give false 
 glosses to his conduct. " Dolus an Virtus " in an 
 enemy are the same; and Lord Russell being the 
 enemy of the government, he might think he had a 
 right to deceive the jury to preserve his life. But 
 then why not avow it afterwards, when he professed 
 to detail the exact truth, and all hope of escaping 
 was over ? The attempt to reconcile the subterfuge 
 with truth, by observing that he never said that to 
 taste wine was his only reason for being at Shepherd's, 
 derogates from his probity, certainly from his he- 
 roism. 
 
 When on the scaffold, also, he denied all know- 
 ledge of the plot, not merely against the King's life, 
 but the government: " an untruth," says Macpherson, 
 
 » State Trials, vi. 720. This is admirably supported by what we 
 have extracted above from Carstair's confession. 
 
 APPENDIX VI* 
 
 i241 
 
 ^^ too palpable to have been uttered by a man deemed 
 even by his enemies sincere ;" and therefore he doubts 
 charitably that the speech attributed to him was 
 genuine. What seems insuperable now, as to his 
 attempt to deceive the jury, the government, and, 
 perhaps, the world, was the incredible assertion, — 
 incredible after all that has been detailed as to the 
 connection with Argyle, and his demands of money, 
 arms, and horse for the purpose of invading Scotland^ 
 (for which I again refer to Carstairs's examination)— 
 that he "never desired any thing to be redressed 
 but in a parliamentary and legal way."* 
 
 Did either Sprat or James, then, as Lord- John 
 insinuates, falsify, or even misrepresent any one 
 thino"? I would say, no; but that the Bishop con- 
 fesses that he was guilty of favouring the actors in 
 the plot more, much more, than the numerous authen- 
 tic documents placed before him from the Paper 
 Office fairly warranted. 
 
 His words are remarkable. After complaining 
 that some noble and eminent persons, whose friends 
 or kindred were unhappily concerned, had enter- 
 tained a prejudice against him, he says, " to them I 
 
 * " I was always for the government. I never desired any thing 
 to be redressed but in a parliamentary and legal way. I have always 
 been against all innovations and all irregularities whatsoever." (Trial 
 
 oC Lord Russell. ) 
 
 After this, is Sprat to be rejected as an authority, because he ques- 
 tioned the veracity of a man who so prevaricated, even though he 
 might afterwards have changed his opinion as to his general probity ? 
 But ^ery allowance in such a cause is to be made for Lord John. 
 
 VOL. II. M 
 
 
242 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 III! 
 
 IM|) 
 
 \ 
 
 I I 
 
 shall make this equitable request, that they would 
 suspend any farther censure of me for what I did 
 write till they shall be fairly informed how much 
 there is that I have not written/' 
 
 He then says, that, though allowed to consult the 
 Paper Office and council books, whence he was 
 plentifully furnished with such authentic materials, 
 either of papers printed by authority, or of sworn 
 depositions and confessions, as have been always 
 thought the best ground for an historian to work 
 upon, yet he was more than twelve months before 
 he could be brought to put pen to paper. Why ? 
 Because of his natural aversion to any business that 
 might reflect severely upon any man. " My own 
 inclination," says he, "farther leading me to the 
 other extreme ; that is, rather to commend too much 
 wliat in the least seems well done, than to aggravate 
 what is ill done by others." He adds, " during com- 
 posing those collections I earnestly requested King 
 Charles, that few or no names of persons should be 
 mentioned, whatever probable suggestions might be 
 against them, but only such upon whom public judg- 
 ment had passed, which it could be to no purpose 
 for me to conceal. I could, indeed, have wished 
 that my Lord Russell's and some other names of 
 persons of honour might have been of the number 
 to be omitted, but it was none of my fault that they 
 were not ; I could not hinder, nor did I in the least 
 contribute, to their fall ; nay, I lamented it, espe- 
 cially my Lord Russell's, after I was fully convinced, 
 
 I 
 
 APPENDIX VI. 
 
 243 
 
 by discourse with the Reverend Dean of Canterbury, 
 of that noble gentleman's great probity and con- 
 stant abhorrence of falsehood ; but that was a good 
 
 while after."* 
 
 We suppose the last cited is the passage in which 
 Lord John states, that the Bishop retracted (as he 
 calls it) all that he had insinuated against Lord 
 Russell's veracity. 
 
 This is by no means a just conclusion. 
 As to the authority, one might appeal to the whole 
 of the above extract to show that if it is to be disre- 
 garded, it is when he favours Lord Russell, not when 
 he inculpates him ; and with regard to the retracta- 
 tion, (as it is called,) what does it amount to ? That, 
 in common with every impartial man who compared 
 then, or compares now, what he himself said upon 
 his trial, with his avowal afterwards to the sheriffs, 
 and with the confessions of his colleagues, Monmouth 
 and others, he noticed discrepancies between the two 
 accounts, which did not leave his reputation un- 
 blemished, but which were balanced by his general 
 love of truth, supported, thouffh a good while after, by 
 the authority of Tillotson. Now, if Sprat's insinuation 
 against Lord Russell's veracity was founded upon 
 the untruth proved by himself by what he said upon 
 his trial, how does a better opinion of his general 
 
 * Letter to Lord Dorset, apud. Biog. Britt., article Sprat. 
 
 And this is the exculpatory letter relied upon by Lord John, to 
 show that what he said against Lord Russell was such defamation, 
 that his authority must be rejected. If rejected, it is clear it must be 
 for yelling the guilt of Lord Russell, not exaggerating it. 
 
 M 2 
 
244 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 W 
 
 t ' 
 
 probity and of his abhorrence of falsehood, generated 
 a long while after by Tillotson's assurances, prove a 
 retractation of this specific accusation ? Even if these 
 very general words of Sprat did amount to such a 
 retractation, will that piece of candour (for it is not 
 less) vitiate a whole work, or destroy our belief in the 
 specific documents, copied from originals in existence 
 at the time? If Lord John would beat down the 
 authority of these, and really convict Sprat of forgery, 
 or even of incorrectness, he would have consulted 
 justice and his own object better by himself applying 
 to the books and papers which the Bishop cites, 
 than by this short, sweeping, and convenient condem- 
 
 nation.* 
 
 Then as to the alterations by James : was a syllable 
 breathed against their honesty ? on the contrary, from 
 the sort of pious fraud which Sprat admits he prac- 
 tised in softening, not aggravating, guilt, the reason 
 of the thing, added to James's own character for truth, 
 would induce us to suppose that he only fairly cor- 
 rected what the Bishop more than hints he unfairly 
 
 suppressed. 
 
 . For King Charles, says the Bishop, " having 
 granted my desire of concealing certain names, 
 according to this allowance I proceeded, leaving out 
 some, and abbreviating others; endeavouring all 
 
 * Monmouth's letters, as we have seen, are set forth by Sprat. 
 Does Lord John, after searching, say there are not, and never were, 
 such letters, and that it is clear he forged them, because he changed his 
 opinion of Lord Russell's veracity ? 
 
 i|! 
 
 m 
 
 APPENDIX VI. 
 
 245 
 
 along to spare parties and families, and particular 
 persons, as much as would be allowed. All which 
 would be demonstrated from the copies of the deposi- 
 tions as they went out of my hands, where there were 
 several names marked by my own hand to be left out 
 in the publication. So that if some indifferent man 
 should now compare the informations as they are m 
 print with the originals in the Secretary's or Paper 
 Office, he would, it may be, be apter to suspect me of 
 connivance, than of calumny, on that side." * 
 
 Such then, again, is the exculpatory letter which is 
 supposed so to invalidate the History of the Rye 
 House Plot as to destroy its authority against tlie 
 actors of it; whereas every line shows, that, whatever 
 deficiency in point of truth may belong to that his- 
 tory, it is a deficiency in favour of the conspirators, 
 not against them ; by the author's own account, con- 
 nivance, not calumny. 
 
 There is not the same demonstrably fair objection 
 to a similar condemnation pronounced by Lord John 
 on the narrative of Lord Grey. Sprat had forfeited 
 nothing, certainly not a life, when he wrote his his- 
 tory, and therefore wrote not to save it, if Lord Grey 
 did so. I put it bypothetically, because we have no 
 proof (Lord John has not vouchsafed any) that this 
 was a condition of the pardon of Lord Grey. 
 
 But Grey was stained with the private vices « of 
 licentiousness, cowardice, falsehood, and ingrati- 
 
 • Letter to Lord Dorset, ap. Biog. Britt. art. Spratt. 
 
 m3 
 
 ««i 
 
246 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 ludo. The seduction of his wife's sister was aggm- 
 vatod by duplicity to licr parents, and barbarity to 
 
 her." • 
 
 We do not defend Lord Grey. We think him a 
 base and sensual man ; but we do not necessarily, on 
 that account, believe his evidence incredible when 
 supported by so many other testimonies : and if he 
 was false in his known nature, how came he to be of 
 the Council of Six; or Monmouth to be so linked 
 with him after he knew his falsehood? Grant his 
 vices, even after his history, did they, or the danming 
 sin of that history itself, prevent the T^liigs from 
 taking him to their bosom ? He was created Earl of 
 Tankerville by King William, spite of his suppost-d 
 false testimony against Lord Russell, whose martjT- 
 dom professedly procured a diike<lom for his family 
 from the same Whig King. He was also placed in 
 high trust by the party he is supposed thus to have 
 so falsely betrayed, as to liavc destroyed, in Lord 
 Jolm's mind, the authority of his history. He was a 
 Lord of the Treasury, and died Privy Seal. Do 
 the&e circumstances weigh nothing to prove tliat his 
 party, though they might be hurt by his narrative, 
 could not quite believe it was false? Even Lord John 
 
 force<l to confess that ** the stor}' is well told, and 
 probably has a gr«at mixture of truth ; but as it is 
 impossible to separate the true from the false, it is 
 better to neglect it altogetlier." \ 
 
 • Ufc of Lord RiHwU. f '^^- 'i* 1^3. 
 
 APPEKDIX VU 
 
 ♦247 
 
 This is an excellent and commodious way of getting 
 rid of an inconvenient witness ! But why neglect ital- 
 to^'ether ? Why not attempt to sift the truth from tlie 
 tafsehood, as I am doing now ? But better it certamly 
 is for the descendant and defender of Lord Russell, on 
 whom die truth iUxsgrmtly mixed up in the narrative 
 presses so hard. The noble Lord is too wdl ex- 
 perienced in books and forensic discussions for us 
 to point out to him tl»at if the authority of all books, 
 particularly on political, and, above all, on party 
 questions, in which some falsehood is m.xed with 
 much truth, were to be rejected, our libraries would 
 be stript, and the labour of study 8lwrtenc<l, it not 
 
 completely spared. 
 
 What would l)ecome of almost all history ? \\ hat 
 of most of the W hig resolutions of the House of 
 Commons in the time of Charles H., in which Lord 
 Russell himself took so violent a part i Wiat of the 
 x^rts on the Popish Plot? And, in parUcular, 
 what of Uie gossipping Burnet ? • Should this maxim 
 of Lor<l John prevail, tliat where there is truth and 
 falsehood mixed, both should be rejected. 
 
 Thus much, then, for the confessions of Mon- 
 mouth in regard to the reality of the Rye House 
 Plot- by which expr<>ssion I always mean the design 
 of rising in arms, to pro<lucc by force an alteration 
 in Uie misuurc. of govcrnuMMt. which ROf« by Ihftt 
 namc» «u<l not nec.'"«>-ily («1m.muI. not oMchidlng It) 
 
 W 4 
 
 ! 
 
li 
 
 248 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 the separate, or, if I may so call it, the insulated 
 design of assassinating the King. Such a rising 
 would be undoubted treason if carried into effect: 
 and to the question, whether only to intend it, is an 
 overt act designing the King's death, in other words, 
 the question of constructive treason, we shall presently 
 come. But tlie fact of the contemplation of such a 
 rising is, at present, still the question before us, 
 whether with or without the adjunct of the design at 
 the Rye House; and, from what has preceded, Ais 
 confession of Monmouth was not necessary to estab- 
 lish Lord Russell's participation in it, any more than 
 Lord Grey's confession afterwards, in his evidence 
 on Lord Delamere's trial in January 1686. There, 
 he unequivocally stated, that the conduct of the 
 different designed risings was assigned to differ- 
 ent chiefs, — London to Shaftsbury, Cheshire to 
 Monmouth, and the west to Russell. Of the ripe 
 state of Cheshire, Monmouth indeed, according to 
 him, made a regular report in form. Couple all this 
 with all the documents in Sprat ; with the avowals in 
 Burnet ; the depositions of the clouds of witnesses on 
 the various trials, some perjured, many not; the 
 confessions of many who were executed ; the same 
 facts (no matter to the point in question, by what 
 means,) established in Scotland; and, in particular, 
 the mission to bring up the men of absolute cow/Z- 
 dence from that country; the consequent journey of. 
 Baillie, and his refusal, in London, to deny that 
 there were no communications with English lords 
 
 APPENDIX VI. 
 
 249 
 
 on the design for insurrection ; and, in Scotland, to 
 purge himself by oath from any knowledge of the 
 Rye House Plot. Do this ; and let any one then say, 
 that all these varying circumstances, all these coinci- 
 dences of testimony, multiplied at home and abroad, 
 (however some of them may differ, or even be falsified,) 
 are absolute inventions, concerted among the multi- 
 tude of the parties that appeared on the scene, and 
 that there was no reality in the plot for which Lord 
 Russell suffered. Let any one do and say this, if he 
 
 can. 
 
 Lord John has an express chapter on this reality*, 
 in which, as we have noticed, he has excluded the 
 particulars of the confession of Monmouth, the testi- 
 mony of Grey, and the authority of Sprat. Just all 
 the most pointed and pressing parts of the evidence, 
 without the smallest attempt to examine them-f He 
 states many horrors in the proceedings against the 
 criminals, particularly in Scotland; he holds up much 
 to Jz^5^ detestation; and he complains, with truth, of 
 many breaches of the law in the course of process ; 
 but he nowhere, in our opinion, disproves the fact 
 of the desiffn to rise, or even, in some, to assassinate ; 
 nor, with regard to the first, the various overt acts 
 indicating that design. He indeed, as he has a right 
 
 * Chap. 19. 
 
 f « The part of Hamlet to be necessarily omitted." This allusion 
 does not perhaps become the gravity of an historical inquiry. But as 
 Mr. Fox, in a still more dignified history, does not disdain to liken the 
 Doctors of Oxford to Do-berry and Verges, I trust I may be fbr- 
 
 given. 
 
 M 5 
 
f 
 
 250 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 APPENDIX VL 
 
 ti5i 
 
 to do, if he pleases, asserts his opinion, rather more con- 
 fidently, I think, than Mr. Fox, that there never was 
 any thing more than what Lady Russell said it was, 
 a talk about these thinjrs. How that is to be recon- 
 ciled with all the foregoing particulars, it must be left 
 to the world to judge. No one can blame Lord John 
 for making the attempt : his abilities I am not the 
 man to undervalue ; and if he has failed, it is be- 
 cause it was impossible he should succeed. 
 
 But here a parting question arises, in which, for a 
 moment, we wish to indulge. 
 
 If Lord Russell, by his treason against the law of 
 the land, was only the more faithful and devoted 
 to the paramount laws of nature and reason ; if he 
 was the great and heroic patriot who sacrificed his 
 life in attempting to deliver his country from op- 
 pression; why not avow, proclaim it, glory in it? 
 Why deprive him, or allow him to deprive himself, 
 of the honour that belongs to him ? As it was, he 
 entangled himself in irreconcileable assertions, to 
 escape, first, conviction, and then punishment. 
 Hence, his whole virtue as a patriot, a righter of 
 wTonors, an assertor of the natural and inalienable 
 privileges of the people, is frittered into nothing, by 
 attempts at denial of his real conduct. So also his 
 friends for him, both at the time, and now. Not a 
 step do they stir, not an argument do they offer, not 
 a testimony do they undermine, in order to disguise 
 liis legal guilt, but derogates from his public virtue. 
 Thus, his self-devotion is extinguished in insur- 
 
 mountable difficulties, rash assertions, and disinge- 
 nuous conjectures; all which might be avoided, and 
 his moral fame exalted to that really high pitch 
 which these abortive prejudices in vain endeavour 
 
 to carry it. 
 
 Such, it appears to me, is the effect of the attempts 
 (honest though they may be) to mystify his case. If 
 he really meant to rebel in what he thought a holy 
 cause, why all this jealousy, this extreme questioning 
 of glaring facts? If not; if he did not like, as Bur- 
 net says, this mad exposing of himself, what becomes 
 of his martyrdom ? '^ 
 
 One great mistake (at least if we are right our-: 
 selves,) seems to pervade the whole of the reasonings 
 on the law of the case, both by Mr. Fox and Lord 
 John Russell, — that a mere consultation about treason- 
 able measures, if they are not carried into effect, is 
 not treason in itself. 
 
 In this, if the animus is fully proved, we venture 
 to say they are wrong. It is this animus which is 
 to decide; for so sacred, for wise reasons, is the 
 royal life, that merely to intend the destruction of 
 the King, could it be discovered, is treason, although 
 no step\e taken towards it. The difficulty is how 
 to discover it, and hence the necessity of an overt 
 act. Dionysius held that a dream was sufficient, 
 and put a man to death for it. The law of England 
 does not say so ; but this it does say, that in treason 
 the rule of voluntas pro facto is retained in the 
 statute of treasons itself, that second Magna Charta 
 
 M 6 
 
 V 
 
252 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 APPENDIX VI. 
 
 253 
 
 m 
 
 in defence of the subject. " Non mens hie sermo 
 est," but of a most accomplished and accurate lawyer 
 and judge; not, indeed, so accomplished or so learned 
 in the law of treasons as Mr. Fox, who, as we have 
 seen, in Lord John's opinion, is not " easily matched 
 by ant/ lawyer;"* but still of a judge and a writer 
 whose authority (in the courts at least) no lawyer 
 ventures to dispute. I mean Mr. Justice Foster, 
 whose opinion Lord John will now permit me to 
 submit to him. ? 
 
 " In regard to treason," he says, "it (the law) 
 considereth the wicked imaginations of the heart in 
 the same degree of guilt as if carried into actual 
 execution, from the moment measures appear to Iiave 
 been taken to render them effectual And, therefore, if 
 conspirators meet and consult how to kill the King, 
 though they do not then fall upon any scheme for 
 that purpose, this is an overt act of compassing his. 
 death ; and so are all means made use of, be it 
 advice, persuasions, or command, to incite or en- 
 courage others to commit the fact, or join in the 
 attempt ; and every person, who but assenteth to 
 any overtures for that purpose, will be involved in 
 the same guilt 
 
 ^' The care the law hath taken for the personal 
 safety of the King is not confined to actions or 
 attempts of the more flagitious kind, — to assassina- 
 tion or poison, or other attempts directly and imme- 
 diately aiming at his life. 
 
 * Life of Lord Ruisdl, ii. 65. 
 
 « It is extended to every thing wilfully and delibe- 
 rately done, or attempted, whereby his life may be 
 ENDANGERED. And, therefore, the entering into mea^ 
 sures for deposing or imprisoning him, or to get his 
 person into the power of the conspirators,— these 
 offences are overt acts of treason within this breach 
 
 of the statute. 
 
 " For experience has shown, that between the pri- 
 sons and the graves of princes the distance is very 
 
 small"* - , • 
 
 Here, then, we may rest the law of the case as tar 
 as it regards the meetings at Shepherd's, the Council 
 of Six, the sending to Scotland for men of absolute 
 confidence, who came up in consequence, and upon 
 the correspondence with Argyle on a demand ot 
 
 money and arms. . % • 
 
 Here, we sav, we may rest the law, although it is 
 admitted no money was sent, no arms boughtt, no 
 insurrection actually levied, and thus we think the 
 moral intention of Lord Russell to remedy grievances 
 bv a force put upon the King, though not by assas- 
 sinauon, is fully proved. Even Mr Hallam goes 
 far towards this. «It is beyond doubt, he says, tha? 
 the supposed conspirators had debated among them- 
 selves the subject of an insurrection, and poised the 
 chances of civil warr But he adds " thus much the 
 most jealous lawyer, I presume, will allow might be 
 done without risking the penalties of treason. X 
 
 ^ T 104 + Tliat is not certain 
 
 * Foster's Crown Law, 1 94. ^ xl^^. 
 
 \ Constitut. History, ii'. 206. 
 
m 
 
 i 
 
 254 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 I do not know. Without being a very jealous law- 
 yer, I, and probably Mr. Hallam himself, would start 
 if we saw an advertisement in the papers, signed, we 
 will suppose, by Lord Melbourne, Lord Cottenham, 
 Lord John, Lord Hill, and Lord Minto, the repre- 
 sentatives of the treasure, law, police, army, and navy 
 of the kingdom, and calling upon their fellow country- 
 men to meet, (say at the Crown and Anchor,) to 
 debate the subject of an insurrection against the 
 Queen, and to poise the chances of civil war ! We 
 should doubt a little, I think, the safety of their 
 heads. 
 
 In Lord Russell's case, however, Hallam allows the 
 supposed conspirators had gone farther, and concerted 
 measures in different places, as well as in Scotland, 
 for a rising, though contingently. 
 
 " There is a considerable difficulty," he says, "in 
 stating the extent of their designs, but I think we may 
 assume that a wide spreading and formidable insurrec- 
 tion was for several months in agitation: but the 
 difficulties and hazards made them receded* 
 
 Will this excuse them, or show that no treason 
 was intended ? 
 
 We are alive, however, to an objection to the 
 establishment of the legal guilt of Lord Russell, 
 which is made by his advocates, to which, as well as 
 the legal proofs of it, we will now address ourselves. 
 
 Whatever has been held (says the argument) of 
 treason's attaching, in certain circumstances, to mere 
 
 * Constitut. History, iii. p. 207. 
 
 r 
 
 APPENDIX VI. 
 
 255 
 
 consultations, it is answered, that these consultations 
 must relate to the conspiring the actwil death of the 
 King, and not the m.ere raising an insurrection, or 
 levytng war ; and that to establish the guilt of this, 
 the war must be actually levied. 
 
 In the passage quoted from Mr. Justice Foster 
 this is not what is held. For his words, as we have 
 seen, are, that the law is not confined to attempts 
 immediately aiming at the life of the King, but « is 
 extended to every thing wilfully and deliberately 
 done or attempted whereby his life may he endan- 
 gered:' But as war against a king must endanger his 
 life, or it is no war, the plain sense of the thing, 
 it should seem, demonstrates at once, that to con- 
 spire the one is the same as to conspire the other. 
 
 Mr. Fox, however, says no ; and Mr. Fox's autho- 
 rity is held by Lord John, " not easily to be matched 
 
 by any lawyer." 
 
 We are bound, therefore, to enter into this great 
 question of constructive treason, in which Mr. Fox, 
 and an act of parliament (not declaring or altering 
 the law, but) reversing a particular attainder, are 
 against us : the whole stream of law authorities, the 
 maxims, decisions, and treatises of judges, for us. 
 
 In the treatise of Mr. Justice Foster, just cited, the 
 point is laid down without a doubt. It is expressly 
 stated, " that to enter into measures for imprisoning or 
 deposing the King, or getting his person into our 
 power, are overt acts wiihm the breach of the statute," 
 th^t is, of conspiring the King's death. 
 
256 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 )i^!i!! 
 
 Well ; is or is not a war against a king liable to 
 these consequences ? If he resist tlie war, and come 
 with troops to give you battle, will you not fight him ? 
 Knot, what becomes of your war? Cromwell said 
 if he met the King in battle, he would as soon fire 
 his pistol at him as any other man ; and if Cromwell 
 was right in his war, he was right as to his pistol. 
 Lord Russell might not have fired his pistol, if he 
 could help it, but he meant to have one to fire, and 
 who is to say, if once in battle, that he could help it 
 or not ? Did he mean that, though he sought reform 
 by arms, he was not to use them ? 
 
 Besides, who is to answer for Lord Russell's con- 
 federates, whom he would have contributed to place 
 in battle against their sovereign ? In short, if a man 
 organizes or encourages a conflict, is he not answer- 
 able both in law and reason for the consequences, 
 even though he personally do not join in it ? 
 
 So much for the reason of the thing. Now for the law. 
 
 I have said that the stream of the authorities was 
 with us, and so they are, from the hour that gave 
 birth to the statute, which it is said was so much 
 invaded, to the present day. 
 
 But Mr. Fox and Lord John say, this is judges' 
 law, and not the law of the land. Where does he 
 find that the decisions of the judges, uniform, re- 
 peated, respected, and obeyed, are not the law of the 
 land? 
 
 Where are we to look for that law but in these 
 decisions ? . 
 
 APPENDIX VL 
 
 257 
 
 f 
 
 In common law we have nothing else. In statute, 
 the interpretation can only be in them. The moment 
 any other power or person interferes, security i^ 
 gone, and the constitution is overturned. 
 
 Mr. Fox may be a better lawyer than Lord Hale 
 or Lord Holt, or Coke himself, or Sir Vicary Gibbs, 
 but his law is not the law of the land : their's is. A 
 single judge, indeed, may be wrong; or a whole 
 court in error on a single case. But there is power 
 by the same law which gave them the right to judge, 
 to revise the judgment, and correct the error. Even 
 if all judges at all times concur upon a point which 
 from either policy or justice ought to be altered, 
 there is the known remedy in the legislature. 
 
 In the instance before us was this ever adminis- 
 tered ? was it ever attempted ? 
 
 If Mr. Fox is right, or Lord John is right, as to 
 constructive treason, why have they not altered the 
 
 law? 
 
 Both, probably, had power to do it, and the home 
 secretary has it still. Will he now make the attempt, 
 and argue it, in or out of parliament, with the 
 judges ? If not, he ought not to condemn them. 
 
 1° is really strange that such rashness of opinion 
 has been hazarded upon the mere ipse dixit of either 
 of these honourable persons, without an authority 
 quoted to bring the matter into doubt, and all au- 
 thority (judicial at least, for I admit not mere private 
 speculations,) against them. 
 
 Of these private speculations I have read the two 
 
 % 
 
 r 
 
258 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 thought most worthy: the defence of Lord Russell's 
 innocency by Sir Robert Atkyns ; and remarks upon 
 his trial by Sir John Hawles. 
 
 Neither of them produce, I will not say convic- 
 tion, but any thing that is not produced, and attempted 
 to be answered, in this commentary. I except, how- 
 ever, one argument by the first-mentioned, from 
 which you may gather the character of much of the 
 rest, which, in truth, seems more to be that of the 
 syllabarum auceps, formularum cantor, than of one 
 who manfully grapples with difficulties which he 
 feels he can overcome. As a proof, take what he 
 says of the guards. 
 
 Because that description of force, by name, is not 
 noticed or recognized in any law-book, therefore, to 
 conspire to seize them, without a better description, 
 does not come within the purview of treason. Miser- 
 able, disgraceful, special pleading, which Lord Russell 
 himself would have disdained, or he does not deserve 
 his reputation. 
 
 Lord Russell, on his trial, had the full benefit of 
 his objections to the law. He thought, as Mr. Fox 
 seemed to think, that he was indicted on the 
 13 Car. II., which had expired. That act, which was 
 temporary, made, for a time, a conspiracy to levy war, 
 treason ; which was not so before, and was now no 
 longer in force. 
 
 He was answered, that he was not indicted for con- 
 spiracy to levy war, and therefore not upon that act, 
 but upon the 25 Edward III. itself, for conspiring the 
 
 APPENDIX VI. 
 
 259 
 
 death of the King, of which the conspiracy to levy 
 war loa^ only the overt act. The whole case was re- 
 duced to this : the answer was unanswerable, and the 
 error of Mr. Fox in not seeing it, is extraordinary. 
 
 Lord Russell applied for counsel to argue his 
 objection, and was told, with no harshness, (for the 
 whole court seemed to commiserate him,) that he 
 should certainly have them, but must first admit the 
 fact, without which it would be needless. 
 
 This he did not, or would not do : the fact was 
 found against him by the jury, the judgment was not 
 arrested, and he suffered. ^ 
 
 There never was a greater error in history than 
 that Lord Russell was not fairly tried. Even the 
 objection for want of freeholders, which was said to 
 be a violation of law, was coolly, calmly, and learnedly 
 argued. For that point counsel were assigned him, 
 among them Pollexfen and Holt, both Whigs, and 
 they had every attention from the bench. 
 
 Pollexfen, the leader, was asked by the Chief Jus- 
 tice, whether he could find any judgment, that, in 
 cases of treason by the common law, they might 
 except for want of freehold ? To which he answered, 
 no Then the whole argument was at an end, tor 
 the right to be tried by freeholders was only given 
 by a situte of Hen.V., and that statute was repe^aled 
 by one of Mary. Lord John, indeed, discovers above 
 a hundred years afterwards, what it escaped all the 
 writers and all the lawyers to discover on arguing 
 the point, that the act of 1st Mary merely repeals 
 
260 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 APPENDIX VI. 
 
 261 
 
 all laws creating treasons since Ed. III., and does not 
 at all interfere with the mode of trial, and therefore Lord 
 Russell was not legally tried. * Is it not remarkable 
 that the able counsel I have named did not make 
 this rejoinder to the argument of the Chief Justice ? 
 
 If the act says so in terms, why not state it ? If 
 only an implication of Lord John, we must have a care 
 that we are not entangled in statesmen's law, which 
 would, perhaps, (I put it humbly,) be worse than 
 judges. 
 
 But what are the words of the Chief Justice ? 
 
 " The statute of Queen Mary comes and says all 
 trials shall be by such evidence, and in sitch manner^ 
 as by common law they ought to have been." f 
 
 It therefore returned to the common law, as well 
 in the mode of trial, as the law itself. 
 
 But, is it not a pity that this cogent objection, if 
 founded, should have escaped Sir John Hawles, 
 exhausting argument, and abuse too, upon this very 
 decision ? 
 
 He was splenetic enough, and seized many weaker 
 objections. Among others, one is to the many and 
 varieti/ of reasons given by tlie judges on disallowing 
 the cliallenffe. 
 
 o 
 
 " The assigning many reasons," says he, " for one 
 and the same thing, makes the judgment Justli/ sus- 
 pected." 
 
 I should have humbly thought the reverse ; but 
 with such a disposition to quarrel with the decision, 
 
 • Life of Lord Ru§scll, ii, 63. f State Trials v. 711. 
 
 IS it not astonishing that he did not hit upon this 
 discovery of Lord John ? ■ 
 
 Even he allows that the only reason for requiring 
 freeholds, before the condition of tradesmen became 
 so respectable from wealth, was, that there might be 
 men of sufficient substance on the jury; but he owns 
 that " now, and /or some time past, the value of trade 
 is equal to that of land."* 
 
 He, therefore, though against his will, supports 
 the reason, without impugning the law of the Chief 
 
 Justice. 
 
 After every attention, then, to the counsel, and 
 every advantage to the prisoner, from fair play to 
 the argument, the court were unanimous in over- 
 ruling the objection. Yet the act of William, revers- 
 ing the attainder, states this failure of freeholders 
 as'^a principal ground for it, because contrary to 
 law. If so, where was the necessity for enacting it 
 anew ? For the present right to be tried by free- 
 holders in treason, is derived, not from the common 
 law, nor the act of Hen. V., nor the act of Mary, but 
 from the express enactment of the Bill of Rights. 
 But the act reversing the attainder says the ver- 
 dict was vitiated. Must it not, therefore, be true ? 
 The vote, by the same authority, found, that the 
 throne was vacant, with half a dozen lawful heirs 
 standing around it. Was that also true ? 
 
 Without better reasons than were assigned for 
 either of these votes, we take the liberty of not 
 believing either one or the other. 
 
 ♦ State Trials, vi. 187. 
 
t 
 
 262 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 All experience shows tliat large assemblies, par- 
 ticularly political ones, whatever the condition or 
 education of their members, partake of the nature 
 of mobs ; and are often governed and blinded by 
 the same heat and passion. After the passion is 
 worn away by time, the cooler judgment of the closet 
 busies itself with the truth alone. 
 
 Still Lord Russell is said by certain classes, most 
 of whom take it upon trust, to have been a victim, 
 and his death, as the statute of reversal (unjustly, 
 we think,) calls it, a murder; because condemned 
 for constructive treason. 
 
 This may justify Mr. Fox for repeating the opinion : 
 the soundness of the opinion it will not prove. 
 
 It is remarkable that upon this subject Tillotson 
 became a lawyer as well as Fox, only with this differ- 
 ence, suitable to their professions, that Fox, being a 
 statesman, published his opinion in a state history 
 addressed to the world ; Tillotson, a clergyman, in 
 prayers addressed to the Almighty. In a prayer 
 written for Lady Russell on her loss of sight, he 
 reasons with, though he submits to his Maker, on the 
 case of Lord Russell, whom, he says, " Thou in thy 
 holy and righteous Providence permitted, under a 
 colour of law and justice^ to be unjustly cut off from the 
 land of the living."* 
 
 We shall treat farther of this supposed violation of 
 the law of treason ; but meantime w^as this grounded 
 upon any thing in the composition of the court ? 
 
 * Birch found a copy of this in short-hand in the Archbishop's 
 common-place book. — Biog. Britt., article Tillotson. 
 
 APPENDIX VI. 
 
 263 
 
 Was Pemberton, who tried him, charged or charge- 
 able with the least unfairness ? Take what was said 
 of him by a man who knew his profession and its his- 
 tory as well as most ; take Sir Vicary Gibbs, himself 
 afterwards a most correct judge, and at that time 
 arguing for prisoners tried for this very constructive 
 treason, if it be correct to call it so, and not a mere 
 
 overt act. 
 
 « Lord Russell," says Mr. Gibbs, " was tried be- 
 fore my Lord Chief Justice Pemberton,— as wise, as 
 learned, and as able a j udgeas ever adorned the bench." * 
 In 1794, Hardy and Home Tooke were indicted 
 for compassing the King's death. 
 
 What was the overt act by which it was to be 
 proved ? Compassing by force to dethrone the King ! 
 Precisely what is called, by Fox and Lord John, the 
 constructive treason of Lord Russell. 
 
 It is not, however, my intention to swell this 
 commentary, already too long, by going into the 
 argument upon constructive treason in the abstract. 
 But I will do better, for the purpose of this inquiry. 
 I deny the whole fact of the existence of constructive 
 treason at all ; and venture to assert, that since the 
 statute of Mary, which brought back treason to that of 
 Edward, there has been no such thing in the annals 
 of law. Though promulged, therefore, by the legisla- 
 ture, and echoed by Mr. Fox, Lord Russell was neither 
 indicted nor condemned for constructive treason. 
 Nay, he was explicitly told so by the court, when he 
 
 * Tooke's Trial, ii. 175. 
 
 I 
 
V 
 
 264 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 APPENDIX VI. 
 
 865 
 
 took the objection ; and lest there should be a possi- 
 bility of a mistake, the jury were told so too. 
 . This may appear startling to some. For how 
 many thousands who follow this opinion, and argue 
 upon it, both in public and in private, never read 
 the trial ? 
 
 To be short, and to avoid every thing like subtlety, 
 he was not indicted for conspiring to levy war, but 
 for compassing the King's death ; of which the con- 
 sultations, or conspiring to levy war, were made the 
 overt acts, not the substantive treason. 
 
 If this was so, the whole declamation and high- 
 sounding complaints of the stretching the law to 
 make a victim ; nay, the solemn language of the 
 legislature itself, when it assigned the fact as a 
 ground for reversing the attainder ; is false, and falls 
 to pieces, vanishing like a dream. i 
 
 That it was so, hear better authority than mine, 
 as I most appositely find it, in the celebrated defence 
 of Hardy, said to be, like Lord Russell, tried on 
 constructive treason, in 1794. 
 
 Two of the greatest ornaments of the bar were his 
 counsel, — the one for eloquence, the other for know- 
 ledge, — Mr. Erskine and Sir Vicary Gibbs. I shall 
 ^advert to them both; but as Sir Vicary made a 
 direct statement of the real case of Lord Eussell, 
 and goes distinctly into the doctrine upon it, by avail- 
 ing myself of his language and opinion, I gladly 
 avoid the intrusion of my own. 
 
 Hardy, like Russell, was indicted for compassing 
 
 the King's death, and not for conspiring to levy war ; 
 and, like Russell's, his overt act was an imputed con- 
 spiracy to produce rebellion in the kingdom. The 
 jury, in the one case, believed the evidence offered 
 for the overt act; in the other, they rejected it. As 
 to the law in regard to the treason, they were both 
 indicted on the same statute (25 Edw. a) ; and the 
 whole contest turned upon the evidence, for the law 
 seemed undisputed. Upon the last, hear Sir Vicary'^ 
 own words to the jury. 
 
 « I will trouble you farther, merely with a state- 
 ment of the way in which judges, who have had to 
 try causes upon this statute, have laid down the law 
 to the jury. I shall then have stated to you the 
 indictment, — the statute upon which it is founded, — 
 the construction of one of the most learned lawyers 
 who ever lived upon that statute, — and the acting 
 of one of the most learned judges who has ever 
 adorned the bench, (I speak of Lord Chief Justice 
 Pemberton,) when he sat on the trial of Lord Rus- 
 sell, who was charged with an offence of the same 
 sort as that with which the prisoner at the bar now 
 
 stands charged. 
 
 « The doctrine contained in that trial is, I sup- 
 pose, law, because I have heard the trial alluded to 
 in court, and not from the bar, but from the bench. 
 I have heard the summing up of Lord Chief Justice 
 Pemberton, who tried Lord Russell, alluded to, as 
 containing the law of the land upon the subject of 
 treason. 
 
 VOL. II. N 
 
26S 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 I 
 
 " My Lord Russell was tried upon this statute ; and 
 the indictment charged him with compassing the 
 King's death ; the overt act was, that * to fulfil and 
 perfect the said most horrible treason and traitorous 
 eompassings, imaginations, and purposes foresaid, 
 he, the said William Russell, together with other 
 false traitors, maliciously, traitorously, and advisedly 
 between themselves, and with divers other traitors 
 to the jurors unknown, did meet together, consult, 
 at^ree, and conclude insurrection and rebellion 
 against our Sovereign Lord the King, within this 
 kino*dom of England, to move and stir up, and the 
 guards for the preservation of the person of our said 
 Lord the King to seize and destroy, against the duty 
 of his allegiance/ 
 
 *' So you see," continues Mr. Gibbs, "the charge in 
 that indictment was that Lord Russell had compassed 
 the King's deaths and, to effect that treason, had con- 
 spired to raise insurrection and rebellion against the 
 King, and to seize the guards appointed for the 
 preservation of the King's person. 
 
 " The evidence given in that case went certainly to 
 show, if it went to show any thing, that Lord Russell 
 had conspired to raise insurrection and rebellion in 
 the kingdom, and to seize the King's guards; and yet 
 Lord Chief Justice Pemberton, in summing-up, (I 
 state this to show what is the matter for you to 
 inquire into in this case,) does not tell the jury that 
 the point for them to consider is, whether the pri- 
 soner had conspired to raise insurrection and rebel- 
 
 APPENDIX VI. 
 
 267 
 
 lion against the person of the King, and, if they 
 found that, they must find the prisoner guilty ; but 
 he tells them this : — * Now the question before you 
 will be, whether upon this whole matter you do 
 believe, not that Lord Russell had raised insur- 
 rection and rebellion against the King, but whether 
 you do believe my Lord Russell had any design upon 
 the King's life, to destroy the King, or take away his 
 life.' That is the charge which my Lord Chief 
 Justice Pemberton gives to the jury who tried Lord 
 Russell, and no man ever complained that the trial of 
 Lord Russell was not sufficiently severe : that," he 
 says, " is the material part here ; it is used and given 
 you by the King's counsel as an evidence of this, that 
 he did conspire to raise an insurrection, and to cause 
 a rising of the people, to make, as it were, a rebellion 
 within the nation, and to surprise the King's guards, 
 which they say can have no other end but to seize and 
 destroy the King. 
 
 " So that Lord Chief Justice Pemberton puts it to 
 the jury, that though they believed these facts, yet 
 from these facts they were to collect whether the 
 prisoner had, or had not, a design upon the King's 
 life; for if he had not, they could not find him guilty. 
 If that had not been his opinion of the law upon this 
 subject he would not have put it to them to say 
 whether Lord Russell by this means meant to accom- 
 plish the King's death ; but would have put it, — do 
 you believe he conspired to raise an insurrection and 
 rebellion against the person of the King ? if you be- 
 
 N 2 
 
208 
 
 HIWOHICAL ESSAY. 
 
 APPENDIX VI. 
 
 :{ 
 
 269 
 
 lieve that, you believe enough. lie does not say that: 
 he says, they put this to you as an evidence thai he 
 meant to seize (jctid destroy tlie Kin// ; and he goes on to 
 sav, * it is a great evidence,' — but it is only an 
 evidence— (if my Lord Russell did design to seize 
 the King's guards, and make an insurrection in the 
 kingdom^) of a design to surprise tlie King's person. 
 It J7iust be left to you upon the whole matter. You Jiave 
 not evidence in tliis case as there was in the other 
 matter that was tried in the morning, or yesterday, 
 against the conspirators to kill tlie King at the 
 
 Uye."* 
 
 Such was the opinion of, if not the bnst, at least one 
 of the very best common lawyers of modern times, on 
 the law of tlie case of Lord Russell, delivered while 
 standing forward in defence of a prisoner, tried pre- 
 cisely on a similar indictment. May I be forgiven 
 by Lord John if I think this lawyer equal in know- 
 ledflre of the law even to Ijord John and Mr. Fox 
 tlii'iiiselves ? >Vo see, that in Lord Russell's case, 
 he cannot quarrel even with the verdict of the jury 
 as to the fact, still less witli the law as laid down 
 by the judges. One of tliose judges was Sir George 
 Treby, afterwards, in far purer times, Chief Justice 
 of the Conunon Pleaa ; a warm Whig, and strenuous 
 promoter of the Revolution. It fell to this Whig 
 judge (and so tar surely no enemy to Lord Russell,) 
 to pass the sentence on him, in which he told him 
 his qualitj' was great, but so was his crime. Need 
 
 - « Httdy's Trial, IT. p. M. 
 
 he hare said this to one of his own party had he 
 doubted the jusUce of the awful sentence he was 
 
 about to pronouce ? 
 
 Of the other judge, Sir Francis Pemberton, who 
 presided at the trial, we have mentioned the eulogy 
 by Sir Vicary, both here, and on the trial of Home 
 Tooke*, as a man for « wisdom, learning, and ability 
 
 not to be exceeded." 
 
 His charge to the jury «-as fairness itself; and 
 he particularly cautione<l then*, U»at liis case was 
 not the same as that of the men who had been tried 
 for the Rye House Plot, properly w called, lor con- 
 spiring to assassinate the King. 
 
 He confine^l the proof of the guilt, about which 
 they were to inquire, solely to the design of ins««- 
 rection ; and he confined that guilt solely to the 
 charge of comp««ing the King's death, 
 > Tlie whole supports the candid opinion ot llai- 
 1am, that upon his summing-up the jurj- might have 
 acquitted I-ord Rugsell. 
 
 Lord John, however, without adverting to any 
 part of this internal evidence of his fairness on the 
 trial, (the only evidence he could justly advert to on 
 the question,) thinks proper to transcribe some ««- 
 «r<«,«£ accusations of turpitude again.t S.r Francis, 
 to be found in an author, North, branded by many, 
 and particularly by Whigs, as of doubtful authority, 
 and full of slander. But, gr<^tirtg the fact, will that 
 
 It 
 
 \\ 
 
 V 3 
 
270 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 do away any particle of what has been said of his 
 fairness to Lord Russell ? 
 
 On the trial of Hardy, Mr. Erskine did not enter 
 so particularly as his colleague Mr. Gibbs into 
 Lord Russell's case ; but as his acknowledgments of 
 the law were precisely the same, we will succinctly 
 mark them in support of our opinion ; for they am- 
 ply prove his persuasion, that a conspiracy to rebel 
 may be evidence^ and therefore an overt act of legal 
 (not constructive) treason, though not the treason 
 itself. I request the reader, and particularly Lord 
 John, to mark the following passages, 
 
 *^ The act of conspiring to depose the King may, 
 indeed, be evidence, according to circumstances^ of an 
 intention to destroy his natural existence." 
 
 What more was done on Lord Russell's trial ? 
 
 " The compassing the King's death is the treason, 
 and not the overt acts, which are only laid as manifes- 
 tations of the traitorous intention, or, in other words, 
 as evidence competent to be left to a jury to prove it; 
 and no conspiracy to levy war against the King, nor 
 any conspiracy against his regal capacity, is a good 
 overt act of compassing, unless some force be exerted, 
 OR IN CONTEMPLATION, agaiust the King's person; 
 and that such force so exerted, or in contempla- 
 tion, is not substantively the treason of compassing, 
 but competent, in point of law, to establish it, if the jury, 
 by the verdict of guilty, draw that conclusion of facty 
 from the evidence of the overt act" 
 
 APPENDIX VI. 
 
 271 
 
 Here, again, we ask, what more Tvas done, or other 
 law held, on Lord Russell's trial ? 
 
 Again. '' Thfe charge of a conspiracy to depose 
 the King is therefore laid before you to establish that 
 intention; its competency to be laid before you for thnt 
 purpose is not disputed. I am not contendmg that, 
 under circumstances, a conspiracy to depose the 
 King, and to annihilate his regal capacity, may not be 
 strong and satisfactory evidence of the intention to de- 
 stroy his lifeJ* 
 
 In another place : " I do not mean to say that a 
 conspiracy to levy war may not in many instonces 
 be laid as an overt act of compassing the Kmg s 
 de^th, because the war may mediately or immediately 
 be pointed distinctly to his destruction or captivity; 
 and, as Lord Hale truly says, ' small is the distance 
 between the prisons and the graves of princes.' " 
 
 Thus, Mr. Erskine, as well as all the other lawyers 
 we have cited, allows that a design to levy war may 
 be an overt act of compassing the King's death, and 
 this overt act must be left to the jury to decide 
 upon. What more or less was practised m Lord 
 Russell's case? But Erskine must be wrong; for the 
 act of reversal says he was murdered, and Mr. Fox 
 says he was murdered,-and Lord John, and Mack- 
 intosh, and all Whigs say he was murdered by construe 
 tive treason, and Lord John says it is not easy for 
 a^y lawyer to match Mr. Fox on a point of law. 
 
 Probably, the passages that have been cited from 
 Mr. Erskine may be thought enough. But there 
 
 N 4 
 
272 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 are more, and, perhaps, more weighty ones ; because 
 they contain the doctrines of the greatest judges, 
 to which Mr, Erskine implicitly bows. The first, 
 Lord Coke's, who says expressly, that " a prepara- 
 tion to depose the King, and to take the King by 
 force and strong hand, until he has yielded to certain 
 demands, is a suflBcient overt act to prove the com- 
 passing of the King's death." " He does not say, as a 
 proposition oflaw^^ observes Mr. Erskine, " that he who 
 prepares to seize the King, compasseth his death ; 
 but that a preparation to seize him is a suflScient overt 
 act to prove the compassing; and he directly gives the 
 reason, — ' because of the strong tendency it has to 
 that end.' This latter sentence," continues Mr. Ers- 
 kine, "destroys all ambiguity. I agree, perfectly, 
 with Lord Coke, and I think every judge would so decide^ 
 upon the general principles of law and evidence^ without 
 any resort to his authority for itJ* 
 
 Mr. Fox, therefore, and Mr. Erskine, both of them 
 eminent Whigs, are here at issue upon a point 
 which it therefore becomes not us to decide. 
 
 The next judicial authority with Mr. Erskine, is 
 Lord Hale. " If men conspire to imprison the King 
 by force and a strong hand until he has yielded to 
 certain demands, and for that purpose gather com-- 
 pany^ or write letters*, that is an overt act to prove 
 the compassing the King's death, as it was held in 
 Lord Cobham's case by all the judges." 
 
 Now, if this was what our greB.t political jurists call 
 
 ♦ Lord Russell did both*^ 
 
 APPENDIX Vl. 
 
 273 
 
 judges' law, and not the law of the land, why (as we 
 have asked before) did not the legislature interfere 
 
 and correct it ? 
 
 Mr. Erskine goes on to quote Lord Holt; and 
 Lord Holt, as every body knows, was a firm Whig, 
 a learned lawyer, and an incorruptible judge. He 
 tried Sir John Friend, who took precisely the same 
 objection to his indictment as Lord Russell ; that it 
 was for conspiring to levy war, which was not treason, 
 though the actual levying it was. To this Holt answers, 
 '' For that, I must tell you that if there be only a 
 conspiracy to levy war, it is not treason.* But if 
 the design and conspiracy be either to kill the King, 
 or to depose or imprison him, or put any force or 
 restraint upon him, and the way of effecting these 
 purposes is by levying war, there the conspiracy and 
 consultation to levy tear for that purpose is high treason, 
 thmgh no war be levied; for such consultation and 
 conspiracy is an overt act of proving the compassing 
 
 the death of the King." 
 
 Mr. Erskine contented himself with this extract 
 from the clear charge of the Chief Justice ; and a 
 powerful one it is. I subjoin the rest of the charge, 
 because, if possible, it renders it still more powerful, 
 and the rather, because this, and the decision of the 
 same great, enlightened, and honest judge in Ashton's 
 case, are the last cases with which I shall trouble the 
 reader. 
 
 • He said this most properly, because there may be called in law a 
 levying of war which is nc»t treason, but a great riot or tumult agamst 
 the peace, as to pull down inclosures, &c. 
 
 N 5 
 
274 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 APPENDIX VI. 
 
 275 
 
 In Friend's case, Lord Holt goes on to say, " Now 
 that this should not be high treason if a war be not 
 actually levied, is a very strange doctrine, and the con^ 
 trary has always been held to be law:' What say the 
 statesmen lawyers to this ? ^' There may be a war 
 levied without any design upon the King's person, 
 which, if levied, will be treason ; but a bare designing 
 to levy war, without more, will not be treason. But 
 if there be, as I told you, a purpose and design to 
 destroy the King, and to depose him from his throne, 
 or to restrain him, or have any power over him, 
 which is proposed or designed to be effected by the 
 war that is to be levied, such a conspiracy and con- 
 sultation to levy war, for the bringing this to pass, is 
 an overt act of hiyh treason. So that, gentlemen, as 
 to that objection which he makes in point of law, it 
 is of no force if there be evidence sufficient to convince 
 you that he did conspire to levy war for such an end." 
 
 So much for Holt's opinion, and I ask if any lan- 
 guage can be more precise, (I had almost said so 
 precise,) to prove that to conspire to levy war, though 
 not treason, is yet an overt act of what is, viz. the 
 compassing the King's death, to be left to the jury 
 to decide. 
 
 This decision in Friend's case is no more than a 
 repetition of what the same judge ruled on the trial 
 ofAshton. There the prisoner took the same ob- 
 jection, that he had not done the act he contemplated, 
 and there the judge gave the same answer. 
 
 " Mr. Ashton, that you may not go away with a 
 mistake, any that designed the deposition of the King 
 
 ^d Queen, and the invasion of the ^^^f «f ' -^jfj 
 is proved by any overt act, is sufficient to prove that 
 ley compa's and imagine the death of the King and 
 
 "^ Mr" Ashton. « I presume it may be so : I belifeve 
 
 that may be the construction of the law. 
 
 ' SuZhen, were .he decisions of AU -r«.jud«e 
 
 i„.hich, »o, he ^^X^^ToilXZ-^L 
 
 Pollexfen, now become Chiel Justice oi ^^^ ^ . 
 S Is a reward for his services in the ReWution 
 and who had been the leading counsel for Lord 
 Russlll Nor is it least remarkable, that these two 
 ^uset of Friend and Ashton (who, if the legislatui^ 
 Tre right in calling the judgment on Lord Russel 
 rmurdi, were themselves murdered,) were the first 
 ^s of t eason that occurred under that very King 
 ::S that very legislature who stamped the character 
 
 of murder on the case of Russell. 
 
 What now becomes of the law authority bf 
 Mr Fox upon the case before us? What of his asser- 
 ion, that, L« ur^ the most c<mtraincdcomtn.ctton of 
 he s^tute of Edward IIL, Russell and Sydney had 
 comxStred no overt act indicating the imagining the 
 K^ death, and that the condemnation was . 
 mc^ flagrant violation of law and justice ? f Blown 
 Ta oms, unless Lord John persist in his own pro- 
 Itred opinions, that Mr. Fox is scarcely to be 
 Ta fed by'any lawyer; and not only pers.tx^^^ 
 
 •* That task will not be a slight one atter tne 
 S^ri hat r^ of Coke, Hale, HoU, Foster, 
 
 • State Trials, vi. p. 475. 
 
 •j- Tox, p. 51. 
 
 N 6 
 
276 
 
 HISTORICAL t:SSAV« 
 
 Eyre, who tried Hardy, and Erskine and Gibbs, who 
 defended him. I do not touch upon the arguments 
 of the crown lawyers who conducted that prose- 
 cution, because they were crown lawyers, and Lord 
 John would probably reject their authority on that 
 account, though now Secretary of State. But as he 
 is Secretary of State, and for the Home Department, 
 and must at least occasionally think it right to con- 
 sult them, I mean no disrespect to his abilities in sup- 
 posing that if, during his official power, designs to 
 force the Queen, or the government, by arms^ to mea- 
 sures they chose to resist, should break out (which 
 Godforefend!) he will candidly review, perhaps alter, 
 his opinion. 
 
 It perhaps may be a question, how the defenders 
 of Hardy came so fully to admit a doctrine which 
 seemed to press so hardly on their client ; and why 
 they did not, like Lord Russell and Friend, plead, 
 that he was tried, as Mr. Fox wrongfully said Rus- 
 sell v/as, upon constructive treason ? 
 
 It was because they knew better. The indictment 
 stared them in the face, as it might have done by 
 Lord Russell, to show that he was tried upon the 
 letter of the act, viz. for compassing the King's 
 death, and not upon a construction of its meaning. 
 They, therefore, were forced to admit the law, in 
 order the better to show how entirely the conspiracy 
 to levy war was left by all the judges in all the 
 cases, but eminently in Russell's case, as a mere overt 
 act for the jury, not the court, to decide. 
 
 The whole notion, therefore, of constructive trea- 
 
 APPENDIX VI. 
 
 277 
 
 son is fallacious. Neither in Lord Russell's, nor ill 
 any case, has it been even discussed as a matter of law. 
 How evidence may be construed, is another affair; 
 but that is matter for the jury; and if a judge there 
 interfere, and declare what is illegal evidence to be 
 legal, as was done in Sidney's case, the verdict will 
 be vitiated. But will any man say this was done on 
 the trial of Russell? Again, I refer to Sir Vicary 
 Gibbs's account of the fairness of the charge to the 
 jury ; and to Hallam, the admirer of Russell, who 
 tells Vou, that on that charge he might have been 
 
 acquitted. . a i. > 
 
 The same writer says upon it, that in Ashtons 
 case, just quoted. Holt had settled the point for 
 
 ever.* ... 
 
 One thing remains, without which this disquisition 
 might be deemed incomplete, the competency of the 
 witnesses against Lord Russell, in point of law. 
 
 I say competency, because, with their credibiliiy, 
 unless the law was strained in their favour, (as, for 
 example, if they stood convicted oi perjury or felony, 
 and yet were admitted,) we have little to do; that 
 question was exclusively for the jury, who determined 
 it. Nevertheless, a few observations may be allowed; 
 for if really Lord Russell was innocent, and if the 
 witnesses were perjured, known to be so, and su- 
 
 * Constitut. Hist., iii. p. 209. Yet Lord John says the charge 
 
 was unfavouralle to him, though not violent. If Lord John by un- 
 
 favourable, means that any thing was strained beyond truth and reason 
 
 4 convict him, we find him here contradicted. If xt was unfavour- 
 
 able, it was because upon the evidence it could not be otherwise. 
 
278 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 APPENDIX VI. 
 
 279 
 
 borned, his life was sacrificed, and himself, what (in 
 the spirit of party, not reason,) he is now always 
 called, a victim. 
 
 In order to this question, there is no need even to 
 inquire into the reality of the Rye House Plot ; 
 meaning by that, the plot to assassinate the King at 
 the Rye. Of this, the Chief Justice tells the jury, in 
 terms, that he was not even accused. Rum bold, 
 Walcot, and the rest, might, therefore, be perfectly 
 innocent, yet the case of Lord Russell be left where 
 it was. 
 
 I will not, therefore, go into the long examination 
 made by Mr. Fox, as to the share of Rumbold in the 
 plot; still less into his position, that a death-bed 
 protestation of innocence must be believed. In this, 
 we humbly think Mr. Fox as wrong as an observer 
 of mankind, as we have endeavoured to prove him so 
 as a lawyer. This is contradicted by the history of 
 man; and, in the case of an atheist, or one who 
 believes not a future state, (though we mean not to 
 accuse Rumbold of this,) there is not even a colour 
 for it. Nevertheless, although Rumbold might not 
 have actually embarked in all the wild plans detailed 
 by the witnesses, nor even joined personally in any 
 one of them, it is difficult to acquit him of being 
 cognizant of something of the sort, and of having 
 even named the place as convenient for the attempt, 
 although he may afterward have receded. How 
 else could the rest have been acquainted with it? 
 
 However, as even the existence of the assassina- 
 tion plot has nothing to do with Lord Russell, we 
 
 lay it aside, as well as the examination into its reality 
 by Lord John, as inter alios acta ; and confine our- 
 selves to the competency of the evidence against him 
 
 on the trial. . 
 
 The witnesses were three in number, — Howard, 
 Rumsey, and Shepherd. Against the last there does 
 not seem even the imputation of wilful falsehood; 
 and Hallam, who has critically searched the trial, 
 thinks all were unwilling witnesses, and might have 
 
 revealed more.* 
 
 But Howard had alleged solemnly, with hands 
 upraised, and eyes to Heaven, that, not only Lord 
 Russell could never have been concerned, but that 
 there was no plot at all. 
 
 Well : as was remarked by the court and counsel, 
 people, who are themselves guilty, do not generally 
 proclaim their guilt to the world ; and, if they have 
 associates, will do what they can to avert suspicion 
 from them. Howard himself says, no more than 
 naturally, that, not thinking he would be called upon 
 in court, he was " to outface the thing both for him- 
 self and his party." f 
 
 But to whom, and how, did he make his declara- 
 tions ? Not to Russell, not to Sidney, not to Mon- 
 mouth, not to any of the Council of Six, for they 
 would have laughed at him ; but certainly to many of 
 their friends, who, he saw, were alarmed for them. 
 Suppose he had done so before the privy council at 
 
 ^ This indeed clearly appears from the examination of Carst^irs ; 
 ^^ f Trial of Lord Russell. 
 
 W 
 
 i 
 
 it' 
 
280 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 APPENDIX VL 
 
 281 
 
 Jirsty with a view to save them and himself, if he 
 could; and then afterwards discovered what he 
 .knew ! Would this have destroyed his competency, 
 br even his credibility? Would it have been more 
 than natural in an accomplice, more than what Lord 
 Russell himself did on his trial, when, to save his 
 life, he disguised the truth ? Howard did no more. 
 
 But Howard was a man of bad repute. Lord John 
 builds much upon Lord Russell's aversion to him ; 
 and very much upon the King's having, in the pre- 
 sence of a messenger of Monmouth, who took him 
 some letters, shown anger at his keeping such com- 
 pany as Howard's, observing, " that he would not 
 hang the worst dog he ever had on his evidence." 
 
 TTiis is on the evidence of one Anthony Row, 
 (Monmouth's messenger,) taken before the Lords 
 afier the Revolution. Is it not remarkable, that 
 when pity and veneration for Lord Russell, and 
 indignation at his fate, were at the highest, just after 
 his fall, no one ever heard of this Mr. Row, or the 
 King's exclamation ? Are we at all acquainted with 
 the character of Row himself? And is it not wonder- 
 ful, with this notorious bad character of Howard, and 
 particularly Lord Russell's aversion to him, that he 
 or Monmouth should have allowed him to make one 
 of only six persons out of all the discontented in 
 England, who were conducting, or at least planning 
 an enterprise of such fearful magnitude, that the least 
 indiscretion, much more perfidy, would prove the 
 destruction of them all ? 
 
 With submission therefore,-though it is no more 
 than natural for Lord John to urge these circum- 
 stances against one of the chief witnesses adverse to 
 his ancestor,-his objection totters on the face of it 
 But -rant that Lord Howard is blackened from head 
 to foot, and that having confessed himself an accom- 
 plice, he disclosed the treason of another to save 
 himself, will this pr<^e that he swore falsely / Did his 
 being promised his life if he told what he knew 
 imply that he was obliged to tell what he did not? 
 Had tbe promise been contingent on the com,^d»o« 
 of Russell, the argument would have been sound. As 
 it was, it was properly answered by the court who 
 established his competency, leaving his credibility 
 to the jury, whose province it was. 
 But then he was an accomplice ! 
 Tliat, too, was properly answered. Who, particu- 
 larly in crimes of so secret a nature as the conspiring 
 treason, could ever be condemned if the testimony of 
 accomplices was not to be allowed. It was pointedly 
 observed, that then any man might conspire with 
 certain impunity, for if the conspiracy succeeded, of 
 course he would be safe, if not, he could scarcely be 
 
 convicted. , , 
 
 But far from being new, is it not every day s prac- 
 tice? How many yiUahis, how many "^"^der^^^'^Jf 
 only been brought to punishment through the evi- 
 dence of accomplices ? „v,«.,l^ 
 It is right, indeed, that collateral evidence should 
 be taken in support of die oath, But even the want 
 
 V 
 
 m 
 
 '■;'■ 
 
V V 
 
 282 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY, 
 
 APPENDIX VI. 
 
 283 
 
 of that will not disqualify. Was there no collateral 
 evidence in this unhappy case ? No meetings ? No 
 intercourse with Shaftsbury ? No sending to Scotland 
 for men of absolute confidence ? 
 
 Upon the whole, though Howard had been worse 
 than he was, he was legally producible ; and, all other 
 circumstances compared, the jury thought him cre- 
 dible. 
 
 All this reasoning applies in stronger force to 
 Rumsey, the other witness ; because before, and till 
 long after the trial, he had a fairer character. After- 
 wards, on the trial of Cornish, he swore things con- 
 tradictory to what he swore on the trial of Russell. 
 He was therefore perjured in one or the other. 
 Mackintosh, however, in his reasoning upon it, shows 
 that the perjury was against Cornish, not Russell. 
 " The scandal (of the latter trial)," says Sir James, 
 ** was so great, that the King was obliged in a few 
 days to make tardy reparation for the precipitate 
 injustice of his judges. Tlie mutilated limbs of 
 Cornish were restored to his relations ; and Rumsey 
 was confined for life to St Nicholas's Island, at Ply- 
 mouth."* 
 
 Tliis reasoning, also, is adopted by Lord John ; 
 and what does it amount to ? That Rumsey was 
 perjured on the trial of Cornish; and the proof of 
 it, that he was not perjured on the trial oi Russell. 
 
 With this we conclude a disquisition which has 
 been necessarily, (and, would we could not say, tedi- 
 
 • Hist, of Revolut., i. 200.J 
 
 ously,) long. We have ventured it, however, because 
 the amiable as well as honourable character of the 
 unfortunate but noble subject of it ;— his virtues, his 
 happiness in private, and his integrity in public life ; 
 —his probity, his firmness, his sincerity, atoning (if 
 any thing could atone,) for his bigotry ;— render him 
 no common person in the story of his times* Add to 
 this, his religious resignation, as well as philosophical 
 calmness, in his last moments ; the consideration of his 
 illustrious birth, and the high place from which he fell, 
 hazarding and losing it for the sake, as he supposed, 
 of his oppressed country ;— all this makes him, what I 
 have called him, one of the favourites of history. 
 It is this, rather than any brilliancy of parts, or even 
 sagacity of understanding, in which he seems to have 
 wanted sobriety, that endears his memory to pos- . 
 terity, and makes his errors forgotten. He has been 
 called, and thought, a great man. How is that term 
 *iisapplied by party bias ! Mr. Fox called the rash 
 and feeble, though generous and ill-used Argyle, 
 great! Lord Russell's greatness (for in this he was 
 really great) consisted in his refusing to preserve 
 his life (if he cmU have preserved it, which is very 
 doubtful,) at the expense of his principles. This, 
 *nd the intense interest of his trial, generated the 
 most important questions at the time, and have been 
 agiteted ever since with all the deepest feelings oS 
 party spirit, and all that excitement, which, carried 
 to excess, end, for the most part, in blind enthusiasm. 
 
 .1 
 
284 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 APPENDIX vr. 
 
 28& 
 
 This must be my apology, if, in endeavouring to 
 sift (not, I think, a difficult, but) a much misrepre- 
 sented case to the bottom, I have been anxious to 
 leave nothing untouched, which, from the talents or 
 learning, station or interests, of those who have ap- 
 plied themselves to it, seems entitled to considera- 
 tion. Hence, the impossibility of compression, and 
 the danger of prolixity. 
 
 Who may agree or disagree with me in the opinions 
 I have hazarded, it is not easy to foresee. All that 
 I would stipulate for is, the sincerity of my own 
 conviction of their soundness, after a conscientious, 
 laborious, and, I trust I may say, impartial investi- 
 gation of the whole matter. I say impartial, because 
 in surviving every person and every object that 
 could warp my judgment, I have long taken leave 
 of every thing like party spirit. The struggles of 
 the world are over, and history lias lost its principal 
 charm, because unable any longer to excite to action. 
 If I know myself, there is not a line of this inquiry 
 which is written in any spirit but that of truth. Had 
 I been the King I would have pardoned Lord Rus- 
 sell ; pardoned him without the conditions he him- 
 self proposed, — of living an exile from his country. 
 I would have trusted to his honour, to have over- 
 come his bigotry, and remain a good subject. Such 
 mercy would, indeed, have been twice blessed; 
 " blessed in him that gives, and him that takes." 
 JBut I do not on that account think that he was 
 
 either a hero or a martyr ; or that the law, either of 
 treason or of evidence, was strained a single pomt 
 to produce his conviction. 
 
 OF ALGERNON SIDNEY. 
 
 Of the trial of his fellow-sufferer, Sidney, very dif- 
 ferent must be the opinion. Every one who has a 
 regard for the laws, or believes there was a breach of 
 them in order to put even an enemy to death, must 
 believe it one of the foulest of murders. In legal guilt 
 they were equally plunged : in their moral intentions, 
 
 totally different. ,. rr- 
 
 Russell was loyal to his country, if not to his King ; 
 and to that country he always wished practical good, 
 which he would not hazard for the sake of a theory. 
 Sidney, more rugged, more determined and stern, and 
 less susceptible of " the soft arts of peace ;" with a 
 less stake also in the country, and, in fact, litUe 
 favoured by the good fortune which attended his col- 
 league,— was a hot, as well as visionary theorist. If 
 he therefore was really the patriotic Englishman he is 
 supposed by his admirers, and not a character sux 
 generis, formed by himself on models not of this or 
 that country, but after schemes of his own, we must 
 at least allow that his notions were not those ot by 
 far the greater number of his countrymen. He su^- 
 fered his theories to boil over, from what he no doubt 
 took for the perfection of patriotism, and which he 
 emulated, as it distinguished his prototypes (or those 
 
 '1 
 
V '. 
 
 286 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 APPENDIX VI. 
 
 287 
 
 m\ 
 
 he wished to think so) among the heroes of antiquity. 
 Burnet, and his biographers, say he formed himself 
 upon the model of Marcus Brutus ; but not only 
 Marcus Brutus was not calculated for our meridian, 
 and would certainly not have made a good English- 
 man, but we look in vain for the imitation of his 
 model during the hard and hateful tyranny ^of Crom- 
 well, who had little in common with the immolated 
 tyrant of Rome. Yet the boast of Sidney, or his 
 friends for him, was in the well known lines he com- 
 posed, after he had appeared among the judges upon 
 the trial of his Sovereign; and though he did not sign 
 the warrant for his execution, had boasted of it as the 
 " greatest and bravest action that ever was done in 
 England or any where else."* The lines are, 
 
 " Manus haec inimica tyrannis, 
 
 " Ense petit placidam sub libei*tate quietem." 
 
 When, however, our modern Brutus came to en- 
 counter the English Caesar, this hostile hand dead- 
 ened, and let fall the sword, which, as has been well 
 observed, " it was fated should never be brandished 
 but against his King and the laws of his country." 
 He lay retired, says the same authority, " during the 
 usurpation, amusing himself, while his country was 
 bleeding, with visions of commonwealths and liberty, 
 and the rights of the people, founded on Grecian and 
 Roman story." f 
 
 • Meadley, 85. 
 
 f See History of the Revolution of 1688, by George Moore esq., 
 one of the few authors who seem not afraid of speaking out in regard 
 
 The prejudice in favour of this canonized person 
 (canonized, we venture to say, more for the infamous 
 injustice practised upon him, than any well-deserving 
 of his own towards his country,) is so widely spread, 
 and has ever been so uninterrupted, that most wri- 
 ters seem afraid even to inquire into it. He perished 
 on the scaffold, to which he was doomed by a most 
 scandalous breach of law, to please a profligate Sove- 
 reign, by a still more profligate judge. But, if we 
 are not mistaken, this forms the chief ingredient of 
 his reputation, as a lover of England, though not, 
 perhaps, as a wild theorist in abstract notions of 
 liberty. Had no law been strained for his convic- 
 tion ; had Jeffries not presided on his trial ; had his 
 jury been fair, and the evidence legal, as there can 
 be no doubt as to the facts of the case,— what would 
 have been his merit? Like Lord Russell, with a 
 rashness and indiscretion, blamed by Fox and Lord 
 John Russell themselves, and amounting to even 
 wickedness in the opinion of Mackintosh*, he em- 
 barked in a plan of insurrection, in which, not only 
 success was impossible, but which was not justifiable 
 by the measures of the court, arbitrary as they were. 
 For even our most sanguine advocates for the rights 
 of rebellion, admit that they can or ought only to be 
 
 to the real character and life of this victim of oppression, and his own 
 turbulency, p. 412. Yet this author cannot justly be said to be pre- 
 judiced against the heroes of the Revolution, for the seven signers 
 whom Hallam only caUs eminent, he denominates divine. 
 
 * Vide supra, for the mischiefs and miseries entailed upon a country 
 by an ill-concerted or inadequate rebellion. 
 
 r^- 
 
 A-.I-1 
 
288 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 asserted when the mischiefs complained of are more 
 intolerable than the evil to be encountered, which, 
 here, Lord John (differing, however, as we have seen, 
 from Mr. Fox,) thinks was not the case.* 
 
 And strange if it had been ! for we see the most 
 deciding motive, with Russell at least, was his disap- 
 pointment in not being able to carry the exclusion 
 bill ; so that, because he could not remove a specu- 
 lative, and, at worst, a future evil, by depriving the 
 legal heir of the crown of his undoubted right, he 
 was prepared to involve his country in all the horrors 
 
 of civil war. 
 
 But fire and sword (only part of these horrors) 
 were nothing in comparison with the theories of the 
 theoretic Sidney. His immediate views in opposing 
 a mere arbitrary king were nothing in comparison 
 with the ultimate objects of his millennium, — the 
 restoration of his darling Commonwealth, ih which 
 not one of a hundred thousand of his countrymen 
 would have seconded him. Yet for this he is cano- 
 nized; and a late biographer and admirer suflFers 
 his partiality so to blind him, that, in adverting 
 to the act reversing his attainder, he says, it has 
 " rescued his memory from the imputation of all 
 legal and moral guilt." The one is clear : for the 
 other, we have looked through the act, and looked 
 in vain.t 
 
 * Supra. 
 
 f See tlie Memoirs of A. Sidney, by Mr. Meadley, a compilation of 
 research and interest. 
 
 
 !ii 
 
 APPENDIX VI. 
 
 289 
 
 How well he really loved his country in com- 
 parison with his theories, may be gathered from two 
 circumstances, not generally, or sufficiently, I think, 
 adverted to by those whose object is not party 
 victory, but historical truth. In Burnet we have 
 the following, apparently, unimportant, but really 
 (with a view to our subject) most momentous, be- 
 cause most characteristic, narration. 
 
 « Algernon Sidney, and some others of the Com-^ 
 moiiwealthj^SLYtyj came to De Witt, (during the first 
 Dutch war,) and pressed him to think of an invasion 
 of England and Scotland, and gave him great assur - 
 ances of a strong party ; and they were bringing 
 many officers to Holland to join in the undertaking. 
 They dealt, also, with some in Amsterdam, who were 
 particularly sharpened against the King, and were 
 for turning England again into a commonwealth. 
 
 « The matter was for some time in agitation at the 
 Hague ; but De Witt was against it, and got it to 
 be laid aside." Why ? Because, among other topics, 
 he said " there was no reason to think that, while the 
 Parliament was so firm to the King, any discontents 
 could be carried so far as to a general rising, which 
 these men undertook for. So he said, what would be 
 the effect of turning England into a commonwealth 
 but the ruin of Holland? Therefore all that he 
 would engage in was to weaken the trade of England, 
 and destroy their fleet, in which he succeeded the 
 following year beyond all expectation."* 
 
 * Burnet, i. p. 226. 
 VOL. II. ^ 
 
 U 
 
 I 
 
290 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 «* 
 
 m 
 
 m 
 
 This was all very wise, and very legitimate of De 
 Witt, as a Dutchman at war with England; but 
 what shall we say to the virtuous, patriotic, and dis- 
 interested Algernon, so ready to lay his head on 
 the block in the ffood old cause, the cause of his 
 country? What to his associates, equally virtuous 
 and patriotic with himself, for courting a man's 
 assistance to invade their native land, and even 
 listening to hun when he tells them, all he would 
 undertake would be to weaken her trade and destroy 
 
 her fleet ! 
 
 Take the continuation of the picture from the same 
 
 painter. 
 
 " The busy men in Scotland," proceeds Burnet, 
 « beino- encouraged from Rotterdam, went about the 
 eountrv." To do what? Join in a magnanimous re- 
 sistance of a cruel and unbearable oppression, which all 
 men felt ? Arm in defence of laws which had not then 
 been invaded? No. — Oppression, or any strong breach 
 of law, had not then occurred ; nor was there then 
 any general loud complaint against the restored 
 monarch. But no matter; these patriots thought 
 the country ouffht to be discontented as well as them- 
 selves, because they had a king, and not a common- 
 wealth; and they therefore, says the reverend historian, 
 " went about the country," {too quiescent^ it seems, for 
 them,) " to try j/'any men of weight would set them- 
 selves at the head of their designs for an insurrec- 
 
 tion. 
 
 » * 
 
 ♦ Burnet, i. p. 226. 
 
 «.. \^, 
 
 APPENDIX VI. 
 
 291 
 
 And this is virtue, this patriotism, this Algernon 
 Sidney, and the good old cause ! 
 
 Well, what was their success ? " The Earl of Cas- 
 silis and Lockhart were the two persons they resolved 
 to tryr The sense, then, of discontent, and of the 
 invasion of liberty, even in these two, was not clear, 
 or known; they were only to experiment upon it, 
 with a view to civil war. I think this, in such a state 
 of things, very blameable. Mr. Fox probably would 
 not. " We have seen that," observing of Russell and 
 Sidney, " that there was unquestionable reason to be- 
 lieve that they had often met and consulted, as well 
 for the purpose of ascertaining the means they ac 
 tually possessed, as for that of devising others, for 
 delivering their country from the dreadful servitude 
 into which it had fallen ;" He adds, « and thus far 
 their conduct appears clearly to have been lau- 
 dable."* 
 
 The " busy men in Scotland, therefore, who went 
 about the country to try to raise rebellion, no doubt 
 thought themselves justified in doing so, by these 
 principles of Mr. Fox, for they were only devising 
 other means^in addition to those they already possessed 
 for what they naturally called delivering their country. 
 Stran«*e that such patriotism shouldnot succeed, and 
 that revolt should not follow the held up finger of 
 Sidney. But Lord Cassilis had promised the King 
 to engage in no plots, and, like a gentleman, though, 
 
 * Fox, p. 50. 
 
 o 2 
 
 It 
 
292 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 APPENDIX VI. 
 
 293 
 
 I 
 
 if we may believe Echard*, unlike Sidney, kept his 
 word. " So he did not suffer them (the experimen- 
 ters) to come so far as to make him any propositions. 
 Lockhart did the same, and they seeing no other 
 person that had credit enough in the country to bring 
 the people about him, gave over all projects for that 
 year."f 
 
 Here is there not an exact picture of patriots run 
 mad, either from visionary theories of the rights of 
 man, or the vanity of supposing they know better 
 than others what is good for them ? What right had 
 these busy Scotchmen to run about the country 
 preaching rebellion, and trying who would listen to 
 them ? What right had Sidney, because he had 
 dreamed himself into the character of Marcus Brutus, 
 to press on the miseries of an invasion against his 
 country, with a view to alter a constitution with 
 which it was content ? Had De Witt hearkened to 
 him, all the blood that would have been shed would 
 have been upon his head, and millions might have 
 execrated a name, which, from the fortuitous circum- 
 stance of his own personal wrongs, — not his personal 
 merit, or benefactions to his country, is now so con- 
 secrated to fame. 
 
 The same extravagance as to his theory, accom- 
 panied by the same indifference to his country's safety, 
 
 • Upon receiving his pardon or safe conduct, whatever it was, to 
 return to England, Echard says he gave repeated promises of quiet 
 and obedience. — Echard 697, quoted in Gen. Die. 
 
 f Burnet, i. 227- 
 
 or his country's honour, is displayed in another 
 transaction, not generally noticed by those who are 
 disposed to talk of him with triumph. 
 
 It appears from a letter of BariUon preserved in 
 Dairy mple, that in 1680, (be it observed, some three 
 years after he had received security from the King to 
 remain in England unmolested, upon promise of 
 obedience,) Sidney urged the French King to aid the 
 establishment of a commonwealth; that is, to overturn 
 the government of England. For what reason, 
 excep't to serve his own theory, or his own interest, it 
 would be difficult to say. For at that time, though 
 the natural profligacy of Charles had shown itself, 
 Heaven knows, in abundant proofs, none but a man 
 maddened with the rage of a sect, could hold that re- 
 bellion, not merely against the person, but the office of 
 the King, had become justifiable. Even Fox, and 
 Mackintosh, one of whose great heroes Sidney was,— 
 even Price, the modern Hugh Peters, would scarcely 
 go so far as this. Yet such, it seems, was the opinion 
 of this great patriot; and mark for what patriotic 
 reasons, addressed, be it observed, to the government 
 
 of Louis XIV. 
 
 " It is the interest," he says, « of the French mo- 
 narch to forward the establishment of a republic in 
 
 England." 
 
 This, of itself, was iniquitous in the greatest de- 
 gree, whatever glosses may be put upon it by his 
 brother visionaries of modern times. For why mil- 
 lions of men, who wanted no such change, were to 
 
 o 3 
 
294 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 APPENDIX VI. 
 
 295 
 
 be exposed to the miseries of a civil war, because a 
 single, or a hundred philosophers of reform, — even 
 were they all Brutuses, thought fit to prefer a parti- 
 cular constitution, I think, of a rational creature I 
 need not ask. 
 
 But what are we to think of the arguments of this 
 Englishman^ by which he sought to influence a French 
 King to turn England into a republic ? " The mo- 
 narchy," he says, " might have the Prince of Orange 
 at its head^ and thereby connect England and Holland. 
 Further, such a monarch would consult the interests and 
 inclinations of his subjects^ and call forth their best 
 energies. England would rise the proud magnificent 
 rival of France. But let the French King give her 
 a republican form of government, and she will sink 
 into an insignificant commercial state, and French 
 ambition encounter no opposition." 
 
 On these terms, says the author from whom I make 
 this extract, was Sidney content to purchase his dar- 
 ling republic. Such was his regard for the inde- 
 pendence of his country.* 
 
 Now, if this account is true, if ever Sidney wrote 
 such a letter, who will not scoff at his patriotism, or 
 English feelings? Who not say, that, provided no 
 law had been broken to effect it, he deserved the 
 block, by which he perished ? All his great qualities 
 (and he had some very great ones) will not shield 
 him from the detestation of thinking men among his 
 countrymen. He deserved attainder a thousand 
 
 * Moore's History of the Revolution, p. 44. 
 
 times more than Strafford; and the infamy of 
 Charles II., in betraying his country to France, is 
 
 fully equalled.* 
 
 These measures, however, in regard to the inva- 
 sion of his country by foreign powers, have received 
 something, in shape at least, like apology. There 
 have been illustrious exiles, it is said, who have 
 sought to restore the liberties of a country, and 
 deliver it from oppression through the means of a 
 foreicrn force ; and the examples of Thrasybulus and 
 Conon have been vouched by Mr. Meadley ; to which 
 he might have added, in modern times, the inva- 
 sions of France by a very honourable body of men, 
 the emigrants, who certainly wished not to destroy, 
 but restore their country. He might, also, have 
 enlisted on his side the many invitations of the Jaco- 
 bites, in England and Scotland, to France, in the 
 eighteenth century. 
 
 None of these cases, we think, apply. 
 
 Thrasybulus delivered his country from the thirty 
 tyrants imposed upon it by ^foreign conquest, under 
 whose yoke it actually was ; and which yoke, not its 
 ancient constitution, it was his object to destroy- 
 Conon engaged a foreign (the Persian) force to 
 
 * Mr. Meadley makes no mention of this transaction. Perhaps 
 he knew not of it ; or, if he did, disbelieTed it; or thought, as he seems 
 to do of the money said to be taken from France, that it was a for- 
 eery of BariUon. If he knew or believed it, he never would have said 
 as he does in his preface, " His (Sidney's) conduct is held out to mge- 
 nuous youth as an example of pure and disinterested patriotism. - 
 Pref. p. 8. . . 
 
 o 4 
 
 P 
 
 V 
 
296 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 APPENDIX VI. 
 
 297 
 
 assist, not to destroy his country, which had been 
 already conquered in war by another state, from 
 which he attempted to release it. The emigrants 
 of France had never acknowledged the Revotution 
 which forced them to emigrate. They had never 
 put off their hostile character, and had a right 
 to make war themselves, and, of course, join the 
 standards of other hostile powers. 
 
 To assimilate these cases, we ought to suppose 
 that Charles had never been received by the uni- 
 versal consent of the nation ; that the constitution 
 had not been restored; and that England never had 
 been at peace. What is still more decisive; we are 
 to consider the reasons actually assigned for the con- 
 duct pursued by Sidney, which were not so much 
 founded on flagrant invasions of liberty, which he 
 wished to resist, preserving the constitution, as the 
 destruction of the constitution itself, because he 
 fancied another. Mr. Meadley, indeed, almost re- 
 duces the defence of this bad conduct to a sense of 
 private wrongs. Sidney had been persecuted at 
 home and abroad, and "in these circumstances,'' 
 says his apologist, " had recourse to the enemies of 
 his country, from whom alone he could expect 
 either favour or protection "* 
 
 Favour or protection he had a right to seek ; but 
 would that justify his urging an invasion of his coun- 
 try, with a view to overturn its laws? What was it 
 that stamped indelible disgrace upon Bolingbroke, 
 
 ♦ p. 142. 
 
 but his sacrifice of public duty to private feelings ? 
 " My attainder," said he, " tingled in every vein." 
 Hence, he became minister to a Prince, his country's 
 enemy, whom he would have otherwise abjured. 
 
 Mr. Meadley, however, seems to think private 
 wrongs will justify public treason. " The proceed- 
 ings of the court," he says, " had loosened every 
 moral tie." 
 
 S|Uppose it had ; would that have justified an attacTc 
 upon the lives and properties of the people? But 
 even these proceedings, bad as they were, had not 
 then (1665) assumed that character of tjTanny which, 
 in some minds, (those of Fox and Mackintosh,) would 
 have justified the insurrection projected by Sidney; 
 whose private wrongs at this time were the sole ex- 
 cuse for his conduct. 
 
 " In seeking to retrieve his ruined fortunes,^^ says 
 his biographer, " and to put an end to the oppression 
 (not of his country, but) of his friends and party, by 
 the means of a foreign invasion, he only followed the 
 examples which all ages, and all nations, have pre- 
 sented, amongst exiles of distinguished fame. And 
 though their prudence may be fairly questioned, 
 their patriotism cannot reasonably be impeached." * 
 
 According, therefore, to Mr. Meadley, to retrieve 
 a ruined fortune, will justify treason. Where are 
 these justifications to stop ? 
 
 As to the assertion respecting exiles, the fact may 
 be true, but not the conclusion. Mr. Meadley is 
 
 * Meadley, p. 142. 
 
 o5 
 
 M 
 
298 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 APPENDIX VI. 
 
 299 
 
 not to be told, that of all defences, the " defendit nii- 
 merus" is the least defensible. What code of morality 
 could stand ? What wickedness, somewhere or other, 
 not be justified, if example is to do it? 
 
 But, even, is the example relied upon so universal 
 as to be without brilliant exceptions ? As the imma- 
 culate Sidney was so fond of modelling himself on 
 antique specimens, would he not have done better to 
 have copied Themistocles than Coriolanus ? With 
 a thousand times more personal wrongs than the 
 English republican, (who, indeed, had not one,) the 
 Athenian chose to undergo voluntary death, rather 
 than bear arms against his country. Mr. Meadley, 
 as an historian, ought to have recollected this, as 
 well as the answer given by a man who knew no 
 theories, but of honour, to the rebel who pitied him 
 in the arms of death : — " II n'y a point de pitie pour 
 moi, qui meurs en homme de bien ; il faut avoir 
 pitie de vous, qui portez des armes contre votre 
 prince, votre patrie, et votre serment." 
 
 Mr. Meadley should have recollected this brilliant 
 trait before he ventured the excuse he does for his 
 hero ; but Sidney, though he might be a knight sans 
 peur, was, according to our view of him, not sans 
 reproche. He might be a Bourbon, but certainly 
 not a Bayard. 
 
 We come now to another branch of the enquiry 
 Into the real virtue and real love of country which 
 were supposed to illustrate this great idol; for it 
 would be impossible not to notice the severe incul- 
 
 pation attempted to be fixed upon him by some, and 
 the overstrained defence of him against it by others, 
 which form one of those problems in history which 
 it is difficult to solve. The reader anticipates the 
 charge of bribery by French money,— the consequence 
 of Dalrymple's publications of the various documents 
 he found in the Scots College at Paris. 
 
 I shall not, nor is it necessary I should, go mi- 
 nutely into this question, though of sufficient import- 
 ance, because few of those who are most convinced 
 of the actual receipt of the money from Barillon 
 profess to believe, that it was for any purpose incon- 
 sistent with what he thought his duty to his country, 
 according to the view he took of it. He might, indeed, 
 have taken it, with a view to thwart or distress the 
 King ; but that, with Mr. Fox, Sir James, and all 
 who hold that a right of war had accrued to his sub- 
 jects, would be heroic virtue, not meanness. 
 
 Mr. Meadley, of course, leans this way, when he 
 says, " if he received the money, it was doubtless for 
 some public purpose, as he is understood to have 
 made occasional disbursements among his own infe- 
 rior partizans. Even on this less probable view of 
 the subject, his character may be free from stain, 
 unless it be received as an indisputable maxim, that 
 in resisting the oppression of an arbitrary govern- 
 ment, it is immoral to accept of foreign aid." * 
 
 Now, it cannot be too often impressed, that it is 
 dangerous to be always flying to extreme principles 
 
 * Memoirs, p. 179. 
 
 o 6 
 
 9 
 
300 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 APPENDIX VI- 
 
 301 
 
 to justify doubtful acts. We here, again, see an in- 
 stance of it ; for unless, upon every act of oppression, 
 (I might almost say, every unpopular act,) rebellion 
 is to follow, this defence of accepting foreign aid, to 
 cause revolt at home, will not hold. The whole 
 reign of Charles was bad ; but, to justify revolt, it 
 ought to have been more than bad; it ought to 
 have been so intolerable, as to despair of remedy. 
 Mr. Meadley is bound to show that this was so in 
 1678, 1679, and 1680, when this money was given. 
 But though there had been much wrong, none of 
 the great acts of tyranny had then been committed. 
 The great oppressors (and bloody they were) were the 
 authors of the Popish Plot ; the great cause of misery, 
 that they could not carry the Exclusion Bill. Will 
 this justify Sidney in taking money to ereate rebel- 
 lion ? If he did so for that purpose, we have no 
 scruple to say, he ought to have lost his head long 
 before he did. 
 
 Be this as it may. Of the meanness of a mere bribe, 
 all must at least wish to acquit him ; for his faults 
 were chiefly those of pride, and a ruggedness of 
 temper, which partook of anything but a love of 
 money ; still less, of a proneness to sacrifice any prin- 
 ciple for the sake of it. Nevertheless, the simple 
 fact of the transaction is a matter of evidence, what- 
 ever its character; and this evidence, I know not 
 that we can rebut. There must at least be better 
 proof against it, than the mere opinion set up, of the ro- 
 guery of Barillon, without any support whatsoever, but 
 
 that he was a Frenchman, and might have kept the 
 money himself. This is all that is really offered for 
 it by Lord John Russell, Mr. Meadley, or others. 
 
 Mr. Meadley, holding a brief for Sidney, says, 
 and truly, that the credibility of a single witness 
 turns on the character and situation of the party. 
 He adds, strangely, that he does not dispute the 
 general authenticity of Barillon's statements; " but his 
 fidelity may be fairly questioned in a case where he 
 was doubly interested to deceive."* This double 
 interest is, that he might wish to enhance his im- 
 portance with his master, and rob him of his money. 
 
 Admirable opinion of mankind ! most correct moral 
 code ! Why, if this were true, no ambassador could ever 
 be employed, for he never could be believed; no servant 
 ever trusted, for he might always be tempted to steal. 
 It is no pleasure to think that Lord John Russell 
 has adopted this line of reasoning. He is a secretary 
 of state. What would he say to Mr. Meadley, if he 
 should attack him thus, — " You have had the dis- 
 posal of secret service money, and it may fairly be 
 inferred that you pocketed it yourself?" 
 
 The proof? That it is every body's interest to steal 
 when he can do so without discovery ; and you might 
 
 have done so. 
 
 Mr. Meadley would not say this ; but who is to 
 answer for another, if his principle is sound? 
 
 Where, indeed, evidence is obscure, or doubtful, or 
 parts of it are flatly contradictory to each other, cha- 
 
 ♦ Memoirs, p. 178. 
 
 I 
 
302 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 APPENDIX VI. 
 
 303 
 
 racter may fairly be resorted to. But here not only 
 the evidence is all on one side, positively and clearly 
 asserted by the ambassador of France, and not con- 
 tradicted ; but I see no reason, except what is drawn 
 from our national and very vulgar prejudices, why a 
 French nobleman is not to be beheved as well as an 
 English gentleman. Monsieur Barrillon asserts the 
 fact, and states it in his accounts to his sovereign, 
 who might easily have ascertained their falsehood, 
 if falsehood there was ; the parties receiving being all 
 alive. But Barillon does more. In the history of 
 this scheme of bribery, (if that is it's character,) he 
 tells you where he failed, as well as where he succeeded. 
 He failed with Lord Russell and Hollis ; he succeeded 
 with Sidney and Powle.* If he was dishonest, and 
 masked his dishonesty with a false account of Sidney, 
 why stop short, and be honest as to Russell ? The 
 character for honour was as unblemished in the one 
 as in the other, and both became equally incapable 
 of detecting him, for both were dead. 
 
 But the assertion that Barillon might have swindled 
 his master is supported by his being rich, and it is 
 particularly proved by a letter of Sevigne, in which 
 she says, " Barillon a fait ici un grand sejour : son 
 emploiestadmirablece^^^a/27za?. Ilmanquera cinquante 
 mille francs; mais il sait bien oii les prendre." 
 After his final return (from England) she says, in 
 
 * Speaker of the " spurious and motley," who called and believed 
 themselves the House of Commons, and . invited Kmg William to 
 assume the administration. Vide supra. 
 
 another letter, " Monsieur B. est riche." And why 
 not? Are there not honest as well as foul ways of 
 growing rich ? It is not even stated that he was not 
 always rich; or had grown so, suddenly and unac- 
 countably, so as to warrant surprise at it. These 
 letters however warrant Lord John to think they give 
 a strong colour " to suspicions that Barillon exhibited 
 false accounts and forged names to his master. For 
 his Lordship observes that from the first letter he 
 appears to have had a share in the subsidies granted to 
 
 Charles." 
 
 Now, without, in the first place, asking Lord John 
 whether he had ascertained what time was meant by 
 cette annee, we might request to know how this strong 
 assertion is proved by the premises, or by any thing 
 adduced by his Lordship more than the possibility of 
 it? Even fifty thousand francs do not make such a 
 sum as would create suspicion in an unprejudiced 
 person. « Nothing, however, was more easy," says 
 Lord John, " than for Barillon to tell his master 
 that he had influenced the Commons to refuse the 
 supplies, and to have put the supposed pensions into 
 his pocket, without fear of detection." Certainly no- 
 thing was more easy, if, according to this apparent 
 system of ethics, all men are to be taken fof rogues 
 until they prove themselves honest. But if the con- 
 trary apothegm has sometimes been taught us in our 
 courts and schools, how are these suspicions of Baril- 
 lon proved, and, emphatically, how are they so by the 
 letters? For it requires, with submission to Lord 
 
 I 
 
M 
 
 304 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY, 
 
 APPENDIX VI. 
 
 305 
 
 John, deeper arguments than he has used, to make 
 this out. In particular he has made one oversight, as 
 to the first letter, fatal to the whole proposition, 
 which it seems extraordinary that a person claiming 
 to unravel a doubtful point in history, should have 
 committed. For this first letter of Sevigne, on which, 
 without even offering a reason, he grounds the sus- 
 picion that Barillon shared in the subsidy to Charles, 
 is dated in 1672, whereas Barillon was not ambas- 
 sador, nor even in England, till 1677, and the lists of 
 the bribes themselves show them to have been given 
 in 1678, 1679, and 1680. Exclusive of this, the 
 system of pensioning had commenced under the pre- 
 ceding ambassadors. What, then, becomes of Lord 
 John's strong colour for his suspicions ? If we wanted 
 the most powerful proof of the force and fallacy of 
 party prejudice in an historian, we could not seize 
 upon one more illustrative of the point than in this 
 defence of Sidney at the expense of Barillon.* 
 
 Still, though the fact of Barillon's falsehood is by 
 no means proved, the real intentional corruption of 
 Sidney is equally without demonstration. That he 
 took the money is asserted, and the contrary at least 
 not clear; but as the motive alone of an action is 
 the deciding proof of its character, we must pause 
 before we convict him of wilful corruption. Did he 
 
 ♦ Life of Lord Russell, i. 190. The whole money said to be dis- 
 tributed anrounted to but 11,000 guineas in two years. Suppose 
 Barillon had pocketed the whole, it would scarcely have supported 
 Lord John's inference from the letters. 
 
 do any thing contrary to his conscience ; any thing 
 he would not otherwise have done, in consequence 
 of the money, supposing it given ? 
 
 We must agree, I think, with those who say no. 
 The difficulty is to know how, in his case, or in 
 that of other pensioners, if they did not sell their 
 votes, (that is, if their conduct would have been the 
 same with as without the money,) how and to what 
 purpose money could be employed ? 
 
 Had an insurrection been in question, and it had 
 been to purchase arms, the matter is intelligible. 
 But how, if their consciences were not sold, the 
 pensions were to benefit the payer of them, baffles 
 conjecture. Lord Bacon said he believed he had 
 sold justice, but not injustice. Was there any thing 
 like this among these pensioners ? But Sidney was 
 not even in parliament, and there is no trace at the 
 time of an intended revolt. Lord John says, no 
 man of common sense can believe that he took the 
 money for himself. 
 
 I know not why. For whom or for what did he 
 take it ? He had formerly owed great obligations 
 to France. Lewis is supposed to have contributed 
 to his support, when, from his own account, he was 
 a destitute wanderer, without knowing where to look 
 for existence.* He was still needy, made more so, 
 perhaps, by generosity ; for generosity he had. 
 
 Under these circumstances I see no ground for 
 Lord John's opinion. Certainly not in one of the 
 
 ♦ See his letters to his father in the Sidney papers. 
 
 I 
 
306 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 APPENDIX VI. 
 
 307 
 
 reasons he gives for it, that he killed a fine horse 
 rather than be forced to sell it to Lewis XIV., who 
 threatened to take it from him if he did not. This was 
 mere pride, and not disinterestedness. Pride of every 
 sort was his constitutional character. Old Whitelocke 
 refused to be joined with him in the embassy to 
 Copenhagen, because " he knew well the overruling 
 temper and height of Colonel Sidney ; he therefore 
 endeavoured to excuse himself on account of his old 
 age. * 
 
 That height and overrule must have been very 
 great indeed, that made Whitelocke refuse a lucra- 
 tive mission. 
 
 Upon the whole, I fear w^e must leave the question 
 of the money where we found it. It is clear that 
 Russell and Hollis refused it with scorn. It is not 
 clear that Sidney did so. How he reconciled it to 
 his conscience must for ever be unknown. 
 
 The ingratitude of Sidney to Charles the Second 
 has also been made a question. It is certain that 
 his character for integrity, (I do not mean honesty,) 
 would have shone out with greater lustre, had he 
 either never come home from his voluntary exile, or 
 had never plotted against the person whose pardon 
 he had accepted. 
 
 Lord John disputes the propriety of the word, and, 
 technically speaking, he may be right ; for I believe 
 there is no record of a pardon in form having passed 
 the seal. Nevertheless, his representation of tlie 
 
 * Whitelocke, p. 681. 
 
 case between Sidney and his King does not seem 
 strictly correct. " He was not/' says Lord John, 
 " excepted out of the act of indemnity, and had he 
 come over immediately afterwards, he could not have 
 been prosecuted or imprisoned without a breach of 
 law and justice."* 
 
 This is true. But he did not come over, for among 
 other reasons, both he and his friends for him were 
 afraid to trust the government to which he had made 
 himself wantonly and personally hateful. It was not 
 merely then, as has been said, that he despised all who 
 submitted. Without waiting a moment to ascertain 
 the real situation of his country, or make trial of the 
 restored monarch, with his usual violence, (mixed, as 
 we have observed, with not a little fear,) with a fury 
 against all forms of government, and all governors who 
 did not come up to his own notions (Whitelocke would 
 say, " his height and overruling temper,") he chose to 
 throw himself away under pretence that his country 
 was not good enough to receive him. He therefore 
 wrote a passionate letter to a friend, who advised his 
 return, which Meadley says would have done honour 
 to the noblest characters of Greece and Rome. 
 
 Without enquiring who are meant by these noblest 
 characters, most of whom, after the times came when 
 they were able to write their names, were a set of 
 self-interested ruffians, it is certain the letter breathes 
 a very exalted spirit, and were it not stained by a 
 violence both unexampled and unjustifiable, of 
 
 * Life of Lord Russell, i. p. 198. 
 
 II 
 
308 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 exaggerated prejudice, and not ^ ^ev^ personal feel- 
 ings, it would command our unqualified respect. As 
 it is, it is the most unmixed as well as the strongest 
 testimonial of that height of mind which belonged to 
 him, but which, having little real philosophy to temper 
 its rage, was the cause of much calamity both to 
 himself and his country. Indiscriminate abuse both 
 of the times and the actors in them, the consequence 
 of bitter disappointment, forms much of the character 
 of this patriotic letter. Such a worthless weather- 
 cock as Lambert, — sucli a zealot as Vane, — such a 
 miserable enthusiast as liaselrigg, are heroes with 
 him, whom but for tlicir rage in common with him 
 against kings he must have utterly despised. The 
 military activity of I^ambert might have commande<l 
 some attention from him ; but of all men, from his 
 own decided cast of thought, he must have laughed 
 at the crackbrained enthusiasm of Vane, and spurned 
 at the despicable capacity of Hasdrigg. Yet of these 
 men he says, " Where they cannot live in safety, I 
 cannot live at all ; though they may be the first, as 
 lev^ more eminent than I, I mu^it follow their exam- 
 ple in suffering, as I have been their comjxmion in 
 acting." • 
 
 In another part, evidently stung with the restora- 
 tion of llie King, whom, and his ministers, he at least 
 prematurely/ abuses, he bursts out with this invective : 
 ♦* Perhaps they may find the Kw4f$ glory is their 
 shame; Aiit plenty, the people's misery ; and that the 
 
 ♦ Ldtvr without date or stipcrKrlptlon, quoted in ^Us/Sl^jf p. SI . 
 
 APPENDIX VI. 
 
 009 
 
 gaining of an office or a little money, is a poor reward 
 for destroying a nation, which, if it were preserved in 
 liberty and virtue, would be truly the most glorious 
 in the world.* 
 
 Well, this is true, and equally so that its virtue 
 and liberty were afterwards little consulted. But^ 
 exclusive that its liberty was fully as much trenched 
 upon by the Popish Plot parliament, with Russell 
 at its head, as by the King, what right or reason had 
 Sidney, except what was drawn from his own sour- 
 ness and inveterate prejudices, tliai to calumniate the 
 King and his ministe«? "The liouomV'he says, "of 
 English parliaments has ever been in making the 
 nation glorious and liappy, not in selling and destroy- 
 in*' the interest of it to satisfy the lust of one man. 
 Misonible nation ! that from so great a height of 
 glory (we suppcxse he means the glory of the Kump) 
 is fellen into the ino«l despicable condition in the 
 world, of having all its good depending upon the 
 breath and will of tlie vik^ persons in itj cheated and 
 sold by them they trustc<l. Inflimous tarffick ! equal 
 almost in guilt to that of Judas."f 
 
 This eloquent heat is, I suppose, what Mr. Meadley 
 thinks renders Sidney equal to tlie heroes of Greece 
 and Home. In excitement it may be so, but if we calmly 
 look at the names of the majoritj' of the counsellors 
 of Charles, whom he thus designates as the vilest 
 persons in the nation, and find among them those 
 of Clarendon, Southampton, Ormond, Holies, and 
 
 ♦ McadkY, p. 80. f Id. p. 80, 
 
310 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 APPENDIX VI. 
 
 311 
 
 Delamere : if we do not altogether disagree, we may 
 come to the conclusion that his judgment was perverted 
 by his passion, which indeed seems to have been the 
 prominent part of his character through life. 
 
 By cheating, and selling, and infamous traffick, 
 however, he probably alludes to Monk and the 
 other contributors to the Restoration, who had 
 repented of the confusion and overthrow of the laws 
 which they had occasioned. Yet to Monk's interest 
 to make his peace and promote him, his father 
 at least did not disdain to apply. Whether he 
 would have refused to profit by it, if employed, was 
 never ascertained, for it was refused on account of 
 his personal violence and voluntary revilings of the 
 King. Hence, probably, in lamenting the fate of 
 Vane and Haselrigg, he was not at all unmindful of 
 his own. Lord John says, however, that he could 
 have returned with safety. The question is what he 
 thought of it himself? I am not therefore one of those 
 (Hume among them) who say that he chose volun- 
 tary banishment rather than submit to a government 
 and family which he abhorred. These words are true, 
 but they would have been more true had the word 
 fear been added to them. This is so far of conse- 
 quence as it tends to the elucidation of the only 
 object we have in view, the real character and motives 
 to action of this, in many things admirable, but, in 
 English history, we think too much admired, person. 
 Fear, then, or rather apprehension of severe prosecu- 
 tion, (for I do not mean want of personal courage,) 
 
 had as much effect as rage and contempt in making 
 him renounce his country. So far, therefore, his 
 conduct was not altogether heroic. But if violence, if 
 abuse, extreme anger against all governors except 
 those after his own fancy, if to call his restored 
 King a bandit, though it subjected him to ruin, can 
 prove him a hero, or that he possessed either super- 
 eminent sense, or supereminent virtue, he certainly 
 deserves the rank which Mr. Meadley would assign 
 
 him. 
 
 Those, however, who think that more calm con- 
 victions, as well as more sober conduct, would have 
 raised him higher in our estimation, will not quit 
 their opinions, from the mere circumstance that he 
 w^as illegally put to death for acting up to these 
 his exaggerated principles. 
 
 Lord John quarrels with Hume for accusing him 
 of ingratitude and breach of faith, in applying for a 
 pardon, and immediately after entering into plots 
 against the government. From this, it should seem, 
 Lord John thinks he owed nothing to the King, for 
 he says he might have returned to England without 
 a passport. 
 
 Yet, in the same breath, he says, such was the 
 state of the law, so little was it a protection, that 
 he could not rely upon it without the additional 
 favour of the court.* This favour he obtained, and, 
 as Echard (before quoted) remarks, upon promise 
 of obedience and abstaining from plots. He there- 
 
 * Life of Russell, i. p. 199. 
 
312 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 APPENDIX VI. 
 
 313 
 
 fore stands confessedly convicted of ingratitude and 
 breach of faith, and Hume is vindicated. 
 
 But, far more than this, was nothing to be guarded 
 against but the uncertainties of the law? Were 
 there not certainties still more fearful ? The illus- 
 trious exile, during his self-banishment from disgust, 
 had been a little more than disgusted. He had 
 been guilty of high treason in adhering to the King's 
 enemies during the Dutch war. This he did when 
 he joined De Witt, as above related, counselled him 
 to invade the kingdom, and promised him the sup- 
 port of a band of rebels like himself. And for what 
 were these people rebels ? For the interests of their 
 country, or because of oppression? No. Oppres- 
 sion (in 1665) had then but little shown itself. 
 It was their own interests, their own revenge, that 
 prompted them. Ludlow had lost his command; 
 Sidney his embassy; both their power. The re- 
 vered old constitution was hateful to them; they 
 wished again for the moderation, equity, and appoint- 
 ments of the Long Parliament ; and for this, to which 
 their theories of government exquisitely conduced, 
 they were ready to have drenched their country in 
 blood. Had Sidney never been heard of afterwards ; 
 had he never perished unjustly on the scaffold, (un- 
 justly, not because he was innocent, but because the 
 law had been perverted to destroy him,) where would 
 have been his fame ? 
 
 But to return to his new treason with De Witt. 
 There can be little doubt that it must have been 
 
 known to the government, for Burnet, we see, relates 
 it. That he was conscious himself, not only of the 
 fact, but of its consequences in law, can be still less 
 disputed. Was it nothing, then, to obtain an amnesty 
 from the King, not only in regard to all his treasons 
 against his father, (from which, notwithstanding the 
 act of indemnity. Lord John owns he had but little 
 protection,) but also those more glaring, more indis- 
 putable, and more recent ones, which he had 
 practised against Charles himself? Lord John really 
 seems spell-bound by his party ; he would not other- 
 wise hazard so many inconsistencies and errors in 
 reasoning in defence of a man who might really have 
 been the great person he has been thought, but that 
 he was for ever turbulent, for ever moody, and never 
 to be wrought upon, by either favour or benefits, if 
 thwarted in bringing his dangerous theories into 
 practice. In these theories rhapsody presided, quite 
 as often as reason.* 
 
 This attachment to his speculations, and im- 
 patience of opposition to them, are not ill described 
 by Burnet himself. " He was," says the Bishop, 'i ^ 
 
 * What are we to say to his positions, that, by the law of God, a 
 master has power of life and death over his servant ; that the King is 
 not King till he is crowned ; that that which is not just, is not law, 
 and ought not to be obeyed; meaning though enacted. (This, how- 
 ever, was preached in the senate by Mr. Fox, when he reduced obe- 
 dience to mere prudence.) Lastly, that the right of dissolving parliament 
 is not simply in the King. The use intended to be made of the first 
 proposition is evident, because kings of course are servants, and the 
 people masters, who may of course kill their kings whenever they please, 
 
 VOL. IL V 
 
/ 
 
 314 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 APPENDIX VI. 
 
 315 
 
 »' 
 
 Steady man, even to obstinacy ; sincere, but of a 
 rough and boisterous temper, that could not bear 
 contradiction. He was stiff to all republican prin- 
 ciples ; and such an enemy to every thing that looked 
 like monarchy^ (was he the more praiseworthy for 
 this ?) that he set himself in high opposition against 
 Cromwell when he was Protector." 
 
 Of this last assertion I have not been able to find 
 the proof, though Hume repeats it ; and it should 
 appear, that, if not awed by the superiority of Crom- 
 well, who would have made him feel the weight of 
 his arm had he stirred, he at least thought it as well 
 to remain safely in the retreats of Penshurst, though 
 not quiet even there. For his elder brother. Lord 
 Lisle, complains indignantly of the disturbance, even 
 in mere house arrangements, which was given him 
 by a younger son. The account is characteristic, and 
 little creditable either to his temper, his moderation 
 or his modesty ; though very much in unison with 
 the real spirit of republicanism, which is invariably 
 so far ambitious as never to be content with a second 
 place. The trait appears trifling, " sed hae nuga? 
 seria ducent in mala." His after-life partook of the 
 colouring of this trifling trait.* 
 
 * " In earnest", says Lord Lisle, (who himself seems a little of the 
 same breed,) writing to his father, " I think, laying all other matter.* 
 aside, this which hath happened most eminently on this occasion, is 
 very extraordinary ; that the younger son should so domineer in the 
 house, that not only in regard to this matter which I have spoken of, 
 but at all times, lam uncertain whether lean have the liberty to look into 
 it or no. For it seems that it is not his chamber, but the great room 
 
 That he sometimes was not a more dutiful son 
 than a complaisant brother, is, I fear, too certain ; at 
 least whoever reads the pathetic letter of his father to 
 him, of August 1660, may not uncharitably form that 
 conclusion. Lord Leicester begins thus : — 
 
 " To the Honourable Aulgernon Sidney. ' 
 
 " Disuse of writing hath made it uneasy to me ,* 
 age makes it hard ; and the weakness of sight and 
 hand makes it almost impossible. 
 
 " This may excuse me to every body, and particu- 
 larly to you, who have not invited me much unto it ; 
 but rather have given me cause to think that you 
 were willing to save me the labour of writing, and 
 yourself the trouble of reading my letters, 
 
 " For after you had left me sick, solitary, and sad 
 at Penshurst, and that you had resolved to under- 
 take the employment wherein you have lately been*, 
 you neither came to give a farewell^ nor did so much 
 as send one to me, but only writ a wrangling letter 
 or two about money. ^ • 
 
 " And now I am again upon the point of retiring 
 to my poor habitation ; having for myself no other 
 design than to pass the small remainder of my days 
 
 of the house, and perhaps the whole, he commands ; and on this occa- 
 sion I may most properly say it, that his extremest vanity and want of 
 judgment are so known, that there will be some wonder at it.'* (Letter 
 preserved at Penshurst, and published by Mr. Meadley. Memoirs^ 
 
 p. 316.) 
 
 * Ambassador to the northern powers. 
 
 p 2 
 
 I 
 
 f 
 
316 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 APPENDIX VL 
 
 317 
 
 innocently and quietly; and, if it pleases God, to be 
 gathered in peace to my fathers. 
 
 "And concerning you, what to resolve in myself, or 
 what to advise you, truly I know not ; for you must 
 give me leave to remember, of how little weight my 
 opinions and counsels have been with you, and how 
 unkindly and unfriendly you have rejected those 
 exhortations and admonitions which, in much affec- 
 tion and kindness, I have given you upon many 
 occasions, and in almost every thing, from the highest 
 to the lowest, that hath concerned you ; and this you 
 may think sufficient to discourage me from putting 
 my advices into the like danger. 
 
 « Yet somewhat 1 will say ; and first, I think it 
 unfit, and perhaps as yet unsafe, for you to come into 
 England ; for I believe Powell hath told you, that he 
 heard, when he was here, that you were likely to be 
 excepted out of the general act of pardon and oblivion ; 
 and though I know not what you have done or said 
 here or there, yet I have several ways heard, that 
 there is an ill opinion of you, as of any, even of those 
 that condemned the late King. 
 
 « And when I thought there was no other exception 
 to you, than your being of the other party, I spoke 
 to the General* in your behalf, who told me that very 
 ill offices had been done you ; but he would assist 
 you as much as justly he could. 
 
 «« And 1 intended then also to speak to somebody 
 
 ♦ Monk. 
 
 else ; you may guess whom I mean ; but, since that, 
 I have heard such things of you, that in the doubt- 
 fulness only of their being true, no man will open his 
 
 mouth for you. 
 
 " I will tell you some passages, and you shall do 
 
 well to clear yourself of them. 
 
 " It is said that the University of Copenhagen 
 brought their Album unto you to write something 
 therein; and that you did scribere in Albo these 
 words, 
 
 <* Manus liaec inimica tyrannis, 
 
 <* Ense petit placidam sub libertate quietem ;" 
 
 and put your name to it. 
 
 " This cannot but be publicly known if it be true. 
 
 " It is also said, that a minister, who hath married 
 a Lady Lawrence here at Chelsea, but now dwelling 
 at Copenhagen, being there in company with you, 
 said ' I think you were none of the late King's 
 judges, nor guilty of his death;' meaning our King. 
 ' Guilty !' said you, ^ Do you call that guilt ? 
 Why, it was the justest and bravest action that ever 
 was done in England, or any where else ;" with other 
 words to the same effect. 
 
 « It is said also, that you having heard of a design to 
 seize upon you, or to cause you to be taken prisoner, 
 you took notice of it to the King of Denmark hin> 
 self, and said, ' I hear there is a design to seize upon 
 me ; but who is it hath that design ? 
 
 " Est ce notre bandit ?" 
 
 by which you are understood to mean the King. 
 
 p 3 
 
 i 
 
 Mil 
 
 m 
 
318 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 APPENDIX VI. 
 
 319 
 
 Besides this, it is reported that you have been 
 heard to say many scornful and contemptuous things 
 of the King s person and family, which, unless you 
 can justify yourself, will hardly be forgiven or for- 
 gotten ; for such personal offences make deeper im- 
 pressions than public actions, either of war or 
 treaty."* 
 
 Is not this as plain sense, as touching complaint 
 andadmomtion? The lesson it gave was forcible, in 
 this, that rage and personal abuse against our supe- 
 riors are by no means necessarily what they may be 
 taken for, — courage and patriotic virtue. That it 
 should have an effect upon him, particularly in his 
 exile, when he fell into want, cannot surprise us- 
 and several of his letters indicate much compunction 
 at being shaken from his father's esteem and affec- 
 tion. They do more; they show so much that is 
 amiable every way, that when we think of the wreck 
 ot It, occasioned by his prejudices and self-delusions, 
 we only the more feelingly exclaim,— 
 
 " Oh ! what a noble mind was there o'ertlirown." 
 
 Mr. Meadley seems to think these anxieties to be 
 restored to his father's good opinion meritorious. Is 
 It, then, meritorious to neglect a father in his age- 
 and when reproached by him for it, not to be indif^ 
 terent? Alas ! what does it prove more than that his 
 feelings were not altogether hardened, nor absolutely 
 destroyed, by his principles? Even while submitting 
 
 * Meadley, Appendix vi. 
 
 to his parent, he breaks out into something like 
 reproach and sauciness, and certainly a high pre- 
 sumption of superiority in himself. " If," says he, 
 " there be no reason for allowing me any assistance 
 out of the family, as long as there is a possibility for 
 me to live without it, I have discharged you. If 
 those helps are only to be given to those that have 
 neither spirit nor industry in anything to help them- 
 selves, I deserve none. Or^ if supplies are only the 
 rewards of importunity^ or given to avoid the trouble of 
 being solicited^ I think I shall for ever free you for that 
 
 reason. 
 
 5> 
 
 This is at least disrespectful, if not insolent lan- 
 guage, and more like a self-sufficient grumbling boy, 
 endeavouring to bully his parent, than the dutiful 
 representation of a son of such a father, A son, too, 
 at full maturity, and who had represented his coun- 
 try to a foreign state. But when we think, that 
 his father was the writer of such a letter as is set 
 forth above, who but must wonder, as well as lament, 
 that the writer of this claims to be one of the idols 
 of England? 
 
 His family friendships do not seem to have im- 
 proved as he lived on. We have seen how he 
 encountered the resentment of his eldest brother for 
 insolence in endeavouring to take the command of 
 their father's house, to his exclusion. When he re- 
 turned to England by favour of the court, he twice 
 endeavoured to get into parliament, in order to 
 oppose it; but was twice foiled; the last time by 
 
 p 4 
 
 \ ! 
 
 I 
 
 
320 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 APPENDIX VI, 
 
 821 
 
 his other brother Henry, who obtained the seat. 
 Thus, whether in the capacity of son or brother, he 
 does not seem to have been too much esteemed, 
 though, as we have often seen, this does not at all in- 
 terfere with the most violent patriotism. 
 
 The displeasure against him, conceived by his 
 venerable father in the letter that has been detailed 
 of 1660, continued nearly the whole of the rest of 
 his life; yet the letter seems to be written in no 
 spirit of party, on account of his son's former con- 
 duct during the civil war. In that war, though, in 
 the beginning of it. Lord Leicester had been ap- 
 pointed Lord Lieutenant of Ireland by the King, 
 he was soon displaced ; took no part, but made his 
 peace with the parliament, and quarrelled not with 
 his son for siding so zealously with them. But the 
 obstinate fierceness of his personal rage, as reported 
 to him from Copenhagen, and the violent (may we 
 not say the brutal) opprobrium of the language 
 imputed to him in regard to the restored monarch, 
 whom he called "notre bandit," justly provoked his 
 parent's anger, as it must have done that of every 
 body else, not corrupted to the core with the inso- 
 lence of democratical vanity. Do I in this expres- 
 sion undervalue the rights of the people? No; the 
 real people are always honest, always estimable ; nay, 
 they are what I have never denied them to be, — the 
 real fountain of power. But demagogues, though 
 their leaders, or rather their drivers, (for such is the 
 more literal meaning of the word,) are not the 
 
 people. It is they, because they have not either the 
 Immility or modesty of wisdom, who are insolent,^ 
 pretending, and usurping. Such were the tribunes, 
 the Dentati, the Saturnini of Rome. 
 
 That Sidney resembled these in every part of his 
 character it would be gross injustice, as well as 
 ignorance, to insinuate; but from the sketch that 
 has been given, there are traits of likeness, which, 
 through all the halo of splendour with which his 
 death surrounded him, are not undiscoverable. Had 
 it not been for that death, or rather the manner of 
 it, — had it not been for the violent straining of the 
 law, which converted a merited punishment into an 
 infamous murder, and gave him ample opportunities 
 of displaying the noble energies of his mind, — he 
 would have been little different from other con- 
 spirators. But his injuries were too glaring, the 
 determination to destroy him too plain, and the 
 instruments of the wickedness too revolting, not to 
 make every man in the nation take part in his case 
 as if it had been his own. On the other hand, his 
 gallant defence, his unbroken spirit, his contempt 
 for the arts practised against him, his coUectedness, 
 soundness, and clearness in argument, although cer- 
 tain of death, elevated him beyond himself, and he 
 became no longer a mere enthusiast, but a real 
 hero. In this he was different from Russell, who 
 only inspired his hearers with pity : Sidney his with 
 awe. All this clothed, and still clothes him with a 
 veneration which his life would never have inspired ; 
 
 p 5 
 
^ 
 
 322 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 APPENDIX VII. 
 
 323 
 
 1811 
 
 for it was in his death, not his life, that he was a 
 
 hero. 
 
 It follows, that, in our opinion, had he escaped, or 
 been pardoned, and remained, if he could have re- 
 mained, in quietness, without plotting to force his 
 opinions upon others, or destroy a government he 
 was bound to obey, because he preferred another 
 form more suitable to his theories, he probably would 
 have descended to posterity as, what he appears to 
 have been, a discontented, turbulent theorist ; the 
 victim of disappointed ambition ; the disturber, not the 
 benefactor of his country! 
 
 No. VII. 
 
 THE OXFORD DECREE. 
 
 « Ecce iterum Crispinus," I am afraid the reader 
 will exclaim, on seeing an additional article to this 
 Appendix. 
 
 Nor would the subject of it, however curious as a 
 part of the history of the times, challenge any parti- 
 cular investigation, but for the unfairness with which 
 I think it has been treated by Mr. Fox. 
 
 All that is noticed by him becomes of suflBcient 
 importance, particularly in history, to be noticed by 
 others, whether they agree or disagree with him. 
 
 In this instance, as well as in many others, where 
 
 popular doctrines are concerned, we venture to dis- 
 agree with him. 
 
 That he should condemn, and even ridicule (or 
 endeavour to do it) with bitterness, a decree condemn- 
 ing his most favourite tenets upon public and consti- 
 tutional questions, is not surprising ; no more than 
 .that he should pour out the vials of his wrath, with 
 even unusual asperity, against men who presumed to 
 express indignation at revolutionary doctrines, although 
 many of them went far, as they thought, and we think, 
 to sap the foundations, not only of the English, but of 
 all government. 
 
 Now, we are not going to defend the wisdom of 
 issuing this decree, although it was promulged at a 
 time when the headlong violence of a great party in 
 the nation (certainly not without provocation from 
 the wickedness and corruption of the court) threatened 
 more than what justice required, or books could 
 prove, — a right to attempt the destruction of the 
 monarch, and, possibly, of the monarchy itself. 
 
 All this was to be effected also by the means of 
 civil war, and, as we shall see, from the doctrines 
 condemned, of authorised murder. 
 
 Still, perhaps it would have been better to have 
 answered the propositions they condemned, (and the 
 majority of them, we think, admit of the fullest 
 answer,) than to attempt their confutation by a dis- 
 play of violence, and a high tone of authority, which, 
 when confined to mere forms and denunciatory lan- 
 guage, lose their effect in their impotency. 
 
 p 6 
 
 
 t 
 
h 
 
 324 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 But besides this, the adulatory style of the decree, 
 which calls such a profligate as Charles 11. the breath 
 of their nostrils, is calculated to fill even Tories (at 
 least those of the present more enlightened days) 
 with disgust and aversion. 
 
 On the other hand, we are not to forget that this 
 was no uncommon or exaggerated tone at the time 
 among those with whom old custom, and an extreme 
 deference for royalty, still continued to operate in all 
 forms of speech. This I do not mean to defend, but 
 only to account for it ; and merely point out that in 
 those days to use the most inflated language of flat- 
 tery, whether to prince or subject, was perfectly con- 
 sistent with the most conscientious as well as most 
 rational modes of thinking. 
 
 Who can read Dryden's dedications without in- 
 dignation ? 
 
 On the other hand, therefore, we say, that we ought 
 not to be so wrought upon by mere vehemence of 
 abuse, as, without inquiry, to agree in the justice of 
 this general attack of Mr. Fox on the Oxford decree. 
 
 We desire to discriminate between the good and 
 the bad, and protest against involving all the propo- 
 sitions it contains in one universal sweeping execra- 
 tion. 
 
 Mr. Fox, or Sir James, or other champions for 
 popular pretensions, would, in the usual popular 
 phraseology, say, that where all are bad, it would be 
 useless to discriminate. But is it so with the de- 
 cree. Let us inquire. 
 
 APPENDIX VII. 
 
 325 
 
 Of twenty-seven propositions of which the decree 
 consists, and which, with the books containing them, 
 are condemned to be burnt (ridiculously according to 
 our present sober maxims, but customary in those 
 days,)* only three are mentioned by Mr. Fox; and 
 their condemnation naturally draws forth all his ire, 
 seemingly against the whole. They condemned, he 
 says, " every principle upon which the constitution of 
 this, or any other free country can maintain itself." 
 
 " Nor was this learned body satisfied with stigma- 
 tizing such principles as contrary to the Holy Scrip- 
 tures, to the decrees of councils, to the writings of the 
 fathers, to the faith and profession of the primitive 
 church, as destructive of the kingly government, the 
 safety of his Majesty's person, the public peace, the 
 laws of nature, and bounds of human society ; but — 
 after enumerating the several obnoxious propositions, 
 among which was one the declaring all civil authority 
 to be derived from the people ; another asserting a 
 mutual contract, tacit or express, between the King 
 and his subjects ; a third maintaining the lawfulness 
 of changing the succession to the crown, with many 
 others of the like nature^ — they solemnly deemed all and 
 exiery one of those propositions to be not only false and 
 seditious, but impious^ and that the books that con- 
 tained them were fitted to lead to rebellion, murder 
 of princes, and atheism itself.f " 
 
 * How many Tory sermons were ordered to be burned by the 
 hands of the common hangman ! The decree itself underwent that 
 fate afterwards by order of parliament. 
 
 f Hist, of James II. 56. 
 
 f> 
 
326. 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 ii 
 
 ^1 
 
 Ii 
 
 To doubt these propositions, still more to condemn 
 them, was high treason in the eyes of Mr. Fox. 
 What wonder, then, that he should, in the following 
 sentences, indulge to the utmost stretch his indig- 
 nation against those who presumed to blame them. 
 
 " Such are the absurdities which men are not 
 ashamed to utter in order to cast odious imputations 
 upon their adversaries; and such the manner in which 
 churchmen will abuse, when it suits their policy^ the holy 
 name of that religion whose first precept is to love 
 one another, ^r the purpose of teaching us to hate our 
 neighbours with more than ordinary rancour."* 
 
 When we come to the propositions themselves, 
 which after such an accusation we think we are 
 bound to do, we shall see whether it is deserved. 
 Meantime, we may ask, why this rancorous injustice 
 is ascribed so emphatically to churchmen? This we 
 cannot reconcile either to the experience of history 
 or the common knowledge of mankind. We at least 
 think that party writers may rival them. 
 
 We do not, however, say it is an absolute logical 
 conclusion that Mr. Fox meant to class, under the 
 words " with many others of a like nature," all the pro- 
 positions denounced, with the three he has mentioned. 
 Yet, as he has mentioned no exceptions, may we not 
 fairly ask whether his language does not admit of 
 that presumption ? If so, where is the fairness of the 
 historian in leaving it to be supposed that four and 
 twenty out of the seven arid twenty propositions were 
 
 * Hist, of James II. 56, 
 
 APPENDIX Vli. 
 
 327 
 
 of the same nature as the three he has produced, 
 without vouchsafing to give the reader the least 
 inkling as to their contents. 
 
 We are not so unjust to Mr. Fox as to say that 
 in his mind all these propositions were equally inno- 
 cent ; but as he makes no exception, as his invective 
 is (general against the decree, and all those who 
 promulgated it, we are left to suppose that, in his 
 mind, every part of it was equally obnoxious. 
 
 Let us, therefore, examine a little more minutely 
 how these strictures are deserved. 
 
 We have shown in the body of this work that 
 even the three propositions he names are by no 
 means received by all the world as incontrovertible 
 truths. It is by no means without modifications, and 
 those of the first importance, that the proposition 
 declaring all civil authority to be derived from the 
 people is held to be true. It is any thing but an 
 axiom universally and necessarily received. 
 
 Still less is that other, that there is always " a 
 mutual contract, tacit or express, between the King 
 and his subjects;" and, though the lawfulness of 
 changing the succession of the crown, by the whole 
 legislature. King, Lords, and Commons, may not be 
 questionable, the right of the people to do it of them- 
 selves, if the lawful King is in existence, is not only 
 not clear, but is a breach of those very principles of 
 the constitution which Mr. Fox quarrels with the 
 decree for endeavouring, as he says, to subvert. 
 So far, therefore, even the three propositions he 
 
328 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 ■|! 
 
 
 thinks so clear, as to found upon it his vituperation 
 of the University for condemning them, are not uni- 
 versally or unreservedly acknowledged. 
 
 If we examine many, I may say most of the others, 
 it will be difficult for Mr. Fox himself to convince 
 any large portion of the world that their condemna- 
 tion deserved (I will not say the anathema pronounced 
 against it, but) a much less severe reprehension. It 
 might be a fault by pronouncing public sentence 
 upon these propositions, to bring into more notice 
 than they themselves could have commanded glarint^ 
 absurdities, or glaring wickedness, which must have 
 been soon despised and forgotten; but this was, in 
 our minds, the principal or sole fault of the Univer- 
 sity. 
 
 Take, for instance, the fourth proposition con- 
 demned : — 
 
 " The sovereignty of England is in the three es- 
 tates, viz., King, Lords, and Commons. The King has 
 but a co-ordinate power, and may be overruled by 
 the other two." (Lex Rex. Hunton ; of a limited and 
 mixed monarchy. — Baxter^ H. C. Polit. Catechism.) 
 
 So then, according to this, the two houses of par- 
 liament, without the King, ought to make the laws. 
 
 Take also the tenth : — 
 
 " Possession and strength give a right to govern ; 
 and success in a cause or enterprize proclaims it to he 
 lawful and just. To pursue it, is to comply with the 
 will of God, because it is to follow the conduct of 
 his Providence." {Hobbs. Owen's Sermon before the 
 
 APPENDIX VII. 
 
 329 
 
 Regicides, Jan. 31, 16^8.— Baxter. Jenkins's Petition, 
 
 Oct. 1631.) 
 
 Then, the man who murders me, having succeeded 
 in his enterprize, has done nothing but what is lawful 
 and just, and follows the conduct of Providence ! 
 
 Also the eleventh and twelfth : — 
 
 " In the state of nature there is no difference be- 
 tween good and evil, right and wrong. The state of 
 nature is a state of war, in which every man hath a 
 
 right to all things'' 
 
 " The foundation of civil authority is this natural 
 right, which is not given, but left to the supreme ma- 
 gistrate, upon men's entering into societies ; and not 
 only a foreign invader, but a domestic rebel, puts 
 himself again into a state of nature, to be proceeded 
 against, not as a subject, but an enemy ; and conse- 
 quently acquires by his rebellion the same right over 
 the life of his prince, as the prince, for the most 
 heinous crimes, has over the life of his own subjects." 
 
 We will not affront the reader with commenting 
 
 upon a line of this. 
 
 The thirteenth :— " Every man, after his entering into 
 a society, retains a right of defending himself against 
 force; and cannot transfer that right to the common- 
 wealth, when he consents to that union whereby a com- 
 monwealth is made ; and in case a great many men 
 together have already resisted the commonwealth, for 
 which every one of them expecteth death, they have 
 liberty then to join together to assist one another. 
 
330 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 APPENDIX VII. 
 
 331 
 
 1 
 
 Their bearing of arms subsequent to the first breach of 
 their duty^ though it be to maintain what they have 
 done, is no new unjust act; and if it be only to 
 defend their persons, is not unjust at all." 
 
 Had this right of resistance been held to be against 
 unjust or unlawful force, it would have been true. 
 But the words, breach of their duty^ show that the 
 force may be neither unjust nor unlawful; and yet 
 to resist it, is not rebellion. 
 
 The fifteenth : — " If a people, that, by oath and 
 duty, are obliged to a sovereign, shall sinfully dis- 
 possess him, and, contrary to their covenants, choose 
 and covenant with another, they may be obliged by 
 their later covenants, notwithstanding their former." 
 —{Baxter, H. C.) 
 
 If this be true, what becomes of the sanctity of an 
 oath ? 
 
 The seventeenth : — " An oath obligeth, not in the 
 sense of the imposer, but the takers J' — [Sherriff's Case.) 
 A premium upon hypocrisy and deceit. 
 The nineteenth and twentieth : — 
 " The powers of this world are usurpations upon 
 the prerogative of Jesus Christ ; and it is the duty of 
 God's people to destroy them, in order to the setting 
 Christ upon his throne'' — {Fifth Monarchy Men.) 
 
 " The Presbyterian government is the sceptre of 
 Christ's kingdom, to which kings, as well as others, 
 are bound to submit; and the king's supremacy in 
 ecclesiastical affairs, asserted by the Church of Eng- 
 
 land, is injurious to Christ, the sole King, and Head 
 of his Church."— ( Altar e Damascenum. Apolog. Relat 
 Hist. Indulg. Carticright. Tr avers.) 
 
 Mere madness, but very wicked. 
 
 The twenty-third to the twenty-seventh:—" Wicked 
 kings and tyrants ought to be put to death ; and if 
 the judges and inferior magistrates will not do their 
 office, the power of the sword devolves to the people ; 
 if the major part of the people refuse to exercise this 
 power, then the ministers may excommunicate such a 
 king ; after which it is lawful for any of the subjects 
 to kill him, as the people did Athaliah, and Jehu, 
 JezabeV (Buchanan. Knox. Goodman. Gilby. 
 
 Jesuits.) 
 
 If this be true, king-murder is always virtue, and 
 the priest the only king. Moreover, what becomes 
 of that " damnable doctrine, that princes excommuni- 
 cated by the Pope may be dethroned and murdered 
 by their subjects," which all good English protestants 
 so zealously abjure ? It is here established for ever. 
 
 " After' the sealing of the Scripture canon, the 
 people of God in all ages are to expect new revela- 
 tions for a rule of their actions ; and it is lauful for 
 a private man, having an inward nwtion from God, to 
 kill a tyrant." (Quakers, and other enthusiasts. Good- 
 man.) - 
 
 Every private man is thus the master of the life of 
 
 another. 
 
 Again, " The example of Phineas is to us instead 
 of a command; for what God hath commanded or 
 
 •ik 
 
332 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 
 I 
 
 {p; 
 
 i 
 
 approved in one age, must needs oblige in all." 
 {Goodman. Knox. Napthali.) 
 
 Thus any man that pleases, though we no longer 
 live under a theocracy, or have the immediate com- 
 mand of God, except from an inward motion, may 
 hold himself the instrument of God's vengeance, and 
 murder whom he likes. 
 
 Lastly, " King Charles the First was lawfully put 
 to death ; and his murderers were the blessed instru- 
 ment of God's glory in their generation." [Milton. 
 Goodwin. Owen.) 
 
 Well, does not this, and all the rest of the propo- 
 sitions, uphold what Mr. Fox so reprehends, — the 
 opinion expressed by the framers of the decree, — 
 that they were impious, and the books containing them 
 fitted to lead to (they might have said enjoined) 
 rebellion, the murder of princes, and atheism itself? 
 
 Yet for expressing this opmion, among others, a 
 Whig parliament afterwards, in its wisdom and its 
 patriotism, ordered the decree to be burned by the 
 common hangman. 
 
 We now, indeed, laugh at these propositions; but 
 not so at the time of the decree, when there were 
 almost as many different creeds in the science of 
 government as there were men ; and the zealots, who 
 preached the knife on the authority of Scripture, 
 found thousands of still greater zealots eager to obey 
 them. Hence the opposing zeal of the University so 
 vituperated by Mr. Fox, with what reason, the world 
 may now judge. 
 
 APPENDIX VII. 
 
 333 
 
 Their zeal may have been mistaken, if you will. 
 Has Mr. Fox made no mistakes ? 
 
 Was he right in consigning those who condemned 
 such propositions to the detestation of mankind? 
 Has he been quite so just, so free from prejudice and 
 passion, so clear in his laborious inquiry after truth, 
 in this strange concealment of the greater part of the 
 decree he so abominates ? 
 
 But not content with holding up, not merely the 
 authors of the decree, but the whole church, to exe- 
 cration, he lays down his trenchant sword, and 
 endeavours also to sting them with ridicule. With 
 this, as a matter of taste, we have no business ; though 
 the taste might be questionable. 
 
 Certainly for an historian who, it is said, was 
 peculiarly jealous to render his history chaste and 
 simple, so as to banish all argument of his own as 
 extraneous interruption, the taste of introducing wit 
 and ridicule against the heads of one of the most 
 venerable universities in the world, (as if he were 
 writing a political pamphlet,) might not only be 
 doubted, but thought absolutely inconsistent with 
 his professed aim. 
 
 With the wit itself we will not meddle, except to 
 say, that if to condemn such propositions as we have 
 mentioned as impious and dangerous, bears any re- 
 semblance to the assertion by two fools, — that a 
 false accusation against a lady was flat burglary, 
 then the comparison of the Vice Chancellor and 
 
 ii 
 
 \\ 
 
\i 
 
 334 
 
 HISTORICAL ESSAY. 
 
 Doctors of Oxford to Dogberry and Verges, was 
 wit in itself, and worthy the dignity and sobriety of 
 history. 
 
 Mr. Fox, on a thousand accounts, was justly en- 
 titled to the admiration of his countrymen and of the 
 world ; but not, I fear, for his critique on the Oxford 
 decree. 
 
 THE END. 
 
 London i 
 
 FHnted by A. SpottiswoodE, 
 
 New-Street* Square. 
 
 1, 
 
Albemarle Street, London, 1837. 
 
 SELECT LIST 
 
 OF 
 
 STANDARD WORKS 
 
 PUBLISHED BY 
 
 MR. MURRAY, 
 
 PUBLISHER TO THE ADMIRALTY AND THE BOARD OF LONGITUDE. 
 
 VOYAGES AND TRAVELS, 
 
 11 
 
 li 
 
 t 
 
 CHIEFLY UNDERTAKEN BY ORDER OP HIS 
 
 majesty's government. 
 
 
 NORTH AMERICA. 
 
 JOURNAL OF THE ARCTIC LAND 
 
 ??J*^,?''^J^.^^^ Search op Captain Ross 
 to the Mouth of the Great Fish River, in the 
 Years 1833, 1834, and 1835. By Captain BACK, 
 K.N., Commander of the Expedition. With 
 a Map of the Discoveries in Northern Geo- 
 graphy, and 16 Illustrations from the Au- 
 thor s Drawings. 1 vol. 8vo. 30^. 
 
 CAPTAIN SIR EDWARD PARRY'S 
 FIRST VOYAGE, for the Discovery of a 
 North-West Passage, in 1819-20. With nu- 
 merous Illustrations. 4to. 3/. 13*. 6tf. 
 
 CAPTAIN PARRY'S SECOND 
 
 Z^\j^^f'^^^^}^M^^^ and 26 Plates. 
 4to. 4/. 14*. Qd. 
 
 CAPTAIN PARRY'S THUID 
 VOYAGE, in 1824-5. With Plates. 4tb 
 21. lOs. 
 
 CAPTAIN PARRY'S NARRATIVE 
 
 of an Attempt to reach the North Pole, 
 by Sledge Boats, over the Ice. 4to., with 
 Plates and Charts, 2/. 2*. 
 
 CAPTAIN PARRY'S VOYAGES. 
 
 A new Edition, beautifully printed in Fire 
 Pocket Volumes. With Plates. 20*. 
 
 The object of this work is to present the 
 public with a cheap but elegant Edition of the 
 Accounts of the great Discoveries made under 
 the direction of the British Government, 
 combining an extremely .legible type with a 
 very portable size. 
 
 CAPTAIN SIR JOHN FRANK- 
 LIN'S NARRATIVE of a JOURNEY to 
 the SHORES of the POLAR SEA, in 1819- 
 20-21-22. 2 vols. 8vo. With Engravings, 24*. 
 to 4to. 4/. 4*. o o I 
 
 CAPTAIN FRANKLIN'S SECOND 
 
 LAR^^^7l^?^*°'^« SHORESof the PC- 
 roPPPR^te^^^^x'.t? MACKENZIE and 
 ARn?n^^^?^.?^^^^S- ByDr.RICH- 
 AKDSON.—And from the Mackenzie River 
 towards Icy Cape. By CAPTAIN FRANK^ 
 
 ^2 Fn^."^ • COMMANDER BACK. With 
 6i Engravings. 4to. 4/. 4s, 
 
 A Pocket Edition of the interestinff 
 
 NARRATIVE of CAPTAIN framt 
 LIN'S PRIVATIONS anJtuFFEmNGS 
 tix^ ^:. JOURNEYS to the POLAR 
 fet A. Beautifullv printed in Four Volumes 
 similar to those of Captain Parry's Voyages •* 
 with 20 Portraits and Views. Only 20^^ ' 
 
 A CHRONOLOGICAL HISTORY 
 of VOYAGES into the POLAR REGIONS 
 By Sir JOHN BARROwfBart,'^RRj: 
 8^0. iS ''"^'''^ ^^P °^ ^^^ -^'ctic Regions. 
 
 A BACKWOODSMAN'S ACCOUNT 
 of UPPER CANADA : for the Use of Emi- 
 grants. Third Edition. Inf.cSvo. 1*. 6d. 
 
 FOREST SCENES and INCI- 
 ^T^rl'^^ii" ^^S ^^^2^ of NORTH AME- 
 
 f'o.is. I'. '" ^^^^^^ «^^^- ^-^^ 
 
 INDIAN SKETCHES, taken during 
 an EXPEDITION among the PAWNEES 
 ^"d other SAVAGE TRIBES oiAMilt 
 CAN INDIANS. By JOHN T. IRVING. 
 Jun. 2 vols, post 8vo. 14*. ' 
 
 A TOUR ON THE PRAIRIES. 
 
 ?Jst1^vo^9'^/r ^ ^' ^"^ sketch-book. 
 
 A JOURNAL kept in the UNITED 
 
 f fpT^^- ^J FRANCES ANNE BUT- 
 l^liK (Fanny Kemble). 2 vols, post «vo. 18#. 
 
 JOURNAL of a RESIDENCE in the 
 
 10* &J Author of "The Monk," &c. 8to. 
 
MR. MURRAY'S SELECT LIST. 
 
 ^M 
 
 SOUTH AMERICA. 
 
 NARRATIVE of an EXPEDITION 
 across the ANDES and DOWN the River 
 AMAZON from LIMA to PARA. By Lieu- 
 tenant WILLIAM SMYTH. 8vo., with 11 
 Plates and 3 Maps. 12*. 
 
 JOURNAL of a PASSAGE from the 
 PACIFIC to the ATLANTIC, crossing the 
 ANDE S in the Northern Provinces of PERU, 
 and descending the great River MAR AN ON 
 or AMAZON. By HENRY LISTER 
 MAW, R. N. 8vo. I2s. 
 
 ROUGH NOTES taken during some 
 rapid Journeys across the PAMPAS and 
 among the ANDES. ByMajor SirFRANCIS 
 B. HEAD, Bart. Author of " Bubbles from 
 the Brunnen." Third Edition. Post 8vo. 
 9s. 6cf. 
 
 ASIA. 
 
 A NARRATIVE of a JOURNEY 
 
 through the Upper Provinces of CAL- 
 CUTTA. By the Right Rev. REGINALD 
 HEBER, late Lord Bishop of Calcutta. 
 Fourth Ed44ion. 3 vols. 8vo. 1/. 16*. 
 
 PEN and PENCIL SKETCHES of 
 INDIA. Being a Journal of a Tour in that 
 Country. With numerous Engravings by 
 Landseer ; and Woodcuts, chiefly illustrative 
 of Field Sports of India, from the Author's 
 own Sketches. By CAPTAIN MUNDY, 
 late Aide-de-Camp to Lord Combermere. 
 Second Edition. In 2 vols. 8vo. 305. 
 
 NARRATIVE of a JOURNEY from 
 CALCUTTA to EUROPE, by Way of 
 EGYPT, in the Years 1827 and 1828. Bv Mrs. 
 CHARLES LUSHINGTON. Second 
 Edition. Post 8vo. 8*. Qd. 
 
 *• We have no hesitation in recommendUig 
 Mrs. Lushington's Journal to our readers as 
 a pleasing and interesting little volume. The 
 shape in which it has been brought out, com- 
 bining cheapness with elegance, is also worthy 
 of approbation." — Oriental Herald. 
 
 TRAVELS to BOKHARA and VOY- 
 AGE up the INDUS. By Capt. BURNES. 
 Second Edition. With a Map and Plates. 3 
 vols. f.c. 8vo., 185. 
 
 TRAVELS in the HIMALAYAN 
 PROVINCES of HINDOSTAN and the 
 PANJAB, in the LADAKH and KASH- 
 MIR, in PESHAW^AR, KABAL, KUN- 
 DUZ, and BOKHARA. BvMr.WILLIAM 
 MOORCROFT and Mr. GEORGE TRE- 
 BECK. Prepared for the Press from Orignal 
 Journals and Correspondence, by HO- 
 RACE HAYMAN WILSON, M.A.,F.R.S. 
 Professor of Sanscrit in the University of 
 Oxford. With Illustrations, and a Map, by 
 4£|ha Arrowsmith. 2 vols. 8vo. In the Press. 
 
 NARRATIVE OF THREE VOY- 
 AGES in the BLACK SEA, to the COAST 
 of CIRCASSIA, including Descriptions of 
 the Ports, and the Importance of their Trade. 
 With Sketches of the Manners, Customs, 
 Religions, &c. of the Circassians. By the 
 Chevalier TAITBOUT DE MARIGNY, 
 Consul to H. M. the King of the Nether- 
 lands at Odessa. With Plates and a Map. 
 8vo. 105. Qd. 
 
 *«* This Edition contains the Passages 
 from the Original Work which were sup- 
 pressed in Russia. 
 
 A JOURNEY through ARABIA 
 PETR^A to MOUNT SINAI and the 
 EXCAVATED CITY of PETRA — the 
 EDOM ofthe PROPHECIES. ByM. LEON 
 DE LABORDE. With 64 Plates and Maps. 
 New Edition. 8vo. 18*. 
 
 A GEOGRAPHICAL, STATISTI- 
 CAL, andHISTORICALDESCRIPTION 
 of HINDOSTAN, and the adjacent Coun- 
 tries. By WALTER HAMILTON, Esq. 
 With Maps. 2 vols. 4to. 4/. 14*. M. 
 
 BURCKHARDT'S TRAVELS in 
 SYR A and MOUNT SINAI. With Maps. 
 4to. 21. Ss. 
 
 JOURNAL of a TOUR in ASIA 
 MINOR, with comparative Remarks on the 
 Ancient and Modern Geography of that 
 Country. ByWILLIAM MARTIN LEAKE, 
 F.R.S., &c. With a Map. 8vo. 18«. 
 
 SKETCHES OF PERSIA. By Sir 
 JOHN MALCOLM. Second Edition. 2 
 vols, post 8vo. 155. 
 
 TRAVELS IN ARABIA. — 1. In 
 
 the Province of OMAN. 2. In the Penin- 
 sula of Mount Sinai. 3. Along the Shores 
 of the Red Sea. By LIEUTENANT 
 WELLSTED, F.R.S.,I.N. With Maps 
 and other Illustrations. 2 vols. 8vo. 
 
 MR. MURRAY'S SELECT LIST. 
 
 AFRICA. 
 
 JOURNAL of an EXPEDITION to 
 EXPLORE the COURSE and TERMIN- 
 ATION ofthe NIGER. By RICHARD and 
 JOHN LANDER. With Portraits of the 
 Authors, and other illustrative Engravings ; 
 and a Map ofthe Route, showing the Course 
 of the Niger^ to the Sea. 3 vols, small 8vo. 
 \bs. 
 
 " These volumes record perhaps the most 
 important geographical discovery of the pre- 
 sent age. In consequence of the attraction 
 possessed by them, and the very accessible 
 form under which, in preference to the costly 
 and ponderous quarto, their enterprising pub- 
 lisher has presented them, there will perhaps 
 be very few of our readers to whom the inci- 
 dents of this remarkable voyage will not be 
 familiar. The narrative never ceases to be 
 very interesting." — Edinburgh hev. 
 
 AN EXPEDITION of DISCOVERY 
 in the INTERIOR of AFRICA, from Bada- 
 gry to Soccatoo, by the route of Bousa on 
 the Niger, By the late Captain CLAPPER- 
 TON, R. N, : with the JOURNAL of 
 RICHARD LANDER ; and a MEMOIR of 
 the LIFE of CLAPPERTON. 4to. Map 
 and Portrait. 2/. 2s. 
 
 THE TRAVELS and DISCOVE- 
 RIES in NORTHERN and CENTRAL 
 AFRICA. By the late Lieut.-Col. DEN- 
 HAM, Captain CLAPPERTON, and Dr. 
 OUDNEY. Fourth Edition, with Plates, 
 in Four Pocket Volumes, 205. Printed uni- 
 formly with the small Edition of Parry's and 
 Franklin's Voyages and Discoveries, 
 
 TRAVELS in the INTERIOR DIS- 
 TRICTS of AFRICA. ByMUNGOPARK. 
 
 With a Portrait and Map. A new Edition. 
 2 vols. 4to. 3/. 135. 6rf. 
 
 ACCOUNT of the PRIVATE LIFE* 
 MANNERS and CUSTOMS, RELIGION, 
 GOVERNMENT, ARTS, LAWS, and 
 EARLY HISTORY of the ANCIENT 
 EGYPTIANS ; derived from the Study of 
 the Hieroglyphics, Sculpture, Paintings, and 
 other Works of Art, still existing, compared 
 with the Accounts of Ancient Authors. By 
 J. G. WILKINSON, Author of *' Egypt and 
 Thebes." With 250 Engravings from original 
 Drawings made from the Tombs. 3 vols 
 8vo. In the Fress. 
 
 EUROPE. 
 
 GUIBE BOOKS FOXt 
 COSTTIXrEXa-T, 
 
 ' NEW CONTINENTAL GUIDE. 
 
 The HANDBOOK for TRAVEL- 
 LERS upon the CONTINENT. Part I. 
 — being a GUIDE to HOLLAND and 
 BELGIUM— the RHINE from HOLLAND 
 to SWITZERLAND — to PRUSSIA and 
 NORTHERN GERMANY. Containing 
 Descriptions of the principal Cities, their 
 Museums, Picture Galleries, &c. ; the great 
 High Roads, the most interesting and pic- 
 turesque Districts, and the most frequented 
 Watering Places ; with Directions for Tra- 
 vellers, and Hints for Tours. Second Edition. 
 Post 8vo., with a Map, stoutly bound, 10s. 
 
 The HANDBOOK for TRAVELLERS 
 upon the CONTINENT. Part II— being a 
 GUIDE in SOUTHERN GERMANY — 
 BAVARIA — AUSTRIA — TYROL — 
 SALZBURG — the AUSTRIAN and BA- 
 VARIAN ALPS, and the DESCENT of 
 the DANUBE from ULM to the BLACK 
 SEA. Post 8vo. 9s. 6d. 
 
 The HANDBOOK for TRAVEL- 
 LERS, Part III. — being a GUIDE to 
 SWITZERLAND. 1 vol. Post 8vo. In 
 the Press. 
 
 A CLASSICAL TOUR in ATTICA, 
 and RESIDENCE in ATHENS. By the 
 Rev. CHRISTOPHER WORDSWORTH, 
 A. M., Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, 
 Head Master of Harrow School. With 
 Maps and other Illustrations. Second Edition, 
 8vo. 125. 
 
 THE TOPOGRAPHY of ATHENS ; 
 
 with some Remarks on its Antiquities. By 
 Lieut.-Colonel LEAKE. With Plates, from 
 the Drawings of C. Cockerell, Esq. 8vo. 
 1/. 10*. 
 
 TRAVELS IN CRETE. By 
 ROBERT PASHLEY, A.M., Fellow of 
 Trinity College, Cambridge. With Maps and 
 Plates. 2 vols. 8vo. 21. 2s. 
 
 A VISIT to the IONIAN ISLANDS, 
 
 ATHENS, and the MORE A. ByED WARD 
 GIFFARD, Esq. Illustrated with Views from 
 Sketches taken on the spot. Post 8vo. 12s. 
 
 AN ARCHITECTURAL TOUR in 
 NORMANDY, with some Remarks on 
 NORMAN ARCHITECTURE. By 
 
 HENRY GALLY KNIGHT, Esq. M.P. 
 Post 8vo. With several Views. 9*. 6d. 
 
 THE NORMANS IN SICILY ; or, 
 
 NOTESof a JOURNEY made in SICILY 
 in the Autumn of 1836, chiefly illustrative 
 of the Architecture and History of the Nor- 
 mans in that Island. By HENRY GALLY 
 KNIGHT, Esq., M.P., Author of " Notes 
 of a Tour in Normandy." With Illus- 
 trations. Post 8vo. In the Press. 
 
 ILLUSTRATIONS of the NOR- 
 MANS in SICILY ; being a Series of Draw- 
 ings of the Saracenic and Norman Remain* 
 in that Country. Folio. To be published in 
 Numbers. 
 
 PORTUGAL AND GALLICIA, 
 
 described from Notes of a Journey in those 
 Countries. By the Earl of CARNARVON. 
 A new Edition. 2 vols, post 8vo. 21*. 
 
 A YEAR IN SPAIN. By a YOUNG 
 AMERICAN. 2 vols, post 8vo. 16*. 
 
 EXCURSIONS in the NORTH of 
 EUROPE, through Parts of RUSSIA, FIN- 
 LAND, SWEDEN, DENMARK,and NOR- 
 WAY. By JOHN BARROW, Esq. Second 
 Edition. With a few characteristic Sketches, 
 and two Maps. Post 8vo. 12s. 
 
 Mrs. STARKE'S TRAVELS IN 
 EUROPE, for the Use of Travellers on 
 the Continent, and complete GUIDE for 
 ITALY and SICILY. Ninth Edition, tho- 
 roughly revised, augmented, and corrected in 
 the course of several Journeys made by the 
 Authoress in person. W^ith many new Routes, 
 and an entirely new Map. Post 8vo., stoutly 
 bound, 15*. 
 
 BELGIUM and WESTERN GER- 
 MANY; with Excursions to the EIFEL, 
 WISBADEN, BADEN.BADEN,CASSEL, 
 HANOVER, the HARTZ MOUNTAINS, 
 &c. By Mrs. TROLLOPE, Authoress of 
 " The Domestic Manners of the Americans." 
 Second Edition. 2 vols, post 8vo. ISs. 
 
 .a. ■>.. 
 
 X. 
 
 J'-' 
 
MR. MURRAY'S SELECT LIST. 
 
 BUBBLES from the BRUNNEN 
 of N A SS AU. Fourth Edition, with 11 Plates. 
 I.e. 8vo. 7*. 6<f. 
 
 DATES and DISTANCES ; show- 
 ing what may be done in a Tour of Sixteen 
 Months. Post 8vo. 8*. 6d. 
 
 SWITZERLAND ; or, A JOURNAL 
 of a TOUR and RESIDENCE in that 
 COUNTRY. Followed by a General View 
 of its History, brought down to the present 
 Time, and principally directed to the Man- 
 ner and Mode of Lite of the T^eople in an- 
 cient and modern Times. By S. SLvIO^D. 
 Second Edition. 2 vols. 8vo. 24*. 
 
 A VISIT to ICELAND, by way of 
 TRONYEM, in the Summer of 1834. By 
 JOHN BARROW, Esq. With numerous 
 Engravings. Post 8vo. 12^. 
 
 THE DIARY of an INVALID in 
 PURSUIT of HEALTH ; being the Journal 
 of a Tour in Portugal, Raly, Switzerland, 
 and France. By the late HENRY MA- 
 THEWS, A.M. Fifth Edition, m 1 vol. f. c. 
 8vo. 7s. 6cf. 
 
 ANTIQUITIES, ARTS, and LITE- 
 FATURE of ITALY. By JOS. FOR- 
 SYTH, Esq. Fourth Edition, f.c. 8vo. 
 7s. 6<f. 
 
 HISTORY. 
 
 GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND, 
 
 A HOME TOUR in the MANU- 
 FACTURING DISTRICTS of ENG- 
 L\ND, in the Summer of 1835. By &ir 
 GEORGE HEAD. Second Edition. Post 
 8vo. 9s. 6d. 
 
 A CONTINUATION of the HOME 
 TOUR through various parts of England, 
 Scotland, and Ireland, ^injludmg the 
 Channel Islands and Isle of Man. By Sir 
 GEORGE HEAD. Vol. II. Post8vo. 9s. 6d. 
 GUIDE to the HIGHLANDS and 
 ISLANDS of SCOTLAND, including 
 ORKNEY and ZETLAND ; descriptive of 
 their Scenery, Statistics, Antiquities and 
 Natural History, with numerous Hist^^ 
 rical Notices. By GEORGE aj;^4,,P^TER 
 ANDERSON, of Inverness. With a most 
 ^mplete Travelling Map, by Arhowsmith. 
 In one pocket volume, f.c. 8vo. lbs. 
 
 A TOUR ROUND IRELAND 
 (through the Counties on the Sea Coast). In 
 a Series of Letters to his Family. ,By JOHN 
 BARROW, Esq. With a Map, lUustr^ive 
 Engravings, and numerous Wood-cuts. Post 
 8vo. 14s. 
 
 A DESCRIPTION of the BORDERS 
 of the TAMAR and TAV«Y ; their Natural 
 Historv, Manners and Customs, Super- 
 stitions, Scenery, Antiquities, Biography of 
 Eminent Persons, &c. &c By Mrs. BRAY, 
 Author of " Travels in Normandy," with Il- 
 lustrations, 3 vols, post 8vo. 24s. 
 
 THE CONSTITUTIONAL HIS- 
 TORY of ENGLAND, from the Accession 
 of Henry VII. to the Death of George II. 
 By HENRY HALLAM, Esq. Third Edi- 
 tion. 3 vols. 8vo. 36s. 
 
 HISTORY of EUROPE during the 
 MIDDLE AGES. By HENRY HALLAM, 
 Esq. Sixth Edition. 3 vols. 36s. 
 
 AN INTRODUCTION to the LI- 
 TERARY HISTORY of the XVth, XVIth, 
 and XVIIth CENTURIES. By HENRY 
 HALLAM, Esq. Vol. I. 8vo., 15s. To bo 
 completed in 3 vols. 
 
 The BOOK of the CHURCH. By 
 ROBERT SOUTHEY, Esq. Fourth Edi- 
 tion. Carefully revised, with a copious Index 
 of References to all the Authorities. In 1 Vol. 
 8vo. 12s. 
 
 THE DUKE of WELLINGTON'S 
 DESPATCHES during his various CAM- 
 PAIGNS, from 1799 to 1818. Compiled frOTi 
 Authentic Documents. By Lieut.-Col. GUK- 
 WOOD. Vols. I. to IX. 8 vo. 20s. each vol. 
 
 THE DESPATCHES, MINUTES, 
 and CORRESPONDENCE of the Most 
 I^ble the MARQUESS WELLESLEY, 
 K G. Now first collected, arranged, and re- 
 vised by his Lordship. Vol. I. 8vo., with a 
 Portrait, Map, &c. 30s. 
 
 HISTORY of ENGLAND, from the 
 PEACE of UTRECHT to the PEACE of 
 IlX-LA-CHAPELLE. (1712-1748 ) By 
 Lord MAHON. 8vo. Vol. I- and ". I6j. 
 each. To be completed in 3 vols. vol. lU. 
 is in the press. 
 
 LORD MAHON'S HISTORY of the 
 WAR of the SUCCESSION in SPAIN. 
 Second Edition. 8vo. 15s. 
 
 THE HIGHLANDERS of SCOT- 
 LAND, their Origin, History and Antiqui- 
 ties Manners and Customs, Clans, State of 
 Society By WILLIAM F. SKENE. 2 vols, 
 post 8vo. 18s. 
 
 HISTORY of the DECLINE and 
 FALL ofthe ROMAN EMPIRE., By ED- 
 WARD GIBBON. Including his Lljli. 
 written by Himself ; and NOTES by the Rev 
 H II. MILMAN, Prebendary of St. Peter s, 
 Westminster, and Vicar of St. Mirgaret s, 
 with a Translation of those by M. GUIZO 1 . 
 To be published monthly. 8vo. 12 vols. 
 The Design of the work is to furnish tho 
 
 ORIGINAL, UNMUTILATED TEXT of GIBBON, re- 
 vised throughout, particularly in the Quo- 
 tations ; and to subjoin a candid and dispas- 
 sionate Examination of his Misstate- 
 ments on the SUBJECT of Christianity, 
 wUh such additional Correction and Infor- 
 mation as have been ^rought to hght by the 
 Tnnuiries or Discoveries of later Historians, 
 FoS as well as British, who have sue- 
 cess^dy treated the different Periods compre* 
 heiided in the History of Gibbon. 
 
 MR. MURRAY'S SELECT LIST, 
 
 5 
 
 VON RAUMUR^S ILLUSTRA- 
 TIONS of the HISTORY of the SIX- 
 TEENTH and SEVENTEENTH CEN- 
 TURIES. Translated from the- German by 
 Lord FRANCIS EGERTON, M.P. 2 vols, 
 post 8vo. 21*. 
 
 THE COURT of ENGLAND in the 
 REIGN of CHARLES I. ; being a Trans- 
 lation of Marshal Bassompiere's Account of 
 his Embassy to London. With Notes and 
 Commentaries. 8vo. 9*. 6d. 
 
 Published hythe Authority qf His Majesty's 
 Government. 
 
 STATE PAPERS of the REIGN of 
 HENRY VIII. 4to. Vol. L, ENGLAND : 
 Vols. II. and III., IRELAND ; Vol. IV. 
 SCOTLAND and the BORDERS, 1513— 
 1534. 4to. 2/. 2*. each Vol., and large paper 
 
 Ol. <iSt 
 
 BIOGRAPHY. 
 
 ThePASTON LETTERS. Origi- 
 nal Letters, wTitten during the Reigns of 
 Henry VI., Edward IV., and Richard III. 
 By various Persons of Rank and Conse- 
 quence ; containing many curious Anecdotes, 
 relative to that turbulent and bloody, but 
 hitherto dark Period of our Historv; and 
 elucidating not only Public Matters of State, 
 but likewise the Private Manners of the Age. 
 Digested in Chronological Order ; with 
 Notes, Historical and Explanatory. By the 
 late JOHN FENN, M.A. and F.R.S. A 
 New Edition, printed uniformly with Ellis's 
 Original Letters on English History. The 
 *• legible modern form " only. In 2 vols. 
 pOSt 8vo. In the Press. 
 
 "This collection is in Five Quarto Volumes, 
 and has become (exceedingly) scarce. The 
 length has been doubled by an injudicious 
 proceeding of the Editor, in printing the ori- 
 ginal orthography and abbreviations of the 
 Letters on each left-hand page, and a more 
 legible modern form on the right. As or- 
 thography- is of little importance, and the 
 abbreviations of none at all, it would have 
 been sufficient to have given a single speci- 
 men." — Hallam's " Literature of Europe," 
 vol. i. p. 228. 
 
 THE CAMPAIGNS of WASHING- 
 TON and NEW ORLEANS. By the Rev. 
 G. R. GLEIG, Author of "The Subaltern." 
 Printed uniformly with it. Fourth Edition. 
 f.c. 8vo. Is. 
 
 THE POLITICAL HISTORY of 
 
 INDIA. By Sir JOHN MALCOLM. 
 2 vols. 8vo. 1/. 12*. 
 
 HISTORY of the LATE WAR in 
 SPAIN and PORTUGAL. By ROBERT 
 SOUTHEY, LL.D. A new Edition, com- 
 plete in 6 vols. 8vo. 3/. 3*. Vols. V. and VI. 
 now ready, 2l5. 
 
 CAPTAIN HENNINGSEN'S PER- 
 SONAL ACCOUNT of the MOST 
 STRIKING EVENTS of the PRESENT 
 WAR in SPAIN. With a Map of the Seat 
 of War in Spain, and a Portrait of Zumala- 
 
 CABREGUI. 2 vols. pOSt 8V0. 18*. 
 
 THE LIFE of SIR WALTER SCOTT, 
 Bart. By J. G. LOCKHART, Esq., his 
 Literary Executor. 6 vols, post 8vo. 10*. 6d. 
 each, published monthly. 
 
 BOSWELL'S LIFE OF JOHNSON- 
 A New Edition ; having for its ground-work 
 Mr. CROKER'S EDITION, with all his 
 Elucidations and Improvements, calculated 
 to throw light upon obsolete facts and allu- 
 sions hitherto obscure, to supply omissions, 
 and to render Boswell perfectly intelligible 
 to readers of the present day. Containing 
 also all the Best Notes of other Editors, 
 &c. With many original Portraits, and Views 
 illustrative of the actual Localities of Dr. 
 Johnson's Life, from Drawings made by 
 C. Stanfield, R.A. Now completed in Ten 
 Volumes. Price 5*. each volume, bound. 
 
 JOHNSONIANA ; or, Supplement to 
 Boswell ; being Anecdotes and Sayings of Dr. 
 Johnson, gathered from nearly a Hundred 
 different Publications, which could not have 
 been produced as Notes to Boswell without 
 overloading and perplexing his pages, but 
 which are essential to the completion of the 
 intellectual Portrait of Johnson. With 45 
 original Illustrations, consisting of Portraits 
 and Views, never before engraved. Printed 
 uniformly with the 8vo. Editions of Boswell's 
 Life of Johnson and of Johnson's Works. 
 8vo. \l.As. 
 
 *** A few Copies are printed in 4to., with 
 proof impressions of the Plates. 
 
 The LIFE and PROSE WORKS of 
 LORD BYRON, including his LETTERS 
 and JOURNALS, with Notices of his Life. 
 By THOMAS MOORE, Esq. In One Vo- 
 lume Royal 8vo., printed uniformly with the 
 New Edition of Byron's Poems. In the 
 Press. 
 
 BYRONIANA. Containing Me- 
 moirs and Anecdotes of the several distin- 
 guished Members of the Byron Family, from 
 the Period of the Conquest, when thev ac- 
 companied King William, down to the Birth 
 of the Poet in 1788, now first collected from 
 Authentic Documents ; and a body of Mis- 
 cellaneous Anecdotes, Letters, Opinions, 
 Conversations, &c. of Lord Byron, not 
 included in Mr. Moore's " Life, Letters, and 
 Journals of Lord Byron," to which work 
 this will form the Supplement. With Por- 
 traits, Views, Autographs, &c. In 3 vols; f.c. 
 8vo. In the Press. 
 
 The LIFE of the REV. GEORGE 
 CRABBE, with his LETTERS and JOUR- 
 NALS. By his SON. J voL small 18mo. 5*. 
 
 The LIFE of NELSON. By ROBERT 
 SOUTHEY, Esq., LL.D., Poet Laureate. 
 Third Edition. 12mo. 5*. 
 
 The LIFE of BELIS ARIUS. By the 
 Right Hon. LORD MAHON. Svo. with a 
 Map, 12«. 
 
 THE LIFE of NAPOLEON BUONA- 
 PARTE. 2 vols. 12mo. 10*. 
 
MR. MURRAY'S SELECT LIST. 
 
 LIFE of GOLDSMITH, from Ori- 
 ginal Sources, and comprising nmnerous un- 
 published Letters, &c. &c. ^^By.JAMLS 
 PlllOR, Esq., Author of the Life ot 
 Burke." 2 vols. 8vo. 305. 
 
 MEMORIALS of HAMPDEN, HIS 
 P\RTY, and HIS TIMES. By LORD 
 NUGENT. Dedicated to the King, by his 
 Majesty's most gracious permission. Second 
 E(Ution. With Portraits, &c. 2 vols. 8vo. 
 
 The LIFE of GENERAL SIR JOHN 
 MOORE, including his Letters and Journals. 
 Edited by his Brother, JAMES CARRl^K 
 MOORE. With a Portrait, after the Picture 
 by Sir Thomas Lawrence. 2 vols. »vo. lis. 
 
 THE LIFE OF ROBERT LORD 
 CLIVE. Collected fiora the Family Papers 
 communicated by the Earl of Powis ^ 
 Major-General SIR JOHN MALCOLM, 
 k.C.B.. F.R.S. 3 vols. 8vo., with a Portrait, 
 Map, &c. 21. 2s. 
 
 ' The LIFE of BISHOP HEBER. 
 •With SELECTIONS from his CORRE- 
 SPONDENCE, andj-ro™ h^J^^with 
 LISHED WORKS. By his WIDOW. With 
 
 a Portrait engraved by Cousins. Plates, and 
 a Map. 2 vols. 4to. 3/. 135. 6d. 
 
 LIVES of the MOST EMINENT 
 BRITISH PAINTERS, SCULPTORS, 
 fnd ARCHITECTS By ALLAN CUN- 
 N INGHAM. In 6 vols. 12mo. 3U5 
 
 The REMAINS of the late LORD 
 VISCOUNT ROYSTON, with a Memoir 
 of his Life. By the Rev. HENRY PEP YS 
 B.D., Prebendary of Wells. 8vo. In the 
 Press. 
 
 MR. MURRAY'S SELECT LIST. 
 
 POETRY, THE DRAMA, 
 TRANSLATIONS. 
 
 THE COMpiiTE WORKS OF 
 
 T ORD BYRON ; comprising his PUt. i it i , 
 LETTERS and JOIJRNALS, and his 
 LIFE by Thomas Moore, Esq. 
 
 Now first collected and arranged, and illus- 
 trated with Notes by 
 Sir Walter Scott, 
 Francis JefiVey, 
 Professor Wilson, 
 Sir Egerton Brydges, 
 Bishop Heber, 
 J. G. Lockhart, 
 Ugo Foscolo, 
 
 Rev. George Croly, 
 Mrs. Shelley, 
 George Ellis, 
 Thomas Campbell, 
 Rev. H. Milman, 
 Thomas Moore, 
 &c. &c. 
 
 MEMOIRS of the LIFE of WIL- 
 LIAM WILBERFORCE By his Sons, 
 ROBERT ISAAC W ILBERFORCh., 
 MA Vicar of East Farleigh, late Fellow of 
 OHVlColieKe; and SAMUEL WILBER- 
 pBrCE ft A.; Rector of Brighstone. 
 InAyoU. post 8vo. With Portraits, &c. Jn 
 
 '^These'Memoirs are drawn from a Journal 
 in which, during a period of fifty Yfar^^Mn 
 Wilberforce was accustomed to record his 
 private sentiments and his remarks on the 
 incidents of the day — from hs coires- 
 pondence with his iistinguished contem- 
 poraries Mr. Pitt, Lord GrenviUe, I^rd 
 lie\vi\\e Mr. Windham, Mr. Canning, Lord 
 Liverpool Lord Munfster the Emperor 
 Alexander, Prince Talleyrand, La F^y«"«' 
 Jeremv Bentham, Dr. Cairn, Dr. «urgn» 
 Bishop Porteus, the Rev William Mason 
 Dean Milner, the Rev. John Newton, the 
 Rer John Wesley, John Thornton, Esq., 
 Hew Thornton, feso., James Stephen, Esq., 
 wluSmHay, Esq.,lady Waldegrave Mrs. 
 Hannah More, and many emment Persons 
 stUl living. 
 
 The LIFE of ADMIRAL the EARL 
 
 HOWE, K.G. From Authentic Manuscripts 
 
 never before Published. Consisting of be- 
 
 ?wlen Four and Five Hundred Letters m the 
 
 S°s own handwriting ; his Private Jounial 
 
 while at Sea with his Flag ; several Letters of 
 
 Sis late Majesty George HI. to his.Fami ly, 
 
 and various communications from Uvmg Flag 
 
 Officers who served under the Admiral s 
 
 2)mmand. By Sir JOHN BARROW, Bart. 
 
 8vo. In the Press. 
 
 I. 
 
 II. and III. 
 
 IV. and V. 
 
 VL, VIL, VIIL, 
 
 IX. and X. 
 
 In^eventeen Volumes, uniform with the 
 
 Works o? Scott and Crabbe. Price 5.. each 
 
 THE POCKET EDITION OF 
 
 BYRON. Complete in Ten Vols, with Jr on- 
 
 tispieces, 'Ss. 6d. each, neatly bound and gilt. 
 
 '''^''^- CHILDE HAROLD. 
 
 TALES. 
 
 DRAMAS. ^^^ 
 MISCELLANIES. 
 
 A ana a. - DON JUAN. 
 
 Any Volume may be had separately. 
 
 BYRON'S WORKS, complete in one 
 Volume, with all the Notes contained m the 
 Seventeen Vols. Edition. A beautiful Por- 
 !r^ !nd a Vignette Title engraved by 
 FiNDEN. Handsomely printed in a new type. 
 Royal 8vo. bound. Twenty Shillings. 
 
 The POETICAL WORKS of the 
 Rev. GEORGE CRABBE ; with his LET- 
 TERSand JOURNALS, and his LIFE by 
 his SON In 8 vols, f c. 8vo., 55. each, similar 
 to Scott and Byron. ,^ „ . ^.r 
 
 POEMS by the Rev. H. H. MILMAN. 
 
 ItSL^oTiERUSALEM. 8vo. 8.. 6c^. 
 
 BELSHAZZAR. 8vo. 85. Grf. 
 
 The MART YR of ANTIOCH. 8vo. 
 
 ANN BOLEYN. 8vo. 8* 6d. 
 The WORKS of OLIVER GOLD- 
 <;M1TH Now first collected, with many 
 SriginalPieces and others hitherto unknown 
 to be Goldsmith's, with Notes By JAMES 
 PRIOR Esq Author of the " Life of Goia- 
 fmith '' ' W?th Landscape Illustrations of the 
 S~ of Goldsmit/s Life and Work^. 
 Printed uniformly with "Prior s Lite oi 
 Goldsmith." 4vols. 8vo. 2/. 85. 
 
 SPECIMENS OF THE BRITISH 
 POETS ; with Biographical and Critical No- 
 tices and an Essav on English Poetry. By 
 THOMAS CAMPBELL, Esq., Author of 
 
 tl"?PleL?etof^Ho^^^^ 
 
 Beautifully printed in 6 vols. f.c. 8vo. i» 
 
 the press, • 
 
 The ORLANDO FURIOSO of ARI- 
 OSTO. Translatedby WILLIAM STEW- 
 ART ROSE. Complete in 8 vols, post 
 8vo. 95. 6d. each. 
 
 REJECTED ADDRESSES. Eight- 
 eenth Edition. With Notes by the Authors ; 
 and Portraits of them. f.c. 8vo. 65. 6d. 
 
 POLITICAL WORKS, 
 
 The LAW of POPULATION; a 
 
 Treatise, in Six Books, in Disproof of the 
 Superfecundity of Human Beings, and deve- 
 loping the real Principle of their Increase. To 
 which is added, a Dissertation on the Balance 
 of the Food and Numbers of Animated Na- 
 ture. ByMICHAEL THOMAS SADLER, 
 M.P. 2 vols. 8vo. 305. 
 
 CONSIDERATIONS on the State of 
 the CURRENCY. With a Postscript on the 
 Measures in progress and in contemplation 
 with reference to the Currency. By THOMAS 
 TOOKE, Esq., F.R.S. Second Edition. 8vo. 
 65. 
 
 SIR THOMAS MORE. — A Series 
 of COLLOQUIES on the PROGRESS and 
 
 SI illustrative Views. 2 vols. 8vo. 305. 
 
 • ESSAYS, MORAL and POLITI- 
 CAL. By ROBERT SOUTHEY. Now 
 first collected. 2 vols. 12mo. 125. 
 
 AN HISTORICAL INQUIRY into 
 the PRODUCTION and CONSUMPTION 
 S the PRECIOUS METALS, from the 
 earliest Ages, and intb the Influence of their 
 Increase o^r Diminution on the Prices of Com- 
 modities. By WILLIAM JACOB, Esq., 
 F.R.S. 2 vols. 8vo. 245. 
 
 • An ESSAY on the DISTRIBUTION 
 of WEALTH, and on the SOURCES of 
 TAXATION. Part L — RENT, ^l^y the 
 Rev R JONES, A.M.,of Caius College, 
 Cantab. 8vo. 75. 6d. 
 
 " The QUESTION concerning the 
 
 •nuPRFCIATION of the CURRENCY 
 
 ?tated\'iidVi^aL\ed^B^^^ 
 
 WILLIAM HUSKISSON, M.P..8vo. 55. 
 
 On FINANCIAL REFORM. By SIR 
 HENRY PARNELL,Bart. Fourth Edition. 
 18mo. 75. 6cf. 
 
 CHAPTERS of COTEMPORARY 
 HISTORY. By SIR JOHN WALSH, Bart. 
 Third Edition. 8vo. 55. 
 
 The PROGRESS of SOCIETY. 
 By the late ROBERT HAMILTON, LL.D., 
 F.R. S.E. 8vo. 105. Cd. 
 
 An ESSAY on the PRINCIPLE of 
 POPULATION ; or, A View of its Past and 
 ^Pefent'^Effects on Hu^an Happmess^^ B^ 
 the late Professor MALTHU b. J^'J^n ^ai 
 Hon. 2vols. 8vo. 245. _^^ , x 
 
 DEFINITIONS in POLITICAL 
 FCONOMY, preceded by an Inquiry into the 
 Rnles which ought to guide Political Econo- 
 S?stsTn the Definition and Application of 
 STe'ims ; with Remarks on the Deviations 
 from their Rules m Practice. By the nev. 
 T R. MALTHUS. Post 8vo. 7s. 6d. 
 
 IRELAND; its EVILS, and their 
 T>T7TVfT?mFS<- being a Refutation of the Er- 
 
 8vo. 125. , . 
 
 LECTURES on POLITICAL ECO- 
 NOMY. By NASSAU WILLIAM SE- 
 NIOR, late Fellow of Magdalen College, 
 A. M., Professor of Political Economy. Four 
 Series. 8vo. 35. 6cl. each. 
 
 RELIGIOUS WORKS. 
 
 PARISH SERMONS, on the Les- 
 sons, the Gospel, or the Epistle, for every 
 Sunday in the Year, and for the Principal 
 Festivals. Preached in the Parish Church of 
 Hodnet, Salop, by the late REGINALD 
 HEBER, M.A., Rector of Hodnet, and af- 
 terwards Lord Bishop of Calcutta. Edited by 
 Sir ROBERT INGLIS, Bart. Third 
 Edition. 2 vols, post 8vo. 
 
 ♦' I believe that, while these Sermons will 
 add a new interest and lustre to the name of 
 Reginald Heber, and will awaken a fresh re- 
 gret for his loss, they will, not less assuredly, 
 extend to distant places, and to distant years, 
 the edification and improvement which, at the 
 time, they were designed and calculated to 
 convey to the circle of his little flock in his 
 own parish." — Szr Robert Inglis's Preface. 
 
 SERMONS preached in ENGLAND, 
 by the late Bishop HEBER. Second Edition. 
 8vo. 95. 6d. 
 
 SERMONS preached in INDIA, 
 by Bishop HEBER. 8vo. 95. 6d. 
 
 HYMNS, written and adapted to 
 the Weekly Church Service of the Year, by 
 Bishop HEBER. Ninth Edition. Small 
 12mo. 25. 6d. 
 
 NARRATIVE of a JOURNEY 
 through the UPPER PROVINCES of 
 INDIA, from Calcutta to Bombay. Fourth 
 Edition. 3 vols. 8vo. 365. 
 
 GOSPEL STORIES for CHILDREN. 
 
 An Attempt to render the Chief Events of 
 the Life of Our Saviour intelligible and 
 profitable to Young Children. New Edition, 
 half-bound, 35. Gd. 
 
 The BOOK of the CHURCH. By 
 ROBERT SOUTHEY, LL.D. Fourth 
 Edition, carefully revised, with Notes con- 
 taining References to the Authorities, and a 
 very complete Index, in one Volume. 8vo. 12s. 
 
 ^1 
 
8 
 
 MR. MURRAY'S SELECT LIST, 
 
 The VERACITY of the BIBLE, 
 
 argued from undesigned Coincidences to b« 
 found in it, when compared in its several 
 Parts. By the Rev. J. J. BLUNT. 
 
 1. VERACITY of the FIVE BOOKS of 
 MOSES. Bj the Rev. J. J. BLUNT. Post 
 8vo. 55. 6d. 
 
 2. VERACITY of the OLD TESTA- 
 MENT, from the Conclusion of the Penta- 
 teuch to the Opening of the Prophets. By 
 the Rev. J. J. BLUNT. PostSvo. 6*. 6d. 
 
 3. VERACITY of the GOSPELS and 
 ACTS. By the Rev. J. J. BLUNT. Post 
 8vo. 55. 6d. 
 
 PRINCIPLES for the PROPER UN- 
 DERSTANDING of the MOSAIC 
 WRITINGS Stated and Applied. By the 
 Rev. J. J. BLUNT. Post 8vo. 65. 6d. 
 
 An ARGUMENT to PROVE the 
 TRUTH of the CHRISTIAN RELIGION. 
 By the Earl of ROSSE. Printed uniformly 
 with the Bridgewater Treatises. Svo. 
 10s. 6d. 
 
 SERMONS on VARIOUS SUB- 
 JECTS. By the Rev. CHARLES WEBB 
 LE BAS, M.A., Professor in the East India 
 College, Hertfordshire, and late Fellow of 
 Trinity College, Cambridge. T/urd Edition. 
 3 vols. Svo. 3I5. 6rf. 
 Each volume may be had separately. 
 
 CONSIDERATIONS ON MIRA- 
 CLES. By the Rev. CHARLES WEBB 
 LE BAS, M.A. Post Svo. 65. 
 
 The BIOSCOPE i or, Dial of Life 
 Explained. To which are added, a Trans- 
 lation of St. Paulinus' Epistle to Celantia on 
 the Rule of Christian Life, and an Elemen- 
 tary View of General Chronology ; with Per- 
 petual Time- Tables. By GRANVILLE 
 PENN, Esq. A New Edition, f.c. Svo. with 
 Dial-Plate in a case. 125. 
 
 DEATH-BED SCENES, and PAS- 
 TORAL 'CONVERSATIONS. Fourth 
 Edition, printed uniformly with the Family 
 Library. In 3 vols. 125. 
 
 LANDSCAPE ILLUSTRATIONS 
 of the BIBLE, made from ORIGINAL 
 SKETCHES taken on the Spot. Engraved 
 in the best style by W. and E. Finden. Ac- 
 companied by Descriptions, drawn up from 
 Original and other Sources, by the Rev. 
 THOMAS HARTWELL HORNE, B.D., 
 Author of " An Introduction to the Study of 
 the Holy Scriptures," &c. Now completed in 
 24 parts, price 25. 6d. each. 
 
 *»• The peculiar value of Mr. Murray's 
 ** Illustrations of the Bible," consists in their 
 being matter-of-fact views of places, as they 
 now exist, taken on the spot ; and not fic- 
 titious pictures, made up from prints in books 
 of travels, nor imaginary representations. 
 
 Persons desirous of binding up these Illus- 
 trations in their copies of the Bible, may pur- 
 chase the Ninety-six Plates separate from the 
 Text, for 40*. 
 
 The SACRED SCRIPTURES IL- 
 LUSTRATED from the Customs, Manners, 
 Rites, Superstitions, Traditions, Forms of 
 Speech, Climate, Works of Art, and Litera- 
 ture of the Hindoos, by Observations made 
 during a Residence in the East of nearly 
 Fourteen Years. By the Rev. JOSEPH RO- 
 BERTS, Jun. Svo. 18s. 
 
 The PHILOSOPHY of the MORAL 
 FEELINGS. ByJOHNABERCROMBIE, 
 M.D., F.R.S.E., &c., First Physician to her 
 Majesty in Scotland. Fifth Edition, f.c Svo. 
 5*. 
 
 An EXPLANATION of the TWO 
 
 SACRAMENTS, andthe occasional RITES 
 and CEREMONIES of the CHURCH of 
 ENGLAND, in a Series of Dialogues be- 
 tween a Mother and her Daughters ; intended 
 for the Use of Young Persons. By A LADY. 
 Small Svo. bs. 6d, 
 
 PRACTICAL LECTURES on the 
 HISTORICAL BOOKS of the OLD TES- 
 TAMENT. By the Rev. H. LINDSAY, 
 M.A., Rector of Croydon. 2 vols. f.c. Svo. 
 10*. 
 
 The COMFORTS of OLD AGE, with 
 Biographical Illustrations. Bv Sir THOMAS 
 BERNARD, Bart. Fourth Edition, f.c. Svo. 
 7*. 
 
 SERMONS, DOCTRINAL and 
 PRACTICAL, for PLAIN PEOPLE. By 
 the Rev.G. R. GLEIG, M.A., M.R.S.L., &c. 
 Second Edition, 12mo. 4*. 6rf. 
 
 SACRED MEDITATIONS and DE- 
 VOTIONAL POEMS; with Essays, in 
 Prose ; composed on various Occasions of 
 Life, and published for the Use of the Intelli- 
 gent Mind in its Serious Moments. Second 
 Edition, f.c. Svo. 7*. Qd, 
 
 CLASSICAL LITERATURE, 
 
 A GRAMMAR of the GREEK 
 
 LANGUAGE. By AUGUSTUS MAT- 
 THIiE. Translated from the German by E. 
 V. BLOMFIELD,M.A. Fifth Edition, tho- 
 roughly revised and greatly enlarged from the 
 last Edition of the original. By JOHN KEN- 
 RICK, M.A. 2 vols. Svo. 30*. 
 
 A SHORTER GREEK GRAMMAR, 
 
 for the Use of Schools. Abridged from the 
 Grammar of MATTHIiE, by CHARLES J. 
 BLOMFIELD, D.D., Lorcf Bishop of Lon- 
 don. Fifth Edition, revised and corrected. 
 By the Rev. J. EDWARDS, M.A., Second 
 Master, King's College School, London. 
 12mo. it. bd. 
 
 %* For the convenience of the Lower 
 Greek Classes, the ACCIDENCE is sold 
 separately, I2mo. 2s. bound. 
 
 MR. MURRAY'S SELECT LIST. 
 
 \ 
 
 An Account of the EARLY HIS- 
 TORY RELIGION and MYTHOLOGY, 
 CIVIL and DOMESTIC ^ ^^fV^'i' 
 TIONS, ARTS, LANGUAGE, and LITE- 
 RATURE of the DORIC RACE; with 
 new and improved Maps of the Peloponnese 
 and Macedonia. Translated from the German 
 of C. O. MULLER, Professor in the Univer- 
 sity of Giittingen, by HENRY TUFNEL, 
 Esq., and GEORGE CORNEWALL 
 LEWIS Esq., Student of Christ Church. 2 
 vols. Svo. 30*. , 
 
 A LATIN GRAMMAR. By J. and 
 G. SCHELLER. Translated from the Ger- 
 man, with Alterations, Notes, and Additions, 
 by G. WALKER, M.A., Head Master of the 
 Grammar School, Leeds. 2 vols. Svo. 30*. 
 
 LECTURES on the COINAGE of 
 the GREEKS and ROMANS. Delivered in 
 the University of Oxford, by EDWARD 
 CARD WELL, D.D., Principal of St. Al- 
 ban's Hall, and Camden Professor of Ancient 
 History. Svo. 85. 6^. 
 
 A POPULAR ACCOUNT of the 
 PUBLIC and PRIVATE LIFE of the AN- 
 CIENT GREEKS. Intended chiefly for the 
 Use of Young Persons. Translated from the 
 German of HEINRICH HASE. f.c. Svo. 
 5*. 6cf. 
 
 INTRODUCTION to the STUDY 
 of the GREEK CLASSIC POETS^ designed 
 principally for the Use of Young Persons at 
 Lhool ox College. By HENRY NEL- 
 SON COLERIDGE, M. A. Secortd Edition, 
 f.c. Svo. 7*. Qd. 
 
 A COMPLETE LATIN-ENGLISH- 
 DICTIONARY, compiled from the best 
 Sources, chiefly German, and adapted to the 
 Use of Colleges and Schools. By the Rev. 
 J. E. RIDDLE, M.A. 1 vol. Svo. 2\s. 
 
 THE YOUNG SCHOLAR'S LA- 
 TIN-ENGLISH DICTIONARY. Being an 
 Abridgment of tjie Complete Latin-English 
 Dictionary. By the Rev. J. E. RIDDLE, 
 M.A., of St. Edmund's Hall, Oxford. 
 
 THE PLAYS of ARISTOPHANES. 
 
 Edited, with English Notes, and adapted to 
 the Use of Schools and Universities, by 
 THOMAS MITCHELL, Esq., A.M. 
 
 Already Published. 
 
 1. The ACHARNENSES. Svo. 10*. 
 
 2. The WASPS. Svo. \0s. ^^^ . 
 
 3. The KNIGHTS,- or the DEMA- 
 GOGUES. Svo. 105. ^ ^ „ 
 
 4. The CLOUDS. Svo. In the Press. 
 
 The PLAYS of ARISTOPHANES. 
 
 Translated by THOMAS MITCHELL, 
 Esq. A.M. Second Edition 2 vols. Svo. 
 
 ESSAYS on the BIRDS, CLOUDS, 
 ftcof ARISTOPHANES. By J. W.Sy. 
 VERN. Translated by W. R. HAMIL- 
 TON, F.R.S. 2 vols, post Svo. 4*. 6rf. each. 
 
 BUTTMAN'S LEXILOGUS ; or, A 
 
 Critical Examination of the leaning and 
 Etymology of various Greek Words and Pas- 
 sages in Homer, Hesiod, and other Greek 
 Writers. Translated from the German of the 
 late PHILIP BUTTMAN, and edited, with 
 Notes and copious Indices, by the fej. J • «• 
 FISHLAKE; A.M., late Fellow of Wadham 
 college, Oxford. Svo. \%s. 
 
 A CATALOGUE of the IRREGU- 
 LAR GREEK VERBS, with all the Tenses 
 that are extant-their formation meaning, 
 and usage ; accompanied by a complete index. 
 TransTafed from "^Buttman's Ausfuhrliche 
 Sprachlehre. By the Rev. J. R. ±1^^- 
 LAKE. Svo. In the press. . , ,^^„...„ 
 *^* This book contains a vast deal of matter 
 interesting to the most erudite Greek Schol- 
 ars in England ; it is calculated not merely 
 ?o? TuTorl &c.' in the Universities, but for 
 every student who has made some progress 
 in the Greek Language. 
 
 SCIENCE AND MEDICINE. 
 
 ON THE CONNEXION OF THE 
 PHYSICAL SCIENCES. By MARY SO- 
 MERVILLE. Fourth £di7ion, most care- 
 fully revised, particularly with the view of 
 shnplifying the^work, and rendering it intel- 
 ligible to unscientific readers; with nume- 
 rous Illustrative Wood-cuts. f.c. Svo. 10s. 6d. 
 
 THE NINTH BRIDGEWATER 
 TREATISE : a Fragment. By CHARLES 
 BABBAGE, Esq. Svo. 95. 6rf. 
 
 " The volume here presented to the Public 
 
 does not form a part of^he fries fwo^^^^^^ 
 composed under the will ^^ -t^^.i^^.^pht that 
 Bridgewater. I have, *?owever thought th^^^ 
 in furthering the intentions of the testatoi by 
 publishing some reflections o;j/l\^^/,^^^^^^ 
 I might be permitted to connect w th tliem a 
 titTe which Ls, now, become famiharlyasso^^ 
 dated in the public mind with the subject ot 
 
 NATURAL RELIGION." — £*^raC< /»<^''* ^'^ 
 
 Preface 
 
 CHEMICAL MANIPULATION ; 
 
 hPine Instructions to Students in Chemistry 
 onTh'e Methods of Pe^/orming Experiment 
 of Demonstration or of Research with ^«m_- 
 racy and success. By MICHAEL 1^ AKA 
 DAY, F. R. S., F. G. S., M. R. I. Secona 
 Edition. Svo. IS5. 
 
 POPULAR ESSAYS on some of 
 
 the most important DISEASE?. By Sir 
 HFNRY HALFORD, Bart.,M.D.,G.C.H., 
 
 rnsWent of the College of Physicians. Se- 
 cond Edition. Post Svo. 6s. Cd. 
 
 Additional Essays, printed separM 
 On the EDUCATION and CONDUCi 
 
 of a PHYSICIAN. Post S^Op^f^^goNS of 
 On tne DEATH of some PERSO^iS 01 
 
 MODERN TIMES. Po^^ »^ V^t^enT 
 
 On the DEATH of !?J?«^^^iiMES. 
 PHILOSOPHERS of MODERN imt-^. 
 
 Post Svo. \s. 6c?. 
 
10 
 
 MR. MURRAY'S SELECT LIST. 
 
 ON THE MOST IMPORTANT 
 DISEASES PECULIAR to WOMEN. By 
 the late Dr. GOOCH. Second Edition. 8vo. 
 \2s, 
 
 ON DISEASES of the STOMACH. 
 By JOHN ABERCROMBIE, M.D., V.P. 
 R. S.E. Third Edition, enlarged, f.c. 8vo. 
 
 INQUIRIES concerning the IN- 
 TELLECTUAL POWERS and the IN- 
 VESTIGATION of TRUTH. By JOHN 
 ABERCROMBIE, M. D. Oxon. and Edin., 
 V.P. R. S.E. , Fellow of the Royal College 
 of Physicians of Edinburgh, Member of the 
 Royal Academy of Medicine of France, and 
 First Physician to Her Majesty in Scotland. 
 
 EIGHTH EDITION, poSt 8V0. 
 
 ELEMENTS of CHEMISTRY fami- 
 liarly explained. Illustrated with 100 Wood- 
 Cuts, f.c. 8vo. Qs. 
 
 ELEMENTS of RHETORIC. By 
 RICHARD WHATELEY, D.D., Arch- 
 bishop of Dublin, and- late Fellow of Oriel 
 College, Oxford. Printed uniformly with the 
 Elements of Logic. 8vo. 12^. 
 
 ' A HAND BOOK ; or, Short, Conve- 
 nient and intelUgible Dictionary of Terms 
 used in the Arts and Sciences, tracing their 
 Derivation, and explaining their Meaning in 
 the fewest Words possible. By WALTER 
 HAMILTON, Esq., M.R.A.S. f.c. 8vo. 
 9*. Qd, 
 
 A TREATISE OF PRACTICAL 
 SURVEYING and MILITARY SKETCH- 
 ING, for the Use of Young Officers and.others, 
 both Military and Civil ; At\ which will be 
 found complete Instructions for every Part of 
 the Process, from its commencement on the 
 Ground, to the finishing of a Plan, with va- 
 rious other useful Particulars connected with 
 the subject of Topographical Plan-Drawing. 
 By G. D. BURR. With Illustrative Plates. 
 I0«. 6rf. 
 
 By the same Author, intended as a Supple- 
 ment to the above, 
 
 A SHORT ESSAY on SKETCH- 
 ING GROUND WITHOUT INSTRU- 
 MENTS ; deriving its Principles from a few 
 Elementary Problems in Geometry, and 
 showing the Practical Methods of perform- 
 ing them. With Illustrative Wood-cuts. 8vo. 
 2^ . Qd. 
 
 A TREATISE on NAVAL GUN- 
 NERY ; containing the Principles now acted 
 upon for the general Improvement of Naval 
 Gunnery in the Service, and used as a Class- 
 Book on board His Majesty's Ship *' Excel- 
 lent," for the Instruction and Examination 
 of Officers, and for the Training of Seamen 
 Gunners. By Major-General Sir HOWARD 
 DOUGLAS. Second Edition. 8vo. 15^. 
 
 SOME DESCRIPTION of the 
 METHODS used in POINTING GUNS at 
 SEA. By Captain JOHN HARVEY STE- 
 VENS, Royal Marine Artillery Companies, 
 Director of the Laboratory of Instruction, 
 Portsmouth. 8vo. 3«. 
 
 FACTS in VARIOUS SCIENCES, 
 
 to assist the Memory. New Edition, f.c. 
 8vo. 6*. 6rf. 
 
 NATURAL HISTORY, 
 
 SALMONIA ; or, DAYS of FLY- 
 FISHNG. A Series of Conversations on the 
 Art of Fly-fishing for the Species and Varie- 
 ties of the Salmon, and on the Habit of these 
 Fishes. By the late SIR HUMPHRY 
 DAVY. Third Edition. With Engravings 
 and Wood-cuts. Small 8vo. 125. 
 
 CONSOLATIONS in TRAVEL ; or, 
 The LAST DAYS of a PHILOSOPHER. 
 By SIR HUMPHRY DAVY, late Presi- 
 dent of the Royal Society. Fourth Edition, 
 f.c. 8vo., printed uniformly with ' Salmonia.* 
 
 The JOURNAL of a NATURALIST- 
 
 Third Edition, post 8vo., with numerous Ad- 
 ditions and Improvements, Plates and Wood- 
 cuts. \b8. 
 
 Plants, trees, and stones, we note ; 
 
 Birds, insects, beasts, and many rural things. 
 " It is a book that ought to find its way 
 into every rural drawing-room in the king- 
 dom, and one that may safely be placed in 
 every lady's boudoir, be her rank and station 
 in life what thfa"Jiiay." — Quarterly Review^ 
 No. 78. * 
 
 GLEANri^SS IN NATURAL HIS- 
 TORY. Including Maxims and Hints for 
 Anglers, Extracts from the unpublished Jour- 
 nals of White of Selborne, Notices of the 
 Royal Parks and Residences, Local Recol- 
 lections, and Remarks on the Condition of 
 the Agricultural Peasantry of England. By 
 EDWARD JESSE, Esq., Surveyor of her 
 Majesty's Parks and Palaces. 3 vols, post 
 8vo., price 10*. Qd. each. 
 
 A Third Edition has been published of the 
 First Series, and a Second Edition of the 
 Second Series ; so that purchasers have now 
 an opportunity of completing their sets. Each 
 volume may also be purchased separately. 
 
 MRS. BRAY'S DESCRIPTION of 
 the BORDERS of the TAMAR and the 
 TAVY, and of the adjoining Part of Devon- 
 shire ; their Natural History, Scenery, Anti- 
 quities, Manners and Customs, &c. 3 vols, 
 post 8vo. 24*. 
 
 GEOLOGY. 
 
 PRINCIPLES of GEOLOGY; with a 
 
 GLOSSARY, containing an Explanation of 
 Scientific Terms, and a copious Index. By 
 CHARLES LYELL, F.R.S. Fifth Edition, 
 revised and enlarged, illustrated with 226 
 Wood-cuts and 16 Plates and Maps. 4 vols. 
 12mo. 28f, 
 
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES 
 
 '^is boo^' 
 
 y f 
 
 iTiHicated below, or at tb 
 
 COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES 
 
 
 0023837365 
 
 ^3l-»" 
 
 If:** ^ 
 
 <5Ai.CiCi.7 
 
 V/2.\ 
 
 00 
 
 o 
 
 O > 
 
 rvi '-4 
 ^ M 
 0^ "5 
 
 1 
 
 4 
 
 s; 
 
 - <t.»— «.. -■■ -ly ■ ; ,1. ■ , j^ ipt,^ 
 
 AUG im