[Sidenote: That the terms of our Const.i.tution imply and express an original contract.]
[Sidenote: That the contract is mutual consent, and binding at all times upon the parties.]
[Sidenote: The mixed Const.i.tution uniformly preserved for many ages, and is a proof of the contract.]
"The nature of our Const.i.tution is that of a _limited monarchy_, wherein the supreme power is communicated and divided between Queen, Lords, and Commons, though the executive power and administration be wholly in the crown. The terms of such a Const.i.tution do not only suppose, but express, an original contract between the crown and the people, by which that supreme power was (by mutual consent, and not by accident) limited and lodged in more hands than one. And _the uniform preservation of such a Const.i.tution for so many ages, without any fundamental change, demonstrates to your Lordships the continuance of the same contract_.
[Sidenote: Laws the common measure to King and subject.]
[Sidenote: Case of fundamental injury, and breach of original contract.]
"The consequences of such a frame of government are obvious: That the _laws_ are the rule to both, the common measure of the power of the crown and of the obedience of the subject; and if the executive part endeavors the _subversion and total destruction of the government_, the original contract is thereby broke, and the right of allegiance ceases that part of the government thus _fundamentally_ injured hath a right to save or recover _that_ Const.i.tution in which it had an original interest."
[Sidenote: Words _necessary means_ selected with caution.]
"_The necessary means_ (which is the phrase used by the Commons in their first article) words made choice of by them _with the greatest caution_.
Those means are described (in the preamble to their charge) to be, that glorious enterprise which his late Majesty undertook, with an armed force, to deliver this kingdom from Popery and arbitrary power; the concurrence of many subjects of the realm, who came over with him in that enterprise, and of many others, of _all ranks and orders_, who appeared in arms in many parts of the kingdom in aid of that enterprise.
"These were the _means_ that brought about the Revolution; and which the act that pa.s.sed soon after, _declaring the rights and liberties of the subject, and settling the succession of the crown_, intends, when his late Majesty is therein called _the glorious instrument of delivering the kingdom_; and which the Commons, in the last part of their first article, express by the word _resistance_.
[Sidenote: Regard of the Commons to their allegiance to the crown, and to the ancient Const.i.tution.]
"But the Commons, who will never be unmindful of the _allegiance_ of the subjects to the _crown_ of this realm, judged it highly inc.u.mbent upon them, out of regard to the _safety of her Majesty"s person and government, and the ancient and legal Const.i.tution of this kingdom_, to call that resistance the _necessary_ means; thereby plainly founding that power, of right and resistance, which was exercised by the people at the time of the happy Revolution, and which the duties of _self-preservation_ and religion called them to, _upon the NECESSITY of the case, and at the same time effectually securing her Majesty"s government, and the due allegiance of all her subjects_."
[Sidenote: All ages have the same interest in preservation of the contract, and the same Const.i.tution.]
"The nature of such an _original contract_ of government proves that there is not only a power in the people, who have _inherited its freedom_, to a.s.sert their own t.i.tle to it, but they are bound in duty to transmit the _same_ Const.i.tution to their posterity also."
Mr. Lechmere made a second speech. Notwithstanding the clear and satisfactory manner in which he delivered himself in his first, upon this arduous question, he thinks himself bound again distinctly to a.s.sert the same foundation, and to justify the Revolution on _the case of necessity only_, upon principles perfectly coinciding with those laid down in Mr. Burke"s letter on the French affairs.
_Mr. Lechmere._
[Sidenote: The Commons strictly confine their ideas of a revolution to necessity alone and self-defence.]
[Sidenote A: N.B. The remark implies, that allegiance would be insecure without this restriction.]
"Your Lordships were acquainted, in opening the charge, with how _great caution_, and with what unfeigned regard to her Majesty and her government, and to the _duty and allegiance_ of her subjects, the Commons made choice of the words _necessary means_ to express the resistance that was made use of to bring about the Revolution, and with the condemning of which the Doctor is charged by this article: not doubting but that the honor and justice of that resistance, _from the necessity of that case, and to which alone we have strictly confined ourselves_, when duly considered, would confirm and strengthen[A] and be understood to be an effectual security of the allegiance of the subject to the crown of this realm, _in every other case where there is not the same necessity_; and that the right of the people to _self-defence, and preservation of their liberties, by resistance as their last remedy, is the result of a case of such NECESSITY ONLY, and by which the ORIGINAL CONTRACT between king and people is broke. This was the principle laid down and carried through all that was said with respect to ALLEGIANCE; and on WHICH FOUNDATION, in the name and on the behalf of all the commons of Great Britain, we a.s.sert and justify that resistance by which the late happy Revolution was brought about_."
"It appears to your Lordships and the world, that _breaking the original contract between king and people_ were the words made choice of by that House of Commons," (the House of Commons which originated the Declaration of Right,) "with the _greatest deliberation and judgment_, and approved of by your Lordships, in that first and fundamental step made towards the _re-establishment of the government_, which had received so great a shock from the evil counsels which had been given to that unfortunate prince."
Sir John Hawles, another of the managers, follows the steps of his brethren, positively affirming the doctrine of non-resistance to government to be the general moral, religious, and political rule for the subject, and justifying the Revolution on the same principle with Mr. Burke,--that is, as _an exception from necessity_. Indeed, he carries the doctrine on the general idea of non-resistance much further than Mr. Burke has done, and full as far as it can perhaps be supported by any duty of _perfect obligation_, however n.o.ble and heroic it may be in many cases to suffer death rather than disturb the tranquillity of our country.
_Sir John Hawles._[15]
"Certainly it must be granted, that the doctrine that commands obedience to the supreme power, _though in things contrary to Nature_, even to suffer death, which is the highest injustice that can be done a man, rather than make an opposition to the supreme power [is reasonable[16]], because the death of one or some few private persons is a less evil than _disturbing the whole government_; that law must needs be understood to forbid the doing or saying anything to disturb the government, the rather because the obeying that law cannot be pretended to be against Nature: and the Doctor"s refusing to obey that implicit law is the reason for which he is now prosecuted; though he would have it believed that the reason he is now prosecuted was for the doctrine he a.s.serted of obedience to the supreme power; which he might have preached as long as he had pleased, and the Commons would have taken no offence at it, if he had stopped there, and not have taken upon him, on that pretence or occasion, to have cast odious colors upon the Revolution."
General Stanhope was among the managers. He begins his speech by a reference to the opinion of his fellow-managers, which he hoped had put beyond all doubt the limits and qualifications that the Commons had placed to their doctrines concerning the Revolution; yet, not satisfied with this general reference, after condemning the principle of non-resistance, which is a.s.serted in the sermon _without any exception_, and stating, that, under the specious pretence of preaching a peaceable doctrine, Sacheverell and the Jacobites meant, in reality, to excite a rebellion in favor of the Pretender, he explicitly limits his ideas of resistance with the boundaries laid down by his colleagues, and by Mr.
Burke.
_General Stanhope._
[Sidenote: Rights of the subject and the crown equally legal.]
"The Const.i.tution of England is founded upon _compact_; and the subjects of this kingdom have, in their several public and private capacities, _as_ legal a t.i.tle to what are their rights by law _as_ a prince to the possession of his crown.
[Sidenote: Justice of resistance founded on necessity.]
"Your Lordships, and most that hear me, are witnesses, and must remember the _necessities_ of those times which brought about the Revolution: that _no other_ remedy was left to preserve our religion and liberties; _that resistance was_ necessary, _and consequently just_."
"Had the Doctor, in the remaining part of his sermon, preached up peace, quietness, and the like, and shown how happy we are under her Majesty"s administration, and exhorted obedience to it, he had never been called to answer a charge at your Lordships" bar. But the tenor of all his subsequent discourse is one continued invective against the government."
Mr. Walpole (afterwards Sir Robert) was one of the managers on this occasion. He was an honorable man and a sound Whig. He was not, as the Jacobites and discontented Whigs of his time have represented him, and as ill-informed people still represent him, a prodigal and corrupt minister. They charged him, in their libels and seditious conversations, as having first reduced corruption to a system. Such was their cant. But he was far from governing by corruption. He governed by party attachments. The charge of systematic corruption is less applicable to him, perhaps, than to any minister who ever served the crown for so great a length of time. He gained over very few from the opposition.
Without being a genius of the first cla.s.s, he was an intelligent, prudent, and safe minister. He loved peace, and he helped to communicate the same disposition to nations at least as warlike and restless as that in which he had the chief direction of affairs. Though he served a master who was fond of martial fame, he kept all the establishments very low. The land tax continued at two shillings in the pound for the greater part of his administration. The other impositions were moderate.
The profound repose, the equal liberty, the firm protection of just laws, during the long period of his power, were the princ.i.p.al causes of that prosperity which afterwards took such rapid strides towards perfection, and which furnished to this nation ability to acquire the military glory which it has since obtained, as well as to bear the burdens, the cause and consequence of that warlike reputation. With many virtues, public and private, he had his faults; but his faults were superficial. A careless, coa.r.s.e, and over-familiar style of discourse, without sufficient regard to persons or occasions, and an almost total want of political decorum, were the errors by which he was most hurt in the public opinion, and those through which his enemies obtained the greatest advantage over him. But justice must be done. The prudence, steadiness, and vigilance of that man, joined to the greatest possible lenity in his character and his politics, preserved the crown to this royal family, and, with it, their laws and liberties to this country.
Walpole had no other plan of defence for the Revolution than that of the other managers, and of Mr. Burke; and he gives full as little countenance to any arbitrary attempts, on the part of restless and factious men, for framing new governments according to their fancies.
_Mr. Walpole_.
[Sidenote: Case of resistance out of the law, and the highest offence.]
[Sidenote: Utmost necessity justifies it.]
"Resistance is nowhere enacted to be legal, but subjected, by all the laws now in being, to the greatest penalties. "Tis what is not, cannot, nor ought ever to be described, or affirmed in any positive law, to be excusable; when, and upon what _never-to-be-expected_ occasions, it may be exercised, no man can foresee; _and ought never to be thought of, but when an utter subversion of the laws of the realm threatens the whole frame of a Const.i.tution, and no redress can otherwise be hoped for_. It therefore does and _ought forever_ to stand, in the eye and letter of the law, as the _highest offence_. But because any man, or party of men, may not, out of folly or wantonness, commit treason, or make their own discontents, ill principles, or disguised affections to another interest, a pretence to resist the supreme power, will it follow from thence that the _utmost necessity_ ought not to engage a nation _in its own defence for the preservation of the whole_?"
Sir Joseph Jekyl was, as I have always heard and believed, as nearly as any individual could be, the very standard of Whig principles in his age. He was a learned and an able man; full of honor, integrity, and public spirit; no lover of innovation; nor disposed to change his solid principles for the giddy fashion of the hour. Let us hear this Whig.
_Sir Joseph Jekyl._