Thus, my dear Philip, ended the reign of James II., a prince not destitute of virtue or abilities, but who, as you have seen, was so enslaved by the Romish superstition, and blinded with the love of arbitrary power, that he obstinately violated the civil and religious constitution of his country; and was, therefore, justly deprived of the throne. Who had a right to fill that throne? is a question which we shall afterward have occasion to discuss. In the mean time, I must carry forward the progress of the prince of Orange; observing, by the way, that whatever restraints might have been imposed on the regal authority which had been abused, the king's desertion of his people, though in some measure deserted by them, could only have occasioned the utter loss of his crown, or have changed the line of succession.

The same day that James left Whitehall, William arrived at St. James's. It happened to rain very heavily, and yet great numbers came to see him. But, after they had stayed long in the wet, he disappointed them. Being an enemy to show and parade, perhaps from a consciousness of his ungraceful figure, and dead to the voice of popular joy, he went through the park to the palace. (1) Even this trifling incident helped to alter the sentiments of the people; and being now cool, they judged more impartially. They considered it as an unnatural thing for the prince of Orange to waken his father-in-law out of his sleep, and force him from his own palace, when he was ready to submit to every thing: they began even to suspect, that this specious under taking would prove to be only a disguised and designed usurpation.(2) The publie bodies, however, waited upon the prince, and expressed their zeal for bis cause: and, among others, the gentlemen of the law, with old sergeant Maynard at their head; who, when William took notice of his great age, and said he must have outlived all the lawyers of his time, wittily replied, "I should have outlived the law itself, if your highness had not come over!" (3)

The only thing that now remained for all parties was the settlement of the kingdom. With this view, the peers met in their own house; and the prince laid before them his declaration, as the foundation of their deliberations. In the course of debate it was urged, that the king, by withdrawing, had divested himself of his authority, and that government itself had suffered a demise in law.(4) A free parliament was, therefore, declared to be the only means of obtaining a legal settlement, and the result of the whole was, that an address should be presented to the prince of Orange, desiring him to assume the administration of government, and to summon a convention. The offer was too alluring to be rejected; but William, cautious in all his proceedings, judged it still necessary to strengthen the resolution of the lords with the authority of the commons. For that purpose, a judicious expedient was fallen upon. All the members of the three last parliaments, who were in London, were invited to meet, together with the lord mayor, the court of aldermen, and fifty members of the common council. This mixed assembly, which was regarded as the most equal representation of the people that could be obtained in the present emergency, unanimously voted an address, the same in substance with that of the lords; and the prince, supported by so great a part of the nation, despatched his circular letters to the various boroughs, counties, and corporations in England, for a general election of representatives.(5)

While the revolution thus approached to maturity in England, the people of Scotland were not idle spectators. The Presbyterians in that kingdom, who had long been persecuted and oppressed, composed the bulk of the nation; and as the prince of Orange was of their persuasion, the most fervent prayers were offered up for his success, as soon as his designs were known. He had undertaken to deliver Scotland as well as England; and, in order to facilitate his views, the popular party, on receiving his declaration, dissolved the few regular troops that remained in the kingdom, and assumed the reins of government. Thirty noblemen, and about eighty gentlemen, repaired to London; and forming themselves into a kind of convention, requested the prince to

(1) Burnet, book iv. (4) Clarendon's Diary, Dec. 26, 1688. VOL. II.-R

(2) Id. ibid.

(3) Id. ibid.
(5) Burnet, ubi sup. Echard, vol. iii.

take into his hands the administration of Scotland. He thanked them for the trust they had reposed in him, and summoned a general convention to meet at Edinburgh. This assembly being regarded as illegal by the more zealous royalists, they took little share in the elections; so that the popular party, or the whigs, were returned for most places. The proceedings of the members of the Scottish convention were accordingly bold and decisive. They or dered, by proclamation, all persons between the age of sixteen and sixty to be ready to take arms: they gave the command of the militia to sir Patrick Hume, one of their most active leaders: they raised eight hundred men for a guard, under the earl of Leven: they empowered the duke of Hamilton, their president, to secure all disaffected and suspected persons; and without amusing themselves with nice distinctions, and the latent meaning of the words, they resolved, "that king James, by mal-administration, and by his abuse of power, had forfeited his right of the crown." They therefore declared the throne vacant, and invited the prince and princess of Orange to take possession of it, though not without due attention to their civil and religious rights.(1)

In the mean time, the English convention had met; and after a long debate, the commons came to the following memorable resolution:-"That king James II. having endeavoured to subvert the constitution, by breaking the original contract between king and people; and having violated the fundamental laws, and withdrawn himself from the kingdom, has abdicated the government; and that the throne is thereby become vaacnt."(2) This resolution was carried up to the house of peers, where it met with much opposition, and many warm debates ensued. The most curious of these was, "Whether any original contract subsisted between the king and the people?" -a question more fit for the schools than a national assembly, but which the vote of the commons had rendered necessary. Arguments may surely be produced from reason to prove a kind of tacit compact between the sovereign and the subject; but such a compact has seldom had any actual existence. The English national charters, however, seemed to realize such a compact: and these charters had all been recognised and confirmed by the bill of rights, a solemn and recent transaction between the king, the nobles, and the representatives of the people. The majority of the lords, therefore, declared for an original contract; and the house almost instantly resolved, that James had broken that contract.(3)

The opposition, however, did not end here. The lords proceeded to take into consideration the word abdicated, contained in the vote of the commons; and, after some debate, agreed that deserted was more proper. The next and concluding question was, "Whether king James, having broken the original contract, and deserted the government, the throne is thereby vacant?" The question was debated with more warmth than any of the former; and, on a division, it was carried by eleven voices against a vacancy. The vote of the commons was sent back with these amendments; and, as they continued obstinate, a free conference was appointed between the two houses, in order to settle the controversy.

Never perhaps was there a national debate of more importance, or managed by more able speakers. The leaders of the commons contended, that although the word deserted might be more significant and intelligible, as applied to the king's withdrawing himself, it could not, with any propriety, be extended to his violation of the fundamental laws. The managers for the lords, changing their ground, insisted, that, admitting the king's abuse of power to be equivalent to an abdication, it could operate no otherwise than his voluntary resignation, or natural death, and could only make way for the next heir; who, though they did not name him, they insinuated, being yet an infant in the cradle, could have committed no crime: and no just reason, they thought, could be assigned, why, without any default of his own, he should lose a crown to which he was entitled by his birth. The leaders of the commons (1) Balcarras's Minutes of the Convention. Burnet, book iv. v. (2) Journals, Jan. 28, 1689 (3) Journals of the Lords, Jan. 30.

replied, that the oath of allegiance, which binds the subject to the heirs of the king as well as to himself, regarded only a natural demise, and that there was no provision in law for a civil demise, which seemed equivalent to an attainder; that although upon the death of a king, whose administration had been agreeable to the laws, many and great inconveniences would be endured, rather than exclude the lineal successor; yet when, as in the present case, the people, on the principle of self-preservation, had been obliged to have recourse to arms, in order to dethrone a prince who had violated the constitution, that the government reverted, in some measure, to its first principles, and the community acquired a right of providing for the public welfare by the most rational expedients.

The members of the convention might surely establish a new precedent, as well as their ancestors. Never could a more fair representation of the people be obtained; and the people, it must be allowed, though they cannot deliberate in a body, have a right, on every revolution, and whenever their constitutional liberties are invaded, to choose their own governors, as well as the form of government under which they desire to live, unless the monstrous doctrine of MANY made for ONE should be revived. The two houses, however, parted without coming to any conclusion; but as it was impossible for the nation to remain long in its present state, the majority of the lords, in consequence of the desertion of some tories to the whig party, at last agreed to pass the vote of the commons, without any alteration or amend ment.(1)

This grand controversy being got over, the next question was, "Who should fill the vacant throne ?"(2) The marquis of Halifax, in order to recommend himself to the future sovereign, moved that the crown should be immediately conferred upon the prince of Orange. The earl of Danby, his political rival, proposed to confer it solely on the princess; and others contended for a regency. William, who had hitherto behaved with great moderation and magnanimity, avoiding to interfere in the debates of either house, and disdaining even to bestow caresses on those members whose influence might be useful to him, now perceiving that he was likely to lose the great object of his ambition, broke through that mysterious reserve, and seeming apathy, in which he had been so long wrapped. He called together Halifax, Shrewsbury, Danby, and some other leading men, and told them, that he had heard some were for placing the government in the hands of a regent. He would not, he said, oppose the measure; but he thought it necessary to inform them, that he would not be THAT regent. Others, he added, seemed disposed to place the princess singly on the throne, and that he should reign by her courtesy. This he also declined; declaring, that he could not accept of an authority, which should depend on the will or the life of another; that no man could esteem a woman more than he did the princess Mary, but he could not "think of holding any thing by apron-strings;" and therefore, if they did not think fit to make a different settlement, that he would return to Holland, and concern himself no more in their affairs.(3)

This threat, though not deemed to be altogether sincere, had its weight. Both houses voted, "That_the_prince and princess of Orange should be declared king and queen of England;" and a bill was brought in for that purpose. In this bill, or instrument of settlement, it was provided, that the prince and princess should enjoy the crown of England during their natural lives and the life of the survivor, the sole administration to be in the prince; that, after the death of both, the throne should be filled by the heirs of the body of the princess; and that, in default of such issue, Anne, princess of Denmark, and the heirs of her body, should succeed, before those of the prince of Orange,

(1) Journals of the Lords, Feb. 6.

(2) During all these debates, it seems somewhat extraordinary, that no inquiry was made concerning the birth of the prince of Wales; more especially as such an inquiry had been expressly mentioned by the prince of Orange in his declaration. The reasons assigned by Burnet for this neglect, though plau sible, are by no means conclusive. (Hist. Own Times, book iv.) The only substantial reason for such omission seems to be, that the whigs, finding it impracticable to prove an imposture even by presumptive evidence, judged it prudent to let the matter rest in obscurity. (3) Burnet. book iv.

by any other wife but the princess Mary.(1) The instrument of settlement, besides regulating the line of succession, also provided against the return of those grievances, which had driven the nation to the present extremity; and, although it ought to have been more full on this head, it declared, and effectually secured from the future encroachments of the sovereign, the most essential rights of the subject.

Thus, my dear Philip, was happily terminated the great struggle between privilege and prerogative, between the crown and the people; which commenced, as you have seen, with the accession of the family of Stuart to the throne of England, and continued till their exclusion, when almost a century had elapsed. The revolution forms a grand era in the English constitution. By bringing on the decision of many important questions in favour of liberty, and yet more by the memorable precedent of deposing one king and establishing another, with a new line of succession, it gave such an ascendant to popular principles, as has put the nature of our government beyond all controversy. A king of England, or of Britain, to use the words of my lord Bolingbroke, is now strictly and properly what a king should be; a member, but the supreme member or head, of a political body; distinct from it, or independent of it, in none. He can no longer move in a different orbit from his people; and, like some superior planet, attract, repel, and direct their motions by his own. He and they are parts of the same system, intimately joined, and co-operating together; acting and acted upon, limiting and limited, controlling and controlled, by one another; and when he ceases to stand in this relation to them, he ceases to stand in any. The settlements, by virtue of which he governs, are plainly original contracts; his institution is plainly conditional; and he may forfeit his right to allegiance, as undeniably and effectually, as the subject his right to protection.(2)

But these advantages, so much and so deservedly praised, and which can never be too highly valued, serve at present only to convince us of the imperfection of all human institutions. Happily poised as our government is, and although the people of this island have enjoyed, since the revolution, the most perfect system of liberty ever known among mankind, the spirit of patriotism (which, as it gave birth to that system, can alone preserve it entire) has continued to decline; and the freedom, though not the form of our constitution, is now exposed to as much danger from the enslaving influence of the crown, as ever it was from the invasions of prerogative or the violence of arbitrary power. The nature of this influence, and the mode of its operations, as well as its rise and progress, I shall afterward have occasion to explain.

We should now return to the affairs on the continent; but, for the sake of perspicuity, it will be proper first to relate the efforts made by James II. for the recovery of his crown.

End

LETTER XVII.

Great Britain and Ireland, from the Revolution, in 1688, till the Assassination

Plot, in 1696.

THOUGH the revolution, as we have already seen, my dear Philip, was brought about by a coalition of parties, not by a faction; though whig and tory, united by the tyrannical proceedings of James, contributed with their joint efforts to that event, the most glorious in the annals of liberty; yet this union was but, the union of a day. No sooner were the tories freed from the terror of arbitrary power, than their high monarchical principles began to return. It was the prevalence of these principles in the English

(1) Journals of the Lords, Feb. 7, 1689. See also the instrument, or act itself. In this act was inserted a clause, disabling all papists, or such as should marry papists, from succeeding to the crown; and another, absolving the subjects, in that case, from their allegiance. (2) Dissertation on Parties, let. ix.

convention, which occasioned those warm and contentious disputes in regard to the vacancy of the throne and the original contract; and which, but for the obstinacy of the whigs, and the firmness of the prince of Orange, would have rendered the great work in which the nation was engaged imperfect. Though disposed to nothing less, as a body, than the restoration of James, the tories, enslaved by their political prejudices, were startled at the idea of breaking the line of succession. Hence the ridiculous proposal of a regency. And a party, since properly distinguished by the reproachful appellation of Jucobites, secretly lurked among the tories; a party, who, from their attachment to the person or the family of the dethroned monarch, and an adherence to the monstrous doctrines of passive obedience and of divine, indefeasible hereditary right, wished to bring back the king, and invariably held, that none but a STUART could justly be invested with the regal authority. Of this opinion were all the bigoted high-churchmen and Catholics in the three kingdoms. Among the whigs, or moderate churchmen and dissenters, in like manner, lurked many enthusiastic republicans; who hoped in the national ferment, to effect a dissolution of monarchy.

The contest between these parties, fomented by the ambitious views of individuals, which long distracted the English government, and is not yet fully composed, began immediately after the revolution, and threatened the sudden subversion of the new establishment. The silent, reserved temper and solitary disposition of William early disgusted the citizens of London;(1) and the more violent tories, who had lost all the merit which their party might otherwise have claimed with the king, by opposing the change in the succession, were enraged at seeing the current of court favour run chiefly towards the whigs. The hope of retaining this favour, and with it the principal offices of the state (of which they had been so long in possession, and to which they thought themselves entitled, by the antiquity of their families, and their superiority in landed property), was probably their leading motive for concurring in a revolution which they were sensible they could not prevent. But, whatever their motives might be for such co-operation, they had justly forfeited all title to royal favour by their subsequent conduct, not only in the estimation of William, but of all the zealous lovers of their country. They reverted to ancient prejudices and narrow principles, at a crisis when the nation was ready to embrace the most enlarged way of thinking, with respect both to religion and government.

The church also was enraged at the general toleration which William, soon after his accession, very prudently as well as liberally, granted to all his Protestant subjects; and still more by an attempt which he made towards a comprehension in England; while the whole episcopal body in Scotland took part with the Jacobites, in consequence of the re-establishment of the presbyterian religion in that kingdom. This establishment the Scottish convention, which consisted chiefly of presbyterians, had demanded. They connected it intimately with the settlement of the crown;(2) and their spirit, in so doing, deserves to be admired. But William had little to fear from that quarter. The presbyterians, who composed about three-fourths of the inhabitants of Scotland, were not only able to defend the new settlement, but willing to do it at the hazard of their lives. The state of Ireland was very different.

The great body of the people in that kingdom were Roman Catholics. The earl of Tyrconnel, a violent papist, was lord-lieutenant; and all employments, civil and military, were in the hands of the same sect. Yet this man, who had induced the infatuated James, by working on his civil and religious prejudices, to invade the privileges of the Irish corporations, in the same manner as those of England had been attacked by Charles II., and who, under the plausible pretence of relieving some distressed and really injured papists, had prepared a bill for destroying the whole settlement of the kingdom, as established at the restoration, and which would have given to the

(1) Burnet, book v.

(2) Burnet, ubi sup.