ESSAY XIV.

Of the COALITION of PARTIES.

T

O abolish all diftinctions of party may not be

practicable, perhaps not defirable, in a free government. The only dangerous parties are fuch as entertain oppofite views with regard to the effentials of government, the fucceffion of the crown, or the more confiderable privileges belonging to the feveral members of the conftitution; where there is no room for any compromize or accommodation, and where the controverfy may appear fo momentous as to justify even an opposition by arms to the pretenfions of antagonists. Of this nature was the animofity, continued for above a century paft, between the parties in ENGLAND; an animofity which broke out fometimes into civil war, which occafioned violent revolutions, and which continually endangered the peace and tranquillity of the nation. But as there have appeared of late the strongest symptoms of an univerfal defire to abolish these party diftinctions; this tendency to a coalition affords the most agreeable prospect of future happiness, and ought to be carefully cherished and promoted by every lover of his country.

There is not a more effectual method of promoting fo good an end, than to prevent all unreasonable infult and triumph of the one party over the other, to encourage

moderate

1

moderate opinions, to find the proper medium in all. difputes, to perfuade each that its antagonist may poffibly be fometimes in the right, and to keep a balance in the praife and blame, which we bestow on either fide. The two former Effays, concerning the original contract and paffive obedience, are calculated for this purpose with regard to the philofophical and practical controverfies between the parties, and tend to show that neither fide are in these respects fo fully fupported by reafon as they endeavour to flatter themselves. We fhall proceed to exercise the fame moderation with regard to the historical difputes between the parties, by proving that each of them was juftified by plaufible topics; that there were on both fides wife men, who meant well to their country; and that the paft animofity between the factions had no better foundation than narrow prejudice or interested paffion.

The popular party, who afterwards acquired the name of whigs, might justify, by very specious arguments, that oppofition to the crown, from which our prefent free conftitution is derived. Though obliged to acknowledge, that precedents in favour of prerogative had uni ̧ formly taken place during many reigns before CHARLES the First, they thought, that there was no reason for fubmitting any longer to fo dangerous an authority. Such might have been their reasoning: As the rights of mankind are for ever to be deemed facred, no prescription of tyranny or arbitrary power can have authority fufficient to abolish them. Liberty is a bleffing fo ineftimable, that, wherever there appears any probability of recovering it, a nation may willingly run many hazards, and ought not even to repine at the greatest effusion of blood or diffipation of treasure. All human inftitutions, and none more than government, are in continual fluctuation. Kings are fure to embrace every opportunity of

extending

extending their prerogatives: And if favourable incidents be not alfo laid hold of for extending and fecuring the privileges of the people, an univerfal defpotifm must for ever prevail amongst mankind. The example of all the neighbouring nations prove, that it is no longer fafe to entrust with the crown the fame high prerogatives, which had formerly been exercifed during rude and fimple ages. And though the example of many late reigns may be pleaded in favour of a power in the prince fomewhat arbitrary, more remote reigns afford inftances of ftricter limitations imposed on the crown; and those pretenfions of the parliament, now branded with the title of innovations, are only a recovery of the just rights of the people.

These views, far from being odious, are furely large, and generous, and noble: To their prevalence and fuccefs the kingdom owes its liberty; perhaps its learning, its industry, commerce, and naval power: By them chiefly the ENGLISH name is diftinguished among the fociety of nations, and aspires to a rivalship with that of the freeft and moft illuftrious commonwealths of antiquity. But as all these mighty confequences could not reasonably be foreseen at the time when the conteft began, the royalists of that age wanted not fpecious arguments on their fide, by which they could justify their defence of the then established prerogatives of the prince. We shall ftate the question, as it might have appeared to them at the affembling of that parliament, which, by its violent encroachments on the crown, began the civil wars.

The only rule of government, they might have faid, known and acknowledged among men, is ufe and practice: Reason is fo uncertain a guide that it will always be expofed to doubt and controverfy: Could it ever render itself prevalent over the people, men had always etained it as their fole rule of conduct: They had still

continued

continued in the primitive, unconnected ftate of nature, without fubmitting to political government, whose fole bafis is, not pure reafon, but authority and precedent. Diffolve these ties, you break all the bonds of civil fociety,” and leave every man at liberty to confult his private intereft, by those expedients, which his appetite, disguised under the appearance of reafon, fhall dictate to him." The fpirit of innovation is in itself pernicious, however favourable its particular object may fometimes appear : A fruth so obvious, that the popular party themselves are fenfible of it; and therefore cover their encroachments on the crown by the plaufible pretence of their recovering the ancient liberties of the people.

But the prefent prerogatives of the crown, allowing all the fuppofitions of that party, have been incontestably established ever fince the acceffion of the House of TUDOR; a period, which, as it now comprehends an hundred and fixty years, may be allowed fufficient to give ftability to any conftitution. Would it not have appeared ridiculous, in the reign of the Emperor ADRIAN, to have talked of the republican conftitution as the rule of government; or to have fuppofed, that the former rights of the fenate, and confuls, and tribunes were still subfifting?

But the prefent claims of the ENGLISH monarchs are much more favourable than thofe of the ROMAN emperors during that age. The authority of AUGUSTUS was a plain ufurpation, grounded only on military violence, and forms fuch an epoch in the ROMAN hiftory, as is obvious to every reader. But if HENRY VII. really, as fome pretend, enlarged the power of the crown, it was only by infenfible acquifitions, which escaped the apprehenfion of the people, and have fcarcely been remarked even by hiftorians and politicians. The new government, if it deferve the epithet, is an imperceptible'

tranfition