tion, or to fabricate a new government for them- falling, at any time hereafter, under arbitrary selves, and thereby to disturb the publick peace, government.' and to unsettle the ancient constitution of this kingdom. Submission to the sovereign a conscientious duty, except in cases of necessity. 6 SIR JOHN HOLLAND. 'The commons would not be understood, as if they were pleading for a 'licentious resistance; as if subjects 'were left to their good-will and pleasure, when they are to obey, and 'when to resist. No, my lords, they know they are obliged by all the ties of social creatures ' and Christians, for wrath and conscience sake, 'to submit to their sovereign. The commons do 'not abet humoursome factious arms: they aver them to be rebellious. But yet they maintain, ' that that resistance at the Revolution, which was so necessary, was lawful and just from that 'necessity. These general rules of obedience may, upon a 'real necessity, admit a lawful exception; and 'such a necessary exception we assert the Revolution to be. "Tis with this view of necessity only, absolute necessity of preserving our laws, liberties, and religion; 'tis with this limitation that we desire to be understood, when any of us speak of resistance in general. The necessity of the resistance at the Revolution was at that time obvious to every 'man.' Extract from the Prince of Orange's We are confident that no persons can have 'such hard thoughts of us, as to imagine that we ' have any other design in this undertaking, than 'to procure a settlement of the religion and of the liberties and properties of the subjects, upon so sure a foundation, that there may be no danger of the nation's relapsing into the like miseries at any time hereafter. And, as the forces that we have brought along with us are utterly disproportioned to that wicked design of conquering the nation, if we were capable of intending it; so the great numbers of the principal nobility and gentry, that are bility and genmen of eminent quality and estates, fected to the and persons of known integrity and church and zeal, both for the religion and go- rity against vernment of England, many of the design of them also being distinguished by 'their constant fidelity to the Crown, who do 'both accompany us in this expedition, and have earnestly solicited us to it, will cover us from all such malicious insinuations.' In the spirit, and, upon one occasion, in the words, of this declaration, the statutes passed in that reign made such provisions for preventing these dangers, that scarcely any thing short of combination of king, lords, and commons, for the destruction of the liberties of the nation, can in any probability make us liable to similar perils. In that dreadful, and, I hope, not to be looked for case, any opinion of a right to make revolutions, grounded on this precedent, would be but a poor resource.-Dreadful indeed would be our situation. These are the doctrines held by the Whigs of the Revolution, delivered with as much solemnity, and as authentically at least, as any political dogmas were ever promulgated from the beginning of the world. If there be any difference between their tenets and those of Mr. Burke, it is, that the old Whigs oppose themselves still more strongly than he does against the doctrines which are now propagated with so much industry by those who would be thought their successors. It will be said perhaps, that the old Whigs, in order to guard themselves against popular odium, pretended to assert tenets contrary to those which they secretly held. This, if true, would prove, what Mr. Burke has uniformly asserted, that the extravagant doctrines which he meant to expose, were disagreeable to the body of the people; who, though they perfectly abhor a despotick government, certainly approached more nearly to the love of mitigated monarchy, than to any thing which bears the appearance even of the best republick. But if these old Whigs deceived the people, their conduct was unaccountable indeed. They exposed their power, as every one conversant in history knows, to the greatest peril, for the propagation of opinions which, on this hypothesis, they did not hold. It is a new kind of martyrdom. This supposition does as little credit to their integrity as their wisdom: it makes them at once hypocrites and fools. I think of those great men very differently. I hold them to have been, what the world thought them, men of deep understanding, open sincerity, and clear honour. How ever, be that matter as it may, what these old Whigs pretended to be, Mr. Burke is. This is enough for him. I do indeed admit, that, though Mr. Burke has proved that his opinions were those of the old Whig party, solemnly declared by one house, in effect and substance by both houses of parliament, this testimony standing by itself will form no proper defence for his opinions, if he and the old Whigs were both of them in the wrong. But it is his present concern, not to vindicate these old Whigs, but to shew his agreement with them.He appeals to them as judges: he does not vindicate them as culprits. It is current that these old politicians knew little of the rights of men; that they lost their way by groping about in the dark, and fumbling among rotten parchments and musty records. Great lights they say are lately obtained in the world; and Mr. Burke, instead of shrowding himself in exploded ignorance, ought to have taken advantage of the blaze of illumination which has been spread about him. It may be so. The enthusiasts of this time, it seems, like their predecessors in another faction of fanaticism, deal in lights.-Hudibras pleasantly says to them, they "Have lights, where better eyes are blind, "As pigs are said to see the wind." positive doctrines. They are indeed, to those Mr. Burke holds, diametrically opposite; and if it be true, (as the oracles of the party have said, I hope hastily,) that their opinions differ so widely, it should seem they are the most likely to form the creed of the modern Whigs. I have stated what were the avowed sentiments of the old Whigs, not in the way of argument, but narratively. It is but fair to set before the reader, in the same simple manner, the sentiments of the modern, to which they spare neither pains nor expense to make proselytes. I choose them from the books upon which most of that industry and expenditure in circulation have been employed; I choose them not from those who speak with a politick obscurity; not from those who only controvert the opinions of the old Whigs, without advancing any of their own, but from those who speak plainly and affirmatively. The Whig reader may make his choice between the two doctrines. The doctrine then propagated by these societies, which gentlemen think they ought to be very tender in discouraging, as nearly as possible in their own words, is as follows: that in Great Britain we are not only without a good constitution, but that we have "no constitution." That," though "it is much talked about, no such thing as a con"stitution exists or ever did exist; and conse"quently that the people have a constitution yet "to form; that since William the Conqueror, the country has never yet regenerated itself, and is "therefore without a constitution. That where "it cannot be produced in a visible form there is none. That a constitution is a thing antecedent ( to government; and that the constitution of a country is not the act of its government, but of a people constituting a government. That every thing in the English government is the reverse of "what it ought to be, and what it is said to be in England. That the right of war and peace re"sides in a metaphor shewn at the Tower, for sixpence or a shilling a piece.-That it signifies not where the right resides, whether in the "Crown or in parliament. War is the common "harvest of those who participate in the division and expenditure of publick money. That the portion of liberty enjoyed in England is just "enough to enslave a country more productively "than by despotism." 66 66 66 The author of the Reflections has heard a great deal concerning the modern lights; but he has not yet had the good fortune to see much of them. He has read more than he can justify to any thing but the spirit of curiosity, of the works of these illuminators of the world. He has learned nothing from the far greater number of them, than a full certainty of their shallowness, levity," pride, petulance, presumption, and ignorance. Where the old authors whom he has read, and the old men whom he has conversed with, have left him in the dark, he is in the dark still. If So far as to the general state of the British conothers, however, have obtained any of this extra-stitution. As to our house of lords, the chief ordinary light, they will use it to guide them in virtual representatives of our aristocracy, the great their researches and their conduct. I have only to ground and pillar of security to the landed inwish, that the nation may be as happy and as pros-terest, and that main link by which it is conperous under the influence of the new light, as it nected with the law and the Crown, these worthy has been in the sober shade of the old obscurity. societies are pleased to tell us, that, "whether we As to the rest, it will be difficult for the author of "view aristocracy before, or behind, or sideways, the Reflections to conform to the principles of the" or any way else, domestically or publickly, it is avowed leaders of the party, until they appear otherwise than negatively. All we can gather "one feature less in its countenance than what it from them is this, that their principles are diame- "has in some other countries; it did not comtrically opposite to his. This is all that we know" pose a body of hereditary legislators. It was from authority. Their negative declaration obliges "not a corporation of aristocracy;"-for such it me to have recourse to the books which contain seems that profound legislator M. de la Fayette "still a monster. That aristocracy in France had describes the house of peers. "That it is kept 66 66 66 up by family tyranny and injustice-that there "is an unnatural unfitness in aristocracy to be legislators for a nation-that their ideas of dis"tributive justice are corrupted at the very source; they begin life by trampling on all their younger brothers and sisters, and relations of every kind, and are taught and educated so to do. That the idea of an hereditary legislator "is as absurd as an hereditary mathematician. "That a body holding themselves unaccountable "to any body ought to be trusted by no body"that it is continuing the uncivilized principles of governments founded in conquest, and the base "idea of man having a property in man, and governing him by a personal right—that aristocracy has a tendency to degenerate the human species," &c. &c. 46 "When we survey the wretched condition of "man under the monarchical and hereditary sys66 tems of government, dragged from his home by one power, or driven by another, and impover"ished by taxes more than by enemies, it becomes "evident that those systems are bad, and that a general revolution in the principle and con"struction of government is necessary. 66 "What is government more than the manage"ment of the affairs of a nation? It is not, and "from its nature cannot be, the property of any particular man or family, but of the whole com"munity, at whose expence it is supported; and though by force or contrivance it has been "usurped into an inheritance, the usurpation can"not alter the right of things. Sovereignty, as a matter of right, appertains to the nation only, "and not to any individual; and a nation has at "all times an inherent indefeasible right to abolish any form of government it finds incon venient, and establish such as accords with its "interest, disposition, and happiness. The ro"mantick and barbarous distinction of men into kings and subjects, though it may suit the con"dition of courtiers, cannot that of citizens; and is exploded by the principle upon which governments are now founded. Every citizen "is a member of the sovereignty, and, as such, "can acknowledge no personal subjection; and "his obedience can be only to the laws." As to our law of primogeniture, which with few and inconsiderable exceptions is the standing law of all our landed inheritance, and which without question has a tendency, and I think a most happy tendency, to preserve a character of consequence, weight, and prevalent influence over others in the whole body of the landed interest, they call loudly for its destruction. They do this" for political reasons that are very manifest. They have the confidence to say, "that it is a law against every law of nature, and nature herself calls for "its destruction. Establish family justice, and aristocracy falls. By the aristocratical law of primogenitureship, in a family of six children, "five are exposed. Aristocracy has never but one child. The rest are begotten to be de"voured. They are thrown to the cannibal for prey, and the natural parent prepares the un"natural repast." 66 66 66 Warmly recommending to us the example of France, where they have destroyed monarchy, they say 66 "Monarchical sovereignty, the enemy of man"kind, and the source of misery, is abolished; As to the house of commons, they treat it far "and sovereignty itself is restored to its natural worse than the house of lords or the Crown have" and original place, the nation. Were this the been ever treated. Perhaps they thought they had case throughout Europe, the cause of wars a greater right to take this amicable freedom with "would be taken away." those of their own family. For many years it has been the perpetual theme of their invectives."Mockery, insult, usurpation," are amongst the best names they bestow upon it. They damn it in the mass, by declaring that it does not arise "out of the inherent rights of the people, as the "National Assembly does in France, and whose name designates its original." "But, after all, what is this metaphor called a "Crown, or rather what is monarchy? Is it a "thing, or is it a name, or is it a fraud? Is it "a contrivance of human wisdom,' or of human "craft, to obtain money from a nation under specious pretences? Is it a thing necessary to a nation? If it is, in what does that necessity 'consist, what services does it perform, what is "its business, and what are its merits? Doth the "virtue consist in the metaphor, or in the man? "Doth the goldsmith that makes the crown make "the virtue also? Doth it operate like Fortu"natus's wishing cap, or Harlequin's wooden "sword? Doth it make a man a conjuror? In "fine, what is it? It appears to be a something going much out of fashion, falling into ridicule, "and rejected in some countries both as unnecessary and expensive. In America it is considered as an absurdity; and in France it has SO far declined, that the goodness of the man, "and the respect for his personal character, are "the only things that preserve the appearance of "its existence." 66 "Mr. Burke talks about what he calls an hereditary crown, as if it were some produc"tion of Nature; or as if, like Time, it had a power to operate, not only independently, but in spite of man; or as if it were a thing or a subject universally consented to. Alas! it has none of those properties, but is the reverse of "them all. It is a thing in imagination, the propriety of which is more than doubted, and "the legality of which in a few years will be "denied." 66 66 66 "of man were but imperfectly understood at the "Revolution; for, certain it is, that the right "which that parliament set up by assumption (for by delegation it had it not, and could not have it, because none could give it) over the persons "and freedom of posterity for ever, was of the same tyrannical unfounded kind which James "attempted to set up over the parliament and the nation, and for which he was expelled. The only difference is, (for in principle they differ not,) that the one was an usurper over the "living, and the other over the unborn; and as "the one has no better authority to stand upon "than the other, both of them must be equally null and void, and of no effect." 66 66 66 66 66 66 "As the estimation of all things is by comparison, the Revolution of 1688, however from "circumstances it may have been exalted beyond “its value, will find its level. It is already on the wane; eclipsed by the enlarging orb of reason, and the luminous Revolutions of America and "France. In less than another century, it will go, as well as Mr. Burke's labours, to the family vault of all the Capulets.' Mankind will "then scarcely believe that a country, calling itself free, would send to Holland for a man, "and clothe him with power, on purpose to put "themselves in fear of him, and give him almost a million sterling a year for leave to submit "themselves and their posterity, like bond-men "and bond-women for ever." 66 66 66 "Mr. Burke having said that the king holds "his crown in contempt of the choice of the "Revolution Society, who individually or col "In England, this right is said to reside in a metaphor, shewn at the Tower for sixpence or a shilling a piece: so are the lions; and it would "be a step nearer to reason to say it resided in "them, for any inanimate metaphor is no more "than a hat or a cap. We can all see the absurdity "of worshipping Aaron's molten calf, or Nebu-"lectively have not " (as most certainly they have "chadnezzar's golden image; but why do men "continue to practise themselves the absurdities they despise in others?" "Mr. Burke (say they) has done some service, "not to his cause, but to his country, by bringing those clauses into publick view. They serve to demonstrate how necessary it is at all times "to watch against the attempted encroachment "of power, and to prevent its running to excess. "It is somewhat extraordinary, that the offence "for which James II. was expelled, that of setting "up power by assumption, should be re-acted, "under another shape and form, by the parlia"ment that expelled him. It shews that the rights "As to who is king in England or elsewhere, or whether there is any king at all, or whether "the people choose a Cherokee chief, or a Hessian "hussar for a king, it is not a matter that I "trouble myself about-be that to themselves; "but with respect to the doctrine, so far as it "relates to the rights of men and nations, it is as "abominable as any thing ever uttered in the "most enslaved country under heaven. Whether "it sounds worse to my ear, by not being accus"tomed to hear such despotism, than what it does "to the ear of another person, I ar am not so well a judge of; but of its abominable principle I am at no loss to judge." 66 66 These societies of modern Whigs push their insolence as far as it can go. In order to prepare the minds of the people for treason and rebellion, they represent the king as tainted with principles of despotism from the circumstance of his having dominions in Germany. In direct defiance of the most notorious truth, they describe his government there to be a despotism; whereas it is a free constitution, in which the states of the electorate have their part in the government; and this privilege has never been infringed by the king, or, that I have heard of, by any of his predecessors. The constitution of the electoral dominions has indeed a double controul, both from the laws of the empire, and from the privileges of the country. Whatever rights the king enjoys as elector, have been always parentally exercised, and the calumnies of these scandalous societies have not been authorized by a single complaint of oppression. "When Mr. Burke says that his majesty's "heirs and successors, each in their time and order, will come to the crown with the same contempt of their choice with which his majesty "has succeeded to that he wears,' it is saying too "much even to the humblest individual in the "country; part of whose daily labour goes to"wards making up the million sterling a year, "which the country gives the person it styles a king. Government with insolence, is despotism; "but when contempt is added, it becomes worse; "and to pay for contempt, is the excess of slavery. "This species of Government comes from Germany; and reminds me of what one of the "Brunswick soldiers told me, who was taken prisoner by the Americans in the late war: "Ah!' said he, America is a fine free country, "it is worth the people's fighting for; I know the "difference by knowing my own: in my country, if the prince says, Eat straw, we eat straw.' "God help that country, thought I, be it England, or elsewhere, whose liberties are to be protected "by German principles of government, and "princes of Brunswick!" 66 66 "It is somewhat curious to observe, that al- | though the people of England have been in the "habit of talking about kings, it is always a foreign house of kings; hating foreigners, yet governed by them. It is now the house of "Brunswick, one of the petty tribes of Germany." 66 66 6 "If government be what Mr. Burke describes it, a contrivance of human wisdom,' I might "ask him, if wisdom was at such a low ebb in England, that it was become necessary to import it from Holland and from Hanover? But "I will do the country the justice to say, that was "not the case; and even if it was, it mistook the cargo. The wisdom of every country, when "properly exerted, is sufficient for all its purposes; "and there could exist no more real occasion in England to have sent for a Dutch Stadtholder, 66 or a German Elector, than there was in America to have done a similar thing. If a country does "not understand its own affairs, how is a foreigner "to understand them, who knows neither its laws, "its manners, nor its language? If there existed a man so transcendently wise above all others, "that his wisdom was necessary to instruct a na"❝tion, some reason might be offered for monarchy; "but when we cast our eyes about a country, and "observe how every part understands its own "affairs; and when we look around the world, "and see that, of all men in it, the race of kings "are the most insignificant in capacity, our reason "cannot fail to ask us-What are those men kept " for ?"* These are the notions which, under the idea of Whig principles, several persons, and among them persons of no mean mark, have associated themselves to propagate. I will not attempt in the smallest degree to refute them. This will probably be done (if such writings shall be thought to deserve any other than the refutation of criminal justice) by others, who may think with Mr. Burke. He has performed his part. I do not wish to enter very much at large into the discussions which diverge and ramify in all ways from this productive subject. But there is one topick upon which I hope I shall be excused in going a little beyond my design. The factions, now so busy amongst us, in order to divest men of all love for their country, and to remove from their minds all duty with regard to the state, endeavour to propagate an opinion, that the people, in forming their commonwealth, have by no means parted with their power over it. This is an impregnable citadel, to which these gentlemen retreat whenever they are pushed by the battery of laws and usages, and positive conventions. Indeed it is such and of so great force, that all they have done, in defending their outworks, is so much time and labour thrown away. Discuss any of their schemes their answer is-It is the act of the people, and that is sufficient. Are we to deny to a majority of the people the right of altering even the whole frame of their society, if such should be their pleasure? They may change it, say they, from a monarchy to a republick to-day, and tomorrow back again from a republick to a monarchy; and so backward and forward as often as they like. They are masters of the commonwealth; because in substance they are themselves the commonwealth. The French Revolution, say they, was the act of the majority of the people; and if the majority of any other people, the people of England for instance, wish to make the same change, they have the same right. Just the same undoubtedly. That is, none at all. Neither the few nor the many have a right to act merely by their will, in any matter connected with duty, trust, engagement, or obligation. The constitution of a country being once • Vindication of the Rights of Man, recommended by the seve- ral societies. |