Billeder på siden
PDF
ePub

tical fyftem, much less that the merits of the conftitution of any foreign na tion, had been the fubject of a formal procceding at their festivals; until, to my inexpreffible furprife, I found them in a fort of public capacity, by a congratulatory addrefs, giving an authoritative fanction to the proceedings of the National Affembly in France.

"In the antient principles and conduct of the club, fo far at leaft as they were declared, I fee nothing to which 1, or any fober man, could poffibly take exception. I think it very probable that, for fome purpose, new members' may have entered among them; and that fome truly chriftian politicians, who love to difpenfe benefits, but are careful to conceal the hand which diftributes the dole, may have made them the inftruments of their pious defigns. Whatever I may have reafon to fufpect concerning private management, I shall fpeak of nothing as of a certainty, but what is public.

"For one, I fhould be forry to be thought, directly or indirectly, concerned in their proceedings. I certainly take my full fhare, along with the reft of the world, in my individual and private capacity, in fpeculating on what has been done, or is doing, on the public ftage; in any place antient or modern; in the republic of Rome, or the republic of Paris: but having no general apoftolical miffion, being a citizen of a particular state, and being bound up in a confiderable degree, by its public will, I should think it, at least improper and irregular, for me to open a formal public correfpondence with the actual government of a foreign nation, without the exprefs authority of the government under which I live.

"On the forenoon of the 4th of November laft, Dr. Richard Price, a non-conforming minifter of eminence, preached at the diffenting meetinghoufe of the Old Jewry, to his club or fociety, a very extraordinary mifcel laneous fermon, in which there are fome good moral and religious fentiments, and not ill expreffed, mixed up in a fort of porridge of various political opinions and reflections: but the revolution in France is the grand ingredient in the cauldron. I confider the addrefs tranf mitted by the Revolution Society to the VOL. II.

National Affembly, through earl Stanhope, as originating in the principles of the fermon, and as a corollary from them. It was moved by the preacher of that difcourfe. It was paffed by those who came reeking from the effect of the fermon, without any centure or qualification, expreffed or implied. If, however, any of the gentlemen con cerned fhall with to feparate the fermon from the refolution, they know how to acknowledge the one, and to disavow the other. They may do it: I cannot.

"For my part, I looked on that fermon as the public declaration of a man much connected with literary caballers, and intriguing philofophers; with political theologians, and theological politicians, both at home and abroad. I know they fet him up as a fort of oracle; because, with the best intentions in the world, he naturally philippizes, and chaunts his prophetic fong in exact unifon with their defigns.'

In refuting the pernicious opinions of Dr. Price, our author, with confiderable ability, takes a concife, but clear view of the British conftitution; the whole of which we shall extract, for the information, the amusement, and the instruction of our readers.

"His [Dr. Price's] dotrines affect our conftitution in its vital parts. He tells the Revolution Society, in this political fermon, that his majefty is almoft the only lawful king in the world, because the only one who owes his crown to the choice of his people.' As to the kings of the world, all of whom (except one) this archpontiff of the rights of men, with all the plenitude, and with more than the boldness of the papal depofing power in its meridian fervour of the twelfth century, puts into one sweeping claufe of ban and anathema, and proclaims ufurpers by circles of longitude and latitude, over the whole globe, it behoves them to confider how they admit into their territories thefe apoftolic miffionaries, who are to tell their fubjects they are not lawful kings. That is their concern. It is ours, as a domeftic intereft of fome moment, feriously to consider the folidity of the only principle upon which thefe gentlemen acknowledge a king of Great Britain to be entitled to their allegiance.

3 G

"This

"This doctrine, as applied to the prince now on the British throne, either is nonfenfe, and therefore neither true nor falfe, or it affirms a molt unfound. ed, dangerous, illegal, and unconftitutional pofition. According to this fpiritual doctor of politics, if his majefty does not owe his crown to the choice of his people, he is no lawful king. Now nothing can be more untrue than that the crown of this kingdom is fo held by his majelty. Therefore if you follow their rule, the king of Great Britain, who moft certainly does not owe his high office to any form of popular election, is in no refpect better than the rest of the gang of ufurpers, who reign, or rather rob, all over the face of this our miferable world, without any fort of right or title to the allegiance of their people. The policy of this general doctrine, fo qualified, is evident enough. The propagators of this political gofpel are in hopes their abstract principle (their principle that a popular choice is neceffary to the legal existence of the fovereign magiftracy) would be overlooked, whilft thie king of Great Britain was not affected by it. In the mean time, the ears of their congregations would be gradually habituated to it, as if it were a first principle admitted without difpute. For the prefent it would only operate as a theory, pickled in the preferving juices of pulpit eloquence, and laid by for future ufe. Condo et compono que mox de tromere poffim. By this policy, whilft our government is foothed with a refervation in its favour, to which it has no claim, the fecurity, which it has in common with all governments, fo far as opinion is fecurity, is taken away.

"Thus thele politicians proceed, whilft little notice is taken of their doctrines; but when they come to be examined upon the plain meaning of their words and the direct tendency of their doctrines, then equivocations and flippery conftructions come into play. When they fay the king owes his crown to the choice of his people, and is therefore the only lawful fovereign in the world, they will perhaps tell us they mean to fay no more than that fome of the king's predeceffors have been called to the throne by fome fort of choice; and therefore he owes his crown to the choice of his

people. Thus, by a miferable fubterfuge, they hope to render their propofition fafe, by rendering it nugatory. They are welcome to the afylum they feek for their offence, fince they take re fuge in their folly. For, if you admit this interpretation, how does their idea of election differ from our idea of inheritance? And how does the fettlement of the crown in the Brunswick line derived from James the Fift, come to legalize our monarchy, rather than that of any of the neighbouring countries! At fome time or other, to be fure, all the beginners of dynafties were chofen by thofe who called them to govern. There is ground enough for the opinion that all the kingdoms of Europe were, at a remote period, elective, with more or fewer limitations in the objects of choice; but whatever kings might have been here or elsewhere, a thousand years ago, or in whatever manner the ruling dynalties of England or France may have begun, the king of Great Britain is at this day king by a fixed rule of fucceffion, according to the laws of his country; and whilft the legal conditions of the compact of fovereignty are performed by him (as they are performed) he holds his crown in contempt of the choice of the Revolution Society, who have not a single vote for a king amongft them, either individually or collectively; though I make no doubt they would foon erect themselves into an electoral college, if things were ripe to give effect to their claim. His majefty's heirs and fucceffors, each in his time and order, will come to the crown with the fame contempt of their choice with which his majefty has fucceeded to that he

wears.

"Whatever may be the fuccefs of evafion in explaining away the grois er ror of fact, which fuppofes that his majefty (though he holds it in concurrence with the withes) owes his crown to the choice of his people, yet nothing can evade their full explicit declaration, concerning the principle of a right in the people to choose, which right is directly maintained, and tenacioully adhered to. All the oblique infinuations concerning election bottom in this propofition, and are referable to it. Left the foundation of the king's exclufive legal title should pals for a mere rant of adulatory free

dos,

[merged small][ocr errors]

This new, and hitherto unheard-of bill of rights, though made in the name of the whole people, belongs to thofe gentlemen and their faction only. The body of the people of England have no fhare in it. They utterly difclaim it. They will refift the practical affertion of it with their lives and fortunes. They are bound to do fo by the laws of their country, made at the time of that very Revolution, which is appealed to in favour of the fictious rights claimed by the fociety which abuses its name.

"Thefe gentlemen of the Old Jewry, in all their reafonings on the Revolution of 1688, have a revolution which happened in England about 40 years before, and the late French revolution, fo much before their eyes, and in their hearts, that they are conftantly confounding all the three together. It is neceffary that we fhould feparate what they confound. We must recall their erring fancies to to the acts of the Revolution which we revere, for the difcovery of its true principles. If the principles of the Revolution of 1688 are any where to be found, it is in the ftatute called the Declaration of Right. In that moft wife, fober, and confiderate declaration, drawn up by great lawyers and great ftatefmen, and not by warm and inex perienced enthufiafts, not one word is faid, nor one fuggestion made, of a general right to choose our own governors; to cashier them for mifconduct; and to form a government for our Jelves."

"This Declaration of Right (the act of the ft of William and Mary, feff. 2. ch. 2.) is the corner-ftone of our conftitution, as reinforced, explain ed, improved, and in its fundamental principles for ever fettled. It is called An act for declaring the rights and *P. 34, Difcourfe on the love of our country, by Dr. Price,

[ocr errors]

liberties of the fubject, and for fettling the fucceffion of the crown.' You will obferve, that these rights and this fucceffion are declared in one body, and bound indiffolubly together.

On

"A few years after this period, a fecond opportunity offered for afferting a right of election to the crown. the profpect of a total failure of iffue from king William, and from the Princefs, afterwards queen Anne, the confideration of the fettlement of the crown, and of a further fecurity for the liberties of the people, again came before the legislature. Did they this fcond time make any provision for legalizing the crown on the fpurious Res volution principles of the Old Jewry? No.

They followed the principles which prevailed in the Declaration of Right; indicating with more precision the perfons who were to inherit in the Proteftant line. This act allo incorporated, by the fame policy, our liberties, and an hereditary fucceffion in the fame act. Instead of a right to choose our own governors, they declared that the fucceffion in that line (the proteftant line drawn from James the First) was abfolutely neceffary for the peace, quiet, and fecurity of the realm,' and that it was equally urgent on them to maintain a certainty in the fucceffion thereof, to which the fubjects may fafely have recourse for their protection.? Both thefe acts, in which are heard the unerring, unambiguous oracles of Revolution policy, inftead of countenancing the delusive, gypsey predictions of a

[ocr errors]

right to choose our governors, prove to a demonstration how totally adverfe the wildom of the nation was from turning a cafe of neceffity into a rule of law.

66

Unquestionably there was at the Revolution, in the perfon of king Wil liam, a fmall and a temporary deviation from the ftrict order of a regular hereditary fucceffion: but it is against all genuine principles of jurifprudence to draw a principle from a law made in a fpecial cafe, and regarding an individual perfon. Privilegium non tranfit in exemplum. If ever there was a time favourable for eftablishing the principle, that a king of popular choice was the only legal king, without all doubt it was at the Revolution. Its not being done at that time is a proof that the 3 G 2

nation

nation was of opinion it ought not to be done at any time. There is no perfon fo completely ignorant of our history, as not to know, that the majority in parliament of both parties were fo little difpofed to any thing refembling that principle, that at firit they were determined to place the vacant crown, not on the head of the prince of Orange, but on that of his wife Mary, daughter of king James, the eldest born of the iffue of that king, which they acknow ledged as undoubtedly his. It would be to repeat a very trite story, to recall to your memory all thofe circumstances which demonftiated that their accepting king William was not properly a choice; but, to all thofe who did not with, in effect to recall king James, or to deluge their country in blood, and again to bring their religion, laws, and liberties into the peril they had just escaped, it was an act of necefity, in the stricteft moral fenfe in which neceffity can be

taken.

"In the very act, in which for a time, and in a fingle cafe, parliament departed from the ftrict order of inheritance, in favour of a prince, who, though not next, was however very near in the line of fucceffion, it is curious to obferve how lord Somers, who drew the bill called the Declaration of Right, has comported himself on that delicate occafion. It is curious to obferve with what address this temporary folution of continuity is kept from the eye; whilft all that could be found in this act of neceffity to countenance the idea of an hereditary fucceffion is brought forward, and foftered, and made the moft of, by this great man, and by the legiflature who followed him. Quitting the dry, imperative ftyle of an act of parliament, he makes the lords and commons fall to a pious, legiflative ejaculation, and declare, that they confider it as a marvellous providence, and merciful goodness of God to this nation, to preferve their faid majefties royal perfons, moft happily to reign over us on the throne of their ancestors, for which, from the bottom of their hearts, they return their humbleft thanks and praifes.The legislature plainly had in view the act of recognition of the firft of queen Elizabeth, chap. 3d, and of that of James the First, chap. ift,

[ocr errors]

both acts ftrongly declaratory of the inheritable nature of the crown; and in many parts they follow, with a nearly literal precifion, the words and even the form of thankfgiving, which is found in these old declaratory statutes.

"The two houfes, in the act of king William, did not thank God that they had found a fair opportunity to affert a right to choose their own governors, much less to make an election the only lawful title to the crown. Their having been in a condition to avoid the very appearance of it, as much as poffible, was by them confidered as a providential escape. They threw a politic, well-wrought veil over every circumstance tending to weaken the rights, which in the meliorated or der of fucceffion they meant to perpe tuate; or which might furnish a precedent for any future departure from what they had then fettled for ever. Accordingly, that they might not relax the nerves of their monarchy, and that they might preferve a clofe conformity to the practice of their ancestors, as it appeared in the declaratory ftatutes of queen Mary* and queen Elizabeth, in the next claufe they veft, by recognition, in their majetties, all the legal prerogatives of the crown, declaring, that in them they are most fully, rightfully, and intirely invefted, incorporated, united, and annexed.” In the claufe which follows, for preventing questions, by reafon of any pretended titles to the crown, they declare (obferving alfo in this the traditionary language, along with the traditionary policy of the nation, and repeating as from a rubric the language of the preceding acts of Elizabeth and James) that on the preferving a certainty in the SUCCESSION thereof, the unity, peace, and tranquillity of this nation doth, under God, wholly depend.'

[ocr errors]

"They knew that a doubtful title of fucceffion would but too much refemble an election; and that an election would be utterly destructive of the

unity, peace, and tranquillity of this nation,' which they thought to be confiderations of fome moment. vide for thefe objects, and therefore to exTo proclude for ever the Old Jewry doctrine of 1ft Mary, Seff. 3. ch. 1.

⚫ a right

a right to choose our own governors,' they follow with a claufe, containing a moft folemn pledge, taken from the preceding act of queen Elizabeth, as folemn a pledge as ever was or can be given in favour of an hereditary fucceffion, and as folemn a renunciation as could be made of the principles by this fociety imputed to them. The lords fpiritual and temporal, and commons, do, in the name of all the people aforefaid, moft humbly and faithfully fubmit themselves, their heirs and pofterities for ever; and do faithfully promife, that they will ftand to, maintain, and defend their faid majefties, and alfo the limitation of the crown, herein specified and contained, to the utmoft of their powers,' &c. &c.

"So far is it from being true, that we acquired a right by the Revolution to elect our kings, that if we had poffeffed it before, the English nation did at that time molt folemnly renounce and abdicate it, for themfelves and for all their pofterity for ever. Thefe gentlemen may value themfelves as much as they pleafe on their whig principles; but I never defire to be thought a better whig than lord Somers; or to underftand the principles of the Revolution better than thofe by whom it was brought about; or to read in the declaration of right any myfteries unknown to those whole penetrating ftyle has engraved in our ordinances, and in our hearts, the words and fpirit of that immortal law.

"It is true that, aided with the powers derived from force and opportunity, the nation was at that time, in fome fenfe, free to take what courfe it plealed for filling the throne; but only free to do fo upon the fame grounds on which they might have wholly abolished their monarchy, and every other part of their conftitution. However, they did not think such bold changes within their commiffion. It is indeed difficult, perhaps impoffible, to give limits to the mere abftract competence of the fupreme power, fuch as was exercifed by parliament at that time; but the limits of a moral competence, fubjecting, even in powers more indifputably fovereign, occafional will to permanent reason, and to the steady maxims of faith, juftice, and fixed fundamental

policy, are perfectly intelligible, and perfectly binding upon those who exercife any authority, under any name, or under any title, in the ftate. The houfe of lords, for inftance, is not morally competent to diffolve the house of commons; no, nor even to diffolve itself, nor to abdicate, if it would, its portion in the legislature of the kingdom. Though a king may abdicate for his own perfon, he cannot abdicate for the monarchy. By as frong, or by a ftronger reafon, the houfe of commons cannot renounce its fhare of authority. The engagement and pact of fociety, which generally goes by the name of the conftitution, for bids fuch invafion and fuch furrender. The constituent parts of a state are obliged to hold their public faith with each other, and with all thofe who derive any ferious interest under their engagements, as much as the whole ftate is bound to keep its faith with feparate communities. Otherwife competence and power would foon be confounded, and no law be left but the will of a prevailing force. On this principle the fucceffion of the crown has always been what it now is, an hereditary fucceffion by law: in the old line it was a fucceffion by the common law; in the new by the ftatute law, operating on the principles of the common law, not changing the fubftance, but regulating the mode, and defcrib ing the perfons. Both thefe defcriptions of law are of the fame force, and are derived from an equal authority, emanating from the common agreement and original compact of the state, communi fponfione reipublica, and as fuch are equally binding on king, and people too, as long as the terms are obferved, and they continue the fame body politic.

"It is far from impoffible to reconcile, if we do not fuffer ourselves to be entangled in the mazes of metaphyfic fophiftry, the use both of a fixed rule and an occafional deviation; the facredness of an hereditary principle of fucceffion in our government, with a power of change in its application in cafes of extreme emergency. Even in that extremity (if we take the meafure of our rights by the exercise of them at the Revolution) the change is to be confined to the peccant part only; to

the

« ForrigeFortsæt »