Volume IV Part 5 (1/2)

[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 Lords.h.i.+ps 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 Lords.h.i.+ps 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 Lords.h.i.+ps 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 Lords.h.i.+ps, 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.