Volume IV Part 6 (2/2)
To prevent any unnecessary subdivision, I shall here put together what may be necessary to show the perfect agreement of the Whigs with Mr.
Burke in his a.s.sertions, that the Revolution made no ”essential change in the const.i.tution of the monarchy, or in any of its ancient, sound, and legal principles; that the succession was settled in the Hanover family, upon the idea and in the mode of an hereditary succession qualified with Protestantism; that it was not settled upon _elective_ principles, in any sense of the word _elective_, or under any modification or description of _election_ whatsoever; but, on the contrary, that the nation, after the Revolution, renewed by a fresh compact the spirit of the original compact of the state, binding itself, _both in its existing members and all its posterity_, to adhere to the settlement of an hereditary succession in the Protestant line, drawn from James the First, as the stock of inheritance.”
_Sir John Hawles_.
[Sidenote: Necessity of settling the right of the crown, and submission to the settlement.]
”If he [Dr. Sacheverell] is of the opinion he pretends, I can't imagine how it comes to pa.s.s that he that pays that deference to the supreme power has preached so directly contrary to the determinations of the supreme power in this government, he very well knowing that the lawfulness of the Revolution, and of the means whereby it was brought about, has already been determined by the aforesaid acts of Parliament,--and do it in the worst manner that he could invent. _For questioning the right to the crown here in England has procured the shedding of more blood and caused more slaughter than all the other matters tending to disturbances in the government put together._ If, therefore, the doctrine which the Apostles had laid down was only to continue the peace of the world, as thinking the death of some few particular persons better to be borne with than a civil war, sure it is the highest breach of that law to question the first principles of this government.”
”If the Doctor had been contented with the liberty he took of preaching up the duty of pa.s.sive obedience in the most extensive manner he had thought fit, and would have stopped there, your Lords.h.i.+ps would not have had the trouble in relation to him that you now have; but it is plain that he preached up his absolute and unconditional obedience, not _to continue the peace and tranquillity of this nation, but to set the subjects at strife, and to raise a war in the bowels of this nation_: and it is for _this_ that he is now prosecuted; though he would fain have it believed that the prosecution was for preaching the peaceable doctrine of absolute obedience.”
_Sir Joseph Jekyl_.
[Sidenote: Whole frame of government restored unhurt, on the Revolution.]
”The whole tenor of the administration then in being was agreed to by all to be a _total departure from the Const.i.tution_. The nation was at that time united in that opinion, all but the criminal part of it. And as the nation joined in the judgment of their disease, so they did in the remedy. _They saw there was no remedy left but the last;_ and when that remedy took place, _the whole frame of the government was restored entire and unhurt_.[17] This showed the excellent temper the nation was in at that time, that, after such provocations from an abuse of the regal power, and such a convulsion, _no one part of the Const.i.tution was altered, or suffered the least damage; but, on the contrary, the whole received new life and vigor_.”
The Tory counsel for Dr. Sacheverell having insinuated that a great and essential alteration in the Const.i.tution had been wrought by the Revolution, Sir Joseph Jekyl is so strong on this point, that he takes fire even at the insinuation of his being of such an opinion.
_Sir Joseph Jekyl._
[Sidenote: No innovation at the Revolution.]
”If the Doctor instructed his counsel to insinuate that there was _any innovation in the Const.i.tution wrought by the Revolution, it is an addition to his crime. The Revolution did not introduce any innovation; it was a restoration of the ancient fundamental Const.i.tution of the kingdom_, and giving it its proper force and energy.”
The Solicitor-General, Sir Robert Eyre, distinguishes expressly the case of the Revolution, and its principles, from a proceeding at pleasure, on the part of the people, to change their ancient Const.i.tution, and to frame a new government for themselves. He distinguishes it with the same care from the principles of regicide and republicanism, and the sorts of resistance condemned by the doctrines of the Church of England, and which ought to be condemned by the doctrines of all churches professing Christianity.
_Mr. Solicitor-General, Sir Robert Eyre._
[Sidenote: Revolution no precedent for voluntary cancelling allegiance.]
[Sidenote: Revolution not like the case of Charles the First.]
”The resistance at the Revolution, which was founded in _unavoidable necessity_, could be no defence to a man that was attacked _for a.s.serting that the people might cancel their allegiance at pleasure, or dethrone and murder their sovereign by a judiciary sentence_. For it can never be inferred, from the lawfulness of resistance at a time when _a total subversion of the government both in Church and State was intended_, that a people may take up arms and _call their sovereign to account at pleasure_; and therefore, since _the Revolution could be of no service in giving the least color for a.s.serting any such wicked principle_, the Doctor could never intend to put it into the mouths of those new preachers and new politicians for a defence,--unless it be his opinion that the resistance at the Revolution can bear any parallel with _the execrable murder of the royal martyr, so justly detested by the whole nation_.”
[Sidenote: Sacheverell's doctrine intended to bring an odium on the Revolution.]
[Sidenote: True defence of the Revolution an absolute necessity.]
<script>