Chapter 9

When he entered into the Whig party, he did not conceive that they pretended to any discoveries. They did not affect to be better Whigs than those were who lived in the days in which principle was put to the test. Some of the Whigs of those days were then living. They were what the Whigs had been at the Revolution,--what they had been during the reign of Queen Anne,--what they had been at the accession of the present royal family.

What they were at those periods is to be seen. It rarely happens to a party to have the opportunity of a clear, authentic, recorded declaration of their political tenets upon the subject of a great constitutional event like that of the Revolution. The Whigs had that opportunity,--or to speak more properly, they made it. The impeachment of Dr. Sacheverell was undertaken by a Whig ministry and a Whig House of Commons, and carried on before a prevalent and steady majority of Whig peers. It was carried on for the express purpose of stating the true grounds and principles of the Revolution,--what the Commons emphatically called their _foundation_. It was carried on for the purpose of condemning the principles on which the Revolution was first opposed and afterwards calumniated, in order, by a juridical sentence of the highest authority, to confirm and fix Whig principles, as they had operated both in the resistance to King James and in the subsequent settlement, and to fix them in the extent and with the limitations with which it was meant they should be understood by posterity. The ministers and managers for the Commons were persons who had, many of them, an active share in the Revolution. Most of them had seen it at an age capable of reflection. The grand event, and all the discussions which led to it and followed it, were then alive in the memory and conversation of all men. The managers for the Commons must be supposed to have spoken on that subject the prevalent ideas of the leading party in the Commons, and of the Whig ministry. Undoubtedly they spoke also their own private opinions; and the private opinions of such men are not without weight. They were not _umbratiles doctores_, men who had studied a free Constitution only in its anatomy and upon dead systems. They knew it alive and in action.

In this proceeding the Whig principles, as applied to the Revolution and Settlement, are to be found, or they are to be found nowhere. I wish the Whig readers of this Appeal first to turn to Mr. Burke's Reflections, from page 20 to page 50,[13] and then to attend to the following extracts from the trial of Dr. Sacheverell. After this, they will consider two things: first, whether the doctrine in Mr. Burke's Reflections be consonant to that of the Whigs of that period; and, secondly, whether they choose to abandon the principles which belonged to the progenitors of some of them, and to the predecessors of them all, and to learn new principles of Whiggism, imported from France, and disseminated in this country from Dissenting pulpits, from Federation societies, and from the pamphlets, which (as containing the political creed of those synods) are industriously circulated in all parts of the two kingdoms. This is their affair, and they will make their option.

These new Whigs hold that the sovereignty, whether exercised by one or many, did not only originate _from_ the people, (a position not denied nor worth denying or assenting to,) but that in the people the same sovereignty constantly and unalienably resides; that the people may lawfully depose kings, not only for misconduct, but without any misconduct at all; that they may set up any new fashion of government for themselves, or continue without any government, at their pleasure; that the people are essentially their own rule, and their will the measure of their conduct; that the tenure of magistracy is not a proper subject of contract, because magistrates have duties, but no rights; and that, if a contract _de facto_ is made with them in one age, allowing that it binds at all, it only binds those who are immediately concerned in it, but does not pass to posterity. These doctrines concerning _the people_ (a term which they are far from accurately defining, but by which, from many circumstances, it is plain enough they mean their own faction, if they should grow, by early arming, by treachery, or violence, into the prevailing force) tend, in my opinion, to the utter subversion, not only of all government, in all modes, and to all stable securities to rational freedom, but to all the rules and principles of morality itself.

I assert that the ancient Whigs held doctrines totally different from those I have last mentioned. I assert, that the foundations laid down by the Commons, on the trial of Dr. Sacheverell, for justifying the Revolution of 1688, are the very same laid down in Mr. Burke's Reflections,--that is to say, a breach of the _original contrast_, implied and expressed in the Constitution of this country, as a scheme of government fundamentally and inviolably fixed in King, Lords, and Commons;--that the fundamental subversion of this ancient Constitution, by one of its parts, having been attempted, and in effect accomplished, justified the Revolution;--that it was justified _only_ upon the _necessity_ of the case, as the _only_ means left for the recovery of that _ancient_ Constitution formed by the _original contract_ of the British state, as well as for the future preservation of the _same_ government. These are the points to be proved.

A general opening to the charge against Dr. Sacheverell was made by the attorney-general, Sir John Montague; but as there is nothing in that opening speech which tends very accurately to settle the principle upon which the Whigs proceeded in the prosecution, (the plan of the speech not requiring it,) I proceed to that of Mr. Lechmere, the manager, who spoke next after him. The following are extracts, given, not in the exact order in which they stand in the printed trial, but in that which is thought most fit to bring the ideas of the Whig Commons distinctly under our view.

* * * * *

_Mr. Lechmere_[14]

"It becomes an _indispensable_ duty upon us, who appear in the name and on the behalf of all the commons of Great Britain, not only to demand your Lordships' justice on such a criminal, [Dr. Sacheverell,] _but clearly and openly to assert our foundations_."

[Sidenote: That the terms of our Constitution imply and express an original contract.]

[Sidenote: That the contract is mutual consent, and binding at all times upon the parties.]

[Sidenote: The mixed Constitution uniformly preserved for many ages, and is a proof of the contract.]

"The nature of our Constitution 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 Constitution 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 Constitution for so many ages, without any fundamental change, demonstrates to your Lordships 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_ Constitution 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 passed 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 Constitution.]

"But the Commons, who will never be unmindful of the _allegiance_ of the subjects to the _crown_ of this realm, judged it highly incumbent upon them, out of regard to the _safety of her Majesty's person and government, and the ancient and legal Constitution 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 Constitution.]

"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 assert their own title to it, but they are bound in duty to transmit the _same_ Constitution 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 assert 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 Lordships 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 assert and justify that resistance by which the late happy Revolution was brought about_."

"It appears to your Lordships 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 Lordships, 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 noble and heroic it may be in many cases to suffer death rather than disturb the tranquillity of our country.

* * * * *

_Sir John Hawles._[15]

"Certainly it must be granted, that the doctrine that commands obedience to the supreme power, _though in things contrary to Nature_, even to suffer death, which is the highest injustice that can be done a man, rather than make an opposition to the supreme power [is reasonable[16]], because the death of one or some few private persons is a less evil than _disturbing the whole government_; that law must needs be understood to forbid the doing or saying anything to disturb the government, the rather because the obeying that law cannot be pretended to be against Nature: and the Doctor's refusing to obey that implicit law is the reason for which he is now prosecuted; though he would have it believed that the reason he is now prosecuted was for the doctrine he asserted of obedience to the supreme power; which he might have preached as long as he had pleased, and the Commons would have taken no offence at it, if he had stopped there, and not have taken upon him, on that pretence or occasion, to have cast odious colors upon the Revolution."

* * * * *

General Stanhope was among the managers. He begins his speech by a reference to the opinion of his fellow-managers, which he hoped had put beyond all doubt the limits and qualifications that the Commons had placed to their doctrines concerning the Revolution; yet, not satisfied with this general reference, after condemning the principle of non-resistance, which is asserted in the sermon _without any exception_, and stating, that, under the specious pretence of preaching a peaceable doctrine, Sacheverell and the Jacobites meant, in reality, to excite a rebellion in favor of the Pretender, he explicitly limits his ideas of resistance with the boundaries laid down by his colleagues, and by Mr. Burke.

* * * * *

_General Stanhope._

[Sidenote: Rights of the subject and the crown equally legal.]

"The Constitution of England is founded upon _compact_; and the subjects of this kingdom have, in their several public and private capacities, _as_ legal a title to what are their rights by law _as_ a prince to the possession of his crown.

[Sidenote: Justice of resistance founded on necessity.]

"Your Lordships, and most that hear me, are witnesses, and must remember the _necessities_ of those times which brought about the Revolution: that _no other_ remedy was left to preserve our religion and liberties; _that resistance was_ necessary, _and consequently just_."

"Had the Doctor, in the remaining part of his sermon, preached up peace, quietness, and the like, and shown how happy we are under her Majesty's administration, and exhorted obedience to it, he had never been called to answer a charge at your Lordships' bar. But the tenor of all his subsequent discourse is one continued invective against the government."

* * * * *

Mr. Walpole (afterwards Sir Robert) was one of the managers on this occasion. He was an honorable man and a sound Whig. He was not, as the Jacobites and discontented Whigs of his time have represented him, and as ill-informed people still represent him, a prodigal and corrupt minister. They charged him, in their libels and seditious conversations, as having first reduced corruption to a system. Such was their cant. But he was far from governing by corruption. He governed by party attachments. The charge of systematic corruption is less applicable to him, perhaps, than to any minister who ever served the crown for so great a length of time. He gained over very few from the opposition. Without being a genius of the first class, he was an intelligent, prudent, and safe minister. He loved peace, and he helped to communicate the same disposition to nations at least as warlike and restless as that in which he had the chief direction of affairs. Though he served a master who was fond of martial fame, he kept all the establishments very low. The land tax continued at two shillings in the pound for the greater part of his administration. The other impositions were moderate. The profound repose, the equal liberty, the firm protection of just laws, during the long period of his power, were the principal causes of that prosperity which afterwards took such rapid strides towards perfection, and which furnished to this nation ability to acquire the military glory which it has since obtained, as well as to bear the burdens, the cause and consequence of that warlike reputation. With many virtues, public and private, he had his faults; but his faults were superficial. A careless, coarse, and over-familiar style of discourse, without sufficient regard to persons or occasions, and an almost total want of political decorum, were the errors by which he was most hurt in the public opinion, and those through which his enemies obtained the greatest advantage over him. But justice must be done. The prudence, steadiness, and vigilance of that man, joined to the greatest possible lenity in his character and his politics, preserved the crown to this royal family, and, with it, their laws and liberties to this country. Walpole had no other plan of defence for the Revolution than that of the other managers, and of Mr. Burke; and he gives full as little countenance to any arbitrary attempts, on the part of restless and factious men, for framing new governments according to their fancies.

* * * * *

_Mr. Walpole_.

[Sidenote: Case of resistance out of the law, and the highest offence.]

[Sidenote: Utmost necessity justifies it.]

"Resistance is nowhere enacted to be legal, but subjected, by all the laws now in being, to the greatest penalties. 'Tis what is not, cannot, nor ought ever to be described, or affirmed in any positive law, to be excusable; when, and upon what _never-to-be-expected_ occasions, it may be exercised, no man can foresee; _and ought never to be thought of, but when an utter subversion of the laws of the realm threatens the whole frame of a Constitution, and no redress can otherwise be hoped for_. It therefore does and _ought forever_ to stand, in the eye and letter of the law, as the _highest offence_. But because any man, or party of men, may not, out of folly or wantonness, commit treason, or make their own discontents, ill principles, or disguised affections to another interest, a pretence to resist the supreme power, will it follow from thence that the _utmost necessity_ ought not to engage a nation _in its own defence for the preservation of the whole_?"

* * * * *

Sir Joseph Jekyl was, as I have always heard and believed, as nearly as any individual could be, the very standard of Whig principles in his age. He was a learned and an able man; full of honor, integrity, and public spirit; no lover of innovation; nor disposed to change his solid principles for the giddy fashion of the hour. Let us hear this Whig.

* * * * *

_Sir Joseph Jekyl._

[Sidenote: Commons do not state the limits of submission.]

[Sidenote: To secure the laws, the only aim of the Revolution.]

"In clearing up and vindicating the justice of the Revolution, which was the second thing proposed, it is far from the intent of the Commons to state the _limits and bounds_ of the subject's submission to the sovereign. That which the law hath been wisely silent in, the Commons desire to be silent in too; nor will they put _any_ case of a justifiable resistance, but that of the Revolution only: and _they persuade themselves that the doing right to that resistance will be so far from promoting popular license or confusion, that it will have a contrary effect, and be a means of settling men's minds in the love of and veneration for the laws_; to rescue and secure which was the _ONLY aim and intention of those concerned in that resistance_."

* * * * *

Dr. Sacheverell's counsel defended him on this principle, namely,--that, whilst he enforced from the pulpit the general doctrine of non-resistance, he was not obliged to take notice of the theoretic limits which ought to modify that doctrine. Sir Joseph Jekyl, in his reply, whilst he controverts its application to the Doctor's defence, fully admits and even enforces the principle itself, and supports the Revolution of 1688, as he and all the managers had done before, exactly upon the same grounds on which Mr. Burke has built, in his Reflections on the French Revolution.

* * * * *

_Sir Joseph Jekyl._

[Sidenote: Blamable to state the bounds of non-resistance.]

[Sidenote: Resistance lawful only in _case_ of extreme and obvious necessity.]

"If the Doctor had pretended to have stated the particular bounds and limits of non-resistance, and told the people in what cases they might or might not resist, _he would have been much to blame_; nor was one word said in the articles, or by the managers, as if that was expected from him; but, _on the contrary, we have insisted that in NO case can resistance be lawful, but in case of EXTREME NECESSITY, and where the Constitution can't otherwise be preserved; and such necessity ought to be plain and obvious to the sense and judgment of the whole nation: and this was the case at the Revolution_."

* * * * *

The counsel for Doctor Sacheverell, in defending their client, were driven in reality to abandon the fundamental principles of his doctrine, and to confess that an exception to the general doctrine of passive obedience and non-resistance did exist in the case of the Revolution. This the managers for the Commons considered as having gained their cause, as their having obtained _the whole_ of what they contended for. They congratulated themselves and the nation on a civil victory as glorious and as honorable as any that had obtained in arms during that reign of triumphs.

Sir Joseph Jekyl, in his reply to Harcourt, and the other great men who conducted the cause for the Tory side, spoke in the following memorable terms, distinctly stating the whole of what the Whig House of Commons contended for, in the name of all their constituents.

* * * * *

_Sir Joseph Jekyl._

[Sidenote: Necessity creates an exception, and the Revolution a case of necessity, the utmost extent of the demand of the Commons.]