79

CHAP. X.

THE REVOLUTION.

He who wishes to reform an ancient state, and constitute it into a free country, ought to retain at least the shadow of the old forms. MACHIAVEL.

THERE are few examples of revolutions which have led to immediate good. This consideration ought to induce men who have any influence over their countrymen to be very cautious how they engage in projects which may put to hazard all that exists, unless they have a very near prospect of obtaining what is proposed.

The Revolution of 1688 appears to my mind the perfection of boldness, and of prudence.

The Tory party in general were not so much alarmed at the subversion of liberty, as at the innovations introduced in religion. "Church and King" was their motto and their faith. In

their anxiety to preserve the church, they appealed to the Prince of Orange; but they never intended he should supplant the legitimate King. The Earl of Nottingham proposed in the House of Lords, that the Prince of Orange should be regent. The Duchess of Marlborough bears testimony to her husband's surprise upon finding that the crown was to be transferred to William; and the Earl of Danby avowed, upon Sacheverell's trial, that' it had never been his wish or expectation that James should be dethroned.

. Had those, who invited the Prince of Orange to England, satisfied themselves with obliging James to call a parliament, the rest of his reign must have passed in continual jealousy. It would have been still more absurd to have given William the power, and James the title of King. That title, which is not the private patrimony of an individual, can only belong properly to the person who is qualified to exercise the office. The Princess of Orange being the nearest of blood, (except the infant son of James,) and a Protestant, the Prince of Orange (himself the nephew of James,) was the fit person to be

1

king. He had besides this merit in the eyes of the Whigs, that his right to the crown, and the right of the people to their liberties, were thenceforth to be placed on the same foundation, and opposed to the same Pretender.

The more violent of the Whigs were not satisfied with changing the dynasty. They looked to extensive reforms both in church and state: they wished to change our ecclesiastical laws, and remodel the House of Commons. Others desired, and perhaps with still more apparent reason to abolish the monarchy, and constitute a republic. But the leaders of the Revolution knew, with Machiavel, that nothing so much tends to give stability to a change of government, as an adherence to old forms and venerated institutions. They knew, that to enter upon a discussion of new projects, however plausible, at such a moment, and in the face of a large adverse party, would expose their work to be presently overthrown, and could only lead to endless conflicts, and unsatisfactory decisions. For these reasons, the leaders of the Revolution contented themselves with confirming by solemn statute all the ancient

G

liberties of England, and protesting against those particular violations of them, which had taken place in the late reign. Whether the securities they took were sufficient to form the basis of a good government, or whether they were but half-measures, satisfying the eye, but not the appetite, we shall see, in the following chapter.

It is curious to read the conferences between the Houses on the meaning of the words "deserted," and "abdicated;" and the debate in the Lords, whether or no there is an original contract between King and people. The notion of a tacit contract by which the King and his subjects are to be guided in their relations with each other is certainly not correct. The King, without any contract whatever, is bound to carry into execution the laws which are intrusted to his care. This is the simple duty of his office. But if at any time the people should require of him new liberties, he is bound to give them the species of government which the state of the nation, and the knowledge of the age may demand. The foundation of every durable government is the common consent of the realm.

The notion of an original contract was the theory of the friends of liberty in every part of Europe. The Spaniards had asserted it in the beginning of their contest with Charles V. The only debate in the House of Lords was between those who asserted the original contract, and those who maintained the divine right of kings. In short the question was, whether or no kings derived their power from the people. It was decided that they did; and the next resolution was, in substance, that James had abused that power, and had thereby become amenable to the nation. For such is the clear meaning of the vote of the two Houses, declaring that James, having broken the original contract between king and people, having violated the fundamental laws, and having withdrawn himself out of the kingdom, had abdicated the throne, and that the throne was thereby vacant. Nothing could be more creditable to the temper and justice of the English people than the calm discussion of this question; nothing more decisive of their wisdom and love of freedom than the judgment which they pronounced.