MR. WARD'S HISTORICAL ESSAY ON THE REVOLUTION.

THIS work is a dull discourse on the text ";the people have nothing to do with the laws but to obey them ; " which the Whig will regard with anger, the Tory with ill-concealed dislike, and the statesman or the critic with contempt.

The real object of the Essay is to inculcate the notions that no people can have any constitutional right to punish their governors or to change their form of government ; that no such thing as a social compact between ruled and rulers exists ; that, from the nature of the case, it cannot exist, since the people (poor devils !) have neither the means nor the capacity to form a judgment as to its violation ; and that, finally, to uphold any such doctrines is pregnant with evil, by inculcating Radical notions and " tending to perturb states." As this doctrine carried to its legitimate con- clusion, might seem rather too strong, however, even for Mr. WARD, he allows the right of resistance to " oppression," grounded on the natural law of self-defence. Still, this resistance, is not to be praised, but rather to be excused as a case of " necessity "- a kind of chance medley ; and as Mr. WARD mostly couples the word " necessity " with the " tyrant's plea," and falls foul of the only three cases of resistance be mentions, we see, what is indeed obvious upon the face of his writings, that it would be very diffi- cult to make out a case of resistance to please him. The mode in which these ttctrines are conveyed, is substan- tially an examination of the Revolution of 1688 ; partly attacking the constitutional or political principles which MACKINTOSH and the Whigs deduce from that event : partly unfolding the means and the men by which it was brought about. The Essay itself is divided into six sections, or consists more properly of six essays. The first two are purely dkplisitional ; and in a certain sense dis- cuss abstractedly the Right of Resistance, the Sovereignty of the People, and the Social Compact, though the instances are taken from the Great Rebellion and the Revolution of 1688. The third section examines the constitutional principles which that event established. The fourth enters minutely into the secret springs by which the "Protestant Deliverance" was.effected; and though it tells nothing new, it brings together such choice specimens of political treachery, baseness, and corruption, as would not be very easy to match. The fifth and sixth sections contain a critical narrative of the proceedings that ended in the elevation of WIL- LIAM and MARY; which, to put Mr. WARD'S long rigmarole into a brief and intelligible shape, were, he conceives, neither rightful, legal, nor constitutional, though the usurpation is now legitimate by lapse of time, and glorious by the luck which followed it. It will be seen that, so far as political reasoning is concerned, the questions really discussed are two,—first, Whether a nation, as a municipal body, possesses a right of resistance and of changing its form of government, apart from that natural tight of self- preservation which Mr. WARD condescends to allow to indive'dual man by the laws of nature ; second, How far these principles, and others involved in them, were established at the Revolution of 1688.

The first question, vast as it seems, is easily disposed of, pro- vided we come to a clear malmstanding as to the nature of the matter we are discussing ; which is simply the purpose of go- vernment. If a person either avowedly or unconsciously maintains that government is established f r the benefit of the rulers, then undoubtedly, on this assumption, a nation has no right to resist them, until oppression, as Mr. WARD seems to put it, reaches such a pitch that individuals may oppose rulers as they would robbers. But if it be held that the end of government is the benefit of the governed, then the right of resistance, the law to punish, and the power to change, follow as necessary consequences of this primal law of social being. The application of any, or a'l of these rowels, is of course another matter, to be determined by prudence as regards resistance or change, and by justice as re- gards punishment. But the national right is as clear as any other law of »rause, and cannot be effected though the Great Re- bellion awl the Protestant aid French Revolutions were all that Mr. WARD imagines. As for the danger of this doctrine, (though it is but a sorry sort of argument against truth, to say that its promulgation is dangerous,) our worthy author may make himself quite easy. Speculative truths may affect the conduct of a few, though but of a very few individuals. Resistance, or if he pleases rebellions, must be brought about by some overwhelming oppression, or many grievous wrongs; for habit, education, prejudice, private in- terest, and the various institutions of society, are all in favour of established authority. The leaders of a revolt may have mixed or purely evil motives, the followers of it are always innucent ; and, looking at the power which all governments must possess, and the via inertia? in the mass which must be overcome, ere it can be moved at all, we may lay it down as a universal rule, that no government was ever yet overturned without richly deserving it. With respect to all the ludicrous absurdities or miserale quibbles with which Mr. WARD endeavours to mystify the enee touching the who is to decide as to the conduct of the ruler—, the tribunal to sit in judgment on him—the difficulty or let. possibility of the nation truly expredsiog its e ill, and many other pettifogging sophistries of a like kind—we may say sucsinctly, they answer themselves. The community, and the community alone, must judge of its injuries, and decide when forbearance must end and resistance begin. The estate or embodied national organs (and some such must always exist) may always be assumed as representing the majority of the popu/er power, if not its ten merical strength; and if they are too strong for government with its physical force, its authority, and its prejudice, they represent theta truly. The same institutions, or such as retnain, or such

as are established—the agents, in short, of the national power

are the tribunal to try and to condemn.

With regard to the second point, or the principles established at the Revolution, much of what Mr. W AltD has written way he blown aside. The House of Commons, we concede, no more reprs. sented the people then than it does now ; but it was theoretically held to do so: it imposed taxes upon this assumption, it passed laws, and for all practical purposes it was assumed to embody "the rude and rascal commons." We might admit with Mr. WARD, that WILLIAM'S motive was ambition, and his conduct gross hypocrisy ; we may freely confess that the children and servants of JAMES were guilty of baseness and treachery ; or go so far as to say that every man concerned in the Revolution was fraudulent, foolish, or corrupt : but all this has no more to do with the constitutional doctrines established by the Revolution, than the private character or motives of any Mr. Smith or Brown has to do with the validity of the Reform B11. The principles, what- ever they be, are to be deduced from the recorded acts of the Legis- lature upon that event, or from the uature of the facts which formed the basis of their legislation. And though these may not fully bear out the loose and (therefore critically) improper hue guage of PRICE and MACKINTOSH touching "cashiering for Ws- conduct," they substantially come very near it. A brief examine- lion of the subject will show what, in opposition to Mr. WARD'S crude assertions, the Revolution did establish ; and the time will not be misempluyed, if it were merely to recall to mind, in these days of " Court parties," the nature of our government, and to contrast the " old Whigs" with the new.

1. This principle was distinctly established, that the title or claim of the monarch to the crown must be set aside when eln• consistent with the safety and welfare" of the kingdom. It is impossible for language to he plainer than the words in which this is done by the Bill of Rights, or the instance to be more con- clusive; for the forfeiture is not to be incurred for any overt act, but for a speculative opinion of the sovereeo or his wife.

e IX. And whereas it huth been found by experience, that it is inconsistent

with Me Way and welfare of this Protestant kingdom to be governed by Popish prince, or by any king or queen marrying a Papist ; the said Lords SO ritual and Temporal, and Commons, do further pray that it may be enacted, tint all and every person and persons that is, are, or shall be reconciled to or shall

hold communication with the see or church of Rome, or shall profess the Papish religion, or shall marry a Papist, shall be excluded, and be for ever in.

capable to inherit, possess, or enjoy the crown and government of this realm,

and Ireland, and the dominions thereunto belonging, or any part of the same ; or to have, use, and exercise, any regal power, authority, or jurisilietion within the same ; and in all and eve' y such ca.e or cases, the people of these realms shall be, and are hereby absolved of their allegiance; awl the said crown and government shall from time to time descend to awl be enjoyed by such person or persons, being Protestants, as should have inherited and eujoyeil the same in case the same person or persons so ITC011Cilill, holding communion, or pros fessing, or marrying its aforesaid, were naturally dead."—Bill of Riyhts.

[By the same bill, the crown is settled upon the issue uf MARY, in default to the issue of ANNE, and then to the issue of WILLIS% By subsequent proceedings, the crown was settled upon the house of -Brunswick, passing over the nearer relatiens of the STUARTS. This settlement of the succession is, however, as Mr. WARD is constrained to admit, an old English practice : the novelty, if there is any, consists in the reason why it was done oa this occasion.

It will scarcely be supposed that the writer before us, in his fatuitous horror of any restraint upon the powers that be, actually asks what is communion with the Church of Rome? and who h to decide it ? Unable, however, to deny that the Legislature la• capacitated kings for their belief, he next argues that the Legis- lature could not set aside the hereditary succession,—as if the principle on which they proceeded was not the " safety and wel- fare" of the nation. But] 2. The hereditary priuciple of succession Was set aside (let BURKE say what he may) by the resolution that WILLIAM should be King with " the sole aad toll exercise of the regal power." (Bill of Bights.) By the law of England, the King Consort had and has no more right to the exercise of regal pmer in England, than has the President of the United States.

3. The compact between King and People was positively af- firmed as to its principle, and particular instances were given of its violation, as follows.

" That King James the Second, having endeavoured to subvert the confab tution of the kingdom, by breaking the original contract between king and " Whereas the late King James the Second, by the assistance of divers evil persons having violated people, !and by the advice of Jesuits and other wicked the fundamental inns. "—Dee/oration of Rights.

e

counsellors, judges, and ministers employed by him, did endeavour to subvert and extipate the Protestant religion, and the laws and liberties of this kingdom.: " 1. By assuming and exercising a power of dispensing with, and susjendia of laws, and the execution of laws, withoot consent of Parliament:

•••■■"

St. By con mating ml prosecurnf divers worthy prelates, for humbly peti- tioning to be excused fuss (smelter ing to the said assumed power : oth By issuing and easing to be executed a commission under the great ireal

for erecting a court, meted the Court of Conunissioners fur Ecclesiastical Cauws : oc By levying money fat and to the use of the crown, by preteoce of pre- rogative, for other time and k other manner than the same was granted by

Parliamey nt :

raising and keeping alanding army within this kingdom M time of

peace, without consent of Parliansnt, and quartering soldiers, contrary to law : 6. By causing several good subsets, bong Protestants, to to be disarmed, at the same time when Papists were hell armed and employed, contrary to law : "7. By violating the freedom of eection of membeis to serve in Parliament : us, By piosecution in the Court of Sing's Bench, for matters and causes cog- nizable only in Parliament ; and by dives other arbitrary and illegal courses : 09. And whereas, of late year, partialeorrupt, and miqualitied persons, have been returned and served on juries in tnas, and particularly divers jurors in trials kr high treason, which were not freesegers

"10. And excessive bail bath been required rf persons committed in criminal noes, to elude the benefit of the laws made for tie liter' of the subject : "II. And excessive fines have been imposes and illegal and cruel punish- rents inflicted :

" P2. And several grants and promises made of Ines and forfeitures before anv convietion or judgmeut against the persons upon whom the same were to be

levied : which are utterly and directly contrary to be known laws and statutes and freedom of this realm :

"And whereas the said late King James the f■ecoel having abdicated the go. vernment, and the throne being thereby vacant, li. Highness the Prince of Orange, (ehom it bath pleased Almighty G0,1 to IIIS,0 the glorious instrument of delivering this kingdom from Popery and arbitrry power,) did," &c.— Bill of Riyhts.

4. Although the peculiar circumstances 01 the time rendered the declarations of the leading actors what Huhu calls " rather too guarded and circumstantial" in all that relabd to the forfeiture of the grown and the expulsion of JAMES, yet I consideration of the events preceding and following his flight, ant an examination of the documents from which we have quoted,or b which we have alluded, will establish as clearly as acts can wet establish any thing—I. The right of resistance; for in no °the- way was the " Glorious Deliverance" brought about. 2. The paw of trial— for we have just quotel an enutnoralion marvellous k like an in- dietmetit. 3. The punishment of rulers ; for perpeual depriva- tion is as complete a punishment as was ever intliced on a sub- ject by a bill of attainder. 4. The " principles which seated the house of Brunswick on the throne," are the principles of the national welfare against hereditary right or any otter title what- ever.

To follow Mr. WARD through his long and lumbering attempts to overturn the principles of which we have endeavourel to furnish an outline, would be to write a book ahnost as lengthy is his own. But a passage or two will suffice as a sper.inten of his style and logic. We take it from a point we have been speakhg of—the compact between King and People, awl the power of the latter.

Since the Revolution, and the eelebrated debates upon these yaestions, ending in the celebrated finding of both Houses of Parliament that there was such a compact, and that James had broken it, all Englishmen, at hest all good Whigs, would be scandalized to hear it questioned. I might, ther-fore, to fear and tremble when I confess that in this doctrine I never could we ally thing more than a supposititious case, which never really happened, but vas created merely for the better educing and iliastrating the duties of goveronents. Abstract principles are generally more difficult to demoistrate, particularly by arguments a priori, or even by analogy, than to gatherthem by a plain de- duction from a tangible ease. The theories, therefore, of the political philosophers as Wile reciprocal duties of sovereign and subject, were infinitely more capable of practical demonstra- tion by supposing what might, but what never did happen that wild and inde- pendent men living in solitiny freedom in woods and cxes' left them for the purpose of associating together aml hauling a governmotfor their better se- curity. Not only this, but that these savages entered into a compact with those whom they chose for their governors, in which dr ramified and mutual duties of obedience and protection, and the exact boumaries of power on one side and subjection on the other, were all pointed out with a defeasance, as the lawyers term it, should the conditions be not obscred. This, I say, was a far more convenient way of elucidating the theory ant science of government than mere speculative truths without such an example o illustrate tbem. As such a convenient mode of elucidation, I am oning to adopt it. As a ease that ever happened, and as the actual origin of gwernment, I never could bring my mind to admit it. The utmost that can be aid for it IS, that it may be implied from the reason and nature of things ; and,had the Convention Par. liament voted that it was so implied, perhaps it woull not have been so °Nee- , tionable; though about reason and the nature of thugs how many are the dif- ferences of opini llll , I need nut to your experienced mod point out.

To be sure, the Convention voted it : but will tat make it binding upon our belief?

Suppose that they had voted that there was noGod : would that have de- monstrated such a proposition ?

In reference to the opinion quoted from Locks I have asked what it meant by trust ?

Surely it is not meant to be that technical insrument in law which appoints, by a known formulary, one person to hold a berefit for the use of another? But, men if Locke meant it so, could he who appointed the trust resume it himself, let it be ever so much abused ? The reason is, because no man can be a julge in his own case. The law, therefore, in eases of abuse, appoints other lefties to take cognizance of and de. mule the question. But the word had not the literal techuical meaning, even With Locke. It is evidently a metaphysical supposition the better to illustrate a particular doctrine in mora!s rts well as in politics.

_ Under this, as a legal deed at trust duds certain, duties to be performed, in failure of which the power may be reetunal under a decree by competent and known authority, so, for the better exptsition of the reciprocal duties of go- !colors mid governed, ur of men generally acM I. supposed which:never actually Were ; and a trteit is imp/iv/is/graded by one party to another, as if both re in a state of civil society, when, 0 point of fact to have been so, the trust so/ pose I must have already been executed. • wet is become or this once faroari.e Wh',1 toast ? Does not "The Queen, and rsacy ,h,..no.ver forget the priuci Ise 11104t0 1I1 office?jutes whiA seatzd her family on the throne," become

For, to pursue this matter, if we allow what is falsely, I think, presumed, that there ever was a state of man without government; that is, when every man Wals his own absolute master, like any other animal,—it is clear that in such a state, from the very description of it, no such trust, express or implied, could have existed ; for there were neither governors nor governed. And when a government was at last constitoted, as is supposed, by common consent. there must have been a previous common consent to abide by such institution ; which instantly supposes a society already formed ; and there must have been a still earlier trust from evtry man to every man for that

purpose. • • • • • • Those who contend for the first, assert that it is prorcd that we have a right " to revoke abused power, cashier our governors for misconduct, elect others in their room, to framea gorerriment for ourselves, and &Wow the crown" as we please. Si, said Mackintosh in his Vindiciee ; so said Price in his famous sermon.

The opinions of Lecke we have already noticed.

These tenets were ad warmly opposed, and eloquently exposed, by a number of statetmen and ccoistitutional lawyers, (Mr. Bulky their leader mid powerful chief,) who saw the danger of so destroyibg all the foundations which support civil society ; as these principles, if carried as far as they would lead, would inevitably do. Burke therr fore met the whole question in all its moditica- dons, in perhaps the 1110St celebrated of his wicrks, the it..arctious ito the French Revolution, and aftet war d* iii several others supplementary t4, t. Lilt us examine these propositions, and see how they are borne out by the bigot y we shall then be able to tell, etript a their colours of rhetoric., to what they really amount. The doctrine of Locke upon the devolution of the sovereignty to the people, when the trust, supposed, in legal foi in, to have been committed to t heir governors, has been abused, and upon the consequent tight which he says they have to lea and utter the Legislature—as if all society were to begin again—this has been so satisfactorily answered by latekstone. that I shalt not revert to it again in this letter, though I may consider his whole philosophy on the subject, more at large, in a question by itself. But the amplification of this tenet by Sir James requites more attention. " The Revolution of MSS," he observes, " is eno,.r..s•sed to have established principle:, by those who lament that it hay not reformed institut Silos" Where is this confessed ? what principles ha it established, me 1.111/W11 before ? what are the iustitutiuns which be wished it had ref 'ruled? I pr..ress I do not know.

To resist oppression, which means something contrary to duty and moral obligation in the oppressor, and destructive to rights in the oppressed, is a law of our nature, and requires 00 preeedent to give us power to :ter upon it. Tins, then, was established at the birth of nam, and surely did not take its origin from the Revolution.

What else did it establish by tray of preccdeht? Mackintosh answers, the light of the 'simple to revoke alooanl power. This is a very general sweeping proposition, which ought to he fur more distinctly explained before we Call even understand, much more assent to it. If it mean a right to resist au invasion of our legal security, it is not only ad- mitted, but, as has been observed, asserted by the lew of Nature, not merely of the Revolution ; but if it mean to resume a power actually ever enjoyed acid actually delegated to another, we dispute the fact. Power, to he rt. r".4,1, must have been enjoyed ; and the people of England never did enjoy this power, or delegate it in form to another. hr is a Caney em- bodied in argument, Lull!, as we have before observed, by imidie ohm, for the better illustration of the science of government ; in intiginscv e.o.e, which, as &fact, never existed. The word revoSas tlecrefore, is improper ; and the doctrine founded upon it, as derired from ti‘e roi-dims, still more so. 'I'ii e of Eog1410 ;wither revoked nor rtstaro,1 their hiiuIitial power : they esc.4 the.r lug1 it of set defence when attacked, given by Nature to all familial' and all other kiwi.

It is unnecessary to observe how Mr. WARD garbles the truth, so far as compwl is in question, b.% suppressin4 all allusions those things in which it was held to consist. As far as argument is concerned, it might be answered, that both the eothviet and the power of the people delegated to their rulers are implied in the very nature of the case. Or it might be asked, wh,oice do kings derive their power, but from the consent of those over whom they rule: But such a recourse to first principles is not necessary in any kingdom, least of all here. To begin with the Conquest. when 1'1711-LIAM swore to maintain existing laws and privileges, it looked amazingly like entering into a compact ;abiuL the succes- sive charters of different sovereigns wear a similar appearance. 'sIt'oillcommon minds, the coronation-uath has the look of a contract; the old distinction between Domions Anglite and Rex Aagloruot

more ; and the formal presentation of the newly-crowned King to the People for acceptance, though a mere ceremony, is still a significant one—an outward and visible siga of sumething deeper. Really this old gentleman should go to school.

As a literary production, Mr. Wallin's Essay is very. dull. As a piece of reasoning, it ii narrow, quibbling, and Woe' ms, with- out any of the acuteness, the art, or the eloquence which some- times lends a charm to sophistry. The only smart parts about it, are some quotations from the "continuator" of M.%ciasrrostes History, against the Revolutionary leaders, and IMAM extracts from the Whig writer Lord JOHN Russeu., which tell in contrast with Lord JOHN RUSSELL the Conservative Secretary of State. The only laughable parts are where the writer puts forth some ab- surd fallacy with the self-sullittient air of an apostle announcing. a political gospel.