of this firft right of man, but because they might by poffibility exercife it in the fame manner, in which their progenitors had chos fen to do it before them. They did not attempt to check, nor forbid, nor prevent the perfonal adoption or exercise of religion in the individual; but as there could be no fovereignty enjoyed by any one, without the free confent of the community, fo the community determined, that no one, who fhould in future chufe to adopt and follow the Roman catholic religion, fhould be capable of enjoying the crown of this realm. The abfolute deviation from the conftitutional rule of hereditary fucceffion, by the exclufion of King James and his heirs, though the nation, for regulating the future fucceffion of the crown, reforted to a common stock from a remoter heir of the Stuart family, was the moft irrefragable proof, that could be given of the right to alter the fucceffion. And certainly it cannot be denied, but that it was an innovation in the conftitution to make the renunciation of a certain religion the fine qua non condition of inheriting the crown; otherwise it could not have defcended upon King James the Second, and the few years of his reign must be erafed from the annals and ftatute books of this realm.

When violent

measures be

art is requifite

to carry them into execution.

In the heat of the times, in which the ma

come neceffary, jority of this community chofe to carry the exercise of their rights to fuch an extraordinary extent, it certainly became neceffary policy in the active minifters of the nation's wishes and intentions, to carry them into execution in a lenient and palatable, if not artful manner. Thus, from not fufficiently distinguishing between the rights of the people, which were exercised at the revolution, and the measures of the ministers in carrying them into execution, have arifen most of the contradictory judgments and opinions formed by posterity in the complex of that great and memorable event. "From these views arofe that repugnance between the conduct and the language of the revolutionifts, of which Mr. Burke has availed himfelf. Their conduct was manly and fyftematic; their language was conciliating and equivocal; they kept measures with prejudice, which they deemed neceffary to the order of society; they impofed on the grofsnefs of the popular understanding, by a fort of compromise between the conftitution and the abdicated family; they drew a politic well-wrought veil, to use the expreffions of Mr. Burke,

Mackintosh, p. 298, and 299.

over the glorious fcene, which they had acted; they affected to preferve a femblance of fucceffion, to recur for the objects of their election to the pofterity of Charles and James, that refpect and loyalty might, with lefs violence to public fentiment, attach to the new fovereign." In forming our thoughts and judgment upon this great event, it never must be forgotten, that at the time, when the convention of the two eftates, on behalf of the majority (which is equivalent to the whole) of the community, called King William to the throne, and recognized him as their fovereign, there was an actual diffolution of government, occafioned by the flight and abdication of King James, who may perhaps with more ftrictnefs be faid to have diffolved, than to have violated the original compact between the governor and the governed; for wherever one of two contracting parties withdraws or recedes from the condition and obligation of the contract, there the contract of itfelf ceafes.

It cannot be denied, but that all the writers upon this subject, who were living at the time

of the revolution, have either, on the one fide or the other, been guilty of fome partiality. At this time of day, I will not even suppose the poffibility of any fuch undue bias bear

Actual diffolument by the abJames.

tion of govern

d'cation of King

Moft writers partial upon the

revolution.

ing upon the mind of any man, who undertakes to confider and view that tranfaction in a mere hiftorical point of view.

It would exceed my intent and purpose, were I to undertake either to justify or approve of every act of refistance in any of the people against the commands of their fovereign, from the acceffion of king James the Second to the time of the revolution, or to blame and condemn the feveral acts of the fovereign, which provoked fuch refiftance. It is evident from obfervation, that a long feries and combination of acts may produce and even justify a confequence, which no one fingle act of the whole would of itself have produced or juftified. I fhall not therefore argue. upon any of the actions, either of the fovereign or of the nation, during the fhort reign of this unfortunate monarch. But when the circumftances and fituor people con- ation of the nation had, as it were, collected into one focus all the counteracting efforts of the oppofite parties, there arofe that neceffity for decifion in acting, that rendered every future act, either of the fovereign or the people, in their refpective political capacities, abfolutely conclufive.

In 1688 every

act of the king

clufive.

The old uncontroverted principle, that, Rex datur propter regnum et non regnum propter regem

regem, will enable us to form our mind very fatisfactorily upon this great event. great event. I fhall take for granted, what I prefume no one will undertake to deny, viz. the right and poffibility of a king's relinquishing, abandoning, or giving up that power, and those rights, which had been given or deputed to him by the community. Without, therefore, taking into confideration the reasons, motives, or inducements, which brought over the prince of Orange with an armed force into this country, we are to confider, and form our minds upon the conduct and actions of king James the Second, after that prince had once landed. It will not fuffice to fay, that king James, at that time, and under all circumstances, found himself in a very embarraffed fituation; that he had reason to apprehend a general defection of his fubjects, and to fear for the perfonal fafety of himself and his family; and that confequently his flight, and abandonment of the kingdom were to be looked upon, not as the acts of a free agent, but as the compulfive measures of the most dire neceffity; and therefore that his flight out of the kingdom never can be conftrued into an actual abdication or renunciation of his fovereignty. It A confiderable is immaterial also to confider, what part of Part of the nahis fubjects were ready and willing to adhere

to

Perfonal views

or motives of

king James not

to be confi

dered.

tion with him.