constitutional principles of the real Whig party. To those who have read that work it were needless to say that it is, perhaps, the most perfect specimen of close argument, commanding eloquence, bitter satire, and pointed irony to be found in the pages of ancient or modern literature. We shall now proceed to prove the assertion, that the principles of the old Whigs were essentially Conservative, and were in fact precisely the same as those of the modern Tories. We have already, we trust, shewn how, by the change of circumstances, and of the character and policy of the the Crown, together with the apparent cessation of a Whig party in the State, the old Tory party were induced in later times to take the appellation of Whigs, in order to conceal under that name the same Popish or revolutionary designs which they had formerly supported under its opposite. There are four important epochs in the history of the Whig party, the principles displayed at which shall be adduced as the proofs of our assertion. The first, in the year 1680, when the party first took its rise; the second, in 1688, when its principles were first called forward in the great political struggle which took place at the revolution; the third, in the year 1710, when the House of Commons impeached Dr. Sacheverell for uttering unconstitutional principles in two sermons preached and published by him; which occasion was employed by the Whig party in the House of Commons to declare their sentiments, which were confirmed by the sentence, in the House of Lords, to have been the true sentiments of that party at the time of the revolution, when by the agency of that party the Prince of Orange was placed on the Throne of Great Britain. The fourth epoch in the history of this party was when, under the name of Tories, they defended the Constitution in Church and State against the infidel and republican doctrines sent forth by the French revolution. Posterity will perhaps add another era to the list, when, under the name which most truly and justly designates the real principles of their party, they formed the great" Conservative" body of the British Nation; to whom we at present owe the preservation of this Constitution and Empire from total and imme n 7 diate destruction; and to whom, under the blessing of Providence, we trust, posterity will owe their religion, their property, and their very existence as a nation. to knit an 2 16W 2 Bob on 18 What were the principles of the Whig party at the first of these periods we have, we trust, already shewn with sufficient clearness, in that part of this article which treated of the origin of this party. If our readers wish to examine this part of its history further, we must refer them to the annals of the period, where they will obtain the fullest information which they can desire: but let it be remembered that, in order to judge fairly of the principles of this party, it will be ne cessary not to take the character given of them by any historian; for inasmuch as the whole educated population of this Empire has been, and is, to a greater or less degree, actuated by the principles of the one party or the other, it were perhaps impossible to find any historian perfectly free from prejudice on this subject; but to observe carefully what were the religious and political views and measures of that Government to which they were opposed, and the method they made use of to display this opposition. In endeavouring to shew what were the principles of the Whig party at the periods of 1688 and 1710, our task will extend little farther than to extract some passages from those portions of Mr. Burke's Ap peal which bear most directly on our subject and as this appeal was written at the period of the French revolution and with the view of comparing the real principles of the old Whigs with those of the soi disant Whigs of the day, it will be unnecessary for us to dwell at length upon the later periods of the history of this party. .. We feel that it were almost an insult to our readers to offer any apology for directing their attention to the opinions of a man who, ata period when the most brilliant talents, the most powerful eloquence, and most refined wit, were all submerged in the unhallowed blaze of republicanism and infidelity; when Fox, and Sheridan, and Canning were blinded by a phantom too gross to deceive for any length of time even the butchers and the fishwomen of France; yet stood forth the only man of that party who had wisdom to see, or courage to proclaim, the absurd inconsistencies, and the destructive effects, of the prin- avowed and acted on by the modern ciples, if such they can be called, by Whigs; for let it be remembered, that which so large a portion of Europe was many of the leaders of the present exat the period possessed. Our readers isting party in the kingdom were actu are, no doubt aware that this essay was ally members of those societies above written by Mr. Burke in the name of a alluded to. For such of our readers third person, and in consequence of the as may not be aware of the importance so-called Whig party in the of House and weight of the opinions delivered Commons having refused him a hear on the occasion of the memorable trial ing, when he attempted to lay before above mentioned, we shall extract the them the destructive consequences of following statement from Mr. Burke. the course they were pursuing." "It rarely happens to a party to have -The first extract we shall lay before our the opportunity of a clear, authentic, readers will tend to explain that appa recorded declaration of their political rent inconsistency of the true Whig tenets upon the subject of a great con party in taking up at different periods, stitutional event like that of the revothe defence of opposite parts of the lution. The Whigs had that opportu constitution, which induced their ene nity, or, to speak more properly, they mies to assume the name of Whigs, on made it. The impeachment of Dr. the pretence that they were adhering to Sacheverell was undertaken by a Whig the principles which the others had Ministry and a Whig House of Comdeserted. It is as follows He who mons, and carried on before a prevalent thinks that the British Constitution ought and steady Majority of Whig Peers. to consist of the three members, of It was carried on for the express purthree very different natures, of which pose of stating the true grounds and it does actually consist, and thinks it principles of the revolution what the his duty to preserve each of those commons called their foundation. It members in its proper place, and with was carried on for the purpose of conits proper proportion of power, must, demning the principles on which the as each shall happen to be attacked, revolution was first opposed, and aftervindicate the three several parts on the wards calumniated, in order by a juriseveral principles peculiarly belonging dical sentence of the highest authority to them. He cannot assert the demo- to confirm and fix Whig principles, as cratic part on the principles on which they had operated both in the resistmonarchy is supported; nor can he ance to King James, and in the subsesupport monarchy on the principles of quent settlement; and to fix them in democracy; nor can he maintain aris the extent and with the limitations tocracy on the grounds of the one, or with which it was meant they should of the other, or of both. All these he be understood by posterity."" In this must support on grounds that are totally proceeding the Whig principles applied different, though practically they may to the revolution and settlement are to be, and happily with us they are, be found, or they are to be found no brought into one harmonious body?" where." We shall now proceed folWe shall now proceed to quote some lowing very nearly the time pointed passages from the trial of Dr. Sache-out Mr. Burke (we cannot surely verell, which will show what were the principles of the Whig party in the years 1688 and 1710, and then adduce extracts from the printed and published works of the Whigs, as they called themselves, of the period of the French revolution, which were approved and recognised by all the soi disant Whig societies of Great Britain, as the true statement of their principles. It will The sufficient, we think, to lay the passages alluded to before our readers, to prove our assertion, that the principles of the old Whigs were the same as the modern Tory and Conservative party, and the precise opposite of those have a better guide) to state, in their And as the nation joined in the judgement 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."-"No one part of the constitution was altered, or suffered the least damage; but on the contrary, the whole received new life and vigour." The next extract contains the opinions of the Whig party as stated by Mr. Lechmere (one of the managers,) relative to the nature of the British constitution: "The laws are the common measure of the power of the crown, and of the obedience of the subject; and if the executive part en deavours the subversion and total destrue tion of the government, the original contract is thereby broken, and the right of allegiance ceases; that part of the government, thus fundamentally injured, hath a right to save or secure that constitution in which it hath an original interest."-"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 necessity only, by which the original contract between king and people is broken." We shall now adduce the statement of the principles of the revolution given by General Stanhope, another of the managers for the House of Commons on that occasion: "The constitution of England is founded upon compact; and the subjects of this kingdom have, in their several public capacities, as legal a title to what are their rights by law, as a prince to the possession of his crown. Your Lord ships, and most that hear me, are wit nesses, 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." In order fully to contrast the principles of these ancient Whigs with those of the moderns, which we shall presently bring forward, it is necessary to adduce a few more passages, which shew the view taken by the former, of the legality of resistance. The first we shall quote is from the speech of Mr. (afterwards Sir Robert) Walpole. "Resistance is nowhere enacted to be legal, but subjected by all the laws now in being, to the greatest penalties. It is 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-effected occasions, it may be exercised, no man can foresee; and it ought never to be thought of, but when an utter subversion of the law of the realm threatens the whole frame of our constitution, and no redress can otherwise be hoped for." The next passage is from a speech of Sir Joseph Jekyll on the same occasion. We have insisted that in no case can resistance be lawful, but in case of extreme necessity, and where the constitution cannot be otherwise preserved, and such necessity ought to be plain and obvious to the sense and judgment of the whole nation." We shall but quote a few passages which display the loyal principles of the ancient Whigs, and then proceed to state the doctrines of the modern · party which calls itself by that name." Sír Robert Eyre spoke as follows: "The resistance at the revolution, which was founded on unavoidable necessity, could be no defence to a man that was attacked for asserting that the people might cancel their allegiance at pleasure, or dethrone and murder their sovereign by a judiciary sentence. For it never can 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." Sir Joseph Jekyll considered it as so absolutely the duty of the people to support the crown, that he places the restoration and revolution on exactly the same footing, as follows "In both of these great events were the regal power, and the rights of the people recovered, and it is hard to say in which the people have the greatest interest; for the commons are sensible that there is not one legal power belonging to the crown, but they have an interest in it." The last extract we shall make on this part of our subject, is from a speech of Sir John Holland, on the same occasion. "The commons would not be understood, as if they were pleading for a licentious resistance, as if subjects were left to their good will and pleasure, when to obey, and when to resist. No, my Lords, they know they are obliged by all the tice of social creatures and christians, for wrath and conscience sake, to submit to their sovereign. The commons do not abet humoursome factious arms, they aver them to be rebellious. But yet they maintain, that that resistance at the revolution, which was so necessary, was lawful and just from that necessity, It is with this view of necessity only, absolute necessity of preserving our laws, liberties and religion, it is with this limitation that we desire to be understood, when any of us speak of resistance in general." Such were the loyal, the conservative, the constitutional, the Protestant, principles of the ancient Whigs. We trust that we have sufficiently proved, that during the three first epochs of the history of this celebrated party, their principles continued precisely the same, and that their conduct under different, and sometimes opposite, circumstances, was steadily and consistently guided by the same great principles of the conservation of the Protestant religion, the authority of the laws, and the regular meeting of parliaments. We shall now see what were, and are, the principles, if such they can be called, of that class of persons, who unjustly usurped the honor able designation of Whigs to conceal their systematic attempts at innovation in the state, and to forward their designs of substituting republicanism or democracy for monarchy, and popery or infidelity for the Protestant religion, For this purpose we shall first take the statement of these opinions, given by Mr. Burke, and then some of the pas sages taken from their authenticated and eulogized publications of the period, which were avowed by the various societies of soi disant Whigs in Great Britain to be the real and essential principles of these societies. Let it be remembered, that all the great leaders of the Whig party were patrons, and many of them members, and many of the leaders (great indeed we cannot call them) of the present day were actually enrolled members of these societies, and of the corresponding ones in France. Mr. Burke states these doctrines as follows: 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 soveVOL. I. reignty, constantly, 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 own will the measure of their conduct; that the tenure of magistracy is not a proper subject of contract; because magis trates 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." We shall proceed to adduce some passages from the works abovementioned :-" Though the British constitution is much talked about, no such thing as a constitution exists, nor ever did exist; and consequently the people have a constitution yet to form; since William the Conqueror, the country has never yet regenerated itself, and is therefore without a constitution. Every thing in the English government is the reverse of what it ought to be, and what it is said to be in England; the portion of liberty enjoyed in England is just enough to enslave a country more productively than by despotism. Whether we view aristocracy before, or behind, or sideways, or anyway else, domestically or publicly, it is still a monster. It is kept up by family tyranny and injustice. There is a natural unfitness in aristocracy to be legislators for a nation. Their ideas of distributive justice are corrupted at the very source; they begin life by trampling on all their younger brothers and sisters, and relatives of every kind; and are taught and educated so to do. The idea of an hereditary legislator is as absurd as an hereditary mathematician. A body holding themselves unaccountable to any body ought to be trusted by no body. It is continuing the uncivilized principles of governments founded on conquest, and the base idea of man having a property in man, and governing him by a personal right. Aristocracy has a tendency to degenerate the human species. It is a law against every law of nature, and nature itself calls for its destruction. Establish family justice and aristocracy 3 x falls. By the aristocratical law of primogenitureship, in a family of six children, five are exposed. Aristocracy has but one child. The rest are begotten to be devoured. They are thrown to the cannibal for prey, and the natural parent prepares the unnatural repast." So far for the opinions of the modern Whigs on the subject of the British Constitution, of aristocracy, &c. Let us proceed to see what are the doctrines of this class with respect to the House of Commons, and the rights of corporations, It (the House of Commons) docs not arise out of the inherent rights of the people. "When the people of England come to reflect upon them (the corporations) they will like France, annihilate those badges of oppression, those traces of a conquered nation." In a late session we have seen, in the passing of the Reform Bill, the effects of these principles carried into practice. 66 We shall now proceed to the opinions of these men on the subject of monarchy. "When we survey the wretched condition of man under the monarchical and hereditary systems of government, dragged from his home by one power, or driven by another, and impoverished by taxes more than by enemies, it becomes evident that those systems are bad, and that a general revolution in the principle and construction of governments is necessary. What is government more than the management of the affairs of a nation? It is not, and from its nature cannot be, the property of any particular man or family, but of the whole community, at whose expense it is supported, and though by force or contrivance it has been usurped into an inheritance, the usurpation cannot alter the right of things. Sovereignty, as a right, appertains to the nation only, and not to any individual; and a nation has at all times an inherent, indefeasible right to abolish any form of government it finds inconvenient, and establish such as accords with its interest, disposition, and happiness. The romantic and barbarbarous distinction of men into kings and subjects, though it may suit the condition of courtiers, cannot that of citizens; and is exploded by the principle on which governments are now founded. Every citizen is a member of the sovereignty, and, as such, can acknowledge no personal subjec We shall not offend our readers by quoting any more of this composition of impiety, obscurity, falsehood, and absurdity, further than to show the sentiments of these men with respect to that revolution which the ancient. Whigs regarded as a more glorious event than Cressy, Agincourt, or Poictiers. “It is somewhat extraordinary, that the offence for which James II. was expelled-that of setting up power by assumption, should be reacted under another shape and form, by the parlia ment that expelled him. It shows that the rights of man were but imperfectly understood at the revolution; for certain it is, that the right which that parliament set up by assumption (for by delegation it had it not, and could not have it, because none could give it) over the persons and freedom of posterity for ever, was of the same tyrannical, unfounded kind which James attempted to set up over the parliament and the nation, and for which he was expelled. The only difference is, (for in principle they differ not) that the one was an usurper over the living, and the other over the unborn; and as the one has no better authority to stand upon than the other, both of them must be equally null and void, and of no effect. As the estimation of all things is by comparison, the revolution of 1688, however from circumstances it may have been exalted beyond its value, will find its level. It is already on the wane; eclipsed by the enlarg ing orb of reason." "Some of our readers may feel disposed to think that these doctrines are so much worse than those avowed by the present race of soi disant Whigs, that some other change must have taken place since the period of the French revolution, and that although it is clear that the principles of the present Whigs are totally different from and even opposite to, those of the ancient, yet they are not nearly so dangerous as those last quoted doctrines of the Whigs of the French revolution. To this we reply, we would gladly be lieve this statement if we could. would gladly believe it, because they are men, and therefore entitled to the most charitable interpretation that can justly be put on their conduct; because they are ministers, and we could wil lingly hope, if permitted to do so, that We |