صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني
[ocr errors]

A Vindication of the great Revolution in England in A. D. 1688. And of the Characters of King William and Queen Mary. Together with a Confutation of the Character of King James the Second, as mifreprefented by the Author of the Complete Hiftory of England; by extracts from Dr. Smollet*. By Thomas Comber, A. B. 8vo. 1 s. 6d. Robinfon.

N the foregoing article, we have had occafion to confider the mischievous effects of ungovernable party zeal: and what we have there obferved, may ferve for an introduction to the article under prefent confideration.

There are two periods in the English history, which have been canvaffed with violent prejudice, and uncommon heat of difputation. We mean the Revolution in Charles the Firft's time (of which we have before taken notice), and that which enfued in 1688. The one was begun upon juftifiable motives, but concluded upon bafe, tyrannical, and deteftable principles : the other was undertaken upon grounds no lefs juft, and completed upon a noble, glorious, and liberal foundation.

It is obfervable, that the miftaken zealots, who are enemies to thefe Revolutions, affect to file them Rebellions; but to brand them with that odious appellation, is wilfully or ignorantly to pervert the true meaning of the word rebellion. To refift a lawful King, ruling according to law, is rebellion: but to oppofe a Sovereign, however lawfully enthroned, who breaks his coronation oath, violates the laws, and perfifts in ufurpation, is not a rebellion, but a juft and noble vindication of the political rights of fociety. It cannot be called a rebellion, because a King, who accepts a crown under certain limitations, who fwears to obferve the laws in being, and maintain the rights and privileges of his people, having violated the condition on his part, and perfifted in fuch violation, his fubjects are, by his own act, abfolutely abfolved from their allegiance: which can be no longer due, than while they are fecured in the free enjoyment of thofe political privileges, in confideration of which they have refigned their natural rights.

Thus the impious attempts in the year 1715 and 1749, are rightly filed rebellions. They were, undertaken against Sovereigns, who might boast of the best and strongest title to a crown;

Our Author has indulged a conceit in the wording his title-page, (and, indeed, preferved it in the courfe of his Vindication) which may rather ferve to puzzle fome Readers, than to inform them. Such, therefore, are to understand, that the Author of the Compleat Hiftory of England is Dr. S. and that the Vindicator plays the Hiftorian against himself, by making Dr. S. confute Dr. S.

who

who were not only lawfully invefted with royalty, but governed according to law, and even yielded points of prerogative, with princely condefcenfion. But the authors of the revolutions before mentioned, were as far from being guilty of rebellion, as felf-defence is remote from affaffination *.

Writers, however, who are foes to the revolution in 1688, dare not openly attack that fortrefs of liberty, but endeavour fecretly to undermine its foundation. The laws in being, reftrain them from promulgating their fentiments with the freedom they wish for, and they have therefore recourfe to dark hints, and infidious inuendos. Thus they infinuate, that King William was a bad man, and that his very virtues made him difagreeable; ergo, it was wrong to invite him to the throne. James the Second, on the contrary, was, according to them, a good creature; his very failings improved his virtues; and his defcendants are amiable characters: ergo, it is a pity not to fetch them back again. Such are the inferences which, without ftraining the conftruction, may be drawn from the hafty pages of that florid and fuperficial hiftory †, which the Writer of the Vindication before us has, upon the whole, juftly reprehended.

But if the enemies of the revolution asperse it without a cause, its advocates often vindicate it without difcretion. The malice of the former would perfuade us, that all the evils we have experienced fince that time, were inherent in the revolution itself. The zeal of the latter, is not content to defend that crifis, but inconfiderately attempts to justify the abuses which enfued.

This profufion of zeal feems, in fome inftances, to have mifguided the Author under our confideration. He appears rather too fanguine an advocate, for a candid enquirer. He forgets that every step we take from the bounds of moderation, is an advance towards error. As a friend to the revolution, he is entitled to our esteem and applaufe; but as an advocate for corruption, and the abules which followed that period, he merits our utmost difapprobation.

As a proof of the fallibility of our Author's judgment in this respect, we shall give the following inftance. The Hiftorian on whom he animadverts, has obferved that "William finding there

We are not ignorant, that in an act of Charles the Second, the Revolution in his father's time is ftiled Rebellion: but the time when it was enacted accounts, for the expreffion. But, indeed, this is not the only instance of an ill-chofen epithet in an act of Parliament; wit nefs the many ftatutes which have been made to explain and amend former acts.

† For our account of this Hiftory, fee Review for April last. R 4

6 was

1

[ocr errors]

"was no other way of maintaining his adminiftration in peace, thought proper to countenance the practice of purchafing votes, "and appointed Trevor Firft Commiffioner of the Great Seal." Having characterized this Gentleman as a violent partizan of the Tories, the Historian adds,-" He was a bold, artful man, and "undertook to procure a majority to be at the devotion of the court, provided he fhould be fupplied with the neceffary fums "for the purposes of corruption."

66

Upon thefe paffages our Author makes the following animadverfion. After all that can be faid on this fubject, when the • measures of a King or Minister manifeftly tend to public weal, •he who purc hafes the votes of members of Parliament to carry them into execution, only pays for doing what should be done without pay. Corruption is already advanced to great ftrength, when men need a bribe to do their duty.'

Thefe fentiments are highly exceptionable, and we have fo good an opinion of the Author's moral character, that, had he perceived their dangerous tendency, we are confident he would never have suffered them to fully his page. It is obfervable, that his indifcrect apology for corruption, is founded upon a general fuppofition, that the measures of a King or Minifter manifefly tend to public weal. But this is begging the question; and if it fhould appear, that the meatures of the King or Minifter under confideration had not fuch a manifeft tendency, then his apology fails to the ground. Now he must be more than commonly fanguine, who will contend, that all the meafures purfued during the reign we fpeak of, manifeftly tended to public weal. On the contrary, they who will take the trouble of comparing the Bill of Rights with fome tranfactions in that reign, will find that the fons of venality were employed to throw down those very barriers which were fet up at the revolution. Befides, where the good intentions of a King or Minifter are fo MANIFEST, they need not have recourfe to corruption to carry them into execution, for the Public in fuch cafe, will, no doubt, unite to patronize their measures.

But even granting all that our Author contends for, and admitting that the meafures of the King or Minifter were manifeftly directed towards public weal-yet ftill the Writer's defence of corruption is unpardonable. When corruption in government is made the means of promoting even worthy purposes, the means will by degrees deftroy the end propofed. The man who will be paid for doing that which he ought to do without pay, will do that for pay, which he ought not to do at all. The end of all government is, or ought to be, the promotion of the welfare and happiness of the people. This purpose cannot be

effected

effected without paying due regard to their morals, which venality muft inevitably contaminate: and when it is advanced to fuch ftrength, that men need a bribe to do their duty, the ftate is at its laft ftage of declenfion. It is a truth established by reafon and experience, that corruption will deftroy the best modelled government; and, if we muft fall, it is of little confequence whether our destruction is owing to the rude hand of arbitrary violence, or to the corrupt arts of venal proftitutes. Thus by endeavouring to prove too much, the Vindicator has invalidated the force of his own arguments.

Our Author, however, has been very diligent in expofing the abfurdities, inconfiftencies, and contradictions, in the history he has undertaken to fcrutinize. He begins with some strictures on the Historian's character of King William. He has shewn that portrait to be an ill-drawn picture, or rather caracature, after the Hiftorian's own wild fancy, which bears no resemblance to King William, nor to any Being which ever exifted in nature. So far he is juft; for, indeed, the character in question, as painted by the Hiftorian, is fomething like that strange figure which Horace defcribes in his Art of Poetry.

But we are afraid, that our Vindicator has not been more happy in hitting upon a juft fimilitude. He feems to have erred in the other extreme, and to have reprefented King William as a perfect character,

A faultlefs Monfter, which the world ne'er faw.

Indeed, we cannot help obferving, that too great a ftrefs is often laid on the character of William III. and men are frequently judged friends or enemies to the Revolution, according to the opinions they form of that Sovereign. But we do not think, that his perfonal merit is to be made the teft of the Revolution. William, no doubt, had his failings; but if in fome refpects he did not answer the expectations of his fubjects, we may undoubtedly cenfure his misconduct, without impeaching the principles of the Revolution.

Our Author, however, has placed one circircumftance in that Sovereign's reign, in fo juft, fo clear, and fo fenfible a light, that we cannot fupprefs the extract of his arguments. Dr. Smollet, the Hiftorian whom he oppofes, fpeaking of the Partition Treaty, expreffes himself thus. The treaty of Partition was one of the "MOST IMPUDENT SCHEMES of encroachment that TYRAN"NY and INJUSTICE ever planned. Lewis knew that William "was too much a politician to be reftricted by notions of private

justice, and that he would make no fcruple to infringe the laws of particular countries, or even the right of a fingle nation*,

Here Mr. C. fhrewdly aks, in a note, Are the rights of a fingle asion greater than the laws of particular countries?

" when

"when the balance of power was at ftake. The King of Eng"land lent a willing ear to his propofals, and engaged in a plan "for difmembering a kingdom, in defpite of the natives, and IN " VIOLATION OF EVERY LAW HUMAN AND DIVINE."

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

To which our Vindicator replies, in the following terms An enquiry,' fays he, into the grounds of the Partition Treaty, will engage us deeply in ethics and politics, which are or ought to be always connected. We must premise then, that nothing can be due by private juftice to one person, which is ⚫ inconfiftent with the rights of another. Much less can that be due to one or a few, which is inconfiftent with the rights of many. Individuals have a right to security in their just possesfions; much more nations, which confift of many individuals. But individuals and nations can have no fecurity in the poffeffion of their rights, except by guarding against the devolution of fuch a fhare of power into the hands of those whom they reasonably fuppofe inclinable to difturb their peace, as would enable them fo to do. On a like principle is built every juft offenfive alliance betwixt nations. For it is the fame thing < whether we prevent power coming into the hand of an enemy, < or take it away when devolved. If then it appear from Dr. Smollet, that the Houfes of Auftria and Bourbon might be reafonably fufpected dangerous to their neighbours, when the whole Spanish inheritance fhould fall to either, and that William thought fo, it follows that he committed or intended no injury when he engaged in the partition treaty. Now the Doc< tor thus declares himself: "THE HOUSES OF BOURBON "AND AUSTRIA HAVE FOR MANY CENTURIES BEEN THE f6 COMMON DISTURBERS AND PLAGUES OF EUROPE." B. IX. • C. VIII. § X.

Again, "THE KING BELIEVED, THAT A CONJUNCTION "OF THE TWO MONARCHIES OF FRANCE AND SPAIN "WOULD PROVE FATAL TO THE LIBERTIES OF EUROPE, "AND THAT THIS COULD NOT BE PREVENTED BY ANY "OTHER METHOD THAN A GENERAL UNION OF THE "OTHER EUROPEAN POWERS. HE CERTAINLY WAS FULLY CONVINCED, THAT HE HIMSELF, OF ALL THE "POTENTATES OF CHRISTENDOM, WAS THE ONLY PRINCE CAPABLE OF ADJUSTING THE BALANCE." B. VIII. C. VI. § XL.

<6

ઃઃ

[ocr errors]

As to the defpite of the natives, which our Hiftorian mentions, a monarchy of fo enormous a fize as one composed of all the inheritance of Spain, and the dominions of either Auftria or Bourbon, would tempt its poffeffor to become more a tyrant over his own fubjects, as well as a conqueror of those of

other

« السابقةمتابعة »