party represented the Duke of Monmouth, who had come over, and remained in England, against the King's positive order, as laying the foundation for an insurrection, and the petitions as the preparatory steps of that design. Upon which several addresses were sent up, declaring that the subscribers abhorred the action of promoting petitions. Hence the whole nation became divided into petitioners and abhorrers.

At this time, also, arose the distinction of Whigs and Tories. The origin of these names is well known: that of the parties took its rise from the new circumstances of the country. The Whigs formed a popular party far less enthusiastic in their religious tenets, and less divided in their political views, than that which opposed Charles the First. With the exception, perhaps, of Sydney, who was not in Parliament, none of them wished for any thing more than a regular execution of our ancient constitutional laws; government by Parliament, and trial by jury. The hereditary succession of the crown was in their eyes a rule for the benefit of the people, and not a dispensation of Providence for the advantage of a single family. If at any time, therefore, the observance of the rule became dangerous to the welfare of the community, the legislature was, in their opinion, competent to

consider whether that danger was greater than the inconvenience of deviating from the established course.

In carrying on the ordinary government of the country, their chief aim and endeavour was to preserve unimpaired the rights and liberties of the people. If, to obtain these objects, they sometimes asked for the confirmation of privileges which were doubtful, and even the establishment of some that were new, these were only natural steps in the progress of civilisation. For the same rights which, fenced by uncertain boundaries, are, in barbarous times, the occasion of discord and civil war, become, when accurately defined, the safeguard of national tranquillity. A law to be really efficient, must not only be good in itself, but must be easy of execution, and unassailable on every side. A statute enacting the liberty of the press would be of no use, if the administration of justice were not pure; the responsibility of ministers would be a phantom, if the King could grant a pardon previous to impeachment. The Act of Magna Charta itself, as was stated at the end of the last chapter, was frequently violated, and became the cause of the most destructive wars. But its purpose having been completed by the Act of Habeas Corpus and the Bill of Rights, personal liberty and public tranquillity are undisturbed.

To the necessity which exists of thus filling up the outline sketched by rude hands, we must attribute many of the pretensions which Mr. Hume has pointed out as innovations. With respect to religious distinctions, the Whigs, it must be owned, had generally a leaning towards the dissenters. Nor did this arise only from the love of freedom remarkable in those sectaries. It was connected with a laudable desire for toleration to every sect but one, which was active in its endeavours to alter the government.

The Tories, on the other hand, were attached to the laws as well as the Whigs, but were for leaving entirely to the King, whether or not they should be executed. They considered the crown as a sacred and unalienable inheritance. They held that the rights of the successor to the throne was paramount and indefeasible. And as the Whigs wished to allow liberty as far as could be consistent with monarchy, the Tories desired to give to monarchy every thing that was compatible with safety. Their attachment to the established religion alone was stronger than to the established government. At the time of which we are treating, these two principles of theirs were perfectly consistent. Whilst the Tories professed that they never would abandon the Church, the Church declared that

no circumstance whatever could alter their allegiance to the king.

It must not be supposed, however, that the Tories, though loud in their professions of unlimited submission, ever seriously meant that they would not resist in an extreme case. They sincerely venerated the laws, and dreaded the subversion of our ancient constitution. Thus whilst they spoke with abhorrence of resistance to their sovereign, their conduct had a direct tendency to produce it. For their silent acquiescence in acts of petty tyranny encouraged the King to proceed to still greater outrages, till at last no remedy was to be found but in a revolution.

The Whigs, on the other hand, by their persevering opposition, acted in a manner to prevent the necessity of the resistance of which they spoke so much.

These parties, it must be owned, have their foundations deep in the opinions of the country. As long as there is a body of men in this country attached to Church and King, more than to the constitution, the Tory party will subsist; and as long as there is a large portion of the people who consider monarchy only as the best protection for liberty, the Whig party will flou

rish.

CHAP. X.

CHARGE AGAINST THE POPULAR PARTY, OF RECEIVING MONEY FROM FRANCE. ALGERNON SYDNEY.

We have now come to the period at which it is said that the chief members of Opposition were bribed by the French court. I need not inform my readers, that in the dispatches of Barillon, which have been published, there is an account of the sums given to each person. In looking over these lists, which have been so triumphantly brought forward by Dalrymple, the first doubt which arises respects the integrity of Barillon. When we see the characters of Sydney and of Hampden, whose names will always live in the hearts of Englishmen, depreciated upon the authority of a French minister, we naturally enquire whether the witness has any interest in concealing the truth, and whether his character stands equally high with that of the English patriots. In order to answer the first question, we must recollect that the diplomatic agents of Lewis were permitted, nay almost authorised, to pay themselves out of the money entrusted to their care.