will refift the practical affertion of it with their lives and fortunes. They are bound to do fo by the laws of their country, made at the time of that very Revolution, which is appealed to in favour of the fictitious rights claimed by the fociety which abuses its name.

Thefe gentlemen of the Old Jewry, in all their reafonings on the Revolution of 1688, have a revolution which happened in England about forty years before, and the late French revolution, fo much before their eyes, and in their hearts, that they are conftantly confounding all the three together. It is neceffary that we should separate what they confound. We must recall their erring fancies to the acts of the Revolution which we revere, for the difcovery of its true principles. If the principles of the Revolution of 1688 are any where to be found, it is in the ftatute called the Declaration of Right. In that most wife, fober, and confiderate declaration, drawn up by great lawyers and great statefimen, and not by warm and inexperienced enthufiafts, not one word is faid, nor one fuggestion made, of a general right "to choose our own governors; to cashier them for "misconduct; and to form a government for ourSelves."

This Declaration of Right (the act of the ft of William and Mary, feff. 2. ch. 2.) is the cornerftone of our conftitution, as reinforced, explained, improved, and in its fundamental principles for ever fettled. It is called "An act for declaring "the rights and liberties of the fubject, and for "Settling

C 3

fettling the fucceffion of the crown." You will obferve, that these rights and this fucceffion are declared in one body, and bound indiffolubly together.

A few years after this period, a fecond oppor tunity offered for afferting a right of election to the crown. On the prospect of a total failure of iffue from King William, and from the Princefs, afterwards Queen Anne, the confideration of the fettlement of the crown, and of a further security for the liberties of the people, again came before the legislature. Did they this fecond time make any provifion for legalizing the crown on the fpurious Revolution principles of the Old Jewry? No. They followed the principles which prevailed in the Declaration of Right; indicating with more precision the perfons who were to inherit in the Proteftant line. This act alfo incorporated, by the fame policy, our liberties, and an hereditary fucceffion in the fame act. Inftead of a right to choose our own governors, they declared that the fucceffion in that line (the proteftant line drawn from James the Firft) was abfolutely neceffary" for the peace, quiet, and fecurity of the "realm," and that it was equally urgent on them "to maintain a certainty in the fucceffion thereof, "to which the fubjects may fafely have re"course for their protection." Both these acts, in which are heard the unerring, unambiguous oracles of Revolution policy, instead of countenancing the delufive, gypsey predictions of a "right to choose our governors," prove to a demonstration

a demonstration how totally adverse the wisdom of the nation was from turning a cafe of neceffity into a rule of law.

Unquestionably there was at the Revolution, in the perfon of King William, a fmall and a temporary deviation from the strict order of a regular hereditary fucceffion; but it is against all genuine principles of jurifprudence to draw a principle from a law made in a special cafe, and regarding an individual perfon. Privilegium non tranfit in exemplum. If ever there was a time favourable for establishing the principle, that a king of popular choice was the only legal king, without all doubt it was at the Revolution. Its not being done at that time is a proof that the nation was of opinion it ought not to be done at any time. There is no perfon fo completely ignorant of our hiftory, as not to know that the majority in parliament of both parties were fo little difpofed to any thing refembling that principle, that at firft they were determined to place the vacant crown, not on the head of the prince of Orange, but on that of his wife Mary, daughter of King James, the eldest born of the iffue of that king, which they acknowledged as undoubtedly his. It would be to repeat a very trite ftory, to recall to your memory all thofe circumstances which demonftrated that their accepting King William was not properly a choice; but, to all those who did not wish, in effect to recall King James, or to deluge their country in blood, and again to bring their religion, laws, C 4

and

and liberties into the peril they had just escaped, it was an act of neceffity in the ftrictest moral sense in which neceffity can be taken.

In the very act, in which for a time, and in a fingle cafe, parliament departed from the ftrict order of inheritance, in favour of a prince, who, though not next, was however very near in the line of fucceffion, it is curious to obferve how Lord Somers, who drew the bill called the Declaration of Right, has comported himfelf on that delicate occafion. It is curious to obferve with what addrefs this temporary folution of continuity is kept from the eye; whilst all that could be found in this act of neceffity to countenance the idea of an hereditary fucceffion is brought forward, and foftered, and made the most of, by this great man, and by the legislature who followed him. Quitting the dry, imperative style of an act of parliament, he makes the lords and commons fall to a pious, legislative ejaculation, and declare, that they confider it "as a marvellous providence, "and merciful goodnefs of God to this nation, "to preserve their faid majefties royal perfons, "moft happily to reign over us on the throne of "their ancestors, for which, from the bottom of "their hearts, they return their humbleft thanks ❝ and praises."-The legislature plainly had in view the act of recognition of the first of Queen Elizabeth, Chap. 3d, and of that of James the First, Chap. 1ft, both acts ftrongly declaratory of the inheritable nature of the crown; and in many parts

parts they follow, with a nearly literal precifion, the words and even the form of thankfgiving, which is found in thefe old declaratory ftatutes.

The two houses, in the act of king William, did not thank God that they had found a fair opportunity to affert a right to choose their own governors, much lefs to make an election the only lawful title to the crown, Their having been in a condition to avoid the very appearance of it, as much as poffible, was by them confidered as a providential efcape. They threw a politic, well-wrought veil over every cirumstance tending to weaken the rights, which in the meliorated order of fucceffion they meant to perpetuate; or which might furnish a precedent for any future departure from what they had then fettled for ever. Accordingly, that they might not relax the nerves of their monarchy, and that they might preferve a clofe conformity to the practice of their ancestors, as it appeared in the declaratory statutes of queen Mary* and queen Elizabeth, in the next claufe they veft, by recognition, in their majefties, all the legal prerogatives of the crown, declaring, "that in them they are most

fully, rightfully, and intirely invested, incorpo"rated, united, and annexed." In the claufe which follows, for preventing questions, by reafon of any pretended titles to the crown, they declare (obferving alfo in this the traditionary

* 1st Mary, Seff. 3. ch, 1.

language,