of

a

infinitely stronger in respect to a prince, in whose good or ill conduct, the happiness or misery whole nation is included: whereas it is of small consequence to the public, farther than example, how any private person manages his property.

By granting that the right of a lineal successor to a crown, were upon the same foot with the property of a subject; still it may at any time be transferred by the legislative power, as other properties frequently are. The supreme power in a state can do no wrong, because whatever that does, is the action of all: and when the lawyers apply this. maxim to the king, they must understand it only in that sense, as he is administrator of the supreme power; otherwise it is not universally true, but may be controlled in several instances easy to produce.

And these are the topics we must proceed upon, to justify our exclusion of the young Pretender in France; that of his suspected birth being merely popular, and therefore not made use of, as I remember, since the revolution, in any speech, vote, or proclamation, where there was an occasion to mention him.

As to the abdication of King James, which the advocates on that side look upon to have been forcible and unjust, and consequently void in itself, I think a man may observe every article of the English church, without being in much pain about it. It is not unlikely that all doors were laid open for his departure, and perhaps not without the privity of the Prince of Orange, as reasonably con

cluding, that the kingdom might be better settled in his absence: but to affirm he had any cause to apprehend the same treatment with his father, is 'an improbable scandal flung upon the nation, by a few bigotted French scribblers, or the invidious assertion of a ruined party at home, in the bitterness of their souls; not one material circumstance agreeing with those in 1648; and the greatest part of the nation having preserved the utmost horror for that ignominious murder; but whether his removal were caused by his own fears, or other men's artifices, it is manifest to me, that supposing the throne to be vacant, which was the foot the nation went upon, the body of the people was thereupon left, at liberty to choose what form of government they pleased, by themselves, or their representatives.

The only difficulty of any weight against the proceedings at the revolution, is an obvious objection, to which the writers upon that subject have not yet given a direct or sufficient answer, as if they were in pain at some consequences, which they apprehend those of the contrary opinion might draw from it. I will repeat this objection, as it was offered me some time ago, with all its advantages, by a very pious, learned, and worthy gentleman of the nonjuring party.*

* This worthy layman, generally distinguished by the appellation of "the pious Mr. Nelson," was born June 22, 1656; educated at St. Paul's school; and removed thence to Trinity College, Cambridge. He contracted an early acquaintance with Abp. Tillotson, which ended but with the life of the latter, who expired

The force of his argument turned upon this; that the laws made by the supreme power, cannot otherwise than by the supreme power be annulled; that this consisting in England of a king, lords, and commons, whereof each have a negative voice, no two of them, can repeal or enact a law, without consent of the third; much less may any one of them be entirely excluded from its part of the legislature, by a vote of the other two. That all these maxims were openly violated at the revolution; where an assembly of the nobles and people, not summoned by the king's writ, (which was an essential part of the constitution) and consequently no lawful meeting, did merely, upon their own authority, declare the king to have abdicated, the throne vacant, and gave the crown by a vote to a nephew, when there were three children to inherit; though by the fundamental laws of the realm, the next heir is immediately to succeed. Neither does it appear, how a prince's abdication can make any other sort of vacancy in the throne, than would be caused by his death; since he cannot abdicate for

in Mr. Nelson's arms. From principle, he long adhered to the communion of the deprived bishops; but, on the death of Bishop Lloyd, in 1709, returned to that of the church of England. He died Jan. 16, 1714-15; and left his whole estate to pious and charitable uses, particularly to charity-schools. He published many valuable and pious works; his "Companion for Festivals and Fasts, &c." his "Great Duty of frequenting the Christian Sacrifice," and his little Tract "on Confirmation," in particular, deserve, and have received, the highest commendations.

his children, (who claim their right of succession by act of parliament,) otherwise than by his own consent in form to a bill from the two houses.

And this is the difficulty, that seems chiefly to stick with the most reasonable of those, who, from a mere scruple of conscience, refuse to join with us upon the revolution principle; but for the rest, are, I believe, as far from loving arbitrary government, as any others can be, who are born under a free constitution, and are allowed to have the least share of common good sense.

In this objection there are two questions included: first, whether upon the foot of our constitution, as it stood in the reign of the late King James, a king of England may be deposed? The second is, whether the people of England, convened by their own authority, after the king had withdrawn himself in the manner he did, had power to alter the succession.

As for the first, it is a point I shall not presume to determine; and shall therefore only say, that to any man who holds the negative, I would demand the liberty of putting the case as strongly as I please. I will suppose a prince limited by laws like ours, yet running into a thousand caprices of cruelty like Nero or Caligula; I will suppose him to murder his mother and his wife; to commit incest, to ravish matrons; to blow up the senate, and burn his metropolis; openly to renounce God and Christ, and worship the devil: these and the like exorbitances, are in the power of a single person to commit, without the advice of a ministry, or assistance of

an army, And if such a king, as I have described, cannot be deposed but by his own consent in parliament, I do not well see how he can be resisted, or what can be meant by a limited monarchy; or what signifies the people's consent in making and repealing laws, if the person who administers, has no tie but conscience, and is answerable to none but God. I desire no stronger proof that an opinion must be false, than to find very great absurdities annexed to it; and there cannot be greater than in the present case; for it is not a barę speculation that kings may run into such enormities as are abovementioned; the practice may be proved by examples, not only drawn from the first Cæsars, or later emperors, but many modern princes of Europe; such as Peter the cruel, Philip the second of Spain, John Basilovits of Muscovy, and in our own nation, King John, Richard the third, and Henry the eighth. But there cannot be equal absurdities supposed in maintaining the contrary opinion; because it is certain, that princes have it in their power to keep a majority on their side, by any tolerable administration, till provoked by continual oppressions; no man indeed can then answer, where the madness of the people will stop.

As to the second part of the objection; whether the people of England convened by their own authority, upon King James's precipitate departure, had power to alter the succession?

In answer to this, I think it is manifest from the practice of the wisest nations, and who seem to have