a very trite story, to recall to your memory all those circumstances which demonstrated 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, and liberties into the peril they had just escaped, it was an act of neceffity, in the stricteft moral sense in which neceffity can be taken.

In the very act, in which for a time, and in a single cafe, parliament departed from the strict 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 observe how lord Somers, who drew the bill called the Declaration of Right, has comported himself on that delicate occafion. It is curious to observe with what address 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 yand.commons fall to a pious, legislative ejaculation, and declare, that they confider it as a marvellous " providence, and merciful goodness of God to "this nation, to preserve their faid majefties royal E 3 " perfons,

1

" perfons, most happily to reign over us on the " throne of their ancestors, for which, from the bot"tom 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. ist, both acts strongly declaratory of the inheritable nature of the crown, and in many parts they follow, with a nearly literal precision, the words and even the form of thankf giving which is found in these old declaratory sta

The two houses, in the act of king William, did not thank God that they had found a fair oppor. tunity to affert a right to choose their own governours, much less to make an election the anly lawful title to the crown. Their having been in condition to avoid the very appearance of it, as much as possible, was by them confidered as a providential escape. They threw a politick, well-wrought veil over every circumstance tending to weaken the rights, which in the meliorated order of fueceffion 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 close 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 vest, by recognition, in their majesties, all the legal prerogatives of the crown, declaring, " that in them they are most fully, rightfully, and "intirely invested, incorporated, united, and an" nexed." "In the clause which follows, for preventing questions, by reason of any pretended titles to the crown, they declare (observing alfo in this the traditionary language, along with the traditionary policy of the nation, and repeating as from a rubrick the language of the preceding acts of Elizabeth and James) that on the preferving " a certainty in the SUCCESSION thereof, the unity, "peace, and tranquillity of this nation doth, un" der God, wholly depend." fucceffion, and as folemn a renunciation as could be made of the principles by this society imputed to them. "The lords fpiritual and temporal, and "commons, do, in the name of all the people " aforesaid, most humbly and faithfully submit "themselves, their beirs and pofterities for ever; and "do faithfully promife, that they will stand to, "maintain, and defend their faid majefties, and "alfo the limitation of the crown, herein specified " and contained, to the utmost of their powers," &c. &c.

They knew that a doubtful title of succession would but too much resemble an election; and that an election would be utterly destructive of the "unity, peace, and tranquillity of this na"tion," which they thought to be confiderations of fome moment. To provide for these objects, and therefore to exclude for ever the Old Jewry doctrine of " a right to choose our own gover"nours," they follow with a clause, containing a most folemn pledge, taken from the preceding act of queen Elizabeth, as folemn a pledge as ever was or can be given in favour of an hereditary

So far is it from being true, that we acquired a right by the revolution to elect our kings, that if we had poffefsed it before, the English nation did at that time most folemnly renounce and abdicate it, for themselves, and for all their pofterity for ever. These gentlemen may value themselves as much as they please on their whig principles; but I never defire to be thought a better whig than lord Somers; or to understand the principles of the revolution better than those by whom it was brought about; or to read in the declaration of right any mysteries unknown to those whose pe netrating style has engraved in our ordinances, and in our hearts, the words and spirit of that im mortal law.

It is true that, aided with the powers derived from force and opportunity, the nation was at that time, in fome fenfe, free to take what course

it pleased for filling the throne; but only free to do fo upon the fame grounds on which they might have wholly abolished their monarchy, and every other part of their conftitution. However, they did not think such bold changes within their commission. It is indeed difficult, perhaps impoffible, to give limits to the mere abstract compe. tence of the fupreme power, such as was exercised by parliament at that time; but the limits of a moral competence, subjecting, even in powers more indifputably fovereign, occafional will to perma nent reafon, and to the steady maxims of faith, justice, and fixed fundamental policy, are perfectly intelligible, and perfectly binding upon those who exercise any authority, under any name, or under any title, in the state. The house of lords, for instance, is not morally competent to diffolve the house of commons; no, nor even to diffolve it felf, nor to abdicate, if it would, its portion in the legiflature of the kingdom. Though a king may abdicate for his own person, he cannot abdicate for the monarchy. By as strong, or by a stronger reafon, the house of commons cannot renounce its share of authority. The engagement and pact of society, which generally goes by the name of the constitution, forbids such invafion and fuch furrender. The constituent parts of a state are obliged to hold their publick faith with each other, and with all those who derive any ferious interest under

\