ESSAY XV.

OF THE PROTESTANT SUCCESSION.

I SUPPOSE, that if a Member of Parliament, in the reign of King William or Queen Anne, while the establishment of the Protestant Succession was yet uncertain, were deliberating concerning the party he would choose in that important question, and weighing, with impartiality, the advantages and disadvantages on each side, I believe the following particulars would have entered into his consideration.

He would easily perceive the great advantage resulting from the restoration of the Stuart family, by which we should preserve the succession clear and undisputed, free from a pretender, with such a specious title as that of blood, which, with the multitude, is always the claim the strongest and most easily comprehended. It is in vain to say, as many have done, that the question with regard to governors, independent of government, is frivolous, and little worth disputing, much less fighting about. The generality of mankind never will enter into these sentiments; and it is much happier, I believe, for society, that they do not, but rather continue in their natural prepossessions. How

could stability be preserved in any monarchical government (which, though perhaps not the best, is, and always has been, the most common of any), unless men had so passionate a regard for the true heir of their royal family; and even though he be weak in understanding, or infirm in years, gave him so sensible a preference above persons the most accomplished in shining talents, or celebrated for great achievements? Would not every popular leader put in his claim at every vacancy, or even without any vacancy, and the kingdom become the theatre of perpetual wars and convulsions? The condition of the Roman empire, surely, was not in this respect much to be envied; nor is that of the Eastern nations, who pay little regard to the titles of their sovereign, but sacrifice them every day, to the caprice or momentary humour of the populace or soldiery. It is but a foolish wisdom, which is so carefully displayed in undervaluing princes, and placing them on a level with the meanest of mankind. To be sure, an anatomist finds no more in the greatest monarch than in the lowest peasant or day-labourer; and a moralist may, perhaps, frequently find less. But what do all these reflections tend to? We all of us still retain these prejudices in favour of birth and family; and neither in our serious occupations, nor most careless amusements, can we ever get entirely rid of them. A tragedy that should represent the adventures of sailors, or porters, or even of private gentlemen, would presently disgust us; but one that introduces kings and princes, acquires in our eyes an air of importance and dignity. Or should a man be able, by his superior wisdom, to get entirely above such prepossessions, he would soon, by means of the same wisdom, again bring himself down to them for the sake of society, whose

welfare he would perceive to be intimately connected with them. Far from endeavouring to undeceive the people in this particular, he would cherish such sentitiments of reverence to their princes, as requisite to preserve a due subordination in society. And though the lives of twenty thousand men be often sacrificed to maintain a king in possession of his throne, or preserve the right of succession undisturbed, he entertains no indignation at the loss, on pretence that every individual of these was, perhaps, in himself, as valuable as the prince he served. He considers the consequences of violating the hereditary right of kings; consequences which may be felt for many centuries, while the loss of several thousand men brings so little prejudice to a large kingdom, that it may not be perceived a few years after.

The advantages of the Hanover succession are of an opposite nature, and arise from this very circumstance, that it violates hereditary right, and places on the throne a prince to whom birth gave no title to that dignity. It is evident, from the history of this Island, that the privileges of the people have, during near two centuries, been continually upon the increase, by the division of the church lands, by the alienations of the barons' estates, by the progress of trade, and above all by the happiness of our situation, which, for a long time, gave us sufficient security, without any standing army or military establishment. On the contrary,

public liberty has, almost in every other nation of Europe, been, during the same period, extremely on the decline; while the people were disgusted at the hardships of the old feudal militia, and rather chose to intrust their prince with mercenary armies, which he easily turned against themselves. It was nothing ex

traordinary, therefore, that some of our British sovereigns mistook the nature of the constitution, at least the genius of the people; and as they embraced all the favourable precedents left them by their ancestors, they overlooked all those which were contrary, and which supposed a limitation in our government. They were encouraged in this mistake, by the example of all the neighbouring princes, who, bearing the same title or appellation, and being adorned with the same ensigns of authority, naturally led them to claim the same powers and prerogatives. It appears from the speeches and proclamations of James I., and the whole train of that prince's actions, as well as his son's, that he regarded the English government as a simple monarchy, and never imagined that any considerable part of his subjects entertained a contrary idea. This opinion made those monarchs discover their pretensions, without preparing any force to support them; and even without reserve or disguise, which are always employed by those who enter upon any new project, or endeavour to innovate in any government. "1 The flattery of cour

61 King James told his Parliament plainly, when they meddled in state affairs, Ne sutor ultra crepidam? He used also, at his table, in promiscuous companies, to advance his notions in a manner still more undisguised, as we may learn from a story told in the life of Mr Waller, and which that poet used frequently to repeat. When Mr Waller was young, he had the curiosity to go to Court, and he stood in the circle and saw King James dine; where, amongst other company, there sat at table two Bishops. The King openly and aloud proposed this question, Whether he might not take his subjects' money when he had occasion for it, without all this formality of Parliament. The one Bishop readily replied, God forbid you should not, for you are the breath of our nostrils.' The other Bishop declined answering, and said he was not skilled in Parliamentary But upon the King's urging him, and saying he would admit of no evasion, his Lordship replied very pleasantly, Why, then, I think your Majesty may lawfully take my brother's money, for he offers it.' In

cases.

tiers farther confirmed their prejudices; and, above all, that of the clergy, who, from several passages of Scripture, and these wrested too, had erected a regular and avowed system of arbitrary power. The only method of destroying, at once, all these high claims and pretensions, was to depart from the true hereditary line, and choose a prince, who, being plainly a creature of the public, and receiving the crown on conditions, expressed and avowed, found his authority established on the same bottom with the privileges of the people. By electing him in the royal line, we cut off all hopes of ambitious subjects, who might, in future emergencies, disturb the government by their cabals and pretensions: By rendering the crown hereditary in his family, we avoided all the inconveniences of elec

Sir Walter Raleigh's Preface to the History of the World, there is this remarkable passage. Philip the II., by strong hand and main force, attempted to make himself not only an absolute monarch over the Netherlands, like unto the kings and sovereigns of England and France, but, Turk like, to tread under his feet all their natural and fundamental laws, privileges, and ancient rights.' Spencer, speaking of some grants of the English Kings to the Irish corporations, says, All which, though at the time of their first grant they were tolerable and perhaps reasonable, yet now are most unreasonable and inconvenient. But all these will easily be cut off with the superior power of her Majesty's prerogative, against which her own grants are not to be pleaded or enforced. State of Ireland, page 1537, Edit. 1706.

As these were very common, though not, perhaps, the universal notions of the times, the two first Princes of the House of Stuart were the more excusable for their mistake. And Rapin, the most judicious of historians, seems sometimes to treat them with too much severity upon

*

account of it.

* In EDITIONS H, N, the words the most judicious of historians,' which stood in EDITIONS F, G, are changed to suitable to his usual malignity and partiality."