If we consider the state of the government at the period when Lord Russell was executed, we shall see that it had totally changed its nature. The very means by which the Crown may be lawfully resisted, had been either taken away, or converted into instruments for raising a new edifice of arbitrary power. These means are, the parliament, the courts of justice, and the press. The parliament had been dissolved two years before, with an apparent determination never to call another; and, should their assistance be ever wanted, the surrender of the charters gave so commanding an influence to the Crown, that their remonstrances would be no longer formidable. Accordingly, King James found, in the parliament which he assembled upon his coming to the throne, a willing and humble tool.

The courts of justice, where judges were appointed and displaced at the King's pleasure, and juries were returned, without regard either to law or decency, had become more subserviento to the Court than those of France, a country in which despotism was openly established. In London, where justice had long been neglected, in the struggle of the rival parties, the Tories were now completely triumphant, and there was no doubt that the promoters of the Exclusion Bill would not receive free and impartial justice.

?

The press also, the last refuge of the worshippers of freedom, had become a fortress of her enemies. The writings of the Whigs were suppressed, and calumnies against them published, in violation and in contempt of the laws. That such was the system of government, has been fully made out by the facts before detailed; and, to crown all, in order to afford time for the new system to acquire stability, a pension was received from a foreign power, which defrayed the most urgent expenses of the Court.

So many measures, all tending to the same end, constituted no less change in the English constitution than was effected by the Republicans when they beheaded Charles the First, and proclaimed the Commonwealth and had

Charles the Second lived, or had James not ob. stinately persevered in his attachment to Popery, there can be little doubt that 1681 would now be looked upon as the era of a revolution which established in England the unlimited monarchy of the Stuarts.

These considerations are sufficient it appears to me, to justify the alarm which Lord Russell felt for his country, and his wish to form a party against the dangerous pretensions of the royal brothers. But, in all cases of resistance, not only must the justice of the cause be considered, but also the probability of success.

Prudence is, in this instance more perhaps than in any other, a moral duty; for, by a mistake in calculation, the lives of thousands may be hazarded, and the chains of the people more completely rivetted. The magnitude of such a crime, and the inviting form under which it appears to the most honourable minds, are the only excuse for the severity of those laws which condemn him who is guilty of it to forfeit, not only his life, but the honours and property which have descended to his family.

In the time of which I am treating, as Lord Russell himself remarked, an insurrection could not be made by a few great men. On the other hand, it was by no means necessary that the people should be disposed universally to act against the government. "There is more

strength in union than in numbers," says Lord Halifax: "witness the people, who, in all ages, have been scurvily used, because they could so seldom agree to do themselves right.” Again, he says, "The people can seldom agree to move together against a government; but they can sit still, and let it be undone." Indeed, except where the oppressor has appeared in the shape of a foreign foe, rather than a domestic tyrant, as in Holland and in Switzerland, the people have, in very few cases, risen in a body to assert their rights. It is sufficient to justify the leaders of

an insurrection, that the people should be thoroughly weary of suffering, and disposed to view with complacency a change of rule. Were they so in 1683? It appears to me that they were not. Acts of oppression had been exercised chiefly against a party, many of whom had become unpopular; the general character of the government was not tyrannical; the religion, and the property of the subject had not yet been attacked. Lord Russell seems himself to have entertained little hopes of rousing the people at this period; and it is probable that, after some consultation with his friends, he would either nave persuaded them to remain quiet, or have withdrawn altogether from their councils.

But there is another question which may probably be asked: Can it be safe for a government, it may be said, to allow plans for insurrection to be canvassed in the capital? Was it their duty to wait, and see if a feasible project of rebellion could be arranged and prepared for execution? To this question I shall answer, frankly, in the words of Lord Russell, that there was no way of establishing arbitrary power in England, without first wading through his blood. He would have been ever on the alert to watch the designs of the Court; and, in the first moment of its weakness, all the friends of freedom would have been in arms.

The necessary consequences of the measures of Charles were executions, or civil war. The very spirit with which his victims died, shewed how little disposed they were to become the willing and quiet slaves of his despotism. Russell refused to barter his free opinions for the hopes of life: Sydney thanked God that he died for the good old cause: Colledge and Rumbold, the first and the last of those who suffered for opposing the arbitrary government of 1681, gave, in their last words, honourable testimony of their fearlessness and sincerity. Their undaunted confidence should have taught James that Englishmen were not afraid of risking their lives for freedom: but, instead of being a warning to him, they became an example to others. It is to their spirit, and the spirit of men like them, rather than to any unalterable law, that we owe the permanency and the excellence of our ancient constitution.