together? I can conceive nothing else, but that their hatred to the queen and ministry, puts them upon thoughts of introducing the successor by another revolution. Are cases of extreme necessity to be introduced as common maxims, by which we are always to proceed? should not these gentlemen sometimes inculcate the general rule of obedience, and not always the exception of resistance? since the former has been the perpetual dictate of all laws both divine and civil, and the latter is still in dispute.
I shall meddle with none of the passages he cites to prove the lawfulness of resisting princes, except that from the present lord chancellor's[1] speech in defence of Mr. Sacheverell: "that there are extraordinary cases, cases of necessity, which are implied although not expressed, in the general rule [of obedience]." These words, very clear in themselves, Mr. Steele explains into nonsense; which in any other author, I should suspect to have been intended as a reflection upon as great a person as ever filled or adorned that high station; but I am so well acquainted with his pen, that I much more wonder how it can trace out a true quotation, than a false comment. To see him treat my lord Harcourt with so much civility, looks indeed a little suspicious, and as if he had malice in his heart. He calls his lordship a very great man, and a great living authority; places himself in company with general Stanhope, and Mr. Hoadly; and in short, takes the
- ↑ Sir Simon Harcourt, who at the time of Sacheverell's trial had resigned his place of attorney general, which he afterward accepted again; upon the change of the ministry he was made lord keeper, and in 1711 created a baron.
