ment which was built upon this foundation, and obliged by every tie, religious as well as civil, to maintain it.
But, while we reſt this fundamental tranſaction, in point of authority, upon grounds the leaſt liable to cavil, we are bound both in juſtice and gratitude to add, that it was conducted with a temper and moderation which naturally aroſe from it’s equity; that, however it might in ſome reſpects go beyond the letter of our antient laws, (the reaſon of which will more fully appear hereafter[1]) it was agreeable to the ſpirit of our conſtitution, and the rights of human nature; and that though in other points (owing to the peculiar circumſtances of things and perſons) it was not altogether ſo perfect as might have been wiſhed, yet from thence a new aera commenced, in which the bounds of prerogative and liberty have been better defined, the principles of government more thoroughly examined and underſtood, and the rights of the ſubject more explicitly guarded by legal proviſions, than in any other period of the Engliſh hiſtory. In particular, it is worthy obſervation that the convention, in this their judgment, avoided with great wiſdom the wild extremes into which the viſionary theories of ſome zealous republicans would have led them. They held that this miſconduct of king James amounted to an endeavour to ſubvert the conſtitution, and not to an actual ſubverſion, or total diſſolution of the government, according to the principles of Mr Locke[2]: which would have reduced the ſociety almoſt to a ſtate of nature; would have levelled all diſtinctions of honour, rank, offices, and property; would have annihilated the ſovereign power, and in conſequence have repealed all poſitive laws; and would have left the people at liberty to have erected a new ſyſtem of ſtate upon a new foundation of polity. They therefore very prudently voted it to amount to no more than an abdication of the government, and a conſequent vacancy of the throne; whereby the government was allowed to ſubſiſt, though the executive magiſtrate was gone, and the kingly office to remain, though king James was no longer king[3]. And thus the
- ↑ See chap. 7.
- ↑ on Gov. p. 2. c. 19.
- ↑ Law of forfeit. 118, 119.
