would immediately perceive in it a source of division and party, which
it would be almost impossible for it, under any administration, to
avoid. The just balance between the republican and monarchical part of
our constitution is really in itself so extremely delicate and
uncertain, that, when joined to men's passions and prejudices, it is
impossible but different opinions must arise concerning it, even among
persons of the best understanding. Those of mild tempers, who love peace
and order, and detest sedition and civil wars, will always entertain
more favourable sentiments of monarchy than men of bold and generous
spirits, who are passionate lovers of liberty, and think no evil
comparable to subjection and slavery. And though all reasonable men
agree in general to preserve our mixed government, yet, when they come
to particulars, some will incline to trust greater powers to the crown,
to bestow on it more influence, and to guard against its encroachments
with less caution, than others who are terrified at the most distant
approaches of tyranny and despotic power. Thus are there parties of
PRINCIPLE involved in the very nature of our constitution, which may
properly enough he denominated those of COURT and COUNTRY.[1] The
strength and violence of each of these parties will much depend upon the
particular administration. An administration may be so bad, as to throw
a great majority into the opposition; as a good administration will
reconcile to the court many of the most passionate lovers of liberty.
But however the nation may fluctuate between them, the parties
themselves will always subsist, so long as we are governed by a limited
monarchy.
But, besides this difference of _Principle_, those parties are very much
fomented by a difference of INTEREST, without which they could scarcely
ever be dangerous or violent. The crown will naturally bestow all trust
and power upon those whose principles, real or pretended, are most
favourable to monarchical government; and this temptation will naturally
engage them to go greater lengths than their principles would otherwise
carry them. Their antagonists, who are disappointed in their ambitious
aims, throw themselves into the party whose sentiments incline them to
be most jealous of royal power, and naturally carry those sentiments to
a greater height than sound politics will justify. Thus _Court_ and
_Country_, which are the genuine offspring of the British government,
are a kind of mixed parties, and are influenced both by principle and by
interest. The heads of the factions are commonly most governed by the
latter motive; the inferior members of them by the former.[2]
As to ecclesiastical parties, we may observe, that, in all ages of the
world, priests have been enemies to liberty;[3] and, it is certain, that
this steady conduct of theirs must have been founded on fixed reasons of
interest and ambition. Liberty of thinking, and of expressing our
thoughts, is always fatal to priestly power, and to those pious frauds
on which it is commonly founded; and, by an infallible connection, which
prevails among all kinds of liberty, this privilege can never be
enjoyed, at least has never yet been enjoyed, but in a free government.
Hence it must happen, in such a constitution as that of Great Britain,
that the established clergy, while things are in their natural
situation, will always be of the _Court_ party; as, on the contrary,
dissenters of all kinds will be of the _Country_ party; since they can
never hope for that toleration which they stand in need of, but by means
of our free government. All princes that have aimed at despotic power
have known of what importance it was to gain the established clergy; as
the clergy, on their part, have shown a great facility in entering into
the views of such princes. Gustavus Vasa was, perhaps, the only
ambitious monarch that ever depressed the church, at the same time that
he discouraged liberty. But the exorbitant power of the bishops in
Sweden, who at that time overtopped the crown itself, together with
their attachment to a foreign family, was the reason of his embracing
such an unusual system of politics.
This observation, concerning propensity of priests to the government of
a single person, is not true with regard to one sect only. The
_Presbyterian_ and _Calvinistic_ clergy in Holland, were professed
friends to the family of Orange; as the _Arminians_, who were esteemed
heretics, were of the Louvestein faction, and zealous for liberty. But
if a prince have the choice of both, it is easy to see that he will
prefer the Episcopal to the Presbyterian form of government, both
because of the greater affinity between monarchy and episcopacy, and
because of the facility which he will find, in such a government, of
ruling the clergy by means of their ecclesiastical superiors.
If we consider the first rise of parties in England, during the great
rebellion, we shall observe that it was conformable to this general
theory, and that the species of government gave birth to them by a
regular and infallible operation. The English constitution, before that
period, had lain in a kind of confusion, yet so as that the subjects
possessed many noble privileges, which, though not exactly bounded and
secured by law, were universally deemed, from long possession, to belong
to them as their birthright. An ambitious, or rather a misguided, prince
arose, who deemed all these privileges to be concessions of his
predecessors, revocable at pleasure; and, in prosecution of this
principle, he openly acted in violation of liberty during the course of
several years. Necessity, at last, constrained him to call a parliament;
the spirit of liberty arose and spread itself; the prince, being without
any support, was obliged to grant every thing required of him; and his
enemies, jealous and implacable, set no bounds to their pretensions.
Here, then, began those contests in which it was no wonder that men of
that age were divided into different parties; since, even at this day,
the impartial are at a loss to decide concerning the justice of the
quarrel. The pretensions of the parliament, if yielded to, broke the
balance of the constitution, by rendering the government almost
entirely republican. If not yielded to, the nation was, perhaps, still
in danger of absolute power, from the settled principles and inveterate
habits of the king, which had plainly appeared in every concession that
he had been constrained to make to his people. In this question, so
delicate and uncertain, men naturally fell to the side which was most
conformable to their usual principles; and the more passionate favourers
of monarchy declared for the king, as the zealous friends of liberty
sided with the parliament. The hopes of success being nearly equal on
both sides, _interest_ had no general influence in this contest; so that
ROUNDHEAD and CAVALIER were merely parties of principle, neither of
which disowned either monarchy or liberty; but the former party inclined
most to the republican part of our government, the latter to the
monarchical. In this respect, they may be considered as court and
country party, inflamed into a civil war, by an unhappy concurrence of
circumstances, and by the turbulent spirit of the age. The
commonwealth's men, and the partisans of absolute power, lay concealed
in both parties, and formed but an inconsiderable part of them.
The clergy had concurred with the king's arbitrary designs; and, in
return, were allowed to persecute their adversaries, whom they called
heretics and schismatics. The established clergy were Episcopal, the
nonconformists Presbyterian; so that all things concurred to throw the
former, without reserve, into the king's party, and the latter into
that of the parliament.[4]
Every one knows the event of this quarrel; fatal to the king first, to
the parliament afterwards. After many confusions and revolutions, the
royal family was at last restored, and the ancient government
reestablished. Charles II was not made wiser by the example of his
father, but prosecuted the same measures, though, at first, with more
secrecy and caution. New parties arose, under the appellation of _Whig_
and _Tory_, which have continued ever since to confound and distract our
government. To determine the nature of these parties is perhaps one of
the most difficult problems that can be met with, and is a proof that
history may contain questions as uncertain as any to be found in the
most abstract sciences. We have seen the conduct of the two parties,
during the course of seventy years, in a vast variety of circumstances,
possessed of power, and deprived of it, during peace, and during war:
persons, who profess themselves of one side or other, we meet with
every hour, in company, in our pleasures, in our serious occupations we
ourselves are constrained, in a manner, to take party; and, living in a
country of the highest liberty, every one may openly declare all the
sentiments and opinions: yet are we at a loss to tell the nature,
pretensions, and principles, of the different factions.[5]
When we compare the parties of WHIG and TORY with those of ROUNDHEAD and
CAVALIER, the most obvious difference that appears between them consists
in the principles of _passive obedience_, and _indefeasible right_,
which were but little heard of among the Cavaliers, but became the
universal doctrine, and were esteemed the true characteristic of a Tory.
Were these principles pushed into their most obvious consequences, they
imply a formal renunciation of all our liberties, and an avowal of
absolute monarchy; since nothing can be greater absurdity than a limited
power, which must not be resisted, even when it exceeds its limitations.
But, as the most rational principles are often but a weak counterpoise
to passion, it is no wonder that these absurd principles were found too
weak for that effect. The Tories, as men, were enemies to oppression;
and also as Englishmen, they were enemies to arbitrary power. Their zeal
for liberty was, perhaps, less fervent than that of their antagonists,
but was sufficient to make them forget all their general principles,
when they saw themselves openly threatened with a subversion of the
ancient government. From these sentiments arose the _Revolution_, an
event of mighty consequence, and the firmest foundation of British
liberty. The conduct of the Tories during that event, and after it, will
afford us a true insight into the nature of that party.
In the _first_ place, they appear to have had the genuine sentiments of
Britons in their affection for liberty, and in their determined
resolution not to sacrifice it to any abstract principle whatsoever, or
to any imaginary rights of princes. This part of their character might
justly have been doubted of before the Revolution, from the obvious
tendency of their avowed principles, and from their compliances with a
court, which seemed to make little secret of its arbitrary designs. The
Revolution showed them to have been, in this respect, nothing but a
genuine _court party_, such as might be expected in a British
government; that is, _lovers of liberty, but greater lovers of
monarchy_. It must, however, be confessed, that they carried their
monarchical principles further even in practice, but more so in theory,
than was in any degree consistent with a limited government.
_Secondly_, Neither their principles nor affections concurred, entirely
or heartily, with the settlement made at the _Revolution_, or with that
which has since taken place. This part of their character may seem
opposite to the former, since any other settlement, in those
circumstances of the nation, must probably have been dangerous, if not
fatal, to liberty. But the heart of man is made to reconcile
contradictions; and this contradiction is not greater than that between
_passive obedience_ and the _resistance_ employed at the Revolution. A
TORY, therefore, since the _Revolution_, may be defined, in a few words,
to be a _lover of monarchy, though without abandoning liberty, and a
partisan of the family of Stuart_: _as a WHIG may be defined to be a
lover of liberty, though without renouncing monarchy, and a friend to
the settlement in the Protestant line._[6]
These different views, with regard to the settlement of the crown, were
accidental, but natural, additions, to the principles of the _Court_
and _Country_ parties, which are the genuine divisions in the British
Government. A passionate lover of monarchy is apt to be displeased at
any change of the succession, as savouring too much of a commonwealth: a
passionate lover of liberty is apt to think that every part of the
government ought to be subordinate to the interests of liberty.
Some, who will not venture to assert that the _real_ difference between
Whig and Tory was lost at the _Revolution_, seem inclined to think, that
the difference is now abolished, and that affairs are so far returned to
their natural state, that there are at present no other parties among us
but _Court_ and _Country_; that is, men who, by interest or principle,
are attached either to monarchy or liberty. The Tories have been so long
obliged to talk in the republican style, that they seem to have made
converts of themselves by their hypocrisy, and to have embraced the
sentiments, as well as language of their adversaries. There are,
however, very considerable remains of that party in England, with all
their old prejudices; and a proof that _Court_ and _Country_ are not our
only parties, is that almost all the dissenters side with the court, and
the lower clergy, at least of the church or England, with the
opposition. This may convince us, that some bias still hangs upon our
constitution, some extrinsic weight, which turns it from its natural
course, and causes a confusion in our parties.[7]
[1] These words have become of general use, and therefore I shall employ
them without intending to express by them an universal blame of the one
party, or approbation of the other. The Court party may no doubt, on
some occasions, consult best the interest of the country, and the
Country party oppose it. In like manner, the _Roman_ parties were
denominated Optimates and Populares; and Cicero, like a true party man,
defines the Optimates to be such as, in all their public conduct,
regulated themselves by the sentiments of the best and worthiest Romans;
_pro Sextio_. The term of Country party may afford a favourable
definition or etymology of the same kind; but it would be folly to draw
any argument from that head, and I have no regard to it in employing
these terms.
[2] I must be understood to mean this of persons who have any motive for
taking party on any side. For, to tell the truth, the greatest part are
commonly men who associate themselves they know not why; from example,
from passion, from idleness. But still it is requisite there be some
source of division, either in principle or interest; otherwise such
persons would not find parties to which they could associate themselves.
[3] This proposition is true, notwithstanding that, in the early times
of the English government, the clergy were the great and principal
opposers of the crown; but at that time their possessions were so
immensely great, that they composed a considerable part of the
proprietors of England, and in many contests were direct rivals of the
crown.
[4] The clergy had concurred in a shameless manner with the King's
arbitrary designs, according to their usual maxims in such cases, and,
in return, were allowed to persecute their adversaries, whom they called
heretics and schismatics. The established clergy were Episcopal, the
nonconformists Presbyterians; so that all things concurred to throw the
former, without reserve, into the King's party, and the latter into that
of the Parliament. The _Cavaliers_ being the Court party, and the
_Roundheads_ the Country party, the union was infallible betwixt the
former and the established prelacy, and betwixt the latter and
Presbyterian nonconformists. This union is so natural, according to the
general principles of politics, that it requires some very extraordinary
situation of affairs to break it.
[5] The question is perhaps in itself somewhat difficult, but has been
rendered more so by the prejudices and violence of party.
[6] The celebrated writer above cited has asserted, that the
real distinction betwixt _Whig_ and Tory was lost at the _Revolution_,
and that ever since they have continued to be mere _personal_ parties,
like the _Guelfs_ and Ghibellines, after the Emperors had lost all
authority in Italy. Such an opinion, were it received, would turn our
whole history into an enigma.
I shall first mention, as a proof of a real distinction betwixt these
parties, what every one may have observed or heard concerning the
conduct and conversation of all his friends and acquaintance on both
sides. Have not the _Tories_ always borne an avowed affection to the
family of _Stuart_, and have not their adversaries always opposed with
vigour the succession of that family?
The _Tory_ principles are confessedly the most favourable to monarchy.
Yet the _Tories_ have almost always opposed the court these fifty years;
nor were they cordial friends to King _William_, even when employed by
him. Their quarrel, therefore, cannot be supposed to have lain with the
throne, but with the person who sat on it.
They concurred heartily with the court during the four last years of
Queen _Anne_. But is any one at a loss to find the reason?
The succession of the crown in the British government is a point of too
great consequence to be absolutely indifferent to persons who concern
themselves, in any degree, about the fortune of the public; much less
can it be supposed that the Tory party, who never valued themselves upon
moderation, could maintain a _stoical_ indifference in a point of so
great importance. Were they, therefore, zealous for the house of
_Hanover_? or was there any thing that kept an opposite zeal from openly
appearing, if it did not openly appear, but prudence, and a sense of
decency?
It is monstrous to see an established Episcopal clergy in declared
opposition to the court, and a nonconformist Presbyterian clergy in
conjunction with it. What can produce such an unnatural conduct in both?
Nothing, but that the former have espoused monarchical principles too
high for the present settlement, which is founded on the principles of
liberty, and the latter, being afraid of the prevalence of those high
principles, adhere to that party from whom they have reason to expect
liberty and toleration.
The different conduct of the two parties, with regard to foreign
politics, is also a proof to the same purpose. _Holland_ has always been
most favoured by one, and _France_ by the other. In short, the proofs of
this kind seem so palpable and evident, that it is almost needless to
collect them.
It is however remarkable, that though the principles of _Whig_ and
_Tory_ be both of them of a compound nature, yet the ingredients which
predominated in both were not correspondent to each other. A _Tory_
loved monarchy, and bore an affection to the family of _Stuart_; but the
latter affection was the predominant inclination of the party. A _Whig_
loved liberty, and was a friend to the settlement in the Protestant
line; but the love of liberty was professedly his predominant
inclination. The Tories have frequently acted as republicans, where
either policy or revenge has engaged them to that conduct; and there was
none of the party who, upon the supposition that they were to be
disappointed in their views with regard to the succession, would not
have desired to impose the strictest limitations on the crown, and to
bring our form of government as near republican as possible, in order to
depress the family, that, according to their apprehension, succeeded
without any just title. The Whigs, it is true, have also taken steps
dangerous to liberty, under pretext of securing the succession and
settlement of the crown according to their views; but, as the body of
the party had no passion for that succession, otherwise than as the
means of securing liberty, they have been betrayed into these steps by
ignorance or frailty, or the interest of their leaders. The succession
of the crown was, therefore, the chief point with the Tories; the
security of our liberties with the Whigs.
It is difficult to penetrate into the thoughts and sentiments of any
particular man; but it is almost impossible to distinguish those of a
whole party, where it often happens that no two persons agree precisely
in the same way of thinking. Yet I will venture to affirm, that it was
not so much principle, or an opinion of indefeasible right, that
attached the Tories to the ancient family, as affection, or a certain
love and esteem for their persons. The same cause divided England
formerly betwixt the houses of York and Lancaster, and Scotland betwixt
the families of Bruce and Baliol, in an age when political disputes were
but little in fashion, and when political principles must of course have
had but little influence on mankind. The doctrine of passive obedience
is so absurd in itself, and so opposite to our liberties, that it seems
to have been chiefly left to pulpit declaimers, and to their deluded
followers among the _mob_ Men of better sense were guided by
_affection_, and as to the leaders of this party, it is probable that
interest was their sole motive, and that they acted more contrary to
their private sentiments than the leaders of the opposite party.
Some who will not venture to assert, that the _real_ difference between
Whig and Tory, was lost at the _Revolution_, seem inclined to think that
the difference is now abolished, and that affairs are so far returned to
their natural state, that there are at present no other parties amongst
us but _Court_ and _Country_; that is, men who, by interest or principle,
are attached either to Monarchy or to Liberty. It must indeed be
confessed, that the Tory party seem of late to have decayed much in
their numbers, still more in their zeal, and I may venture to say, still
more in their credit and authority. There are few men of knowledge or
learning, at least few philosophers since Mr. Locke has wrote, who would
not be ashamed to be thought of that party; and in almost all companies,
the name of _Old Whig_ is mentioned as an incontestable appellation of
honour and dignity. Accordingly, the enemies of the ministry, as a
reproach, call the courtiers the true _Tories_ and, as an honour,
denominate the gentlemen in the Opposition the true _Whigs_.
I shall conclude this subject with observing, that we never had any
Tories in Scotland, according to the proper signification of the word,
and that the division of parties in this country was really into Whigs
and Jacobites. A Jacobite seems to be a Tory, who has no regard to the
constitution, but is either a zealous partisan of absolute monarchy, or
at least willing to sacrifice our liberties to the obtaining the
succession in that family to which he is attached. The reason of the
difference betwixt England and Scotland I take to be this. Our political
and religious divisions in this country have been, since the Revolution,
regularly correspondent to each other. The Presbyterians were all Whigs,
without exception; the Episcopalians of the opposite party. And as the
clergy of the latter sect were turned out of their churches at the
Revolution, they had no motive to make any compliances with the
government in their oaths or forms of prayer, but openly avowed the
highest principles of their party; which is the cause why their
followers have been more barefaced and violent than their brethren of
the Tory party in England.