The Protestant Succession

When the Protestant Succession was still uncertain during the reign of Queen Anne, A member of parliament asked which party he would choose.

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.

Many have said that the question with regard to governors, independent of government, is frivolous. But this is wrong.

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 atchievements?

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?

In this respect, the Roman empire was not much to be envied. 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 foolish to undervalue princes and place them on a level with the meanest of mankind. Anatomically, the greatest monarch is the same as the lowest day-labourer. A moralist may, perhaps, frequently find less similarity.

All of us still retain these prejudices in favour of birth and family. We can never get entirely rid of them.

A tragedy on the adventures of sailors, porters, or even private gentlemen would presently disgust us, but not a tragedy of kings and princes.

If a man becomes king in one day and then an ordinary man in the next, he would prefer to be the former as being needed to preserve a due subordination in society.

The lives of 20,000 men be often sacrificed to maintain a king or prince in the throne, we never think that each of them was as valuable as himself. We only consider the violation of the hereditary right of kings because its consequences may be felt for many centuries. The loss of 20,000 men on the other hand might not be perceived a few years afterwards in a large kingdom.

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.

The privileges of the British people have during nearly two centuries, been continually encreasing, by:

• the division of the church-lands,
• the alienations of the barons’ estates,
• the progress of trade, and
• above all, our great location which secured us without any standing army

On the contrary, public liberty has almost declined in every other European nation during the same period.

while the people were disgusted at the hardships of the old afeudal militia, and rather chose to entrust their prince with mercenary armies, which he easily turned against themselves.

It was nothing extraordinary, 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. bIt appears from the speeches, and proclamations of James I.

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.

The flattery of courtiers farther cconfirmed 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 inconveniencies of elective monarchy:

And by excluding the lineal heir, we secured all our constitutional limitations, and rendered our government uniform and of a piece.

The people cherish monarchy, because protected by it: The monarch favours liberty, because created by it. And thus every advantage is obtained by the new establishment, as far as human skill and wisdom can extend itself. These are the separate advantages of fixing the succession, either in the house of Stuart, or in that of Hanover. There are also disadvantages in each establishment, which an impartial patriot would ponder and examine, in order to form a just judgment upon the whole.

The disadvantages of the protestant succession consist in the foreign dominions, which are possessed by the princes of the Hanover line, and which, it might be supposed, would engage us in the intrigues and wars of the continent, and lose us, in some measure, the inestimable advantage we possess, of being surrounded and guarded by the sea, which we command. The disadvantages of recalling the abdicated family consist chiefly in their religion, which is more prejudicial to society than that established amongst us, is contrary to it, and affords no toleration, or peace, or security to any other communion.

These advantages and disadvantages are allowed on both sides; at least, by every one who is at all susceptible of argument or reasoning.

No subject, however loyal, pretends to deny, that the disputed title and foreign dominions of the present royal family are a loss.

Nor is there any partizan of the Stuarts, but will confess, that the claim of hereditary, indefeasible right, and the Roman Catholic religion, are also disadvantages in that family.

Only the impartial philosopher alone can analyze all these circumstances properly.

All political questions are infinitely complicated. There is no choice that is either purely good or purely bad.

The advantages of a parliamentary title in the house of Hanover are greater than those of an undisputed hereditary title in the house of Stuart. Our fathers acted wisely in preferring the former to the latter.

The house of Stuart has ruled in Great Britain for over 80 years. This kept the government in a continual fever by the contention between:

• the privileges of the people and
• the prerogatives of the crown.

If arms were dropped, the noise of disputes continued.

If the noise was silenced, jealousy still corroded the heart, and threw the nation into an unnatural disorder.

While we were thus occupied in domestic disputes, a foreign power, dangerous to public liberty, erected itself in Europe, without any opposition from us, and even sometimes with our assistance.

But during these last 60 years, Parliament was established. The whole force of our constitution prevailed against whatever factions may have prevailed.

• An uninterrupted harmony has been preserved between our princes and our parliaments.
• Public liberty, with internal peace and order, has flourished almost without interruption.
• Trade and manufactures, and agriculture, have encreased.
• The arts, and sciences, and philosophy, have been cultivated.
• Even religious parties have been necessitated to lay aside their mutual rancour.

The glory of the nation has spread itself all over Europe which gained:

• from our progress in the arts of peace, and
• from valour and success in war.

Almost no nation can boast of so long and so glorious a period. There is no other instance in history of mankind that so many millions have been held together, in a manner so free, so rational, and so suitable to the dignity of human nature during a short space of time.

This makes me decide in favour of the present establishment. But there are some circumstances which make me favour the other.

We have had two rebellions during that flourishing period and so many plots and conspiracies. None of them were fatal because of the narrow genius of those princes who disputed our establishment. We have been lucky so far.

But the claims of the banished family, I fear, are not yet antiquated. Their future attempts might produce a greater disorder.

The disputes between privilege and prerogative may easily be composed by laws, and votes, and conferences, and concessions; where there is tolerable temper or prudence on both sides, or on either side. Among contending titles, the question can only be determined by the sword, and by devastation, and by civil war.

A prince, who fills the throne with a disputed title, dares not arm his subjects; the only method of securing a people fully, both against domestic oppression and foreign conquest.

Despite our riches and renown, we made a critical escape by the recent peace, from dangers, which were caused by the pernicious practice of incurring debt and never paying it off.

Such fatal measures would not probably have been embraced, had it not been to secure a precarious establishment.

A hereditary title is better than a parliamentary one. This is proven by going back to the Restoration. , and suppose, that he had had a seat in that parliament which recalled the royal family, and put a period to the greatest disorders that ever arose from the opposite pretensions of prince and people.

What would have been thought of one, that had proposed, at that time, to set aside Charles 2nd and settle the crown on the Duke of York, or Gloucester, merely in order to exclude all high claims, like those of their father and grandfather?

Would not such a one have been regarded as an extravagant projector, who loved dangerous remedies, and could tamper and play with a government and national constitution, like a quack with a sickly patient?f

In reality, they excluded the Stuarts not because of their hereditary title, but because of their religion.

It would be better if our prince:

• had no foreign dominions, and
• would confine all his attention to the government of this island.

Our continental territories afford such a handle for calumny and defamation from greedy people who always think ill of their superiors.

Hannover is the place in Europe that is the least inconvenient for a King of England. It:

• lies in the heart of Germany, at a distance from our greatest natural rivals.
• is protected by the laws of the empire, and the arms of its own sovereign
• connects us more closely with the house of Austria, our natural ally.

The religion of the house of Stuart is a deeper inconvenience which would threaten us with much more dismal consequences.

The Roman Catholic religion:

• is more expensive than ours, with their train of priests and friars.
• is less tolerating than ours, even without its natural attendants of inquisitors, stakes, and gibbets.
• is not content with dividing the sacerdotal from the regal office (which must be prejudicial to any state)
• it bestows the sacerdotal on a foreigner, who has always a separate interest from that of the public, and may often have an opposite one.

But were this religion ever so advantageous to society, it is contrary to that which is established among us, and which is likely to keep possession, for a long time, of the minds of the people.

The progress of reason will gradually reduce the acrimony of the opposing religions in Europe. Yet the spirit of moderation has advanced too slowly to be trusted.

Both families have advantages:

• The family of Stuart frees us from a disputed title.
• The family of Hannover frees us from the claims of prerogative.

Both families have disadvantages:

• The family of Stuart is its Roman Caholicism. This is the bigger disadvantage.
• The family of Hannover are foreigners.

The settlement in the house of Hanover has actually taken place. The princes of that family have been called to mount our throne by the united voice of the whole legislative body:

• without intrigue,
• without cabal,
• without solicitation on their part

Since their accession, they have displayed the utmost mildness, equity, and regard to the laws and constitution in all their actions.

Our own ministers, our own parliaments, ourselves have governed us.

If ill has befallen us, we can only blame fortune or ourselves. What a reproach must we become among nations, if, disgusted with a settlement so deliberately made, and whose conditions have been so religiously observed, we should throw every thing again into confusion.

by our levity and rebellious disposition, prove ourselves totally unfit for any state but that of absolute slavery and subjection?

The greatest inconvenience, attending a disputed title, is, that it brings us in danger of civil wars and rebellions.

What wise man, to avoid this inconvenience, would run directly into a civil war and rebellion? Not to mention, that so long possession, secured by so many laws, must, ere this time, in the apprehension of a great part of the nation, have begotten a title in the house of Hanover, independent of their present possession: So that now we should not, even by a revolution, obtain the end of avoiding a disputed title.

No revolution made by national forces, will ever be able, without some other great necessity, to abolish our debts and incumbrances, in which the interest of so many persons is concerned. And a revolution made by foreign forces, is a conquest: A calamity, with which the precarious balance of power threatens us, and which our civil dissentions are likely, above all other circumstances, to bring upon us.