The Glorious Revolution

English readers will here ask about the Glorious Revolution which:
    had such a happy influence on our constitution, and
    had such mighty consequences.
In the case of enormous tyranny and oppression, it is lawful to take arms even against supreme power.
    Government is a mere human invention for mutual advantage and security.
    It no longer imposes any natural or moral obligation when once it ceases to have that tendency.
This general principle is authorized by:
    common sense, and
    the practice of all ages.
It is certainly impossible for the laws, or even for philosophy, to establish any particular rules to:
    know when resistance is lawful, and
    decide all controversies which may arise on that subject.

This may happen with regard to:
    supreme power, and
    even in some constitutions where the legislative authority is not lodged in one person.
        There may be a powerful magistrate who obliges the laws to keep silent in this.
            This silence would be an effect of their respect and their prudence.
            Such a great magistrate might be beneficial to the public at one time, but be pernicious and tyrannical at another.
But despite this silence of the laws in limited monarchies, the people still retain the right of resistance.
    Since it is impossible to deprive them of it even in the most despotic governments.
    In limited monarchies and despotic governments, they have the same liberty from:
        the same necessity of self-preservation, and
        the same motive of public good.
    In such mixed governments:
        there are more cases when resistance is lawful, and
        greater indulgence is given to the subjects to defend themselves by force, than in arbitrary governments.
    This happens when the chief magistrate:
        enters into measures extremely pernicious to the public,
        encroaches on the other parts of the constitution, and
        extend his power beyond the legal bounds.
    The people can resist and dethrone him even if such resistance may be deemed unlawful and rebellious.
The preservation of public liberty is most essential to public interest.
    If such a mixed government is established, every part of the constitution must have a right:
        of self-defence, and
        of maintaining its ancient bounds against the enaoachment of every other authority.
Matter would not exist if it were deprived of a power of resistance, as it would be crowded up into a single point.
It would also be as absurd that any government would:
    have a right without a remedy, or
    allow that the supreme power be shared with the people without allowing them to defend their share against every invader.
Those who respect our free government but deny the right of resistance:
    have renounced common sense, and
    do not merit a serious answer.

My present purpose is not to show:
    that these general principles are applicable to the Glorious Revolution, and
    that all the sacred rights and privileges of a free nation were threatened at that time.
I would rather:
    leave this controversial subject, and
    indulge in philosophical reflections which naturally arise from that important event.

If the lords and commons in our constitution depose the king, or exclude the prince from succeeding him after death without any reason from public interest, no one would:
    esteem their proceedings legal, nor
    think themselves bound to comply with them.

But if the king justly forfeits his legal power by:
    his unjust practices, or
    his attempts for a tyrannical and despotic power,
        then it becomes morally lawful and suitable:
            to dethrone him, and
            for the remaining members of the constitution to acquire a right of:
                excluding his next heir, and
                choosing whom they please for his successor.
This is founded on a very singular quality of our thought and imagination.
When a king forfeits his authority, his heir naturally remains in the same situation as if the king were removed by death, unless he forfeits it by mixing himself in the tyranny.
    This may seem reasonable.
    But we can easily give a contrary opinion.
The king's deposition in our government is an act beyond all common authority.
    It is illegal to assume power for public good, if ordinarily that power cannot belong to any member of the constitution.
    When the public good is so great and evident as to justify the action, the commendable use of this licence causes us to naturally attribute a right of using further licences to the parliament.
        The ancient bounds of the laws are transgressed with approbation.
        We are not so strict in confining ourselves precisely within their limits.
The mind naturally runs with any train of action which it has begun.
    We do not commonly make any scruple about our duty after doing any initial action.
Thus at the revolution, the people who thought that the king's deposition was justifiable, confined themselves to his infant son.
    If:
        that unhappy king died innocently at that time, and
        his son had been sent overseas,
    then a regency would have been appointed until he:
        should come to age, and
        could be restored to his dominions.
The imagination's slightest properties have an effect on people's judgments.
    It shows the wisdom of the laws and of the parliament to:
        take advantage of such properties, and
        choose the magistrates in or out of a line.
            Because the vulgar will most naturally attribute authority to them.

The Prince of Orange's accession to the throne might initially cause:
    many disputes, and
    his title being contested.

But it must have acquired a sufficient authority from the three princes who succeeded him.
This way of thinking is most usual.
    But at first sight, it appears most unreasonable.
Princes often seem to acquire a right from their successors and ancestors.
    A king, who was a usurper during his lifetime, will be regarded by posterity as a lawful prince because he had the good fortune to:
        settle his family on the throne, and
        entirely change the ancient form of government.
Julius Caesar is regarded as the first Roman emperor.
    Sylla and Marius have the same title as Caesar.
    But they are treated as tyrants and usurpers.
Time and custom give authority to:
    all forms of government, and
    all successions of princes.
The power that was initially founded only on injustice and violence becomes legal and obligatory in time.
The mind does not rest there.
    Going back on its footsteps, it transfers to their predecessors and ancestors that right which it naturally ascribes to posterity.
    The mind sees that right as being:
        related together, and
        united in the imagination.
The present king of France makes Hugh Capet a more lawful prince than Cromwell.
    The established liberty of the Dutch is no inconsiderable apology for their obstinate resistance to Philip II.