Sir,The sum of what hath been said,concerning the settlement of Church and state,and the division of parties at the Restoration,amounts to this;that as the attempts of King James and King Charles the First,against the spirit of the constitution,threw the nation into a civil war,and all the miserable consequences,both necessary and contingent,of that calamity;so the fury,enthusiasm and madness of those factions which arose during that unnatural ferment,frightened the nation back,if not into all,yet more generally perhaps than before,into most of the notions that were established to justify the excesses of former reigns.Hereditary,indefeasible right,passive obedience and non-resistance,those corner-stones,which are an improper foundation for any superstructure,but that of tyranny,were made,even by Parliament,the foundation of the monarchy;and all those,who declined an exact and strict conformity to the whole establishment of the Church,even to the most minute parts of it,were deprived of the protection,nay,exposed to the prosecution of the state.Thus one part of the nation stood proscribed by the other;the least,indeed,by the greatest;whereas a little before the greatest stood proscribed by the least.Roundhead and cavalier were,in effect,no more.Whig and Tory were not yet in being.The only two apparent parties were those of Churchmen and Dissenters;and religious differences alone at this time maintained the distinction.
Such was the state of party,upon the meeting of the first parliament called by King Charles the Second,and for some years afterwards,as nearly as I have been able to observe by what I have read in history,and received from tradition.--How the notions then in vogue began to change,and this spirit to decline,some time after the Restoration;how the zeal of Churchmen and Dissenters against one another began to soften,and a Court and Country party to form themselves;how faction mingled itself again in the contest,and renewed the former resentments and jealousies;how Whig and Tory arose,the furious offspring of those inauspicious parents roundhead and cavalier;how the proceedings of one party might have thrown us back into a civil war,confusion and anarchy;how the success of the other had like to have entailed tyranny on the state,and popery in Church;how the Revolution did,and could alone,deliver us from the grievances we felt,and from the dangers we feared;how this great event was brought about by a formal departure of each side from the principles objected to them by the other.how this renewal of our constitution,on the principles of liberty,by the most solemn,deliberate,national act,that ever was made,did not only bind at least every one of those,who concurred in any degree to bring it about (and that description includes almost the whole nation);but how absurd it is for any man,who was born since that era,or who,being born before it,hath been bound by no particular,legal tie to any other settlement,to be willing to give up the advantages of the present constitution,any more than he would give up the privileges of the great charter,which was made and ratified so many ages ago;all these points are to be now touched in that summary manner which I have prescribed to myself,and which will be sufficient,in so plain a case,where men are to be reminded of what they know already,rather than to be informed,and to be confirmed,not to be convinced.
I proceed therefore to observe,that the nation began to be indisposed to the court,soon after the Restoration.The sale of Dunkirk helped to ruin a great and good minister,though it be still doubtful at least,notwithstanding the clamour raised,and the negotiations with d'Estrades so much insisted upon,whether he was strictly answerable for this measure.Who knows how soon the reestablishment of the same port and harbour may be laid in form to the charge of those two men,who are strictly and undeniably answerable for it,and who stagger already under the weight of so many other just imputations?
The first Dutch war,which was lightly and rashly undertaken,and which ended ignominiously for the nation,augmented the public indisposition.Nay misfortunes,such as the plague,and the burning of London,as well as mismanagement,had this effect.But we must place at the head of all,a jealousy of popery,which was well founded,and therefore gathered strength daily.This soon heated the minds of men to such a degree,that it seems almost wonderful the plague was not imputed to the papists,as peremptorily as the fire.
The death of my lord Southampton,and the disgrace and banishment of my lord Clarendon,made room for new causes of jealousy and dissatisfaction;and the effects increased in proportion.These two noble lords had stood in the breach against popery and foreign politics;and what one of them said to the other,that is,Southampton of Clarendon,may be applied with justice to both.They were true Protestants,and honest Englishmen.Whilst they were in place,our laws,our religion,and our liberties were in safety.When they were removed,England felt the ill effects of the change;for when they were removed,all those were in danger.How glorious a panegyric is this,in which the unanimous voice of posterity does and must agree?It is preferable surely to all the titles and honours and estates,which those illustrious patriots left behind them:and so I persuade myself it is esteemed by the young noblemen,who are heirs to their virtues as well as their fortunes.
