A Modern History, From the Time of Luther to the Fall of Napoleon / For the Use of Schools and Colleges

by John Lord

Of the Tory leaders, Harley, (Earl of Oxford,) St. John, (Lord Bolingbroke,) the Duke of Buckingham, and the Duke of Ormond, the Earl of Rochester, and Lord Dartmouth, were the most prominent, but this Tory party was itself divided, in consequence of jealousies between the chiefs, the intrigues of Harley, and the measureless ambition of Bolingbroke. Under the ascendency of the Tories the treaty of Utrecht was made, now generally condemned by historians of both Whig and Tory politics. It was disproportioned to the success of the war, although it secured the ends of the grand alliance.

One of the causes which led to the overthrow of the Whigs was the impeachment and trial of Dr. Henry Sacheverell. Dr. Henry Sacheverell, an event which excited intense interest at the time, and, though insignificant in itself, touched some vital principles of the constitution.

This divine was a man of mean capacity, and of little reputation for learning or virtue. He had been, during the reign of William, an outrageous Whig; but, finding his services disregarded, he became a violent Tory. By a sort of plausible effrontery and scurrilous rhetoric, he obtained the applause of the people, and the valuable living of St. Saviour, Southwark. The audacity of his railings against the late king and the revolution at last attracted the notice of government; and for two sermons which he printed, and in which he inculcated, without measure, the doctrine of passive obedience, consigned Dissenters to eternal damnation, and abused the great principle of religious toleration, he was formally impeached. All England was excited by the trial. The queen herself privately attended, to encourage a man who was persecuted for his loyalty, and persecuted for defending his church. The finest orators and lawyers of the day put forth all their energies. Bishop Atterbury wrote for Sacheverell his defence, which was endorsed by a conclave of High Church divines. The result of the trial was the condemnation of the doctor, and with it the fall of his adversaries. He was suspended for three years, but his defeat was a triumph. He was received, in college halls and private mansions, with the pomp of a sovereign and the reverence of a saint. His sentence made his enemies unpopular. The great body of the English nation, wedded to High Church principles, took sides in his favor. But the arguments of his accusers developed some great principles—led to the assertion of the doctrines of toleration; for, if passive obedience to the rulers of the state and church were obligatory, then all Dissenters might be curbed and suppressed. The Whig managers of the trial, by opposing the bigoted Churchmen, aided the cause of dissent, justified the revolution, and upheld the conquest by William III. And their speeches are upon record, that they asserted the great principles of civil and religious liberty, in the face of all the authority, dignity, and wisdom of the realm. It is true they lost as a party, on account of the bigotry of the times; but they furnished another pillar to uphold the constitution, and adduced new and powerful arguments in support of constitutional liberty. The country gained, if they, as a party, lost; and though Sacheverell was lauded by his church, his conviction was a triumph to the friends of freedom. Good resulted in many other ways. Political leaders learned moral wisdom; they saw the folly of persecuting men for libels, when such men had the sympathy of the people; that such persecutions were undignified, and that, while they gained their end, they lost more by victory than by defeat. The trial of Sacheverell, while it brought to view more clearly some great constitutional truths, also more effectually advanced the liberty of the press; for, surely, restriction on the press is a worse evil, than the violence and vituperation of occasional libels.

The great domestic event of this reign was doubtless the Union of Scotland and England. union of Scotland and England; a consummation of lasting peace between the two countries, which William III. had proposed. Nothing could be more beneficent for both the countries; and the only wonder is, that it was not done before, when James II. ascended the English throne; and nothing then, perhaps, prevented it, but the bitter jealousy which had so long existed between these countries; a jealousy, dislike, and prejudice which have hardly yet passed away.

Scotland, until the reign of James II., was theoretically and practically independent of England, but was not so fortunately placed, as the latter country, for the development of energies. The country was smaller, more barren, and less cultivated. The people were less civilized; and had less influence on the political welfare of the state. The aristocracy were more powerful, and were more jealous of royal authority. There were constant feuds and jealousies between dominant classes, which checked the growth in political importance, wealth, and civilization. But the people were more generally imbued with the ultra principles of the Reformation, were more religious, and cherished a peculiar attachment to the Presbyterian form of church government, and a peculiar hatred of every thing which resembled Roman Catholicism. They were, moreover, distinguished for patriotism, and had great jealousy of English influences.

James II. was the legitimate King of Scotland, as well as of England; but he soon acquired a greater love for England, than he retained for his native country; and England being the greater country, the interests of Scotland were frequently sacrificed to those of England.

Queen Anne, as the daughter of James II., was also the legitimate sovereign of Scotland; and, on her decease, the Scotch were not bound to acknowledge the Elector of Hanover as their legitimate king.

Many ardent and patriotic Scotchmen, including the Duke of Hamilton. Duke of Hamilton and Fletcher of Saltoun, deemed it a favorable time to assert, on the death of Queen Anne, their national independence, since the English government was neither just nor generous to the lesser country.

Under these circumstances, there were many obstacles to a permanent union, and it was more bitterly opposed in Scotland than in England. The more patriotic desired complete independence. Many were jealous of the superior prosperity of England. The people in the Highlands and the north of Scotland were Jacobinical in their principles, and were attached to the Stuart dynasty. The Presbyterians feared the influence of English Episcopacy, and Scottish peers deprecated a servile dependence on the parliament of England.

But the English government, on the whole, much as it hated Scotch Presbyterianism and Scotch influence, desired a union, in order to secure the peaceful succession of the house of Hanover, for the north of Scotland was favorable to the Stuarts, and without a union, English liberties would be endangered by Jacobinical intrigues. English statesmen felt this, and used every measure to secure this end.