quarrelled with the Tories, the Lords with the Commons, the Church with the Dissenters; and all this storm of conflicting interests and conflicting theories would have been raging round a vacant throne.  In the meantime, the greatest power on the Continent was attacking our allies, and meditating a descent on our own territories.  Dundee was preparing to raise the Highlands.  The authority of James was still owned by the Irish.  If the authors of the Revolution had been fools enough to take this course, we have little doubt that Luxembourg would have been upon them in the midst of their constitution-making.  They might probably have been interrupted in a debate on Filmer’s and Sydney’s theories of government by the entrance of the musqueteers of Lewis’s household, and have been marched off, two and two, to frame imaginary monarchies and commonwealths in the Tower.  We have had in our own time abundant experience of the effects of such folly.  We have seen nation after nation enslaved, because the friends of liberty wasted in discussions upon abstract questions the time which ought to have been employed in preparing for vigorous national defence.  This editor, apparently, would have had the English Revolution of 1688 end as the Revolutions of Spain and Naples ended in our days.  Thank God, our deliverers were men of a very different order from the Spanish and Neapolitan legislators.  They might on many subjects hold opinions which, in the nineteenth century, would not be considered as liberal.  But they were not dreaming pedants.  They were statesmen accustomed to the management of great affairs.  Their plans of reform were not so extensive as those of the lawgivers of Cadiz; but what they planned, that they effected; and what they effected, that they maintained against the fiercest hostility at home and abroad.

Their first object was to seat William on the throne; and they were right.  We say this without any reference to the eminent personal qualities of William, or to the follies and crimes of James.  If the two princes had interchanged characters, our opinions would still have been the same.  It was even more necessary to England at that time that her king should be a usurper than that he should be a hero.  There could be no security for good government without a change of dynasty.  The reverence for hereditary right and the doctrine of passive obedience had taken such a hold on the minds of the Tories, that, if James had been restored to power on any conditions, their attachment to him would in all probability have revived, as the indignation which recent oppression had produced faded from their minds.  It had become indispensable to have a sovereign whose title to his throne was strictly bound up with the title of the nation to its liberties.  In the compact between the Prince of Orange and the Convention, there was one most important article which, though not expressed, was perfectly understood by both parties, and for the performance