ention
of insurrection. And it is by the words then that you will judge of his
design, and not take it from the vague and partial declamation of the
counsel for the prosecution, whose opinions ought no more than my own, to
have any weight with you, except as they are supported by reason. If you
can find any such meaning as an intention to excite insurrection in the
words, so much the worse for the defendant; but, if you cannot, and I am
sure you cannot, then you will not hesitate to adjudge the words
innocent. What! may not I, or any man, say there is no occasion for
insurrection at this moment, but there may be at a future time? Good
God! are there no possible situations in which resistance to a government
will be justifiable? There have been such situations, and may again.
Surely there may be. Why, even the most vehement strugglers for
indefeasible right and passive obedience have been forced (after
involving themselves in the most foolish inconsistencies, and after the
most ludicrous shuffling in attempting to deny it) to admit, that there
may be such a conjuncture. They have tried to qualify the admission
indeed--admitted, and then retracted--then admitted again, and then
denied in the term, what they admitted in the phrase, till, as you shall
see, nothing ever equalled the absurdity, and ridiculousness of the
_rigmarole_ into which they fell, in their unwillingness to confess, what
they were unable to deny. Yes, gentlemen, there are situations in which
insurrection against a government is not only legal, but a duty and a
virtue. The period of our glorious revolution was such a situation. When
the bigot, James, attempted to force an odious superstition on the people
for their religion, and to violate the fundamental laws of the realm,
Englishmen owed it to themselves, they owed it to millions of their
fellow-creatures, not only in this country, but all over the world; they
owed it to God who had made them man to rise against such a government;
and cast ruin on the tyrant for the oppression and slavery which he
meditated for them. Locke, in the work from which I have already cited
to you, in the chapter entitled, "On Dissolution of Government," contends
with Barclay, an advocate for divine right and passive obedience, and
refutes him on this very question, and proves that subjects may use force
against tyranny in governments. He cites Barclay who wrote in Latin, but
I read to you from the translation.