land was too cool and watchful at such work to be easily disposed of, and so turning aside the bayonet with his sword, shot him instantly through the head with a pistol which he held in his other hand. All this was the work of an instant, and in the next we were all on board of her. Calcraft and his men had met with no opposition, and so were on deck, if possible, before us, for though there were two other soldiers there, yet the lubbers had negligently laid their arms aside and could not seize them quick enough to resist us: we of course secured them and sprung to the gangway to secure the remaining six, who, as we expected, were drinking and carousing below. This was not so easy a matter as we anticipated, for they were aroused by the noise upon deck and the report of Falkland's pistol; they seized their muskets and rushed up the gangway as our men were preparing to enter, being elated with the spirits they were drinking, and not knowing our superior numbers, they seemed resolved to defend their charge, and as their bayonets were fixed they were certainly a dangerous enemy; several of our men, who had only cutlasses in their hands were wounded in an instant by them, and it was not till two of them were shot and another desperately wounded by a sabre-cut that the others surrendered. Thus after a struggle which certainly did not continue above three minutes, we obtained possession of the Dolphin, with one man killed and several wounded slightly. We at once flung the three black soldiers whom we had killed overboard, and on examining the other two, who were wounded, we found them in so desperate a state that we slung them after them over the ship's side; we placed the remainder of them under a guard below.

"The most difficult part of our enterprise yet remained, namely, the bringing our prize out of harbour. Our pistols had been heard at the guardhouse on the wharf, and we could see some lights and a good deal of activity going on there, so that we felt that there was some chance of being further opposed before we could fairly accomplish our wishes. This was a source of some uneasiness to us, as we found the utmost difficulty in getting her sails set and saw it would occupy some time before we could accomplish it. There were too few of us to effect this and set everything else in order within any reasonable time, so that if the guard on shore had been expeditious we would have been unable to secure her without at least another fight for her; but as fortune ever favours the bold, our opponents were somewhat slow and cautious in their movements, so that they allowed us a considerable time for our work; we of course were not tardy under such circumstances, and by great exertions on the part of every hand on board, we at last succeeded in getting all matters to rights, made our boats fast, cut her cable, shook out her sails, and with a very light but favourable breeze stood out to sea. As we passed the Sylph our cheers were answered from her deck in the most joyous fashion, our friends on board her were all prepared, heaved anchor, and followed us immediately. So ended the adventure of the Dolphin."

Such was the account that Seyton himself gave me of the manner in which he got possession of the very beautiful sloop which he then commanded, and to which I myself belonged at this time. Our boat shortly afterwards arrived, and we were soon on board.

RENE.

Among the various objects of scientific enquiry, which attract and engage the attention of persons disposed to observe the history of the human mind, as displayed in the conduct and opinions of individuals and nations in different ages, few, perhaps, are more interesting in a scientific, or instructive in a moral sense, than the biography of political parties. It will readily be admitted, alike by the historian and the linguist that, mutable as are all the inventions of our species, none are more liable to change than the signification of words. The reason of this fact is obvious, inasmuch as, the ideas of men necessarily altering with the variations of circumstances and civilization, and these changes being, when applied to large bodies of men, gradual, and frequently imperceptible, the words invented to express them, continue to be used long after the ideas, of which they are the signs, have suffered the most important alterations. It must also be remembered, that the mental change in their signification, having been involuntarily produced by circumstances affecting the community at large, requires no expressed consent of or notification to, the individuals composing it; while the verbal signs of those ideas, like the circulating medium of coin, must remain the same in appearance, unless publicly and expressly altered, although their intrinsic value may, and must, vary with the circumstances of society. It is however obvious, that this mutability must apply with more or less force, as the ideas which those words are intended to signify, are more or less abstract. It is also evident that those words of the latter class will possess this mutable character in the greatest degree, the ideas expressed by which, most interest the passions, and designate the opinions of large portions of mankind. It therefore follows, that this charge of mutability applies in an eminent degree, to the signification of the names assumed by, or given to, political and religious parties. Of these, however, the latter VOL. I.

are more fixed in their signification, as the points of difference are referred in general to a fixed and written standard, the interpretation of which forms the essential difference of the party; while the objects about which the former contend, are chiefly temporary measures, or abstract principles. The names of political parties are of two classes: the one comprising those assumed by the leaders or members of a party, as an honourable distinction, the other those given by the opposite party or society at large, as epithets of reproach or contempt. One of the strongest proofs of the mutability of the signification of these words, is the fact that it frequently occurs, that the name given to a party by its enemies as a token of contempt, becomes that, of which the members themselves are most proud; and still more frequently that that chosen as a badge of honour by the party, degenerates into a public epithet of scorn. The names of parties may also be distinguished according to the sources whence they are derived; from the name of a leader; a place of meeting; an historical event; or an accidental circumstance; a leading principle, or a peculiar badge of distinction. It is not requisite to our present subject to trace the sources whence these appellations are derived, or the degrees of mutability to which they are subject: it is of more consequence to ascertain what are the component parts of that complex idea, signified by the name of a party, and thus to investigate how the principles and actions of political parties are frequently so inconsistent, and even opposite at different periods, while their distinguishing appellations continue the

a body of men elected in any particular manner, the deficiencies in which are supplied by any stated rule of admission or succession; for this is the distinguishing characteristic of a club. It does not signify the followers of a particular leader, or the frequenters of a particular place; as these frequently change in the history of every party; as a leader falls away, or a place of rendezvous becomes inconvenient. It cannot mean the persons wearing a particular badge, or celebrating a particular event or circumstance: both these, it is obvious, might be done by persons of the most opposite public principles, and for the attainment of the most opposite public designs; and yet such a proceeding would not render these persons members of the same political party. A political party may then, perhaps, be correctly defined as a body of men acting on certain fixed political principles, or for the attainment of certain fixed political ends." The question, therefore, is by what course of proceeding, on the part of themselves or others, can any body of men cease to be justly designated by a given party appellation? Here there is an important distinction to be observed between the two classes last mentioned: as a body of men acting together for the attainment of certain fixed ends must cease to deserve the appellation of their party, any where but in the pages of the historian, as soon as those ends are attained for which they were originally associated. This class may, therefore, cease to be a party either by their own action, or that of others. With those united for the support of certain principles the case is otherwise. No change of time or circumstance can fully annihilate a party of this class; as, inasmuch as principles are in themselves not liable to alteration or decay, whatever persons at any period support those principles are virtually members of the same party; although, by incidental circumstances preventing the necessity of publicly avowing these principles, there may have existed for many years, or even ages, no party publicly associated for their support. It is obvious that a party of this class loses its personal identity, when it deserts the principles for the support of which it was first formed.

As the circumstances of society,

however, are the objects on which the influence of these principles is to be exerted, and by which the motives and opinions of their supporters are to be proved, and these circumstances are suffering continual change; it is frequently difficult to ascertain whether a particular class of persons continue to act on the same principles, the support of which they at first professed as their object. Numerous instances might therefore be adduced where the names of parties have continued to be applied to classes of men who have not merely varied from the original principles of their party, but are in reality acting on principles directly opposite. This is more easily accounted for when we recollect, that while the conduct of men is the criterion of their principles, yet the same conduct under circumstances of an opposite character cannot proceed from the same principles. To this is to be attributed the fact that the names of two political parties may be frequently observed to have been transmitted in a species of traditional descent to two classes of men, who have, not merely altered, but actually exchanged, their principles of action. It is however, obvious, that this is most likely to take place in parties which have lasted for a considerable length of time.

Of the mutable character of the signification of the names of political parties, a remarkable illustration is afforded by the history of the two great classes into which, with few exceptions the politicians of this kingdom have, for the last century and a half, been divided. The original derivation of the appellations of Whig and Tory, gives an example of the fact noticed above, that epithets given as tokens of contempt, frequently are adopted, and even gloried in, by those whom they were originally designed to annoy. Both these far-famed appellations were at first conferred, each by the opposite party, as tokens of reproach. Every one acquainted with history, is aware that they were first used about the year 1680. The parties were first denominated "Petitioners," and "Abhorrers," so called, because the one party, dreading the existence of a Popish plot, directed and patronized by the Duke of York, afterwards the faithless and priest-ridden James the Second, and disliking the unconstitu

tional policy of the house of Stuart, then particularly exhibited in the refusals of Charles the Second to convene parliament, presented "petitions," to request his majesty to call a parliament, in order to take into consideration the dangers threatened to the state by the increase of Popery, and the favour apparently shown to it by his majesty's ministers and the Duke of York. These petitions were exceed ingly disagreeable to the unprincipled Charles the Second and his brother. The only method, however, by which they could be met, was by exciting a "counter-irritation" on the part of the Popish community. All such, therefore, as favoured the interests of the Duke and his party, sent in addresses expressing their abhorrence" of the "factious opposition" given to his majesty's ministers, and the bigotted zeal of the petitioners, whom, on account of their vehement dislike to be ruled by a Popish government or on Popish principles, they denominated Whigs, a name taken from a sect of Scotch Presbyterians of, it was supposed, particularly bigotted character. The Whigs retorted this insult in denominating the Abhorrers by the name of Tories, affixed to the Popish banditti in Ireland, with whom they were said to be in league, and whom they certainly patronised and instigated to their multifarious defiance of the laws. It is then obvious, that both these parties were associated for the support of certain fixed principles, and, therefore, whatever persons at any future period came publicly forward for the defence of these principles are virtually members of the same party.

an

The principles, then, of these parties were originally as follows:the family of Stuart believed, that the right of sovereigns being conferred by heaven, they were swerable to no earthly power for the use they made of it; and that the municipal laws of every country being made by the people, could no farther bind the sovereign than might suit his will and convenience; and that, although on several occasions the kings of England had, either by voluntary generosity, or in order to soothe the irritated people, granted charters, and consented to laws limiting their own power, these could only bind themselves so long as the motive lasted

which induced them to grant them, and could in no case bind their successors, but were to be regarded as usurpations of that unlimited right of sovereignty which was naturally inherent in the monarch. The despotic tenets of the Church of Rome being in perfect unison with these principles, the members of that sect were naturally the favorites of the House of Stuart, while the principles and policy of Rome, concurring with the idea of the unlimited right of kings, induced this family to consider all promises made to their people as only valid, while the keeping of them was compulsory. These principles will be found to have actuated, in a greater or less degree, even the best members of that family. The profligate and unprincipled character, however, of Charles the Second rendered him particularly attached to a system of government, which secured him from responsibility, and to a church which undertook for the recompence of a small sum of money to admit the most depraved and polluted sinner to the society of angels, and the especial favour of the Almighty. Charles the Second was thus rendered, perhaps, the most faithless monarch of that faithless house. The repeated experience of this fact necessarily rendered the Protestant portion of his subjects perpetually jealous of his designs; while the avowed attachment of the Heir presumptive to the tenets of the Church of Rome, as well as his cold, dark, and bigotted character, afforded the strongest grounds of alarm to those who knew, that that church not only directs her whole efforts to the extinction of every other system of religion, and for the attainment of that end, holds it lawful to employ every species of cruelty, and every variety of perjury and fraud, on the principle that the end will justify the means; but that for this purpose she puts on at one time, the appearance of suffering and persecuted innocence, with as much ease as she assumes at another the bloody and relentless character of the Inquisition in Spain, the Marian persecution in England, or the exterminating war against the Vaudois in Switzerland; the Sicilian vespers, or the St. Bartholomew's massacre. This portion of his subjects were therefore anxious to secure the regular meeting of parliaments, the preservation of the Protestant reli

gion, and the supreme authority of the laws. The Tory party, on the other hand, were composed of four classes; the English Papists, naturally attached to the house of Stuart from approbation of its measures; the Irish Papists, who were encouraged by the policy of that house; the violent Dissenters, who from a blind hatred to the Church of England, or to whatever was the Established Religion, were willing even to abet the designs of a despotic Monarch, or a hostile and exterminating superstition; and those unprincipled men, who wished, by means of these heterogeneous but powerful materials, to raise themselves to that influence in the councils of the sovereign, and the administration of affairs which they were conscious they could have no hopes of attaining by personal character or talent. A few may also be added to this number, who, having experienced the horrors of a democracy, were willing to make any sacrifice to support the power of a sovereign; from the mistaken supposition, that the best method to avoid the multifarious miseries which result from committing the reins of government to the hands of the lowest, most ignorant, and most unfeeling and unprincipled portion of the community, was to encourage the monarch in the exercise of despotic authority.

We have said that this supposition was mistaken, because the extremes of despotism and democracy are so similar, and have such a natural tendency to produce each other, that to aid and promote the former, in reality paves the way to the latter, and vice versa. The principles of this party were therefore the opposite of those supported by the Whigs. In this respect, however, an important distinction is to be observed. The objects of the Whig party being, to preserve the constitution unaltered, to protect the Protestant religion, and in every way to resist innovation either in church or state; their principles were open, avowed, and unalterable. Those of the Tories, on the other hand, being the introduction of a false religion, and "an unconstitutional form of government; their principles were kept concealed, while they, professing to be united merely for the attainment of particular ends, or the support of particular measures, were obliged, the mo

ment these ends or measures were attained, to set forth new objects as the motives of their exertions, while at the same time they avowed principles of a comparatively harmless character, in order to conceal their real views. The objects of the Tory party at that period, being in perfect accordance with the views of the House of Stuart, rendered this task more easy. The Tories therefore, professed as the great principles of their party, that the authority of the Sovereign was not controlled by any other, that all opposition given to the proceedings of his Majesty's ministers was factious, and that those who ventured to express their fears for the safety of the constitution were bigotted and illiberal alarmists; while the Crown, thus supported and influenced, made use of the authority so derived, to forward all the views of the Popish and revolutionary party.

The great difficulty to be encountered in tracing the history of these celebrated parties, results from the fact, that while the principles of the Whigs were essentially conservative, and those of the Tories revolutionary, the circumstances of the period made them appear the reverse; inasmuch as the policy of the House of Stuart drove the Whigs into opposition, and rendered the Tories the ministerial party. At a short interval of time subsequent to this period we shall see the circumstances reversed, when the conservative principles of the House of Orange enabled the Whigs to appear in their natural capacity, as the supporters of constitutional monarchy, and the Protestant religion.— The principles of the Whig party, it is obvious, were such as might be consistently supported, either as an opposition, or a ministerial party which side they might assume must depend on the character of the sovereign. Those of the Tories, on the other hand, having been adopted when the Crown itself was disposed to favour innovation, were, for the time, highly monarchical. It was therefore difficult for this party to change these monarchical principles with any appearance of consistency, when the policy of the House of Orange directly opposed their views. This difficulty, however, was surmounted by making a pretence of loyalty to the exiled House of Stuart, which served to disguise their revolutionary