[Sidenote: Blamable to state the bounds of non-resistance.] [Sidenote: Resistance lawful only in _case_ of extreme and obvious necessity.] "If the Doctor had pretended to have stated the particular bounds and limits of non-resistance, and told the people in what cases they might or might not resist, _he would have been much to blame_; nor was one word said in the articles, or by the managers, as if that was expected from him; but, _on the contrary, we have insisted that in NO case can resistance be lawful, but in case of EXTREME NECESSITY, and where the Constitution can't otherwise be preserved; and such necessity ought to be plain and obvious to the sense and judgment of the whole nation: and this was the case at the Revolution_." * * * * * The counsel for Doctor Sacheverell, in defending their client, were driven in reality to abandon the fundamental principles of his doctrine, and to confess that an exception to the general doctrine of passive obedience and non-resistance did exist in the case of the Revolution. This the managers for the Commons considered as having gained their cause, as their having obtained _the whole_ of what they contended for. They congratulated themselves and the nation on a civil victory as glorious and as honorable as any that had obtained in arms during that reign of triumphs. Sir Joseph Jekyl, in his reply to Harcourt, and the other great men who conducted the cause for the Tory side, spoke in the following memorable terms, distinctly stating the whole of what the Whig House of Commons contended for, in the name of all their constituents. * * * * * _Sir Joseph Jekyl._ [Sidenote: Necessity creates an exception, and the Revolution a case of necessity, the utmost extent of the demand of the Commons.] "My Lords, the concessions" (the concessions of Sacheverell's counsel) "are these: That _necessity_ creates an _exception_ to the general rule of submission to the prince; that such exception is understood or implied in the laws that require such submission; and that _the case of the Revolution was a case of necessity._ "These are concessions _so ample_, and do so _fully_ answer the drift of the Commons in this article, and are to _the utmost extent of their meaning in it_, that I can't forbear congratulating them upon this success of their impeachment,--that in full Parliament, this erroneous doctrine of _unlimited_ non-resistance is given up and disclaimed. And may it not, in after ages, be an addition to the glories of this bright reign, that so many of those who are honored with being in her Majesty's service have been at your Lordships' bar thus successfully contending for the _national_ rights of her people, and proving they are not precarious or remediless? "But to return to these concessions: I must appeal to your Lordships, whether they are not a _total departure_ from the Doctor's answer." * * * * *