_Secondly_, Neither their principles nor affections concurred, entirely or heartily, with the settlement made at the _Revolution_, or with that which has since taken place. This part of their character may seem opposite to the former, since any other settlement, in those circumstances of the nation, must probably have been dangerous, if not fatal, to liberty. But the heart of man is made to reconcile contradictions; and this contradiction is not greater than that between _passive obedience_ and the _resistance_ employed at the Revolution. A TORY, therefore, since the _Revolution_, may be defined, in a few words, to be a _lover of monarchy, though without abandoning liberty, and a partisan of the family of Stuart_: _as a WHIG may be defined to be a lover of liberty, though without renouncing monarchy, and a friend to the settlement in the Protestant line._[6] These different views, with regard to the settlement of the crown, were accidental, but natural, additions, to the principles of the _Court_ and _Country_ parties, which are the genuine divisions in the British Government. A passionate lover of monarchy is apt to be displeased at any change of the succession, as savouring too much of a commonwealth: a passionate lover of liberty is apt to think that every part of the government ought to be subordinate to the interests of liberty. Some, who will not venture to assert that the _real_ difference between Whig and Tory was lost at the _Revolution_, seem inclined to think, that the difference is now abolished, and that affairs are so far returned to their natural state, that there are at present no other parties among us but _Court_ and _Country_; that is, men who, by interest or principle, are attached either to monarchy or liberty. The Tories have been so long obliged to talk in the republican style, that they seem to have made converts of themselves by their hypocrisy, and to have embraced the sentiments, as well as language of their adversaries. There are, however, very considerable remains of that party in England, with all their old prejudices; and a proof that _Court_ and _Country_ are not our only parties, is that almost all the dissenters side with the court, and the lower clergy, at least of the church or England, with the opposition. This may convince us, that some bias still hangs upon our constitution, some extrinsic weight, which turns it from its natural course, and causes a confusion in our parties.[7]