按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
for the dark and slavish times in which it was erected； is granted。
When the world was overrun with tyranny the least remove therefrom
was a glorious rescue。 But that it is imperfect； subject to convulsions；
and incapable of producing what it seems to promise； is easily demonstrated。
Absolute governments （tho' the disgrace of human nature） have this
advantage with them； that they are simple； if the people suffer；
they know the head from which their suffering springs； know likewise
the remedy； and are not bewildered by a variety of causes and cures。
But the constitution of England is so exceedingly complex；
that the nation may suffer for years together without being able to discover
in which part the fault lies； some will say in one and some in another；
and every political physician will advise a different medicine。
I know it is difficult to get over local or long standing prejudices；
yet if we will suffer ourselves to examine the component parts of the
English constitution； we shall find them to be the base remains of two
ancient tyrannies； compounded with some new republican materials。
FIRST … The remains of monarchial tyranny in the person of the king。
SECONDLY … The remains of aristocratical tyranny in the persons of the peers。
THIRDLY … The new republican materials in the persons of the commons；
on whose virtue depends the freedom of England。
The two first； by being hereditary； are independent of the people；
wherefore in a CONSTITUTIONAL SENSE they contribute nothing towards
the freedom of the state。
To say that the constitution of England is a UNION of three powers
reciprocally CHECKING each other； is farcical； either the words have
no meaning； or they are flat contradictions。
To say that the commons is a check upon the king； presupposes two things：
FIRST … That the king is not to be trusted without being looked after；
or in other words； that a thirst for absolute power is the natural
disease of monarchy。
SECONDLY … That the commons； by being appointed for that purpose；
are either wiser or more worthy of confidence than the crown。
But as the same constitution which gives the commons a power to check
the king by withholding the supplies； gives afterwards the king a power
to check the commons； by empowering him to reject their other bills；
it again supposes that the king is wiser than those whom it has already
supposed to be wiser than him。 A mere absurdity！
There is something exceedingly ridiculous in the composition of monarchy；
it first excludes a man from the means of information； yet empowers him
to act in cases where the highest judgment is required。 The state of a king
shuts him from the world； yet the business of a king requires him to know
it thoroughly； wherefore the different parts； by unnaturally opposing
and destroying each other； prove the whole character to be absurd and useless。
Some writers have explained the English constitution thus： The king；
say they； is one； the people another； the peers are a house in behalf
of the king； the commons in behalf of the people； but this hath all
the distinctions of a house divided against itself； and though
the expressions be pleasantly arranged； yet when examined；
they appear idle and ambiguous； and it will always happen；
that the nicest construction that words are capable of；
when applied to the description of some thing which either
cannot exist； or is too incomprehensible to be within
the compass of description； will be words of sound only；
and though they may amuse the ear； they cannot inform the mind；
for this explanation includes a previous question； viz。
HOW CAME THE KING BY A POWER WHICH THE PEOPLE ARE AFRAID TO TRUST；
AND ALWAYS OBLIGED TO CHECK？ Such a power could not be the gift
of a wise people； neither can any power； WHICH NEEDS CHECKING；
be from God； yet the provision； which the constitution makes；
supposes such a power to exist。
But the provision is unequal to the task； the means either cannot
or will not accomplish the end； and the whole affair is a felo de se；
for as the greater weight will always carry up the less； and as all
the wheels of a machine are put in motion by one； it only remains to know
which power in the constitution has the most weight； for that will govern；
and though the others； or a part of them； may clog； or； as the phrase is；
check the rapidity of its motion； yet so long as they cannot stop it；
their endeavours will be ineffectual； the first moving power will
at last have its way； and what it wants in speed； is supplied by time。
That the crown is this overbearing part in the English constitution；
needs not be mentioned； and that it derives its whole consequence
merely from being the giver of places and pensions； is self…evident；
wherefore； though we have been wise enough to shut and lock a door
against absolute monarchy； we at the same time have been foolish
enough to put the crown in possession of the key。
The prejudice of Englishmen in favour of their own government by king；
lords； and commons； arises as much or more from national pride than reason。
Individuals are undoubtedly safer in England than in some other countries；
but the WILL of the king is as much the LAW of the land in Britain
as in France； with this difference； that instead of proceeding directly
from his mouth； it is handed to the people under the more formidable shape
of an act of parliament。 For the fate of Charles the First hath only made
kings more subtle … not more just。
Wherefore； laying aside all national pride and prejudice
in favour of modes and forms； the plain truth is； that
IT IS WHOLLY OWING TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE PEOPLE；
AND NOT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE GOVERNMENT；
that the crown is not as oppressive in England as in Turkey。
An inquiry into the CONSTITUTIONAL ERRORS in the English form
of government is at this time highly necessary； for as we are never
in a proper condition of doing justice to others； while we continue under
the influence of some leading partiality； so neither are we capable of
doing it to ourselves while we remain fettered by any obstinate prejudice。
And as a man。 who is attached to a prostitute； is unfitted to choose
or judge a wife； so any prepossession in favour of a rotten constitution
of government will disable us from discerning a good one。
OF MONARCHY AND HEREDITARY SUCCESSION
Mankind being originally equals in the order of creation； the equality
could only be destroyed by some subsequent circumstance； the distinctions
of rich； and poor； may in a great measure be accounted for； and that without
having recourse to the harsh； ill…sounding names of oppression and avarice。
Oppression is often the CONSEQUENCE； but seldom or never the MEANS of riches；
and though avarice will preserve a man from being necessitously poor；
it generally makes him too timorous to be wealthy。
But there is another and greater distinction； for which no truly natural
or religious reason can be assigned； and that is； the distinction of men
into KINGS and SUBJECTS。 Male and female are the distinctions of nature；
good and bad the distinctions of heaven； but how a race of men came into
the world so exalted above the rest； and distinguished like some new species；
is worth inquiring into； and whether they are the means of happiness
or of misery to mankind。
In the early ages of the world； according to the scripture chronology；
there were no kings； the consequence of which was； there were no wars；
it is the pride of kings which throw mankind into confusion。 Holland
without a king hath enjoyed more peace for this last century than any
of the monarchial governments in Europe。 Antiquity favours the same
remark； for the quiet and rural lives of the first patriarchs hath
a happy something in them； which vanishes away when we come to the
history of Jewish royalty。
Government by kings was first introduced into the world by the
Heathens； from whom the children of Israel copied the custom。
It was the most prosperous invention the Devil ever set on foot
for the promotion of idolatry。 The Heathens paid divine honours
to their deceased kings； and the Christian world hath improved
on the plan； by doing the same to their living ones。 How impious
is the title of sacred majesty applied to a worm； who in the midst
of his splendor is crumbling into dust！
As the exalting one man so greatly above the rest cannot be justified
on the equal rights of nature； so neither can it be defended on the
authority of scripture； for the will of the Almighty； as declared
by Gideon and the prophet Samuel； expressly disapproves of government
by kings。 All anti…monarchical parts of scripture have been very smoothly
glossed over in monarchical governments； but they undoubtedly merit the
attention of countries which have their governments yet to form。
RENDER UNTO CAESAR THE THINGS W