86

ciples of the constitution have been vindicated, even in those times. The name of Henry VIII. our Reviewers considered no doubt as a clencher; but perhaps they will be surprised when I tell them that even Henry has fully recognised the principles of the constitution; and that in a solemn manner, by an act of parliament passed in the 25th. year of his reign, to which of course he gave his assent. By this act it is declared, "that this nation is free from any "man's laws but such only as have "been devised by the people, and originally ordained and established by "their consent: and by this statute "it was moreover declared, that the King, lords, and commons, in par"liament assembled, represent the "whole state of this realm; and that they,and they only have the power to "make new laws, and alter old ones."* Another strong instance we find in the Rol. Parl. 2. Hen. V. p. 2. n. 10. where the commons declared, that they were, and ever had been a part of the parliament: the words are,"That so hit hath ever be their li"berte and freedome, that thar "should no statute ne law be made "of lass than they gaffe therto their assent, considering that the commune of your lond, the which that "is and ever hath be a membre of 66 your parlament, ben as well as"sentirs as petitioners;" that is both to assent to laws and to pray the King to enact laws, the publishing and enregistering them being part of the enactment, and done by the King. By the 44th. Ed. III. the rule was admitted, that no law can oblige the people unless it be made by consent of the people. "Nul Ley oblige le "people lorsque ceo q'est fait par con"sent del people.t And on this principle the commons declared to the same King, (51. Ed. III. art. 46.) that they would not be bound by any

66

Acherley's Brittan. Con. p. 119. + Davis's Rep. fo. 32. VOL. VI.

It is generally agreed, by all our historians, that Edward II owed his successes to the free and independent spirit of the people whom he had the good fortune to lead to battle: by their means he triumphed over the French and the Scotch, and took their Kings prisoners; but he never could triumph over the independent spirit of the commons of England; over those commons whom these Scotish Reviewers wish indis criminately to confound with the vile herd of slaves upon the continent: our honest stout-hearted ancestors told this great conqueror flatly, that they did not care a straw for any, of his statutes and ordinan-` ces; that they would be bound only by such as were properly speaking their own, as well as his; and in which they had concurred by their own free sanction and consent: and

what was the result? This " mighty

66

victor, mighty lord" as the poet calls him, was obliged, as in duty bound, to yield obedience to the constitution.- -What an admirable lesson does this afford the present generation!! Ought the real commons of England to be afraid of holding the same language to a corrupt ministerial junto, or a gang of sharping borough-mongers, which our forefathers held to this mighty conqueror? Ought they not to say -We will have nothing to do with your statutes and ordinances; we will only be bound by laws that have received our own consent, by means of a real and constitutional representation in parliament !

It seems obvious to me, Mr. Editor, (not only from the foregoing passages, but others that occur in the course of their critique), that the Edinburgh Reviewers have adopted the doctrine, that the commons are

3 K

an upstart, and as some have said, an illegitimate thing, produced by the policy of our Kings about the 49th. Henry III. and used as a makeweight in the scale, to mitigate the deficiency of the crown in its contest with the barons :- -as it seems to me, Sir, that they have adopted this ridiculous doctrine, so zealously propagated by the tories in the time of the Stuarts, either because they believe it or find it serviceable to their theory, the further references I propose to make will, I hope, additionally tend to preserve your readers from being infected with the contagion of an hypothesis, which involves in it the destruction of the whole frame and crasis of our government. In fact, if all the assertions so boldly made by the Reviewers are to be admitted, it may be questioned whether we have, or ever have had, any such thing as a free government; -whether the constitution, about which so much is said and so much has been written, is any thing more than a phantasma of the imagination; an object purely visionary and unattainable; affording entertainment to political theorists, but no real advantage to the community: but this, Sir, I will never allow, and I humbly hope that what has been already advanced, and remains to be advanced, will afford your readers full proof to the contrary. I admit indeed, that these gentlemen are ingenious disputants; their theories are finely spun; but their assertions are very gross, unfounded, and unjustifiable; all their arguments are made to hold by some little obscure word, which it is hoped the reader may overlook; such as an if or a should; -if this and this be, then such and such things are maintained; should this or this happen, then would such and such evils afflict the nation. These ifs and shoulds are the mighty stumbling blocks that are to impede the steps of reform, and arrest the nation in the pursuit of its just

rights;-they may be very properly called the foundation stones of the edifice which the Reviewers have raised with so much labour and art; pull them out, and the whole building will tumble about your ears.

These literary artificers, after all, have not been able to rear any thing better than a sort of card-built edifice; a thing that will not bear the touch; yet have they the vanity to think that they can level with the dust the whole structure of a constitution, which has withstood for many ages the double assaults of time and tyranny, and transfer to their own flimsy fabric its glory and its fame.

66

"

66

The Reviewers say, that down to the time of Henry VIII. or Elizabeth," the constitution of England actually consisted of the separate and uncompounded elements of king, lords, and commons, each acting upon a view of its peculiar "interest;"--but they give us to understand, that such a constitution was a mere political phantom, possessing none of the real advantages of a free government; for they observe, that " the King could levy "what he pleased, in a variety of

ways, without the consent of par"liament, and overbear the whole "house of commons and their con"stituents, and compel them to yield "whatever was demanded." After the accession of the house of Stuart the case was (if we believe these gentlemen) as bad, if not worse; for they tell us plainly, that during "the reign of the Stuarts, the at

66

66

tempt made to adhere to the theory "of the constitution, produced the de"struction of the monarchy and the "death of the King." So that you see, Mr. Editor, we have had, according to these gentlemen, nothing but theory all along there has, in their opinion, been nothing real in the business, but the calamities which this unfortunate theory brought upon the nation, and which were no less than the destruction of the mu

narchy, and the death of that blessed martyr Charles I. Well may the Reviewers plume themselves upon their own metaphysics, which, to do them justice, do not appear to possess so deleterious and king-killing a tendency, as this plaguy theory does of " king, lords, and commons, "each acting upon a view of its own peculiar interest;" for which, I think, Sir, they ought nevertheless to take shame to themselves; for were they not like three passengers embarked in the same vessel, did they not see themselves exposed to one common danger, and ought they not to have discovered that they had a common interest? But I pray you, Mr. Editor, to remark, how gingerly our Reviewers can express themselves when they see occasion. It was truly, the attempt to adhere to the theory, that proved so fatal to monarchy, not an attempt to give the people the reality of the constitution; no, Sir, of this Charles Stuart was never supposed to he guilty! but the inference which the Reviewers would draw is, that a constitution composed of king, lords, and commons, is not only an impracticable, but a dangerous thing; and therefore, after shewing that influence would have safely accomplished for Charles what he ruined himself by attempting to effect by means of prerogative, they triumphantly conclude the paragraph by remarking, that at last "the reign of influence and regular freedom began, and the true principles of the constitution were recognised;" which is but another way of saying, that corruption, and bribery are the true principles of the constitution!

66

46

66

As for the real constitution, it is very plain that the Reviewers have never looked for it; nay, that they have even shut their eyes against it: they did not look for a free parliament, speaking the voice of the nation, which a British Sovereign is by duty bound to listen to and respect; but

they looked for a slavish and obsequious thing ministering to the am-1 bition, the caprices, or the vices of a court; and they found that prerogative was not so effectual a means of producing such a thing, in Charles's time, as influence has been since ; and in this I readily concur with them; but I will never accede to these gentlemen, that Charles owed his misfortunes to the impracticability of the constitution; to the circumstance of having free parliaments, neither influenced by bribery, or brow-beaten by authority; for such ought all parliaments to be; and if we cannot have such, it would be much better to have none at all. Charles's parliaments were constitutional, but his assumed prerogative was not in theory, its pretensions were not even allowed to be questioned; and in practice, it produced the most complete despotism; it subverted the fundamental laws of the kingdóm, and violated his coronation oath; finally, it was the cause of his death, respecting which, the constitution of our government has nothing to answer for, although that misfortune, which was entirely owing to himself, has been often used to create a jealousy of the popular part of it; seldom however has that jealousy been carried so far, even by tory writers, as it has in the present instance, by these professed whigs, who hold out as a lesson to our Kings, that they may be in danger of sharing the fate of Charles Stuart by an attempt to adhere to the theory of our constitution!"*

66

*The following quotation shews what the Reviewers conceive to have been the state of the nation before the time of the Stuarts, when they pretend the commons had no effective power; and what they conceive to have been afterwards the consequence of that power becoming effective as they call it, in Charles's time; it is a curious chain of argumentative

misrepresentation to shew that the people ought not to have their due weight in

The power of the monarch over the vassals of his own domain in feudal times, did extend to the raising of money "in a variety of ways," which could not be practiced over the nation at large, whose right it always has been, never to be taxed but by their own consent: I acknowledge that parliaments were some times tricked, and sometimes bullied,

the legislature, and that free parliaments uninfluenced by gold or prerogative, are dangerous things.

"These propositions might be copiously illustrated by the whole history of the English government, ever since the increasing weight and consequence of the commons gave them an effective power in the proceedings of the legislature. While the Sovereign lived on his royal demesnes, and wars were supported by knights' service; I while there were scarcely any taxes, and the business of legislation was settled in a few days in each year, the house of commons had little to do but to vote a scanty supply, and sometimes to accompany it by a remonstrance of no terror nor authority, The Sovereign, in the first place, could do without the supply, if it should be actually withheld; in the second place, he could levy what he pleased, in a variety of ways, without the consent of that assembly; and, finally, he and his nobles and their retainers, for whose equipment it was wanted, could at any time easily overbear the whole house of commons and their constituents, and compel them to yield whatever was demanded. This state of things lasted till the time of Henry the Eighth, or Elizabeth; down to which period the constitution of England actually consisted of the separate and uncompounded elements of King, Lords, and Commons, each acting upon a view of its peculiar interest. The growing importance of the commons, and the wants of the government, made a praçtical change necessary in the reign of the Stewarts; and the attempt to adhere to the theory of the constitution produced the destruction of the monarchy and the death of the King. Mr. Laing, in his late accurate and profound history, has pointed out this distinctly as the cause of these unhappy convulsions. The King, he observes, ruined himself and the country, by standing on his prerogative,

before the practice was introduced of purchasing them; but I am surprised that any man should allude to such incidents by way of proving, that we never had a free constitution: I acknowledge, that the bul warks of our freedom have not always proved impregnable; I even admit that corruption has done by stratagem, what prerogative could

and neglecting the means of influencing the parliament. He made various efforts, indeed, to seduce and gain over the most formidable of the popular leaders in that assembly; but he chose, most absurdly, to proclaim his triumph, by making them immediately desist from that occupation, and enlisting them as open advocates of his prerogative. Instead of submitting to receive the popular leaders as his ministers, and in this way bringing all the weight of the royal influence to bear through that commanding channel upon the parliament, he never promoted them to office till they had lost all power and popularity by an avowed desertion to the separate party of the King; and thus, by allowing the commons to carry every thing before them in their own house, and then opposing the naked walls of his prerogative to the full shock of that unbridled current, he invited a contest, that, even in those days, proved ruinons to himself and to the constitution. The same principle of mis-government, aided, indeed by baser practices on a baser genera tion, lasted down till the revolution; when, as is universally acknowledged, the true principles of the constitution were first recognized, and the reign of INFLUENCE and regular freedom began!

"With these impressions, then, not only of the harmlessness, but of the vital necessity of a certain infusion of royal and aristocratical influence in that assembly which virtually engrosses the whole power of the legislature, it will easily be understood, that we have no great indulgence for those notions of reform, which seem to be uppermost in the minds of some of its warmest supporters; and that we should consider such a change in the constitution of that house, as Sir F. Burdett and Mr. Cobbett. appear to think essential to its purity, as by far the greatest calamity which could be inflicted upon us by our own hands.”—Ed.R.p. 301,

not do by force; and that at present, it has insinuated itself into the Sanctum Sanctorum of the constitution; but I will not therefore say, that our constitution is gone, much less that it has never existed:-The fabric still remains; it may be defiled, but it is not destroyed;---had it never been, it could never have been polluted; and to know that it is polluted, we must know what it ought to be, and what it is our duty to do in order to cleanse it. We are told that the temple of Jerusalem became a den of thieves; still it was the temple of Jerusalem; and so our Saviour considered it, when he drove out of it the money changers and sellers of doves. Except on this particular occasion his whole life was one continued lesson of suffering and forgiveness; but by his example in assaulting and driving forcibly out of the temple those who defiled it, he has taught us that there are injuries which it would be even criminal to pardon, and which ought to be opposed by energy, courage, and perseverance.

It is not an easy matter, Mr. Editor, to ascertain the nature of our government, according to the conceptions of these gentlemen; but it is very easy to see, that their idea of

it is not at all conformable to our charters and law-books. The political union of King, Lords and Commons they entirely reject; they seem to entertain the same idea of it that the ancients did of a Chaos; it is a sort of ruda indigestaque moles where hot and cold and all the elementary principles contend together. Fortunately, about the year 1688, an omnipotent power, called influence, extracted order and beauty and harmony from this chaos! But when we would inform ourselves respect ing this creative power, which hath done such wonders, how great is our disappointment, to find, that it is something that will not suffer itself to be known; something that

shuns the face of open day, and like a conscience-struck criminal hides itself in darkness and concealment; so that we are as much bewildered as ever in our inquiries into the systems of these political theorists, which, as Sir Francis Burdett ex presses it, still elude our grasp.

This difficulty of defining what is meant by the constitution, in the vocabulary of visionary politicians, statesmen &c. reminds me of the dispute between Hudibras and his man Ralpho about honour. The Knight defined honour to be

-Like that glassy bubble, That gives philosophers such trouble, Whose least part crack'd the whole [does fly, And wits are crack'd to find out why. Quoth Ralpho, honour's but a word To swear by, only in a Lord, In other men 'tis but a huff, To vapour with instead of proof, That like a wen looks big and swells Is senseless, and just nothing else. Let it, quoth be, be what it will, It has the world's opinion still. Thus, Sir, we find that there are many things that have the world's opinion still, though the world cannot agree what it is they understand by them. This is exactly the case between the Edinburgh Reviewers and your humble servant, in respect to the constitution, which they praise, because they consider it as a mere theory, and the perfection of it to consist in influence, and which I praise because I hold it to be something directly the reverse. If I conceived it to be in reality what they say it is, I should call it a glassy bubble, of no use whatever but to crack the wits of such metaphysical politicians as themselves, or a word for ministers and mock patriots to vapour with, as Ralpho terms it, or else a wen that looks big and swells, is senseless-and just nothing else! I would liken it, to a tale told by "an ideot,full of sound and fury,but "signifying nothing."I do not mean to say that the Edinburgh Reviewers have told such a tale; no Sir, there

66