Part 12

So that, unless these prejudices are corrected by the knowledge of our constitutional history, there is constant reason to apprehend, not only that the royal authority may stretch itself beyond due bounds; but may grow, at length, into that enormous tyranny, from which this nation hath been at other times so happily, and now of late so wonderfully, redeemed.

But I suffer myself to be carried by these reflexions much further than I designed. I would only say to you, that, having sometimes reflected very seriously on this subject, it was with the highest pleasure I heard it discoursed of the other day by two of the most accomplished lawyers of our age: the venerable Sir JOHN MAYNARD, who, for a long course of years, hath maintained the full credit and dignity of his profession; and Mr. SOMERS, who, though a young man, is rising apace, and with proportionable merits, into all the honours of it.

I was very attentive, as you may suppose, to the progress of this remarkable conversation; and, as I had the honour to bear a full share in it myself, I may the rather undertake to give you a particular account of it. I know the pleasure it will give you to see a subject, you have much at heart, and which we have frequently talked over in the late times, thoroughly, canvassed, and cleared up; as I think it must be, to your entire satisfaction.

It was within a day or two after that great event, so pleasing to all true _Englishmen_, THE CORONATION OF THEIR MAJESTIES[110], that Mr. SOMERS and I went; as we sometimes used, to pass an evening with our excellent friend, my Lord Commissioner[111]. I shall not need to attempt his character to you, who know him so well. It is enough to say, that his faculties and spirits are, even in this maturity of age, in great vigour. And it seems as if this joyful Revolution, so agreeable to his hopes and principles, had given a fresh spring and elasticity to both.

The conversation of course turned on the late august ceremony; the mention of which awakened a sort of rapture in the good old man, which made him overflow in his meditations upon it. Seeing us in admiration of the zeal which transported him, “Bear with me, said he, my young friends. Age, you know, hath its privilege. And it may be, I use it somewhat unreasonably. But I, who have seen the prize of liberty contending for through half a century, to find it obtained at last by a method so sure, and yet so unexpected, do you think it possible that I should contain myself on such an occasion? Oh, if ye had lived with me in those days, when such mighty struggles were made for public freedom, when so many wise counsels miscarried, and so many generous enterprises concluded but in the confirmation of lawless tyranny; if, I say, ye had lived in those days, and now at length were able to contrast with me, to the tragedies that were then acted, this safe, this bloodless, this complete deliverance: I am mistaken, if the youngest of you could reprove me for this joy, which makes me think I can never say enough on so delightful a subject.

BP. BURNET.

Reprove you, my lord? Alas! we are neither of us so unexperienced in what hath passed of late in these kingdoms, as not to rejoice with you to the utmost for this astonishing deliverance. You know I might boast of being among the first that wished for, I will not say projected, the measures by which it hath been accomplished. And for Mr. SOMERS, the church of _England_ will tell——

MR. SOMERS.

I confess, my warmest wishes have ever gone along with those who conducted this noble enterprise. And I pretend to as sincere a pleasure as any man, in the completion of it. Yet, if we were not unreasonable at such a time, I might be tempted to mention one circumstance, which, I know not how, a little abates the joy of these triumphant gratulations.

SIR J. MAYNARD.

Is not the settlement then to your mind? Or hath any precaution been neglected, which you think necessary for the more effectual security of our liberties?

MR. SOMERS.

Not that. I think the provision for the people’s right as ample as needs be desired. Or, if any further restrictions on the crown be thought proper, it will now be easy for the people, in a regular parliamentary way, to effect it. What I mean is a consideration of much more importance.

BP. BURNET.

The pretended prince of WALES, you think, will be raising some disturbance, or alarm at least, to the new government. I believe, I may take upon me to give you perfect satisfaction upon that subject[112].

MR. SOMERS.

Still your conjectures fall short or wide of my meaning. Our new MAGNA CHARTA, as I love to call the _Declaration of Rights_, seems a sufficient barrier against any future encroachments of the CROWN. And I think, the pretended prince of WALES, whatever be determined of his birth, a mere phantom, that may amuse, and perhaps disquiet, the weaker sort for a while; but, if left to itself[113], will soon vanish out of the minds of the PEOPLE. Not but I allow that even so thin a pretence as this may, some time or other, be conjured up to disturb the government. But it must be, when a certain set of principles are called in aid to support it. And, to save you the further trouble of guessing, I shall freely tell you, what those _principles_ are.—You will see, in them, the ground of my present fears and apprehensions.

It might be imagined that so necessary a Revolution, as that which hath taken place, would sufficiently approve itself to all reasonable men. And it appears, in fact, to have done so, now that the public injuries are fresh, and the general resentment of them strong and lively. But it too often happens, that when the evil is once removed, it is presently forgotten: and in matters of government especially, where the people rarely think till they are made to feel, when the grievance is taken away, the false system easily returns, and sometimes with redoubled force, which had given birth to it.

BP. BURNET.

One can readily admit the principles. But the conclusion, you propose to draw from them—

MR. SOMERS.

This very important one, “That, if the late change of government was brought about, and can be defended only, on the principles of liberty; the settlement, introduced by it, can be thought secure no longer than while those principles are rightly understood, and generally admitted.”

BP. BURNET.

But what reason is there to apprehend that these principles, so commonly professed and publickly avowed, will not continue to be kept up in full vigour?

MR. SOMERS.

Because, I doubt, they are so commonly and publickly avowed, only to serve a present turn; and not because they come from the heart, or are entertained on any just ground of conviction.

BP. BURNET.

Very likely: and considering the pains that have been taken to possess the minds of men with other notions of government, the wonder is, how they came to be entertained at all. Yet surely the experience of better times may be expected to do much. Men will of course think more justly on these subjects in proportion as they find themselves more happy. And thus the principles, which, as you say, were first pretended to out of necessity, will be followed out of choice, and bound upon them by the conclusions of their own reason.

MR. SOMERS.

I wish your lordship be not too sanguine in these expectations. It is not to be conceived how insensible the people are to the blessings they enjoy, and how easily they forget their past miseries. So that, if their principles have not taken deep root, I would not answer for their continuing much longer than it served their purpose to make a shew of them.

SIR J. MAYNARD.

I must confess, that all my experience of mankind inclines me to this opinion. I could relate to you some strange instances of the sort Mr. SOMERS hints at. But after all, Sir, you do not indulge these apprehensions, on account of the general fickleness of human nature. You have some more particular reasons for concluding that the system of liberty, which hath worked such wonders of late, is not likely to maintain its ground amongst us.

MR. SOMERS.

I have: and I was going to explain those reasons, if my lord of SALISBURY had not a little diverted me from the pursuit of them.

It is very notorious from the common discourse of men even on this great occasion (and I wish it had not appeared too evidently in the debates of the houses), that very many of us have but crude notions of the form of government under which we live, and which hath been transmitted to us from our forefathers. I have met with persons of no mean rank, and supposed to be well seen in the history of the kingdom, who speak a very strange language. They allow, indeed, that something was to be done in the perilous circumstances into which we had fallen. But, when they come to explain themselves, it is in a way that leaves us no _right_ to do any thing; at least, not what it was found expedient for the nation to do at this juncture. For they contend in so many words, “that the crown of _England is absolute_; that the form of government is an _entire and simple monarchy_; and that so it hath continued to be in every period of it down to the Abdication: that the CONQUEST, at least, to ascend no higher, invested the FIRST WILLIAM in absolute dominion; that from him it devolved of course upon his successors; and that all the pretended rights of the people, the GREAT CHARTERS of ancient and modern date, were mere usurpations on the prince, extorted from him by the necessity of his affairs, and revocable at his pleasure: nay, they insinuate that parliaments themselves were the creatures of his will; that their privileges were all derived from the sovereign’s grant; and that they made no part in the original frame and texture of the _English_ government.

In support of this extraordinary system, they refer us to the constant tenor of our history. They speak of the Conqueror, as proprietary of the whole kingdom: which accordingly, they say, he parcelled out, as he saw fit, in grants to his _Norman_ and _English_ subjects: that, through his partial consideration of the church, and an excessive liberality to his favoured servants, this distribution was so ill made, as to give occasion to all the broils and contentions that followed: that the churchmen began their unnatural claim of independency on the crown; in which attempt they were soon followed by the encroaching and too powerful barons: that, in these struggles, many flowers of the crown were rudely torn from it, till a sort of truce was made, and the rebellious humour somewhat composed, by the extorted articles of RUNNING-MEDE: that these confusions, however, were afterwards renewed, and even increased, by the contests of the two houses of YORK and LANCASTER: but that, upon the union of the roses in the person of HENRY VII, these commotions were finally appeased, and the crown restored to its ancient dignity and lustre: that, indeed, the usage of parliaments, with some other forms of popular administration, which had been permitted in the former irregular reigns, was continued; but of the mere grace of the prince, and without any consequence to his prerogative: that succeeding kings, and even HENRY himself, considered themselves as possessed of an imperial crown; and that, though they might sometimes condescend to take the advice, they were absolutely above the control, of the people: in short, that the law itself was but the will of the prince, declared in parliament; or rather solemnly received and attested there, for the better information and more entire obedience of the subject.

This they deliver as a just and fair account of the _English_ government; the genius of which, they say, is absolute and despotic in the highest degree; as much so, at least, as that of any other monarchy in _Europe_. They ask, with an air of insult, what restraint our HENRY VIII, and our admired ELIZABETH, would ever suffer to be put on their prerogative; and they mention with derision the fancy of dating the high pretensions of the crown from the accession of the STUART family. They affirm, that JAMES I, and his son, aimed only to continue the government on the footing on which they had received it; that their notions of it were authorized by constant fact; by the evidence of our histories; by the language of parliaments; by the concurrent sense of every order of men amongst us: and that what followed in the middle of this century was the mere effect of POPULAR, as many former disorders had been of PATRICIAN, violence. In a word, they conclude with saying, that the old government revived again at the RESTORATION, just as, in like circumstances, it had done before at the UNION of the two houses: that, in truth, the voluntary desertion of the late king have given a colour to the innovation of the present year; but that, till this new settlement was made, the _English_ constitution, as implying something different from pure monarchy, was an unintelligible notion, or rather a mere whimsy, that had not the least foundation in truth or history.”

This is a summary of the doctrines, which, I doubt, are too current amongst us. I do not speak of the bigoted adherents to the late king; but of many cooler and more disinterested men, whose _religious_ principles, as I suppose (for it appears it could not be their _political_), had engaged them to concur in the new settlement. You will judge, then, if there be not reason to apprehend much mischief from the prevalence and propagation of such a system: a system, which, as being, in the language of the patrons of it, founded upon _fact_, is the more likely to impose upon the people; and, as referring to the practice of ancient times, is not for every man’s confutation. I repeat it, therefore; if this notion of the despotic form of our government become general, I tremble to think what effect it may hereafter produce on the minds of men; especially when joined to that false tenderness, which the people of _England_ are so apt to entertain for their princes, even the worst of them, under misfortune. I might further observe, that this prerogative system hath a direct tendency to produce, as well as heighten, this compassion to the sovereign. And I make no scruple to lay it before you with all its circumstances, because I know to whom I speak, and that I could not have wished for a better opportunity of hearing it confuted.

BP. BURNET.

I must own, though I was somewhat unwilling to give way to such melancholy apprehensions at this time, I think with Mr. SOMERS, there is but too much reason to entertain them. For my own part, I am apt to look no further for the _right_ of the legislature to settle the government in their own way, than their own free votes and resolutions. For, being used to consider all political power as coming originally from the people, it seems to me but fitting that they should dispose of that power for their own use, in what hands, and under what conditions, they please. Yet, as much regard is due to established forms and ancient prescription, I think the matter of _fact_ of great consequence; and, if the people in general should once conceive of it according to this representation, I should be very anxious for the issue of so dangerous an opinion. I must needs, therefore, join very entirely with Mr. SOMERS, in wishing to hear the whole subject canvassed, or rather finally determined, as it must be, if Sir JOHN MAYNARD will do us the pleasure to acquaint us what his sentiments are upon it.

SIR J. MAYNARD.

Truly, my good friends, you have opened a very notable cause, and in good form. Only, methinks, a little less solemnity, if you had so pleased, might have better suited the occasion. Why, I could almost laugh, to hear you talk of feats and dangers from a phantom of your own raising. I certainly believe the common proverb belies us; and that old age is not that dastardly thing it hath been represented. For, instead of being terrified by this conceit of a prescriptive right in our sovereigns to tyrannize over the subject, I am ready to think the contrary so evident from the constant course of our history, that the simplest of the people are in no hazard of falling into the delusion. I should rather have apprehended mischief from other quarters; from the influence of certain speculative points, which have been to successfully propagated of late; and chiefly from those pernicious glosses, which too many of my order have made on the letter or the law, and too many of yours, my lord of SALISBURY, on that of the gospel. Trust me, if the matter once came to a question of FACT, and the inquiry be only concerning ancient form and precedent, the decision will be in our favour. And for yourselves, I assure myself, this decision is already made. But since you are willing to put me upon the task, and we have leisure enough for such an amusement, I shall very readily undertake it. And the rather, as I have more than once in my life had occasion to go to the bottom of this inquiry; and now very lately have taken a pleasure to reflect on the general evidence which history affords of our free constitution, and to review the scattered hints and passages I had formerly set down for my private satisfaction.

“I understand the question to be, not under what _form_ the government hath appeared at some particular conjunctures, but what we may conclude it to have been from the general current and tenor of our histories. More particularly, I conceive, you would ask, not whether the _administration_ hath not at some seasons been DESPOTIC, but whether the _genius_ of the government hath not at all times been FREE. Or, if you do not think the terms, in which I propose the question, strict enough, you will do well to state it in your own way, that hereafter we may have no dispute about it.

BP. BURNET.

I suppose, the question, as here put, is determinate enough for our purpose.—Or, have you, Mr. SOMERS, any exceptions to make to it?

MR. SOMERS.

I believe we understand each other perfectly well; the question being only this, “Whether there be any ground in history, to conclude that the prince hath a constitutional claim to absolute uncontrolable dominion; or, whether the liberty of the subject be not essential to every different form, under which the _English_ government hath appeared?”

SIR J. MAYNARD.

You expect of me then to shew, in opposition to the scheme just now delivered by you, that neither from the original constitution of the government, nor from the various forms (for they have, indeed, been various) under which it hath been administered, is there any reason to infer, that the _English_ monarchy is, or of right ought to be, despotic and unlimited.

Now this I take to be the easiest of all undertakings; so very easy, that I could trust a plain man to determine the matter for himself by the light that offers itself to him from the slightest of our histories. ’Tis true, the deeper his researches go, his conviction will be the clearer; as any one may see by dipping into my friend NAT. BACON’S discourses; where our free constitution is set forth with that evidence, as must for ever have silenced the patrons of the other side, if he had not allowed himself to strain some things beyond what the truth, or indeed his cause, required. But, saving to myself the benefit of his elaborate work, I think it sufficient to take notice, that the system of liberty is supported even by that short sketch of our history, which Mr. SOMERS hath laid before us; and in spite of the disguises, with which, as he tells us, the enemies of liberty have endeavoured to cloak it.

You do not, I am sure, expect from me, that I should go back to the elder and more remote parts of our history; that I should take upon me to investigate the scheme of government, which hath prevailed in this kingdom from the time that the _Roman_ power departed from us; or that I should even lay myself out in delineating, as many have done, the plan of the _Saxon_ constitution: though such an attempt might not be unpleasing, nor altogether without its use, as the _principles_ of the _Saxon_ policy, and in some respects the _form_ of it, have been constantly kept up in every succeeding period of the _English_ monarchy. I content myself with observing, that the spirit of liberty was predominant in those times: and, for proof of it, appeal at present only to one single circumstance, which you will think remarkable. Our _Saxon_ ancestors conceived so little of government, by the will of the magistrate, without fixed laws, that LAGA, or LEAGA, which in their language first and properly signified the same as LAW with us, was transferred[114] very naturally (for language always conforms itself to the genius, temper, and manners of a nation) to signify a country, district, or province; these good people having no notion of any inhabited country not governed by laws. Thus DÆNA-LAGA; MERKENA-LAGA; and WESTSEXENA-LAGA, were not only used in their laws and history to signify the _laws_ of the _Danes_, _Mercians_, and _West-Saxons_, but the _countries_ likewise. Of which usage I could produce to you many instances, if I did not presume that, for so small a matter as this, my mere word might be taken.

You see then how fully the spirit of liberty possessed the very language of our _Saxon_ forefathers. And it might well do so; for it was of the essence of the _German_ constitutions; a just notion of which (so uniform was the genius of the brave people that planned them) may be gathered, you know, from what the _Roman_ historians, and, above all, from what TACITUS hath recorded of them.

But I forbear so common a topic: and, besides, I think myself acquitted of this task, by the prudent method, which the defenders of the regal power have themselves taken in conducting this controversy. For, as conscious of the testimony which the _Saxon_ times are ready to bear against them, they are wise enough to lay the foundation of their system in the CONQUEST. They look, no higher than that event for the origin of the _constitution_, and think they have a notable advantage over us in deducing their notion of the _English_ government from the form it took in the hands of the _Norman_ invader. But is it not pleasant to hear these men calumniate the improvements that have been made from time to time in the plan of our civil constitution with the name of _usurpations_, when they are not ashamed to erect the _constitution_ itself on what _they_ must esteem, at least, a great and manifest usurpation?

BP. BURNET.

CONQUEST, I suppose, in their opinion, gives _right_. And since an inquiry into the origin of a constitution requires that we fix _somewhere_, considering the vast alterations introduced by the Conquest, and that we have never pretended to reject, but only to improve and complete, the duke of NORMANDY’S establishment; I believe it may be as proper to set out from that æra as from any other.

SIR J. MAYNARD.