Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

principles never ripened into a science. Ma- of all the circumstances of climate and of nachiavel himself affords a strong confirmation of this averment.

We shall not renew the controversy concerning the true character of the political writings of Machiavel; they are now literary curiosities, to which no politician ventures to refer. He lived, according to Hume, in too early an age of the world to be a good judge of political truth. There is no necessity at this day for recurring to a writer, with whom the Prince, not the People, constituted the object of consideration,t

The reformation in religion became the origin of political freedom in Europe, and ultimately of political speculation. Would it not be more correctly stated, that the disposition to think for themselves, which the revi. val, however slow, of learning, generated in men, appeared first in matters of religion, but soon extended itself to politics and civil institutions? Yet it may assuredly be said, that the sanction, necessarily, but not always purposely, given to free inquiry, by the adoption of the principles of the Reformation, or some of them, in high places, gave great encourage ment to freedom of thought in matters of civil government.

In the United Netherlands, the creature of the Reformation, the desire of deliverance from religious and from civil tyranny went hand in hand; and, accordingly, we are told (p. 122) this country produced the celebrated treatise on war and peace by Grotius, by which he was "led into researches into the natural rights of man."+

John Bodin, a writer very little known in England, (though his work was translated by Knolles, whose history of the Turks has been lauded by Johnson,) is mentioned (p. 125) as the first writer who materially advanced the science of civil government, and was no unworthy precursor of Montesquieu. He was the first who, carefully avoiding to set up any perfect ideal constitution, gave an explanation

* Essay, xii. Works, iii. 99.

+ See on Machiavel, Dugald Stewart's Introduction to the Encyclopedia; and some remarks in Edinburgh Review, xlv. 289.

Grotius only treats this subject incidentally, and it is not quite fair to quote his authority. His notion is, that a people may give themselves up as subjects to a king, as a man might, by the Hebrew or Roman law, give himself up as a slave. And he appears to think that where such a contract is made there is no case for resisance. Grotius was born in 1583, and published his work in 1625. See b. 1, c. 3. Grotius fre

quently refers to Aristotle, but does not follow

him.

"Of the Laws and Customs of a Commonwealth, &c. written by J. Bodin, a famous Lawyer, and a man of great experience in matters of State. done into English by Richard Knolles, 1605."

tional peculiarities, whether mental or bodily, which ought to be considered in framing the constitution of a state. These appeared for instance, in the preference of the Venetians for an aristocracy, and of the Florentines for a democracy: yet Bodin appears to approve of none but a monarchical government. His chief peculiarity consists in his rejection of all mixed constitutions, and the adoption of a rather extraordinary principle of mixture in administrations; thus—

"As of unity dependeth the union of all members, which have no power but from it, so also is one sovereign person in every commonwealth necessary, from the power of whom all others orderly depend. But as there cannot be good music wherein there is not some discord, which must of necessity be intermingled to give the better grace unto harmony, which the good musician does to make the concert of the fourth, the fifth, and the eighth, the more pleasing and tunable, some discord running before which may make the concert much more sweet unto the ear; as do also cunning cooks, who to give the better taste tain dishes of sharp and unsavory sauces; unto their good meats, serve in therewith cerand as the cunning painter to grace his picture, and to give the greater show unto his brighter colors, still shadoweth the same with black, or some other dark color, (for that the nature of all things in the world is such, as to lose their grace, if they taste not sometimes of disgrace, and that pleasure always continpleasant); so also, is it necessary that there uing becometh unsavory, dangerous, and unshould be some fools among wsie men, some unworthy of their charge amongst men of great experience, and some evil and vicious men amongst the good and virtuous, to give them the greater lustre, and to make the difference known (even by the pointing of his finger, and the sight of the eye) between virtue and vice, knowledge and ignorance."-p. 791.

We shall not inquire whether in the construction of any modern Divans, or Chancelleries, the rule of this Frenchman has been followed; "Bodin's work did not attain to that practical influence which," as Heeren thinks, "it deserved." We own that we deem it wor. thily consigned to oblivion; it is not unneces. sary to refer to the low state of political philosophy in France during the seventeenth cen. tury, to account for its failure of effect. Indeed it is not very easy to say, what fruit it would have produced if it had fallen upon a genial soil.

*

It was in England, in Heeren's correct opinion, that theories of government were destined to flourish;† there the feudal cus

* Bodin was born in 1530; his work was published in 1577.

+ P. 128. The small state of Geneva alone disputes with it the pre-eminence.

toms fell rapidly in disuse, and the vassals] The omission to notice this systematic obtained privileges which by degrees ripen-writer on polity is the more remarkable, ed into a final warrant of their liberties in as the professor observes, that the troubles Magna Charta (1215). The British con- in England (at the commencement of the stitution assumed its peculiar character be- seventeenth century) were more favorable fore those of France and Spain; from "the than similar events in other countries to "the different shape which rank assumed in Eng-development of political speculations" (p. land, the variety of relations which existed 132) because they did not arise altogether between the nobles and the commons, and from practical grievances, but "depended by means of which it became possible to from the first upon theoretical points of disconstitute the lower House in such a form pute."-(p. 133) The Stuarts, he says, as it afterwards assumed." enunciated their high monarchical princi He speaks particularly of the more com- ples. Elizabeth had acted upon them, but plete separation of the higher and lower no-was too wise to bring them before the pubbility, which produced the union of the lat lic. Yet it is somewhat remarkable that ter with the middle orders, so as to form one two of King James's speeches to parliament house with them.* There was thus an as- are quoted by Locke,* for their correct exsembly which needed only a confluence position of the position and duty of a king. of fortunate events to give it life, and breathe Heeren passes lightly over the civil wars, sentiments of freedom into the people. This but says that all circumstances contributed the Reformation effected."-(p. 132.) to advance political speculations to the Although Heeren refers to the reign of utmost. And the desire to found their pracElizabeth, as developing the political great- tical reforms upon theoretical principles apness of England, which tended ultimately peared in the declaration issued by the parto political freedom, he takes no notice of liament after the death of Charles I.; the distinguished English writer who laid the foundation of those theories of government which, in the succeeding century, became predominant. The work of Richard Hooker was published within twenty years of that of Bodin; and therein first, so far as we know, is to be found the doctrine of the original contract.t

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

wherein "they supposed it would not be denied that the first institution of the office of a King in this nation was by agreement of the people, who chose one to that office, for the protection and good of them who chose him, and for their better government, according to such laws as they did consent unto."+

As a specimen of the almost incredible extent to which kingly writers carried their positions, Heeren mentions the patriarcha of Sir Robert Filmer, who deduced monarchy in hereditary succession from Adam and the patriarchs. This foolish book has been long ago forgotten.

In regard to the peculiarities to which Heeren apparently refers in these passages, the reader is requested to consult the eighth chapter of Hallam's Middle Ages, (ii. 476, and also iii. 56). The lower nobility, or those whom we denominate the gentry, including the younger sons of peers, did not possess any of the privileges apHe speaks more highly of Hobbes," who pertaining to the higher nobility, and so soon as very different the Commons sat in a separate House, the knights defended his opinion with of shires were associated not with the lords, but weapons." His theory was, that men in a with the burgesses. An assembly representing state of nature were in continual hostility, a body of this mixed description, was necessarily and fear made them form themselves into more powerful and less dangerous than one representing a mass from which all men of noble civil society by some specific agreement birth, and the greater proportion of landed pro- hence the state is founded upon a compact.' prietors, were excluded. Hallam refers to For- Though Hobbes's theory did not exclude tescue (ch. 9, Amos, p. 26,) for illustration of the free spirit of the English Constitution in the time an aristocracy or a democracy (if by compact. of Edward IV. Fortescue's work is unquestion- and unmixed), he preferred a despotic moably most valuable and interesting; but surely narchy. Mr. Amos, the editor of Fortescue, goes too far

[ocr errors]

A second English writer well known, when he cites the passages in which the King's but little regarded, of whom Heeren takes inability to tax the people, without their consent, in proof of the fundamental principle in the Eng- no notice, is Harington. His theory ran lish constitution, that "no man can be compelled to relinquish his property without his consent." Fortescue's people are represented by the House of Commons as constituted in his time.-Hallam also refers to Philip de Comines, (b. 4, c. 1, and b. 5, c. 19, in Petitot, xii. 101 and 299,) for the estimation in which our constitution was held by a counsellor of Louis XI.

+ See the first book of the Ecclesiastical Polity, published in 1597, and various passages quoted by Locke in his treatise on government.

B. 2, ch. 18, sec. 200. Speeches of March 19, 1603, Parl. Hist. 1, 985, and one in 1609, On the former we have which we cannot trace. made some remarks in our Vol. XIX. + Parl. Hist. iii. 1293. We are indebted to the English translator of Heeren for pointing out this passage.

P. 137. Hobbes was born in 1588, and died in 1679; De Cive was published in 1642.

chiefly upon an agrarian or property law; and seventeenth centuries not one succeeded; his object being to prevent an overwhelming and Sidney's work is creditably distinguishpower or influence from large possessions. ed from theirs, by having less of fiction and His commonwealth was founded on the fancy. Although a strong republican spiprinciple of rotation as well as election, in regard both to deputies and to officers. Still he recognised a distinction of men according to property. The horse. (or equestrian order) included all persons having more than 1007. a year. Hobbes and Harington may pair off; a man may be an excellent statesman* without reading a word of either.†

rit pervades his book, Sidney admits that a pure democracy is practicable only in a small town, and he gives the preference to a mixed government, of monarchy, aristocracy and democracy. His authority was quoted by the federalists in America, in opposition to the more violent republicans.* He makes his king subordinate to the law, (as he unquestionably is,) and accountable We should have expected to hear some- to the people in extreme cases; but these thing of Puffendorff, whose great work is derogations from the majesty of kings are still quoted, though not often in reference expressed in strong and disrespectful terms, to civil government. This writer devotes such as a man uses who has no great indissome sections to the refutation of Hobbes, position to come to the extremity to which not only for his loose morality, but for his they are applicable. Of the two passages denial of a compact between sovereign and selected as treasonable by Sir Robert Saw. people. Puffendorff's system presumes a yer,t one, if not both, may be said to go compact as the foundation of every govern- technically beyond the law; but when it is ment between king and people, or among remembered, that they were parts of an anall the members of the community-as swer to the assertion of the divine right, and our common law courts sometimes presume absolute irresponsibility of kings, they cana bye-law to regulate elections, or other matters, within corporations. Yet he will not have this called a fiction

We mention these omitted writers, because, with the opinions which we hold, of all these speculations on the origin and foundation of government, we think it fair to show that we have not neglected the great authorities who appear to be against us.

According to Heeren, "Filmer attained to much greater authority than Hobbes," and was accordingly singled out by Sidney and Locke as the worthier enemy. Possibly he was selected even by these celebrated writers, one of whom, at least, was equal to a more powerful antagonist, as af fording the most easy triumph.

Of Algernon Sidney's work, Heeren speaks slightingly. "We may fairly say that his name has done more for it than it has done for his name;" and "the theory of government gained very little at the hands of Sidney," (p. 147). Both these positions are true, and yet the book is a better book than others of which Heeren speaks favorably. One merit of the book is, that it does not set up a "theory of government." Of those who made this attempt in the sixteenth

The lovers of ballot however will find in pp. 54 and 113, (edit. 1747,) a strong recommendation of the ballot, illustrated by an engraving.

Yet Heeren takes much notice of Harington's Essays, VII. and XVI.

Puffendorff holds that no man can be bound by a majority till he has consented so to be. In ch. 8 of book 7, he admits of exceptions to the rule of obeying the supreme power, and very properly limits them to extreme cases.

not be deemed inconsistent with the spirit of a free constitution; though they contemplate a more active and perpetual control on the part of the people, than is consistent with a regular government.

The doctrines of Sir Robert Filmer soon received a death-blow in the famous vote of both Houses of Parliament, affirming an original contract between king and people, and the substitution of a new king for the representative of Adam. To justify this evolution was apparently the object of Locke's celebrated treatise.

So far as it was necessary to this object that he should expose the absurdities of Filmer, his task was easy; not so, the con

* See Adams's Defence of the American Constitution, i. 148.

༈༔

land is delegated unto the parliament. The king "The power originally in the people of Engis subject to the law of God, as he is a man; to the people that makes him a king, inasmuch as subjection, and the parliament judges of the parhe is a king; the law sets a measure unto that ticular cases thereupon arising. He must be content to submit his interest unto theirs, since he is no more than any one of them in any other respect than that he is, by the consent of all, raisdition, he may renounce the crown; But if he reed above any other. If he does not like this conceive it upon that condition (as all magistrates do the power they receive), and swear to perform it, he must expect that the performance will be exacted, or revenge taken by those that he hath betrayed."-" We may therefore change, or take away kings, without breaking any yoke, as that is made a yoke which ought not to be one, the injury is therefore in making or imposing, and there can be none in breaking it."-State Trials, ix. 819. We cannot find these passages in the book itself, Edit. 1772.

dity.

struction of a theory, itself free from absur- English nation, and to have been treated there with such blind respect, as to deter According to that which Locke has fram- other writers from the study of the science ed, the natural state of man is one of perfect of government; and it is not without a polofreedom, equality, and independence, and out gies that he ventures to suggest a deducof this no man can be taken, otherwise than tion from what he calls the undoubted merits by his own consent (ch. 8, sec. 96-7); and of Locke. Yet, in truth, he destroys the this consent, he assumes, implies a consent philosophical character, or at least negatives to be bound by the majority.* He denies, the usefulness of the work, when he achowever, that any man is bound by the con- counts for its being partial and incomplete sent of his father (sec. 118); but if the fa- by its having reference only to one particuther have left to him any land or other pos- lar state. By degrees he gets bolder, and session within the country, and has attached expresses a suspicion, that if the constituto it a condition of allegiance to the state, tions of well governed countries (he inhe is then bound, as if he had given his stances Denmark and Prussia) are not to personal assent (sec. 119). be deemed rightful constitutions, because all As to this implied consent, however, Locke's conditions are not fulfilled, the where there is no inherited property, Locke fault lies rather in the theorist, than in the is not very clear; in one place he attaches states themselves; "and so," he at last it to the mere circumstance of being within sensibly concludes, " and so in truth it does," the territory of the conventional government (p. 155). (sec. 119). Yet in another he affirms that even submission to the laws does not make a man a member of the society; there must be a positive engagement, an express promise and compact (sec. 122).

Another part of his doctrine, of which more use has been made is, that even the supreme power cannot take from any man any part of his property without his own consent, (sec. 138); but this is explained to mean, that all men may be called upon to pay their proportion of the necessary charge of the government; still it must be with their own consent, that is, the consent of the majority, giving it either by themselves, or their representatives chosen by them, (sec. 140).

But Heeren overrates the estimation of Locke's book in England; he supposes it to have been "current, if not among the mass of the people, at least among the wellinformed and educated part," (p. 153).

We suspect that the fact was nearly reversed. Not, perhaps, among the mass, but in the herd of talking and unthinking politicians, the doctrines of Locke were familiarly cited, while they were quietly rejected by more sober and reflecting men.

We are now speaking of the period between the Revolution and the contest with the American Colonies; in this period there was little discussion, and not much thought in England, of original contracts or first principles of government. The Whig party was in power, and had object in putting forward their liberal theories.

no

Heeren has taken little notice of the difficulties attending Locke's theory, and even thinks that it is carried into practical effect in the English Constitution. The philoso- In this interval, however, two continental pher himself, in attempting to reconcile his writers appeared, both very much known, theory with the practice of his country, but not either of them now very much folfound one difficulty in the imperfections of lowed. These were Montesquieu and our parliamentary representation, and even Rousseau. starts a doubt whether any power within About the middle of the eighteenth the state could so far depart from the form century "the spirit of the French nation of government established by the original received a sudden impulse from the hand. contract, as to remedy these imperfections. of one who became to the French what He was frightened by his own creature. Locke was to the English." The "Esprit However, he gets over this difficulty of his des Loix" of Montesquieu obtained at once own formation, and is clearly an advocate a great influence; yet Heeren asks the for parliamentary reform, though still it rather disrespectful question, "what is the ought, according to him, to emanate from real worth of this book, and what has been the sovereign, who calls the parliament. effected by it?" (p. 164). We have no con cern with this celebrated work, except in as far as it treats of the principles of government, and we entirely agree with Heeren, that although Montesquieu has afforded. much matter of thought, he has not very clearly developed the first principles of the

Heeren supposes Locke's treatise to be applicable without modification to England, and to have become the text-book of the

* He says, this is always implied, and seems think a community could not go on else.

science of government; all that is practical The colonists quoted Montesquieu* for in this part of the book is a laudatory de- the natural right of self government, and scription of the Constitution of England. they claimed, as Englishmen, to be delivered "If therefore," says Heeren, "the idea of a from "taxation without representation ;" and monarchy limited by representation of the from the commencement of this contest it people, became cherished by the greater may be truly said, that part of the people of France, as the result of the first national assembly proved to be the case, this must be mainly attributed, next to the example supplied by England, to the work of Montesquieu."

The causes of the French Revolution are too large a subject for an incidental opinion here; but we must disclaim, on the part of England, any fellowship with even the earliest of the constitutions, which that Revolution produced. The Revolutionists showed from the beginning, that they went far beyond England or Montesquieu. Indeed, Heeren himself says that it was the "Contrat social" of Rousseau, that became the text-book of revolution; a work assuredly containing principles neither warranted by the examples of England, nor enforced by Montesquieu.

One of Heeren's remarks upon Rousseau satisfies us that it is unnecessary to follow him through the rest. Not only was the book one of "pure speculation," but the little state of Geneva was the only one in which its principles could, to their full extent, become applicable, (p. 172). It is enough that we recollect, that Rousseau was the advocate of a purely popular government, and yet abhorred representation.

From the mode in which Heeren speaks of "the example of England, as operating upon France, it appears that he referred to the old English Constitution and its admira ble working. But he takes no notice of the transactions between England and her Colo nies, which are supposed to have contributed to the French Revolution, through the peculiar part which France took in them, and which brought into discussion the dormant principles of Locke, and gave a new character to political discussions in England.

It must be remembered, that our remarks upon the abeyance of Locke's principles referred to the period antecedent to the American war. It is remarkable, that while Heeren persuades himself that the princi ples of Locke had been carried into effect in England, he takes no notice of the contest between England and her American colonies; a contest which not only produced a host of political theories, and revived the slumbering Essay on Government, but ended in the establishment of a government professedly founded upon the native rights of

man.

"Several of the most eminent practical statesmen of Great Britain-we need only mention Lord Chatham as one-recognized

Locke's principles upon every occasion in parliament,” and thus, in the opinion of Professor Heeren, "added to his character for abstract philosophy, that of the surest practical discernment."—p. 154.

Lord Chatham undoubtedly was apt, from an early period of his career, to bring forward the people in political discussion, and on the occasion of the dispute with America, he maintained, with great vehemence, that part of the doctrine of Locke, which teaches that no man is to be taxed without his own consent; following Locke, however, in his important modification of that doctrine, which allows of consent by an elected representation, and the omnipotence of a majority of the representatives. It is a very remarkable fact, that while Chatham thus upheld Locke's doctrine in respect of taxation, he trampled upon all that regarded legislation. Chatham was always vehement, and he was as eager to assert the right of legislation, as to disclaim the power of taxation.--We cannot even recollect any distinction or reservation, which would have prevented England from requiring from a colonial subject even personal service; though the extraction of a penny from his pocket was against the rights of nature, and the principles of Locke! of Lord Chatham told him at the time, that they could not understand his distinction, but they were no match for him in oratory. It is a fault which we have observed in other orators than Chatham, when they are laboring to establish a particular point, to throw away, almost with indignation, all

The opponents

* Address to Quebec, 26th October, 1774. Ann. Reg. 218-While the New Englanders and other colonists thus invited their brethren in the old the inalienable rights of man, they showed that French colonies to join with them in asserting these rights were not American, more than by English whiggery, to be applied to matters of religion, and that popery and arbitrary power they told the people of Great Britain in reference were still deemed inseparable. "We think," to the liberal measures contemplated in Canada, "that the Legislature is not authorized by the Constitution to establish a religion fraught with sanguinary and impious tenets, or to erect an ar

bitrary form of government in any quarter of the globe."-Sep. 5, 1774. Ann. Reg. 208.

« AnteriorContinuar »