Page images
PDF
EPUB

benevolence, as in the instances of slave dealers, banditti, supporters of harsh laws, penal statutes against dissenters, &c. is perfectly frightful.

VI.

THERE is a book by Daines Barrington, Observations on the Ancient Statutes,, which should be considered.

It is often descriptive of the manners of the times, of the views and opinions of our ancestors: it is even entertaining.

The conclusion which the student should draw is, the good that might be done, or might be at least most honourably and virtuously attempted, by any legislator or lawyer who would turn his attention to our statute book, procure the repeal of obsolete statutes, endeavour to make our law proceedings less expensive, in short, not acquiesce in the general supposition, that no improvements can be introduced into our laws and our administration of them. Much good might be done by patient, intelligent men; but the most sullen, and unenlightened and unfeeling opposition must be more or less expected from our courts of law, and all who are connected with them.

"Truths would you teach, or save a sinking land,"

—that is, would you improve laws, and keep people from being ruined"All fear, none aid you, and few understand."

This note was written in the year 1808, and the author has since lived to see and admire the humane and intelligent efforts of Sir S. Romily, Sir J. Mackintosh, Mr. Peel, and Mr. Brougham.

VII.

Sir John Fortescue, Chancellor to Henry VI.

Two treatises of his have come down to us, that seem quite decisive of the question relative to our monarchy, as understood in early times, whether arbitrary or not. The first is-De Laudibus Legum Angliæ.

The distinction that the Chancellor everywhere makes is between "power royal" and "power politick," that is, arbitrary monarchy and limited; and he lays it down, that the kings of England are not like other kings and emperors, but are limited.

(Translation quite close and exact.)

Chap. 9th. "For the king of England cannot alter nor change the laws of his realme at his pleasure: for why? he governeth his people by power, not only royal, but also politique. If his power over them were royal only, then he might change the laws of his realm, and charge his subjects with tallage and other burdens without their consent; such is the dominion that the civil laws purporte when they say, the prince his pleasure hath the force of a law. But from this much differeth the power of a king, whose government over his people is politique, for he can neither change laws without the consent of his subjects, nor yet charge them with strange impositions against their wills," &c.

"Nam non potest rex Angliæ ad libitum suum," &c.

In chapter 18th he observes:

"Sed non, sic Angliæ statuta oriri possunt," &c.

"But statutes cannot thus passe in England, forsomuch as they are made, not only by the prince's pleasure, but also by the assent of the whole realm, so that, of necessity, they must procure the wealth of the people," &c.— "Seeing they are ordained not by the device of one man alone, or of a hundred wise counsellors only, but of more than three hundred chosen men," &c.-" as they that know the fashion of the parliament of England, and the order and manner of calling them together, are able more distinctly to declare," &c.

The young prince (Henry's son Prince Edward), to whom the discourse is addressed, asks-"Since the laws of England are, as he sees, so good, why some of his progenitors have gone about to bring in the civil laws?" &c.

"In those laws," says the Chancellor, "the prince's pleasure standeth in force of a law quite contrary to the decrees of the laws of England," &c. But to rule the people by government politique is no yoke, but liberty and great security, not only to the subjects, but also to the king himself. And to show this, the Chancellor considers "the inconveniences that happen in the realm of France, through regal government alone."

He then treats of "the commodities that procede of the joynt government politique and regal in the realme of England."

Then, "a comparison of the worthiness of both the regiments."
The whole work is very concise, but full of curious matter.

VIII.

Original Insignificancy of the House of Commons.

In the beginning of the reign of Richard II. we find the following passage:

As to the aid the king demanded of his commons for the defence, &c. the commons said, "That in the last parliament the same things were shown to them in behalf of the king," &c. "That in hopes of the promise held out to them to be discharged of taillage, they granted a greater sum than had been asked; and after their grievous losses, and the low value of their corn and chattels, they concluded with praying the king to excuse them, not being able to bear any charge for pure poverty" (par pure povertie).

To all which, Monsieur Richard le Scroop (whom it seems was steward of the household) answered, making protestation :—

"That he knew of no such promise made in the last parliament, and saving the honour and reverence due to the king and lords, what the commons said was not true" (le dit de la Commun en celle partie ne contient ne vérité). This at a time when, if such language had been used by Monsieur le Scroop to the lords, the floor of the assembly would have been instantly covered with gauntlets.

When the feudal system declined, the power which could not then be occupied by the commons (the nobility had been swept away by the civil wars), fell into the possession of the crown, a natural and constant claimant.

The liberties of England were therefore in great danger, when princes so able as those of the house of Tudor were to be followed by princes so arbitrary as those of the house of Stuart.

The two great efforts of Henry VII. were, first, to destroy the power of the aristocracy; secondly, to amass treasures to render the crown independent: his ambition and avarice ministered to each other.

But the first point he could not attempt to carry without advancing the power of the commons. He could not, for instance, open the way to the lords to alienate their lands, without giving the commons an opportunity of purchasing them; that is, of turning their mercantile affluence into constitutional importance.

The second point, however, was of a different nature. He could not amass the treasures which he wished, without encroaching upon the exclusive right of parliament to levy money; and if the practices, pretences, and prerogatives, which he introduced, advanced, and renewed, had not been resisted by our ancestors in the time of Charles I., the liberties of England must gradually have decayed.

Sir Thomas More, when young, resisted Henry the Seventh's demand from the commons of about three-fifteenths for the marriage of his daughter; the king actually threw More's father, then a judge, into the Tower, and fined him one hundred pounds. Had not the king died, Sir Thomas was determined to have gone over sea, thinking, "that being in the king's indignation, he could not live in England without great danger."-See Roper's Life.

The Life of Henry VII. has been written by Lord Bacon: such a man as Bacon can never write without profitably exercising, sometimes the understanding, sometimes the imagination of his reader; yet, on the whole, the work will disappoint him.

The circumstances, indeed, in which Lord Bacon was placed, rendered it impossible for him to exercise the superior powers of his mind with any tolerable freedom. He wrote his history of Henry VII. during the period of his disgrace under the reign of James I.

It was not for Lord Bacon to reprobate the robberies of Henry VII. when he had himself received money for the perversion of justice; or at least had been accused and disgraced for corrupt practices and connivances. It was not for Lord Bacon to assert, as he had once done, the popular principles of the English constitution, while writing under the eye of a monarch like James I., one not only impressed with the divine nature of his prerogative, but one to whose humanity he owed his liberty at the time, and the very means of his subsistence.

The faults of ordinary men may be buried in their tombs; but the very frailties of men of genius may be the lamentation of ages.

The laws of Henry VII. merit the consideration of the student.

It was the intention of these laws to advance the husbandry, manufactures, and general commerce of the country.

The observations of Lord Bacon, and the subsequent criticism of Hume, will afford the student a lesson in that most difficult and important of all practical sciences, the science of political economy.

On the subjects that belong to this science, may, I think, be observed, that from the extent and variety of the points to be considered, the first impressions are almost always wrong.

Practical men, as they are called, are therefore pretty generally mistaken on all such subjects; particularly where they think themselves exclusively entitled to decide.

Practical men are fitted, and fitted only, to furnish facts and details, which it is afterwards the business, and the proper business, of the philosopher or statesman to make the foundation of his general reasonings and permanent laws.

So fallacious are first impressions, so remote and invisible is often the general principle that ought ultimately to decide us, that even the philosopher himself must, on such subjects, be much indebted to experience.

Our ancestors could not be inferior in understanding to ourselves: who could be superior to Lord Bacon? Yet the laws of Henry VII. which Lord Bacon extols, and which would appear wise perhaps to the generality of men at this day (1808), are shown by Mr. Hume to be founded on narrow views, and to be the very reverse of what Lord Bacon supposed them to be.

It is on account of Mr. Hume's observations on the subjects of political economy, that the appendices of his History are so valuable. Different portions in his work are likewise in this manner rendered valuable, more particularly the estimates which he gives of a reign when he comes to the

close of it.

Look at his account of the miscellaneous transactions, for instance, of Edward II. "The kingdom of England," says he, "was affected with a grievous famine," &c. And then he goes on in a few words to lay down all the proper principles, which were afterwards so beautifully drawn out and explained by Adam Smith in his Dissertation on the Corn Laws; and which required all the authority of a minister, the late Mr. Pitt, to enforce upon the community, and even upon the houses of parliament themselves, while men were everywhere raving about "monopolizers of corn," "the necessity of fixing proper rates to the price," &c. This was the expedient of the parliament of Edward II.

The necessities of the state during the wars that began in the year 1793, have brought the science of political economy into more general attention; and have served very forcibly to display the merits of the two great instructors of our English ministers and reasoners, Hume and Smith.

The public, however, have still much to learn; and when our young men of rank and property have dismissed their academical pursuits, or rather whenever they have an opportunity, they should apply themselves to the study of political economy, the science of the prosperity of mankind—a study of all others the most interesting and important.

A young man of reflection may find that the principles of political economy partake of the nature of literature, as described by Cicero, "moving along with him, let him go and do what he will, by night, by day, in the town, in the country," &c.

LECTURE VII.

FRANCE.

We must now turn to the French history. The period which we may consider is that which intervened between the accession of Philip of Valois and the death of Louis XI.

This period I would wish particularly to recommend to your examination, for it is the most important in the constitutional history of France.

I have already endeavoured to draw your attention to this great subject-the constitutional history of France. There are few that can be thought of more consequence in the annals of modern Europe. Had France acquired a good form of government, while the feudal system was falling into decay, the character of the French nation would have been very different from what, in the result, it afterwards became. All the nations on the continent would have been materially influenced in their views and opinions by such an example. The whole history of France and of those countries would have been changed, and the private and public happiness of the world would have been essentially improved.

The first and great subject of inquiry, therefore, in the French history is this,-What were the circumstances that more particularly affected the civil liberties of France ?

It is quite necessary to remark that this subject is never properly treated by the French historians. They never seem to feel its importance; to understand its nature. When they advert to the state of France; when they endeavour to consider how the country is to be improved, how advanced to perfection, they content themselves, as their orators seem to have done in the states-general, with vague

« PreviousContinue »