Sir,Much hath been said occasionally,in the course of these letters,concerning the beauty and excellency of the British constitution.I shall make,however,no excuse for returning to the same subject,upon an occasion which introduces it so naturally,and indeed so necessarily.Nothing can be more apposite to the professed design of these writings;nothing of more real,and more present use.Let me speak plainly.We have been all of us,those of every side,and of every denomination,accustomed too long to value ourselves,foolishly or knavishly,on our zeal for this or that party,or for this or that government;and to make a merit of straining the constitution different ways,in order to serve the different purposes of each.It is high time we should all learn,if that be still possible,to value ourselves in the first place on our zeal for the constitution;to make all governments,and much more all parties,bow to that,and to suffer that to bow to none.
But how shall this constitution be known,unless we make it the subject of careful enquiry,and of frequent and sober reflection?Or unknown,how shall it become,what it ought to be,the object of our admiration,our love and our zeal?Many of those who reap the greatest advantages from it,pass it by unregarded,with equal folly and ingratitude.Many take a transient,inattentive view of it.Many again consider it in part only,or behold it in a narrow,pedantic light.Instead of this,we should view it often.We should pierce through the form to the soul of it.We should contemplate the noble object in all its parts,and in the whole,and render it as familiar to our intellectual fight,as the most common sensible objects are to our corporeal sight.Quam illa ardentes amores excitaret sui,si videretur?Well may it be allowed me to apply to so glorious an effort of human wisdom,what Tully says after Plato,in the Phaedrus,if I mistake not,of wisdom herself.'All public regiment',says Mr Hooker,'hath arisen from deliberate advice,consultation and composition between men.'The proposition is undoubtedly and universally true.It is as true in the kingdom of Morocco,as it is in the kingdom of Britain;and the undeniable consequences which flow from it are obvious.
We are not to wonder,however,if men do not look up to this original of government,nor trace these consequences from it in most countries.In the institution of governments,too great powers have been usually given,and too great confidence reposed,either at first,or in process of time.These powers have subsisted,have been confirmed by more time,and increased by the very nature of power,which is the properest instrument of its own propagation.
But the original composition,for want of being expressed,or sufficiently implied,or frequently recurred to by the forms of the government,hath been forgot,or hath grown so obsolete,that they whose interest required that no such thing should be believed,have thought themselves at liberty boldly to deny it;and not only so,but to suppose some other original of government.
Strange systems of policy,and stranger of religion,have been devised to support and sanctify these usurpations.Education hath been set on the same side;and saucy authority hath prevailed against the clearest light of nature,and the plainest dictates of common sense.No man who hath read and looked abroad into the world,and made a reasonable use of either,will think this too strange to be true;since there is no demonstrated truth (such truths I mean as are here spoken of)which may not be rendered,at least,very problematical,by long,uniform,positive contradiction;nor any demonstrated lie,which may not be rendered probable to many,and certain to some,by a long,uniform,positive affirmation;according to a just observation made by father Paul somewhere or other,on occasion of Constantine's supposed grant,and other cheats of the court of Rome.But we of this country have been more happy.
Our original contract hath been recurred to often,and as many cavils as have been made,as many jests as have been broke about this expression,we might safely defy the assertors of absolute monarchy and arbitrary will,if there were any worth our regard,to produce any one point of time,since which we know any thing of our constitution,wherein the whole scheme of it would not have been one monstrous absurdity,unless an original contract had been supposed.They must have been blinded therefore by ignorance,or passion,or prejudice,who did not always see that there is such a thing necessarily,and in the very nature of our constitution;and that they might as well doubt whether the foundations of an ancient,solid building were suited and proportioned to the elevation and form of it,as whether our constitution was established by composition and contract.Sure I am that they must be worse than blind,if any such there are,who do not confess at this time,and under the present settlement,that our constitution is in the strictest sense a bargain,a conditional contract between the prince and the people,as it always hath been,and still is,between the representative and collective bodies of the nation.
That this bargain may not be broken,on the part of the prince with the people (though the executive power be trusted to the prince,to be exercised according to such rules,and by the ministry of such officers as are prescribed by the laws and customs of this kingdom),the legislative,or supreme power,is vested by our constitution in three estates,whereof the king is one.
Whilst the members of the other two preserve their private independency,and those estates are consequently under no dependency,except that which is in the scheme of our constitution,this control on the first will always be sufficient;and a bad king,let him be as bold as he may please to be thought,must stand in awe of an honest parliament.
