That men mean distinct and separate things when they speak of
constitutions and of governments, is evident; or why are those terms
distinctly and separately used? A constitution is not the act of a
government, but of a people constituting a government; and government
without a constitution, is power without a right.
All power exercised over a nation, must have some beginning. It must
either be delegated or assumed. There are no other sources. All
delegated power is trust, and all assumed power is usurpation. Time
does not alter the nature and quality of either.
In viewing this subject, the case and circumstances of America
present themselves as in the beginning of a world; and our enquiry
into the origin of government is shortened, by referring to the facts
that have arisen in our own day. We have no occasion to roam for
information into the obscure field of antiquity, nor hazard ourselves
upon conjecture. We are brought at once to the point of seeing
government begin, as if we had lived in the beginning of time. The
real volume, not of history, but of facts, is directly before us,
unmutilated by contrivance, or the errors of tradition.
I will here concisely state the commencement of the American
constitutions; by which the difference between constitutions and
governments will sufficiently appear.
It may not appear improper to remind the reader that the United
States of America consist of thirteen separate states, each of which
established a government for itself, after the declaration of
independence, done the 4th of July, 1776. Each state acted
independently of the rest, in forming its governments; but the same
general principle pervades the whole. When the several state
governments were formed, they proceeded to form the federal
government, that acts over the whole in all matters which concern the
interest of the whole, or which relate to the intercourse of the
several states with each other, or with foreign nations. I will begin
with giving an instance from one of the state governments (that of
Pennsylvania) and then proceed to the federal government.
The state of Pennsylvania, though nearly of the same extent of
territory as England, was then divided into only twelve counties.
Each of those counties had elected a committee at the commencement of
the dispute with the English government; and as the city of
Philadelphia, which also had its committee, was the most central for
intelligence, it became the center of communication to the several
country committees. When it became necessary to proceed to the
formation of a government, the committee of Philadelphia proposed a
conference of all the committees, to be held in that city, and which
met the latter end of July, 1776.
Though these committees had been duly elected by the people, they
were not elected expressly for the purpose, nor invested with the
authority of forming a constitution; and as they could not,
consistently with the American idea of rights, assume such a power,
they could only confer upon the matter, and put it into a train of
operation. The conferees, therefore, did no more than state the case,
and recommend to the several counties to elect six representatives
for each county, to meet in convention at Philadelphia, with powers
to form a constitution, and propose it for public consideration.
This convention, of which Benjamin Franklin was president, having met
and deliberated, and agreed upon a constitution, they next ordered it
to be published, not as a thing established, but for the
consideration of the whole people, their approbation or rejection,
and then adjourned to a stated time. When the time of adjournment was
expired, the convention re-assembled; and as the general opinion of
the people in approbation of it was then known, the constitution was
signed, sealed, and proclaimed on the authority of the people and the
original instrument deposited as a public record. The convention then
appointed a day for the general election of the representatives who
were to compose the government, and the time it should commence; and
having done this they dissolved, and returned to their several homes
and occupations.
In this constitution were laid down, first, a declaration of rights;
then followed the form which the government should have, and the
powers it should possess- the authority of the courts of judicature,
and of juries- the manner in which elections should be conducted, and
the proportion of representatives to the number of electors- the time
which each succeeding assembly should continue, which was one year-
the mode of levying, and of accounting for the expenditure, of public
money- of appointing public officers, etc., etc., etc.
No article of this constitution could be altered or infringed at the
discretion of the government that was to ensue. It was to that
government a law. But as it would have been unwise to preclude the
benefit of experience, and in order also to prevent the accumulation
of errors, if any should be found, and to preserve an unison of
government with the circumstances of the state at all times, the
constitution provided that, at the expiration of every seven years, a
convention should be elected, for the express purpose of revising the
constitution, and making alterations, additions, or abolitions
therein, if any such should be found necessary.
Here we see a regular process- a government issuing out of a
constitution, formed by the people in their original character; and
that constitution serving, not only as an authority, but as a law of
control to the government. It was the political bible of the state.
Scarcely a family was without it. Every member of the government had
a copy; and nothing was more common, when any debate arose on the
principle of a bill, or on the extent of any species of authority,
than for the members to take the printed constitution out of their
pocket, and read the chapter with which such matter in debate was
connected.
Having thus given an instance from one of the states, I will show the
proceedings by which the federal constitution of the United States
arose and was formed.
Congress, at its two first meetings, in September 1774, and May 1775,
was nothing more than a deputation from the legislatures of the
several provinces, afterwards states; and had no other authority than
what arose from common consent, and the necessity of its acting as a
public body. In everything which related to the internal affairs of
America, congress went no further than to issue recommendations to
the several provincial assemblies, who at discretion adopted them or
not. Nothing on the part of congress was compulsive; yet, in this
situation, it was more faithfully and affectionately obeyed than was
any government in Europe. This instance, like that of the national
assembly in France, sufficiently shows, that the strength of
government does not consist in any thing itself, but in the
attachment of a nation, and the interest which a people feel in
supporting it. When this is lost, government is but a child in power;
and though, like the old government in France, it may harass
individuals for a while, it but facilitates its own fall.
After the declaration of independence, it became consistent with the
principle on which representative government is founded, that the
authority of congress should be defined and established. Whether that
authority should be more or less than congress then discretionarily
exercised was not the question. It was merely the rectitude of the
measure.
For this purpose, the act, called the act of confederation (which was
a sort of imperfect federal constitution), was proposed, and, after
long deliberation, was concluded in the year 1781. It was not the act
of congress, because it is repugnant to the principles of
representative government that a body should give power to itself.
Congress first informed the several states, of the powers which it
conceived were necessary to be invested in the union, to enable it to
perform the duties and services required from it; and the states
severally agreed with each other, and concentrated in congress those
powers.
It may not be improper to observe that in both those instances (the
one of Pennsylvania, and the other of the United States), there is no
such thing as the idea of a compact between the people on one side,
and the government on the other. The compact was that of the people
with each other, to produce and constitute a government. To suppose
that any government can be a party in a compact with the whole
people, is to suppose it to have existence before it can have a right
to exist. The only instance in which a compact can take place between
the people and those who exercise the government, is, that the people
shall pay them, while they choose to employ them.
Government is not a trade which any man, or any body of men, has a
right to set up and exercise for his own emolument, but is altogether
a trust, in right of those by whom that trust is delegated, and by
whom it is always resumeable. It has of itself no rights; they are
altogether duties.
Having thus given two instances of the original formation of a
constitution, I will show the manner in which both have been changed
since their first establishment.
The powers vested in the governments of the several states, by the
state constitutions, were found, upon experience, to be too great;
and those vested in the federal government, by the act of
confederation, too little. The defect was not in the principle, but
in the distribution of power.
Numerous publications, in pamphlets and in the newspapers, appeared,
on the propriety and necessity of new modelling the federal
government. After some time of public discussion, carried on through
the channel of the press, and in conversations, the state of
Virginia, experiencing some inconvenience with respect to commerce,
proposed holding a continental conference; in consequence of which, a
deputation from five or six state assemblies met at Annapolis, in
Maryland, in 1786. This meeting, not conceiving itself sufficiently
authorised to go into the business of a reform, did no more than
state their general opinions of the propriety of the measure, and
recommend that a convention of all the states should be held the year
following.
The convention met at Philadelphia in May, 1787, of which General
Washington was elected president. He was not at that time connected
with any of the state governments, or with congress. He delivered up
his commission when the war ended, and since then had lived a private
citizen.
The convention went deeply into all the subjects; and having, after a
variety of debate and investigation, agreed among themselves upon the
several parts of a federal constitution, the next question was, the
manner of giving it authority and practice.
For this purpose they did not, like a cabal of courtiers, send for a
Dutch Stadtholder, or a German Elector; but they referred the whole
matter to the sense and interest of the country.
They first directed that the proposed constitution should be
published. Secondly, that each state should elect a convention,
expressly for the purpose of taking it into consideration, and of
ratifying or rejecting it; and that as soon as the approbation and
ratification of any nine states should be given, that those states
shall proceed to the election of their proportion of members to the
new federal government; and that the operation of it should then
begin, and the former federal government cease.
The several states proceeded accordingly to elect their conventions.
Some of those conventions ratified the constitution by very large
majorities, and two or three unanimously. In others there were much
debate and division of opinion. In the Massachusetts convention,
which met at Boston, the majority was not above nineteen or twenty,
in about three hundred members; but such is the nature of
representative government, that it quietly decides all matters by
majority. After the debate in the Massachusetts convention was
closed, and the vote taken, the objecting members rose and declared,
"That though they had argued and voted against it, because certain
parts appeared to them in a different light to what they appeared to
other members; yet, as the vote had decided in favour of the
constitution as proposed, they should give it the same practical
support as if they had for it."
As soon as nine states had concurred (and the rest followed in the
order their conventions were elected), the old fabric of the federal
government was taken down, and the new one erected, of which General
Washington is president.- In this place I cannot help remarking, that
the character and services of this gentleman are sufficient to put
all those men called kings to shame. While they are receiving from
the sweat and labours of mankind, a prodigality of pay, to which
neither their abilities nor their services can entitle them, he is
rendering every service in his power, and refusing every pecuniary
reward. He accepted no pay as commander-in-chief; he accepts none as
president of the United States.
After the new federal constitution was established, the state of
Pennsylvania, conceiving that some parts of its own constitution
required to be altered, elected a convention for that purpose. The
proposed alterations were published, and the people concurring
therein, they were established.
In forming those constitutions, or in altering them, little or no
inconvenience took place. The ordinary course of things was not
interrupted, and the advantages have been much. It is always the
interest of a far greater number of people in a nation to have things
right, than to let them remain wrong; and when public matters are
open to debate, and the public judgment free, it will not decide
wrong, unless it decides too hastily.
In the two instances of changing the constitutions, the governments
then in being were not actors either way. Government has no right to
make itself a party in any debate respecting the principles or modes
of forming, or of changing, constitutions. It is not for the benefit
of those who exercise the powers of government that constitutions,
and the governments issuing from them, are established. In all those
matters the right of judging and acting are in those who pay, and not
in those who receive.
A constitution is the property of a nation, and not of those who
exercise the government. All the constitutions of America are
declared to be established on the authority of the people. In France,
the word nation is used instead of the people; but in both cases, a
constitution is a thing antecedent to the government, and always
distinct there from.
In England it is not difficult to perceive that everything has a
constitution, except the nation. Every society and association that
is established, first agreed upon a number of original articles,
digested into form, which are its constitution. It then appointed its
officers, whose powers and authorities are described in that
constitution, and the government of that society then commenced.
Those officers, by whatever name they are called, have no authority
to add to, alter, or abridge the original articles. It is only to the
constituting power that this right belongs.
From the want of understanding the difference between a constitution
and a government, Dr. Johnson, and all writers of his description,
have always bewildered themselves. They could not but perceive, that
there must necessarily be a controlling power existing somewhere, and
they placed this power in the discretion of the persons exercising
the government, instead of placing it in a constitution formed by the
nation. When it is in a constitution, it has the nation for its
support, and the natural and the political controlling powers are
together. The laws which are enacted by governments, control men only
as individuals, but the nation, through its constitution, controls
the whole government, and has a natural ability to do so. The final
controlling power, therefore, and the original constituting power,
are one and the same power.
Dr. Johnson could not have advanced such a position in any country
where there was a constitution; and he is himself an evidence that no
such thing as a constitution exists in England. But it may be put as
a question, not improper to be investigated, that if a constitution
does not exist, how came the idea of its existence so generally
established?
In order to decide this question, it is necessary to consider a
constitution in both its cases:- First, as creating a government and
giving it powers. Secondly, as regulating and restraining the powers
so given.
If we begin with William of Normandy, we find that the government of
England was originally a tyranny, founded on an invasion and conquest
of the country. This being admitted, it will then appear, that the
exertion of the nation, at different periods, to abate that tyranny,
and render it less intolerable, has been credited for a constitution.
Magna Charta, as it was called (it is now like an almanack of the
same date), was no more than compelling the government to renounce a
part of its assumptions. It did not create and give powers to
government in a manner a constitution does; but was, as far as it
went, of the nature of a re-conquest, and not a constitution; for
could the nation have totally expelled the usurpation, as France has
done its despotism, it would then have had a constitution to form.
The history of the Edwards and the Henries, and up to the
commencement of the Stuarts, exhibits as many instances of tyranny as
could be acted within the limits to which the nation had restricted
it. The Stuarts endeavoured to pass those limits, and their fate is
well known. In all those instances we see nothing of a constitution,
but only of restrictions on assumed power.
After this, another William, descended from the same stock, and
claiming from the same origin, gained possession; and of the two
evils, James and William, the nation preferred what it thought the
least; since, from circumstances, it must take one. The act, called
the Bill of Rights, comes here into view. What is it, but a bargain,
which the parts of the government made with each other to divide
powers, profits, and privileges? You shall have so much, and I will
have the rest; and with respect to the nation, it said, for your
share, You shall have the right of petitioning. This being the case,
the bill of rights is more properly a bill of wrongs, and of insult.
As to what is called the convention parliament, it was a thing that
made itself, and then made the authority by which it acted. A few
persons got together, and called themselves by that name. Several of
them had never been elected, and none of them for the purpose.
From the time of William a species of government arose, issuing out
of this coalition bill of rights; and more so, since the corruption
introduced at the Hanover succession by the agency of Walpole; that
can be described by no other name than a despotic legislation. Though
the parts may embarrass each other, the whole has no bounds; and the
only right it acknowledges out of itself, is the right of
petitioning. Where then is the constitution either that gives or
restrains power?
It is not because a part of the government is elective, that makes it
less a despotism, if the persons so elected possess afterwards, as a
parliament, unlimited powers. Election, in this case, becomes
separated from representation, and the candidates are candidates for
despotism.
I cannot believe that any nation, reasoning on its own rights, would
have thought of calling these things a constitution, if the cry of
constitution had not been set up by the government. It has got into
circulation like the words bore and quoz [quiz], by being chalked up
in the speeches of parliament, as those words were on window shutters
and doorposts; but whatever the constitution may be in other
respects, it has undoubtedly been the most productive machine of
taxation that was ever invented. The taxes in France, under the new
constitution, are not quite thirteen shillings per head,*[18] and the
taxes in England, under what is called its present constitution, are
forty-eight shillings and sixpence per head- men, women, and
children- amounting to nearly seventeen millions sterling, besides
the expense of collecting, which is upwards of a million more.
In a country like England, where the whole of the civil Government is
executed by the people of every town and county, by means of parish
officers, magistrates, quarterly sessions, juries, and assize;
without any trouble to what is called the government or any other
expense to the revenue than the salary of the judges, it is
astonishing how such a mass of taxes can be employed. Not even the
internal defence of the country is paid out of the revenue. On all
occasions, whether real or contrived, recourse is continually had to
new loans and new taxes. No wonder, then, that a machine of
government so advantageous to the advocates of a court, should be so
triumphantly extolled! No wonder, that St. James's or St. Stephen's
should echo with the continual cry of constitution; no wonder, that
the French revolution should be reprobated, and the res-publica
treated with reproach! The red book of England, like the red book of
France, will explain the reason.*[19]
I will now, by way of relaxation, turn a thought or two to Mr. Burke.
I ask his pardon for neglecting him so long.
"America," says he (in his speech on the Canada Constitution bill),
"never dreamed of such absurd doctrine as the Rights of Man."
Mr. Burke is such a bold presumer, and advances his assertions and
his premises with such a deficiency of judgment, that, without
troubling ourselves about principles of philosophy or politics, the
mere logical conclusions they produce, are ridiculous. For instance,
If governments, as Mr. Burke asserts, are not founded on the Rights
of Man, and are founded on any rights at all, they consequently must
be founded on the right of something that is not man. What then is
that something?
Generally speaking, we know of no other creatures that inhabit the
earth than man and beast; and in all cases, where only two things
offer themselves, and one must be admitted, a negation proved on any
one, amounts to an affirmative on the other; and therefore, Mr.
Burke, by proving against the Rights of Man, proves in behalf of the
beast; and consequently, proves that government is a beast; and as
difficult things sometimes explain each other, we now see the origin
of keeping wild beasts in the Tower; for they certainly can be of no
other use than to show the origin of the government. They are in the
place of a constitution. O John Bull, what honours thou hast lost by
not being a wild beast. Thou mightest, on Mr. Burke's system, have
been in the Tower for life.
If Mr. Burke's arguments have not weight enough to keep one serious,
the fault is less mine than his; and as I am willing to make an
apology to the reader for the liberty I have taken, I hope Mr. Burke
will also make his for giving the cause.
Having thus paid Mr. Burke the compliment of remembering him, I
return to the subject.
From the want of a constitution in England to restrain and regulate
the wild impulse of power, many of the laws are irrational and
tyrannical, and the administration of them vague and problematical.
The attention of the government of England (for I rather choose to
call it by this name than the English government) appears, since its
political connection with Germany, to have been so completely
engrossed and absorbed by foreign affairs, and the means of raising
taxes, that it seems to exist for no other purposes. Domestic
concerns are neglected; and with respect to regular law, there is
scarcely such a thing.
Almost every case must now be determined by some precedent, be that
precedent good or bad, or whether it properly applies or not; and the
practice is become so general as to suggest a suspicion, that it
proceeds from a deeper policy than at first sight appears.
Since the revolution of America, and more so since that of France,
this preaching up the doctrines of precedents, drawn from times and
circumstances antecedent to those events, has been the studied
practice of the English government. The generality of those
precedents are founded on principles and opinions, the reverse of
what they ought; and the greater distance of time they are drawn
from, the more they are to be suspected. But by associating those
precedents with a superstitious reverence for ancient things, as
monks show relics and call them holy, the generality of mankind are
deceived into the design. Governments now act as if they were afraid
to awaken a single reflection in man. They are softly leading him to
the sepulchre of precedents, to deaden his faculties and call
attention from the scene of revolutions. They feel that he is
arriving at knowledge faster than they wish, and their policy of
precedents is the barometer of their fears. This political popery,
like the ecclesiastical popery of old, has had its day, and is
hastening to its exit. The ragged relic and the antiquated precedent,
the monk and the monarch, will moulder together.
Government by precedent, without any regard to the principle of the
precedent, is one of the vilest systems that can be set up. In
numerous instances, the precedent ought to operate as a warning, and
not as an example, and requires to be shunned instead of imitated;
but instead of this, precedents are taken in the lump, and put at
once for constitution and for law.
Either the doctrine of precedents is policy to keep a man in a state
of ignorance, or it is a practical confession that wisdom degenerates
in governments as governments increase in age, and can only hobble
along by the stilts and crutches of precedents. How is it that the
same persons who would proudly be thought wiser than their
predecessors, appear at the same time only as the ghosts of departed
wisdom? How strangely is antiquity treated! To some purposes it is
spoken of as the times of darkness and ignorance, and to answer
others, it is put for the light of the world.
If the doctrine of precedents is to be followed, the expenses of
government need not continue the same. Why pay men extravagantly, who
have but little to do? If everything that can happen is already in
precedent, legislation is at an end, and precedent, like a
dictionary, determines every case. Either, therefore, government has
arrived at its dotage, and requires to be renovated, or all the
occasions for exercising its wisdom have occurred.
We now see all over Europe, and particularly in England, the curious
phenomenon of a nation looking one way, and the government the other-
the one forward and the other backward. If governments are to go on
by precedent, while nations go on by improvement, they must at last
come to a final separation; and the sooner, and the more civilly they
determine this point, the better.*[20]
Having thus spoken of constitutions generally, as things distinct
from actual governments, let us proceed to consider the parts of
which a constitution is composed.
Opinions differ more on this subject than with respect to the whole.
That a nation ought to have a constitution, as a rule for the conduct
of its government, is a simple question in which all men, not
directly courtiers, will agree. It is only on the component parts
that questions and opinions multiply.
But this difficulty, like every other, will diminish when put into a
train of being rightly understood.
The first thing is, that a nation has a right to establish a
constitution.
Whether it exercises this right in the most judicious manner at first
is quite another case. It exercises it agreeably to the judgment it
possesses; and by continuing to do so, all errors will at last be
exploded.
When this right is established in a nation, there is no fear that it
will be employed to its own injury. A nation can have no interest in
being wrong.
Though all the constitutions of America are on one general principle,
yet no two of them are exactly alike in their component parts, or in
the distribution of the powers which they give to the actual
governments. Some are more, and others less complex.
In forming a constitution, it is first necessary to consider what are
the ends for which government is necessary? Secondly, what are the
best means, and the least expensive, for accomplishing those ends?
Government is nothing more than a national association; and the
object of this association is the good of all, as well individually
as collectively. Every man wishes to pursue his occupation, and to
enjoy the fruits of his labours and the produce of his property in
peace and safety, and with the least possible expense. When these
things are accomplished, all the objects for which government ought
to be established are answered.
It has been customary to consider government under three distinct
general heads. The legislative, the executive, and the judicial.
But if we permit our judgment to act unincumbered by the habit of
multiplied terms, we can perceive no more than two divisions of
power, of which civil government is composed, namely, that of
legislating or enacting laws, and that of executing or administering
them. Everything, therefore, appertaining to civil government,
classes itself under one or other of these two divisions.
So far as regards the execution of the laws, that which is called the
judicial power, is strictly and properly the executive power of every
country. It is that power to which every individual has appeal, and
which causes the laws to be executed; neither have we any other clear
idea with respect to the official execution of the laws. In England,
and also in America and France, this power begins with the
magistrate, and proceeds up through all the courts of judicature.
I leave to courtiers to explain what is meant by calling monarchy the
executive power. It is merely a name in which acts of government are
done; and any other, or none at all, would answer the same purpose.
Laws have neither more nor less authority on this account. It must be
from the justness of their principles, and the interest which a
nation feels therein, that they derive support; if they require any
other than this, it is a sign that something in the system of
government is imperfect. Laws difficult to be executed cannot be
generally good.
With respect to the organization of the legislative power, different
modes have been adopted in different countries. In America it is
generally composed of two houses. In France it consists but of one,
but in both countries, it is wholly by representation.
The case is, that mankind (from the long tyranny of assumed power)
have had so few opportunities of making the necessary trials on modes
and principles of government, in order to discover the best, that
government is but now beginning to be known, and experience is yet
wanting to determine many particulars.
The objections against two houses are, first, that there is an
inconsistency in any part of a whole legislature, coming to a final
determination by vote on any matter, whilst that matter, with respect
to that whole, is yet only in a train of deliberation, and
consequently open to new illustrations.
Secondly, That by taking the vote on each, as a separate body, it
always admits of the possibility, and is often the case in practice,
that the minority governs the majority, and that, in some instances,
to a degree of great inconsistency.
Thirdly, That two houses arbitrarily checking or controlling each
other is inconsistent; because it cannot be proved on the principles
of just representation, that either should be wiser or better than
the other. They may check in the wrong as well as in the right
therefore to give the power where we cannot give the wisdom to
use it, nor be assured of its being rightly used, renders the hazard
at least equal to the precaution.*[21]
The objection against a single house is, that it is always in a
condition of committing itself too soon.- But it should at the same
time be remembered, that when there is a constitution which defines
the power, and establishes the principles within which a legislature
shall act, there is already a more effectual check provided, and more
powerfully operating, than any other check can be. For example,
Were a Bill to be brought into any of the American legislatures
similar to that which was passed into an act by the English
parliament, at the commencement of George the First, to extend the
duration of the assemblies to a longer period than they now sit, the
check is in the constitution, which in effect says, Thus far shalt
thou go and no further.
But in order to remove the objection against a single house (that of
acting with too quick an impulse), and at the same time to avoid the
inconsistencies, in some cases absurdities, arising from two houses,
the following method has been proposed as an improvement upon both.
First, To have but one representation.
Secondly, To divide that representation, by lot, into two or three
parts.
Thirdly, That every proposed bill shall be first debated in those
parts by succession, that they may become the hearers of each other,
but without taking any vote. After which the whole representation to
assemble for a general debate and determination by vote.
To this proposed improvement has been added another, for the purpose
of keeping the representation in the state of constant renovation;
which is, that one-third of the representation of each county, shall
go out at the expiration of one year, and the number be replaced by
new elections. Another third at the expiration of the second year
replaced in like manner, and every third year to be a general
election.*[22]
But in whatever manner the separate parts of a constitution may be
arranged, there is one general principle that distinguishes freedom
from slavery, which is, that all hereditary government over a people
is to them a species of slavery, and representative government is
freedom.
Considering government in the only light in which it should be
considered, that of a National Association, it ought to be so
constructed as not to be disordered by any accident happening among
the parts; and, therefore, no extraordinary power, capable of
producing such an effect, should be lodged in the hands of any
individual. The death, sickness, absence or defection, of any one
individual in a government, ought to be a matter of no more
consequence, with respect to the nation, than if the same
circumstance had taken place in a member of the English Parliament,
or the French National Assembly.
Scarcely anything presents a more degrading character of national
greatness, than its being thrown into confusion, by anything
happening to or acted by any individual; and the ridiculousness of
the scene is often increased by the natural insignificance of the
person by whom it is occasioned. Were a government so constructed,
that it could not go on unless a goose or a gander were present in
the senate, the difficulties would be just as great and as real, on
the flight or sickness of the goose, or the gander, as if it were
called a King. We laugh at individuals for the silly difficulties
they make to themselves, without perceiving that the greatest of all
ridiculous things are acted in governments.*[23]
All the constitutions of America are on a plan that excludes the
childish embarrassments which occur in monarchical countries. No
suspension of government can there take place for a moment, from any
circumstances whatever. The system of representation provides for
everything, and is the only system in which nations and governments
can always appear in their proper character.
As extraordinary power ought not to be lodged in the hands of any
individual, so ought there to be no appropriations of public money to
any person, beyond what his services in a state may be worth. It
signifies not whether a man be called a president, a king, an
emperor, a senator, or by any other name which propriety or folly may
devise or arrogance assume; it is only a certain service he can
perform in the state; and the service of any such individual in the
routine of office, whether such office be called monarchical,
presidential, senatorial, or by any other name or title, can never
exceed the value of ten thousand pounds a year. All the great
services that are done in the world are performed by volunteer
characters, who accept nothing for them; but the routine of office is
always regulated to such a general standard of abilities as to be
within the compass of numbers in every country to perform, and
therefore cannot merit very extraordinary recompense. Government,
says Swift, is a Plain thing, and fitted to the capacity of many
heads.
It is inhuman to talk of a million sterling a year, paid out of the
public taxes of any country, for the support of any individual,
whilst thousands who are forced to contribute thereto, are pining
with want, and struggling with misery. Government does not consist in
a contrast between prisons and palaces, between poverty and pomp; it
is not instituted to rob the needy of his mite, and increase the
wretchedness of the wretched.- But on this part of the subject I
shall speak hereafter, and confine myself at present to political
observations.
When extraordinary power and extraordinary pay are allotted to any
individual in a government, he becomes the center, round which every
kind of corruption generates and forms. Give to any man a million a
year, and add thereto the power of creating and disposing of places,
at the expense of a country, and the liberties of that country are no
longer secure. What is called the splendour of a throne is no other
than the corruption of the state. It is made up of a band of
parasites, living in luxurious indolence, out of the public taxes.
When once such a vicious system is established it becomes the guard
and protection of all inferior abuses. The man who is in the receipt
of a million a year is the last person to promote a spirit of reform,
lest, in the event, it should reach to himself. It is always his
interest to defend inferior abuses, as so many outworks to protect
the citadel; and on this species of political fortification, all the
parts have such a common dependence that it is never to be expected
they will attack each other.*[24]
Monarchy would not have continued so many ages in the world, had it
not been for the abuses it protects. It is the master-fraud, which
shelters all others. By admitting a participation of the spoil, it
makes itself friends; and when it ceases to do this it will cease to
be the idol of courtiers.
As the principle on which constitutions are now formed rejects all
hereditary pretensions to government, it also rejects all that
catalogue of assumptions known by the name of prerogatives.
If there is any government where prerogatives might with apparent
safety be entrusted to any individual, it is in the federal
government of America. The president of the United States of America
is elected only for four years. He is not only responsible in the
general sense of the word, but a particular mode is laid down in the
constitution for trying him. He cannot be elected under thirty-five
years of age; and he must be a native of the country.
In a comparison of these cases with the Government of England, the
difference when applied to the latter amounts to an absurdity. In
England the person who exercises prerogative is often a foreigner;
always half a foreigner, and always married to a foreigner. He is
never in full natural or political connection with the country, is
not responsible for anything, and becomes of age at eighteen years;
yet such a person is permitted to form foreign alliances, without
even the knowledge of the nation, and to make war and peace without
its consent.
But this is not all. Though such a person cannot dispose of the
government in the manner of a testator, he dictates the marriage
connections, which, in effect, accomplish a great part of the same
end. He cannot directly bequeath half the government to Prussia, but
he can form a marriage partnership that will produce almost the same
thing. Under such circumstances, it is happy for England that she is
not situated on the Continent, or she might, like Holland, fall under
the dictatorship of Prussia. Holland, by marriage, is as effectually
governed by Prussia, as if the old tyranny of bequeathing the
government had been the means.
The presidency in America (or, as it is sometimes called, the
executive) is the only office from which a foreigner is excluded, and
in England it is the only one to which he is admitted. A foreigner
cannot be a member of Parliament, but he may be what is called a
king. If there is any reason for excluding foreigners, it ought to be
from those offices where mischief can most be acted, and where, by
uniting every bias of interest and attachment, the trust is best
secured. But as nations proceed in the great business of forming
constitutions, they will examine with more precision into the nature
and business of that department which is called the executive. What
the legislative and judicial departments are every one can see; but
with respect to what, in Europe, is called the executive, as distinct
from those two, it is either a political superfluity or a chaos of
unknown things.
Some kind of official department, to which reports shall be made from
the different parts of a nation, or from abroad, to be laid before
the national representatives, is all that is necessary; but there is
no consistency in calling this the executive; neither can it be
considered in any other light than as inferior to the legislative.
The sovereign authority in any country is the power of making laws,
and everything else is an official department.
Next to the arrangement of the principles and the organization of the
several parts of a constitution, is the provision to be made for the
support of the persons to whom the nation shall confide the
administration of the constitutional powers.
A nation can have no right to the time and services of any person at
his own expense, whom it may choose to employ or entrust in any
department whatever; neither can any reason be given for making
provision for the support of any one part of a government and not for
the other.
But admitting that the honour of being entrusted with any part of a
government is to be considered a sufficient reward, it ought to be so
to every person alike. If the members of the legislature of any
country are to serve at their own expense that which is called the
executive, whether monarchical or by any other name, ought to serve
in like manner. It is inconsistent to pay the one, and accept the
service of the other gratis.
In America, every department in the government is decently provided
for; but no one is extravagantly paid. Every member of Congress, and
of the Assemblies, is allowed a sufficiency for his expenses. Whereas
in England, a most prodigal provision is made for the support of one
part of the Government, and none for the other, the consequence of
which is that the one is furnished with the means of corruption and
the other is put into the condition of being corrupted. Less than a
fourth part of such expense, applied as it is in America, would
remedy a great part of the corruption.
Another reform in the American constitution is the exploding all
oaths of personality. The oath of allegiance in America is to the
nation only. The putting any individual as a figure for a nation is
improper. The happiness of a nation is the superior object, and
therefore the intention of an oath of allegiance ought not to be
obscured by being figuratively taken, to, or in the name of, any
person. The oath, called the civic oath, in France, viz., "the
nation, the law, and the king," is improper. If taken at all, it
ought to be as in America, to the nation only. The law may or may not
be good; but, in this place, it can have no other meaning, than as
being conducive to the happiness of a nation, and therefore is
included in it. The remainder of the oath is improper, on the ground,
that all personal oaths ought to be abolished. They are the remains
of tyranny on one part and slavery on the other; and the name of the
Creator ought not to be introduced to witness the degradation of his
creation; or if taken, as is already mentioned, as figurative of the
nation, it is in this place redundant. But whatever apology may be
made for oaths at the first establishment of a government, they ought
not to be permitted afterwards. If a government requires the support
of oaths, it is a sign that it is not worth supporting, and ought not
to be supported. Make government what it ought to be, and it will
support itself.
To conclude this part of the subject:- One of the greatest
improvements that have been made for the perpetual security and
progress of constitutional liberty, is the provision which the new
constitutions make for occasionally revising, altering, and amending
them.
The principle upon which Mr. Burke formed his political creed, that
of "binding and controlling posterity to the end of time, and of
renouncing and abdicating the rights of all posterity, for ever," is
now become too detestable to be made a subject of debate; and
therefore, I pass it over with no other notice than exposing it.
Government is but now beginning to be known. Hitherto it has been the
mere exercise of power, which forbade all effectual enquiry into
rights, and grounded itself wholly on possession. While the enemy of
liberty was its judge, the progress of its principles must have been
small indeed.
The constitutions of America, and also that of France, have either
affixed a period for their revision, or laid down the mode by which
improvement shall be made. It is perhaps impossible to establish
anything that combines principles with opinions and practice, which
the progress of circumstances, through a length of years, will not in
some measure derange, or render inconsistent; and, therefore, to
prevent inconveniences accumulating, till they discourage
reformations or provoke revolutions, it is best to provide the means
of regulating them as they occur. The Rights of Man are the rights of
all generations of men, and cannot be monopolised by any. That which
is worth following, will be followed for the sake of its worth, and
it is in this that its security lies, and not in any conditions with
which it may be encumbered. When a man leaves property to his heirs,
he does not connect it with an obligation that they shall accept it.
Why, then, should we do otherwise with respect to constitutions? The
best constitution that could now be devised, consistent with the
condition of the present moment, may be far short of that excellence
which a few years may afford. There is a morning of reason rising
upon man on the subject of government, that has not appeared before.
As the barbarism of the present old governments expires, the moral
conditions of nations with respect to each other will be changed. Man
will not be brought up with the savage idea of considering his
species as his enemy, because the accident of birth gave the
individuals existence in countries distinguished by different names;
and as constitutions have always some relation to external as well as
to domestic circumstances, the means of benefitting by every change,
foreign or domestic, should be a part of every constitution. We
already see an alteration in the national disposition of England and
France towards each other, which, when we look back to only a few
years, is itself a Revolution. Who could have foreseen, or who could
have believed, that a French National Assembly would ever have been a
popular toast in England, or that a friendly alliance of the two
nations should become the wish of either? It shows that man, were he
not corrupted by governments, is naturally the friend of man, and
that human nature is not of itself vicious. That spirit of jealousy
and ferocity, which the governments of the two countries inspired,
and which they rendered subservient to the purpose of taxation, is
now yielding to the dictates of reason, interest, and humanity. The
trade of courts is beginning to be understood, and the affectation of
mystery, with all the artificial sorcery by which they imposed upon
mankind, is on the decline. It has received its death-wound; and
though it may linger, it will expire. Government ought to be as much
open to improvement as anything which appertains to man, instead of
which it has been monopolised from age to age, by the most ignorant
and vicious of the human race. Need we any other proof of their
wretched management, than the excess of debts and taxes with which
every nation groans, and the quarrels into which they have
precipitated the world? Just emerging from such a barbarous
condition, it is too soon to determine to what extent of improvement
government may yet be carried. For what we can foresee, all Europe
may form but one great Republic, and man be free of the whole.