from what is constitutional. As to the old coronation oaths, they were administered when the nation was united in one faith; the new, when the nation was split into religious sections and if, by maintaining the true profession of the gospel, any thing more is meant than professing the reformed religion, and giving its teachers a civil sanction, it goes further than any civil magistrate is authorised to go by that gospel; it is contrary to right reason, as well as to true policy, and may become a trap to a conscientious king, no less than an insult to those of his subjects who have any conscience left. No oath, that binds a king to the will of the majority, can authorise him to resist the will of the majority; and no government could, constitutionally, impose such an oath on an English king.

Conscience is that secret council-chamber erected in the breast of man by the great Power that formed him—a mysterious vicegerency, that brings nigh to human beings that Presence, which fills the universe. Kings, as well as subjects, are under its dominion; and for their religious feelings and apprehensions are accountable to that tribunal alone. A king is bound by his religion, in his personal character, in foro conscientia, as much as a subject; a subject as much as a king. But, does a subject forego his civil rights by embracing religious opinions? Or can a king, in his political character, be released from his obligation to protect a citizen in his natural rights and civil privileges-that being the very end of political society,-the only just foundation of civil government? Liberty of conscience is every man's inalienable birthright,--a franchise, of which no being on earth has a right to disinherit him; and for the peaceable enjoyment of which, he should. forfeit none of the common advantages of civil society.

In short, to speak without reserve, every member of a civil state is, in matters purely religious, under the great Theocracy: and shall a feeble local king, the magistrate over a few acres of ground, dethrone from his peculiar empire, the human conscience, the KING OF THE UNIVERSE?

It was lately hinted by a Prince of the Blood, in the House of Lords, that the unfortunate malady of a great Personage might, perhaps, be traced to the perplexities in which this question had placed him. What a hint to an heir-apparent to have done a splendid action! What a hint to that great personage, should he be ever restored!

5. As to the people at large, it should seem but a principle of moderation to say, that in a cause which concerns every individual, no individual should be wholly indifferent. For though individuals may ask, what good can we do? Yet, as it is reasonable that every man should know something of his birth-rights, it will be na

tural for him sometimes to talk of them. Is it not also agreeable? Is not love of liberty a natural passion? like all natural passions, is not the very feeling of it delight; and to converse about it, does it not refresh the spirits?

The liberty of the press is a scion of the good old tree of English liberty; and although liable to some luxuriancy, it bears much wholesome fruit. True it is, it may be prurient, but it must not be lopped off. The art of printing itself has been the means of propagating some errors,-some absurdities,---some malignities; but by leading to truth and philosophy, it has been favorable to human happiness. And the liberty of the press, though that press may occasionally be licentious, is by its general tendencies naturally salutary, and more abundantly beneficial to mankind.

Thus the public papers, which may be considered as a kind of registers of the times, often lead mankind to much important truth; for, though they frequently subserve people's particular interests or passions, and lead far enough from liberty and truth, yet, when directed by wise and well-principled men, they conduct to much good, they bring out much political information; and their very oppositions often produce elucidations: for as flint struck against steel elicits sparks, so do the contentions of writers, playing at cross-purposes with one another, often throw out a light which keeps the unprejudiced in the right way. The debates of the House of Commons, as reported in these papers, have the same tendency; for though they sometimes are at variance with the liberties of the country, and are sometimes made with more of gladiatorial prowess and violence, than of legislatorial dignity and principle, yet when men of generous, disinterested feelings bear testimony to the best principles of the constitution, their words, like seeds borne by the wind, and carried to a distant soil, are conveyed far and wide to many an unsophisticated heart; and taking deep root, they produce the most solid, evergrowing advantages.

Time would fail me to notice particular persons, who in their private capacities have felt agreeable employment in distributing useful pamphlets on the principles of English liberty, or to point out the worth of those pamphlets illustrated by them; but their ardor is entitled to much praise. One example I cannot forbear noticing:-It is of a private gentleman, who, after travelling in foreign countries, sat down quiet and delighted in his own ;-petiit placidam sub libertate quietem-and who, admiring the best principles of the English constitution, as unfolded in the political writings of Sidney, Milton, Marvel, and Locke, published them at his own expense. Portions of these were selected for a wider circulation. The complete copies were distributed among private friends, or deposited in various public libraries throughout England

and Scotland. Nor was his zeal confined to his own country s copies of these works were conveyed, under his direction, and at his expense, to public libraries in North America, in Holland, and Switzerland. A testimony this, worthy of a true Englishman, creditable to his nation, and highly honorable to himself,---beneficial to his own countrymen, and, no doubt, singularly beneficial to mankind at large.'

Societies have been formed with similar views, to convey constitutional information, more enlarged views of our representative system, and to support the liberty of the press: some composed of untitled citizens, others combining with them members of both Houses of Parliament. That effects proportioned to their wishes and plans were not produced, was owing, in part, to the interposition of government,-in part, to other causes not so obvious to a hasty survey. Shall we say, that no good was effected? The full influence of useful truths, no less than of pernicious doctrines, is not to be calculated by immediate effects. It is not the mere depositing of seed in the bosom of the earth, which can cause it to grow that seed takes a new place,—it must strike root,―undergo a chemical process by means of other bodies, with which it comes into contact and depends on other influences, independent of the power of individuals, or societies of agriculturists; what retards its growth, may perhaps strengthen its vital principle, and prepare it for a more peaceable issue. Such may be the issue. But shall man be confident? Blasts and mildews may scatter, or wither, his rising hopes suddenly.

Political societies are sometimes composed of men not united among themselves, and have to contend with other societies united against them all. Our condition, as a civil community, also, is not the best calculated to admit constitutional information. We are a rude mass, —a loose combination (if those words may be used together) of different interests,-of different passions,—of different religions, and different corruptions. Should government ever study the real interest of the community, as well as its own, it would unite its influence with such societies, should any such arise, for the perfection of our representative system. This once attained, we might boast of something like a perfect constitution. Understanding, perhaps, better than our Saxon ancestors, the nature and end of representation, we might learn much from their wisdom in realising the plan: as, indeed, than their ancient division of England into tithings, hundreds, and counties, nothing was ever more admirably devised for mutual protection and confidence,mutual justice and benevolence; and nothing would be better cal

1 Memoirs of Thomas Hollis, esq.

culated for the destruction of all party spirit, and the propagation of constitutional knowledge. Happy for societies of men, if from their laws and governments much of that rubbish was removed, in which the primitive truth, and the most salutary maxims, lie buried and almost forgotten! But let our spirits be erected, and let us be assured that if ever societies are rightfully restored, it must be by the exercise of reason, and the impartial administration of political justice.'

In conclusion, it should be confessed, what must have been observed by the reader, that no attempt has been here made to delineate many of the minuter distinctions, those lighter shades of political character, which distinguish the English constitution from every other system. In like manner, the principles, rules, and forms of distributive justice, whether civil or criminal, together with the customs and practice of our courts of law, are passed by. They did not properly make part of the present plan; and the reader must be referred to systematic writers, who professedly treat of them. It should, however, be observed, that such writers are too apt to overlook the defects of our system, and even, sometimes, to call defects excellencies.2

Neither for the defects complained of has any specific remedy been proposed. But a dispassionate and enlightened reader will not be indifferent to the subject, cannot be unprepared to give it a most serious examination. It is something, that many of the ablest and most upright men among our legislators, in both houses, and of different parties, have set the example: including May 14th, 1770, when the EARL OF CHATHAM moved an Address to the King, to desire he would dissolve the Parliament, and May 8th, 1812, when the Honorable THOMAS BRAND moved for leave to bring in a Bill to repeal the Act 31 Geo. II. c. 14, and to entitle copyholders to vote for knights of the shire, the question of a Reform in Parliament has been agitated fifteen times. Which of the plans was most happily conceived, which most plausibly supported, or which might be most successfully realised, I presume not to decide. Out of the several schemes, for they differ, and were supported by different arguments,-some able politician, perhaps, might form one, which would prove the remedy for at least some of the evils complained of in these ESSAYS.

Those who consider how the spirit of a government pervades every part of a nation, will see much truth in the observations, "that of all the modes of operating on the mind, government is the most considerable;" and again, "that it may be reasonably doubted, whether error could ever be formidable or long-lived, if government did not lend it support." Godwin's Polit. Justice, Book I. Ch. 4.

2/ This is true of Montesquieu and De Lolme.

POSTSCRIPT.

THE following Postscript is added, to supply a few omissions. In saying, somewhere, that a convocation is merely a civil power, I have followed the ideas of our niost eminent writers on this subject. A convocation was called by the king's writ, at the time when parliament is assembled; a synod by the bishops'. Should it be said, that the clergy, assembled in convocation, sometimes transacted ecclesiastical business, it should be recollected, that though assembled by the king's writ in convocation, they may have been constituted a synod by the bishop's writ, at the same time. The former used to be summoned when parliament assembled, and accordingly, they were sometimes called "Parliamentary Conventions."

Theories of government are delicate subjects, though not mysterious; and become more delicate, in proportion as they are more mixed and intricate. But, in reading the preceding pages, readers must distinguish what is said in a way of mere statement, from what might be said in a way of censure and approbation. It may be sometimes sufficient to speak of facts in a way of statement; in which case a writer is to be charged with no responsibility, except for correctness. Whatever his private opinion may be, if there is little merit, there is at least no crime, in not setting much value on his own opinions, and in paying some deference to the public will and authority.

Some, I am aware, are not over-fond of the way followed in these letters, in speaking of the English theory of government, as a constitution; for there are those, monarchists as well as republicans, who think the English have properly no constitution, and that every thing supposed under that term is, and ought to be, resolvable into the power and will of Parliament. Such writers seem to consider the word, Constitution, as a metaphor. They will, then, at least allow me to carry the metaphor a little further: the regular entrance into the more secret parts of a building is by the door and if we would ascertain the character of the structure, either as a whole, or in its several parts, according to the rules of science or taste, we must consider the particular order (to use architectural language) to which it refers. To speak without metaphor, all must allow, that there are some political principles, which, more than others, are agreeable to the usual practice, and genuine spirit and character of true Englishmen and my particular zeal does not extend much further.

1 See Archbishop Wake's State of the Clergy and Church of England' and Authority of Christian Princes, &c.