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.