common sense-第2部分

快捷操作: 按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页 按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页 按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部! 如果本书没有阅读完，想下次继续接着阅读，可使用上方 "收藏到我的浏览器" 功能 和 "加入书签" 功能！



English　constitution；　we　shall　find　them　to　be　the　base　remains　of　two

ancient　tyrannies；　compounded　with　some　new　republican　materials。





FIRST　…　The　remains　of　monarchial　tyranny　in　the　person　of　the　king。

SECONDLY　…　The　remains　of　aristocratical　tyranny　in　the　persons　of　the　peers。

THIRDLY　…　The　new　republican　materials　in　the　persons　of　the　commons；

　　　　　　　　　　on　whose　virtue　depends　the　freedom　of　England。





The　two　first；　by　being　hereditary；　are　independent　of　the　people；

wherefore　in　a　CONSTITUTIONAL　SENSE　they　contribute　nothing　towards

the　freedom　of　the　state。



To　say　that　the　constitution　of　England　is　a　UNION　of　three　powers

reciprocally　CHECKING　each　other；　is　farcical；　either　the　words　have

no　meaning；　or　they　are　flat　contradictions。



To　say　that　the　commons　is　a　check　upon　the　king；　presupposes　two　things：



FIRST　…　That　the　king　is　not　to　be　trusted　without　being　looked　after；

or　in　other　words；　that　a　thirst　for　absolute　power　is　the　natural

disease　of　monarchy。



SECONDLY　…　That　the　commons；　by　being　appointed　for　that　purpose；

are　either　wiser　or　more　worthy　of　confidence　than　the　crown。



But　as　the　same　constitution　which　gives　the　commons　a　power　to　check

the　king　by　withholding　the　supplies；　gives　afterwards　the　king　a　power

to　check　the　commons；　by　empowering　him　to　reject　their　other　bills；

it　again　supposes　that　the　king　is　wiser　than　those　whom　it　has　already

supposed　to　be　wiser　than　him。　　A　mere　absurdity！



There　is　something　exceedingly　ridiculous　in　the　composition　of　monarchy；

it　first　excludes　a　man　from　the　means　of　information；　yet　empowers　him

to　act　in　cases　where　the　highest　judgment　is　required。　　The　state　of　a　king

shuts　him　from　the　world；　yet　the　business　of　a　king　requires　him　to　know

it　thoroughly；　wherefore　the　different　parts；　by　unnaturally　opposing

and　destroying　each　other；　prove　the　whole　character　to　be　absurd　and　useless。



Some　writers　have　explained　the　English　constitution　thus：　The　king；

say　they；　is　one；　the　people　another；　the　peers　are　a　house　in　behalf

of　the　king；　the　commons　in　behalf　of　the　people；　but　this　hath　all

the　distinctions　of　a　house　divided　against　itself；　and　though

the　expressions　be　pleasantly　arranged；　yet　when　examined；

they　appear　idle　and　ambiguous；　and　it　will　always　happen；

that　the　nicest　construction　that　words　are　capable　of；

when　applied　to　the　description　of　some　thing　which　either

cannot　exist；　or　is　too　incomprehensible　to　be　within

the　compass　of　description；　will　be　words　of　sound　only；

and　though　they　may　amuse　the　ear；　they　cannot　inform　the　mind；

for　this　explanation　includes　a　previous　question；　viz。

HOW　CAME　THE　KING　BY　A　POWER　WHICH　THE　PEOPLE　ARE　AFRAID　TO　TRUST；

AND　ALWAYS　OBLIGED　TO　CHECK？　　Such　a　power　could　not　be　the　gift

of　a　wise　people；　neither　can　any　power；　WHICH　NEEDS　CHECKING；

be　from　God；　yet　the　provision；　which　the　constitution　makes；

supposes　such　a　power　to　exist。



But　the　provision　is　unequal　to　the　task；　the　means　either　cannot

or　will　not　accomplish　the　end；　and　the　whole　affair　is　a　felo　de　se；

for　as　the　greater　weight　will　always　carry　up　the　less；　and　as　all

the　wheels　of　a　machine　are　put　in　motion　by　one；　it　only　remains　to　know

which　power　in　the　constitution　has　the　most　weight；　for　that　will　govern；

and　though　the　others；　or　a　part　of　them；　may　clog；　or；　as　the　phrase　is；

check　the　rapidity　of　its　motion；　yet　so　long　as　they　cannot　stop　it；

their　endeavours　will　be　ineffectual；　the　first　moving　power　will

at　last　have　its　way；　and　what　it　wants　in　speed；　is　supplied　by　time。



That　the　crown　is　this　overbearing　part　in　the　English　constitution；

needs　not　be　mentioned；　and　that　it　derives　its　whole　consequence

merely　from　being　the　giver　of　places　and　pensions；　is　self…evident；

wherefore；　though　we　have　been　wise　enough　to　shut　and　lock　a　door

against　absolute　monarchy；　we　at　the　same　time　have　been　foolish

enough　to　put　the　crown　in　possession　of　the　key。



The　prejudice　of　Englishmen　in　favour　of　their　own　government　by　king；

lords；　and　commons；　arises　as　much　or　more　from　national　pride　than　reason。

Individuals　are　undoubtedly　safer　in　England　than　in　some　other　countries；

but　the　WILL　of　the　king　is　as　much　the　LAW　of　the　land　in　Britain

as　in　France；　with　this　difference；　that　instead　of　proceeding　directly

from　his　mouth；　it　is　handed　to　the　people　under　the　more　formidable　shape

of　an　act　of　parliament。　　For　the　fate　of　Charles　the　First　hath　only　made

kings　more　subtle　…　not　more　just。



Wherefore；　laying　aside　all　national　pride　and　prejudice

in　favour　of　modes　and　forms；　the　plain　truth　is；　that

IT　IS　WHOLLY　OWING　TO　THE　CONSTITUTION　OF　THE　PEOPLE；

AND　NOT　TO　THE　CONSTITUTION　OF　THE　GOVERNMENT；

that　the　crown　is　not　as　oppressive　in　England　as　in　Turkey。



An　inquiry　into　the　CONSTITUTIONAL　ERRORS　in　the　English　form

of　government　is　at　this　time　highly　necessary；　for　as　we　are　never

in　a　proper　condition　of　doing　justice　to　others；　while　we　continue　under

the　influence　of　some　leading　partiality；　so　neither　are　we　capable　of

doing　it　to　ourselves　while　we　remain　fettered　by　any　obstinate　prejudice。

And　as　a　man。　　who　is　attached　to　a　prostitute；　is　unfitted　to　choose

or　judge　a　wife；　so　any　prepossession　in　favour　of　a　rotten　constitution

of　government　will　disable　us　from　discerning　a　good　one。









OF　MONARCHY　AND　HEREDITARY　SUCCESSION







Mankind　being　originally　equals　in　the　order　of　creation；　the　equality

could　only　be　destroyed　by　some　subsequent　circumstance；　the　distinctions

of　rich；　and　poor；　may　in　a　great　measure　be　accounted　for；　and　that　without

having　recourse　to　the　harsh；　ill…sounding　names　of　oppression　and　avarice。

Oppression　is　often　the　CONSEQUENCE；　but　seldom　or　never　the　MEANS　of　riches；

and　though　avarice　will　preserve　a　man　from　being　necessitously　poor；

it　generally　makes　him　too　timorous　to　be　wealthy。



But　there　is　another　and　greater　distinction；　for　which　no　truly　natural

or　religious　reason　can　be　assigned；　and　that　is；　the　distinction　of　men

into　KINGS　and　SUBJECTS。　　Male　and　female　are　the　distinctions　of　nature；

good　and　bad　the　distinctions　of　heaven；　but　how　a　race　of　men　came　into

the　world　so　exalted　above　the　rest；　and　distinguished　like　some　new　species；

is　worth　inquiring　into；　and　whether　they　are　the　means　of　happiness

or　of　misery　to　mankind。



In　the　early　ages　of　the　world；　according　to　the　scripture　chronology；

there　were　no　kings；　the　consequence　of　which　was；　there　were　no　wars；

it　is　the　pride　of　kings　which　throw　mankind　into　confusion。　　Holland

without　a　king　hath　enjoyed　more　peace　for　this　last　century　than　any

of　the　　monarchial　governments　in　Europe。　　Antiquity　favours　the　same

remark；　for　the　quiet　and　rural　lives　of　the　first　patriarchs　hath

a　happy　something　in　them；　which　vanishes　away　when　we　come　to　the

history　of　Jewish　royalty。



Government　by　kings　was　first　introduced　into　the　world　by　the

Heathens；　from　whom　the　children　of　Israel　copied　the　custom。

It　was　the　most　prosperous　invention　the　Devil　ever　set　on　foot

for　the　promotion　of　idolatry。　　The　Heathens　paid　divine　honours

to　their　deceased　kings；　and　the　Christian　world　hath　improved

on　the　plan；　by　doing　the　same　to　their　living　ones。　　How　impious

is　the　title　of　sacred　majesty　applied　to　a　worm；　who　in　the　midst

of　his　splendor　is　crumbling　into　dust！



As　the　exalting　one　man　so　greatly　above　the　rest　cannot　be　justified

on　the　equal　rights　of　nature；　so　neither　can　it　be　defended　on　the

authority　of　scripture；　for　the　will　of　the　Almighty；　as　declared

by　Gideon　and　the　prophet　Samuel；　expressly　disapproves　of　government

by　kings。　　All　anti…monarchical　parts　of　scripture　have　been　very　smoothly

glossed　over　in　monarchical　governments；　but　they　undoubtedly　merit　the

attention　of　countries　which　have　their　governments　yet　to　form。

RENDER　UNTO　CAESAR　THE　THINGS　WHICH　ARE　CAESAR'S　is　the　scripture

doctrine　of　courts；　yet　it　is　no　support　of　monarchical　government；

for　the　Jews　at　that　time　were　without　a　king；　and　in　a　state　of　vassalage

to　the　Romans。



Now　three　thousand　years　passed　away　from　the　Mosaic　account　of　the

creation；　till　the　Jews　under　a　national　delusion　requested　a　king。

Till　then　their　form　of　government　（except　in　extraordinary　cases；

where　the　Almighty　interposed）　was　a　kind　of　republic　administered

by　a　judge　and　the　elders　of　the　tribes。　　Kings　they　had　none；

and　it　was　held　sinful　to　acknowledge　any　being　under　that　title

but　the　Lord　of　Hosts。　　And　when　a　man　seriously　reflects　on　the　idolatrous

homage　which　is　paid　to　the　persons　of　kings；　he　need　not　wonder　that

the　Almighty；　ever　jealous　of　his　honour；　should　disapprove　of　a　form

of　government　which　so　impiously　invades　the　prerogative　of　heaven。



Monarchy　is　ranked　in　scripture　as　one　of　the　sins　of　the　Jews；

for　which　a　curse　in　reserve　is　denounced　against　them。

The　history　of　that　transaction　is　worth　attending　to。



The　children　of　Israel　being　oppressed　by　the　Midianites；　Gideon

marched　against　them　with　a　small　army；　and　victory；　through　the

divine　interposition；　decided　in　his　favour。　　The　Jews；　elate　with

success；　and　attributing　it　to　the　generalship　of　Gideon；

proposed　making　him　a　king；　saying；　RULE　THOU　OVER　US；　THOU　AND　THY

SON　AND　THY　SON'S　SON。　　Here　was　temptation　in　its　fullest　extent；

not　a　kingdom　only；　but　an　hereditary　one；　but　Gideon

in　the　piety　of　his　soul　replied；　I　WILL　NOT　RULE　OVER　YOU；

NEITHER　SHALL　MY　SON　RULE　OVER　YOU　_THE　LORD　SHALL　RULE　OVER　YOU。_

Words　need　not　be　more　explicit；　Gideon　doth　not　decline　the　honour；

but　denieth　their　right　to　give　it；　neither　doth　he　compliment　them

with　invented　declarations　of　his　thanks；　but　in　the　positive　style

of　a　prophet　charges　them　with　disaffection　to　their　proper　Sovereign；

the　King　of　heaven。



About　one　hundre