nature is no where found wholly free from complexity, that no government ought, as I conceive, to be totally unmixed. One which supposes the antithesis of interests, and bestows protecting powers upon each,-is that, for which Reason and Experience, after an attentive examination of human nature, call. But the respective vigour of those opponent interests, as well as the proportions which they bear to each other, will, in different situations, be found to vary: and modes of government should admit of a correspondent variation.

Nature must supply the weights, which the Lawgiver, who frames the constitution, is to balance. The prominent character of a mixed government may be popular, aristocratic, or monarchical; and the government, under each modification, be a good one: but Check and Compromise compose the vital spirit, which should still transmigrate through all its forms.

[It can scarcely, I think, be contended, that the theory of the British constitution requires amendment. In blending the simple forms of government, it counteracts the noxious tendencies of each; while it bestows upon us the beneficial qualities of all. The prompt and vigorous energy of kingly rule; the distinguished merit, dignity, deliberateness-the educated wisdom, polish and instruction, (I had almost added the good taste) of aristocratic power; the free, manly, and independent spirit of democratic sway; which, while it shakes off tyranny, as the lion scatters the dew-drops from his mane, submits to that control, which promotes the common weal. It is no breach of our generous constitutional allegiance, to pronounce, that ultimately we are less the subjects of the King, than of those laws, of which he also is himself the subject; and which his coronation oath binds him to govern by, and to maintain. Can the meanest of his liegemen be deprived of life, or

L

liberty, or goods, at the will of prince, or nobles, or his own compeers? Find your answer in magna charta, the habeas corpus act, the bill of rights. Can taxation thrust its hand into the publie purse, unless the representatives of that public relax its strings? Do those who make, also administer the laws? No: such a union would tend to oppression and abuse; and, accordingly, the principles of our establishment forbid it. The King indeed is public accuser, and supreme judge. But the constitution not only prohibits his performing either function in person; but severs, and will not permit their being executed by one. He discharges the first royal duty by his attorney-general; the second by those to whom he has committed the judicial province, by a delegation which he is not at liberty to revoke. And what (in this department) is the mild prerogative, of which he is allowed to reserve the exercise personally to himself? The prerogative of mercy. He may but sheathe that sword, which the criminal law has drawn: he may pardon, but cannot condemn.* No; the law of the land, generally assisted by the judgment of a culprit's peers, is alone competent to do this; and thus, in the case of a commoner, Democracy, in that of a noble, the Aristocracy must assent, before punishment can be inflicted by the monarch. They concur, first, by assenting to the law which awards the penalty ; secondly, where the accused pleads not guilty to the charge, their deliberate assent (respectively) is involved in that judgment of his equals, which the law requires, as an indispensable preliminary, to aggression upon his life, his liberty, or goods. The subjects of the British Constitution may be truly said not only not to live under monarchy, aristocracy, or merely popular dominion; but even not to be so properly the subjects of a combination of the three, as of that equal law which they have

* Nor yet dispense with the law.

generated, and which it is the essential character of such a compound, to go on continually producing.

Is the above description of the theory of our constitution an exaggerated panegyric, an encomium highly coloured, at the expense of truth? I doubt whether any will charge it with being so; and if they cannot, my inference is fair, that a theory so excellent should be approached with reverence; and touched with an almost trembling caution.

But theory, it may be said, is one thing; and practice is another.

The observation calls for comment. First, I admit its truth. Secondly, I add to this admission, that theories are estimable, in proportion to the utility of the practice which results. The blossom may be beautiful; but the value is to be found in the rich fruits, of which this vernal bloom holds out a promise.

But thirdly, and as it were é contra, I must observe, with reference to political concerns, that between theory and practice there will generally be found a difference, not in favour of the latter; and that we must not infer the imperfection of the first, from the inferiority of the practical imitation, to the theoretic model.

Then is all theory to be disregarded and thrown aside, as metaphysic lumber, of no practical advantage? Are we merely to inquire how the thing works? No: one of the first theories which I should reject, would be such a one as this. It might lead us to conclude, that, until by woful experience we felt how a tyranny can work, we ought not to object to the theory of a tyrannical constitution.

In pursuing this inquiry, as in most cases, the middle is the safest and most salutary course; and I seem to myself to be following it, when I say that no theory, however excellent, can

be expected to produce a practice, of excellence equal to its No practice

own.

sine vitiis nascitur: optimus ille est, Qui minimis urgetur.

Nor is the above maxim, of the Roman poet, applicable to practice only. It will apply to theory itself; and, accordingly, I am tempted to invent a rhyming paraphrase, and say,

A faultless Constitution ne'er has been:

Even in our own, some human specks are seen.

It is enough for my purpose, to assert that the best theory is calculated to produce the best and most salutary practice.

But towards justly appreciating a theory, we are at liberty to examine with attention the practice which it has introduced. If, on scrutiny, this latter turn out to be very bad, we may conjecture that the theory, however plausible, which produced it, was not good.

But if I call on the undervaluers of our Constitution, to produce me instances of any, who were, under its auspices, despoiled of life, or liberty, or goods, nisi per judicium parium, aut legem terræ, such a call, if my memory do not fail me, could not be answered; and if not, the Constitution which is found, in fact and practice, to preclude aggression upon everything most valuable to the subject, cannot be accused of working ill.

During the revolutionary periods, in which France was plunged, more than thirty years ago, how different was the That revolution had not indeed been preceded by a

case !

free or balanced constitution; and in so far the parallel will be imperfect. But still its sanguinary atrocities will show what evils might be produced by a simple government,-by the excess of popular power,—the shadowy

the ostensible supremacy of a merely representative assembly, nominally sovereign, but really the slave and instrument of principles the most ferocious, dictated by a Jacobinic faction, who gnashed their teeth on order, and steeped their arms in blood;—what evils, I say, could be accomplished by such a The entire of a royal family butchered on a scaffold. The horrors of August and September 1792.† The chronic murders, the reign of Sin and Death, under the name of Robespierre. Those were terrific periods; and what were their origin? Financial embarrassment, Organic change, and Demolition, usurping the specious title of Reform.

state.

All my cotemporaries, at the commencement of those days, were wild Reformists. But, young as I was, (I reflect on this, with some surprise,) I could not prevail on myself to join the sentiment, or the cry. I presume, that, in the balanced constitution of my brain, the organs of caution and causality countervailed the enthusiasm from which my character is not

* For the French had a pageant cipher, which they nicknamed King. But, as the ballad has it,

"Saving a crown, he had nae-thing else beside."

Accordingly, this "round and top of sovereignty"a served for little else, than to decorate the royal victim, when he came to be sacrificed to the Genius of Anarchy, veiled and habited in the costume of a Republic.

These horrors generated a new verb. Septembriser was used to express prompt and indiscriminate assassination.

a Macbeth.