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;