5.What then is this same executive power?I doubt our Author would not find it a very easy matter to inform us.`Why not?'says an objector'is it not that power which in this country the King has in addition to his share in the legislative?'Be it so:the difficulty for a moment is staved off.But that it is far enough from being solved,a few questions will soon shew us.This power,is it that only which the King really has,or is it all that he is said to have?Is it that only which he really has,and which he exercises,or is it that also,which although he be said to have it,he neither does exercise,nor may exercise?Does it include judiciary power or not?If it does,does it include the power of making as well particular decisions and orders,as general,permanent,spontaneous regulations of procedure,such as are some of those we see made by judges?Doth it include supreme military power,and that as well in ordinary as in a time of martial law?Doth it include the supreme fiscal power;(68)and,in general,that power which,extending as well over the public money as over every other article of public property,may be styled the dispensatorial ?(69)Doth it include the power of granting patents for inventions,and charters of incorporation?Doth it include the right of making bye-laws in corporations?
And is the right of making bye-laws in corporations the superior right to that of conferring the power to make them,or is it that there is an executive power that is superior to a legislative?This executive again,doth it include the right of substituting the laws of war to the laws of peace;and vice versa,the laws of peace to the laws of war?Doth it include the right of restraining the trade of subjects by treaties with foreign powers?Doth it include the right of delivering over,by virtue of the like treaties,large bodies of subjects to foreign laws?He that would understand what power is executive and not legislative,and what legislative and not executive,he that would mark out and delineate the different species of constitutional powers,he that would describe either what is,or what ought to be the constitution of a country,and particularly of this country,let him think of these things .
6.In the next place we are told in a parenthesis (it being a matter so plain as to be taken for granted)that `each of these branches of the Legislature is independent,`yes,`entirely independent',of the two others.Is this then really the case?Those who consider the influence which the King and so many of the Lords have in the election of members of the House of Commons;the power which the King has,at a minute's warning,of putting an end to the existence of any House of Commons;those who consider the influence which the King has over both Houses,by offices of dignity and profit given and taken away again at pleasure;those who consider that the King,on the other hand,depends for his daily bread on both Houses,but more particularly on the House of Commons;not to mention a variety of other circumstances that might be noticed in the same view,will judge what degree of precision there was in our Author's meaning,when he so roundly asserted the affirmative.
7.One parenthesis more:for this sentence teems with parenthesis within parenthesis.To this we are indebted for a very interesting piece of intelligence:
nothing less than a full and true account of the personal merits of the members of the House of Lords for the time being.This he is enabled to do,by means of a contrivance of his own,no less simple than it is ingenious:
to wit,that of looking at their titles.It is by looking at men's titles that he perceives,not merely that they ought to possess certain merits,not that there is reason to wish they may possess them,but that they do actually possess them,and that it is by possessing those merits that they came to possess these titles.Seeing that some are bishops,he knows that they are pious:seeing that some are peers,he knows that they are wise,rich,valiant.(70)8.The more we consider the application he makes of the common place notions concerning the three forms of Government to our own,the more we shall see the wide difference there is between reading and reflecting.
Our own he finds to be a combination of these three.It has a Monarchical branch,an Aristocratical,and a Democratical.The Aristocratical is the House of Lords;the Democratical is the House of Commons.Much had our Author read,at school,doubt less,and at college,of the wisdom and gravity of the Spartan senate:something,probably,in Montesquieu,and elsewhere,about the Venetian.He had read of the turbulence and extravagance of the Athenian mob.Full of these ideas,the House of Lords were to be our Spartans or Venetians;the House of Commons,our Athenians.With respect then to the point of wisdom,(for that of honesty we will pass by)the consequence is obvious.The House of Commons,however excellent in point of honesty,is an assembly of less wisdom than that of the House of Lords.This is what our Author makes no scruple of assuring us.A Duke's son gets a seat in the House of Commons.There needs no more to make him the very model of an Athenian cobbler.
9.Let us find out,if we can,whence this notion of the want of wisdom in the members of a Democracy,and of the abundance of it in those of an Aristocracy,could have had its rise.We shall then see with what degree of propriety such a notion can be transferred to our Houses of Lords and Commons.
In the members of a Democracy in particular,there is likely to be a want of wisdomWhy?The greater part being poor,are,when they begin to take upon them the management of affairs,uneducated:being uneducated,they are illiterate:being illiterate,they are ignorant.Ignorant,therefore,and unwise,if that be what is meant by ignorant,they begin.Depending for their daily bread on the profits of some petty traffic,or the labour of some manual occupation,they are nailed to the work-board,or the counter.
