Note 33 — A DISCOURSE concerning the LAWS and GOVERNMENT of ENGLAND.

Hume, Hist. of England, vol. V. p. 462. This historian, the most accomplished, perhaps, who has written in modern times, has attempted to vindicate both James and Charles; but he has done nothing more than to produce evidence to shew, that in some respects they acted from precedents of administration in former princes; and this, if taken even in the fullest extent, is insufficient to justify them. Charles, however, it will be allowed, exceeded every violation of liberty, of which there had been any example; and when he had consented to reduce the exorbitancy of the regal power, his conduct created a suspicion of his sincerity. But on the supposition that he did not advance his authority beyond the practice of former times, he is not therefore to be vindicated. It is no exculpation of a crime in one individual, that it has been committed by others. The advantages of a free government belonged to the people of England; and they were the proper judges when to enforce their privileges against an invader. They might pardon in one sovereign what they would punish in another. They might overlook in Elizabeth what they did not wish to excuse in Charles. The doctrine of resistance is delicate. In a free constitution, like that of which we speak, the prince and the people will often fall into situations where they seem to encroach, or actually do so, on the rights of one another. But it is never on slight grounds that the people will be prevailed upon to take arms against their chief magistrate. After all, had England been an absolute monarchy, Was it thence proper and just that it should remain in that situation? There are rights which it is impossible that men can either lose or forfeit. No authority and no precedent, no usage and no law, can give a sanction to tyranny.