A Character of King Charles the Second: And Political, Moral and Miscellaneous Thoughts and ReflectionsHalifax, George Savile, Marquis of
History
A Character of King Charles the Second: And Political, Moral and Miscellaneous Thoughts and Reflections
Halifax, George Savile, Marquis of
Charles II, King of England, 1630-1685 -- Early works to 1800
However this is the least uncertain Foundation: Fundamental is less
improperly applied here than any where else.
Wise and good Men will in all Ages stick to some Fundamentals, look upon
them as sacred, and preserve an inviolable Respect for them; but Mankind
in general make Morality a more malleable thing than it ought to be.
There is then no certain Fundamental but in _Nature_, and yet _there_ are
Objections too. It is a Fundamental in Nature that the Son should not kill
the Father, and yet the Senate of _Venice_ gave a Reward to a Son who
brought in his Father's Head, according to a Proclamation.
_Salus Populi_ is an unwritten Law, yet that doth not hinder but that it
is sometimes very visible; and as often as it is so, it supersedeth all
other Laws which are subordinate Things compared.
The great Punishments upon Self-murder, are Arguments that it was rather a
tempting Sin to be discouraged than an unnatural Act.
It is a Fundamental that where a Man intendeth no hurt he should receive
none, yet Manslaughter, _&c._ are Cases of Mercy.
That a Boy under Ten shall not suffer Death, yet where _Malitia supplet
ætatem_, otherwise.
That there were Witches--much shaken of late.
That the King is not to be deceived in his Grant--The practical
Fundamental the contrary.
That what is given to God cannot be alienated. Yet in practice it is,
Treaties, _&c._ and even by the Church itself, when they get a better
bargain by it.
I can make no other Definition of a true Fundamental than this: _viz._
That whatever a Man hath a desire to do or to hinder, if he hath
uncontested and irresistable Power to effect it, that he will certainly
do it.
If he thinketh he hath that Power, though he hath it not, he will
certainly go about it.
Some would define a Fundamental to be the settling the Laws of Nature and
common Equity in such a sort as that they may be well administered: even
in this case there can be nothing _fixed_, but it must _vary_ for the Good
of the whole.
A Constitution cannot make itself; some body made it, not at once but at
several times. It is alterable; and by that draweth nearer Perfection; and
without suiting itself to differing Times and Circumstances, it could not
live. Its Life is prolonged by changing seasonably the several Parts of it
at several times.
The Reverence that is given to a Fundamental, in a general unintelligible
Notion, would be much better applyed to that _Supremacy or Power_ which is
set up in every Nation in differing Shapes, that altereth the Constitution
as often as the Good of the People requireth it.
Neither _King_ nor _People_ would now like just the _original
Constitution_, without any varyings.
If Kings are only answerable to God, that doth not secure them even in
this World; since if God upon the Appeal thinketh fit not to stay, he
maketh the People his Instruments.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account