The Southern Literary Messenger, Vol. II., No. 11, October, 1836Various
History
The Southern Literary Messenger, Vol. II., No. 11, October, 1836
Various
American literature -- 19th century -- Periodicals
[Footnote 5: _Judge Hopkinson_ is against _all instructions_, but
thinks his reasoning stronger in the case of senators, because the
right is not reserved. I am for _all instructions_, and especially
those to senators, because of their character as ambassadors,
representing sovereignty, and because it is a reserved state right,
secured by our international compact, in which all is reserved which
is not _given_, and in which a representation of sovereignties, as
such, was insisted upon and yielded. But even as to popular
instructions, the case is much stronger here than in England, for
reasons intimated in my last. Lee us see how it has stood there, long
before the reform bill, and long before the American {689} revolution
brought up all the questions of representation and taxation for
discussion and decision. In the most ancient times, when the
connection between vassal and lord was very close, and the vassal had
little to which the lord could not lay claim, the commons were
considered as represented in the commune concilium, by the lords and
great barons under whom they held; but the king's tenants _in capite_,
holding _immediately_ from the crown, could not be considered, by the
most liberal construction, as thus represented, and they were
therefore admitted into parliament, in propria persona, in their own
right. When these became too numerous thus to be admitted, they of
their own accord, to avoid inconvenience, appeared by _proxy_. As the
towns, cities, and boroughs began to receive incorporations, to grow
in importance and wealth, especially personal property, an aliquot
part of which was always granted, they too being unrepresented by the
lords, were required to send _proxies_; and it was subsequently
extended to knights for the shires, as the feudal fetters wore away.
These _proxies_ had no power but that conferred by their constituents.
(See Pettyt's Antient Right of the Commons of England, p. 14; 1
Gordon's History of Parliament, 215)—(Lex Parliamentaria, 113 and
117.) “And Note, If any new project was proposed in Parliament for
raising subsidies or supplies, the commons usually replied thereto
that they were not _instructed_ by their principals in that matter, or
that they durst not consent to such tax, &c. without conference with
their countries.” “And Note, Blackstone (Book I, 168) says, a member
of the house of commons cannot vote by proxy, because ‘he is himself
but a _proxy_ of a multitude of other people.’” Representation in the
Parliament of _Scotland_ went through a similar process. (See Lord
Somers' Tracts, vol. 12, p. 610.) In the seventh parliament of the
reign of James the First of Scotland, (1427) “the small barons were
allowed to send commissioners, and were charged with the fees of their
deputies,” and this was the first instance of _elective_ members to
the Scottish parliament.
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.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account