The History of England in Three Volumes, Vol. I., Part A.: From the Britons of Early Times to King John — David Hume — John Shaqi
The History of England in Three Volumes, Vol. I., Part A.: From the Britons of Early Times to King John
David Hume · en
The Normans, indeed, who domineered in England, were, during this age,
so licentious a people, that they may be pronounced incapable of any
true or regular liberty; which requires such improvement in knowledge
and morals, as can only be the result of reflection and experience, and
must grow to perfection during several ages of settled and established
government. A people so insensible to the rights of their sovereign, as
to disjoint, without necessity, the hereditary succession, and permit
a younger brother to intrude himself into the place of the elder, whom
they esteemed, and who was guilty of no crime but being absent, could
not expect that. What is called a relief in the Conqueror’s laws,
preserved by Ingulf, seems to have been the heriot; since reliefs, as
well as the other burdens of the feudal law, were unknown in the age
of the Confessor, whose laws these originally were. This practice was
contrary to the laws of King Edward, ratified by the Conqueror, as
we learn from Ingulf, p. 91. But laws had at that time very little
influence: power and violence governed every thing. Prince would pay any
greater regard to their privileges, or allow his engagements to fetter
his power, and debar him from any considerable interest or convenience.
They had indeed arms in their hands, which prevented the establishment
of a total despotism, and left their posterity sufficient power,
whenever they should attain a sufficient degree of reason, to assume
true liberty; but their turbulent disposition frequently prompted them
to make such use of their arms, that they were more fitted to obstruct
the execution of justice, than to stop the career of violence and
oppression. The prince, finding that greater opposition was often made
to him when he enforced the laws than when he violated them, was apt
to render his own will and pleasure the sole rule of government; and on
every emergency to consider more the power of the persons whom he might
offend, than the rights of those whom he might injure. The very form of
this charter of Henry proves, that the Norman barons (for they, rather
than the people of England, are chiefly concerned in it,) were totally
ignorant of the nature of limited monarchy, and were ill qualified to
conduct, in conjunction with their sovereign, the machine of government.
It is an act of his sole power, is the result of his free grace,
contains some articles which bind others as well as himself, and is
therefore unfit to be the deed of any one who possesses not the
whole legislative power, and who may not at pleasure revoke all his
concessions.