sons, (considered as an assemblage of individuals,) consequently the authority, the meaning, or the duration of the enactments of that " permanent body," of which they are but "the transitory parts," cannot be effected by their decease or secession. "This (the Legislative) is the soul that gives form, life, and unity to the Commonwealth. The essence and union of the society consisting in having one will, the Legislative, when once established by the majority, has the declaring, and, as it were, keeping of that will." From these considerations, it will be evident how groundless is this cavil of the Reviewer: "Nothing can be so absurd as the notion of an irrevocable law, and of a lawgiver whose authority is binding upon all future lawgivers." Do we affirm that a law is irrevocable, in contending, that until revoked it retains its original force and import? Nothing is more clearly laid down by our Jurists, than that “a law, when its duration is not (expressly) limited, is in its nature perpetual." * This implies, not that it is irrevocable, but that it has a capacity to be perpetual-that unless the obligation be dissolved by the same power by which it was established, it will remain continually in force, having the same operation as in the first hour of its enactment. But it is objected: "When one generation of mortals is removed from the * 2 Eunomus. 201.

earth, their influence in human affairs is at an end; and if their institutions survive, it is only because their successors choose voluntarily to adopt them." If the duration of the authority of laws were commensurate only with the existence of the members, of which at the moment of their enactment the community was composed, they would be obligatory upon no one born afterwards, without his individual consent. But as it cannot be denied (however loosely some writers have expressed themselves on the subject) that every man is immediately bound by the laws of the society of which he is born a member, whether he subsequently approve of them or not, it is merely an abuse of terms, to say that the Legislature has "no more authority over the future and the unborn, than over the past and the dead." To be commanded (says Hooker*) we do consent, when that society whereof we be a part, hath at any time before consented, without revoking the same by the like universal agreement." This society is "a moral person,Ӡ capable of perpetual existence, by the continual but imperceptible accession of new members, maintaining the institutions of former ages, not by successive adoptions, but by retaining one uniform will respecting them. " Populus est ex corporum genere, quod ex distantibus constat,

* Eccles. Polity. 1. 1. sec. 10.

+ Puffendorf. b. 4. c. 2. s. 17.

unique nomini subjectum est; quod habet spiritum unum. The notion, therefore, of a Legislative institution becoming "a dead letter' on the departure of one generation, until revived by the succeeding, is totally irreconcileable with the nature of human society, "wherein, by the disposition of a stupendous wisdom moulding together the great mysterious incorporation of the human race, the whole at one time is never old, or middle aged, or young; but in a condition of unchangeable constancy, moves on through the varied tenor of perpetual decay, fall, renovation, and progression."†

66

Having considered so much of the Reviewer's 'reply," as bears upon what the author of this work had advanced, it only remains to observe, that there are sundry other positions which the Reviewer has taken the opportunity, with some vehemence, to lay down-prove them indeed he could not, inasmuch as there is nothing in nature more evident. Whence any contradiction to those propositions could have arisen, "like a phantasma or a hideous dream," to scare the imagination of the Reviewer, it is difficult to conceive. This only the author may undertake to say, that could his censor have prevailed upon himself to give one glance

* Grotius, 1. 3. c. 9. s. 3.

+ Burke on the French Revolution.

through the work before him, nothing of the kind would have there presented itself.

"O proper stuff!

This is the very painting of your fear !"

It will now, it is hoped, be manifest, that this objection of the independence of the Legislature, like that of its omnipotence, impairs not, but rather (in the consideration of it) strengthens the position before taken, that an Oath, of which the terms were dictated, and the taking enjoined by the Legislature, must be construed and performed according to the intention with which it was instituted.

SECTION XII.

THIRD OBJECTION, THAT THE KING WOULD BE ABSOLVED

FROM HIS OATH BY THE PASSING OF A BILL FOR THE

CONCESSION
EXAMINED.

OF THE ROMAN

CATHOLIC CLAIMS,

HOWEVER demonstrable may be the futility of the last objection, it certainly avails little, if the King can be released by the following expedient. "Promises are not binding which are released by the promisee-in the case of the Coronation Oath, the people, by their re

presentatives, are the promisees, and the King, at their desire, promises to maintain certain and established laws for their benefit, and for that alone. If afterwards the people call upon the King to alter or repeal those laws, it follows that the King is immediately released from his promise."* This is more neatly expressed in the original.t

After stating, that in every case it is competent to the person to whom, or in whose favour an oath has been taken, to release the person taking it from the obligationMr. Butler says: "The Coronation Oath is made to the people as represented by parliament, therefore (upon the supposition that the Coronation Oath really extends to the present case) the people, represented by the parliament, being the only persons entitled to the benefit of the Oath, have full power and authority to release the monarch who took the Oath, and all his successors from its obligation.”

There is no sophism more commonly resorted to, or which more frequently escapes detection, than that which consists in the use of the same term or phrase in a different sense in one part of the argument, from that in which it is employed in another. If that be not the case in the present instance, we must admit the conclusion to have been rightly deduced, but if it

* Christian Remembrancer.

+ Butler's Letter on the Coronation Qath.