‘ 
“ r? ‘ 
an’s person, and carry him into captivity. In that 
_ situation he may find it his interest to serve his mas- 
ters with alacrity.and zeal. Yet nobody would thence 
_ infer, that the authority exercised over him was law- 
ful, or that the assent which he gave to it was vo- 
and free. None will deny, that those unhappy 
men who, in different parts of the world, exist in a state 
of slavery, have a right to revolt whenever they can ; 
yet, from the circumstances of. their birth, and the man- 
ner in which they have been brought up, this right is 
but imperfectly understood by many of them, and per- 
haps, for the most part, not recognised at all. But that 
it belongs to them, is not the less certain. The case is 
the same in reality, though not in degree, with-any 
people whose government exists otherwise than. by 
their consent alone. ‘The neutral observer may be 
" wheértain, whether or not they are a free people, and 
they may themselves have employed little thought 
the matter; but that the right, notwithstand- 
ing; to adapt the government to their own views of 
national felicity, is inherent in them, seems unques- 
tionable.—Again, though it be impossible, in most in- 
stances, precisely to fix the period when the national 
‘consent may first be regarded as fully and unequi- 
_ vocally expressed in favour of the government, yet, 
when it is once actually interposed, little doubt of its 
reality can exist. It may safely be affirmed, that the 
government of the American States is free; that is, 
that the le are sensible that it is co-existent only 
with their consent, and that the obligatory nature of its 
acts proceeds from the same source. The like, for a simi- 
Jar reason, maybeconfidently affirmed of our own ae 
ment. That the governments of Spain and Turkey are 
not free, may as safely be affirmed, since it is impossible 
that this consciousness of consent can, in these instances, 
exist on the part of the people. We may add, that it is 
precisely for this reason that these governments seem 
ready to receive any new form, and that so many of the 
governments of Europe lately expired without one po- 
pular effort to save them. 
. It will not, we apprehend, be alleged, that, after all, 
‘this principle of the consent of the people is of little 
influence m the actual conduct of nations, and that 
men, for the most part, submit to their respective go- 
vernmenits, and regard them as lawful, from habit, pre- 
judice, or education. It would be difficult, we readil 
admit, to estimate, with any precision, the effects whic 
the principle has produced, either in ancient or modern 
‘times. But from what source, we would inquire, did all 
the energy of the Greek and Roman character, in the 
best days of these states, eed? Whence was each 
individual conscious of a degree of political importance 
-of which most modern nations seem to have little con- 
Spars It obviously arose from the conviction with 
which every man was impressed, that not only each 
act, but the very existence of the government, depended, 
_in some measure, upon his individual concurrence. It 
was this conviction that made him proud of his coun- 
try: it was the principle that incited him to every ef- 
fort for her p rity, or exposed him to every danger 
for her glory. Nor in modern times has the principle 
been altogether inefficient. The policy, indeed, has 
ailed of discoun’ mg it as much as_possi- 
e; and as most of the feudal governments of Europe 
arose in utter violation of jit, so their-subsequent aim 
has been to suppress it as seditious and criminal. Yet 
‘itis to this sentiment chiefly, as the unfailing and co- 
t a renunci 
‘ceasing recognition of the principle. © 
> 
GOVERNMENT. 
‘riods also of the history of America and of Euro 
S47 
pious fountain of all her exertions, that our own coun- 
try has so long owed, and still so eminently maintains, 
her splendid distinction among nations. ‘The latter pe- 
afford 
eventful instances of its more general diffusion, and 
seem yet to support the hope of its further progress. 
It does not appear idle, therefore, to speculate upon this 
oem Let us, besides the example of our own po- 
itical institutior!s,—of which when ‘it ceases to be the 
actuating spirit,they will cease to be worth preserving,— 
expressly divulge its nature and effects. Let us impress it 
on the general mind. We shall thereby create a perpe- 
tually living motive to liberal action, which, in pro- 
‘portion as it; is diffused, will control despotism, and 
extend the triumphs of liberty.* 
~ But as'those philosophers who overturned the system 
of Filmer erected mates in its place, did Mr Hume 
and his followers offer, in their turn, a substitute for 
that which they had opposed? We think not. In com- 
paring the History of that great writer with his Politi- 
cal Essays, it is not easy, we believe, to discover any 
distinct and consistent principle by which he would try. 
the lawfulness of any form of civil government. At 
one time, he would seem to have regarded as legitimate 
every government which was once established, and, from 
whatever motive, acquiesced in by the people ; a doctrine 
which appears to lead, without any circuit, to the en- 
couragement of usurpation, and the exercise of tyranny. 
At another time, he appears to have reposed in the very 
principle he had been combating. ‘ The observation;” 
says he, “ of our general and obvious interests, is the 
source of all allegiance, and of that moral obligation 
which we attribute to it. What necessity, therefore, 
he continues, “ to found the duty of allegiance or obe- 
dience to magistrates, on that of fidelity, or a regard 
to promisés ; and to suppose, that it is the consent of 
each individual which subjects him to government, when 
it appears that both allegiance.and fidelity stand precise- 
ly on the same foundation, and are both submitted to 
on account of the apparent interests and necessities of 
human society.” The interests which are here meant, 
must be those advantages which appear to the mind of 
the people as well worthy of preservation ; and, con- 
sequently, their adherence and consent to the govern- 
‘ment from which these advantages proceed, or by which 
they are protected, is implied; since, were they to 
withdraw this consent, the government would become 
recarious, or actually perish, and with it, consequent- 
ly, those interests for whose sake alone they had for- 
merly supported it. The question, therefore, in this 
“case, seems to resolve itself into the mere propriety of 
the appellation by which the principle has been distin- 
guished ;—a point of too little importance to merit con- 
sideration. Call it-the consent of the people, or. a sense 
of their own interests, it is of no consequence, provided 
they be made sufficiently sensible that there can be no le- 
gitimate government that is not established for their good, 
and co-existent only with their opinion that it isso, _ 
The philosophical scepticism in which Mr Hume in- 
dulged, necessarily arose, perhaps, from the very na~ 
ture of several of the subjects upon which he employed 
his exquisite powers ; yet we need not extend the re- 
mark to the principle we have been considering. It 
would seem to lie too near the surface, to elude a*pe- 
netration much feebler than that of Mr Hume. | In 
fact, at the time that philosopher wrote, + a coalition of 
parties was the wish of every good man in the commu- 
re . ‘Any endeavour to fix prospectively the exact amount of disorder in the constitution, or actual administration, of a government, which 
would ion of the national allegiance, would be’ sufficiently absurd, nor is here contemplated. All we mean is, an uns 
+ The first part of Mr Hume's Political Essays was published in 1742, and the second in 1752. 
Govern- 
