have no social duties to perform and no human punishments to fear. He would be absolutely free, in a liberal sense of the term. He could do anything he pleased, provided it was not contrary to the Divine law. But if another person were to join him, then reciprocal duties and mutual claims upon the assistance of each other would immediately arise. Each would be equally entitled to a share of the common bounties of nature around him. Each would be bound to relinquish some portion of his wild natural liberty, for the common good of both. Each would have rights with which the other would be bound not to interfere. Neither could command or rule over the other without his consent; but both together might make rules and regulations which both, and each would be bound to obey. Were they to be joined by a third person, the new comer would also be entitled to a portion of the gifts of his Creator, and he would likewise have a claim upon the sympathies and assistance of his companions. Every new addition to their numbers would create new relations and new duties, and call for a surrender of another portion of their natural liberty. Thus, in proportion as the community became larger and larger, additional duties would continue to Would he have any social duties to perform? When must a person surrender a portion of his natural liberty? arise, and a new surrender of natural rights would necessarily follow. If there was but one person, his will would be sovereign. If there were two, or three, or thousands or millions, the united will of all would be sovereign, and every one would be bound to obey this united will whenever it was expressed. For the united will of all commanding any thing to be done, or not to be done, is a law. And all who have participated in enacting a law are parties to the contract, and are bound to abide by and obey it. But it is not necessary that every one should have concurred in passing a law, in order to make it binding upon all. It is sufficient if it has been passed by a majority. Those who are opposed to it are as much bound to obey it, as those in favor of it, provided they belong to the same nation, and are included in the same political organization. For by entering into civil society, they have tacitly covenanted and agreed that the majority shall rule; and they are not at liberty to nullify the contract at pleasure. The only way in which a minority can escape obedience to a law passed by the majority, is to rebel and form a new nation. If there is but one person what is sovereign? Who are bound to obey it? Upon whom is a law binding? WHENCE THE RIGHT TO RULE IS DERIVED. When a community is large, or when dangers threaten, it becomes inconvenient for the whole people to assemble as often or as promptly as the exercise of the sovereign will may require. A nation of twenty millions, could not assemble together to enact a law, and yet every law must originate from the people. They therefore select from among themselves a small number of Representatives whom they authorize to act in the name, and for the good of the whole. These few represent, or stand in the place of the whole. The sovereign power which resides in the whole united, has, for the time being, and for the purposes specified, been delegated to these few. And this power can be exercised only in such a way, and so far, and for so long a time, as the will of the people has authorized. And any act done, or law passed by these representatives, is as binding on every one of the people as if it had been passed by the whole nation assembled in council. The ruler or law maker, is only the servant of the people, who are the true sovereigns. If any one who When a nation is large, how do they make laws? What are those called who are authorized to act for the whole? In what way and for how long a time, are Representatives to exercise the power entrusted to them? How binding are laws passed by Representatives? Who are the true sovereigns?. has not been chosen by the express act, or tacit consent of the people, assumes the right of ruling, or enacting laws, no one is bound to obey him, or his laws. For the right to govern must arise from the consent of the governed. Though the right of governing may have been exercised by a single family for centuries, with the consent of the people of the nation, yet the people in their sovereign capacity, may at any time withdraw their consent, and then the ruler's right to govern is extinguished. Thus, the people of England, having been ruled for several successive generations, by the Stuarts, at length resumed the sovereign power. And Charles I. was not only hurled from the throne, but also deprived of his life, and Oliver Cromwell was chosen chief ruler in his stead, under the new name of Protector. But the family of Cromwell was afterwards deprived of its princely power by the same sovereign will of the people, and the Stuart family was restored to the throne. Thus, also, the people of France, after having allowed themselves to be ruled over by a long line of hereditary Bourbon Kings, at length resumed the sovereign power, and Louis the XVI., was deposed and beheaded. So Bonaparte seized the sceptre, and having run his short and ambitious career, he was May the right of governing be in the same family for centuries? What is said of Charles I.? stripped of his power, and the Bourbons were restored to the throne. It matters not what may be the form of government; the chief ruler may be called King or Queen, as in England; an Emperor, as in Russia; a Sultan, as in Turkey; a Calif, as in Arabia; or a President, as in the United States; his right to rule is derived only from the consent of the ruled. The mode in which this consent is expressed, is different in different countries. In England, and most other monarchial countries, the crown has been made hereditary, by an act of Parliament, and the order of its descent has been fixed. Therefore, upon the death of a King, the people express their consent to be governed by the successor designated by Law, by crowning him King. The simple act of crowning, is a mere ceremony performed by a few; but the silent acquiescence, or open approval of the nation, is the act of the whole people; and the new King thus commences his reign with the consent of the ruled. In the United States, the President is chosen every four years, by electors chosen by the people, which, though indirect, is yet a sure mode of expressing their consent. What is the chief ruler called in England? What in Arabia? What in the United States ? Whence is a ruler's right to rule derived? How is the consent of the ruled expressed? How is it expressed in England? How expressed in the United States? |