You see then how fully the spirit of liberty possessed the very language of our _Saxon_ forefathers. And it might well do so; for it was of the essence of the _German_ constitutions; a just notion of which (so uniform was the genius of the brave people that planned them) may be gathered, you know, from what the _Roman_ historians, and, above all, from what TACITUS hath recorded of them.
But I forbear so common a topic: and, besides, I think myself acquitted of this task, by the prudent method, which the defenders of the regal power have themselves taken in conducting this controversy. For, as conscious of the testimony which the _Saxon_ times are ready to bear against them, they are wise enough to lay the foundation of their system in the CONQUEST. They look, no higher than that event for the origin of the _constitution_, and think they have a notable advantage over us in deducing their notion of the _English_ government from the form it took in the hands of the _Norman_ invader. But is it not pleasant to hear these men calumniate the improvements that have been made from time to time in the plan of our civil constitution with the name of _usurpations_, when they are not ashamed to erect the _constitution_ itself on what _they_ must esteem, at least, a great and manifest usurpation?
CONQUEST, I suppose, in their opinion, gives _right_. And since an inquiry into the origin of a constitution requires that we fix _somewhere_, considering the vast alterations introduced by the Conquest, and that we have never pretended to reject, but only to improve and complete, the duke of NORMANDY’S establishment; I believe it may be as proper to set out from that æra as from any other.
Your lordship does not imagine that I am about to excuse myself from closing with them, even on their own terms. I intended that question only as a reproach to the persons we have to deal with; who, when a successful event makes, or but seems to make, for their idol of an absolute monarchy, call it a regular establishment: whereas a revolution brought about by the justest means, if the cause of liberty receive an advantage by it, shall be reviled by the name of usurpation. But let them employ what names they please, provided their facts be well grounded. We will allow them to dignify the _Norman_ settlement with the title of CONSTITUTION. What follows? That _despotism_ was of the essence of that constitution? So they tell us indeed; but without one word of proof, for the assertion. For what! do they think the name of conquest, or even the _thing_, implies an absolute unlimited dominion? Have they forgotten that WILLIAM’S claim to the crown was, not _conquest_ (though it enabled him to support his claim), but _testamentary succession_: a title very much in the taste of that time[115], and extremely reverenced by our _Saxon_ ancestors? That, even waving this specious claim, he condescended to accept the crown, as a free gift; and by his coronation-oath submitted himself to the same terms of administration, as his predecessors? And that, in one word, he confirmed the _Saxon_ laws, at least before he had been many years in possession of his new dignity[116].