NOTES TO THE NINTH VOLUME.

4ij

NOTE [G], p. 274.

In some of these declarations, supposed to be pestnedby Lord Falkland, is found the first regular definition ofthe constitution, according to our present ideas of it,that occurs in any Engliih composition; at least any publish-ed by authority. The three species qf government, mo-narchical , aristocratical, and democratical, are thereplainly distinguished, rfhd the Englisfi government is ex-pressly said to be none of them pure, but all of themmixed and tempered together. This style, though thesense of it was implied in many institutions, no formerking of England would have used, and no subject wouldhave been permitted to use. Banks and the crown-lawyersagainst Hambden , in the cafe of ship-money, insistplainly and openly on the king’s absolute and sovereignpower: And the opposite lawyers do not deny it: Theyonly assert, that the subjects have also a fundamental pro-perty in their goods, and that no part of them can betaken but by their own consent in parliament. But thatthe parliament was instituted to check and controulthe king, and share the supreme power, would, in allformer times, have been esteemed very blunt and indis-creet, if not illegal, language. We need not be sur-prised that governments should long continue, though theboundaries of authority, in their several branches, beimplicit, confused, and undetermined. This is the cafeall over the world. Who can draw an exact line be-tween the spiritual and temporal powers in catholic states ?What code ascertained the precise authority of the Romansenate, in every occurrence? Perhaps the English is thefirst mixed government, where the authority of every parthas been very accurately defined; And yet there still remainmany very important questions between the two houses,that, jjy common consent, are buried in a discreet si-lence. The king’s power is, indeed, more exactly limit-ed ; but this period, of which we now treat, is thetime at which that accuracy commenced. And it appears