preparing to develope his plan of making himself a king, and settling the crown upon his descendants for ever, he expressed the idea in his proclamation that he and others associated with him in the government desired to humble themselves before God for their sins, that they earnestly longed for light that they might discern their errors and faults, and that it became them, with a spirit of lowliness and minds open to conviction, to receive counsel and direction, in whatever methods Providence might adopt to instruct. and guide them.

CHAPTER XII.

The "Healing Question." - First Proposal of α Written Constitution. A Constitution

defined and described. - Extracts from the "Healing Question." - Remarks.

MUCH to the surprise and indignation of Cromwell, Sir Henry Vane took him at his word, and composed a tract, the object of which was, to state his view of the course, which ought to be adopted in order to settle the government upon such a basis, as would secure the interests of the people, and perpetuate their liberty. It was entitled "A Healing Question propounded and resolved, upon Occasion of the late public and seasonable Call to Humiliation in order to Love and

Union amongst the honest Party, and with a Desire to apply Balm to the Wound, before it become incurable. By Henry Vane, Knight."

This production is one of the most remarkable political papers, ever written. It contains the great principles of civil and religious liberty, in a - complete exposition, and lays down the rules to be observed in constructing a civil government. It developes and illustrates, perhaps it may with safety be said, for the first time, the idea of a

written constitution or body of fundamental laws, by which the government itself is to be controlled, restrained, and limited.* This plan of a constitution, to be agreed upon in the beginning, by which the people impose restrictions upon the exercise of their own sovereignty, and fix the boundaries, within which their own legislative and civil power shall be confined, constitutes the great peculiarity of the governments, federal and state, within the American union. It is the preservative principle of our institutions. It gives to their action the highest practicable and desirable degree of stability and consistency, and is the sure protection of minorities or individuals against oppression and injustice on the part of majorities, or of government as such. It distinguishes a Republic from a Democracy. The former is a limited, the latter an absolute government. A Republic is a free country. A Democracy is a despotism. In a Republic, the sovereignty is acknowledged to reside in the people, but is restrained in its exercise by a constitution, which marks the boundaries

*The paper signed by the Pilgrims, in the Mayflower, on the 11th of November, 1620, previous to their landing at Plymouth, is one of the most interesting documents in the history of civilization. But, as it is merely an agreement to form a political society, and does not contain any restrictions upon the future government of that society, it cannot be considered as a constitution, in the sense in which that word is used in the text.

of the authority of the people as a government, that is, as a sovereign, and secures against that authority, beyond those boundaries, the rights and freedom of individuals. In a democracy, the sovereignty is also acknowledged to be in the people; but no limitations are imposed upon its exercise, and the individual, or the minority, has no security or refuge from the power of the majority, and, of course, the government is absolute and despotic.

is

The governments of the North American Union were, in truth, the first limited governments the world ever witnessed. In England, the monarchy is limited, but the government is absolute. A bill passed by the Lords and Commons, and signed by the King, an act of Parliament, the law of the land, and, whatever may be its enactments, will be sustained in the Courts, and must be obeyed by the people. But in America, where written constitutions are placed at the foundation of the social organization, a portion of what is called the sovereignty of the people is fettered down, as it were, and rendered inoperative; so that, in reference to this portion, no power exists in the country to bind by law the action of the individual.

For instance, by the constitution of the United States, the general government of the Union, and the governments of all the several States, are de

clared incapable and are forbidden to "grant any title of nobility," to "pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts." The people have solemnly agreed and determined, and have recorded the agreement and determination, that no legislative proceedings shall ever be had, and no laws ever be passed, in the country, of the kind here specified.

In the beginning men may be considered as having entered into social relations voluntarily, and with a deliberate and express agreement in reference to the extent to which, as individuals, they should be subject to the civil power. As we have no records of any such compacts, it is impossible to determine how much authority was thus lodged in the hands of the state. Hence have arisen perpetual and interminable controversies respecting the extent of the civil power, that is, of the authority of the community over individuals. By written constitutions these controversies may be more or less avoided. In framing and adopting them, the people expressly ordain and determine the boundaries of the civil power, and mark out the sphere within which its action shall be confined.

In doing this, the people of a country must be considered, not merely as restraining their government, but as putting limitations to their own power as a people, as impairing their own sovereignty.