Untitled - 24grammata.com

ON THE RISE, PROGRESS, ETC.An entire separationof the two in practical politics cannever be accomplishednor indeed did Locke ever intendit he assignedthe princea share in the legislative, and thusdiffered from Hobbes by admitting a mixed constitution,while the latter rejected all division of the sovereignty, andadmitted only the pureforms. Notwithstanding this, however, the theoretical distinction of these elements led to themaxim that they ought to be separatedas much as possiblein practice and thus the ; way was openedto most seriouserrors. Subsequent experience has unfortunately shownthat anxiety on this point is any thing but unfounded, andif we examine the evils which have resulted from it, weshall be obliged to confess, that no theory ever produced somuch mischief by being misunderstood as this.As far as England was concerned, however, the principlesof Locke needed no qualification,and we can easily understand how they should become the text book of the nation.That separation of the executive and legislative powerswhich he required, was here in force, for although the kinghad a share of the latter, it was yet essentiallyin the handsof the parliament. Those maxims which were consideredby the people as most sacred and most important, viz. thatno taxes should be imposed except with the consent of theirrepresentatives, that all men's rights were equal in the eyeof the law, and the like, were definitely expressed by Locke :and thus his theory corresponded in all its essential point'with what actually existed. This accordance alone woulchave secured Locke a very great authority but besides thisjlie was acknowledged as the first philosopher, and one othe most classical writers which the nation possessedan