when they had increased to such numbers that their countries could no longer nourish them, or because they wanted skill to improve their lands, were sent out to provide for themselves; and having done so, did erect many kingdoms and states, either by themselves, or in union and coalition with the ancient inhabitants.

It is in vain to say, that wheresoever they came, the land did belong to somebody; and that they who came to dwell there, must be subject to the laws of those who were lords of the soil; for that is not always true in fact. Some come into desart countries that have no lord, others into such as are thinly peopled, by men, who, knowing not how to improve their land do either grant part of it upon easy terms to the new comers, or grow into a union with them in the enjoyment of the whole: and histories furnish us with infinite examples of this nature.

If we look into our own original, without troubling ourselves with the senseless stories of Samothes the son of Japhet, and his magicians, or the giants begotten by spirits upon the thirty daughters of Danaus sent from Phoenicia in a boat without sail, oars, or rudder, we shall find, that when the Romans abandoned this island, the inhabitants were left to a full liberty of providing for themselves: and whether we deduce our original from them, or the Saxons, or from both, our ancestors were perfectly free; and the Normans having inherited the same right when they came to be one nation with the former, we can

not but continue so still, unless we have enslaved ourselves.

Nothing is more contrary to reason than to imagine this. When the fierce barbarity of the Saxons came to be softened by a more gentle climate, the arts and religion they learnt, taught them to reform their manners, and better enabled them to frame laws for the preservation of their liberty, but no way diminished their love to it: and though the Normans might desire to get the lands of those who had joined with Harold, and of others, into their hands, yet when they were settled in the country, and by marraiges united to the ancient inhabitants, they became true Englishmen, and no less lovers of liberty, and resolute defenders of it, than the Saxons had been. There was then neither conquering Norman, nor conquered Saxon, but a great and brave people composed of both, united in blood and interest in the defence of their common rights, which they so well maintained, that no prince since that time has too violently encroached upon them, who, as the reward of his folly has not lived miserably, and died shamefully.

Such actions of our ancestors do not, as I suppose, savour much of the submission which patrimonial slaves do usually render to the will of their lord. On the contrary, whatsoever they did was by a power inherent in themselves, to defend that liberty in which they were born. All their kings were created upon the same condition, and for the same ends. Alfred

acknowledged he found and left them perfectly free; and the confession of Offa, that they had not made him king for his own merits, but for the defence of their liberty, comprehends all that were before and after him. They well knew how great the honour was, to be made head of a great people; and rigor. ously exacted the performance of the ends for which such a one was elevated, severely punishing those who basely and wickedly betrayed the trust reposed in them, and violated all that is most sacred among men; which could not have been, unless they were naturally free; for the liberty that has no being, cannot be defended.

SECTION XXXIV.

NO VENERATION PAID, OR HONOUR CONFERRED UPON A JUST AND LAWFUL MAGISTRATE, CAN DIMINISH THE LIBERTY OF A NATION.

SOME have supposed, that though the people be naturally free, and magistrates created by them, they do by such creations deprive themselves of that natural liberty; and that the names of "king, sovereign lord," and "dread sovereign," being no way consistent with liberty, they who give such titles do renounce it. Our author carries this very far, and

lays great weight upon the submissive language used by the people, when they "humbly crave that his majesty would be pleased to grant their accustomed freedom of speech, and access to his person ;" and 'give the name of supplications and petitions to the addresses made to him :" whereas he answers in the haughty language of "Le roy le veut, Le roy s'avisera," and the like. But they who talk at this rate, shew, that they neither understand the nature of magistracy, nor the practice of nations. Those who have lived in the highest exercise of their liberty, and have been most tenacious of it, have thought no honour too great for such magistrates as were eminent in the defence of their rights, and were set up for that end. The name of dread sovereign might justly have been given to a Roman dictator, or consul; for they had the sovereign authority in their hands, and power sufficient for its execution. Whilst their magistracy continued, they were a terror to the same men, whose axes and rods had been a terror to them the year or month before, and might be so again the The Romans thought they could not be guilty of excess in carrying the power and veneration due to their dictator to the highest: and Livy tells us, that his "edicts were esteemed sacred." I have already shewn, that this haughty people, who might have commanded, condescended to join with their tribunes in a petition to the dictator Papirius, for the life of Quintus Fabius, who had fought a battle in his absence, and without his order, though he had gained a great and memorable victory. The

next.

* Edictum dictatoris pro numine observatum. HIST. 1. 8.

same Fabius, when consul, was commended by his father Q. Fabius Maximus, for obliging him by his lictors, to dismount from his horse, and to pay him the same respect that was due from others. The tribunes of the people, who were instituted for the preservation of liberty, were also esteemed sacred and inviolable, as appears by that phrase,

sacro

sancta tribunorum potestas," so common in their ancient writers. No man, I presume, thinks any monarchy more limited, or more clearly derived from adelegated power, than that of the German emperors; and yet, "sacra Cæsarea majestas" is the public style. Nay, the Hollanders at this day call their burgermasters, though they see them selling herring or tar, "high and mighty lords," as soon as they are advanced to be of the thirty-six, forty-two, or forty-eight magistrates of a small town. It is no wonder, therefore, if a great nation should think it conducive to their own glory, to give magnificent titles, and use submissive language, to that one man whom they set up to be their head; most especially, if we consider, that they came from a country where such titles and language were principally invented.

Among the Romans and Grecians we hear nothing of majesty, highness, serenity, and excellence, appropriated to a single person, but receive them from Germany and other northern countries. We find "majestas populi Romani," and "majestas imperii," in their best authors; but no man, speaking to Julius or Augustus, or even to the vainest of their successors, ever used those empty titles, nor took upon