No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 December 2009
At the General Quarter Session of the Peace holden at HICK's HALL, in Saint-John-Street, in and for the County aforesaid, on Monday the Eleventh Day of September 1780, before the Reverend Sir George Booth, Baronet, Thomas Cogan, William Gregson, George Alcock, Esquires, and others their Fellows, Justices of our Lord the King assigned to keep the Peace in and for the said County.
It is unanimously resolved and ordered, That the Thanks of this Court be, and the same are hereby returned to Sir JOHN HAWKINS, Knt. Chairman of die Sessions of die Peace for this County, for his Charge delivered to the Grand Jury, at die Opening of diis Session. And the Court doth desire, dial he will be pleased to cause the same to be printed and published as soon as conveniendy may be. And it is further ordered, That Sir JOHN HAWKINS have a copy of this order, and diat the Clerk of the Peace do attend him dierewith immediately.
page 432 note 1 Most probably the Gordon Riots, of early June 1780.
page 433 note 1 Touching the Origin of civil Government, there are two Opinions severally maintained by the Writers on that Subject; the one termed patriarchal, which supposes the Right of Dominion to be founded on the express Donation of God, the other called the popular Scheme, which supposes the same Right to be the Gift, or to arise from the Consent, of the People. Of the former, Sir Robert Filmer, Hobbes of Malmesbury, and a few others; of the latter, Mr. Locke, and if I remember right, Bishop Hoadley, are the Abettors.
The middle Hypothesis above hinted at, that the Rights, the Powers, and Privileges of Dominion are from God, but the Choice of the Person who shall exercise them is the Right of the People.
A late very ingenious Writer, the Rev. Mr. Henry Grove, of Taunton, was the first, in his own Opinion, that discovered this Middle Scheme, concerning which he speaks as follows: “There may possibly be Advantages peculiar to each of these [the popular and the patriarchal] Schemes, and whether the Patrons of them will own it or not, there are Difficulties and Objections too that embarrass both. — Now if there be any third Hypothesis, which, having the main Advantages of these two, provides against the ill Consequences of each, it ought certainly to have the Preference. I am mistaken if the following does not bid fair for it: This Hypothesis in short is this, That all Power is directly from God, not by his positive Appointment, but as he pleased to signify his sovereign Will by the Nature of Things, leaving it to the Choice and Discretion of People among whom Governments are not yet established, in what Form, by what Persons, and on what Conditions this Power shall be exercised. The Power itself flows from the Will of the Creator, declared with that Plainness and Evidence that no Part of Mankind can be ignorant of it.” See an Essay on the Origin and Extent of civil Power among the Miscellanies of the Rev. Mr. Henry Grove, Octavo, 1739Google Scholar.
But this Author seems to have been little aware that the very same Doctrine is the Subject of an Essay upon Government, written by Dr. Thomas Burnett, Rector of West Kington, in the County of Wilts., and printed first in Duodecimo in [1716] and again in Octavo in 1726, wherein he declares his Sentiments: “As the Welfare of Society is the End and Reason of all Government, so the different Interests of different Societies is the Reason of the different Forms of it: And as it cannot be doubted, bur these different Forms were devised by Men, so though the Authority of Government be from God, yet the Appointment of the Persons to execute that Authority is purely and intirely of the Ordinance of Man. And this gives an Account of the Expression, 1 Peter ii. 13Google Scholar. of being subject to every Ordinance of Man for the Lord's Sake; by which is meant, that those who are intrusted with the Government of Societies in any Kind of Form, are only the Ordinance of Men; but yet, though they are so, they are nevertheless to be submitted to, for the Lord's Sake, because they execute that Power in Behalf of the Society, which every Society has from God.” Lib. cit. Page 33, Edit. 1726.
The Coincidence of Opinions between these Two Writers is very remarkable, seeing that, without being conscious of so doing, they illustrate the Arguments of each other; and it cannot but be Matter of Surprise to find, as the Reader may, the very same Doctrine maintained by that very able and judicious Writer on Government, Hooker, in the following Passage, in the eighth Book of his Ecclesiastical Polity, Page 444, Edit. 1682. “On whom Power is bestow'd at Men's Discretion, they do hold it by Divine Right: If God, in his revealed Word, hath appointed such Power to be, although himself extraordinarily bestow it not, but leave the Appointment of Persons to Men; yea albeit God do neither appoint nor assign the Person; Nevertheless, when Men have assigned and established both, Who doth doubt but that sundry Duties and Affairs depending thereupon are prescribed by the Word of God, and consequently by that very Right to be exacted? For Example Sake, the Power which Roman Emperors had over foreign Princes, was not a Thing which the Law of God did ever institute: Neither was Tiberius Cæsar by especial Commission from Heaven therewith invested, and yet Payment of Tribute unto Cæsar, being now made Emperor, is the plain Law of Jesus Christ Unto Kings by human Right, Honour, by very divine Right, is due. The Doctrine above advanced is finely illustrated by the same Author in the following apt Comparison: “The Law appointera no Man to be a Husband; but if a Man hath betaken himself unto that Condition, it giveth him Power and Authority over his own Wife.”
These Citations seem abundantly to prove against the Notion of a Grant in the one Scheme, or a Donation in the other, yet comprehending both; that the Authority of the Magistrate does, by divine Appointment, result from, or arise out of, the Relation between him and his People, in like Manner as that of a Husband does from the Relation between him and his Wife. - Editor's Note: Dr Burnett's book=An Essay upon Government: or, the Natural Notions of Government demonstrated. London: Baker & Warner, 1716, in-80, not in-120-and ed., 1726, in-80.
page 435 note 1 Laws politic, ordained for public Order and Regimen amongst Men, are never framed as they should be, unless presuming the Will of Man to be inwardly obstinate, rebellious, and averse from all Obedience unto the sacred Laws of his Nature: in a Word, unless presuming Man, in regard of his depraved Mind, little better than a wild Beast, they do accordingly provide, notwithstanding, so to frame his outward Actions, that they be no Hindrance unto the common Good, for which Societies were instituted: Unless they do this, they are not perfect. Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity, Page 85.
page 435 note 2 Vide Rom. xiii. 1Google Scholar. Titus iii.i. 1 Peter ii. 13.Google Scholar
page 437 note 1 III Institut. 26. Vide also Co. Litt. Sect. 194. Fortesc, de laudib. cap. 26. Staundf. Hees del. Coron. Lib. 2. Fo. 90. [Co. Litt.=Coke upon Littleton]
page 437 note 2 [same note as Hawkins 1770, p. 26.]
page 438 note 1 I Hawk. P.C. 37.
page 439 note 1 I Hawk. 37.
page 439 note 2 Hole's Hist. Plac. Coron. Vol. I. 133.
page 439 note 3 Foster's Crown Law, 208.
page 439 note 4 Foster, 208, 209.Google Scholar
page 440 note 1 I. Hawk. P.C. 105.
page 440 note 2 Vide I. Hawk. 167.
page 441 note 1 Very little short of the Case here supposed, was the following one of an Offender, a few Years ago tried before me at the Middlesex Session. Some Custom-House Officers being in Search of smuggled Goods, the Mob rose and resisted them with a Discharge of Fire Arms; and a Riot ensued. The Prisoner was apprehended as one of the Rioters, and being carried before a Magistrate, alledged in Proof of his Innocence, that at the Time of the Riot he was ten Miles from the Place where it arose, viz. at Croydon, in Suny. Forgetting this his Defence before the committing Magistrate, he at his trial produced a friendly Witness, who swore, that for a certain Period, commencing and ending with the Riot, the Offender was in his own Room, having locked himself in; and that he, the Witness, through the Chinks of an adjoining Apartment, saw him remain there till the Tumult was over. It happened, however, that the committing Magistrate being in Court, produced the Examination taken before him; and, the same being properly attested, and the Evidence of his being active in the Riot appearing full and clear, the Jury found the Offender guilty; and, if I do not mistake, the Court committed the witness for Perjury.
page 442 note 1 This Indulgence has been farther extended by a very late Act of Parliament; and it is but Justice thus publicly to declare, and it will afford Satisfaction to many to be informed that the same has been gratefully accepted; many of the most eminent Dissenting Teachers in this Country having legally qualified themselves for the Exercise of their Function, by complyig with the Terms thereof.
page 443 note 1 Matt. xvi, 18.Google Scholar
page 443 note 2 9 & 10 Will. iii. Cap. 32. - 1 Edw. VI. Cap. 4. - 1 Eliz. Cap. 2 § 9.