Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Acknowledgements
- Introduction
- Principal events in Bolingbroke's life
- Further reading
- Note on texts
- A Dissertation upon Parties (1733–34)
- LETTER I
- LETTER II
- LETTER III
- LETTER IV
- LETTER V
- LETTER VI
- LETTER VII
- LETTER VIII
- LETTER IX
- LETTER X
- LETTER XI
- LETTER XII
- LETTER XIII
- LETTER XIV
- LETTER XV
- LETTER XVI
- LETTER XVII
- LETTER XVIII
- LETTER XIX
- ‘On the Spirit of Patriotism’ (1736)
- The Idea of a Patriot King (1738)
- Biographical notes
- Index of persons
- Index of subjects
- Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought
LETTER XV
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 June 2012
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Acknowledgements
- Introduction
- Principal events in Bolingbroke's life
- Further reading
- Note on texts
- A Dissertation upon Parties (1733–34)
- LETTER I
- LETTER II
- LETTER III
- LETTER IV
- LETTER V
- LETTER VI
- LETTER VII
- LETTER VIII
- LETTER IX
- LETTER X
- LETTER XI
- LETTER XII
- LETTER XIII
- LETTER XIV
- LETTER XV
- LETTER XVI
- LETTER XVII
- LETTER XVIII
- LETTER XIX
- ‘On the Spirit of Patriotism’ (1736)
- The Idea of a Patriot King (1738)
- Biographical notes
- Index of persons
- Index of subjects
- Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought
Summary
Sir,
But to resume the comparison of other constitutions of government with our own, I say, that if the Gothic constitution in Spain, either by original defects, or by deviating from, and not being reduced again in time to its first principles, was destroyed through the corruption of parliaments, and by the force of an army, one of which betrayed, and the other conquered the commons of Castile; the commons of France seem either not to have had, or to have lost, in the dark beginnings of that monarchy, all share in the supreme, legislative power. The great, original defect of having but two estates to share the supreme power, is an objection common to the Roman, and to the French constitution, with this difference: of the three simple forms of government, the monarchical, the aristocratical, and the democratical, Rome wanted the first, and France hath always wanted the last. Rome had a nobility and a commonalty, but no magistracy fitted by its institution to answer the purposes of that supreme magistrate, who is called king even in limited monarchies. France hath always had a king and a nobility, and hath felt in their turns all the evils of monarchical and aristocratical tyranny. But the people have not had, I presume, since the government of the Franks was fully established on this side of the Rhine, and the form of their monarchy settled, any share in the supreme power, either collectively or representatively, how much soever a contrary notion may have been countenanced by some writers, and have been generally entertained, at least in other countries.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Bolingbroke: Political Writings , pp. 143 - 151Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 1997