Perhaps, Sir, I am mistaken in my idea of an empire, as distinguished from a
single state or kingdom. But my idea of it is this; that an empire is the
aggregate of many states under one common head, whether this head be a monarch
or a presiding republic. It does, in such constitutions, frequently happen--and
nothing but the dismal, cold, dead uniformity of servitude can prevent its
happening--that the subordinate parts have many local privileges and immunities.
Between these privileges and the supreme common authority the line may be
extremely nice. Of course disputes, often, too, very bitter disputes, and much
ill blood, will arise. But though every privilege is an exemption, in the case,
from the ordinary exercise of the supreme authority, it is no denial of it. The
claim of a privilege seems rather, ex vi termini, [Footnote: 38] to imply a
superior power; for to talk of the privileges of a state or of a person who has
no superior is hardly any better than speaking nonsense. Now, in such
unfortunate quarrels among the component parts of a great political union of
communities, I can scarcely conceive anything more completely imprudent than for
the head of the empire to insist that, if any privilege is pleaded against his
will or his acts, his whole authority is denied; instantly to proclaim
rebellion, to beat to arms, and to put the offending provinces under the ban.
Pages:
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97