REPRESENTATIVE INSTITUTIONS.

Lyttelton Times, Volume VI, Issue 405, 20 September 1856, Page 3

REPRESENTATIVE INSTITUTIONS.

The following report of a lecture on the character and development of representative institutions, historicaHy considered, by Mr. G. W. Rusden, is from a recent number of the Argus. Mr. Rusden commenced his remarks by observing: that the lecture he was about to deliver was rather an incentive to the mere detailed pursuits of the very interestii g subject of which he treated. The elements of political inquiry must be taken as they were found, and every successive phase cf the 'world's political history was* only nnother problem and example to the historical student. Man, if not perfectable, was yet progressive ; and it wks not presumption if, with its present advantages, society looked back and in some c ises condemned the mode adopted even by the wisest of our ancestors in the pursuit ot truth. He need not inquue how it was that in all ages large bodies of men —whole empires—caire under the absolute sway of men, as was the case of Judea, Egypt. Even in enlightened Greece nine-tenths of

the population were only serfs to the other tenth, who called themselves republicans, but were in fact oligarchs. This was au infringement of the representative principle, "akhough Greece and Rome flattered themselves that their Governments fairly represented the people- In Athens, whib 20,000 citizens discussed and settled questions of peace and war, 400,000 slaves and helots had no voice in the matter; and even when a few of the helots were enfranchised, they were secretly made away with both by.the Athenian and Spartan freemen. The choice by the citizens of representatives to make their laws was almost unknown to the ancients, although the citizens were sometimes consulted, but the magistrates alone seemed dominant in all ordinary questions. The Spartans were merely a governing tribe, and no representation of the people existed, for the vast powers entrusted to the magistrates were in fact an abnegation of the rights of the people to choose for themselves. The general structure of the Athenian polity was no doubt aristocratic, although subsequently tending to democracy; and the boasted freedom of the Greeks was but the tyranny of tribe, and, as a consequence, the power which sprang from wealth became unbearable. Solon took up the condition of the Athenians, and to him was entrusted the task of framing their laws according to his laws. The assembly of four hundred was annually chosen from the three chief classes of the people; and the fourth class, akhough entrusted with a power of discussing the measures of the council, could originate no act of legislation. This, however, gave no represeutation, for only the three wealthiest classes could introduce legislative measures, and the assembly of SOO^chosen from the fourth class could only pass a powerless judgment on what had been done. This system, however, failed, and its faults enabled Plsistratus, the tyrant, to deal with the liberties of the people. To correct the faults of the system the principle of ostracism and opening the road to preferment to the fourth class were taken up, but vainly. Ostracism seemed to be inapplicable, and after all it was only heading the hare the wrong way : it w;-,s not only power to expel a bad and powerful citizen that was requited, but* the power to elect the best man. In Rome there could be little doubt that the Athenian system was adopted at fi*-st, and there were three aristocratic classes in Rome; the fourth class, or iheplebs, corresponded ■with the fourth class, or Demos of Athens. Here again, a faint shadow of the representative principle was adopted, but.the higher classes had an absolute majority of votes. Micbelot termed this system merely a monied aristocracy, but Lord Brougham deemed j that the great concessiors afterwards obtained by the people from the Patricians constituted the system in some degree a representative one.' When the "people afterwards obtained a direct action, it was carried to a most vicious excess—an excess which would have been obviated by the controlling'power of a purely representative system. Such a system would have obtained better results with less constitutional disturbance. To he a member of the governing claps in Rome, was to have a right to trample on others ; while to be of the meanest order of Englishmen was to

have a right of protection from all insult. It \yas need ess to trace the ri.?e and fall of the Roman empire: these preceded the foundation of the feudal system in England. The Roman conquest of Britain had little to do with the topic he had to deal with. It did not appear that England was ever Latinised so far as Spain and Gaul, by the settlement-of liornan families. This was carried on slightly and ceased abruptly. The Roman power in Britain ceased in the fif.h ceatury, the Koman municipalities fell

to the ground, and no civil code seemed to have been established until the Normans' time. There was no doubt that the bulk of the English came from the Saxon races, as Montesquieu held that the noble institutions of England afterw rds were founded in the forests of Germany. The jSaxons who conquered England seemed to have been a more enterprising race than those who overcame elsewhere, avid many of them were no doubt from their rank entitled to sit in the Wintenagemote, or assembly of wise men. This was, however, not a representative assembly, and it was probable that the conquest of the Normans and their oppression first firmly united the Saxons in defence of their own liberties. Even Wiiliam I. respected the laws of Edward the Confessor, and allowed many of the old Saxon county courts and borough privileges to exist. William, however, felt the need of something more than military power to sustain his conquest. Henry I. swore to respect the laws of Edward the Confessor; John, weak, crafty and cruel, was exactly the man to succumb to the patriotism which arose from his tyranny. The charter of liberty when vested from the Crown, great though it was, was chiefly owing to the efforts of Stephen Langton, the true father of English liberty. The rapid emancipation of/serfs after the signature of tbe charter removed the only cause of dispute amongst Englishmen, and the provision for personal liberty contained in the words " nulli negabimusaut vendemus justitiam" became permanently established. (The lecturer took a rapid view of the events which succeeded the signing of the great charter of English liberty; and the part taken by Stephen Langton, the Earl of Pembroke, and the then Mayor of London—a fact which alone should make them adhere to municipal institutions.) After the charter certain knights were chosen in each county to see that its conditions were observed. They found, however, that some active principle was needed to protect them against the prerogatives of the Crown, which, as old customs, took the force of laws. In the subsequent contest of the great Earl of Leicester with the Crown —the first developement of representative principles took place, for the Earl found it needful to issue writs for elections of burgesses to represent the towns, and from this accident as it might be termed sprang the foundation of that principle since carried out so intimately in connection with the government of this empire—the power of the Commons. It would be needless to inquire whether, if this accident had not occurred, representation would not have been developed. The charter was renewed thirty-two times, and so great was the love that the people bore to it that it became useless i.o resist. The right conceded to the burgesses to deal with the public money conceded almost all that was needed ; and in the time of Edward the 111. the House of Commons was found sitting somewhat in its present form. Before the end of the reign of Henry VI. the Commons hud established the exclusive right to originate money bills, to impeach public officers, and, though last not least, the right to originate legislative measures, which the King could refuse to assent to but not alter. After this it became a requisite to regulate the machinery which affected elections, and to fix a qualification to vote. As a general rule, however, the right of suffrage was undervalued, and led to those evils which the Reform Bill subsequently removed. (The lecturer then went through the events which subsequently led to the further developement of the* power of the Commons up to the present time, events familiar to even the most superficial students of history and to the democrat, who can find enough of misgovernment under the present system to raise a clamor for a change.)