The Sun.
London, England, 1837-05-23 00:00:00

POWER OF THE THIRD ESTATE.

In these days, when the people are so generally imbued
with a spirit of political inquiry, and when the elements of
our constitution—the respective powers and privileges of
our governors, and the working of the system—are subjects
of so much interest and discussion, a few curious historical
facts, may not inappropriately be brought under notice.
They will serve to shew that the independence of the here-
ditary'portion of the legislature, and its usefulness in mode-
rating the temper, correcting the mistakes, and checking
the encroachments of the Lower House of Parliament, was
formerly more.theoretical than practical, and if the case has
now become different, it is a grave question how far the
evil ought to be opposed. It is a fundamental rule in the
British Constitution, that the Three Estates of Parliament
are intended to counterpoise each other, so that no undue
power or influence predominate to the prejudice of the
people, whl by representation, having the imitation of all
matters affecting themselves, especially the distribution cf
that money which they themselves raise by taxation, are al
lowed to hold the sovereign power. This may be considered
rather a political maxim, never but in times of anarchy and
disorganization acted upon; but it is nevertheless certain that

on many occasions, the Commons exercised the right oi
curbing both Kings and Lords, and b01.'4 performed its
duty against the wishes of both. It is evident that were
the two Houses in iota ccelo opposed fo each other, the
most disastrous effects would speedily ensue ; but the tone
which some hot-brained Tories assume may be softened by
the reminiscence of a few instances where the accomplish-
ment of the Royal desires, and the anxious wishes of the
Peers, were effectually prevented, and the representatives
of the community asserted their indisputable rights.
Henry 111., intending to embark in a foreigri expedition,
asked his Parliament for money to defray the charges ; but
he was flatly refused, and told t,k his face, it was shameful
to make such a demand, for they would not waste more of
his money. This remonstrance had no effect with those
sturdy members ; the King said his royal word wzs pledged,
and that he must at all events go abroad that year himself ;
but they flatly refused the supply, and asked what had been
done with all the money he had already exacted from them,
and desired to know why such sums should be spent without
benefit to the kingdom's ? These patriots proceeded to
expel all foreigners and " Englishmen with foreign hearts,"
whose presence about the person of the King they thought
prevented his studying the national advantage. Henry the
Second, Ingulphus the Chronicler tells us, had likewise re-
quested permission to lead an armament beyond seas ; but
his trusty Parliament thought he had no business abroad,
but should stay in his own dominions according to his ditty,
and keep the money at home. We learn from Walsingham
that Edward the First a nun whose ambition led him into
unceasing wars, having asked an extraordinary supply to
enable him to make a campaign in Flanders, he was refused,
and told that the people did not think it fit that the King
should go on any such expedition, unless he could secure
from that country some equivalent to indemnify himself and
his subjects, for the risk and expense of the undertaking!
Edward the Third received many such rebuffs, as did suc-
ceeding monarchs, with all which, however galling to " free
born princes," as King James boasted of himself, they were
obliged to put up. Here we see the operation of that check
which the wisdom of our ancestors saw was so necessary to
prevent any undue preponderance of the King and the
Peers, and to regulate the expenditure of that money which
the people were called upon to provide.
Talia efFrons impudenter postularet—contradixerunt Refl.
in faciem nolentes, amplius pectqa sea spoliari."