CHAPTER XXXVI: HALIFAX & LOCKE

Before we proceed to knowing his political thoughts, Let us have an overview of

where this all started which is the Glorious Revolution of 1688. This Era was known
to be complex as a lot of things were instigated, like the struggle for power between
a Catholic King and a Protestant Parliament, the Fight for religious and civil
liberties, and the difference between emerging political parties and foreign
invasion. England was to be a monarch, but a monarch controlled by the parliament
due to the results of the civil wars. During this time, the English government settled
into form without the presence of reforms of presentation thus resulting in a crass
form of government in the 18th century showing the worst abuses of class
government.

The principles of this settlement were therefore summed up by two enlightened

Englishmen which were George Savile, The first Marquis of Halifax, and the
Philosopher John Locke. Sir George Savile, was an English statesman and political
writer known as “The Trimmer” because of his moderating position in the fierce party
struggles of his day. Although his conciliatory approach frequently made him a
detached critic rather than a dynamic politician, the principles he espoused have
appealed to many 20th-century political thinkers.

Though recognized in the 18th century, both of them have complete indifference
when it comes to their political thought, as both of them would rather count the basis
on pure common sense rather than logic. Halifax was an empiricist and a skeptic.
Locke too was an empiricist but with a large residue of philosophic rationalism. There
was not much of a difference when it comes to their theories regarding government
and the people.

What most impressed Halifax's skeptical and inquiring mind was the general
principles that hold good for the government. This is what he refers to as
"fundamentals." According to Halifax, it is a term commonly used by religious
people as the word is sacred. He has also stated that these so-called fundamentals
within every human institution will change from time to time as their efficacy won't
last. His examples shown are the divine right of kings, the indefeasible rights of
property and persons, and laws that are not to be repealed or modified. Thus, he stated
that laws and constitutions are not made once but a hundred times, by means their
efficacy will last for a long time.

He states that common law, with reference to Sir Coke, that it "hovers in the clouds,"
except it is set in motion by a court or an executive and becomes whatever the
execution of the court's judgment makes it as law and government will depend upon
the intelligence and goodwill of the person who conducts them. The government for
Halifax is, according to his statement merely the business of a ruling class, but hints at
their intelligence. Its chief virtue should have a practicable compromise between
power and liberty, meaning the one who leads must have the ability to adapt to
changing circumstances, strong enough to keep the peace, but also liberal enough to
avoid repression.
"Behind the government is the nation, and nations make governments, not
contrariwise. A people who loses its king is still a people, but a king who loses its
people is no longer a king." He states that there is a supreme power that alters the
constitution as often as the good people require, some principles like national life and
self-preservation which he admits he could not properly define, are the nearest thing
to a fundamental known to politics.

The real power of the government depends upon its responsiveness to its internal
drive. It just means without it neither constitutions nor force will be able to prevail. In
a general sense, the government depends upon consent, which is from the people. He
has comprehended that there should be an amount of indefinable power in leadership,
a kind of omnipotence to be a voice for the nations, a representative body to prevent it
from ruin.

Upon this basis of expediency and national history, Halifax was able to construct his
estimate of the crisis in England. This is referencing his New Model at Sea which he
states are 3 possibilities:

Absolute Monarchy - He thinks it has some advantages in terms of unity and

the speed of execution, however he also states that it destroys the "competent
state of freedom" in which men ought to live, and this would be impossible in
England because both national tradition and England's greatness must lie in
trade. It basically means not one must be above the other.

Commonwealth - He only thought of this as a theoretical to monarchy,

however received an objection from the Englishmen because simply they don't
like it. It also reminds them of the tragic experimentation with Commonwealth
that ended in a military dictatorship.

Mixed Monarchy - this is the one and only real possibility he has stated
which is a constitutional government divided between a king and the
parliament. He was well content with this choice for such a government as he
thought it is the best compromise between power and liberty.

His political thought attacks the fundamentals of the government, however, he also
failed to understand the machinery of the new government. He did not take into
account that the ministers must become dependent on the parliament and be
responsible for it, instead of being a personal choice of the monarch. No one could
have seen this until the course of parliamentary history, unfortunately, Halifax died
before the evidence was in.

He also failed to see that political parties had become an inherent part of the
parliamentary government because due to his past experience he marked political
parties as hostile. He judged parties as a conspiracy against the nation and the party
discipline is what he felt was incompatible with the liberty of private opinion.

His emphasis upon expedience, which was an ever-present factor in political

adjustment was an introduction to ethical and political utilitarianism, which was the
only social philosophy in England. Thus, Halifax would not have been flattered by
being called a philosopher but displayed an intellectual temper which was then an
integral part of Philosophy.