Blackstone condemned the execution of Algernon Sidney for high treason

“Treason, proditio, in its very name (which is borrowed from the French) imports a betraying, treachery, or breach of faith. It therefore happens only between allies, faith the mirror [footnote] : for treason is indeed a general appellation, made use of by the law, to denote not only offences against the king and government, but also that accumulation of guilt which arises whenever a superior reposes a confidence in a subject or inferior, between whom and himself there subsists a natural, a civil, or even a spiritual relation ; and inferior so abuses that confidence, so forgets the obligations of duty, subjection, and allegiance, as to destroy the life of any such his superior or lord.”

– Sir William Blackstone’s “Commentaries on the Laws of England” (1769), Book 4, Chapter 6

Algernon Sidney

Algernon Sidney was executed some four decades before Sir William Blackstone was born

Algernon Sidney was executed some four decades before Sir William Blackstone was born. Specifically, our subject Algernon Sidney was executed in 1683, and Sir William Blackstone would not be born until 1723. (But I’m getting ahead of myself here.) Blackstone was in his forties when he wrote his “Commentaries on the Laws of England.” This was a four-volume work, which gave a general overview of its chosen subject. Its fourth and final volume was published in the year 1769. This is the volume that I will be quoting from here. (Incidentally, all quotations from Blackstone’s “Commentaries” in this particular blog post will be from Book 4, Chapter 6 – a chapter entitled “Of High Treason.”)

Statue of Sir William Blackstone

A review of William Blackstone’s “Commentaries on the Laws of England”

“The objects of the laws of England are so very numerous and extensive, that, in order to consider them with any tolerable ease and perspicuity, it will be necessary to distribute them methodically, under proper and distinct heads ; avoiding as much as possible divisions too large and comprehensive on the one hand, and too trifling and minute on the other ; both of which are equally productive of confusion.”

– Opening lines of William Blackstone’s “Commentaries on the Laws of England” (1760’s), Book 1, Chapter 1

So I spent four and a half years reading Sir William Blackstone’s “Commentaries on the Laws of England.” This is a four-volume work which influenced our Founding Fathers. The first volume was originally released in 1765, and the last was originally released in 1769. This is one of the best books that I’ve ever read, as I’ve tried to show in other posts. But this is the first post in which I’ve attempted to give an overview of the entire work. Thus, I will try to summarize the work for those who’ve never read it before. In doing so, I will give my reaction to the different volumes of Blackstone’s “Commentaries,” and what parts of each volume most stood out to me personally.

Title page of the original edition of the first volume of Blackstone’s “Commentaries”

The most serious crimes that anyone can commit (according to Blackstone)

“Of crimes injurious to the persons of private subjects, the most principal and important is the offence of taking away that life, which is the immediate gift of the great creator; and which therefore no man can be entitled to deprive himself or another of, but in some manner either expressly commanded in, or evidently deducible from, those laws which the creator has given us; the divine laws, I mean, of either nature or revelation. The subject therefore of the present chapter will be, the offence of homicide or destroying the life of man, in its several stages of guilt, arising from the particular circumstances of mitigation or aggravation which attend it.”

– William Blackstone’s “Commentaries on the Laws of England” (1769), Book 4, Chapter 14

So I recently finished reading William Blackstone’s “Commentaries on the Laws of England.” This is a four-volume work that influenced our Founding Fathers. For me, the most interesting of these volumes was the last one, which was entitled “Of Public Wrongs.” It contains a number of notable chapters, among them a chapter entitled “Of Homicide.” Like the rest of this volume, this chapter was first published in 1769.

Alexander Hamilton, a fan of Blackstone’s “Commentaries”

Yes, Blackstone was a monarchist – but not an absolute monarchist

“All regal governments must be either hereditary or elective : and, as I believe there is no instance wherein the crown of England has ever been asserted to be elective, except by the regicides [or “king-killers”] at the infamous and unparalleled trial of king Charles I, it must of consequence be hereditary.”

– William Blackstone’s “Commentaries on the Laws of England” (1760’s), Book 1, Chapter 3

Blackstone’s hero was Sir Edward Coke, a nemesis of King Charles the First

Sir William Blackstone was a great fan of Sir Edward Coke (whose last name is pronounced “Cook”). But Sir Edward Coke was one of the enemies of King Charles the First. Thus, it might seem strange that Blackstone condemned those who executed his hero’s nemesis (as shown above). But it’s not as strange as you might think, if you consider some of the context. This post will show some of this sometimes-missing context. Thus, it will help to explain some parts of Blackstone’s “Commentaries” that have not aged well today. For example, it will help to explain why Blackstone was a monarchist – albeit a constitutional monarchist.

Sir William Blackstone

Yes, Blackstone’s “Commentaries” influenced Abraham Lincoln (and here’s the proof)

“The election of 1834 came, and [Abraham Lincoln] was then elected to the Legislature [of Illinois] by the highest vote cast for any candidate. Major John T. Stuart, then in full practice of the law, was also elected. During the canvass, in a private conversation he encouraged [Abe to] study law. After the election [Abe] borrowed books of Stuart, took them home with him, and went at it in good earnest. He studied with nobody. He still mixed in the surveying to pay board and clothing bills. When the Legislature met, the law books were dropped, but were taken up again at the end of the session.”

– Abraham Lincoln’s “Autobiography Written for John L. Scripps” (circa June 1860), in which Lincoln strangely is referring to himself in the third person (as shown above)

There was an official campaign biography of Abraham Lincoln in 1860 …

Sir William Blackstone died nearly three decades before Abraham Lincoln was born. But Blackstone would nonetheless have an influence on the young Lincoln through one of his books, as many others have noted. In the year 1860, William Dean Howells wrote the “Life of Abraham Lincoln,” the official campaign biography of Abraham Lincoln (not to be confused with the above-quoted autobiography). This campaign biography was subject to revisions by Lincoln himself. Lincoln did indeed make some modifications whenever he deemed it necessary, but he did not alter the part about Blackstone that I’m going to quote here.

Sir William Blackstone

… which briefly talked about Lincoln’s legal education back in the 1830’s

The passage is about Lincoln’s legal education, which seems to have been gained sometime back in the 1830’s. Lincoln was in his twenties when getting this education. Thus, here is the portion of this biography about Lincoln’s reading of Sir William Blackstone:

William Dean Howells, author of this campaign biography of Lincoln

Some thoughts from Blackstone about punishing criminals

“I proceed in the next place to consider the general nature of punishments : which are evils or inconveniences consequent upon crimes and misdemeanors ; being devised, denounced, and inflicted by human laws, in consequence of disobedience or misbehaviour in those, to regulate whose conduct such laws were respectively made.”

– Sir William Blackstone’s “Commentaries on the Laws of England” (1769), Book 4, Chapter 1

Why do we punish small crimes differently from big ones? For that matter, why do we punish criminals at all? Many have asked these questions throughout history. There has been a great variety of answers from all kinds of people. Blackstone’s answers were not new even then, but they were solid answers, and they’re still relevant today.

Thus, I will examine some enlightening passages from his magnum opus, the “Commentaries on the Laws of England.” The fourth and final book of that work is entitled “Of Public Wrongs.” “Public wrongs” is just another way of saying “crimes.” Thus, this is Blackstone’s treatise on criminal law – and specifically, the criminal laws of England at this time. I should mention that all quotations in this particular blog post are from Book 4, Chapter 1. Thus, I will not note this every time. (Incidentally, this particular volume was first published in 1769.)

Coat of arms of Great Britain, 1714-1800

Wikipedia has some bad information about William Blackstone

Note: Sir William Blackstone was writing in the eighteenth century. But in the quotations given from him in this particular blog post, he discusses many events from back in the twelfth century - or, more broadly, from the Middle Ages.

Wikipedia claims that Blackstone “omitted” the Constitutions of Clarendon …

As I mentioned in a previous post, I’ve often enjoyed reading articles from Wikipedia, and have linked to a number of these articles from my own blog over the years. Some of these articles are reliable, while others are not. Many of them are somewhere in between. Possibly one of these articles to be somewhere in between is the article about William Blackstone, which contained some good information about William Blackstone, and some bad information. For example, the “Criticism” section of that page said that “English jurist Jeremy Bentham was a critic of Blackstone's theories.[132] Others saw Blackstone's theories as inaccurate statements of English law, using the Constitutions of Clarendon, the Tractatus of Glanville and the 1689 Bill of Rights as particularly obvious examples of laws Blackstone omitted.” (Source: “William Blackstone” page, “Criticism” section)

Jeremy Bentham

… and the Tractatus of Glanville (which it refers to as a “law”)

The part about how “English jurist Jeremy Bentham was a critic of Blackstone's theories” is properly sourced at the “[132]”. While I don't agree with Bentham's criticisms (indeed, I find them wildly inaccurate), I do agree that he was “a critic of Blackstone's theories” – this much is pretty well-established, and that is all that the source claims here. But the second sentence has no source, which makes me wonder who exactly is making these criticisms. The sentence in question says that “Others saw Blackstone's theories as inaccurate statements of English law, using the Constitutions of Clarendon, the Tractatus of Glanville and the 1689 Bill of Rights as particularly obvious examples of laws Blackstone omitted.” I have shown in a separate post that Blackstone did indeed mention the 1689 Bill of Rights, and thus did not “omit” it. In this post, I will show that he mentioned the Constitutions of Clarendon and the Tractatus of Glanville, the other topics that he is here erroneously accused of “omitt[ing].”

Jeremy Bentham

What is “Blackstonian property”?

“There is nothing which so generally strikes the imagination, and engages the affections of mankind, as the right of property; or that sole and despotic dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in total exclusion of the right of any other individual in the universe.”

– Sir William Blackstone's “Commentaries on the Laws of England” (1760's), Book 2, Chapter 1

When William Blackstone wrote his “Commentaries on the Laws of England,” he dedicated the entire second volume of this work to property law. He titled this volume “Of the Rights of Things” – that is, the right to own things as property. One of the very first things that he says in the opening chapter of that volume is that “There is nothing which so generally strikes the imagination, and engages the affections of mankind, as the right of property; or that sole and despotic dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in total exclusion of the right of any other individual in the universe.” (Source: Book 2, Chapter 1) This is one of the most famous passages in the “Commentaries.” Today, this definition is sometimes referred to as “Blackstonian property.” But right after that, Blackstone said something else that some might take to contradict that. Does it really do so? I shall examine this question below.

Sir William Blackstone

How Congress can give legal permission to be a “pirate” (er, “privateer”)

“[The Congress shall have the power] To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water ... ”

- Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 11 of the United States Constitution

First of all, what's the legal difference between “piracy” and “privateering”?

In prior times, it was common for governments to grant official permission to raid the shipping of their nations' enemies, and allow them to be “privateers” in their nation's service. Things that would otherwise be considered “piracy” would be considered legal in this time if they had the official “letters of marque and reprisal” to allow them to do it. Privateering under a “letter of marque and reprisal” was protected by law, while things that were considered “piracy” were illegal even then.

East Indiaman Kent battling Confiance, a privateer vessel commanded by French corsair Robert Surcouf in October 1800

“Letters of marque and reprisal” are just official permissions to engage in these actions

Why do I mention this? Because there's a part of the Constitution about granting “letters of marque and reprisal” to privateers – or rather, two parts about it – which might be worth going into here. I should first note that “letters of marque and reprisal” could sometimes be shortened to just “letters of marque.” In the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton sometimes used the great Sir William Blackstone's “Commentaries on the Laws of England,” as a source for his arguments. (For the details of this, see this blog post about it.) I will thus try to use his same source, when I derive a good legal definition of “letters of marque and reprisal” for our purposes. In the “Commentaries,” Sir William Blackstone wrote that “the sufferer must first apply to the lord privy-seal, and he shall make out letters of request under the privy seal; and, if, after such request of satisfaction made, the party required do not within convenient time make due satisfaction or restitution to the party grieved, the lord chancellor shall make him out letters of marque under the great seal; and by virtue of these he may attack and seize the property of the aggressor nation, without hazard of being condemned as a robber or pirate.” (Source: Book 1, Chapter 7)

Sir William Blackstone

How did Sir Edward Coke influence Sir William Blackstone?

In 1481 or 1482, Sir Thomas de Littleton wrote a then-famous work called “A Treatise on Tenures.” More than a century later, Sir Edward Coke commented on this work, by writing “The First Part of the Institutes of the Lawes of England, or a Commentary on Littleton” in 1628. More than a century after that, Sir William Blackstone discussed Coke’s work in the first volume of his “Commentaries on the Laws of England” in 1765. Coke is the person that Blackstone cited the most in the “Commentaries.” In this great work, Blackstone thus wrote a brief summary of Sir Edward Coke’s writings, to set up his esteemed source (whom he would use often throughout his work). He prefaced this summary with the following praise:

Sir Edward Coke

Lord Chief Justice Coke was “a man of infinite learning in his profession”

“Some of the most valuable of the ancient reports are those published by lord chief justice Coke; a man of infinite learning in his profession, though not a little infected with the pedantry and quaintness of the times he lived in, which appear strongly in all his works. However his writings are so highly esteemed, that they are generally cited without the author's name [footnote].” (Source: Blackstone’s “Commentaries,” Introduction, Section 3)

Sir Thomas de Littleton

Blackstone's summary of Sir Edward Coke ...

Blackstone then gave his brief summary of Sir Edward Coke's writings:

“ … the same learned judge we have just mentioned, Sir Edward Coke; who hath written four volumes of institutes, as he is pleased to call them, though they have little of the institutional method to warrant such a title. The first volume is a very extensive comment upon a little excellent treatise of tenures, compiled by judge Littleton in the reign of Edward the fourth. This comment is a rich mine of valuable common law learning, collected and heaped together from the ancient reports and year books, but greatly defective in method.” (Source: Blackstone’s “Commentaries,” Introduction, Section 3)

Sir Edward Coke

What is “corruption of blood, or forfeiture” from an attainder of treason?

“The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture, except during the life of the person attainted.”

– Article 3, Section 3, Paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution

The Constitution prevents Congress from “extending the consequences of guilt” beyond those who have actually committed the crimes …

In the Federalist Papers, James Madison once quoted a portion of the Constitution saying that the Congress shall have power “To declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture, except during the life of the person attained.” (Source: Federalist No. 43) He then commented upon this section, saying that “As treason may be committed against the United States, the authority of the United States ought to be enabled to punish it. But as new-fangled and artificial treasons have been the great engines by which violent factions, the natural offspring of free government, have usually wreaked their alternate malignity on each other, the convention have, with great judgment, opposed a barrier to this peculiar danger, by inserting a constitutional definition of the crime, fixing the proof necessary for conviction of it, and restraining the Congress, even in punishing it, from extending the consequences of guilt beyond the person of its author.” (Source: Federalist No. 43) Corruption of blood just meant impeding someone from inheriting, or passing on property to their own descendants as heirs, on account of a crime that they had committed (usually treason). It thus punished others besides the person guilty of the crime.

James Madison

The primary function of government is to protect our most basic rights

“And these [rights] may be reduced to three principal or primary articles ; the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty ; and the right of private property : because as there is no other known method of compulsion, or of abridging man's natural free will, but by an infringement or diminution of one or other of these important rights, the preservation of these, inviolate, may justly be said to include the preservation of our civil immunities in their largest and most extensive sense.”

– Sir William Blackstone's “Commentaries on the Laws of England” (1765), Book 1, Chapter 1

Sir William Blackstone believed that the most important function of government was to protect our basic rights, especially our three most basic rights. “The rights themselves thus defined by these several statutes ,” he said, “consist in a number of private immunities.” (Source: Book 1, Chapter 1) These immunities, he said, were formerly, “either by inheritance or purchase, the rights of all mankind ; but, in most other countries of the world being now more or less debased and destroyed, they at present may be said to remain, in a peculiar and emphatical manner, the rights of the people of England.” (Source: Book 1, Chapter 1)

Sir William Blackstone

Our most important rights are personal security, personal liberty, and private property

Blackstone added that these rights “may be reduced to three principal or primary articles ; the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty ; and the right of private property” (Source: Book 1, Chapter 1). Furthermore, “the preservation of these, inviolate, may justly be said to include the preservation of our civil immunities in their largest and most extensive sense.” (Source: Book 1, Chapter 1) Thus, an examination of these most basic rights would seem to be in order here. The very first chapter of the very first book of the “Commentaries” is called “Of the Absolute Rights of Individuals.” In it, he sets forth his theory of human rights. All quotations from the “Commentaries” in this particular blog post are from this first chapter of the first book. This volume was first published in 1765. This first chapter gives great insight into how he viewed human rights.

Coat of arms of Great Britain, 1714-1800

What are “auxiliary subordinate rights”? (Answer: Rights intended to protect other rights)

“In the three preceding articles we have taken a short view of the principal absolute rights which appertain to every Englishman. But in vain would these rights be declared, ascertained, and protected by the dead letter of the laws, if the constitution had provided no other method to secure their actual enjoyment. It has therefore established certain other auxiliary subordinate rights of the subject, which serve principally as barriers to protect and maintain inviolate the three great and primary rights, of personal security, personal liberty, and private property.”

– Sir William Blackstone's “Commentaries on the Laws of England” (1765), Book 1, Chapter 1

Sir William Blackstone once said that the most basic rights of human beings were personal security, personal liberty, and private property. (More about this in another post.) Blackstone said much about this in his “Commentaries on the Laws of England,” a major legal work from the eighteenth century. But he also said that “in vain would these rights be declared, ascertained, and protected by the dead letter of the laws, if the constitution had provided no other method to secure their actual enjoyment.” (Source: Book 1, Chapter 1) Therefore, Blackstone argued that the British Constitution had established “certain other auxiliary subordinate rights of the subject, which serve principally as barriers to protect and maintain inviolate the three great and primary rights, of personal security, personal liberty, and private property.” (Source: Book 1, Chapter 1)

Sir William Blackstone

Blackstone believed that these “auxiliary subordinate rights” were vital to the protection of basic rights. They are subordinate unto the other rights, because their primary purpose is to sustain and protect these rights. And they are auxiliary rights, because they exist as backup plans in case of emergency, where the government tries to infringe on these other rights. Thus, it might be appropriate to examine these rights for a moment, and show what Blackstone believed to be necessary in this endeavor. (All quotations from his “Commentaries” in this particular blog post will be from Book 1, Chapter 1. This volume was first published in 1765.)

Coat of arms of Great Britain, 1714-1800

Giving Congress the power to coin money was a break with British precedents

“The coining of money is in all states the act of the sovereign power; for the reason just mentioned, that it's value may be known on inspection.”

– William Blackstone's “Commentaries on the Laws of England” (1765), Book 1, Chapter 7

You might expect that in the Founding Fathers' time, the British Constitution would place the power of coining money into the Parliament. If so, you'd be wrong – in their time, it was the British monarchy that had this power, and the related power to regulate “weights and measures” as well. By contrast, the Constitution of the United States said that the Congress shall have the power to “coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures” (Source: Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 5). The Constitution thus vests these powers in the legislative branch, rather than the executive branch. This was a major break with British tradition.

To illustrate this, I will quote from a source that was used by a number of our Founding Fathers. This source is William Blackstone's “Commentaries on the Laws of England” (better known as Blackstone's “Commentaries”), which was used specifically by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers. (All quotations from Blackstone's “Commentaries” in this particular post are from Book 1, Chapter 7, so I will not note this every time.) Everything in the first volume, including this chapter, was written in 1765.

Sir William Blackstone

What's the difference between the presidency and the prior British monarchy?

“The supreme executive power of these kingdoms is vested by our laws in a single person, the king or queen : for it matters not to which sex the crown descends ; but the person entitled to it, whether male or female, is immediately invested with all the ensigns, rights, and prerogatives of sovereign power ; as is declared by statute 1 Mar. st. 3. c. 1.”

– William Blackstone’s “Commentaries on the Laws of England” (1765), Book 1, Chapter 3

Americans discarded monarchy during their Revolution

In prior times, British laws vested the “supreme executive power” of the kingdoms into a “single person, the king or queen.” (Source: Blackstone's “Commentaries,” Book 1, Chapter 3) The constitutional monarchy of Britain now has very little power today; but then, it was a force to be reckoned with. Blackstone further wrote that “With us therefore in England this supreme power is divided into two branches; the one legislative, to wit, the parliament, consisting of king, lords, and commons; the other executive, consisting of the king alone.” (Source: Blackstone’s “Commentaries,” Book 1, Chapter 2) Thus, the king was technically considered a part of the parliament with the “lords and commons”; although these two houses of Parliament did have a few checks on him in return. (All quotations from Blackstone in this post are from the “Commentaries,” so I will not note this every time.) As Blackstone wrote, the executive branch was “consisting of the king alone.” (Source: Book 1, Chapter 2) When America was created, one of its most radical departures from British tradition was the total discarding of any form of monarchy. Monarchy was incredibly unpopular in the thirteen states at this time. Thomas Paine expressed this attitude well when he said: “For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be King; and there ought to be no other.” (Source: “Common Sense,” Chapter III) Thus, America had a president instead; declaring in its Constitution that “The Executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold office during the term of four years ... ” (Source: Article 2, Section 1, Paragraph 1)

The White House

How did the Founding Fathers use Blackstone's writings about the monarchy?

“The office of president is treated with levity and intimated to be a machine calculated for state pageantry. Suffer me to view the commander of the fleets and armies of America, with a reverential awe, inspired by the contemplation of his great prerogatives, though not dignified with the magic name of King, he will possess more supreme power, than Great Britain allows her hereditary monarchs, who derive ability to support an army from annual supplies, and owe the command of one to an annual mutiny law. The American president may be granted supplies for two years, and his command of a standing army is unrestrained by law or limitation.”

– An anonymous letter signed “Tamony,” dated 20 December 1787

Tamony argued that presidents would possess more “supreme power” than monarchs …

During the ratification debates, an anonymous letter to “The Virginia Independent Chronicle” feared that the president would become more powerful than a monarch. He said that the president, “though not dignified with the magic name of King, he will possess more supreme power, than Great Britain allows her hereditary monarchs” (Source: text of the letter). These fears, though unfounded, were actually quite typical of many of the opponents of the Constitution at this time. This letter was actually dated 20 December 1787, but it was not printed in “The Virginia Independent Chronicle” until 9 January 1788. Later, it was reprinted in “The Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer” on 1 February 1788; and was soon after seen by Alexander Hamilton in that Pennsylvania paper. Because Alexander Hamilton saw the version printed in Philadelphia, he would later refer to the author in the Federalist Papers as “A writer in a Pennsylvania paper, under the signature of TAMONY” (Source: Footnote to Federalist No. 69). As you might expect, Alexander Hamilton disagreed with the author of this letter on this point; and offered a response to him in the Federalist Papers. To bolster his case, he actually cited Blackstone's “Commentaries,” a prestigious legal work from that time. There is an irony in this, I might add here, since William Blackstone had actually opposed the American Revolution until his death in 1780. Nonetheless, Hamilton considered him worth citing in the Federalist Papers anyway, and proceeded to debunk Tamony's argument with some quotes from Blackstone's “Commentaries.”

Alexander Hamilton

The British Parliament was the main model for the United States Congress

“It will be the business of this chapter to consider the British parliament; in which the legislative power, and (of course) the supreme and absolute authority of the state, is vested by our constitution.”

– William Blackstone’s “Commentaries on the Laws of England” (1765), Book 1, Chapter 2

The “supreme and absolute authority of the state” was in the legislature

William Blackstone once said that the British Constitution vests the “supreme and absolute authority of the state” in the Parliament. Like Montesquieu before him, Blackstone was a believer in separation of powers (more on that subject here). He believed that the Parliament should be a separate branch of government from the executive authority – which, at that time, was the monarchy. “In all tyrannical governments,” Blackstone also said, “the supreme magistracy, or the right both of making and of enforcing the laws, is vested in one and the same man, or one and the same body of men.” (Source: Blackstone’s “Commentaries,” Book 1, Chapter 2) Wherever these two powers are united together, he said, “there can be no public liberty … [for] The magistrate may enact tyrannical laws, and execute them in a tyrannical manner.” (Source: Blackstone’s “Commentaries,” Book 1, Chapter 2) The magistrate “is possessed, in quality of dispenser of justice, with all the power which he as legislator thinks proper to give himself. But, where the legislative and executive authority are in distinct hands,” he continued, “the former will take care not to entrust the latter with so large a power, as may tend to the subversion of its own independence, and therewith of the liberty of the subject.” (Source: Blackstone’s “Commentaries,” Book 1, Chapter 2) This, he believed, would happen if there were not a Parliament to check the power of the king.

Sir William Blackstone

5 surprising ways that the Congress was modeled on the British Parliament

“... in the main the constitution of parliament, as it now stands, was marked out so long ago as the seventeenth year of king John, A. D. 1215, in the great charter granted by that prince … And this constitution has subsisted in fact at least from the year 1266, 49 Hen. III : there being still extant writs of that date, to summon knights, citizens, and burgesses to parliament.”

– William Blackstone’s “Commentaries on the Laws of England” (1765), Book 1, Chapter 2

There's more similarity between the Congress and the Parliament than meets the eye …

In both big and small ways, the Congress was modeled on the Parliament of Great Britain. In bigger ways, it is a legislative body that is kept separate from the other branches. It is even divided into two houses, with only the lower house having the ability to “originate” taxing bills. And originally, only the lower house was elected – although both houses of our Congress are now directly elected by the people. But it is not just these ways in which these two legislative bodies are similar – they are also similar in many smaller ways, and in many finer details. You might be surprised at what some of these “details” actually are, so it might be helpful to look at a few of them here. I will be using Sir William Blackstone's “Commentaries on the Laws of England” as a source throughout, since Alexander Hamilton used it as a source in the Federalist Papers. (All quotations from Blackstone's “Commentaries” in this particular post are from Book 1, Chapter 2. Therefore, I will not note this every time.)

Sir William Blackstone

The Habeas Corpus Act and the English Bill of Rights influenced our Constitution

“The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.”

– Article 1, Section 9, Paragraph 2 of the United States Constitution

It might come as a surprise to say this, but the British have a real “Constitution,” even if it isn't all written down in one document like ours might seem to be. Rather, it would seem to be a constitution built out of multiple documents, such as the Magna Carta and the Petition of Right (both of which I have covered in prior posts). No less important are the Habeas Corpus Act and the English Bill of Rights, which were foundational for the rights of English-speaking countries. Like the other documents mentioned here, they would both have an enormous influence on the United States Constitution. I have covered the other documents mentioned here in some other posts of this series, so I will instead focus my attention here on the Habeas Corpus Act and the English Bill of Rights (both vitally important).

Parliament of England

Actually, William Blackstone DID mention the 1689 Bill of Rights (sorry Wikipedia)

Note: There is a difference between the old and new styles of calendar, which will become relevant to our discussion.

Some Wikipedia articles are reliable, while others are not (and others are somewhere in between)

So I've often enjoyed reading articles from Wikipedia, and have linked to a number of these articles from my own blog over the years. Some of these articles are reliable, while others are not. Many of them are somewhere in between. Possibly one of these articles to be somewhere in between is the article about William Blackstone, which contained some good information about William Blackstone, and some bad information. For example, the "Criticism" section of that page said that “English jurist Jeremy Bentham was a critic of Blackstone's theories.[132] Others saw Blackstone's theories as inaccurate statements of English law, using the Constitutions of Clarendon, the Tractatus of Glanville and the 1689 Bill of Rights as particularly obvious examples of laws Blackstone omitted.” (Source: "William Blackstone" page, "Criticism" section)

Jeremy Bentham

According to Wikipedia, some have claimed that Blackstone “omitted” the 1689 Bill of Rights

The part about how “English jurist Jeremy Bentham was a critic of Blackstone's theories” is properly sourced at the “[132]”. While I don't agree with Bentham's criticisms (indeed, I find them wildly inaccurate), I do agree that he was “a critic of Blackstone's theories” – this much is pretty well-established, and that is all that the source claims here. But the second sentence has no source, which makes me wonder who exactly is making these criticisms. The sentence in question says that “Others saw Blackstone's theories as inaccurate statements of English law, using the Constitutions of Clarendon, the Tractatus of Glanville and the 1689 Bill of Rights as particularly obvious examples of laws Blackstone omitted.” Blackstone did mention both the “Constitutions of Clarendon” and the “Tractatus of Glanville” in his magnum opus, the "Commentaries on the Laws of England" (as I show in another blog post). And most relevantly, he also mentioned the “1689 Bill of Rights,” which these critics would know if they had bothered to read the very first chapter of the very first book of the “Commentaries.”

Jeremy Bentham