On the record
To this I answer, that the collateral security was meant to bind the crown, and to hold it firm to its engagements.
Said by
Edmund Burke
Source
gutenberg.orgEdmund Burke: “To this I answer, that the collateral security was meant to bind the crown, and to hold it firm to its engagements.”
Editor's note · Context
Burke explains that collateral security was intended to bind the crown to its commitments, reinforcing the importance of accountability.
Share
More from Edmund Burke
Jan 1, 1790
The House of Lords, for instance, is not morally competent to dissolve the House of Commons,--no, nor even to dissolve itself, nor to abdicate, if it would, its portion in the legislature of the kingdom.
Jan 1, 1790
But the king of Great Britain obeys no other person; all other persons are individually, and collectively too, under him, and owe to him a legal obedience.
Jan 1, 1790
An irregular, convulsive movement may be necessary to throw off an irregular, convulsive disease.
Jan 1, 1790
If kings who did not owe their crown to the choice of their people had no title to make laws, what will become of the statute De tallagio non concedendo? of the Petition of Right? of the act of Habeas Corpus?
Other voices in this conversation
