Is it true that no case can exist in which it is proper for the sovereign to accede to the desires of his discontented subjects?
Edmund Burke: “Is it true that no case can exist in which it is proper for the sovereign to accede to the desires of his discontented…”
Editor's note · Context
Burke raises a rhetorical question about the legitimacy of a sovereign's response to discontent.
Share
More from Edmund Burke
The engagement and pact of society, which generally goes by the name of the Constitution, forbids such invasion and such surrender.
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.
If all the absurd theories of lawyers and divines were to vitiate the objects in which they are conversant, we should have no law and no religion left in the world.
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.





