no real need for it in the
state constitutions of that time. The controlling influence exerted by
the legislature in the state government, and the dependence of the
courts upon that body, precluded the possibility of any abuse of their
powers in this direction.

The Articles of Confederation contained the provision that "Freedom of
speech and debate in Congress shall not be impeached or questioned in
any court or place out of Congress."[132] This was designed to protect
members of Congress against prosecution in the state courts. Here, as in
the English Bill of Rights and in the state constitutions containing a
similar provision, reference is made in express terms to prosecution in
the courts. The framers of the Constitution, however, left out all
reference to the courts. If, as constitutional writers have generally
assumed, the framers of the Constitution intended by this provision to
protect members of Congress against prosecution in the courts, it is
difficult to understand why they should have omitted what had been the
main feature and purpose of this provision, not only in the original
Bill of Rights, but also in the state constitutions copying it and in
the Articles of Confederation. If what they had in mind was the danger
of prosecution in the state or Federal courts, why should they have
changed completely the wording of this provision by omitting all
reference to the very danger which they wished to guard against?

The checks thus far described were intended as a substitute for king and
aristocracy; but to make the Constitution acceptable to the people,
additional checks were required which the English government did not
contain. The division of authority in the latter was solely between
different classes or orders, each of which was supposed to represent
interests co-extensive with the realm. But while the power of each class
was thus limited, their joint and combined action was subject to no
constitutional check or limitation whatever. Any policy upon which they
agreed could be enforced in any part of the realm, since the
Constitution, recognizing no local interests, gave no political
subdivision a negative on the acts of the whole. The government of
England, then, was purely _national_ as opposed to _federal_, that is to
say the general government was supreme in all respects and the local
government merely its creature.

This was the type of government for which Hamilton contended and which a
majority of