UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT LOS ANGELES ) A LETTER TO THE KING, IN JUSTIFICATION OF A PAMPHLET, ENTITLED, {'THOUGHTS ON THE ENGLISH GOVERNMENT- 082 A LETTER TO THE KING, IN JUSTIFICATION OF A PAMPHLET, ENTITLED, "THOUGHTS ON THE ENGLISH GOVERNMENT" WITH AN APPENDIX IN ANSWER To MR. FOX's DECLARATION OF THE WHIG-CLUB. ICttDOtU PRINTED FOR THE AUTHOR; AND SOLD BY J. OWEN, N. l68, PICCADILLY. TO THE KING. I * e $t is the Glory of a King to make and keep his Subjedls happy.' SIRE, JL HE production which 1 1 prefume, with the greatefl humility, ; ; to lay at your Majefty's Feet, has a mo- 3 deft claim to the Royal Ear, becaufe it treats upon a fubje6t which is extremely interefting to your Majefty's Government, at a period in which there feems to be a plot to undermine every Monarchical Government, and indeed to new model r every Government upon the chaotic fyftem f 7 of the French rebellion. As your reign b 31)1308 has ' C " ) has, without a fmgle exception, difco- vered the fined difpofition and the firmeft refolution to promote, not only the hap- pinefs of your Subjects, as the true dig- nity of the Throne, but the rights and fecurity of Europe ; it might reafonably have been expected that the happy Go- vernment of a Monarch fo amiable and fo juft to all the world, would have efcaped the pretence which is found for the fubverfion of the worft Governments : But, fuch is the phrenfy of the times, that no diftin&ion is made between the good and the bad ; for, like the contagion of the body natural, the bed and the worft are brought to a level upon a prin-- ciple of EQUALITY, which deftroys the beautiful order of things and endangers every thing dear to focicty. Befides this general claim to the con- defcenfion of my Gracious Sovereign (a claim claim now wifely admitted by the moft abfolute Monarch s) I have a particular title to your Maje fly's attention, from an event that places your Majefty in an aukward fituation: I mean, SIRE, the motion of one of your principal Secreta- ries of State, adopted by the Houfe of Commons, to profecute one of your Majefty's beft fubjects, not for violating any law or injuring any authority, but for a publication that manifestly promotes principles of fubordination which have rendered the moft eminent fervices to your Majefty's Government. That very Minifter has candidly acknowledged, that " The Nation owes the peace and fecu- " rity it now enjoys to the diftinguifhed " fervices of the Author;" and yet, with a ftrange fort of confiftency, the Secretary of State moved the Houfe of Commons to addrefs your Majefty to direct a pro- fecution againft him for a Pamphlet that b 2 maintains maintains the principles which have pro- duced that great event at the moft alarming period. Such an application to the Throne is, by the Minifter's own confeflion, an act of great injuftice to fa meritorious a fubject, and a great indig- nity to your Majefty's reign: It is, in my humble opinion, a cruel injuftice to a fubject fo eminently diftinguiftied for his fervices at the worft period, and as great an injuftice to the illuftrious character of your Majefty, which is as much the admiration of Foreigners as it is the pride of your Subjects. A Monarch fo well acquainted with the conftitution of his kingdom, and fo religioufly attached to it, will immedi- ately difcover that your Majefty has no- right to direct fuch a profecution, nor the Houfe of Commons any right to require It. If the Author has violated any Law, or or is fuppofed to be guilty of a Libel on the Conftitution, your Majefty has no right to interfere. Your Government and the Laws of the Land are competent without the Royal interpofition : Execu- tive Government can, in the latter cafe, proceed without your Majefty's inter- ference. Having prefumed to fay fo much in defence of an Author that I very much admire, and to whofe eminent fervices one of your Majefty's principal Secretaries of State bears the moft honorable tefti- mony, by declaring that, in his opinion, " The Public owe the peace and fecurity * c they now enjoy to him;" I may now venture, with the moft dutiful zeal for your Majefty's Government, to fay a word on the temper of the times, and the fpirit of political contagion that per- vades Europe, and which, making no diftinction, diftin&ion, endangers the beft as well as the worft Government. But before I come to that interefling lituation of things, I will take a tranfient view of your Majefty's reign. A fpirit of party is interwoven with the Conftitu- tion, and infeparable from it. Oppofition is the natural and indeed the necefTary effecl: of a mixed Government: It is effential to a limited Monarchy: And if it exceeds the bounds of reafon, it is a fpeck in the eye of the Conftitution, which fhould be touched with a tremb- ling hand. There have been two me- morable periods in your Majefty's reign, in which the fpirit of Party has exceeded its ufual bounds : One during the un- fortunate American war; and the other in the prefent war with the French Re- volution. Both thefe events I {hall de- fend in a few words upon principles of inevitable ( vii ) inevitable necefTity. All wars are in their nature calamitous, and to be avoided as a fcourge to mankind ; but, in thefe inftances, they are juftifiable as being inevitable. Such was the cafe of the American war; and fuch is abfolutely the prefent cafe. The faithful hiftorian will place thefe wars in a light that will do juftice to your Majefty's reign : He will judge of them by their principles, and not by their fuccefs. The principle of the American war was juft, though the end was unfortunate : No one will difpute the right of this Nation to contend for the preferva- tion of her American Colonies, which were of fo much value to a trading Na- tion. If an ineffectual ftruggle rendered it unpopular, it was occafioned, in a great meafure, by the treachery of domeftic foes who infifted on their emancipation, a^nd the facrifice of fo valuable a part of your Majefty's dominions. That war was ( viii ) -was conduced by one of the beft Mi- nifters of Europe : A Minifter, who was an honor to human nature. The noble Lord pofTefled one of the ableft heads and beft hearts in the kingdom. His talents and his virtues would do honor to any State and to any Age. Such was the chara&er of Lord North, whofe memory will be highly refpe&ed when the malice of his political enemies is forgotten, and the motives that gave it birth. The prefent war with France is found* ed on the fame principle of abfolute ne- ceffity. To the honor of your Majefty's reign, you have manifeflly been forced into wars againft the ftrongeft difpofition to preferve the Tranquillity of Europe, and the Balance of Power ; in order that a check to the ambition of the ftrongeft, may be a fecurity to the weakeft ftate. The The ambition of conqueft has never influ- enced your Majefty's condudt. The love of mankind, and of fubftantial juftice to promote a ju ft equilibrium, has ever been your Majefty's ruling paffion, and the great objects of your reign. It has in- deed been faid, that the prefent war is equally unjuft and unfortunate: But I contend that, whatever may be the fuc- cefs, the principle is juft and necefTary. Should it be faid that this Nation might have avoided it, and that Great Britain was the aggreffor, I take the liberty to deny both. The Revolution of France rendered a war with this county inevi- table, fmce the principles of that Revo- lution, were a declaration of war againft every other Government. The aggref- fion was not in the firft open act but in the principles of hoftility againft all Europe, and a mad ambition to fubvert every Government. There was no avoid- c ing ing a defence againft fuch a political contagion, that has convulfed and nearly overthrown all Europe. Never was a war conducted upon better principles to preferve the Government and intereft of this Nation, and the fecurity of all other European States. The fecurity of Holland alone, was fufficient to juftify the prefent war; and ihould it be faid that object was once obtained, and that it was then time to make peace, I deny it; becaufe there was no fecurity for its prefervation in the principles of the French unfettled Go- vernment. Whatever has been the lofs of blood and treafure to this Nation, the juftice of the war is clearly on the fide of your Majefty's Government: And whenever your Majefty (hall obtain the Status quo to reftore the balance of power in Europe, your Majefty, even without any any compenfation, will make a glorious Peace by the, greateft acquifition, the fecurity of your dominions, which is in- valuable. This (hews that the prefent war is juft and neceflary, for without it this Nation and all Europe, would pro- bably have been in the dreadful fituation of France, with out the power perhaps of recovering their dominions, their peace, and their property. Confidering then how great might have been the lofs to this country and all Europe without a war, from the con- tagion of levelling principles, that war will be glorious, whatever may be the expence of blood and treafure, which procures a folid peace founded on the general intereft and fecurity of Europe, which have ever been the great objects of your Majefty's reign. c 2 Having, Having, with as much precifion as poffible, juftified the foreign fyftem of your Majeily, I (hall now prefume to fpeak of your clomeftic Government, which I equally admire. The principles which pervaded France could not fail of infecting this country, and fo ilrong has been the infection, and fo alarming the confequences, that it would probably have overthrown this Government as it has done that, but for your Majefty's wifdom. Strong meafures have been found necefTary, but nothing can be too flrong to preferve the Peace and Pro- perty of the Kingdom. How fortunate would it have been, had fuch preventive meafures been taken prior to the ihameful riots of 1780, which difgraced your Majefty's Gc>vernment, and threatened the very exiftence of the Nation. Of the profecutions fotjiftftttitt treafon I am I am fure your Majefty ever rejoices at the acquittal of your fubjects by the Laws of the Land: A Sovereign emi- nently diftinguifhed for clemency and for all the virtues that adorn a Throne, is ever pleafed at their reftoration to fociety. The Bill againft Sedition has been greatly mifreprefented : The princi- ple is excellent, and the operation of the Ac~l will effectually deftroy the contagion of revolutionary principles, and preferve the dignity of authority, and the tran- quillity and property of the public, which without the fecurity of that well-judged and well-timed meafure, would all be abforbed in the vortex of anarchy and confufion. What has therefore been done from neceflity, the greateft of all Laws, to preferve the public peace from the ter- ror of public incendiaries, has been well done done and well-timed, and I think cannot fail of producing the happieft effects without thofe abufes of power, with which fome men have alarmed the weak, and armed the reftlefs againft the necef- fary meafures of your Majefty's Govern- ment. I am fo well perfuaded that all oppofition to ftrong but neceflary mea- fures will foon ceafe, and that they will effectually fupprefs the confpiracy of mifguided men againft the authorities of the State, and the true intereft and hap- pinefs of your Majefty's fubjects, that I venture to anticipate my moft humble congratulations to the Throne. To witnefs this happy, this glorious event, by the reftoration of good order and perfect fecurity, I moft fervently pray to the Almighty that your Majefty may long, very long, enjoy health and every blefling that Heaven can beftow ! With ( xv ) With this true loyalty, and fmcere devotion, I have the happinefs to be, SIRE,. Your Majefty's moft dutiful, And moft faithful Subject, JOSEPH CAWTHORNE, Greenwich Park, December 26, 1795. A 4,. JUSTIFICATION OF THE AUTHOR OF A PAMPHLET, INTITLED, " THOUGHTS ON THE ENGLISH GOVERNMENT:* Unfit I follow, where he led the way, And court applaufe, by what I feem to pay. Myfelf I praife while I bit praife intend ; For 'tis fome virtue, virtue to commend : And next to deeds, which our own honor raife, Is, to diftinguifh them who merit praife. CONGREVE. 1 REALLY do not know of any inqui- fition of the Britiiri Parliament, that is fo little intitled to the admiration of the Nation, as the enquiry after the Author of this Pamphlet, and the hafty and tin- qualified cenfure of it. Our admiration of the dignity of the legiflative and exe- cutive Powers of the State ceafes, and A our C * ] our feelings, as a free people, are alarm- ed at the iU-timed, impolitic, and unne- cefTary hue and cry after a publication that does not contain a fmgle pofitive aflertion unfriendly to the eftabliihed Government of this Country: But, on the contrary, the ableft defence of the true principles of Government, and a moft mafterly expofure of the ruinous doctrines of factious men, who are hardy enough to publifti that " they are boldly " animated at the profpect of the new, the fub- M lime dejliny that awaits their fellew creatures" What that NEW and SUBLIME DESTINY is, which fo boldly animates them, we cannot contemplate without the ftrong- efl emotion and the greateft apprehenfion for the fecurity of Government. It has, however, received a fevere check from this Author, who has been groflymifrepre- fented for his pamphlet, which has been fo violently cenfured and fo rafhly condemned extrajudiciallyi although it is a very fenfi- ble and temperate appeal to " the quiet good fenfe of the Nation,'* and has not the leaft refemblance to the eccentric doctrines [ 3 3 doctrines of Palne^ who 'is an avowed Enemy to our Conflitution : The work contains, in the paffage that has given moft offence, the fpeculative opinion of a well-known friend to our Government, who, it has been acknowledged by high authority, has contributed greatly to the fupport of its dignity, and to the peace and fecurity of the Kingdom ; and who, upon this occafion, writes theoretically, alTerts well-known facts, and with great temper leaves the deduction to the pub- lic : A deduction that is not impofed like the ftrong and peflilent writings of Paine, but which appeals fo gently to our understandings as to leave to the clear comprehenfion and unbiaffed judg- ment of a well-informed, candid, and fpirited Nation, The conduct of Parliament, which fhould always be dignified andjuft, would in this inflance deferve our pity, did it not too ferioufly affect the right of free- thinking, the liberty of the prefs, and the principles of our Conftitution, of which A 2 the [ 4 3 the Author's Accufers affect to be very jealous, while they themfelves plunge a dagger in its very bowels, as I {hall have more than on one occafion to ihew. The Parliament aflumes an Inquisitorial capacity, in this, as it has improperly done in other cafes, which the Houfe of Commons, as purely legiflative, does not poffefs. It would be abfurd in the ex- treme, to fuppofe that the power of re- prefentation, delegated by the people for legiflative purpofes, (hould constitute an jnquifitorial authority over them for ju- dicial purpofes. It is perhaps the greateft beauty of our Confttution, that neither of the three Eftates of the Kingdom pof- fes an inquifitorial capacity, the fecond branch excepted, and that is a Court of Appeal from the judicial authority : It would be congenial with the fyftem of an abfolute Government were either the legiflative or executive power to poflefs an inquifitorial jurifdiclion. The idea is a monstrum horrendum in a free ftate : It is a grofs perverfion of the Legiflature, commonly [ 5 1 commonly called the Conftitution ; and as grofs a Libel on the judicial Authority, or the Laws of the Land : It is Treafon againft a Government that wifely keeps the authorities of the State afunder. When the people delegate their con* flitutional or legiflative rights, they do not invert their Representatives with any judicial authority whatever. And fmce they poflefs no jurifdic~lion but what they receive from their conftituents, for the general purpofes of the people, from what fource do they derive an inquifitorial capacity? As they do not receive it from either the regal, or the executive, or the judicial authorities of the State, it is manifeft that it is not derived from either the Conftitution or the Law of the Land. That authority is therefore afTumed by the Parliament, without de- riving it from the nature of legiflative delegation, or from the principles of the Britiih Government. It is an arbitrary affurnption of power, and fuch an ufur- pation [ 6 ] pation of power as plunges a dagger in the bowels of the Conftitution. It will perhaps be faid, that this inquifitorial authority has been often ex- ercifed in a high tone by the Houfe of Commons, which I admit ; but that admiflion does not eftabliih their right to it. On the contrary it fhews, to the misfortune of the Englifh Nation, and to the reproach of their Government, how often they have perverted delega- tion and reprefentation by abufmg their conftitutional authority, which is purely legiflative, not having any inquifitorial jurifdictiou whatever over the public. Should precedents be againft my opinion, I maintain that an aiTumption of power (unauthorifed by the Conflitution and the Law) at one period does not juftify it at another ; and that all power which is not fairly derived from either of thofe .fources of a free State, may be juftly and ihould be effectually refitted as ufurpations dangerous to a fyflem of national liberty; that is, as being vio- lent : [ 7 1 lent and arbitrary exertions, fubverfive of our Conftitution or eftabliihed Go- vernment. The cafe of Dr. Sacheverel only tend* to (hew the temper and the principles of thofe times. In our hiftory many in- ftances of an afTumed power, incompa- tible with representation and the rights and intereil of the people, are to be found, but what do they prove? The corruption and proftitution of the pen-* jioned Parliament of Charles II. is not the only inftance of legiflative perverfion, and yet who will produce it as a prece- dent to juftify the principle ? What is malum infe cannot be juftified in equity ; and what is malum prohibitum is not to be juftified in law. But without going fo far back, like? Mr. Sheridan, to that unabafhed reign when the Nation had a venal and profti* tuted Parliament, we have a recent cafe in point: A cafe that muft fill every mind with horror, and all Europe and C 3 ] and Afia with aftonifhment. The cafe of Mr. Haftings, by which the Houfe of Commons aflumed an inquifitorial capacity, and the Houfe of Lords a judicial authority, difgraced the Nation, and tended effentially to fubvert the Con- ftitution, under the pompous pretences of national equity and public juftice. But a fpecious pretence does not always juftify the ach Defpotifm has the faired pretences, and tyranny the ableft advo- cates, and yet they are the greateft of human calamities. The whole of the proceedings in that cafe were, in my apprehenfion, a folemn mockery of juf- tice, a FARCE more ludicrous than any thing in the works of Cervantes. The Commons erected a Tribunal, like a Catholic Inquifition, became informers and accufers, and brought their random charges before the Houfe of Lords, which is not a Court of Juftice in the firft in- fiance, that is, it has no judicial au- thority over the people but in cafes of appeal. As thefc proceedings were not authorifed by any power known to the Conftitution C 9 ] Conftitution or the Laws of the Land, fo they ended as might be expected mfumo. It is not for me to fay there was not a mixture of great merit and fome blame in the Afiatic administration of Mr. Haf- tings, as, from the imperfection of hu- man nature, there muft necefiarily be in all adminiftrations where there is great complication of bufinefs; and particu- larly in a high fituation where much depended upon circumftances and upon his fnperior judgement for want of the beaten road of European Government ; but I contend, that if he was amenable to any authority in Europe for mifcon- duct in Afia (which I very much doubt) it was to the judicial, and not to the Icgiflative power of his country. I am fo clearly convinced that the Conftitu- tion and the Law have been grofly violat- ed in this cafe, which was a truft from the Eaft India Company, highly com- mended by his employers, and not a truft from the Nation, or in which the B Nation Nation had any concern or jurifdiclion, that I do not fcruple to declare it to be my humble opinion, that Mr. Haftings has been unhappily and indeed cruelly robbed of his Peace, his Gonfhitution, his Character, and his Property, by a profecution totally unauthorifed and un- neceflary, and founded upon a dangerous affumption of power in the two Houfes of Parliament: An afTumption that is infinitely more alarming, as being more dangerous to the Conftitution, than the fpeculative and harmlefs opinions of the Author of " Thoughts on the Englilh * Governments." I have not made this remark fo much in juftice to Mr. Haftings, as injuftice to the Conftitution, which I think is abufed under the faireft pretences to virtue and public jaftice, by afTuming an inquifitorial power not congenial with legiflation : A power that I apprehend fhould never be exercifed by the legifla- tive jurifdiction, nor admitted by a free people, be the pretence what it may: For, For, can any thing ftrike our minds with greater horror, as a free Nation, than the idea of a legiflative Tribunal, like that of a Catholic Inquifition, hunting for witnefies, and examining them upon interrogatories to ground a criminal charge before an incompetent jurifdicUon, in- ftead of bringing the people fairly, in all cafes whatever, before the judicial authority to which alone they are ame- nable for the purpofes. of truth and fub- flantial juftice. The moft fcrupulous advocate for the privileges of the Lords and Commons will not have the face to fay, that the judgement of Parliament is according to the Laws of the Land, which require the judgement of the peoples' Peers, Returning to the Author of " Thoughts on the Englilh Government," whofe Ad- vocate I am proud to be, notwithstanding the hafty and fhrong condemnation of the Houfe of Commons ; I contend that this arbitrary afTumption of power does, un- der a fpecious pretence of defending the B 2 privileges [ .2 ] privileges of one branch of the Conftitu- tion, fap the foundation of the whole. There is infinitely more danger to our Conflitution from the afTumption of an inquifitorial capacity in that Houfe, than in the fpeculative opinions of this or any other Author of equal delicacy and attachment to our Government; becaufe the theoretical opinions of fuch enlight- ened men and good fubjecls are perfectly harmlefs. The following paflage, which is con- fidered as the mod exceptionable, is an illuftration of this truth : " In fine the " Government of England is a Monarchy ; " the Monarchy is the ancient ftock *< from which have fprung the goodly " branches of the Legiflature the Lords " and Commons that, at the fame time u give ornament to the Tree and (helter " to thofe who feek protection under it: " But thefe are ftill only branches, and " derive their origin and their nutriment " from their common parent; they may " be lopped oiF and the Tree is ftiil a Tree; " Tree ; ihorn indeed of its honors, but " not like them caft into the fire : The " Kingly Government may go on, in all u its functions, without Lords or Gom- "mons: It has hitherto done fo for years together, and in our times it " does fo during every recefs of Parlia- ment." Here the facts are felf-evident and the conclufion incontrovertible : But, al- though they are both as clear as any mathematical demonftration, they prove nothing. Indeed theory never does : Spe- culative opinions affert ideas that float upon the human mind without contend- ing for the neceffity of their adoption ; and therefore the proof of utility and expediency is left to the conviction and judgement of the public. Entfi/hmen have an inherent and conftitutional right (that is, a natural right fecured to them by the nature of their Government) to fpeak of the principles and effects of a Government intirely monarchical, or an abiblute monarchy ; of the nature and tendency [ H } tendency of Ariftocracy ; and of the principles and effects of Democracy ; ei- ther feparately, or as they are connected with a monarchical fyftem, commonly called a mixed Government, or a limited monarchy. In treating of thefe fubjecls, which fo intimately concern all civilized human nature, the contemplation would be ufe- lefs to civilization were they not to give an opinion, and leave mankind to confi- der which fyftem is beft adapted to the genius and policy of their refpective States; namely, a Government intirely monarchical; a limited monarchy; or a republican Government. If Nations have made the felection, it does not preclude fpeculative opinions founded on the ef- fects which their various fyftems have produced for the pnrpofe of reconfidera- tion and comparifon. Human wifdom, which is often called public virtue, arifes from that reflection which experience occafions. Human nature is ever, by the improvement of civilization, in fearch [ '5 ] fearch of wifdom for its happinefs and fecurity. At one period this nation thought itfelf happy under the Stuarts; at another period that royal race was ex- elled from motives very different to thofe which expelled the Roman Tar- quins : That Royal fabric, founded on the hereditary right of ages, became like " the bafelefs fabric of a vifion." I do not here contemplate on the wifdom or folly of a nation, diftinguilhed for juftice, in expelling a whole race for the weaknefs of one prince whofe folly could not, in reafon, or by any human laws, incapacitate his Succeflbrs; but, after fuch a Revolution in the Succeflion, who will fay, that the fyftems of the European Governments will preferve for ever their prefent forms mtoio. It is faid that "this Country is al- " lowed, npt only, by Englifh but by the " ableft Foreign Writers on the fubjecl: of u Government, to enjoy the wiieft and beft " Syftem of Government in the known " world." . Were this national prepoflef- fion to be admitted, does it prove the in- fallibility [ 16 ] fallibility and immutability of our fyfteiii ? A conftitution may be theoretically good and practically bad. As a proof of its fuperior wifdom we are told, that " the " Three different Eftates of the Kingdom w are fo conftituted and fo counterpoifed " as to be mutual checks to each other; " and if any one link of the chain of " Government is to be deftroyed, by its " being taken away, the whole Syftem 66 muft be diflblved." This may be the opinion of one man and not of another: And I know of no Law, divine or humane, that can oblige me to be of this opinion if I am not convinced. The three Eftates, or branches of our Government, were certainly intended to be a check on each other, and were* therefore, fo counterpoifed as to produce that great, that happy effect; for in that check confifts the beauty of our Confti- tution. Here I fay nothing of the depend- ence of the fecond on the firft Eftate and the influence of both on the third, incon- fiftent with that intended check, which is the great object of the Conftitution; but [ *'7 3 but if this wife equilibrium is destroyed by the Commons affuming an indepenent Sovereign Power in all Money Bills (the very foul of Legitimation and fupport of Government) what becomes of the mutual check fo neceflary to fuch a mixed fyftem? If therefore that defign is perverted; if the Commons encroach on the equal privileges of the other Houfe of Parliament, and render its authority paffive in the moft interefting concerns of the Nation, does it prove the perfection and immutability of our Conftitution ? And if alfo thje Commons, in a legillative jurifdiction, afifume an inquifitorial capacity over the people, to examine and condemn them extrajudicially, how do " we enjoy the " wifeft and beft fyftem of Government " in the world?" It is faid, that " if one link of the chain of Government is removed the whole " fyflem will be diflblved." But as this is not a neceflary coniequence fo it is not a juft conclufion. A link in any chain may be removed without rendering the reft ufelefs; nay, it may in this cafe, as in * c other [ *i8 ] other inftances, make it flronger: For, by removing the weak and ufelefs parts, it will give folidity and permanency to the reft. It would, at one time, have been thought Treafon to fuppofe the poflibility of an alteration in the Conftitution or Govern- ment of Scotland; and yet time, that changes the body politic like the body natural, has totally overthrown the fcot- tiih Constitution' by a ftrange fort of an Union with England, which abforbeo* their Parliament and laid their indepedent Legiilature at the feet of the Englilh Go- vernment. I fay ftrange becaufe the Scots relinquifhed their Legifiature and prc- fervcd their Jurifprudence: One would have thought that by being fubject to the fame Conftitution they would have been governed by exactly the fame Laws. I do not coniider the effects of this Union, whether good or bad to the fcottifh Na- tion; but I fpeak of the event to iiluftrate my pofition that "all Conftitutions or ct forms of Government are fubjecl to " change," for what will not tir.ie produce? It is, therefore, the moft prepoftercus idea idea in the Englifh to account it Treafon to difpute the eternity and immutability of their Conftitution, which I have (hewn, in two great inftances, is perverted by the Houfe of Commons. As well may they pretend to the infallibility of Members of Parliament, fome of whom would difcre- dit any Government. The Irifh have per- haps the fame notions as the Engliih of the immortality of their Gonftitution, and yet it is probable that their Gonftitution, like that of Scotland, may in a few years be abforbed by an union with Great Bri- tain. The end of all Government (/. e. the purpofe of every Gonftitution) is not to perpetuate any particular fyftem of this or that Country, but to make it as condu- cive as poffible to the wifdom of the Laws and to the happinefs of the people go- verned, for in their profperity confifts the dignity of the State and the energy of Executive Government. And fince viciflitude is the lot of imper- fect human nature, may not a free people, who are not Called with the fetters of O deipotifm and tyranny, venture to con- template on the effects cf the various * c 2 forms 20 forms of Government, without " a breach M of the privileges" of any one part of them ? I have as great veneration as any man for the fyftem of Government which has been adopted by my country; but, great as my refpecl: is for our Conftitu- tion, I do not think it without great defects ; not fo much from it's original inftitution as from its abufe, arifing from the fectarifm of a free State, and from the force of luxury that pervades Europe and Afja. If at that period of our hiftory which is fo improperly called the Revolution, men were more than ever laviih in their praifes of a Government founded on three Eftates of the Kingdom, namely, an union of the Monarchical, Ariftocra- tical and Democratical parts, it was becaufe they fuppofed the three branches of the Gonflitution would produce $hc greateft happinefs to a free people, and the greateft fecurity to liberty and pro- perty. They did not, however, expert this Conftitution to be immutable, or the laws founded upon it to be infallible. Such an idea would be a libel on human wifdom. [ '7 ] wifdom. Time has indeed fhewn the fuperiority of our Conftitution over the other Governments of Europe, but it has alfo difcovered its great defects, for where is perfection to be found? And as thefe defects are of great magnitude, can it be wondered that ingenious men fhould give an opinion how they may be removed, and the fyftem of Government made more perfect, and, by confequence, more conducive to the dignity of the State and to the happinefs of the people? And would it not be degrading to human nature and a libel on national liberty to maintain, that the exercife of our understandings on the principles and ef- fects of Government, noways injurious to the Conftitution and the Laws, is a breach of the privilege of any one branch of the Legiflature ? Such a charge^ on fo flight a ground, is not only the afTump- tion of an unconstitutional authority in breach of the rights of the people, but it is treating a free people like a Nation of SLAVES. c I ihould t '8 ] I fhould be glad to know what privr* leges the reprefentatives of the people poflefs over the underftanding of their Constituents, that when we know the nature of them we may judge how they have been violated, and whether it was done intentionally or undefignedly, from an ignorance of this divine right of the Houfc of Commons. This legiilative bugbear, which is often held out in ter- rofem to the people, under the hideous form of privileges undefined and incom- prehenfible (the defcription of difcretion- ary and omnipotent power) puts me in mind of the Catholic carpenter, who was required to worfhip the wooden image he had made: The carpenter knew what he had made, as the people know what they have created; and as the one had too much fenfe to worfhip the work of his own hands, fo the other will have too much fpirit to fubmit to the op- preflion of an authority of their own creating. I have {hewn that fpeculative opi- nions [ '9 ] nions on the Governments of Europe, even though they ihould glance at the defeats of our own and fugged an altera- tion, is a manner of writing confident with the liberty of the prefs, and with the inherent and conditutional rights of Englishmen: I have alfo laughed at the humiliating Idea of the Parliament in charging a Writer with a Libel on their undefined privileges, for exercifing a right which ought not to be denied to the Subjects of arbitrary Govern- ments. In the prefent cafe, which is perfectly harmlefs, unawed by the Au- thor's high-founding parliamentary Ene- mies, who prove nothing but the incon- lidency of their principles and the drength of their paflions, I am proud to be of his opinion; but, like that able Writer and good Subject, I fubmit it with the mod becoming refpect, as all Writers on our fydern of Government ought to do, to the fuperior, the liberal, and un- erring judgement of the nation. If my Author has alluded to any al- 9 2 teratfan [ 2 ] jeratlcn in our Gonftitution, which con- fifts of three branches, as an opinion of his own, he has the example of the brighteft Men in the Kingdom who have at various periods boldly contended for a Reform. Does not that alteration ib ftrongly infilled upon in both Houfes of Parliament (which like the efforts of Sampfon, endangers the whole fabric) come more within the defcription of a Libel on the Conftitution, than the mo- deft allufion of this Writer? By explaining my own meaning, I with to defend the fenfible Author of " Thoughts on the Englifh Govern- they have, but unlefs they tell them the nature of their right, that it is confined to the conftitu- ent part of the Nation, they may, as in the prefent inftance, be led into fuch an error as endangers the public peace and the fecurity of Government. The BILL of RIGHTS, which is a Bill explanatory of the rights of the people, means the rights derived from the nature of 3 free Govern- ment, and are confined to the conflituent body [ 3' 3 body for the purpofes of the whole ; and not the right of every individual to peti- tion either the Throne or the Parliament, which would be attended with endlefs confufion, fubverfive of the tranquillity of the Nation, and the great ends of Government. The collecting of names to Party-Petitions, proves nothing in their favor, however numerous and re- fpeclrable they may be for rank and pro- perty, unlefs they are from the confti- tuent body of the people, regularly con- vened and conftitutionally exercifmg their exclufive right to be heard by their Re- prefentatives. ' All other petitions, offered to the two Houfes of Parliament, fhould be rejected as afTuming a right which the Petitioners do not poiTefs, incompatible with the exclufive right of the confti- tuent body and the dignity of Parliament. The individual petition of Major Cart- wright was a proof either of great igno- rance of the Conftitution, or great pre- fumption, peculiar to the arrogance of party ; and the admiflion of that Petition was as great an error in the Houfe of Commons. The [ 3* ] The Duke of Bedford preferred one to the Houfe of Lords figncd by 13*793 perfons, inhabitants of London and its environs, agreed to at a Meeting near Copenhagen -houfe, Iflington, in the County of Middlefex. The very def- cription of the perfons and the place of meeting, muft ihew the impropriety of admitting the petition, which is a Libel on the Gonftitution, and on the virtue and wifdom of the Ariftocratic part of our Government. The Conftituent part of the Nation in their refpeftive diftrifts of London, Weftminfter and Middlefex, to which the inhabitants belong, have a right to petition, but not the populace. If therefore the noble Duke, as a young Statesman, is not fufficiently acquainted with the vaft difference between the con- ftituent and the collective part of the people, if he does not know where they ihould meet, and how they fhould peti- tion the two branches of the Legiflature called the Parliament, the noble Houfe, with fo much experience, ihould ihew its wifdom and regard to the true prin- ciples t 33 ] ciples of the Conftitution, by rejecting all petitions which have not a conftitu- tional right to be heard ; fmce the re- ceiving of any other, in breach of the exclufive right of the conftituent part of the public to be heard by petition, is an infult offered to the wifdom and dig- nity of the fecond branch of the Legif- lature. His Grace of Bedford, as a young politician, may be feme what excufable for not porTerTing a perfect knowledge of the true principles of our Government; but Mr. Fox, who is a veteran in politics, is unpardonable for being guilty of Trea- fon againft the Conftitution ; for fuch muft be the crime of any man, be his rank what it may, who can roufe the great mafs of the people againft thenecef- fary meafures of Government, without any real caufe, or any conftitutional right for their refinance. The Right Hon. Gentleman affects to preferve the deareft rights of the people while he takes the mod effectual means to deftroy them and the public peace, by Tapping the founda- tion of the Conftitution, and bringing the E noble C 34 1 noble edifice of legislative and executive authority to the ground. This is a ftrong inftance in point : It fhews that the energy and effe6t of Exe- cutive Government would be greater without the oppojition of Parliament, in which there is at prefent ilrong feeds of contagion and difTolution truly alarm- ing to the Conftitution; and for which there feems to be only one remedy, namely, a refolute Government, u-nihaken by the dangerous principles of falfe friends^ and determined (with the blelfings of heaven upon the beft intentions and the ableft endeavors) to cure the wounds given to the body politic, and the alarm- ing danger to the public fecurity arifing. from the daring attempts of reftlefs and defigning men, who wifh to overthrow the Government and dhTolve the Con* ftitution. This inftance, which impeaches the virtue and infallibility of Parliament, pleads forcibly in favor of the Author of " Thoughts C 35 ] w Thoughts on the Englifh Government : w It (hews that if. his allegory throws a flight refle.clion, which probably was ne- ver meant, on two branches of the Le- giflature, inconfiftent with the dignity of Parliament, it is but a tranfient glance, and perfectly harmlefs when compared with the greater indignity offered by Members of the two Houfes to the Con- ftitution, by advifmg the great body of the people to aflemble and afTert rights they do not poflefs; and the- dill greater indignity to the Nation, by afTuming an inquifitorial capacity, and pronounc- ing a criminal fentence, contrary to the principles of the judicial authority, and in breach of the exclufive privileges of that jurifdjclion. Should the Author be found guilty after this extrajudicial fentence, by a com- petent authority, of a * c Libel on the pri- vileges of Parliament," the fame au- thority that is competent to his conviction cannot avoid, from principles of fubftan- and impartial juftice, finding a part 2 Of C 36 ] of the two Houfes of Parliament guilty of a more " malicious, fcandalous, and " feditious Libel, tending to create jealou- fies and divifions among His Majefty's " fubjects, to alienate their affections " from our happy Government, to fub- " vert the true principles of our free " Conftitution," by roufmg the great mafs of the people, and arming them with unconftitutional and alarming re- fiftance to the neceffary meaiures of the Legiflature. I do not fay, neither does the Au- thor of "Thoughts on the Engliih Go- 4i vernment," that the branches which are either corrupt or ufelefs JJjould be lopped off; but I maintain that we have a right to fay they might be lopped off without impairing the Conftitution; nay, I may go further and fay the event would, in my apprehenjim, give life and vigour and energy to the Conftitu- tion of the body politic. Right or wrong as the idea may be, I contend that, as the fubject of a free ftate, I have [ 37 ] have a right to the opinion, and that there exiffcs no conftitutional or legal power whatever to deprive me of its utterance. The fenfible and cautious Au- thor of the above pamphlet advances a fpeculative opinion and leaves it to the judgement of the Public to accept or reject it as it may ftrike their minds: But were one half of the Nation to think exactly as he does in that ref-* pe6t, it would not prove any thing to the injury of the Gonflitution ; and where there is no injury intended or effected there can be no crime for the cognizance of any authority whatever. Is there a man of letters in the Kingdom that will difpute the facts as flightly ftated by the Author? Is there any criminality or culpability in ftating facts which are as manifeft as any ma- thematical demonflration ? But it will perhaps be faid that if there is no harm in relating hiftorical facts there is mif- chief in drawing conclufions dangerous Jo the exifling forms of Government. [ 38 ] In fomc cafes it may be true, but not in the prefent inftance; fmce. what the Author fays is as harmlefs as it is true. Indeed the Writer of the pamphlet in- titled, "Thoughts on the Englilh Go- " vernment" could never think of mak- ing an unfavorable and lading impref- fion by the paflage which has given offence, for he but gently Jklms upon the forface, But were he fuppofed to be guilty of any crime againil either of the three branches of the Conflitution, he is fub- ject to the Laws of his Country and amenable only to the judicial Authority, The unauthorifed conduct of the Houfe of Commons in this cafe is truly alarm- ing. It erects itfelf into an Inquifition and pronounces judgement in its own. caufe, contrary to the principles and ^practice of every Court of juftice. It ufurps the power of the judicial jurif-" diction and offers a much greater indig- nity to the privileges of that authority than the Author has done to the privi* leges C 39 ] leges of Parliament: fo that while they, in a proud imperious ftyle, cen- fure and condemn by means of informers and extorted interrogatories (the very bane of a free (late) and prepare to profecute an ufeful Individual for a fmall fault, they commit a much greater one themfelves againfl the principles of the Couftitution and the authority of the Law. He exercifes the right of an Englifhman to advance a fpeculative opi- nion the moft harmlefs, while the Par- liament by which he is accufed, ufurp a dangerous power and in the true fpi- rit of ufurpers pronounce judgement in their own caufe. They condemn the accufed, unheard by Council, and fend their condemnation to the other Houfe of Parliament which is equally con- cerned in the charge for confirmation and punifhment # !!! Are thefe the ad- mired principles of our boafted Confti- tution, fuperior to all other Govern- ments in Europe, or are they^ the raih and violent principles of ufurpation and error ? * It was then intended to be brought finally before the Houfe of Lords. if C 40 ] If Minifters could, for a moment; be influenced by the trafh which their Informer has publifhed, they would de- ferve to be pitied as much as he is de- fpifed for his treachery, fervility and ig- norance. Miles difcovers the principles of a Parafite. It would be doing too much honor to the nonfenfe of fuch a fycophant to take any notice of it. The abilities and principles of the Au- thor of " Thoughts on the Engliih Go- vernment" will be reflected when fuch a man is totally forgotten. If the talents and public merit of thefe men were compared^ how great the ine* quality! " ' How much alafs, " One man another does furpafs " ! The three letters publifhed with the fig- nature of William Miles to Mr. Pitt and Mr. Reeves prove him to be capable of all the treachery and fervility of a political . Pander. The betraying of private con- fidence C 41 } fidence is thus beautifully described by the Poet : So gentle Truth does her fair Breaft difarm, And gives to Treachery a Power to harm, Such doctrines," (fays he) as are ad- " vanced in this pamphlet have a dirc6t "tendency to niifchief, to alienate the " affections of the people from His Ma- "jefty and his Government." This is the rafh afTertion of an ignorant fyco- phant, fince there is not a word in the whole work that has the leail defign or the flighted tendency to produce that effect : nor is there a libellous exprefiion againft His Majefty or his Government to be found in the whole production; but, on the contrary, the true princi- ples of fubordination, and the true means of promoting the dignity of authority, and the happinefs of the people. This Informer has the impudence and folly to fay, that " if Minifters dif- " charge their duty they muft difcourage F the [ 4* } the publication in queftion." Were they to take his advice it would not prevent its fpreading : Being condemned >y authority it would be the more fought after. This is already the cafe, for a pamphlet which fold at two ihillings has fince been fold at five fhillings from the interpofition of Parliament. Nor did ever any Government that pra&ifed impolitic feverity get any thing by it but infamy to itfelf and renown to thofe who fuffered under it. I am therefore of a different opinion, for two reafons, namely: One, be- caufe in a defign highly flattering to the true principles of the Conftitution in Church and State, and manifeftly conducive to the public peace and the fecurity of property by the overthrow of fedition, there does not appear to me to be any thing in the whole pro- duction offenfive to Government on which to ground their interpofition; the other becaufe the time employed, at this critical period^ in perfecuting an unoffending C 43 ] unoffending Individual would be better employed againft thofe great Offenders in both Houfes of Parliament, who preach Treafon and invite Rebellion, by in- verting the great mafs of the people with an unconflitutional right of affem- bling to endanger Executive Govern- ment, and fubvert the conftitutional Au- thorities of the State. Parliamentary offenders have mani- feftly, and to the reproach of Govern- ment, been guilty of more than "a fe- " ditious and fcandalous Libel, tending " to create jealoufies and divifions among " His Majefty's Subjects, to alienate their " affections from our happy form of Go- " vernment, and to fubvert the true * principles of our free Constitution: " Their conduct, in mifguiding the peo~ pie, and inviting their refinance to the mod neceffary meafures of Government for the public fecurity, being not only a high breach of the exclufive privileges of the conftituent power of the people, F 2 but [ 44 ] but an at of Treafon againft the Con- ftitution. How very ftrange muft it appear to the admirers of the Engliih Government, to find that the Parliament is. eager to cenfure and punifh extrajudklall)^ an Au- thor for an harmlcfs opinion, while fome of their own Members in both Houfes, maintain opinions the mod injurious to the Conftitution, and the mod danger- ous to Executive Government with im- punity : Opinions which, at this moment, endanger the public peace, and may be attended with the mod melancholy con- fequences. In my apprehenfion, Execu- tive Government acts pufilanimoufly in both cafes: Pufilanimoufly in purfuing an harmlefs individual, who has been, by their own confeflion, remarkably ufe- ful to them and to the Nation; and pufilanimoufly, in not purfuing the greater enemies of good order and necef- fary Government. In the latter more than in the former cafe. " Minifters, " if they do their duty, will difcourage " the [ 45 ] the diforder," which is as dangerous to the body politic, as peftilence is to the body natural. In that cafe the con- duct of oppofition is, as I have obferved, more than " a Libel, tending to create " jealoufies and divifions among . His ^ Majefty's fubjects," it is treafon, tend- ing to fubvert the true principles of our Conftitution or eftabliihed Government. In the opinion of the late Earl of Chatham, " it fhould be the pride of an 4i Engliiliman to think that the Con- " flitution of his Country can never die." I, as an Englifhman, fmcerely with that its principles may have immenfity for their fpace, and eternity for their duration. But, notwith (landing the fmcerity of my devotion, and my ardent wifh that the Conftitution may be immortal, I do not think that human wifdom is infallible, or human inftitutions immutable. It would be an indignity to the human mind, nay, it would be an impiety to think fo. The Conftitution is no more immutable, than fhc Laws of the Land are infallible; and the [ 46 3 the fame reafons that are affigned for the improvement of the one, may be adduced for the greater perfection of the other. When the wifdom of ancient and modern nations fixed on a fyftem of Government, they did not engage for its immutability. Every period has been fenfible of the uncertainty even of the wifeft human eftablifhments. Hence the alterations and revolutions in Govern- ment! As Nations grow enlightened by experience and reflection, they will adapt their Constitutions and their Laws to the wifdom of the age in which they live. No man will contend that our Laws, which are either abrogated, or in fome fhape or other altered every feffion, are infallible: Nor will any man in his fenfes contend, that our Contlitution, excellent as it may be, is immutable. The prefent fyftem of limited Monarchy divided into three branches, concurring in public meafures, I (hall admire fo long as it is not abufed ; . but whenever, as in the prefent and many other inftances ? either of [ 47 1 of the component parts, ufurp an au- thority, and exercife it incompatible with their ihare of the Conftitution, by con- verting a legillative into a judicial autho- rity, in breach of the rights of the people, which are of more confequence than the afTumed privileges of their Reprefenta- tives, then I ihall not do homage to that ufurpation. Convinced that a Govern- ment defcribed as King, Lords and Com- mons, is as fubject as any other to viciffitude; I ihall think like an Eng- liiliman, and fliall contend that experi- ence teaches the neceflity of iupplying the imperfections of the Conftitution, as well as the inefficiency of the Law: And the cure of thefe defects in our Government, is, I believe, all that is meant by the modeft Author of " Thoughts on " the Englifh Government," who has not faid a fingle word againft the omni- potence of Parliament, but only fays, that the unneceflary branches of a tree may- be lopped off without any injury to the- trunk. He [ 48 ] He is indeed accufed by Party-men^ who feel extremely fore of maintaining, that, AN INDEPENDENT HOUSE OF COMMONS is NO PART OF THE ENG- LISH CONSTITUTION" though not a o fingle word of that quotation is to be found in the pamplet. Stage trick may have the intended effect, but this trick of party, to impofe on a candid and liberal Public, offers an infult to the underftand- ing and juftice of that part of the Nation who have read the publication, and who will find that, although the well-informed and temperate Author has happily ex- pofed the folly of men who talk fo much about the Constitution and the Revolu- tion, he has faid very little about the Parliament. Mr. Sheridan is not more unfortunate in this mifquotation, and his mifre presentation of the Author, in this inftance, than in the precedent he found in the reign of Charles II. Does he mean to compare the profligacy of that reign with the virtue of the prefent ? Or does he mean to compare the treacher- ous conduct of the penfioned and profti- tuted [ 49 3 tuted Parliament of that unabafhed pe- riod, to the difmterefted wifdom of the prcfent Parliament ? ! I ! If he wifhes for a precedent in this cafej he Ihould look for one fubfequent to the period called the Revolution, a period which fhould bury in oblivion all acts of injuftice and oppreffion. That period fhould be confidered rather as a Renovation of our Government, than a -Revolution in it, for my Author has ably and clearly {hewn it was no Revolution at all. A Revolution is occafioned either by foreign conqueft, or domeftic fubver- fion of the former fyflem of Government, neither of which happened at that pe- riod. The emancipation of North Ame- rica, and the overthrow of the monar- chical Government in France, were Revolutions, but I contend that the Englifti had no Revolution in 1688, nor any thing like a Revolution: Since they had the very fame monarchical Govern- ment at, and fubfequent to that period, as before it. G If [ 50 ] If the Englifh Nation fent for a Dutch Prince, and placed him upon the Throne inftead of the Royal HouCe of Stuart, and if they thought proper to expel the ancient and hereditary Princes of that illuftrious Houfe, and call it the abdication of James II. which went to the expulfion of the whole race for the weaknefs or folly of one Prince, did that exchange of their own Princes for a o Dutch Officer,* without any alteration in their Government, occafion a Revo- lution, which implies a total fubverfion of Government, like thofe great events in America and France? As a proof that the year 1688 pror- \luced no Revolution in this country, let me alk any Englishman whether the people did at that period revolt^ as in the above inftances; or whether they ex- changed or in any manner altered their * The Stadeholder called the Prince of Orange-, .is Captain, General, &c. is the firft Civil and Military offi- cer of the Biitavim Republic. fyftem [ 5' 3 fyftem of Government? Was not their Conftitution or eftablilhed forms of Go- vernment the fame before as fubfequent to that period ? The Bill of Rights was indeed, like the Revolution, fuppofed to be an acquifition, but it was, in rea- lity, none. It was nothing more than a Bill declaratory of the peoples' rights: It was no conceflion whatever; but an acknowledgement of what they were ever intitled to, from the nature of a Monarchy limited by Laws. The idea therefore, of " fupporting the CONSTI- TUTION according to the principles of " the GLORIOUS REVOLUTION of 1688," is a palpable abfurdity in ib great a Law- yer as Mr* Erfkine; fmce we had abfo- lutely no Revolution at that period, nor were any new principles eftablifhed at that time. If it is folly to call this event in 1688 a Revolution, which had abiblutely no- thing of the nature or effe&s of a Re- volution in it; it is equally abfurd to fpeak fo much of the glorious memory G 2 [ 5* ] of our great deliverer King William, That Prince did no more than was natin rai to preferve the Grown which had been given to him either by the caprice or generofity of the Englifh Nation. He is (tiled our great deliverer, but I am at a lofs to conceive from what danger he delivered this country? My Author is therefore perfectly right in afligning to thefe events their true motives, and de- fcribing them by their true names. In doing this he acts like a faithful Hif- torian, and for the truth he modeftly appeals not to the paffions and preju- dices of party, but to " the quiet GOOD *? SENSE of an enlightened Nation. 1 ' Eminently diftinguiihed for candor and liberality. Here I defire leave, in imitation of this lenfible and well-difpofed Author, to obferve that if the Engliih Nation wifli for a memorable period, equal to any that foreign States can boaft of, inftead of imaginary Revolution let them felicitate themfelves on the Honoverian Succeflion, C 53 3 SnccefFion. That indeed was a great, a glorious event; fmce it will be ac- knowledged, with pride and national gratitude, that the Princes of that il- lu(trious Houfe have understood the principles of civil and religious liberty, better than any that have fat upon the Throne of this Kingdom. From that ara the Englifh (hould date the fecurity of their liberty and property. It fhould therefore be commemorated as the moft glorious event; which, with the bleflings of Providence upon the Brunfwick race, will have immenfity for its fpace and eternity for its duration. That event has been truly glorious. At no period of our Hiftory have we feen the Sovereign Power give fuch proofs of attachment to the true prin- ciples of our Government as fmce the Hanoverian Succemon. The virtues of the amiable Monarch now on the throne deferve immortality: His Majefty will be claffed, by the faithful Hiflorian, with the immortal Roman who was fcoth the admiration of his own Empire and C 54 ] and the delight of Mankind. Let us then forget the folly of an imaginary Re- volution and commemorate with raptures the glorious Succefllon of the Houfe of Brunfwick, which has realized and fe- cured the true principles of civil Liberty* Thefe great truths upon Record lead me to my Author's ideas of a monarchi- cal Government, which are too loofe to merit the exception taken to them. Although the Parliament affect to be very tenacious of their privileges, it is evident, from our Hiftory, that the Commons have incroached greatly on the prerogatives of the Crown and the privileges of the Peers. " As foon as "the Lords and Commons met'* (fays Rapin) "in two different Houfes or dif- 46 tinct Chambers, the Commons look- *' ed on themfelves as the fole genuine " Reprefentatives of the people by whom " they were chofen; and in procefs of " time were confidered as Guardians of " the principles, liberties, and depofitaries *< of the Kingdom. Hence the Commons, "as [ 55 ] as Reprefentatives of the people, claim " an inconteftible right of laying taxes and ** granting money to the King, in which " cafe the Lords have no other power " than barely acceding to the bill in 44 queftion or rejecting it without altera- 46 tion or amendment. And fo tenacious ** are the Commons of this exclufive 4t right that they would reject any money 46 bill that was in the leaft altered by the Houfe of Lords." Hence it is manifeft that our Govern- ment or Conftitution has ever been mo- narchical except when it was f'ubverted by Cromwell; and that Parliaments were nothing more than appendages of a. Monarchy, limited by law, which are fufpended durante bene placho of the Sove- reign, who having the fupreme power of calling and difTolving them, many in my apprehenfion, totally difpenfe with them without any injury to the Confti- tution or good Government of this Coun- try. This is my opinion, other perfons have a right to think otherwife accord- ins: [ 56 ] jrig to their conviction. I do not wifh to make Converts, but I claim a right to think according to the conviction of my own mind. Why the Commons confider them- felves as the fols Guardians of the peo- ple and the Depofitaries of the Kingdom, I cannot conceive, confident with the equal ihare of the other Houfe of Par- liament; nor upon what principle of Legiflation they can claim an exclufive right to Money Bills unaltered, becaufe they originate with them, is beyond my comprehenfion. It is a folecifm in the Legiflation of a Free State incompatible with the equal rights of the two Branches of the Conflitution, called the Parlia- ment, to promote the dignity of the Crown and the mtereft of the people. The Houfe of Commons have always had high notions of their privileges, and although they are all derived from the people and exercifed in their name, and for their purpofes, they have, in many inflances, [ 57 ] inftances, pretended that the people had violated their delegated privileges by difputing their omnipotence. Thus the power delegated aflumes an autho- rity over their Conftituents and become a fort of Sovereign Subjects! This is a folecifm in our Government arifmg from the pufillanimity of the Public in fubmit- ting to the affumed inquifitorial capacity of their Reprefentatives in the Legifla- ture. Upon the whole, the Conftitution of Parliaments, like other Conftitutions, has its good and its bad qualities, its ufes and its imperfections. Its good qualities are its legiflative attention to the true in- tereft of the State and to the true ends of a monarchical Government; its im- perfections are its inquifitorial capacity, by which they ufurp a power over the people which was never delegated to them, and which is incompatible with de- legation and representation, and a breach of the exclufive right of the judicial au- thority of the Nation. Thefe incroach- H ments, C 58 ] ments, tinder pretence of preferring imaginary privileges, may one day roufe the people to throw off the yoke of op- preflion; and when they are emanci- pated from the fetters of the very power which they have created and which ex- ifts folely from their authority and for their purpofes, it will perhaps be con- fidered how far Parliaments are necefiary to a monarchical Government? In the prefent cafe the very proceed- ings of the two Houfes of Parliament juftify a reflection on the utility of them: They get entirely out of their own jurif- diclion they ufurp another for the pur- pofe of coercion they arbitrarily fend for whom they pleafe, to examine them upon interrogatories, like a Catholic In- quifition they feize a man's papers and. imperioufly charge his own fervants to give evidence and produce his own papers- againft him. And this glaring ufurpation of authority and violation of every prin- ciple of jurifprudence and juftice, is un- der color of defending the imaginary pri- vileges. [ 59 3 vileges of two branches of the Legifla- ture, which I contend the Author of " Thoughts on the Englifh Government" has not half fo much injured as they have in the prefent Seflion injured the exclufive right of the conllituent part of the public, and, by confequence, the principles of the Conftitution. Were I capable of advifing Minifters, it Ihould be to turn their miftaken and mifapplied vengeance againft that un- offending Author, and defend the fa- cred principles of the Conftitution which have been violently attacked by Mem- bers of Parliament. The vengeance of the Law fhould fall on thofe who en- danger the Government by the worft principles and the moft alarming attempts to fubvert it : " For juflice bears the arm of God, *' And the grafp'd Vengeance only waits his NofL" CAWTH. It is a melancholy proof either of the H 2 imper- [ 60 ] imperfection or abufe of our Conftitu- tion, that Members of the two Houfes of Parliament can be fo felicitous to purfue and punifh the Author of " Thoughts on the Engliih Government," while they are, at the fame time, infi- nitely more criminal by roufing the mul- titude and arming them with miftaken rights and ftrong prejudices againft the moft neceffary meafures of Government, taken for the peace and fecurity of the Nation. Should he be rafhly puniihed, and they efcape a legal puniihment, it will put me in mind of the farcaflic ob< fervation of Sir Samuel Garth : ' Little Villains muft fubmit to Fate, " While greater Rogues enjoy the world in State." The defence of this Author's pamphlet, which I very much admire, gives me a fine opportunity to bring a more ferious charge againft his Accufers, who ajFect to be jealous of a Sprig of the Con- flitution while they lay the axe to the Trunk. Many [ 6, ] Many arc the inftances in which the Houfe of Commons have affumed an r : ;n toned inquifitorial capacity? and claimed the right of the Civil Power to commit, and of the Judicial Power to exa- mine witnefles and pronounce judgement on thofe who have incurred their dif- pleaiure. I cannot think the framers of our Government meant this tyranny ! No : The Parliament ufurp an authority which the Conflitution never intended they ihould take. In every inftance therefore, that has come to my know~ ledge, I have adviied difobedience to an afiumed authority that violates our Law and abufes our Conftitution. I have great refpect for the component parts of our Legiflatnre, but I refpecl them in the exercife of their functions and not in the abufe of them. Whenever the peo- ple are fuppofed to offend they are arne- able to the Laws of their Country and not to any one branch of the Legiflature, not even to the King who is the fupreme part of the Conftitution and the Law, Joeing at the head of the Church and State. The [ 62 ] The inquifitorial authority exercifed by the Privy Council, or Executive Power, and by the Houfe of Commons, as a legiflative Power, are grofs violations of the Con- ititution and encroachments upon the pri- vileges of the people. The cafe of Mr. Haftings was a pompous nothing: It was a Libel on the juitice of this Country, and Treafon againft the Law: For under color of jufticefrom the Laws of this Nation the Legiflature ufurped the jurifdiclion of the judicial authority, the only power to which Engliihmen are fubje6l. Another recent inflance muft fill every mind with horror and every breaft with indignation: I mean the abomina- ble report of the Secret Committee to pre- judice the minds of the Public at large, and the Jury in particular, who were to fit in judgement with minds totally un- biaffed againfV men Illegally apprehended upon a fftious charge of Treafon. Thefe proceedings were atrocious and abomina- ble; they were a grofs perverfion of our mild Laws and a grofs Libel on our boafted t 63 ] boafted Conftitution, or the reputed mild and liberal Government of this Country. I do not mean to be an Advo- cate for men, who, under the mod alarming circumftances of the Na tion from foreign War and domeftic Commo- tion, were charged with feditious prac- tices to increafe the ferment and en- danger Government; but I wifh to mark with ftrong reprobation, the high toned conduct of the Houfe of Commons, in exercifmg an unconltitutional authority and perverting their jurifdiclrion for the purpofes of injuftice and oppreflion. If we would wifh for virtue in a Na- tion we muft look for it in the nature of its Government. But what muft we think of the nature of that Government which can concur in fuch an abufe of Parliament and fuch a perverfion of Law and Juftice? And what muft we think of a Government that can join its worft Enemies in the profecution of an harm- lefs Author, while his very Accufers are guilty of a greater crime? An Author who [ 64 ] who difcovers better talents and princi- ples for Government than many Secreta- ries of State that I have known. An Author whofe hiftorical knowlese and o whofe application of political facts and principles in Church and State are indeed admirable; whofe temper is almoft with- out example ; and whofe juft remarks on the Constitution are as important as they are true; and fhew, much to his honor, that he has a clear head and an excellent heart, untainted by the paffions of Party. He writes like a Gen- tleman and a Scholar; like an able and impartial Hiftorian ; and like a temper- ate and wife Statefman; dating great hiftorical facts that are indifputable; and drawing the founded conclufions which are the fineft political Leffons, and can- not be too much admired at the prefent period in particular by our Government, that is, by all the Constitutional autho- rities of the State; for his Pamphlet is indeed an able defence of the true prin- ciples of His Majefty's Government in Church and State. Whoever [ 65 ] Whoever the Author is he deferves a ilatue or busto. He is indifputably the moft temperate, argumentative, and per- fuafive political writer of the prefent reign. The pamphlets imputed to the late Lord Chatham are full of fire, and are written in the bold language of party for particu- lar purpofes, and are therefore only cal- culated for a particular period, like moft ihorr-lifed political productions ; but this modefl appeal to "the quiet GOOD SENSE of the Nation" is adapted to all times, and may, if our Government con- tinues fo long unaltered, be read with as much iatisfactioa a THOUSAND YEARS hence, as at prefent, for truth is pow- ful and will ultimately prevail over the chicane of Lawyers and the fophiftry of Statefmen. The noble Earl was a popu- lar orator, and diftinguiihed for the nerves attic fait and rapid eloquence of DemoftheneS) as juftly as his fecond fon is for the fwcetnefs and profufion of fully \ but, although their fuperior elo- quence charms fuperficial men, and gra- tifies the human ambition, it often fails I of t 6 6 ] of producing the defired and great effect* I mean the perfuafion which this well- informed and well-difpofed Author, pro- duces on the minds of the candid reader, who is open to conviction, and under the influence of truth alone. This Pamplet, though cenfurcd and condemned by Parliament, and even by the Government it fo ably defends, dc- lerves to be written in characters of gold. There is indeed one flight paflage on Monarchy, which may, with a little alteration, be better explained by the Author, and which no man is better qualified than himfelf to do, to take out the fting of malice. Taken in its true fenfe it is unexceptionable, but perverted by the party paffions of fome men, and the ignorance of others, the meaning may be twitted to the difcredit of the Author, and to the purpofe of his enemies. The production finely expofes-the tricks of Party, that is, the hypocrify of fectaries in Church and State: IT CUTS CUTS SEDITION AND TREASON UP Bi r THE ROOT, and produces the fineft de- fence of Government that has been pro- duced by any pamphlet of the prefent reign. But I beg the Author's pardon for my inability to do juftice to his well- timed and temperate appeal to u the " quiet good Senfe of the Englifh Na- " tion," which deferves the pen of a JUNIUS, diverted of the party motives of that admired writer. In that refpecl: our Author is fuperior to him, for his -" Thoughts on the Engliih Government," though manifeflly intended as a hajly Jketch of a greater defign, is the moil mafterly production of the fize that I ever read upon our Government. He is evidently infpired by truth, totally di- vefted of party paflions, and the preju- dices of feclaries in Church and State, and nobly animated in the caufe of his country for the fecurity of His Majefty's Government, by expofmg the purita- nical principles of modern Jacobins who, like the puritans of the church, tend equally to fedition and rebellion, and I 2 equally equally ftrike us with horror from tho ruinous effects of their reftlefs fpirit and poifonous doctrines. And yet, from that fatality which often attends the nobleft works and the greateft Generals, this excellent publi- cation is condemned by the unnatural union of the Miniftry and Oppofition in Parliament. That the Miniftry fhould join their worft enemies for fuch a purpofe f is indeed extraordinary, as I have faid it con- tains the moft able defence of His Majei- ty's Government, and is calculated to render the moft eminent fervice to good order at this period, in which the popu- lace are running ftark mad after the del u five principles and dangerous defigns of party orators 5 but I do not wonder that Oppofition fhould take the alarm, and persecute the Author for fo ably expofmg their defigns, and fo effectually refuting their feditious and mifchievous principles. The Author is highly de- ferving the thanks and protection of Government, and of all the hatred and malice [ 69 ] malice of Oppofition, for his inimitable Pamphlet, which is a Libel on the immaculate Whig-Club, and Treafon againft the factious principles of fecta- ries in Church and State. The produc- tion is, at this feafon of delufion and fchifm, invaluable. Whoever woulo 1 overthrow the liberty of a free Nation, muft begin by fubduing the liberty of the Prefs. All weak Minif- ters have been loud in their complaints againft the Prefs, and always have ref- trained and endeavored to reftrain it. In confequence of this enmity to the Prefs, they have brow beaten writers, and punilhed them violently againft law. Every method has been put in practice to check the fpirit of knowledge and enquiry. But, in the prefent cafe, the information is truly flattering to Govern- ment, and of infinite fervice to adminif- tration, and therefore it is the moft ex- traordinary, as well as the moft unufual event, that the Miniftry fhould join their word enemies in cenfuring a pror elusion. [ 7 ] du6lion fo ufeful to them, and fo inju- rious to the party in oppofition to their meafures> at this period of delnfion and infatuation in which the daring efforts of faction, like the peftilence, threaten the very exiftence of Government. Although no man is more attached than myfelf to what I conceive to be the true dignity and intereft of Executive Government, yet I am more attached to the Conftitution; that is, to the whole than to any particular part of our Go- vernment. I was therefore the perfon who advifed the difobedience of the Prin- ters to the Houfe of Commons, becaufe that branch of Legislation has abfolute- ly no inquifitorial jurifdiclion, but over their own Members. I alfo glory in having been the only perfon who, out of doors had fpirit enough to oppofe the farcical proceedings againfh the late Sir Thomas Rumbold, from a conviction that the Houfe of Commons has not (as Mr. Fox admits) any inquifitorial capacity over the public. The Peers indeed, have an C 7i ] an inquifitorial poxver as having both a judicial capacity (by appeal) and a legif- lative one; but the Commons have not any, as being folely legiilative, from the nature of delegation and reprefentation; and in no cafe whatever can it be in- quifitorial, but in regard to their own Members. The many precedents to the contrary, are fo many inftances of an affumed power ufurped by the Houfe of Commons, and exercifed in breach of the rights of the people, and the pri- vileges of the judicial authority, or the Laws of the Land. As I deny this inquifitorial capacity to the whole Houfe of Commons, fo I condemn it in toto in the Secret Com- mittee, who were by the Houfe vefted. with an authority which I do infift the Commons have not a right to give, be- caufe it is a power by them ufurped, and which I hope will be oppofed by my fellow citizens with as much fpirit as I have ever oppofed, and fhall ever oppofe it, as a difcretionary power, not autho- rifed [ 7* 3 rifed by either the Conftitution or Law, and confequently an alarming vio- lation of the legiflative and judicial authorities of the Nation. We have a memorable inftance of the folly of the Houfe of Commons, in impofmg upon the public, an authority which does not belong to them, and the pufilanimity of the people in fubmitting to it in the virtuous and fpirited conduct of a patriotic Chief Juftice of the King's Bench. The Commons having made him an authoritative requifition, his Lord- fhip returned for anfwer, that " if the "SPEAKER came with the whole Houfe " of Commons in his belly, he would " fend him to Newgate." That honeft incorruptible Judge, would not have fuf- fered the aflumption of a magifterial or inquifitorial authority under any pretence, but by the civil and judicial powers. To iliew the iupremacy of the Law, in cafes that aifect the liberty of the fubjcct, the Chief Juftice would not have had the lead hefitation to commit any perfons, without [ 73 ] without regard to their fhations, who had exercifed an improper authority over the people. In the cafe of Wilkes, the complaint was againfl the illegality of the warrant from the executive power, which has no inquifitorial capacity, though it has been often exercifed by the Privy Council, and God forbid it ever lliould : For whenever the execu- tive is armed with the civil authority, as in abfolute States, our Government, like theirs, will be arbitrary; and we fhali lofe all the bleflings of liberty, which we now happily enjoy under a moft excellent Sovereign, who deferves, equally with the immortal Roman, the glorious character of bumanl generis delicts. Nor can the Parliament give to Ad- miniftration a power they do not poiTefs themfelves; an unnatural and dangerous power in the hands of either the legifla- tive or executive parts of Government, fubverfive of the principles which are underftood by the Conititution. God forbid that the inquifitorial power of K jurifprudence [ 74 ] jurifprudence fhould again be mifplaced ! It was indeed ailumed and exercifed by the STAR CHAMBER, but that ufurped and arbitrary authority, with all its horrid principles, has long been happily abo- lifhed ; becaufe it was of the nature of a Catholic INQJJISITION, and not con- genial to our jurifprudence. The Con- ftitution of this Country has made a wife diftinction between the functions of the legiflative, the executive, the civil and judicial powers, and on their total feparation, depends the fecurity of civil liberty. The doctrine of interrogatories impofed by the ufurpation of Parliament is the doctrine of a papilh Inquifition. Interrogatories, in every cafe whatever, are to be refifted, becaufe they are not congenial to the Constitution and Law of the Land. They are founded on the unfair principles of abfolute and arbitrary Governments. There cannot be a flronger argument againft the horrid doctrine of interrogatories than the exprefs prohibition of fslf-accufation, to which interrogato- ries, [ 75 ] ries, thofe efpecially of an afTumed power, lead the accufed. And fuch is the glo- rious bulwark of our Conftitution and Law, that the legal authorities are charged to admoniili the accufed, not to fay or to bring any thing In evidence againft himfelf. So humane is the Conftitution, fo tender is the Law of a free people, even in the moft criminal fituation ! So abhorrent the doctrine of INTERROGA- TORIES to a free Nation! It is the arbi- trary doctrine of defpotifm. If it be a noble, a God-like principle of our jurifprudence, that no man fhall accufe himfelf; it is equally a principle of our Gonftitution, that his papers fhall not be feized to bear witnefs againft him. Such a. furreptitious and violent method of obtaining evidence, fo contrary to the principles of our Conftitution and the fpirit of our Laws, is an arbitrary act congenial to an abfolute and tyrannical Government. J have no hefitation to fay it is a grofs K 2 PERVERSION [ 76 ] PERVERSION of two Eftates of the King- dom, neither of which has an inqutfitorlal capacity, nor can either afTume fuch a capacity, without violating the exifting Laws, and being guilty of Treafon again/I the Conftitution; a crime that is infinitely worfe than a breach of the privileges of Parliament complained of, which being undefined, thofe two branches of the Legiflature have, in too many inftances, fhaped the Conftitution to their pleafure, and bent it to their purpofes. This is the language which truth infpires and public virtue animates. It has, never- thelefs, been obferved by an ermined fycophant, that fuch bold truths tend to bring into difcredit the two Houfes of Parliament. Perilh the Judge and the Parliament rather than fubvert the prin- ciples of our Government, by a proftitu-^ tion of virtue, and a perverfion of the Legiflature. To prevent the error committed in the cafe of Wilkes, for which he reco- vered heavy damages, arid by which Lord [ 77 ] Lord C. J. Camden acquired immorta- lity. Mr. Secretary Dundas was pleafed to fay < ; to avoid all doubts of the lega- " lity of my warrant of apprehenfion, u I affure the Houfe that it was granted "" on information for the feizure of papers " containing treafonable matter." Does that pretence conftitute the legality, and inveft the executive with civil power contrary to the law, and in violation of the Constitution? Upon the invention of fuch an information, and under fuch a pretence, every perfon in oppofition to Minifters, might be fufpeted and ar- refted, upon the horrid principle of the French revolution. It was upon infor- mations of this fort, that the moft abfo- lute Governments grounded their oppref- fions of the people; and it was a conduct of that fort which fubverted the Govern- ment of France. God grant it may never produce the fame revolutionary principles in this country! To that great end it is of the utmoft confequence to oppofe, with Britifh fpirit and Roman virtue, {he exercife of an inquijitorial authority, from [ 73 ] from either the Executive Power called the Privy Council, or the Legiflative Power of the Houfe of Commons. The greateft enemy to our Govern- ment could not have fuggefted a more infidious meafure than that adopted to ifTue WARRANTS from the Secretary of State. Such an arbitrary fyftem of coer- cion by information and arrejlj eftabliihes a dreadful INQUISITION in a free ftate, more congenial to the Ruffian than the Britifh Nation ; and, by confequence, an abfolute Government, tending not to prevent, but to force and juftify the re- volutionary principles of France. It alarms and arms the people againft our happy eftablifhments in Church and State : It forces them into a ftate of refiftance in defence of their perfons, their literary property, their laws and their conftitutional authorities: It is a bold meafure in contempt and defiance of the Law; and is acknowledged by Minifters themfelves, to be as illegal as it is unconftitutional, by bringing in an expoft [ 79 ] ex pojifatfo Law to make it legal. It is a renewal of the horrid principles and da- ring authority of the Court of STAR CHAMBER: A juftification of the Author of Thoughts on the Englifh Government," has furniihed me with fo much matter, that I am at a lofs for a feleclion. I am afraid of faying too much from its re- dundancy, or too little injuftice to fo curious a fubjecl. It is faid that the Conftitution is fecretly attacked (for it is not done openly in the manner of Paine) and undermined by this Writer; and as it is the boaft of Englishmen, that " it can never die," it fhould be equally their pride to defend it. But, for the purpofe of defence, we muft confider in what manner it has been attacked, and in what part it is vulnerable. The Con- ftitution is in every body's mouth, and fuch are fuppofed to be its noble prin- ciples and happy effects, that thofe who know nothing about it have the fame admiration and veneration for it, as thofe who [ 8 ] who are intimately acquainted with it. It is taken for granted that the Conflitution of a Free State, which has coft our an- ceftors fo much blood and trcafure, and which is founded on the virtue and wif- dom of ages, is as glorious as the fun, and as perfect as the human mind can make it. But as perfection is not to be found, and as infallibility is not the lot of human nature, this fyflem of English Government is fubject, like all other things under the fun, to decay by de- parting from its original purity, and re- quiring a ferious confideration, how far the Conftitution like the Law, will ad- mit of alteration ? As an Englifhman I do homage to the virtue and wifdom of our anceftors for framing our fyftem of Government, but I contend, that either the luxury which pervades this Nation has perverted it, or our experience of its effects from the fec- tarifm of a Free State Ihews the neceflity of its improvement. Of its perverfion I have given melancholy inftances from the conduct Conduct of Parliament; and of its im- provement I will, after the manner of our delicate and modeft Author, gently offer a fpeculative opinion, and refpect- fully leave it to the judgement of the public, whofe candor and liberality of fentiment I very much admire. The Constitution of this Country, like all other human institutions, is to be admired, not for its name of King, Lords, and Commons, in which there is nothing fupernatural, but for its princi- ples and the happy effects they produce. If thefe effects are fuch as were intended by the fyftem of Government adopted by this Nation, then it fhould be the idol of our admiration, and it would be facri- lege to rob it of any part of the credit due to fo much public virtue and national wifdom: But if experience, the parent ofwifdom, teaches that the effects are inadequate to the great defigns of a good Government, then it will be admitted una voce that either the perverfion fhould be reformed or the defect fupplied. Al- t' though t 82 ] though the perverfion and defect of the Conftitution, or Government of this Country, are words of great extent, I will flightly glance at the means of removing the one and fupplying the other: But this will be only a fpeculative and harm- lefs opinion, like that of my Author, which is refpectfully fubmitted to better judges, and for which I claim a confti- tutional right for myfelf and for that mafterly writer, and indeed for every fubjecl: of a Free State, and which inhe- rent right, congenial with the principles of our Government, I will continue to exercife unawed by the threats of any nfurped power whatever. Our Conflitution is beautifully com- pared by our Author to a majeftic Oak, whofe durability, utility, and beauty are fo'juftly our admiration and our boaft. But, alas ! notwithstanding its remarka- ble durability, its unparelled utility, and its matchlefs beauty, it has the lot of human nature, which is neither immortal or infallible. Its beautiful branches will decay decay and it will be neceffary to lop them off, either to (trengthen or preferve the trunk. Such is the nature and fuch the effects of our Conftitution ! The Conflitution of the body politic is like that of the body natural : Equally fub- ject to the effects of Time, they are liable to the fame diforders, and as the one is fubject to amputation, fo is the other to mutilation. The mod violent Enemies (and violent they have been) of my Author have admitted the truth and beauty of the comparifon. They loudly call for a Reform of Parliament, which {hews that the Conftitution is perverted or there would be no occafion to reform it. If they admit of the abufe of their own power, with what propriety can they blame other men for being of the fame opinion ? It is that perverfion or abufe, call it which you pleafe, that renders the fyftem imperfect and the ef- fect inadequate. If that imperfection is generally admitted the difference of opini- on is only in the means of reformation, J have as much right as any man to give [ 84 ] an opinion on reforming the ConftitiH tion as Party-men on the reform of any one branch of it. Upon this fubject, fo important to a free Nation, the Sen-* timents of a Free and enlightened people will be as different as their complexions; and yet they have an equal right of thinking and of giving a fpeculative opi- nion provided it does not injure the efla- bliihed Government, which injury (not allowed by any Government) is produced by pofitive and bold afTcrtions like thofe of Paine and other avowed Enemies, and not by fpeculative opinions of the beft friends to the Laws and to the Con-* ilitutjon. The Gentleman-like Author of this much abufed Pamphlet, feems to prefer a monarchical Government, which is the Government of this Country, and fo do I. I do noty^r, as that able Writer feems to think) that I prefer a Government that is purely monarchical, but I contend that he has a right to admire it if it (trikes his mind to be the beft fyftem of Govern- ment, [ 5 3 ment. It is evident that he is un- friendly to a Republican Government, and therefore he cannot be accufed, like fome great men in Parliament that I have in my eye, of being an Advocate for the prefent mad fyftem of Equality and Fra- ternity, that threatens the total over- throw of our Conftitution. If he is blameable for inclining rather too much to unlimited monarchy, they are criminal for daringly efpoufing the caufe of de- mocracy, and endangering that conftituti- onal fyftem of Government which they fo much affect to admire, I endeavour to avoid thefe extremes by contending for a Government that is neither one or the other. A fyftem that is not totally monarchical or republican, but a limited Monarchy confifting of both. Neither abfolute monarchy or a Government purely republican is conge- nial to the Genius of this Nation, or conducive to its true intereft. It muft be a mixed Government that happily com- bines the dignity and efficacy of the mo- narchical [ 86 ] narchical, with the principles of the Re- publican, and is called a Monarchy regu- lated by Laws, to diftinguiih it from an abfolute Monarchy, acting from the will of the Sovereign. This is my humble opinion, other men have a right to the opinion tl^at moft forcibly ftrikes their minds, without the imputation of being unfriendly to our Government, or to the privileges of any one branch of the Le* giflature, commonly called the Condi" tution. When our Anceftors gave us a Con-- ftitution, founded on the concurrence and co-operation of three Branches, and called them King, Lords, and Commons, if they wilhed to render the principles of their fyftem eternal, they did not expect the forms, like the fpirit, to be immu- table. If the noble principles are pre*- ferved, and the happy effects are produced, I think it is immaterial, what name or ihape it takes. I am a great admirer of the dignity, the energy, and effect of monarchical Government; and notwith- ftanding {landing the dreadful examples we have had of its abufe, I fliould prefer a Go- vernment intirely monarchical, could we always be fure of fuch an excellent Monarch as now adorns the Throne, and fuch a Miniftry as now fo ably conducts the affairs of this Nation : But as thefe blefiings are uncertain, the Genius and the intereft of this country require a mixed Government, or a monarchy li- mited by the Laws of the Land. This conclufion leads me from the favourite idea of my modeft Author to my own opinion of a limited Monarchy. Luxury, which like a torrent, pervades Europe; Luxury which is both a great blefling and a great curfe (a blefling to a manufacturing Nation by its induftry, and a curfe by perverting the Conilitu- tion and the Law) has had a manifeft effect upon our fyftem of Government. Can it then be wondered that this Conftitu- tion, which is fapped by luxury, the parent of corruption and proftitution, ihould be compared by ingenious men to the t 88 ] the royal oak, whofe beautiful branches are decayed by time, and lopped off by neceflity ? This ingenious companion, which is as modeft as it is true, does not, in the leaft, attack the privileges of any one branch of our Conftitution. He may fay, with his amiable Sovereign, Honi foil qui mal y penfe. But had he laid that the branches of the Conftitution, like thofe of a Tree, ihould be lopped off* whenever they become corrupt or ufelefs, he would have faid a truth, ftriclly within the right given him by the Conftitution, and the Law; fince it does not affecl: the Government nor vio- late the Law. I am fo much convinced that Englishmen pofTefs this natural and conftitutional right to advance a fpecu- lative opinion, that, even under the perfecution of the Author of " Thoughts " on the Englifh Government," I will venture to deliver my opinion upon a fyftem moft congenial to the temper, and moft conducive to the intcrcfl of this commercial Nation. I have [ 89 ] I have faid that I admire a well-judged union between a monarchical and a re- publican fyftem of Government, in which the dignity and efficiency of the one is founded on the principles and energy of the other, to the end that the- fupremacy of the Grown may be conducive to the true happinefs of the people: For the felicity of the fubject is the true interefl of the Monarch. The dignity of the one is infeparable from the profperity of the other. This 1 am confident is the opinion of our incomparable Sovereign, and the opinion alfo of his excellent Minifters. Should TIME produce an alteration in our Constitution (for Time changes all things) I apprehend it will be in the ariftocratic branch. That is the branch which I think can be bed difpenfed with, confident with the principles of a mixed Government and the purity of national liberty. The ariftocracy may be confi- dered more as the appendage of Mo- narchy than as a difiincl: branch of the M Gonftitution. [ 9 ] Conftitution. Peers are the Creatures and generally the echo of Sovereignty. It is no folecifm to fay it is the very creature of its Creator. If ever Peers are in oppofition it is becaufe their ambi- tion is not fufficicntly gratified. Titles, Ribbands, Feathers and Toys, often in- fpirc the virtue and animate the wifdom of this branch of the Engliih Govern- ment. It confiils of two parts, fpiritual and temporal, equally eager to gratify their ambition and venality. Ariftocracy is the bane of every Monarchy, and a libel on the equal rights and liberty of this Nation: The ambition and the im- perious influence of this order are the greateft misfortunes of a free State. Arif- tocracy is not congenial to liberty. In my apprehenfion that branch of the Conftitution may be \vcll f pared without any injury to our fyftem of Government; which I contend will be more perfect by lopping off the great iource of nati- nal corruption and political prostitution^ which, like the peftilence, infects the democratic order, and threatens, by its ambition [ 9' 3 ambition and overbearing influence on the legislative and executive powers, to roufe the people to constitutional re- fiflance. Ariftocracy is a privileged order incom- patable with a free State, in which the Nobles and the .dignified Clergy have more influence then is confident with national liberty and the public intereft. Ariftocracy is incompatible with the rights and interefts of mankind. It is a fcourge to the fubjecls of arbitrary Go- vernments, and the greateft evil in a free Nation. Indeed it is a defcription of men that offers an indignity to civilized hu- man nature, and a grofs infult to Li- berty. If its proud distinction infults our understandings and our feelings, its effects upon Government offer a (till greater infult to the wifdom, the fpirit, and liberty of the Age. What- are the greateft curies in all arbitrary Govern- ments? Ariftocracy and the dignified Clergy. What occafioned the Revolution ja France? Ariftocracy and the dignified M 2 ClcrsT. clergy. What is the greateft folecifm in the Britiih. Government? The privileged order of Ariftocracy, confiding of the No- bles and the dignified Clergy. A Legifla- tive Ariftocracy is the greateft folecifm in a Nation diftinguiflied for civil Liberty. Mankind are well acquainted with Mo- narchical and Republican Government, but Ariftocratical principles are a fort of policy repugnant to both. It will be faid that Ariftocracy in a free State is not a diftinct power over the people (or the Government of the Nobles) but wifely bounded on the one fide by the monarch- ical, and on the other fide by the demo~ cratical part of our Conftitntion. Admit- ted ; andy^y^r if it did not do much good it might not do much mifchief. But the misfortune is its influence exceeds its bounds, abforbs the democracy in the vortex of its all-powerful effects, and occafions all the evils which arife from ambition, luxury, corruption, and prof- titution. The blefTmsis of a wife Mo- O narchy are like the inundation of the Kile that manures and fertilifes the land; but [ 93 3 but the calamitous pride of Ariftocracy is like the overflowing of great rivers that waili away the farmers toil and fte- riiize the land. The powerful afcendency in Church and State of this proud Order of the Na- tion (which infults human nature and degrades the human understanding by an imperious fuperiority) may one day or ot:her render it neceffary to lop off the ariftocratic branch of the Lisgiflature, which 1 am perfuaded can be done with- out any injury to our Conftitution, but on the contrary, with the greateft con- fiflency and advantage to our limited Monarchy, which will continue a mixed Government by dividing it equally be- tween the regal and democratic powers, a fyftem that will have more energy and a happier effect. The Ariftocracy is only neceffary to the influence of the Crown, and to the gratification of their own am- bition. In its legiflative capacity its au- thority is nominal depending on the pleafure of its Creator. A Ribband, or the [ 94 ] the diftin&ion of a title will gratify arif- tocratic ambition, influence their con- duct, and decide the fate of this Nation, and perhaps of Europe. The Ariftocratic branch of our Con- ftitution potteries a judicial authority not in the firft inftance as a Court of Law, but by appeal as a Court of Equity. This power may be as fafely lodged with the democratic as with the ariftocratic part of Government, and perhaps with a better effect, inafmuch as it may rea- fonably be fuppofed that a great number in one Houfe pofTefs a greater fhare of wifdom and virtue than a fmaller number in the other Houfe of Parliament, Should the utility of Ariflocracy in a free State be infifted upon, I would afk, in what does it confitt? Does it give effi- cacy to our Laws or energy to our Go^ vernment? It is in rank the fecond order, but it is the mere echo of the firft. Nor do I fcruple to fay that Ariftocracy is not a blefling to any Government. It is not congenial [ 95 ] congenial to a fyftem of liberty. Its influence over the people's fhare of the Conftitution is the caufe of all thofe evils which require a reform in that branch of the Legiflature, and which may go near to fubvert the Conftitution. The following are a few of the many inftances of this truth. " The Duke of " Norfolk has now purchafed as many " Burgage Tenures as give him a majority " over Lady Irwin at Horfham : The " whole number which gives the right " of Election for this Borough is twenty- five." The Duke of Devonfhire influences the return of one member for the Coun- ty, and one for the town of Derby, and nominates two for the manufacturing town of Knareiborough, where the right of election is in the Burgage-holds, and the Burgage-holds, eighty-eight in num- ber, belong all to the Duke. The Duke of Marlborough carries one [ 96 ] one for the County and another for the City of Oxford, nominates one for the Village of Heytefbury, where the fifty Burgage-holds which have the right of Election are the moiety of them, the property of his Grace; and the other moi- ety the property of Mr. A'Court. His Grace has alfo the nomination of two more re- prcfentatives for the Manor of Wood- flock. The Duke of Rutland is a minor, and his Election intereft, for the prefent, is managed by his guardians, Mr. Pitt and the Duke of Beaufort. Bramber, in Suflex, which place con- fifts of eighteen thatched houfes at the bottom of a ftreet, the top of which is another Borough, called Steyning, which together fend four members to reprefent the people. Steyning belongs half to the Duke of Norfolk, and half to Sir John Honey wood. Bramber is half the pro- perty of the Duke of Rutland, and the other half belongs to Sir Henry Cal- thorpe. [ 97 ] thorpe. Grantham and Newark, which each fend one under the fame influence, make it eight. This is a number equal- led only by Lord Lonfdale, and exceeded only by the Duke of Norfolk. Thefe are only a few of the many in- ftances of the afcendency, nay, of the fovereign power of the Ariftocracy over the Democracy. And when we confidcr the vail influence of the whole Body of Peers and alfo of the Executive Power, may we not fay that the Ueprefentatives of the People are more properly the Reprefentatives of their political Crea- tors? And may we not, with equal truth, fay that one Houfe of Parliament depend- ent on the Crown, and the other de- pendent on the Peers, form together a ft range fort of popular Reprefentation? A reprefentation which difcovers a great defect in the principle of the popular part of our Government, and as great a caufe of refiftance to the alarming power afTumed by the Houfe of Commons, not congenial to the delegation of an autho- N rity C 98 j rity which is intirely legiflative. The functions of every Branch of the Legifla- ture are highly refpeclable, and fhould ever be confidered with the homage which national authority requires, to produce the energy and happy effects of Government; but whenever thofe functi- ons are perverted or abufed, by afTuming an authority incompatible with legifla- tiony they lofe the refpect: that is fo neceflary to the dignity and energy of Government. The afcendency of the fe- cond over the third Eftate of the King- dom through their rank and landed pro- perty, and the powerful interefl it gives them in the Nation, places the reft of the people at fo great a diftance as may one day roufe them to a juft fenfe of the vaft inequality of their condition. The luxury of this imperious order, and the Ptifl'tittage of the induftrious and mod nu- merous part of a manufacturing Nation is thus emphatically and truly defcribed : " The Lord within fits in ftate, revelling, 46 banqueting and tantalizing the palled " appetite ; while the wretch without, re- pulfcd [ 99 ] 'i pulfed, infalted, and refufed his due, " is perhaps pcrifhing with hunger." Should what I have faid put me under the difpleafure of the Houfe of Lords, I {hall not be convinced by any threats that I am diforderly; nor ihall I, like the daftardly witnefies examined by the Houfe of Commons, rafhly furrender the rights of my fellow-fubjecls, by acknowledging the inquifitorial capacity of Parliament, and anfwering to any interrogatories : This fidelity is what I owe to myfelf, to my Country, and to the Laws, or to the Judicial Power, to which alone every offender is amenable. Although I wifh to fee fuch a Reform as (hall divide the Conftitution between the regal and democratic powers, forming a mixed Government, partly monarchical and partly republican, I am far from meaning that the democratic branch of the Legiflature does not want reform. Luxury, ambition and venality, have not {"own the feeds of corruption and profli- N 2 tution [ I0 3 tution in one branch only. Nothing can fo effectually reform this branch, which is infeparable from the limited monarchy of a Free State, as lopping off the other which has fo great an influence over it, and fo lordly a power over the landed property and intereft of the Nation. Placemen mud ever hold their rank in the Legiflature as the beft acquainted with the various branches of Executive Government. Ad- mitting their conduct to be influenced by their places, it is a defect that feems to be inevitable. The fame may be faid of Contractors. Thefe are evils natural to a great commercial State, and infeparable from the beft Government. The only clafs of men that I would exclude, is the race of Lawyers, who, like the Locufts in Egypt, that ate up every green thing, devour the Gonftitution. The influence of this part of the public is truly alarm- ing, and we are abfolutely as much Law- ridden, as the mod bigotted Catholic country is Prieft-ridden. Employed to every purpofe, and adopting every prin- ciple conducive to their venality, they fubflfitute fubftitute the pra&ice of the Old Bailey for the principles of the Condition, and proftituting their legiflative like their judicial opinions for the purpofes of am- bition and venality, they poifon the fprings of the Legiflature, and make the Laws a terror to the people. The dif- qualincation of this venal and unabafhed clafs of men, and the admiflion of the Clerical order, feems to be the only reform neceflary to the Houfe of Commons. Whether reprefentation be for feven or three years, it will be immaterial when- ever the influence of Ariftocracy and the afcendancy of Lawyers are removed. I do therefore mod heartily with for a total extinction of the humiliating and vaft influence of the ariftocracy and the dignified clergy? and the difqualincation of Lawyers in the Houfe of Commons. It is truly faid, that " Lawyers twift f* words and meanings as they pleafe." The conduct of Mr. Erfkine illuftrates this truth. The Hon. Gentleman, who is fo much admired for his legal talents, is is the firft to violate the Law which he is fuppofed to underftand fo well. As Chairman of the Whig-Club, he has been the firft to violate, in the moil public manner, the Act again ft feditious aflemblies, tending to miiguide the peo- ple, and endanger His Majefty's Govern- ment. The publication of their defign is an act of hoftility againft the ftatute intended for the fuppreflion of fuch Af- fociations. I appeal to Mr. Erfkine, who fo well underftands the Law, whether his conduct and that of his aflbciates, are not in defiance of the Act, and a manifeft violation of it. For inftance: " Refolved that it is the opinion of this " Meeting, that an Aflbciation fhould be " forthwith formed for the purpofe of < procuring, by all legal means, the repeal " of the Acts defcribed ; and of reftoring " to the fubjects of this Country, the " full benefit of the provifions in the " BILL of RIGHTS." This contains a falfe charge againft Government; a falle alarm to the public; and a falfe method of redrcfs. As an eminent lawyer, the, Hon, Hon. Gentleman knows that fuch Afib- ciations are become illegal, and confe- quently they cannot be the legal means of redrefs. They are directly in the teeth of the Act, and the idea of reftoring the rights of the people, implies their being wrefted from them by the Legiflature, a charge which the Parliament will not admit. The only legal means of pro- curing the repeal of an Act which is fup- pofed to trench on the rights of the people, is through the channel of the Conftituent branch of the public, and not through Aflbciations which are de- clared illegal. Such is my opinion of the impropriety and illegality of thefe ra(h means of ftir- ring up the people, againft the necefiary meafures of Government for the public fecurity at a very dangerous period, that were I in the CommhTion of the Peace for Middlefex, where the AfTociation is held, I fhould think it a duty I owe to the Laws and to the Peace of my Coun- try, to apprehend every perfon who called [ I0 4 called the Meeting contrary to Law, and in defiance of the flatute, without diftinc- tionj for it is a diftinguifhing feature of His Maje fly's Government, and the pecu- liar happinefs of a free people, that the higheft equally with the loweft ranks of fociety, are amenable to the judicial au- tority for offences againft the law. To clofe my remarks on the Pamphlet entitled " Thoughts on the Engliih Go- " vernment," which is a well-timed and judicious appeal to " the quiet GOOD " SENSE of the Britifh Nation;" I con- tend that the context will not juftify the conclufion drawn by his accufers of his evil intentions to the Gonftitution. But admitting the facts were fhated with a manifefl defign to apply them againft the two Houfes of Parliament; what is the nature of the Author's crime, and what is the authority of Parliament in this cafe? Has he injured any one branch of the Legiflature to weaken the Govern- ment, or has he violated any Law? Will any man fay that the fpeculative opinion of 105 of an hiflorical writer, both inconclufive and harmlefs, is a Libel on the two branches of the Conftitution called the Parliament) or that it is a Libel on the Revolution which is an imaginary thing? Suppofe the writer means that the three Eflates of the Kingdom might be comprefTed into one, without any injury to the energy and efficacy of Govern- ment, is there any crime againfl the Law of the Land in advancing fuch a fpeculative opinion ? He does not fay, in the manner of Paine, that it Jhould be, or muft be, as neceffary to the bed Go- vernment; but that it might be without any injury to this Government. But fuppofmg his opinion of our Conftitution contained all the culpability and crimi- nality which have been difcovered by certain Statefmen, who feel fore, what authority have the two Houfes of Par- liament over this reputed literary crimi- nal ? Does the Houfe of Commons, as a part of the Legiflature, poflefs an in- quifitorial capacity to erect itfelf into a o political political Tribunal in the manner of a Catholic Inquifition, or the Houfe of Lords a judicial capacity to fit in judge- ment on the accufation of this Heretical Inquifition ? Certainly not. Then cm Bono ? I have repeatedly obferved, without fear of contradiction, that the two branches are purely legiflative, except in cafes of appeal when the Lords exer- cife a judicial authority, but the power of the Commons is totally legiilative in all cafes whatfoever. Whenever 'they erect themfelves into an Inquifition and examine witnefTes at their ufurped Tri- bunal, on which to ground a charge againft His Majefty's Subjects, they abufe their legiilative authority, as in the pre- fent cafe, and violate the Conftitution infinitely more than the Author of " Thoughts on the Englilh Government." " The power of the Commons, it muft be conferled, is at prefent much more confiderable than in former reigns; and it it appears from Henry Eighth's applica- tion to the Barons for a fupply, that he did not confider the Commons as the Cole Reprefentatives of the people." Whe- ther this was a mark of Royal difpleafure againft the one Houfe, or of greater confidence in the other, the application was as impolitic as it was wrong. But notwith (landing the propriety of Money Bills originating with the Houfe of Com- mons it is no proof of an exclufive and fole right to that greateft of all A6ls, namely the granting fupplies to the King for the purpofes of Executive Govern- ment. It {hould feem from the name of Parliament, and its fitting in two different houfes or diftincl: chambers, as a check on each other (for that is the great ob- ject of a mixed Government) that they are equally a reprefentative power and have equal rights in every meafure of Legiflation, that of granting fupplies for the public fervice in particular, as being of the molt confequence. From what caufe the Commons have 02 f o fo confiderably increafed their power, or upon what principle it is maintained I cannot conceive; fince both the fove- reign power it exercifes in the above in- ftance, and its aflumed inquifitorial capa- city arc unwarrantable, and fubverfive of the Conftitution, by deftroying that equipoife or nice equilibrium which is the beauty of our mixed Government. But whatever was the original defign of Par- liaments, or whatever is at prefent the principle of the two branches of the Legiflature, it is manifeft that our Go- vernment is monarchical and will proba- bly continue fuch, though the constitu- tional Tree iliould be fhorn of its branches; becaufe Monarchy is a fyftem of Govern- ment mod congenial to the temper and fpirit of the people, and moft conducive to the dignity and intereft of this Nation. In defending this Author, I appeal to God for the purity of my intentions, and to my Country for the truth of my remarks. The Writings of Paine were founded on ignorance and malice to our Government; [ I0 9 Government: they were like the pefti- lence to our Conftitution. They were a bare-faced attack, tending to occafion a Revolution for the total overthrow of our Government. The writings of this well- informed Author are of a different nature, tending to produce a contrary effect: by promoting the beft pupofes of His Ma- jefty's Government. He neither attacks the Conftitution or violates the Law. In the moft exceptionable paffage of the pro- duction, he only glances at an idea that is not half fo exceptionable as the fpecu- lative opinions of the Duke of Richmond and Mr. Pitt, which were bold and radi- cal innovations. I am as warm an advo- cate as any man for the neceffary dignity of authority, but let me tell the Houfe of Commons that their privileges are of a legiflative and not of a judicial nature. Whenever the people are fuppofed to offend, fo as to affect the Govern- ment of their Country, the Executive Power, by an appeal to the Judicial Au- thority, will make them amenable to the Laws of the Land, to be dealt with according according to the nature of the offence in the judgement of their Peers, and not in the judgement of either of the two Houfes of Parliament. Our Conflitution is a mighty con- venient thing, it being equally the hob- by-horfe of Friends and Foes : The Exe- cutive Power is jealous of the Conftitu- tion ; the Parliament is jealous of the Coriftitution; and the People are jealous of the Constitution. Surely this Confti- tution mud have fmgular principles and heterogeneous properties that Friends and Foes Ihoukl rally round it! The Parliament, tenacious of their ihare of the Conftitution, complain of a breach of their privileges and proceed to pronounce judgement in their own caufe!!! In the manner of an arbitrary Tribunal they are Judges and Jury in their own cafe. They forget, that according to the Laws, they have made, they muft ihew what their privileges are, and in what manner they are affected. This is all that concerns the Houfe of Commons: For fhould it be C i ] be deemed by the Laws of the Land (through the Judicial Authority) to be a fcandalous and feditious Libel on the Government of this Country, tending to alienate the affections of His Majefty's fubjects, and to fubvert the true principles of the Conftitution, the Parliament has nothing to do with the crime. I have juft obferved, that whenever the Confti- tution is libelled, Executive Government will appeal to the Laws, and make the offender amenable to the Judicial Power, and not to the Legiflative Authority of Parliament. The pre-examination and pre-judgement of the Houfe of Commons is contrary to the principles and practice of the Courts of Law, a violation of the rights of the people, and a high breach of the privileges of the Judicial Autho- rity to which the cafe exclufively belongs. There are indeed inftances in which our Constitution has been attacked, and it became neceffary to repel the attack for the dignity of Government; but that was done according to Law by the Judicial Power. Power. The Commons may fuppofe ail Author guilty of a breach of their privi- leges and cenfure him for it, but they have no right to pronounce him guilty of t; a fcandalous and feditious. Libel, tend- " ing to alienate the affections of the " people from His Majefty's Government < 4 and fubvert the Constitution ;" a fen- tence which belongs entirely to the Judi- cial Authority : And as it is an high crime againft Government, the charge, like other cafes of fedition, ihould come from the Executive and not from the Legiila- tive Power, and be brought into a Court of Law, and not before the Houfe of Lords, as was firft intended, and which is not right in any cafe whatever: It was not right in the cafe of Haftings, who, if amenable to any Court of Juitice in Eu- rope, was amenable to the Judicial Au- thority only in my apprehenfion. If Parliament wifli for an inftance of fedition tending to alienate -the affections of the people from His Majefty's Perfon and Government, I have given them one in [ 3 3 in the conduct of Oppofition in both Houfes of Parliament, and I will repeat it. The conduct of the Duke of Bedford, in contending for the univerfal Rights of the People (like the univerfal Suffrage of the Duke of Richmond) to aflemble and petition the Legiflature, discovers great ignorance of our Conftitution, by which the rights of the collective body are to- tally abforbed by the constituent part of the people : So that the invitation to roufe and render active the great mafs of the people, is the mod alarming attack on the Conftitution, and the moft dan- gerous refiftance to Executive Govern- ment. The conduct of his Grace is a greater Libel on His Majefty's Govern- ment than that complained of by Mr. Sheridan. The conduct of the Earl of Albemarle in the cafe of the Author of " Thoughts on the Engliih Government," though not equally culpable with his Grace, is equally erroneous and fubver- five of juftice and liberty. His Lbrdfhip applying the moft exceptionable paflage, without confidering the context, to the P privileges privileges of the ariftocratic part of our ConftitutJQn, has pronounced it a Libel on that Houfe of Parliament, and made a motion for that purpofe which was very properly rejected, becaufe, had the complaint been founded, it would have been inconfiftent with every idea of juf- tice, to pronounce judgement upon it in the very jurifdiction into which it was expetted to be carried judicially. How could the accufed expect juftice when his cafe had been prejudged and decided againft him, contrary to the principles and practice of every court of juftice? To conclude: That a pamphlet ob- vioufly written for the falutary purpofes of good order in the very worft times, and manifeftly calculated to produce that happy effect by co-operating with the ftrong but neceffary meafures of the Le- giflature; I fay that fuch a production in defence of Government, fhould be pronounced by Parliament to be a fedi- tious Libel is really aftonifhing, nay, it is a monftrous folecifm. But inftead of its its being a malicious, fcandalous and " feditious Libel, to create jealofies and ** and divifions among His Majefty's fub- " jecls, to alienate their affections from " his Government and to fubvert the " true principles of the Conftitution," I have fliewn that it is the REVERSE. I have fhewn that it is a fine panegyric on His Majefty's Government founded on the true principles of our Conftitution and Law, tending to cement the affecti- ons and refpect of the People for His Majefty's Perfon and Government, and to deftroy fedition and divifions by a tem- perate and juditious appeal to the quiet GOOD SENSE of the Nation." If it is a Libel or Treafon it is ac;ainft O the immaculate Whig-Club and the hy- pocritical Sectaries in Church and State. No wonder then that the Members of that Club, in both Houfes of Parliament, fhould move Heaven and Earth to accufe and condemn the Author extrajudi dally : But it is a wonder indeed, that the Mi- niftry fhould be duped into their opinion P 2 < of [ "6 ] " of the new and fublime dejllny that awaits " their fellow creatures^ and be drawn in to co-operate with their word enemies in their word defign. I honor Mr. Sheridan for very pro- perly moving, that a Pamphlet which fo ably proves the hypocrify of his party, and fo happily expofes the feditious prin- ciples of his deluded adherents (which at this moment threaten the overthrow of His Majedy's Government) fhould be burnt by the common hangman; but Mr. Dundas is the firft Minider of this Country, who ever propofed that the Author of an inimitable production, ma- nifeftly calculated to crufh fedition at a dangerous period, (to whom he confefled the public were indebted for the peace and fecurity which were now enjoyed in this Country) and to quiet the minds of the people for the bed purpofes of His Majefty's Government, fhould be profe- cuted by Government, for a Libel on the Jacobin fydem of oppofition ! To [ "7 3 To acknowledge in Parliament the Author's great merit, at the moft alarm- ing period, and his great claim to the admiration of Government for fo fmgular a fervice, which gives him a title to a recompence from His Majefty, and with the fame breath for a Secretary of State to petition His Majefty to profecute that very Author for a Pamphlet fo ufeful to the purpofes of Government, is indeed a monftrous folecifm, and the greateft abfurdity and injuftice that ever was heard from the Executive Power of this Country. To profecute your beft Friend, upon a falfe charge, at the requeft of your word Enemies, for the very great fervices done you to defeat their ruinous purpofes, is a LIBEL on the virtue of the Legiflature, and TREASON againft the wifdom and juftice of His Majefty's Government. Happily for that Author and myfelf we live in the mild reign of one of our beft Princes, whofe public virtue is equal to to the righteous adminiftration of Titus, Nerva, Trajan, Aurelius, &c. of whofe blefled time Tacitus fays, with extacy, Rara temporum felicitate, ubi fenfire qua vetis, & qu# fentias dicere liceat. APPENDIX. APPENDIX, TTAVING kept back the prefs through the Re- cefs of Parliament, it gives me an oppor- tunity totake a little notice of one of the mod extraordinary publications that I ever met with from a Statefman of Mr. Fox's fplendid talents, great political experience, deep knowledge of our Conftitution and Law, acute penetration and maf- terly judgement. After fubfcribing ex ammo to the fplendor of his talents, and doing him the juftice to fay, that much as I admire the fwectnefs and profulion of Tully in Mr. Pitt, I am charmed with the nerves, attic fait, and rapid eloquence of Demojlbems which diftinguifh this popular orator, facred truth requires me to fay that I am the more aftonifhed at the impolitic production, in the pro- portion that I admit the brilliancy of his abilities, a and and the vaR effed which his powerful exertions have produced on the public mind. I have been twenty years attentive to the perfuafive eloquence of the Right Hon. Gentleman; and, as lam in the liberal habit of imputing the bed motives to men in public ftations, I give him credit for his good intentions ; but that is, in the pre- fent and other inftances, at the expence of his judgement: For he often maintains principles, which I will do him the juflice to admit, he does not believe himfelf. Had I not known more of Mr. Fox than his prefent ill-judged and ill-timed pub- lication, I fhould have thought him either an idiot or a madman : For none but an idiot or a man wrong in his head, would have publifhed fuch a production, at fuch a period, in which this Country and all Europe, ftake the exiftence of their Governments on the tranquillity of the People. " The DECLARATION of the WHIG-CLUB," (befides it being greatly to be lamented at this period in which all Nations are convulfed, and all Governments fhaken to their foundations by fimilar declarations (is a declaration of Treafon againft the Conftitution and the Law. " A fo- " ciety of men feel themfelves bound to propofe " a great national meafure to the people." If Mr. ( 3 ) Mr. Fox has the face to fay, he will not have the courage to fliew, that any fociety or body of men whatever have a right, from the Constitution, to propofe fuch a meafure. Were this right ad- mitted, it would not only deftroy the exclufive right of the Conflituent body to petition, but it would fubvert the Legiflative and Executive Powers of the State, He has the candor to con- fefs " the meafure is unufual, becaufe it can be (t juftified by no ordinary circumftances;" nor, I will add, upon any principle known to the Con- ftitution and Law of this Country. The attempt is, therefore, congenial to the French revolution; and as it can be juftified upon no other principle, the contagion fhould be refifted as early and with as much care, as we would guard againft the introduction of the peftilence. " WE think the fituation of this Country no " longer permits us to confide the fupport of our ff principles, to the individual exertions of our " Members." Rifum teneatis amid! Who are we and us? Do the principles which they are unwilling to truft, proceed from any body of His Majefty's Subjects known to our Conftitution ? The man who can write in this manner muft, to borrow an expreffion of the great Mansfield, be " wrong in his head." " The Whig-Club in- a 1 " variably ( 4 ) " variably adhering to the principles of the " Britiih Conftitution, as eftablifhed at the Revo- " lution, cannot be unconcerned fpectators of the " deftrndtion of the mod important fecurities of " public liberty, which were provided at that " glorious ara." Good God! Is it poffible that a Statefman of Mr. Fox's rank can be guilty of fuch an expreffion, as " unconcerned fpectators?" Is he aware of the magnitude and tendency of the expreffion ? Of the effect it may produce, under the critical circumftances of our Country, on the minds of the public to the injury of Govern- ment? The Author of " Thoughts on the Eng- lifh Government" has fhewn, with great ability and perfpicuity, the true principles and defigns, .from time to time, of the Whig-Club; and has, in a happy ftile, expofed the folly of thofe who pin their political faith on the duplicity and ver- intility of Party. He has happily ridiculed the principles fuppofed to be eftablifhed at the glo- rious asra .of the Revolution, from the cleareft evidence, that this Nation had no Revolution at all in 1688, or at any fubfequent epocka. To this I have added, that the famous Bill of Rights, fo often referred to with extacy, as a vaft acqui- fition of liberty, was only an explanatory Bill of Rights inherent in our Government, either not fo clearly explained or fo fully underftood befpre, but ( 5 ) but no real addition to civil liberty. As expla- natory acts are fometimes neceflary to the better underftanding of our Laws, fo this definition of the Conftitution was found neceflary to the clear comprehenfion and fatisfadtion of the people, who have ever fince thought it a vaft fecurity of their rights, derived from a Revolution which abfolutely had not the lhadow of exiftence. The Whig-Club, therefore, founding its prin- ciples upon an imaginary event muft, as a necef- fary confequence, maintain principles as vifionary as its foundation, and as delufive ; and therefore it became neceflary, from time to time, to cajole that part of the public, who look no further than the furface of pompous political profeflions. Th prefent is an inftance of this truth, fo palpable and fo grofs, that I think it offers the greateft in- fult to the virtue as well as to the underftanding of the Nation. Mr. Fox fays " the Whig-Club lt cannot be unconcerned fpedtators of the def- " trudtion of the moft important fecurities of * c public liberty." If this means any thing, it is that they are armed and invite -the people to arm themfelves, in the language of the French revo- lution, to make a ftand againfl " the deftrudtion " of the moll important fecurities of Civil " Liberty. The ( 6 ) The orator would have dealt 'fairly with Exe- cutive Government if he had lhe\vn what impor- tant fecurities he alluded to, and in what manner they have been deftroyed; fince it does not appear, from any thing he has faid of the Bills lately enacted, nor indeed can it be believed from their receiving the approbation of fo great a part of the Legiflature, and the concurrence of the real fenfe of the Nation. Without fuch a demonftra- tion the charge muft appear malicious, and fedi- tious, tending to criminate the conduct of Par- liament, to deftroy the confidence of the people, and to alienate their affections from His Majefty's Government. I am as bold as I am happy to fay, without fear of contradiction, that this heavy charge, fo unjuft in its nature, and fo impolitic and dangerous, at this period, in its operation on the minds of the public, has not the lead foun- dation in truth; nor any exiftence but in the principles and views of party, to perplex the Le- giflative and Executive Powers of the Nation, at a time in which every heart fhould wifh, and every head endeavor to give energy and effect to His Majefty's Government. " The deduction of the moft important fe *' curities of public liberty" is an untruth, that conveys the fevereft reflection and indeed the heavieft ( 7 ) heavieft charge on the much-admired reign of our moft amiable Sovereign, who is equal in pri- vate goodnefs and in public virtue to the moft celebrated of the Roman Princes. I have obfer- ved, with extacy, that the principles of religions and civil Liberty have been better underftood, and, by confequence, better fecured by the illuf- trious Houfe of Hanover than by any former Princes who have fat upon the Throne of this Kingdom. The groundless charge, therefore, does the greateft injuftice to the mild and happy reign of a Monarch, whofe fplendid virtues ex- alt human nature, and whofe invariable and exem- plary regard for true Religion and fubflantial Juftice, deferves immortality. By modeftly de- fending the character of this illuftrious Prince, I mean to pay a juft tribute of praife to his Mi- niftcrs for advifing His Majefty to meafures which are fo far from " deftroying the moft important " fecurities of the Nation," that they have given the beft fecurity to the liberty and property of the fubjedr., by preventing a political contagion that would have brought upon this country, all the terror and calamity that have diftreffed France and endangered all Europe. " The Conftitution can," in the judgement of Mr. Fox and his adherents, " now only be " rejlored- " reftored by the exercife of that juft authority , " which the national opinion muft ever poffefs, " over the proceedings of the Legiflature." But I maintain there is no occafion to reftore a Confti- tution which I have {hewn has not been violated, and which, I may venture to fay, will never be violated by the illuftrious Family on the Throne; It has, at leaft, the greatefl fecurity at prefent in the Virtues of the Sovereign and the wifdom of His Majefty's Minifters. But were we to fuppofe it violated and our liberties in danger, " the exercife of an authority, which the nati- " onal opinion muft always poflefs, over the " proceedings of the Legiflature," is an authority that only exifls in the diftempered imagination of Party-men, who are ever in oppofition to the meafures of Government, right or wrong, and who would have no political confequence with- out throwing obstacles in the way of Adminiftra- tion. The opinion of the real Public will ever have great weight with both the legislative and execu- tive powers of the Nation, when that opinion is known through the conftituent part of the pub- lic; but the voice of the multitude, or the colledt- tive body, is not the vox poputi. The great mafs of the people, I have flievvn, have no poli- tical ( 9 ) tical exigence, their rights in the Conftitution being abforbed by the conflituent Authority; and, by confequence, they have no rights to be confi- dered as the national opinion to influence the pro- ceedings of Parliament; which indeed can never be influenced but by the wifdom and moderation of the elective body of the people, conftitutionally aflembled in their various diftridts. " We therefore deem it our duty, by every " means which are yet legal to appeal to the " judgement of the people, and to procure a de- " claration of their opinion." Can Mr. Fox, who has been fo long acquainted with the principles of our Government, put his hand to his breaft and fay that it is his duty, as a Reprefentative of the People and a Guardian of our Conllitution, to appeal to the judgement of the People at large, who have no political judgement, becauie they poflefs no right to exercife an opinion but through the channel of the conftituer.t body? Can the Right Honorable Gentleman, faithful to a great public truft, roufe the great mafs of the people to give an opinion on the conduct of the Legifla- tive and Executive Powers, with which they have nothing to do, and with which they cannot inter- fere without the greateft danger to our Govern- ment ? Mr, Fox here miftakes his duty, w.hich b confiiis confifts in explaining in Parliament the true prin* ciples of the Conftitution and the true intereft of the Nation, and not in collecting the opinion of the Multitude for the rule of his conduct. " With this view we have invited our fellow " fubjects to qjbclate for obtaining the repeal of " two acts patted in the prefent Scffion of Parlia- ment." In any other man than Mr. Fox this alarming invitation, upon the principle of the French Revolution, would denote great ignorance of our Conftitution and our Law; fince it is ma- nifeftly contrary to the exclufive right of the conftituent part of the people to affemble in their feveral diftricts, and in violation of the faid acts made for the prevention of fuch unneceffary, un- conftitutional, and dangerous Affociations; tend- ing to roufe the paffions and prejudices of the Public againft the neceffary and well-judged mea- fures of Government, and, by confequence, againft the peace and fecurity of the Nation. But fuppofing the Law objected to was really tc repugnant to the genius and character of this free Nation," Mr. Fox certainly takes the moft illegal, unconftitutional, and ineffectual method to procure the repeal, which fhould be effected through the proper application and well-weighed opinion opinion of the real Public, and not from the in- terefted motives of Party, or the ftrong paffions of the Multitude, which will never have any weight with a wife Government. Mr. Fox fays " the ruling principle of our " Constitution is the right of the people to mani- " fed their opinions on great public concerns " without which the forms of a free Conftitution f * are worthlefs." It is indeed a great, a glorious principle of a free people to manifeft their opi- nions on civil Liberty, but it is the wifeft princi- ple of our Conftitution to confide the exercife of that right, on the meafures of Government, to that part of the people called the conftituent body, who are the Reprefentatives of the great body of the public. It would therefore be as unconftitutional as illegal for any other part of the People to manifeft their opinions on the mea- fures of His Majefty's Minifters, in whom the Public at large place all the confidence that is due to the virtues and wifdom of the Sovereign, and a better than the prcfent never reigned to deferve that confidence of the Nation. " No human wifdom can provide a fafe-guard " again ft a poffibk combination of all the branches of " the Legijlaturc to opprefs or betray this Country, bz "but ( 12 ) " but by enabling the great body of the Nation " freely to pronounce their opinions on the acts " and meafures of Government." " A pojfibie '* Combination of the whole Legislature to op- " prefs and betray the Nation" is as uncharitable and malicious as a pofitive combination would be monftrous, fince there does not exift even the fhadow or the probability of fuch a confede- racy, oppreffion, and treachery. God forbid there Should be the color of truth in " a combination " of all the branches of the Legislature to op- " prefs and betray my Country !" Bad indeed muft be the heart of that man who can conceive fuch an unjuft Idea, and cruel muft be the charge when coming from fuch an authority as Mr. Fox, to corrupt the minds of a deluded Multitude and arm their head-ftrong pafiions againft His Ma- jefty's Government and againft the peace, the profperity and fecurity of the Nation. But had fuch a heavy charge againft " all the branches of " the Legislature," that of His Majefty not ex- cepted, any exiftence, the Conftitution points out a better, a fafer, and more effectual method than a dangerous appeal, like that of France, to the great mafs of the people to reform the Go- vernment. " The great Statefmen and Lawyers, who " framed ( '3 ) " framed the DECLARATION of RIGHTS, when " they afferted the right of the people to petition, " did, by a neceflary implication, alfo aficrt " their right of ajfembling to confider fuch matters (l as might legally be the fubjed: of petition." On this vague paflage is grounded all the error of Mr. Fox's doctrine, to hood-wink the peo- ple, and all the delulion of his Adherents. The right which the Public derive from the Confti- tution, as explained by the Bill of Rights, is no other than what is compatible with the Conftitu- tion itfelf; that is, the right of the conftituent body only to petition the Parliament and the King, as the head of Executive Government. The Whig Club would be a Society of Idiots could they fuppofe that the right of petitioning and ajjembling was not confined to the conftituent pow- er, but extended, like the univerfal fuffrage of the Duke of Richmond, to the great mafs of the people; a principle that would tend to the fub- verfion of the Conftitution and the total over- throw of our Government. It would introduce the reign of anarchy and confufion with the principles of robbery, injuf- ftice, and aflaffination, which have arifen from the horrid fyftem of France, upon the rum of our piild, beneficent, and juft Government. The right 14 ) right of aflembling is eftablilhed upon the very lame foundation as the right of petitioning: the principle that admits the one implies the other. And as the one is contracted, fo is the other; by a tacit furrender of the rights of the collective body to the conftituent part of the People, for the wife purpofes of Legiflation, and for the general purpofes of the Nation at large. This is one of the wifeft principles of our Confutation, becaufe it is a barrier againft the influence of anarchy and confufion. The People have equal rights to the bleffings of their Conftitution and Laws, and are univerfally reprefented. But to guard againft the calamity of difcord and confufion, the great Mafs of the People tacitly, as a great and glorious principle of the Conftitution, furrender their rights to the Conflituent Body, who have an exclufive right of elefting) of petitioning, and of ajfembling, at at the periods and in the manner, too long eftab- lilhed, and too well known to be repeated. Here then is a refutation of all the falfe claims of popu- lar rights arifing from .Mr. Fox's falfe conftruc- tion of the Conflitution. " We do not affirm that general principles are tf neceffary in any degree to give way to the exi- " gency of circumftances. But we aiTert that the " right of difcuffion and remonftrance is fa ef- " rial to the Conftitution that it cannot be " contracted ( '5 ) t( controuled or reftrained without a furrender of " the conftitution itfelf." This I readily admit, with this great diftindtion ; that " the difcuffion " and remonftrance" do not come unconftitution- ally and illegally from the great body of the Peo- ple, to ihake Government to its foundation ; but conflitutionally and legally from the conilituent body, to which the general right is wifely furren- dered, as a fecurity againft popular phrenzy, and the dangerous paffions of an ungovernable multitude* t( We do not admit that the delinquency of in- (: dividuals ought to work a forfeiture of the liber- ties of a nation." I am of the fame opinion, and fo I fuppofe are His Majefty's Minifters. It was never, I believe, intended by them to produce that effect. But I admit that the delinquency of in- dividuals, at a dangerous period, ought to work on the wifdom of Government to provide a fecurity againft it, to prevent its becoming general, to fub- vert our Conftitution, by which we Ihould forfeit the liberty, the profperity, and happinefs we now enjoy under our excellent Government. And hence I maintain that Executive Government may, for a time, encroach fomewhat on the rights of the fubjed:, when it does not arife from a defign to increafe the influence of the Crown, but with a manifeft 16 manifeft view to the prefervation of our Govern- ment and all the bleffings we enjoy under it, by the belt fecurity of the liberties of the Nation. Salus populi ftiprema lex. Every man ihould, upon an emergency, facrifice fomewhat of his liberty to preferve the general intereil, or the happinefs and fecurity of the whole. To conclude : I never met with a production fo uninterefling and impofing on the credulity of the public, and fo unworthy of the conftitu- tional knowledge and brilliant talents of Mr. Fox, as the " Declaration of the Whig-Club" with his name to it as Chairman. It is a rhapfody fitter for the flage, than either the fenate or the public. It is not to be put in competition with the excellent Pamphlet entitled ** Thoughts on " the Englifh Government," which is the ableft defence of our Government, and the happieft re- futation of every word that has been advanced by Mr. Fox. The Author of that well-judged and well-timed production, merits the thanks of the Nation; and a diflinction from His Majefty, for maintaining the true principles of his Govern- ment; while the Whig-Club deferve, at this in- terefling period, the ilrongeft reprobation for violating the Conftitution and the Lav/, by a general invitation to roufe the great mafs of the public. ( '7 ) public, and arm their paffions and prejudices againft the Legiilative and Executive powers of the Nation, to reduce this happy Country to the unhappy fituation of France, which the Author of " Thoughts on the Englifh Government" has virtuoufly endeavored to prevent, by a judicious and well-timed appeal, not to the paffions of the head-ftrong multitude, but to " the quiet GOOD " SENSE of a fpirited Nation," by which he fhews, with great modefty and perfpicuity, that the beauty of the Conftitution confifts in giving to His Majefty's Government their confidence and affiftance to promote the bed meafures for their profperity and fecurity, and not in the alarming doctrines of party-men, to harrafs Government by an abufe of liberty, to alienate the affections of His Majefty's fubjects from the wifdom of his reign, and from the true principles of the Con- ftitution. As this APPENDIX is written in a great hurry, I hope the good intention of the Author will plead his excufe with a candid and liberal Public. I am perhaps the more entitled to excufe, as I write from the pureft motives, totally uninfluenced by every confideration but thofe of truth and pub- lic virtue. I profefs myfelf a conftitutional and difinterefted writer, totally unconnected with men c in in power, and .with party. I mean no defence of Minifters, but what arifes from the neceffity and the goodnefs of their meafures in general. Influenced by a regard for the Conftitution, that is, the trut principles of our mild Government, I am necefiarily an enemy to thofe who, for party purpofes, undermine it by the delufion of falfe principles and groundlefs pretences. I am a volunteer in the defence of facred truth and in the fervice of my country. No man has lefs reafon than myfelf to be an advocate for the pre- fent Adminiftration. But as I never, for a moment, put my own intereft in competition with that of the Public, fo I am zealous for all Minifters who, like the prefent, ably and happily promote the true principles of Government and the true intereft of the nation. Mine are indeed humble labours, but they have the merit of fincerity and difintereftednefs. I afk no reward for the beft intentions, to affift Executive Government at a period extremely alarming, nor to this country alone, but to all Europe, from the contagion of French principles; which, but for the wifdom of the beft of Sove- reigns, and the unfliaken refolution of His Minif- ters, would have plunged every European Govern- ment in the dreadful calamity, which has convul- fed and rent that unhappy country. If in any paf- fage ( '9 ) fage of this production, the liberality of ray com- patriots, fhould think that I merit commendation for my zeal, modefty requires me to fay, that if in any thing I (hine, it is with borrowed light. The little merit that I may poflefs, is reflected from the great merit of the Author of Thoughts on the Englilh Conftitution, to whofe fuperior claims on the munificence of his amiable Sovereign, and the liberality of his Country, I bow with reverence ; and for whofe eminent fervices to the Nation in the worft times, fo candidly confefled in Parlia- ment, I have the greateft confidence that the un- juft defign of a profecution will be changed to the interpofition of Miniflers, that an honourable mark of His Majefty's approbation may be con- ferred on him, as an encouragement to that wri- ter, and an example to others, to ftem the tide of popular delufion that poifons the minds of the multitude, alienates their affections, and arms their paffions with refiftance, to convulfe the Na*- tion and overthrow His Majefty's Government. This modeft wifh arifes from a fenfe of his great merit, im many important inftances, and of the great juftice of minitters to their able and active Friend; totally difinterefted on my part, as I have not the leaft knowledge of the Gentle- man who is fuppofed to be the Author of that invaluable production, which I think ought to 2 be be written in characters of Gold ; while that of Mr. Fox claims our pity for the perverfion of our Conftitution and the abufe of his fplendid Talents for the woFft of all purpofes, namely, that of throwing great obftacles in the way of His Majefty's Government. Much as I admire the fplendid Talents of the Right Honorable Gentleman, and highly as I refpect the public opinion in his favor, I am fo much alarmed at the mifchievous tendency of his rafh and unneceflary conduct in the prefent fituation of our domeftic and foreign affairs, that, were I in the Commiffion of the Peace for Middlefex, I Ihould not hefitate a moment to make Mr. Fox amenable to the judicial autho- rity for " feditioufly flirring up the people to 44 refill the meafures of Government, in viola- " tion of the Conftitution, which has given an " exclufive right to the Conftituent part of the " Nation, and in breach of the Peace." As we \vifely guard againft the apprehenfion of the Pef- tilence of .the Body Natural, fo the fame wifdom teaches the neceffity of the earlieft precaution againft the Contagion of the Body Politic. In the one cafe as in the other, there fhould be no refpedt of perfons: The greater the power of infufing the poifon the greater the reafon for its prevention. prevention. The unfounded and peflilent con- duit of Mr. Fox, the Duke of Bedford, and Mr. Erfkine in particular, deferve the earlieft and fevereft reprehenfion of the Judicial Authority, to flop the torrent of delufion, and to prevent effects too dreadful to be defcribed from the poifon of this Political Contagion. January 30, 1796. F I M I S. 9082 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT LOS ANGELES THE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY This book is DUE on the last date stamped "belo\ MAY 5 1943 MAY 1 8 1951 A 000000087 7