■'M I REFLECTIONS UPON THE PRESENT DISPUTE BETWEEN THE . HOUSE of COMMONS AND THE MAGISTRATES of LONDON, [Price One Shilling.] REFLECTIONS UPON THE PRESENT DISPUTE BETWEEN THE HOUSE of COMMONS AND THE M^giftrates of London. LONDON: ftintcd for S. Bl AD ON in Pater-nofter-Rpw. MDCQLXXU \11l ( , ^ Kir \ > ■/ IR E FLECTIONS '■.> UPON THE Z PRESENT DISPUTE DC BETWEEN THE HOUSE of COMMONS AND THE gMAGISTRATES of LONDON, ^rr^HE fafefl and fhortefl way to •< Jl get at truth upon any confli- tutional queftion, is to recur to firft principles ; becaufe tliefe are generally fimple, and the experience of centu- ries has put the jullice of them to the g teft. Perhaps the following Reflect § tions upbn the merits of the prcfent ^ difpute between the Houfe of Com- B mon$ ( 2 ) mons and the Maglflrates of London may fhew the truth of this obferva- tion. The various civil orders of the flate in England are, the King, the Houfe of Lords, the Houfe of Commons, the Courts of Juflice, Corporations, and Individuals. The four firfl of thefe orders make or apply the laws ; the two laft are the objedls of the laws. Each of thefe orders has its rights. The power of the King and of the two Houfes afTembled in Parliament is, not only in parliamentary lan- guage, but in the language of all the law-books from the origin of the Mo- narchy, tranfcendent and unbounded. In the nature of things it muft be fo. tn every government abfolute power mufl be lodged fomewhere. For go- vernment cannot fubfift without obe- dience ; and no obedience is to be ex- pelled ( 3 ) pedled without a power to enforce it. In a democracy abfolute power is lodged with the people, in an oHgar- chy with the nobles, in a monarchy with the King: In Britain it is lodged with the Commons, Nobles, and King, in Parliament affembled ; and its voice is known by the acT:s it promulgates. The rights of the King are defcribed by many great inllruments of govern- ment, which have been framed at dif- ferent times, and during a long revo- lution of ages, from Magna Charta dow^n to the Ad of Settlement. Thefe rights, fi far as they go, are fixed, are not fubje(ft to controul, and are un- changeable, except by that fovereign parliamentary power to which all or- ders of the itate in England mufl fubmit. The Houfe of Lords and the Houfe of Commons have alfo their rights and powers, like all other political alTem- B 2 blies, • ( 4 ) blies, and to which they are more particularly intitled from the great* nefs of the individuals who compofe the one Houfe, and the majefty of that body of Commons who are reprefcnt^ ed in the other. Among other powers they haye that, common to all great political affemblies and courts, of making orders concerning their own forms of proceeding ; and confcquently of puniiliing all who infringe thefe orders, and among others, their own members, if, by infringing the orders of the body to which they belong, which is adding contempt and infult to difobedicnce, they aggravate the oflence. This power makes a part of the law of the land. In common lan- gUHge it is cMcd privi/ege of Parliament : In legal language it is called, by Lor4 Coke, Lex et confuettido Parliamcnti : And the extent of it, he fays, is to be gathered from " the rolls of Parliament, ** and other records, from precedents, " and continual experience." Charles the ( s ) the Second, in his appeal to his people againfl the proceedings of two Houfes of Commons, acknowledged that they had this power where their privileges were infringed. Sir William Jones, at the head of the Whigs, in his anfwer to that appeal, maintained that they had a power of committing even in cafes where their privileges were not concerned. When the Houfe of Lords framed a refolution againft the powers of the Commons in tlic cafe of Afhby and White, in the reign of Queen Acne, they only objected to the crea- tion of new privileges, but acknow- ledged the validity of thofe which were " warranted by known culloms *' and law of Parliament." As one of the great branches of the law of the land, this power in the Com- mons is, /o far as it goes, fubjed: to no controul, except from that Parlia- ment which, binding the King and the people, holds the Houies of Lords and of Commons in the fame Hate of fubjedlion. But though this power is fubjec^c to no other controul within ( 6 ) within its line; like other great branches of the law it has its line. It is bounded by record, precedent, con- iirmal experience, in fhort, by the accu- mulated wifdom of ages ; the fureil bounds of law, and much better fecu- rities for the fubje6t, than the hu- mours and fancies of that part of the Common Council of London, which now fets itfelf up in oppofition to one of the Houfes of Parliament. Courts of jufticc, tho' invefled with great powers, have in this country in the fame manner their limits. They are bound to yield to the common and the flatute law ; both of which derive their authority from the great council of the nation, with this only diflbr- encc, that the one is beyond record, and the other within it ; to the Lex Parliamenti as fettled by precedent; and to certain rules of interpretation, determined by their own dccifions, and not inconfiftent with the other three. Where the common law, the ilatute ( 7 ) flatute law, or the Lex Parliamenti are clear, courts of juRicc give way to them ; where they are obfolete, courts negleft them ; where they are doubt- ful, courts interpret them. Individuals and corporations have, in this fyftem of univerfal dependance, and yet of freedom, likewifc their rights founded in the four fources of law I have mentioned j nor is there any difference in this refpecl between an individual and a corporation. Both are equally the objects of impartial laws, and equally fubjed: to them. When Engliflimen claim a freedom independent of the laws, and derived from ideas of natural independency, they renounce their allegiance to the conltitution of England, which is the abfolute dominion of free laws over free men, and recur to a ftate of na- ture in which all men are equal; a ilate in which the powers of Parha- ment, with all the laws they have made, mult pafs for mere ufurpations and ( 8 ) and in which the property of iadivi- duals will be accounted no more than fraudulent abftradions from the ilock of the commvmity at large. The c-ly difficulty in afcertaining the rights of thefe different orders of the ftate, arifes from the peculiar fitu- ation of the Houfe of Commons ; fot two reafons. The one is, that the Houfe of Commons being the grand inqued of the nation, and as fuch intitled, and indeed bound to enquire into all political malverfations, over all.pcrfons, in all places, and with power to call for witnefles, papers, and records, its power may appear, upon extraordinary occafions, as ex- tenfivc and as undcfinable as its ob- je(5ls. The other is, that the Houfe of Commons being the barrier of the people againft the encroachments of the crown, the crown may have nar- rowed their powers too much at fome particular periods, and the people fup- T^orted them too far at others. But whatever ( 9 ) •HVhatever doubt may arife concerning; the extent of their powers upon extra- ordinary occafions, or from the Hmi- tation or exteniion of them during particular fhort periods, there can be lio doubt that, fo far as the Commons prote6l their own rules, made concern- ing their own forms of proceeding, and fo far as in doing fo they follow "uninterrupted precedents, they ac51: -Within their powers ; becaufe the King, the Parlianient, the courts of juftice, the people, all, except a part of the Common Council of London within thefe few days, have acknow- ledged, for ages pafl, that fuch pow- ers belong to their branch of the le- giflature. Such are the various civil orders and rights of this kingdom; andy would to God, that, with all their im- perfections, they were as immortal as the feas which roll around it. € in ( 10 1 tn the exadb prefervatipn of thefe, the harmony of the EngHfh conftitu^f tion confifts. In the times of the wars of the Barons this harmony was dif- turbed, becaufe the Barons ufurped Upon the rights of the crown. In the reigns of the Princes of the Tudor race it was difturbed, becaufe thefe Princes invaded the rights of all the other orders of the ftate. In the eud of the reign of Charles the Firft it was diilurbed^ becaufe the Houfe of Com- mons trampled upon the monarchy ancj the Peerage. Perhaps in the reign of Charles the Second it was, for one fef- fion, difturbed, when the Houfe of Comiftons punifhed individuals and members of corporations, in a manner not warranted by the Lex Parliament iy. and. without precedent^ record^ continual experience on their fide. It was dif- turbed in the middle of the laft cen- tury, when the people deflroyed the King and the Parhament. And it will run a rifk of being difturbed again^ 1 ^« ) again, when individuals fliall fancy that they have rights independent of the laws, complain of thofe laws which other nations envy, Ind curfe thofe judges whd tovet them with blefTmgs. But this rifk will be dou- ble, if, at the very lame period, cor- porations fhali refufe obedience to the Lex Parliamefiti, fliail pretend to mea:- fure themfelves with the Houfe of Commons, and fhall attempt to pull down thofe privileges which are the foundation of their o\Vri, If the queilion between the Houfe of Commons and the Magiftrates of London be tried by thefe principles, it will not be of difficult difcuflion. The Houfe on different occafions have made various orders againft print- ing the fpeechcs of their members: A printer difobeyed thefe orders. The Houfe ordered him to attend them- He paid no regard to their order. C a They ( '? ) They fent their officer into the city p feize and bring him to their bar. The officer did his duty, by taking him into cuftocjy : But the Cipy Magi- ilrates, two of whom were at the fame time members of the Houfe, granted a warrant of commitment againfl him ; and the Commons have puniflicjl them for fo doing. Two apologies are made for the printer and the magiftrates : One, that the Hovife of Commons had np authority to take the printer into cu- ftody at all ; the other, that they had no authority to feize him in the City^ without the interpofition of the City Magiftrates, in aid of the warrant. V/ith regard to the firfl of thefe apo- logies; the Houfe of Commons, in what they did, have kept flriclly wiih^ in their powers : They have done only syhat every court in the nation has a ( '3 ) light to do. A power in a political aflembly or a court to make rules concerning the condu61: of their pro-? ccedings, implies a power to make thofe anfwerable who tranfgrefs them; and the right to do fo, becomes dou-? ble in ftrength, when the tranfgreflbrs are themfeves rnembers of the body which they affront. The Commons are warranted too by record^ precedent^ continual experience : For the inflances in the Journals are * innumerable, in which they have, with the fame fpirit, vindicated their authority. Twice only in the courfe of five centuries, to wit, in the years 1680 and 1701, has the power of the Houfe of Commons, to commit others than their own members, been difputed. But the Houfe then refplved, '' TJiat to aflert " the Houfe of Commons have no pow- *' er of commitment but of their own ^' members, tends to the fubverfion of '' the Houfe of Commons." Journals, ^6 February 1701. The ( H ) The refolution of the Houfe of Lords in the cafe of Afhby and White contradu^s none of the principles t have mentioned. A vote of the Houfe Of Commons had declared, that the right of eledlion in the borough of Aylefbury wsls in the inhabitants not receiving alms. The conftables re- jedled the votes of fome electors who did not receive alms. Thefe elec%rs brought an a(5tion of damages at com- mon law againft the conftables. The majority of the Houfe of Corrimons accounted this a breach of privilege. But many great names held it to be Jione. Sir Jofeph Jekyll, in the de- bate, declared, that the action, inftead of being in oppofition to the privi- leges of the Houfe, was in direcfl pur- fuance of them ; for that it was meant to afk the afTiftance of the com- mon lav/, not to contradicft, but to fupport a vote of the Houfe of Com- mons. The Houfe of Lords thought ^s thefe laft thought, whether rightly or ( 15 ) Or not, is of no importance to the pre- fent queflion; for it is plain, the dif- pute was concerning the application of the right to a particular queflion, not concerning the right itfelf. The ma- jority and the minority of the Houfe of Commons, and the Houfe of Lords, all equally acknowledged the right of the Commons to afTert the privileges which belonged to them. With regard to the other apology, the Commons a(5led ivithin their pouuersi for the law of England knows no fan6tuariesfor thofe who withftandthe authority of Parliament. They adl- ed by recordy precedent^ continual experi- ence: For the inftances are numerous in the Journals, in which the Com- mons have fent their officer into the city for delinquents j have fent their committees to exercife jurifdidlion in it ; and have brought the flieriiFs and other officers of the city to their bar, for offisnces againfl the Commons of England. 2 The ( i6 ) The decency of this apology, in the' mouths of the Common Council, may perhaps be called in queftion. *' 27th " Elizabeth, 1584, the Houfe of Com- " mons ordered that the ferjeant of " this Houfe do forthwith go to the •* Common I^leas bar, and charge the *' recorder then pleading there, to " make his prefent repair into this " Houfe.'* Sir Simon D*Ewes' Journ. 347. Col. 2. — Judge Berkley was feized by order of one of the Houfcs of Parli* ament, while he was fitting on his tri^ bunal. Hume 6rh, 413. — " Anno 31, «' Hen. VI. When the Commons re- " quefled the King and Lords to reftore " their fpeaker to them, &c. the judges •* being demanded of their counfel *' therein, after mature deliberation, " they anfwered, It ivas not their part to ** judge of the Parliament^ ijuhichmayjudo-eof *' the laiv,'' Seldcn's Judicature, p. 55-. Upon thcvrevival of liberty at the re- volution, the Houfe of Commons com- mitted Sir Francis Pcmberton and Sir Thoriias ( 17 ) Thomas Jones to cuflody, becatife, ^s jxLclges of the King's Bench, they had given judgment to over-rule the plea of the ferjeant of the Houfe, in an a(fl:ion brought againft him for execut- ing the orders of the Hoilfe. Magna -Charta is above five centuries old ; one claufe of it is, That no freeman ihall be imprifoned but by confent of his peers ; aut per legem terr^ : But as the Lex Parliamenti is part of the Le>i Tirre^ the experience of thefe cen- turies has fhewn, that this claufe, conttivjed againft the power of the King and of individuals, was ne- ver meant to afiedl the Lex Parlid- mmtiy when the Houfes aded w^ithin their powers, and quitted not prece- dent. The charters of the City are as old as the time of the Conqueror, and in one of them in the time of Ed- ward the Third, the King declared. That ** no fummons, attachment, or *' executions, be made by any of the "' officers of us or our heh'S, by writ D ** or ( i8 ) «* or without writ, within the Hberty «* of the faid City, but only by Minif- «* ters of the faid City." But in all this time, no lawyer hath ever dream- ed that the King's confent to limit the operation of his own writ, which without fuch limitation muft have been executed in the City by his own officers, could flop the procefs of the the Courts of Parliament, upon which the King has no power to impofe limitations.-^ — Strange, that the Com- mon Council of London fhould have that courage which the firft courts on earth, one of which once ordered the heir apparent of the crown into cuilody, never pofleffed ; and that know lege of law, which the ex- pounders of the law have not : Strange, that the Common Council Ihould find out in the year 1771, what all their predeceiTors, learned as they were, have been ignorant of lincc the beginning of the mo- narchy. The ( 19 ) The apology is furely not gracious from men who pretend zeal for li- berty. The exclufion of the power of the Commons is not founded in common law, or llatute law, or law of Parliament, or indecifion of courts; but it is founded upon royal charters, which, it is pretended, give an ex- emption from the jurifdi6lion of the Commons. What is this, but to exalt the power of the crown at the expence of the law of the land ? What but to maintain that the prerogative of the King can Hop the exercife of the un- queftionable rights of a Houfe of Par- liament ? The tendency of the argu- ment is to withdraw three-fourths of the people of England from the jurif- didion of the Houfe of Commons, and to enable the crown to withdraw the reft. For the fame pretended ex- emption by charter which the city of London has, almoft every other cor- poration in the kingdom poffeffea; and the crown may create new cor- P 2 porations porations, with the fame exemp-r rions. But it is fortunate for the people of England, that the dodtrinc is as weak as it is wicked. It has been agreed by all lawyers fince the revolution^ I had almoft faid iince the conqueft, that all charters of the crown are un.- availing againll the law of the land, and its jurifdid:ions. The charter of the city, rellored by Parliament at the revolution, reftored the city exa(5lly to the condition it was in before its char- ter was forfeited; that is, it reftored it to the higheft of all Hates, its former flatc of fubje<5tion to the rules of the law of England, and to the jurifdic- tions of England. The Houfe of Commons is the grand inqueft of the nation : 5y the extent of the field of its inquiry, and the fuddcnnefs of its movements, it has hitherto kept in awe the minifters of the crown. Thefe well knew that not 2t even even within the arms of their Sove telgn, and much Icfs in the walls of 4 corporation, could he found fanc^ua- ries againft the juflice of an irritate^ Houfe of Commons. But the prefent claim would make the juftice of the Commons depend for the future upon the delays, the indolence, the timidity, or the factions of the mechanics of London. To impair the privileges of the Houfe of Commons, is to weaken their hands ; and to weaken their hands, is to fap the democratical part of the government, and to re- move the great and perhaps only bar- rier remaining to the people againU the power of the crown. If the peo- ple give the firil blows to the Bafe, the Crown will foon follow with others until, by the repeated efforts of both' the glorious fabric of the conllitution fhall be tumbled to the ground. Who afks the introduction of this novelty? Is it the crown which might rejoice at its fuccefs, if the crown wilhed t S2 ) wiftied to humble the people by hum- bling their reprefentatives ? Is it the Houfe of Peers which might triumph over the misfortunes of a rival ? Is it the great landed intereft? Is it the grent body of the merchants of Eng- land, equal in dignity to the nobility of other countries ? Is it the other cor- porations of the kingdom, who all have the iame intereft with the city of London in the prctenfion ? Is it the unit- ed clamours of the populace, drunk with the cries of liberty as they are, while they thank not Heaven for the daily enjoyment of it ? No ! It is fome dozens of the Common Council of London ; a body into which the men of great property and high charadler in the city avoid to enter, becaufe they like not to allbciate with mean men, got up by mean arts. Thefe are the pcrfons who w^ould arrogate to themfelves the power of controuling one of the great wheels of the ma- chine of the Englifli government ; men low in birth, education, degree, for- tune, ( 23 ) tune, talents, and virtue. The words I ufe may feem hard: But perfonswhQ are accuilomed in publications tp throw out falfehoods againft other?, muft fubmit fometimes to hear truth againft themfelves ; and giving no quarter, they muft not cxpe6l that they are continually to meet with it. While the court of Aldermen, whofe offices were for life, had a negative upon the refolutions of the Common Council, men faw fome chance of re- lief againft their follies. But after > perfon, whom the populace of. Lon- don at one time ftiled their father, and whofe ftatue at anotner time they threa- tened to pull down, had, by his intereft in Parliament, got this negative abo- "lifhed, the fituation of the Common Council became alarming indeed. It is very true, that the firft liberties of modern Europe took their rife from the cities of Europe ; but it is as true, that the liberties of moft nations have found their graves in great cities. Athens, Carthage, Rome, are fad mo- numents (=4 3 iiuments of the laft of tbefc tnitbg.' Great cities are the natural feats of diforder in the lower orders of man- kind. Even the fons of induftry, though enemies to the vices of the others, contribute to diforder; be- caufe, being continually occupied ■with the objects of induflry, they are blind to all others ; and incapable of deceit, they are eafily deceived. Search all Europe round, and there is no where to be found fo much mean pro- fligacy in fome, and fo much gene- rous credulity in otiiers, as within the bills of mortality ; circumflan^es which enable defigning, unquiet, am- bitious fpirits to turn to t;heir own ad- vantage the crimes, the weakneiles, and even the virtues of their fell^;v«f- citizens. That in the Common Council there are fuchmen,. who, with their friends, take fuch advantages, the experienced of feveral years pail has teftified. Becaufe they rofc into power by im- polition ( 25 ) pofition and confufion, they know they can keep it only by the conr tiniiance of them : Full of envy againii the men of ancient fami^ lies and great property of this conn* try, they wifh to bring all man* kind down to their own mean level; if they do not rather wifli to be above all, becaufe they are beneath all. Ignorant of the fublime ideas of conftitutional liberty, they fee not that it confifts in the fiibordin^tion of free men to free laws; but, confoundr ing the principles of equality with thofe of liberty, they pave the way to the very worlt fort of tyranny, the tyranny of the populace, Yet the in- rereils of that populace they confider not, they regard not. To their ima-f ginations alone they pay attention, and would flatter their paffion^ though it ended in their ruin. Hav-? ing much reafon themfelves to fear the laws, they wifh to weaken them, For after fquandering the fuods of the city, in imprudence ( ^6 ) and extravagance, they truft, in .cla- mours againil others, to drown thofe which they expert againft them- fclves ; and can hope only,* in the difgraces of the public, to make their own be overlooked. They began, with the help of their emiilaries, by attempting to light up a civil war be- tween two lifter nations. They next endeavoured to break the bonds which tie the parent and the child, England and America together. .They then raifed the people againft the Parlia-^ ment, by promoting addrefles to dif- folve it. And in the end, they held up the dagger to every Englilhman, to plunge it in another Englifbman*s breaft, by alTerting that the Parlia- ment w^as difTolved, and that the people had a right to diibbey the laws which \t made. Every dilorder accom- panied and followed fuch attempts. One of their number declared, in full Parliament, that he would not pay the King's taxes ; although willing to draw others into danger, he after- wards ( ^7 ) wards fhrunk from it himfelf. Ano- ther fchoolcd his Sovereign in pubHc, though his attendants, hke owls brought into the hght of tlie fun, fliewed modefty, for once,^ in the pre- fence of a King of England. With art affeaed decency, when their re- monllrance was prefented, they cauf- cd a mob of only a few hundreds to follow it to the gates of the Palace ; but with an infolent difplay of their power, they, a fcAV days after, brought out a hundred thoufand people to fliout at their feaft; a contrivance, intended, by the contraft, to mark the more llrongly to all, that the mob which they could raife they could command. When the great merchants of this great city went in proceffion with the fplendour of Princes, to pour out their fentiments of loyalty and confidence at the foot of the throne, their coaches were broken, their per- fons infulted, and fome of their lives brought into danger. To diftrefs a miniiler, the men 1 complain of £ 2 fcrupled ( ^8 ) ilrlipicd not to diflrefs their coUfI* try : For they urged her to a naVat \vari and yet took from her the means of defence, by checking the power of nreiiing feamen ; betraying thus the government and the nation, under the pretence of befriending the people. They oppofed in ParUament an undertaking calculated for the convenicncy and embellilhment of that ciry they reprefent, the einp^rium tot ins Europte, merely becaufe the pro^ prieiors happened to be Scotchmen. Thefe men have now finifhed their career* by refufmg obedience to the orders of one of the Houfes of Par- liamert, and ordering the mefTen-^ ger who bi*ought them, to be fent to a gaol. Yet even they have the afliirance to arrogate to themfelves the facred name of Whigs. That generous party difclaims the alliance. The Whigs, in the reign of Charles the Second, inllcad of fctting England and Scot- I land ( 29 ) land at variance, endeavoured to iinitd both in the caufe of Liberty. They avoided to draw America even into this generous confederacy, left, under pretence of entering into the parties of England, ilie might throw off her dependance upon it. They petitioned the King to call Parliaments, not to dilFolve them. They taught the peo- ple to revere Parliament, not to infult it 5 to fupport the Houfe of Commons, not to difobey it ; and to maintain that its powers were fuperior to thofe of the crown, not that the powers of the crown were fuperior to its pow- ers. They alTerted the rights of the Commons to punifti political offences, even beyond the bounds of their pri- vileges, inftead of queftioning their power to punifh them within thofe iounds : And they forced their Sove- reign, in his appeal to his people, to acknowledge thofe rights in their re- prefentatives, which the pretended fuc- celTors of that party now refufe them. They afked the protedion of the Houfe ( 30 ) Houfe of Commons for the City, not of the City againit the Houfe of Com^ mons ; and little dreamed that the day could come, when a part, and the worll part, of theCommon Council of London, would meafure themfelves againft all the Commons of England. In fome inflances they preferved the faith of Parliament, to a Prince who obferved none to them ; and, inftead of weak^ ening the nation, they fecured its ho- nour, even in wars which they dif- approved. The late mcafures of a part of the Com- mon Council of London are the exa6t coun- terparts of thofe of the Privy Council of Charles the Second \ both affaulted that Houfe of Commons which is the bul- wark of the Commons. Unhappy Hate of freedom, where its pretended friends tread in the very fame paths with the open abettors of tyranny! But Providence, which for a thcu- land years lias watched ov^r !his glorious ( 3> ) glorious conftitution, againft both the great and the mean, has turned thefe efforts of defpair againft their own authors, or to the pubhc good of Britain. The attempt to divide one part of the ifland from another, has bound that other only the fafter to it. The blow aimed through America has been turned afide. The petitions to diflblve Parliament, united Parlia- ment. Thedo<5lrine that it was already diflblved, united the nation. The in- fult upon the perfon of the King, gave an opportunity to thofe who had been reprefented as ill-affedled to it, to fhow how unjuft and unge- nerous was the fufpicion. The mobs who patroled the flreets, brought all who had property to refled, that the perfons who could break the win- dows of their houfes at one time, might break into them at another. That part of the city members which courts a low popularity, divided the Houfe againfl the aggiandifement of the city, with only ten members at their ( 3^ ) iheir backs. And the Magiftrates, in in their infolence to the Commons of England, have been deferted by many of their own party in the parliament, by moft in the city, and by all in the nation. It is true, thefe men have been join- ed in fome of their projects of oppo- fition by perfons whofe charadlers almoft fandified the wrong. But, un- like to them, fome of thofe perfons acted from principle, as far as they went : Others were obliged to yield to principles they difliked, by party-ties, which they knew not how to get rid of: Some thought themfelves vindi- cated in making ufe of means they difapprovcd, to get at ends they thought good. And all paid a com- pliment to the power they oppofed, by file wing they were not afraid to offend it. Offend it they could notj becaufe it was known, that the fame honour which attaclied them at one time to a party, would at another, make ( 33 ) make them repent the momentary defcrtion of a caufe which was theiir own. One of them, who is now no more, once the Miniller, once the op- pofer of the royal meafures, but in all Situations refpec^ed by Padiament, be- caufe he refpe6ted it, even from the phrenfy of party, derived advantage to his country; for he turned the popular current to obtain popular laws, and was met half-way by the Miniller he oppofed, in the generous Ilruggle who fhould do moll good to the people of England. l^erhaps it has not been one of the imallell demerits of thofe who afTume the name of the city, while their ac- tions are condemned by the greatefl and belt part of the citizens, that their ralhnefs prefented cruel advantages to power againll the people, if power had been inclined to feize upon them. But though they may make their So- vereign unhappy, they cannot make him unjult. If his fubjeas will not, F by ( 34 ) by his example, become virtuous, "he ,will at leaft continue to be fo. 'Me knows that the fall of the people will be his fall; that he muft be great, juft in .proportion as they are free; and that when they ceafe to be fq, he will he only the firft flave, not the lirft freeman of his kingdom. I pre- tend not to flatter a prefent"Minifter at the expence of his predeceflbrs, or to raife altars to the living upon the mo- numents of the dead. Almofl all the fucceflive Minifters of the prefent reign, have had opportunities offered them, by the ralhnefs of the mobs, and of fome of the Common Council of London, to wound the liberties of their country, through the fides of the meaneft of its members ; and all, traduced and abufed as they have been, have fcorned to make ufe of them ; being more tender of the liberties of thepeaple, than the peo- .ple are themfelves. When 40,000 of the populace infultcd the metropolis from lead to end of it, and fliook the palace with with their claanoursv the law herfcl£ pTefented that fword of juftice which- the- Minifters rejeaed-. The Hberty^ of the prefs, which thofe who abuf