If this be shaken,our constitution totters.If it be quite removed,our constitution falls into ruin.That noble fabric,the pride of Britain,the envy of her neighbours,raised by the labour of so many centuries,repaired at the expense of so many millions,and cemented by such a profusion of blood;that noble fabric,I say,which was able to resist the united efforts of so many races of giants,may be demolished by a race of pigmies.The integrity of Parliament is a kind of Palladium,a tutelary goddess,who protects our state.When she is once removed,we may become the prey of any enemies.No Agamemnon,no Achilles will be wanted to take our city.Thersites himself will be sufficient for such a conquest.But I need not dwell any longer on this subject.There is no man,who thinks at all,can fail to see the several fatal consequences,which will necessarily flow from this one source,whenever it shall be opened.
If the reason of the thing does not strike him enough,experience must.The single reign of Henry the Eighth will serve to show,that no tyranny can be more severe than that which is exercised by a concert with Parliament;that arbitrary will may be made the sole rule of government,even whilst the names and forms of a free constitution are preserved;that for a prince,or his minister,to become our tyrant,there is no need to abolish Parliaments;there is no need that he who is master of one part of the legislature,should endeavour to abolish the other two,when he can use,upon every occasion,the united strength of the whole;there is no need he should be a tyrant in the gross,when he can be so in detail,nor in name,when he can be so in effect;that for Parliaments to establish tyranny,there is no need therefore to repeal Magna Carta,or any other of the great supports of our liberty.
It is enough,if they put themselves corruptly and servilely under the influence of such a prince,or such a minister.--On the whole,I conclude,that in the possible case here supposed,the first and principal object will be to destroy the constitution,under pretence of preserving the government,by corrupting our Parliaments.I am the better founded in concluding that this may happen in some future age,by what we may observe in our own.There is surely but too much reason to suspect that the enemies of our constitution may attempt hereafter to govern by corruption,when we hear and see the friends and advocates of our present most incorrupt minister harangue and scribble in favour of corruption;when it is pleaded for and recommended,as a necessary expedient of government,by some men,of all ranks and orders;not only by professed hirelings,who write that they may eat,but by men who have talked and written themselves already out of their native obscurity and penury,by affecting zeal in the cause of liberty:not only by such as these,but by men whose birth,education and fortune aggravate their crime and their folly;by men,whom honour at least should restrain from favouring so dishonourable a cause;and by men,whose peculiar obligations to preach up morality,should restrain them,at least,from being the preachers of an immorality,above all others,abominable in its nature,and pernicious in its effects.
These men are ready,I know,to tell us,that the influence they plead for is necessary to strengthen the hands of those who govern;that corruption serves to oil the wheels of government,and to render the administration more smooth and easy;and that it can never be of dangerous consequence under the present father of our country.--Absurd and wicked trifters!'According to them,our excellent constitution'(as one of your correspondents hath observed extremely well)'is no better than a jumble of incompatible powers,which would separate and fall to pieces of themselves,unless restrained and upheld by such honourable methods as those of bribery and corruption.'
They would prove,'that the form of our government is defective to a degree of ridiculousness'.But the ridicule,as well as the iniquity,is their own.
A good government can want no power,under the present constitution.A bad one may,and it is fit it should.Popularity is the expedient of one,and will effectually support it.Nothing but corruption can support the other.
If there was a real deficiency of power in the crown,it ought to be supplied,no doubt.The old whimsies of prerogative should not be revived;but limitations ought to be taken off,or new powers to be given.The friends of liberty acknowledge that a balance of the powers,divided among the three parts of the legislature,is essential to our constitution,and necessary to support it.The friends of liberty therefore would concur,at least to a certain point,with the friends of the ministry;for the former are friends to order,and enemies to licence.For decency's sake,therefore,let the debate be put on this issue.Let it be such a debate as freemen may avow without blushing.
To argue from this supposed deficiency of power in the crown,in favour of a scheme of government repugnant to all laws divine and human,is such an instance of abandoned,villainous prostitution,as the most corrupt ages never saw,and as will place the present age,with infamous,pre-eminence,at the head of them,unless the nation do itself justice,and fix the brand on those who ought to bear it.Thus much for the iniquity of the practice pleaded for.As to the danger of it,let us agree that a prince of such magnanimity and justice as our present monarch,can never be tempted by any sordid motives to forget the recent obligation which he and his family have to the British nation,by whom they were made kings;nor to aim at greater power and wealth than are consistent with the safety of the constitution they are entrusted to preserve,and obliged to secure.Allowing this to be our present case (and concerning our present case,there are not two opinions,I dare say,in the whole nation),yet still the symptoms I have mentioned,show that the poison,with which these pretended friends of the government,and real enemies of the constitution,corrupt the morals of mankind,hath made some progress;and if this progress be not immediately checked by proper antidotes,and the power of poisoning taken from these empirics,the disease will grow incurable.The last dismal effect of it may not,or if you please,cannot happen in this reign;but it may,nay it must happen in some other,unless we prevent it effectually and soon:and what season more proper to prevent it in,and to complete the security of our liberties,than the reign of a prince,for whom the nation hath done so much,and from whom,by consequence,the nation hath a right to expect so much?King William delivered us from popery and slavery.There was wisdom in his councils,and fortitude in his conduct.He steered through many real difficulties at home,and he fought our battles abroad;and yet those points of security,which had been neglected,or not sufficiently provided for in the honeymoon of his accession,were continually pressed upon him,during the whole course of his reign.The men who pressed them were called Jacobites,Tories,republicans,and incendiaries too;not from the throne indeed,but by the clamour of those,who showed great indifference at least for the constitution,whilst they affected great zeal for the government.They succeeded however in part,and we enjoy the benefit of their success.If they did not succeed in the whole;if the settlement necessary to secure our liberty,and therefore intended at the Revolution,be not yet complete,let us be persuaded,and let us act on that persuasion,that the honour of completing it was reserved to crown the glories of the present reign.To finish the great work,which King William began,of establishing the liberties of Britain on firm and durable foundations,must be reputed an honour surely.and to whom can this honour belong more justly than to a prince,who emulates,in so remarkable a manner,all the other heroic virtues of his renowned predecessor?
I am,sir,etc.
