When I say that Parliaments were entirely built on the same general principles,as well as directed to the same purposes,as they still are,I shall be justified by the whole tenor of our history,and of our law.Let us consider this in a case the plainest imaginable,though it suffers so much debate through the effrontery of some men.Let us consider it relatively to that great principle,that Parliaments ought to be independent of the crown,in all respects,except such as are settled by the law and custom of Parliament,and concerning which there is no dispute.
Now,this general principle hath not only been always the same,but it hath been always so declared,in the most authentic and solemn manner;and Parliaments have not been more intent on any national concern whatever,than on maintaining this principle,and securing the effects of it.I say,Parliaments have been constantly thus intent,and especially in the best times,during more than three centuries at least;for I would not go back too far,nor grope unnecessarily in the dark.What else did those laws mean,that were made in the time of the Lancaster kings,to regulate the elections,and to prevent the influence which Richard the Second had illegally and arbitrarily employed,and which there was room to fear that other princes might employ?
What else do all those resolutions,all those declarations,all those remonstrances,all those Acts of Parliament mean,that have been made so often,and enforced so strongly,from time to time,and from those days to these,against the influence of the crown,either on the elections,or on the members of Parliament?
I should be ashamed to ask any more questions of this kind,or to descend into any detail,in order to prove what every clerk of a justice of peace,nay,almost every day-labourer,knows.But there is another question,which I must ask.If this be so,what do those men mean,who are employed,or rather,what does he mean who employs them,to plead in all places,and on all occasions,even the most solemn,in favour of this very influence,nay,of the very worst sort of it,of that influence which is created immediately by corruption;for to that their arguments reach by undeniable consequences?Reason is against him and them;since it is a plain absurdity to suppose a control on the crown (and they have not yet ventured to suppose the contrary,that I know of)and to establish,at the same time,a power,and even a right,in the crown,to render this control useless.Experience is against them;since the examples of other countries,and at some times (former times I mean)of our own,have proved,that a prince may govern according to his arbitrary will,or that of his more arbitrary minister,as absolutely,and much more securely with,than without the concurrence of a Parliament.Authority,even the uniform authority of our whole legislature,is against them.The voice of our law gives them the lie.How then shall we account for this proceeding;this open and desperate attack upon our constitution,and therefore upon our liberty?Have these great men made any nice discovery,that escaped the blunt sagacity of our ancestors formerly,and is above the narrow conceptions of all other men,except themselves,at this time?Is it less fit than the wisdom of this nation hath judged it to be,for so many ages,that kings should govern under the constitutional control of two other estates?Or is it less fit that they should govern so,for the time to come,than it was for the time past?
We shall hear,for aught I know,even in this age,that kings are God's vicegerents;that they are,next to him and his son Christ Jesus,supreme moderators and governors.We shall hear again,perhaps,of their hereditary,their divine,their indefeasible right,and the rest of that silly cant,which was invented to make the usurpations of prerogative go down the better.But will even this alter the case?Will this make it unworthy of them to submit to the full control of such a constitution as God himself approved,in the institution of the Jewish senate?Moses was undoubtedly God's vicegerent.He was,if ever man was so,next and immediately under God,a supreme moderator and governor.He was inspired,and assisted in a supernatural manner;and yet he took the advice of his father-in-law Jethro,the priest of Midian.He associated to himself in the government of the commonwealth,or he bade the people take,as he says in another place,or choose,'wise men and understanding,and known among the tribes',that they might be associated to him.He found himself unequal to the talk of governing alone,and he expostulated with God upon it.'I am not able to bear all this people alone.
Have I conceived all this people?Have I begotten them?If thou deal thus with me,kill me,I pray thee,out of hand.'Whether they,who deduce from hence the institution of sanhedrins,are in the right,or they who assign them a more modern date,against the opinion of the Jewish doctors themselves,whose authority our doctors receive implicitly enough in some cases,and reject as arbitrarily in others,it matters not to enquire.
