LETTER SIR, XXXIV. March 19, 1770. I Believe there is no man, however indifferent about the interests of this country, who will not readily confefs that the fituation, to which we are now reduced, whether it has arifen from the violence of faction, or from an arbitrary fyftem of government, juftifies the most melancholy apprehenfions, and calls for the exertion of whatever wisdom or vigour is left among us. The King's answer to the Remonftrance of the city of London, and the measures fince adopted by the ministry, amount to a plain declaration, that the principle on which Mr. Luttrell was feated inthe house of Commons, is to be fupported in all its confequences, and carried to its utmost extent. The fame spirit which violated the freedom of election, now invades the declaration and bill of rights, and threatens to punish the fubject for exercising a privilege, hitherto undifputed, of petitioning the crown. The grievances of the people are aggravated by infults; their complaints not merely difregarded, but checked by authority; and every one of those acts, against which they remonstrated, confirmed by the King's decifive approbation. At such a moment no honeft man will remain filent or in active. active. However diftinguished by rank or property, in the rights of freedom we are all equal. As we are Englishmen, the least considerable man among us has an interest equal to the proudest nobleman, in the laws and conftitution of his country, and is equally called upon to make a generous contribution in fupport of them ;-whether it be the heart to conceive, the understanding to direct, or the hand to execute. It is a common caufe in which we are all interefted, in which we fhould all be engaged. The man who deferts it at this alarming crifis, is an enemy to his country, and, what I think of infinitely lefs value, a traitor to his fovereign. The fubject who is truly loyal to the chief magiftrate, will neither advise nor submit to arbitrary meafures. The city of London have given an example, which, I doubt not, will be followed by the whole kingdom. The noble fpirit of the metropolis is the life-blood of the state, collected at the heart: from that point it circulates, with health and vigour, through every artery of the conftitution. The time is come, when the body of the English people muft affert their own caufe confcious of their ftrength, and animated by a fenfe of their duty, they will not furrender their birthright to minifters, parliaments, or kings. The The city of London have expreffed their fentiments with freedom and firmness; they have spoken truth boldly; and, in whatever light their Remonftrance may be reprefented by courtiers, I defy the most fubtle lawyer in this country to point out a fingle inftance, in which they have exceeded the truth. Even that affertion, which we are told is most offenfive to parliament, in the theory of the English conftitution, is ftrictly true. If any part of the representative body be not chofen by the people, that part vitiates and corrupts the whole. If there be a defect in the reprefentation of the people, that power, which alone is equal to the making of laws in this country, is not complete, and the acts of parliament under that circumftance, are not the acts of a pure and entire legislature. I speak of the theory of our conftitution; and whatever difficulties or inconveniences may attend the practice, I am ready to maintain, that, as far as the fact deviates from the principle, fo far the practice is vicious and corrupt. I have not heard a question raised upon any other part of the Remonftrance. That the principle on which the Middlesex Election was determined, is more pernicious in its effects, than either the levying of ship-money by Charles the First, or the fufpending power affumed by his fon, will hardly be difputed by any man who understands or wishes well to the English English conftitution. It is not an act of open vio lence done by the King, or any direct and palpable breach of the laws attempted by his minister, that can ever endanger the liberties of this country. · Against such a King or minister the people would immediately take the alarm, and all parties unite to oppofe him. The laws may be grofly violated in particular inftances, without any direct attack upon the whole fyftem. Facts of that kind ftand alone; they are attributed to neceffity, not defended upon principle. We can never be really in danger, until the forms of parliament are made ufe of to destroy the fubftance of our civil and political liberties ;-until parliament itself betrays its truft, by contributing to establish new princi-: ples of government, and employing the very weapons, committed to it by the collective body, to ftab the conftitution. As for the terms of the Remonftrance, I prefume it will not be affirmed, by any perfon lefs polished than a gentleman-ufher, that this is a feafon for compliments. Our gracious fovereign indeed is abundantly civil to himself. Inftead of an answer to a petition, his Majefty very gracefully pronounces his own panegyric; and I confefs, that, as far as his personal behaviour, or the royal purity of his intentions is concerned, the truth of thofe declarations, which the minifter has drawn up up for his master, cannot decently be difputed. In every other respect, I affirm that they are abfolutely unfupported, either in argument or fact. I muft add too, that fuppofing the Speech were otherwife unexceptionable, it is not a direct Anfwer to the Petition of the city. His Majefty is pleased to fay, that he is always ready to receive the requests of his fubjects; yet the fheriffs were twice fent back with an excufe, and it was certainly debated in council whether or no the magiftrates of the city of London fhould be admitted to an audience. Whether the Remonftrance be or be not injurious to parliament, is the very question. between the parliament and the people, and fuch a question, as cannot be decided by the affertion of a third party, however refpectable. That the petitioning for a diffolution of parliament is irreconcilable with the principles of the conftitution is a new doctrine. His Majefty perhaps has not been informed, that the house of Commons themselves have, by a formal refolution, admitted it to be the right of the subject. His Majefty proceeds to affure us that he has made the laws the rule of his conduct. Was it in ordering or permitting his ministers to apprehend Mr. Wilkes by a general warrant ?Was it in fuffering his minifters to revive the obfolete maxim of nullum tempus to rob the Duke of Portland of his property, and there |