A Disease of a venal Majority in the great council of the nation, may be truly called a mortification in the body politic. This desperate case requires a desperate remedy. A pa­triotic King would neither delay, nor fear the ap­plication. Its success depends upon the hand that operates. The operation of a wholesome and sa­lutary desolution has been wisely instrusted by our considerate ancestors to the sovereign. The exer­tion of this great prerogative was petitioned for, with the greatest reason, during the tyranny and iniquities of the last venal parliament, by the first, the most loyal, and respectable metropolis in the universe, the city of London. It was petitioned for, and twice refused.

[Page 200] [...]tion. If a tyrannic parliament still persists, a Pa­triot King, (like an honest dictator) will dissolve such miscreants.

Thus corruption will be extinguished, honest representatives elected, and a good King enthroned in the hearts of a grateful and affectionate people, whom he has thus constitutionally protected from slavery and ruin. What, (says some ministerial scribbler, a Johnson perhaps) shall a King of Eng­land detach himself from his Parliament? I answer Yes; if that Parliament is corrupt, wicked, and tyrannical; it is then no constitutional Parliament, but an illicit gang; nor is he constitutional King, but a daring and unthinking tyrant, who adheres to them. By so doing, he plainly shews that it is not his intention to protect, but to enslave his peo­ple. That venerable body alone can be called a Parliament, who are known, according to the im­port of the word (parler le ment) to speak their mind, to be above all human influence. Can this be said of a servile, detestable, insidious, unconsti­tutional majority, who came to the great council, with a mercenary gagg in their mouths, their per­fidious names in the court calendar, and Lord Bute's (under the colour of Lord North's) instructions in their pockets? Our Kings, it is true, are parlia­mentary Kings, but there is a wide difference be­tween a parliament and a cabal; between sages convened, and voters hired, between free, consti­tutional states, and servile, ministerial dependents.

When a Parliament is degenerated thus far, they loose their honour, they ought to loose their former name; they deserve no farther confidence. They would find none, in a wise and good King. No [Page 201]Prince who is not under the ideocy, insanity, or the worst passions, could adhere to such a junto. Such men are audacious in calling themselves a Parliament. They no longer represent, but usurp; they are not faithful servants, but assuming tyrants, they are not counsellors of the King, but traytors to the people. A great council, (or rather a great majority) composed of such monsters, such pests of a community, cannot be said either to regard, or to represent a people; their views and interests are different. The people sue for protection, they for places; the people wish to support the consti­tution, they to supply their luxury; the people are affected by the decay of commerce, they by the largesses of the minister.

Can a patriotic King confide in, or co-operate with such a mock-parliament? When we hear a King talk of steadily pursuing the advice of the great council of the nation, it must be taken for granted, that he knows and believes the majority of that council (whose votes are decisive of the fate of this kingdom) to be incorrupt. Can such faith as this be found in Israel? If not, a King of England may well be asked, even by the meanest of his subjects, why he is wicked enough, or weak enough, to approve, sanctify and confirm, the despotic acts, not of such a parliament, but of such a traiterous convention? Is it his duty in such a case, to confide or to dissolve? In such a danger­ous crisis the constitution has given a judicial pow­er to Kings; they are bound to exercise that pow­er, not for the destruction, but for the safety of the commonwealth. They are not to consult the views, the wishes, the interests, or security of mi­nisters [Page 202]or favourites, but the salvation of the king­dom. Our laws, under which every king must submit to reign, speaks plainly to the sovereign, in open, intelligible, rational terms, when it says, "Cessa regnare, si non vis judicare." ‘If you will not exercise those judicial powers, with which the constitution has entrusted you, resign your crown, you are no longer fit to reign over a free people.’ The word (judicare) in the maxim abovementioned, extends not merely to the exer­tion of a King's judicial powers in civil, or crimi­nal cases, (though this would be the false interpre­tation of a Mansfield) but it must be taken in its largest, and most important sense; it is allowed by every honest man, learned interpreter, to extend to the whole system of the King's executive powers. In that large sense it has ever been considered by such political writers as Locke, Sidney, Acherly, and Nathaniel Bacon, who writes so admirably on government.

This maxim is strong, and pointed; it comes directly home to my present purpose, and opens a large field for no very favourable inferences at the present juncture. A King of England must not, cannot live for himself, (much less for his minions) but only for his people. I speak an honest, con­stitutional truth, when I say that he must not in­dulge, but toil. A King's revenues, magnificence, splendor, pomp, and grandeur, are not designed to emblazon him, but to do honour to his kingdom. All his glittering rays of Majesty are reflected from the people. An English throne is like a Turkish Sopha, to be made the idle seat of slumber and re­pose. It is erected for the exercise of mercy, truth, [Page 203]and justice. Neither of these princely attributes is concerned in maintaining corruption, or repelling just suitors without redress; nay, with ignominious language and contempt. It is a King of England's duty to cleanse the Augean stable. He is the Argus of the commonwealth; his eyes, his ears, his men­tal powers, must all be open to his people, whilst his royal passions are subdued. He can acquire neither honour nor security by an injudicious strug­gle with his subjects. Truth and liberty will pre­vail. Tyrants and fools have been dethroned. In­jured subjects have triumphed and exulted in their ruin. Minions, and abandoned ministers have been guarded to the scaffold; and corruption itself, tho' not to be dissolved, may be at last extinguished, in another glorious and necessary revolution.

These are lessons which English princes should be taught betimes in their minority. By these, even Kings themselves, may profit in riper yeas. By these, the present obdurate, deluded sovereign, whom heaven has not been pleased to bless with any great share of natural discernment, may be taught to avoid these miseries, which must attend his rash and headstrong perseverance, his unjust and guilty confidence; his tyrannic pride, and an inso­lent contempt of that people, through whose pa­tience and indulgence, he most unworthily holds the crown of England.