WE have lately heard much, and too much, of the wisdom of Parliament, the great council, of the nation; that is to say, the corrupt majority of that great council, where the most votes enforce the vilest measures. We know what this great council once was, and what it ought to be. Let us reflect upon what it now is. It is (alas!) no more at present than a ma­jority of Ay's and No's—Contents and not Contents. And what is this majority? the Minister's—What is this Minister? the King's; What it the King? my Lord Bute's. What is Lord Bute? an enemy to this nation. I had like to have said what I think, a traytor; but I hope this will be said with more weight in a future impeachment, unless popular re­venge should justly make a less solemn, but a more dreadful example of this public pest. Through these channels of wisdom flow all the grievance, oppressions, and calamities, which are now so se­verely [Page 206]felt in England and America. The subjects of these nations feel all the power of this great and wise council, without a single ray of its benignity. It shines upon it's Idols, but lowers upon the sub­ject, for despotic Power, is the great end in view, and the growth of it is cultivated with the greatest boldness and assiduity. We now see the three great estates of this kingdom, which were, in their origin, wisely designed as salutary checks upon each other, to preserve the constitution, in an amicable confederacy to destoy it. As to the Peers, they are created by the Crown, not for meritorious, but po­litical reasons. Wealth, and a pliant disposion, are essential requisites. Some minion of the crown be­comes bound for their good behaviour, and then the great seal stamps them for the tools of an au­dacious and corrupt minister. But your Apostate Chathams, Camdens, Richmonds, Buckinghams, Temples, Shelburns, &c. are repudiated. The virtuous minority is too thin to save their country. They are out-clamoured, and out-voted. I have heard Lord Chatham's manly eloquence rudely drowned by a combined roar of the minister's, majo­rity in the House of Lords. I have heard that great Orator answered by ministerial mouths without argu­ment, without sense, without grammar, and with­out English.

Their Lordships may well clear their house, and be as much ashamed of their speeches, as they ought to be of their principles. As to the house of Commons, it is filled, and fed three parts out of four, by the Minister.

Let me not forget, however, to congratulate them on a new privilege, which they acquired and esta­blished [Page 207]in Wilkes's case, the rational and modest Privilege of electing themselves. This acquisition is a great one. It is plain that honourable House esteems it so, because they have lately most iniqui­tiously refused to erase those base and daring innova­tions upon the rights of the people from their jour­nals. Thus they have industriously preserved the infamy of the last detested Parliament to posterity. But they have likewise (which was the real design) treasured up a vile precedent to be produced in fu­ture times of need, against the liberties of their masters, the people of this kingdom.

There was a time when this house of Commons was not too modest to oppose the arbitrary wills of Princes. There was a time when they had the ho­nesty to refuse supplies, when the former had been ill-applied, and as ill-accounted for; when the old had been lavished in profusion and douceurs to fa­vourites, and new were demanded for the like pur­poses, or worse, the insidious purposes of corruption. There was a time too, when the head of that house (the Speaker) had integrity, though some parts of that body were corrupt.

Whoever remembers Onslow, must respect his memory; whoever knew him must revere it. He respected his Sovereign, but he loved the people. He preserved the dignity and integrity of his station. He distinguished nobly and justly between a post of honour and a post of profit. He was neither Pensi­oner, Placeman, nor Privy Councellor. He knew that it was impossible to serve two masters. He re­joiced to be at the head of a free people. He had a thorough knowledge of the rights, and was zealous in desending them. He knew that it was impossi­ble [Page 208]for a Speaker of a house of Commons to be, with the least consistency, a Courtier and a Demagogue at the same time. He knew that if he held a lucra­tive place, he could not hold his integrity. He preferred his duty to trash. He preferred virtuous liberty to ministerial influence and controul. He prefered honour to infamy, Sincerity to duplicity, and propriety to absurdity. For what can be more absurd than a ductile speaker, who is at the head of the commons in the morning, and at the ear of the Sovereign in the evening? At one hour in character of a speaker, at another in the function of a privy Counsellor. Now in the peoples chair, and now at a ministerial board. To day collecting the sense of the people, and to morrow promoting the intrigues of a court. Co-operating with the people at one instant, and forming schemes against their liberties at another. To crown all, let us suppose this Speaker an established placeman for life; to which place an annual income is appendant of 4000 l. per annum, and eventually twice that sum, or more, in a place which no subject had enjoyed for years, till the present Speaker (Norton) broke the ground anew. Why had it not been enjoyed for many years? Because it was for life, and the Minister had not sufficient confidence in the steady perfidy, and supe­rior demerits of any one hireling, to bestow it, till they were conscious that Norton deserved that, and more, Let us view this malleable Speaker, and pa­triotic statesman, this political Proteous, this double fronted Ianus, in another light, which will fully show the compatibility of the two different functions

Suppose a Bute or a Mansfield were to be im­peached, as they well deserve, by the Commons [Page 209]of England ('tis but a supposition, for the corruption at present makes it impracticable) suppose it only: Whose duty would it be to carry up those bills of impeachment to the bar of the House of Lords? Sir Fletcher Norton. Sir Fletcher? What? a place­man, a pensioner, a privy counsellor? A bird of the same feather? Can Jemmy Twitcher 'peach? I have said enough to be sufficiently understood, and to show how inconsistent and absurd it is for a Speaker of the House of Commons, to be amphi­biously inclined.

Let us now return to the noble Lords—We see among them another majority, not indeed with Lord Bute (for he absconds) but with his deputy, Mans­field, at their head. No; 'tis Lord Apsley; those insignia upon the table are his, true, the insignia, (the bauble, the purse and mace) are Apsley's; but Apsley himself is Mansfield's, as Mansfield himself is Bute's. These three dance the hay, like the sun, moon, and earth, in the Rehearsal, though indeed it is Lord Bute's interest at present to continue in eclipse. At present that Thane is to all intents and purposes, by his two proxies Mansfield and Apsley, at the head of the House of Lords. He has his majority of myrmidons there, as well as among the Commons, where he is represented by Lord North. Where then shall we find a patriot? in the throne. This (alas) would be a blessing "devoutly to be wished."

But the great estates of this kingdom, are now not in a wholesome, but a dangerous coalition: not in harmony, but in combination; not in friendship, but in confederacy. The House of Commons now shut the doors against their constituents, the Lords [Page 210]debate in private, they are ashamed, as they well may, of their harrangues. These Houses, are now in truth, a Divan, a Conclave, a Junto, a Cabal, a Gang; but they are no longer what they were, or what they ought to be; they will shortly feel the consequences, of such an unnatural coalition. The body politic can never be healthy, whilst its func­tions are ill performed; yet this is the great and wise council of the nation, in which sovereigns will confide.

I know that a majority of votes can save Minions and Favourites from the scaffold; but they cannot save them from public vengeance, nor can they se­cure the sovereigns peace, affection, and esteem, they can augment the civil list, from near a million a year to any sum that royal profusion may demand; they can allow without entring into precise accounts what a king may expend for public uses, a term of the largest the most vague and most indifinite mean­ing, including every species of regal, domestic, po­litical, and unjust profusion; they can lay still heavier taxes for this purpose, as well as for carrying on the further assassination of America; but they can neither force the united subjects of this kingdom to pay those unreasonable taxes, nor heal the wounds of a civil war if they refuse. How will our com­mon enemies France and Spain, embroil the scene? at such a crisis, will an importation of Hanoverians; Hessians, and mercenary troops from the little states of Germany avail? From Hanoverians no assistance can be expected; they will not be able to defend their own state against the designing ambitious King of Prussia. That great Monarch will not for­get the ill treatment he has received from England; [Page 211]Civil war here will afford him the long wished for opportunity.

Our standing army (if any part should be base enough, to fight for tyrants, and the benefit of be­ing slaves,) will be fully employed; such part of it as is truly English, will join their countrymen, and put a final period to despotism and corruption.

The constitutional, and the only constitutional force of this Kingdom, the militia, will not fail to signalize themselves in defence of Liberty, in this unhappy period will the patriotic Spirit be still? by what foreign power, amidst this confusion at home, is America, at last, to be protected, or enslaved? by which of her friends the French or the Spaniards? Our standing army will be too much wanted here to afford fresh succour to Burgoyne.

Does that idle notion prevail, any longer in this century, which supplied King Charles the first with forces and recruits, in the last; when that blessed martyr, endeavoured to subdue this country to his despotic will by force of arms? Is passive obedience and non-resistance, and the divine rights of tyrants, of any weight even with the lowest of the people? Is not the idea and spirit of liberty universal still? is the invasion of its rights a secret? It is true that we have long lived in an age of venality and corruption, but we also live in an age of reason and discernment. The meanest individual among us knows that he has a right to call his life, liberty and property his own, and will die in their defence.

A foolish and wicked King like the present ef­ects, the power of a despot; a patriot King uses the authority of a parent. A sacrifice to public liberty could not be grateful to a patriot King, it would [Page 212]sully his glory, and disappoint his views. To a weak or a designing Prince liberty is odious, it is an object of perpetual terror and alarm. Under the reign of one, the lives and properties of the subject are no longer valuable, then whilst they are employed to promote the wise ends of paternal government, com­mon good; under the other, they are useless, unless they are exerted for the public safety, The people live in allegiance to the one, and in league against the other; the one reaps all the fruits of national confidence and affection, the other feels all the weight of general distrust, and all the ignominy of individual destruction, the one has no favourites, and the other has no enemies. The readiest obedi­ence waits upon the father? and the bitterest exe­crations pursue the despot of a country.