"have arms for their defence, suitable to their con"ditions, and as allowed by law."

"That elections of members of Parliament ought "to be free."

66

"That the freedom of speech, and debates or proceedings in Parliament, ought not to be im"peached, or questioned, in any Court or place out "of Parliament."

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual "punishments inflicted."

"That Jurors ought to be duly impannelled and "returned; and Jurors which pass upon men in "trials for high treason ought to be freeholders.”

"That all grants and promises of fines and for"feitures of particular persons, before conviction, "are illegal and void."

"And that for the redress of all grievances, and "for the amending, strengthening, and preserving "of the laws, Parliaments ought to be held fre "quently."

Further, Gentlemen, this Bill goes on to say, "For the ratifying, confirming, and establishing the " said Declaration, and the articles, clauses, matters, "and things, therein contained, by the force of a law "made in due form, by authority of Parliament, do

pray it may be declared and enacted, that all and "singular the rights and liberties asserted and "claimed in the said Declaration are the true, ancient, " and indubitable rights and liberties of the people

"of this kingdom, and so shall be esteemed, al

66

lowed, adjudged, deemed, and taken to be; and "that all and every the particulars aforesaid shall be "firmly and strictly holden and observed, as they

are expressed in the said Declaration; and all of"ficers and ministers whatsoever shall serve Their Majesties and their successors, according to the 66 same in all times to come."

Such, Gentlemen, is the Bill of Wrongs and of Insult. I shall not profane it by saying one more word upon it.

Now, Gentlemen, I would ask you, whether what is said by this man be reasoning or discussion; or whether it is nothing else but deception, and that deception consisting of a most abominable and complete suppression? Is there a word of this Act quoted? Has the poor mechanic, to whom this passage is addressed, who is told that he has been wronged and insulted at the Revolution, has he this statute by him to read? Would it not have been fair, at least to have stated what it was? But instead of that, unsight, unseen (to use a very vulgar expression), this proposition is tendered to the very lowest man in this country, namely, that the Bill of Rights is a Bill of Wrongs and of Insult.

Pass we then on to another: if you will please to make a memorandum of page 56, you will find that in the same spirit, and with the same design, this man tells you that "The intention of the govern

ment of England," here comes in another con

66

temptuous expression (" for I rather choose to call it by this name than the English government), appears, since its political connexion with Germany, "to have been so completely engrossed and absorbed by foreign affairs, and the means of raising taxes, "that it seems to exist for no other purposes."

The government of the country then does not exist for the purpose of preserving our lives and properties; but the government, I mean the constitution of the country, King, Lords, and Commons, exists for no purpose but to be the instruments of raising taxes. To enter into any discussion of that, is taking up your time unnecessarily-I only beg to draw your attention to the dogmatical and cavalier manner in which these things are asserted: further, he says" Domestic concerns are neglected; and "with respect to regular law, there is scarcely such a thing."

I stand in the city of London; I am addressing myself to gentlemen eminent in that city: whether the legislature, since the Revolution, has, or has not, adverted to domestic concerns, I think I may ap peal to the growing prosperity of this country, from the moment that the nightmare has been taken off its stomach, which pressed upon it up to that mo..

ment.

We then proceed to page 63, where, after the whole constitution of this country has been thus treated in gross, he proceeds a little to dissect and

VOL. II,

consider the component parts of that constitution; and in page 63, in a dogma, we have this:

66

"With respect to the two Houses of which the English Parliament is composed, they appear to "be effectually influenced into one; and, as a legislature, to have no temper of its own. The "minister, whoever he at any time may be, touches it, as with an opium wand, and it sleeps obedience." Now, Gentlemen, here is another dogma without a single fact, without a single argument; but it is held out to the subjects of this country, that there is no energy or activity in either the aristocratical or democratical parts of this constitution, but that they are asleep, and you might just as well have statues there; it is not merely said that it is so now, but it is in the nature of things, says he, that it should be so.

"But if we look at the distinct abilities of the "two Houses, the difference will appear so great as "to show the inconsistency of placing power where "there can be no certainty of the judgment to use "it. Wretched as the state of representation is "in England, it is manhood compared with what is "called the House of Lords; and so little is this. "nicknamed House regarded, that the people "scarcely inquire at any time what it is doing. It apcc pears also to be most under influence, and the furthest removed from the general interest of the "nation."

Now, Gentlemen, this is again speaking in this

man's contemptuous manner, at the expense of the aristocratical part of our constitution of government; an essentially beneficial part, whose great and permanent interest in the country renders it a firm barrier against any encroachment. I am not to suppose that you are so ignorant of the history of your country, as not to know the great and brilliant characters that have sat in that House. No particular period of time is alluded to in this passage. He surely cannot mean the present time; but I conceive he speaks of all times, and that from the very nature of our government it must everlastingly be so. Slander upon that very great and illustrious part of the Legislature (untrue at any period), written in this scurrilous and contemptuous manner, is distinguished greatly indeed from any sober discussion of, whether an aristocratical part of government is a good or bad thing, and is calculated only to mislead and inflame.

If you look next to page 107, there you will find that two of the component parts of the Legislature having been thus disposed of, we come up to the Throne itself, and this man says very truly of himself:

Having thus GLANCED at some of the defects "of the two Houses of Parliament, I proceed to "what is called the Crown, upon which I shall be very concise:

"It signifies a nominal office of a million a year, "the business of which consists in receiving the 56 money; whether the person be wise or foolish,