reign of this country is not amenable to any form of trial known to the laws, is unquestionable. But exemption from punishment is a singular privilege annexed to the royal character, and no way excludes the possibility of deserving it. How long, and to what extent, a King of England may be protected by the forms, when he violates the spirit, of the constitution, deserves to be considered. A mistake in this matter proved fatal to Charles and his son. For my own part, far from thinking that the King can do no wrong, far from suffering myself to be deterred or imposed upon by the language of forms, in opposition to the substantial evidence of truth, if it were my misfortune to live under the inauspicious reign of a Prince, whose whole life was employed in one base, contemptible struggle with the free spirit of his people, or in the detestable endeavour to corrupt their moral principles, I would not scruple to declare to him, "Sir, you alone are the author of the greatest wrong to your subjects and to yourself. Instead of "reigning in the hearts of your people, instead of "commanding their lives and fortunes through the 66 medium of their affections, has not the strength of "the crown, whether influence or prerogative, been "uniformly exerted, for eleven years together, to 66 support a narrow pitiful system of government, "which defeats itself, and answers no one purpose of "real power, profit or personal satisfaction to you? "With the greatest unappropriated revenue of any "prince in Europe, have we not seen you reduced to A* VOL. I. "such vile and sordid distresses, as would have con"ducted any other man to a prison? With a great "military, and the greatest naval power in the known "world, have not foreign nations repeatedly insulted 66 you with impunity? Is it not notorious, that the "vast revenues, extorted from the labour and in"dustry of your subjects, and given you to do ho66 nour to yourself and to the nation, are dissipated "in corrupting their representatives? Are you a "Prince of the house of Hanover, and do you ex"clude all the leading Whig families from your "councils? Do you profess to govern according to "law, and is it consistent with that profession, to "impart your confidence and affection to those men "only, who, though now perhaps, detached from the "desperate cause of the Pretender, are marked in "this country by an hereditary attachment to high "and arbitrary principles of government? Are you "so infatuated as to take the sense of your people "from the representation of ministers, or from the "shouts of a mob, notoriously hired to surround 66 your coach, or stationed at a theatre? And if you "are in reality, that public man, that King, that "Magistrate, which these questions suppose you to "be, is it any answer to your people, to say, That, among your domestics, you are good-humoured; "that to one lady, you are faithful; that to your "children, you are indulgent? Sir, the man who "addresses you in these terms, is your best friend. "He would willingly hazard his life in defence of 66 your title to the crown, and, if power be your ob"ject, will still show you how possible it is for a "King of England, by the noblest means, to be the "most absolute Prince in Europe. You have no "enemies, Sir, but those who persuade you to aim "at power without right, and who think it flattery to "tell you, that the character of King dissolves the "natural relation between guilt and punishment." I cannot conceive that there is a heart so callous, or an understanding so depraved, as to attend to a discourse of this nature, and not to feel the force of it. But where is the man, among those who have access to the closet, resolute and honest enough to deliver it? The liberty of the press is our only resource. It will command an audience, when every honest man in the kingdom is excluded. This glorious privilege may be a security to the King, as well as a resource to his people. Had there been no star-chamber, there would have been no rebellion against Charles the First. The constant censure and admonition of the press would have corrected his conduct, prevented a civil war, and saved him from an ignominious death. I am no friend to the doctrine of precedents, exclusive of right; though lawyers often tell us, that, whatever has been once done, may lawfully be done again. I shall conclude this Preface with a quotation, applicable to the subject, from a foreign writer*, whose Essay on the English Consti * Monsieur de Lolme. |