you both. You are too well acquainted with the temper of your late allies, to think it possible that Lord North should be permitted to govern this country. If we may believe common fame, they have shewn him their superiority already. His Majesty is, indeed, too gracious to insult his subjects, by choosing his first Minister from among the domestics of the Duke of Bedford; that would have been too gross an outrage to the three kingdoms. Their purpose, however, is equally answered, by pushing forward this unhappy figure, and forcing it to bear the odium of measures, which they in reality direct. Without immediately appearing to govern, they possess the power, and distribute the emolu ments, of government, as they think proper. They still adhere to the spirit of that calculation, which made Mr. Luttrell representative of Middlesex. Far from regretting your retreat, they assure us, very gravely, that it increases the real strength of the Ministry. According to this way of reasoning, they will probably grow stronger and more flourishing, every hour they exist: for I think there is hardly a day passes in which some one or other of his Majesty's servants does not leave them to improve by the loss of his assistance. But, alas! their countenances speak a different language. When the members drop off, the main body cannot be insensible of its approaching dissolution. Even the violence of their proceedings is a signal of despair. Like broken tenants, who have had warning to quit the premises, they curse their landlord, destroy the fixtures, throw every thing into confusion, and care not what mischief they do to the estate. JUNIUS. LETTER XXXVII. ΤΟ The Printer of the Public Advertiser. SIR, I BELIEVE there is no man, however indifferent about the interests of this country, who will not readily confess, that the situation to which we are now reduced, whether it has arisen from the violence of faction, or from an arbitrary system of government, justifies the most melancholy apprehensions, and calls for the exertion of whatever wisdom or vigour is left among us. The King's answer to the remonstrance of the City of London, and the measures since adopted by the Ministry, amount to a plain declaration, that the principle on which Mr. Luttrell was seated in the House of Commons, is to be supported in all its consequences, and carried to its utmost extent. The same spirit which violated the freedom of election, now invades the declaration and bill of rights, and threatens to punish the subject for exercising a privilege hitherto undisputed, of petitioning the Crown. The grievances of the people are aggravated by insults; their com plaints not merely disregarded, but checked by authority; and every one of those acts against which they remonstrated, confirmed by the King's decisive approbation. At such a moment, no honest man will remain silent or inactive. However distinguished 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 constitution of his country, and is equally called upon to make a generous contribution in support of them; whether it be the heart to conceive, the under. standing to direct, or the hand to execute. It is a common cause in which we are all interested, in which we should all be engaged. The man who deserts it at this alarming crisis is an enemy to his country, and, what I think. of infinitely less importance, a traitor to his Sovereign. The subject, who is truly loyal to the Chief Magistrate, will neither advise or submit to arbitrary measures. The City of London hath given an example, which, I doubt not, will be followed by the whole kingdom. The noble spirit of the metropolis is the lifeblood of the state, collected at the heart; from that point it circulates, with health and vigour, through every artery of the constitution. The time is come when the body of the English people must assert their own canse: conscious of their strength, and animated by a sense of their duty, they will not surrender their birthright to Ministers, Parliaments, or Kings. The City of London have expressed their sentiments with freedom-and firmness; they have spoken truth boldly; and, in whatever light their remonstrance may be represented by courtiers, I defy the most subtle lawyer in this country to point out a single instance in which they have exceeded the truth. Even that assertion which we are told is most offensive to parliament, in the theory of the English constitution, is strictly true. If any part of the representative body be not chosen by the people, that part vitiates and corrupts the whole. If there be a defect in the representation of the people, that power, which alone is equal to the making of the laws in this country, is not complete, and the acts of parliament, under that circumstance, are not the acts of a pure and entire legislature. I speak of the theory of our constitution; and whatever difficulties or inconveniences may attend the practice, I am ready to maintain that, as far as the fact deviates from the principle, so far the practice is vicious and corrupt. I have not heard a question raised upon any other part of the remonstrance. 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 suspending power assumed by his son, will hardly be disputed by any man who understands or wishes well to the English constitution. It is not an act of open violence done by the King, or any direct or palpable breach of the laws attempted by his Minister, that can ever en danger the liberties of this country. Against such a King or Minister the people would immediately take the alarm, and all the parties unite to oppose him. The laws may be grossly violated in particular instances, without any direct attack upon the whole system. Facts of that kind stand alone; they are attributed to necessity, not defended by principle. We can never be really in danger, until the forms of parliament are made use of to destroy the substance of our civil and political liberties; until parliament itself betrays its trust, by contributing to establish new principles of government, and employing the very weapons committed to it by the collective body to stab the constitution. As for the terms of the remonstrance, I presume it will not be affirmed, by any person less polished than a gentleman usher, that this is a season for compliments. Our gracious King, indeed, is abundantly civil to himself. Instead of an answer to a petition, his Majesty very graciously pronounces his own panegyric; and I confess that, as far as his personal behaviour, or the royal purity of his intentions, is concern. ed, the truth of those declarations, which the Minister has drawn up for his Master, cannot decently be disputed. In every other respect, I affirm, that they are absolutely unsupported either in argument or fact, I must add, too, that supposing the speech were otherwise unexceptionable, it is not a direct answer to the petition of the City. His Majesty is pleased to say, that he is always ready to receive the requests of his subjects; yet the sheriffs were twice sent back with an excuse; and it was cer tainly debated, in council, whether or no the Magistrates of the City of London should be admitted to an audience. Whether the remon strance be or be not injurious to Parliament, is the very question between the Parliament and the people, and such a question as cannot be decided by the assertion of a third party, however respectable. That the petitioning for a dissolution of Parliament is irreconcileable with the principles of the constitution, is a new doctrine. His Majesty, perhaps, has not been informed, that the House of Commons themselves, have, by a formal resolution, admitted it to be the right of the subject. His Majesty proceeds to assure us, that he has made the laws the rule of his conduct. Was it in ordering or permit. ting his Ministers to apprehend Mr. Wilkes by a general warrant? Was it in suffering his Ministers to revive the obsolete maxim of nullum tempus, to rob the Duke of Portland of his pro perty, and thereby give a decisive turn to a county election? Was it in erecting a chamber consultation of surgeons, with authority to examine into and supersede the legal verdict of a jury? Or did his Majesty consult the laws of this country, when he permitted his Secretary of State to declare, that, whenever the civil magistrate is trifled with, a military force must be sent for, without the delay of a moment, and effectually employed? Or was it in the barbarous exactness with which this illegal, inhuman doctrine was carried into execution? If his Majesty had recollected these facts, I think, he would never have said, at least with any reference to the |