yond the minister, and materially affect his majesty's honour. In their own nature, they are formidable enough to alarm a man of prudence, and disgraceful enough to afflict a man of spirit. A subject whose sincere attachment to his majesty's person and family is founded upon rational principles, will not, in the present conjuncture, be scrupulous of alarming, or even of afflicting, his sovereign. I know there is another sort of loyalty, of which his majesty has had plentiful experience. When the loyalty of Tories, Jacobites, and Scotchmen, has once taken possession of an unhappy prince, it seldom leaves him without accomplishing his destruction. When the poison of their doctrines has tainted the natural benevolence of his disposition, when their insidious councils have corrupted the stamina of his government, what antidote can restore him to his political health and honour, but the firm sincerity of his English subjects?

It has not been usual in this country, at least since the days of Charles the First, to see the sovereign personally at variance, or engaged in a direct altercation with his subjects. Acts of grace and indulgence are wisely appropriated to him, and should constantly be performed by himself. He never should appear but in an amiable light to his subjects. Even in France, as long as any ideas of a limited monarchy were thought worth preserving, it was a maxim, that no man should leave the royal presence discontented. They have lost, or renounced, the moderate principles of their government; and now, when their parliaments venture to remonstrate, the tyrant comes forward, and answers absolutely for himself. The spirit of their present constitution requires, that the king should be feared; and the principle, I believe, is tolerably supported by the fact, But, in our political system, the theory is at variance

with the practice; for the the king should be beloved. Measures of greater severity may, indeed, in some circumstances, be necessary; but the minister who advises, should take the execution and odium of them entirely upon himself. He not only betrays his master, but violates the spirit of the English constitution, when he exposes the chief magistrate to the personal hatred, or contempt of his subjects. When we speak of the firmness of government, we mean an uniform system of measures, deliberately adopted, and resolutely maintained by the servants of the crown; not a peevish asperity in the language or behaviour of the sovereign. The government of a weak, iriesolute monarch may be wise, moderate, and firm; that of an obstinate, capricious prince, on the contrary, may be feeble, undetermined, and relaxed. The reputation of public measures depends upon the minister, who is responsible; not upon the king, whose private opinions are not supposed to have any weight against the advice of his council, and whose personal authority should, therefore, never be interposed in public affairs. This, I believe, is true constitutional doctrine. But, for a moment, let us suppose it false. Let it be taken for granted, that an occasion may arise, in which a king of England shall be compelled to take upon himself the ungrateful office of rejecting the petitions, and censuring the conduct of his subjects; and let the city remonstrance be supposed to have created so extraordinary an occasion. On this principle, which I presume no friend of administration will dispute, let the wisdom and spirit of the ministry be examined. They advise the king to hazard his dignity, by a positive declaration of his own sentiments. They suggest to him a language full of severity and reproach. What follows? When his majesty had taken so decisive a part in support of his ministry and parlia

ment, he had a right to expect from them a reciprocal demonstration of firmness in their own cause, and of their zeal for his honour. He had reason to expect, (and such, I doubt not, were the blustering promises of Lord North,) that the persons whom he had been advised to charge with having failed in their respect to him, with having injured parliament, and violated the principles of the constitution, should not have been permitted to escape without some severe marks of the displeasure and vengeance of parliament. As the matter stands, the minister, after placing his sovereign in the most unfavourable light to his subjects, and after attempting to fix the ridicule and odium of his own precipitate measures upon the royal character, leaves him a solitary figure upon the scene, to recal, if he can, or to compensate, by future compliances, for one unhappy demonstration of ill-supported firmness and ineffectual resentment. As a man of spirit, his majesty cannot but be sensible, that the lofty terms in which he was persuaded to reprimand the city, when united with the silly conclusion of the business, resemble the pomp of a mock-tragedy, where the most pathetic sentiments, and even the sufferings of the hero, are calculated for derision.

Such has been the boasted firmness and consistency of a minister*, whose appearance in the House of Commons was thought essential to the king's service; whose ⚫presence was to influence every division; who had a voice to persuade, an eye to penetrate, a gesture to command. The reputation of these great qualities has

This graceful minister is oddly constructed. His tongue is a little too big for his mouth, and his eyes a great deal too big for their sockets. Every part of his person sets natural proportion at defiance. At this present writing, his head is supposed to be much too heavy for his shoulders.

been fatal to his friends. The little dignity of Mr. Ellis has been committed. The mine was sunk; combustibles provided; and Welbore Ellis, the Guy Faux of the fable, waited only for the signal of command. All of a sudden, the country gentlemen discover how grossly they have been deceived-the minister's heart fails him; the grand plot is defeated in a moment; and poor Mr. Ellis and his motion taken into custody. From the event of Friday last, one would imagine that some fatality hung over this gentleman. Whether he makes, or suppresses, a motion, he is equally sure of his disgrace. But the complexion of the times will suffer no man to be vice-treasurer of Ireland with impunity*.

I do not mean to express the smallest anxiety for the minister's reputation. He acts separately for himself, and the most shameful inconsistency may perhaps be no disgrace to him. But when the sovereign, who represents the majesty of the state, appears in person, his dignity should be supported. The occasion should be important; the plan well considered; the execution steady and consistent. My zeal for his majesty's real honour compels me to assert, that it has been too much the system of the present reign, to introduce him personally, either to act for, or to defend his servants. They persuade him to do what is properly their

* About this time the courtiers talked of nothing but a bill of pains and penalties against the lord mayor and sheriffs, or im-* peachment at the least. Little Mannikin Ellis told the king, that if the business were left to his management, he would engage to do wonders. It was thought very odd, that a motion of so much importance should be entrusted to the most contemptible little piece of machinery in the whole kingdom. His honest zeal, howe ever, was disappointed. The minister took fright; and, at the very instant that little Ellis was going to open, sent him an order to sit down. All their magnanimous threats ended in a ridicu lous vote of censure, and a still more ridiculous address to the king.

business, and desert him in the midst of it. Yet this is an inconvenience to which he must for ever be exposed, while he adheres to a ministry divided among themselves, or unequal in credit and ability to the great task they have undertaken. Instead of reserving the interposition of the royal personage as the last resource of government, their weakness obliges them to apply it to every ordinary occasion, and to render it cheap and common in the opinion of the people. Instead of supporting their master, they look to him for support; and, for the emoluments of remaining one day more in office, care not how much his sacred character is prostituted and dishonoured.

If I thought it possible for this paper to reach the closet, I would venture to appeal at once to his majesty's judgment. I would ask him, but in the most respectful terms, "As you are a young man, sir, who ought to have a life of happiness in prospect; as you are a husband,—as you are a father, (your filial duties I own, have been religiously performed,) is it bona fide for your interest, or your honour, to sacrifice your domestic tranquillity, and to live in a perpetual disagreement with your people, merely to preserve such a chain of beings as North, Barrington, Weymouth, Gower, Ellis, Onslow, Rigby, Jerry Dyson, and Sandwich? Their very names are a satire upon all government; and I defy the gravest of your chaplains to read the catalogue without laughing."

For my own part, sir, I have always considered addresses from parliament, as a fashionable, unmeaning formality. Usurpers, idiots, and tyrants, have been successively complimented with almost the same professions of duty and affection. But let us suppose them to mean exactly what they profess. The consequences deserve to be considered. Either the sove