distinguishes the acts even of abfolute power in this monarchy from the arbitrary proceedings of princes, whofe will is the law, and whofe minifters are accountable to none but themselves. It would not therefore, ftrictly speaking, be an arbitrary proceeding in the crown to act contrary to the advice of the parliament. But it would be unconftitutional to do it, in matters relating to the administration of government, and the punishment of the minister to whom the act was found to be imputable would explain the nature, and fhew the demerit of this offence. The legislative power muft not, however, be confounded with the executive part of government. The parliament cannot be faid to advise the crown, when either or both houfes pafs a law. It acts in that cafe in its legiflative capacity, and not as the GREAT COUNCIL of the nation. And as either house has a negative upon the other, fo the crown has, by the conftitution, one upon both. In the exercife of it, more perhaps than in any other thing, the will of the crown properly advised, may, without impropriety, be called abfolute and unlimited. And as the crown is in this matter a truftee for the people, having equal powers with the reprefentatives chofen by themfelves, it may, and for good reafons (of which none can be more weighty than the general difapprobation of the people properly manifefted) ought to refufe the royal affent to a bill, though agreed upon by both houfes of parliament. The propriety of fuch a ftep in the crown muft ftand upon the fufficiency of the reafons for it. And upon the fame foot will ftand the fafety of the minifter who ventures to advife the crown to it. Nor need any minifter dread the refentment of parliament, if he can fatisfy the people of the rectitude of his advice to the crown. -To attempt to govern without a parliament (which is the fecond alternative fuppofed in the

query) would be to attempt to deftroy the conftitution, and to make a limited and mixed government give way to an abfolute and arbitrary power.

Q. 9. Has not the parliament in the strongest manner, by fo great a majority, approved the peace and the perfons who made it?

Anf. The parliament did in a very strong manner, by a great majority, approve of the preliminaries: and the perfons who accepted of the preliminaries have, in the ftrongeft manner, difapproved of the parliament's approbation of them, by not choofing to conclude a definitive treaty, without infifting for, and actually obtaining more advantageous terms than were agreed to by the preliminaries which has clearly fhewn, that the peace, approved of by parliament, was not the beft that could have been had, nor fuch a one as ought to have been confented to at first.

Q. 10. Is not every corporation (even the city of London in petitioning) every public company, nay even every private club, guided, determined, and governed by the majority of opinions?

Anf. Most certainly every corporation (the city of London not excepted in petitioning or any thing elfe) every public company, nay even every private club, that has any order, and has no particular conftitution to the contrary, is guided, determined, and governed by the majority of opinions; and as in acts a majority muft be decifive in councils or opinions, their weight will be greater or lefs, according to the number and circumstances of the majority and minority.

Q. 11. Does the actual execution conftitute a right of acting, and will the city of London's petitioning his majefty to refuse his affent to a bill [alluding to the excife bill] to be prefented to them by his parliament, and in that to act contrary to the

advice of his and the nation's council, prove it to be right because they did it?

Anf. Acting fuppofes and gives reafon to prefume, but does not conftitute a right to act. The city of London's petitioning his majefty not to give the royal affent to a bill to be prefented to them by parliament, and in that not to agree with the then prefent, but fallible and mutable opinion of the parliament, in its legiflative capacity, does not prove it to have been right to do lo. Nor does the king's not having been of the fame mind with the city of London prove, that it would have been wrong to have been fo. And it might have been right for the city of London to have petitioned, though they had not actually done it; and for the king not to have given the royal affent to that bill, if he had received no petition, at all against it. But the king's not giving the royal affent to any bill, that has paffed both houses of parliament, differs widely from his acting contrary to the advice of the parliament, when, acting as the GREAT COUNCIL of the nation, in affairs relating to the adminiftration of government, of which the laws in being, and the fundamental rules of the conftitution, are the true ftandard.

Q. 12. Is there no mob in England? Are there no defcendants of Wat Tyler's and Jack Straw's exifting? What would an affemblage of thofe miferable English wretches yearly hanged and tranfported, the many thousands who are daily purfuing the fame fteps to deftruction, be termed? What were thofe, whofe indecent hiffings, &c. at perfons of respectable and facred characters, ftamp ignominy on a civilized people, and on liberty itself, but a mob? What were the infulting acclamations, on a certain indecent proceffion to the city, of the great commoner, but the clamour of an ignorant intoxicated rabble? But I fhall anfwer this query myfelf,

F 3

myself, by faying, that though the giddy, ignorant, intoxicated and deceived rabble, may be the attendants, followers and emiffaries, even of perfons of rank and fortune, they may nevertheless ftill be a mob: nor is it any breach of good manners in ftiling them fuch, though they are our countrymen. Let his advocates give a name to any body whatever, who fhall fet up to oppofe the determination of king, lords, and commons, render them odious to the multitude, the ignorant, unthinking, wanton croud, and thereby attempt to overthrow the whole conftitution.

pers,

I must beg leave to answer a question in the pa• Whether the voice of the nation be not conftitutional, becaufe Mr. Pitt was brought into the • ministry in 1757," by another, viz. whether becaufe the Highland rebels did come into England, at a time when it could not be prevented, that it was by the voice of the English nation? It is well known that they both forced their way.

Anf. There may be fuch a thing as in the queftion is meant by mob in England. But the PEOPLE OF ENGLAND is a known and a refpectable name. I cultivate no acquaintance with the perfons, becaufe I abhor the principles of the defcendants of Wat Tyler's and Jack Straw's, if any fuch exist, who adopt their tenets, or approve their practices. Their rebellion fhould be looked upon with a just deteftation, at the fame time that it prefents a fad proof of the danger of fubftituting a rigorous inftead of a gentle method of levying a tax, in itself unpopular, efpecially when the people had been previously incenfed against fome of their chief rulers. For fuch are the circumftances of that rebellion, as recorded in hiftory. The affemblage defcribed in the query, would juftly be termed, as the querift does term it, a company of wretches. I alfo think they might deferve to be called a mob,

who

who would make indecent hiffings, &c. at perfons of refpectable and facred characters; but the hifsings of fuch perfons can ftamp ignominy only on themselves, not upon a civilized people who do not countenance, nor on liberty which does not justify any misbehaviour. It remains however to be proved, (and that is the querift's business) that the perfons hiffed at were really of refpectable and facred characters, for upon that depends the decency or indecency, and even the impropriety, of the hiffings. Infulting acclamations, on occafion of any indecent proceffion, to the city, or to any other place, may be prefumed to be the noife of an ignorant and intoxicated rabble. But acclamations will not of themselves prove that they were of an infulting kind: They fhould rather naturally receive a different interpretation; and the indecency of the proceffion must be fhewn before any acclamations attending it can be fairly condemned.It is not neceffary to difpute with the querift the truth or justice of the anfwer he gives to his own query, when he fays, that though the giddy, ignorant, intoxicated and deceived rabble may be the attendants, followers, and emiffaries, even of perfons of rank and fortune, they may nevertheless be ftill a mob. For a mob, whether defcribed by a ftring of mobbish epithets, fuch as there ufed by the querift, or by the one contemptuous menoyllable, will still be but a mob. One, however, thould be very fure that the defcription is applicable to the perfons meant to be defcribed, booze fuch Pberties are taken with our fellow fibreers, lomity be as good men as ourfelves. And those who pay any regard to the impartial telimony of our pracious Lovereign, as well as they who, fom their own conviction, are of the fame opinion with his majefty, as to the great and important fervices done to this country, by the perfon who was jufty no.

F4

noured