tent to bequeath its remoteft pofterity as vaffals to the Great Mogul, or as flaves to the Emperor of Morocco. For if that generation has power to abdicate one right for its defcendants, it has power to abdicate all; if it has power to confign them for ever to one potentate, it has power to confign them to any.

The main concern of every Englishman is not with the conduct of his ancestors, but with his own; not to difcover whether his forefathers, in framing the Acts of Parliament alluded to, meant to arrogate to themselves a power, which it was impoffible for them to poffefs, of renouncing for their posterity the right in question; but whether their posterity now existing have exprefsly or virtually renounced it for themselves.

Now it feems altogether improbable that any nation, in delegating the exercife of authority to governors under certain conditions, fhould defign to contract, that provided those conditions fhould be observed on their part, no circumftance, no crifis whatever, no conceivable

H 3

1

ceivable viciffitude or emergency of human affairs, fhould induce it to interfere, and alter the Conftitution without their confent. Nothing but evidence too authentic to be denied, too precise to be misunderstood, nothing short of moral demonftration, would be fufficient to prove, that if a fundamental change in the fyftem were requifite in the opinion of the nation for the public fafety and happiness, the Legislature would have a right, according to the terms on which it holds its authority, for ever to interpose its veto; and to obstruct the general security and welfare, the avowed objects of all Civil Government, on the plea of the inviolability of its particular privileges.

In the present cafe, the demonstrative evidence appears on the other fide of the question.

In proof of this affertion may be produced the direct teftimony of a writer, generally efteemed one of the ableft expofitors of the rights of Englishmen, and universally allowed to be free from an undue bias to the fide of democratic control. Sir William Blackftone pronounces

pronounces (m), that "whenever a question "arifes between the fociety at large, and any "magiftrate vefted with powers originally de"legated by that society, it must be decided by "the voice of the fociety itself: there is not

upon earth any other tribunal to refort to.' In another part of his Commentaries (n), fpeaking of the prerogative claimed by James the First, he says: "The people heard with "astonishment doctrines preached from the "throne and the pulpit fubverfive of liberty "and property, and all the natural rights of "humanity. They examined into the divi"nity of this claim, and found it weakly and "fallacioufly fupported. And common reafon “ assured them that, if it were of human origin, "no Conflitution could establish it without power | "of revocation." And in another place, having first observed that in cafes of unconftitutional oppreffion on the part of the Sovereign Power (0) "mankind will not be rea"foned out of the feelings of humanity; nor "will facrifice their liberty by a scrupulous

(m) Blackftone, vol. i. p. 212. (n) Ibid. vol. iv. p. 436. (0) Ibid. vol. i. p. 245. H 4 " adherence

7

"adherence to those political maxims which

were originally established to preserve it;" he afterwards proceeds in the following decifive terms: "In thefe, or other circumstances "which a fertile imagination may furnish, fince "both law and hiftory are filent, it becomes 66 us to be filent too; leaving to future gene"rations, whenever neceffity and the safety "of the whole shall require it, the exertion of thofe inherent, though latent powers of fociety, "which no climate, no time, no conftitution, no “contract (p), can ever destroy or diminish.”

66

Few

(p) This expreffion of the learned Judge is not altogether accurate. An individual has it in his power to furrender for himself the right in question, like any other of his actual rights, by contract; and confequently all the individuals composing a nation are equally competent to furrender it for themselves. However, it is undeniably Sir William Blackstone's opinion, that the English Nation has entered into no fuch contract with its deputed Governors; and that cafes of the fort now under discussion are not included in the focial compact (the existence of which he repeatedly maintains), but are left open to be decided, if ever they should occur, by the will of the community. Those who deny the existence of a focial compact arrive by another road at the fame conclufion. "law or authority whatever is fo binding, that it need or

"No usage,

"ought

Few national proceedings, however, could at any period be more criminal than a needless and improvident exercise of the right in queftion. On the prefiding energy of Government depend all the advantages which polished

and

« ought to be continued, when it may be changed with "advantage to the community. The family of the Prince, "the order of Succeffion, the prerogative of the Crown, "the form and parts of the Legislature, together with the "respective powers, office, duration, and mutual dependen"cy of the feveral parts, are all only fo many laws, mutable "like other laws whenever expediency requires; either "by the ordinary Act of the Legislature; or, if the occafion deferve it, by the interpofition of the people." Paley's Moral and Political Philofophy, 6th edition, vol. ii. p. 146.

The Revolution of 1688 was an instance in which the right under confideration was exercised. The proceedings of the Convention Parliament can be vindicated only on these two principles: that the Nation had a right to make fuch changes in its Conftitution as it deemed effential to the public good; even though they should directly affect the then constitutional rights of those of the Royal Family who had broken no compact, but on the contrary were univerfally acknowledged as the friends and defenders of the people: and that the Nation had authorised the Parliament to exercife that right on its behalf to a very ample extent. In conformity to these principles, after the expulfion of James, who had been guilty of the breach of contract; after the exclufion of the Prince of Wales, who

had