certainly debated in council whether or no the Magistrates of the City of London should be admitted to an audience. Whether the remonstrance 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 permitting his Ministers to apprehend Mr. Wilkes by a general warrant?—Was is in suffering his Ministers to revive the obsolete maxim of nullum tempus to rob the Duke of Portland of his property, 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
