A History and Defence of Magna Charta/Introductory Discourse

by Samuel Johnson

INTRODUCTORY

DISCOURSE.

Though it is very difficult to trace the firſt rudiments of the policy and laws eſtabliſhed in England, yet we have the greateſt reaſon to believe, that the natives, even in the earlieſt ages, were divided into ſmall communities, in which a kind of democracy had the aſcendant. Cæsar, on his invaſion of this iſland, ſeems to confirm this opinion in ſeveral paſſages of his commentaries, and expreſsly tells us, “The chief command and adminiſtration of the war was, by the common council, beſtowed on Cassivelan.” In emerging from a ſtate of rudeneſs and ſimplicity, men generally act from that ſpirit of independance to which they have been accuſtomed. It is probable, therefore, that the old inhabitants had no monarch; but, upon any extraordinary occaſion, ſummoned a national meeting and choſe a chief from among thoſe who were the moſt diſtinguiſhed for their abilities.

After the Romans had withdrawn their protection, and the Britons were expoſed to the inſults of the Picts and Scots, they invited over the Anglo-Saxons; who ſoon after became their tyrants, and formed ſeven Saxon kingdoms upon the ruins of the conquered country. In conſequence of this, the antient inhabitants were exterminated; or forced to ſeek an aſylum in the inacceſſible mountains. Their laws, manners, and language were aboliſhed, and thoſe of the Saxons were eſtabliſhed in their ſtead. To the characters of conquerors theſe people were ambitious to add that of legiſlators: and there is very good reaſon to believe that many of the laws which remain in force even at this day, are the ſame which were brought from the northern parts of Germany by the Saxon invaders. Though the title of King was not uſed amongſt them, their chiefs aſſumed it, ſoon after their arrival in this iſland. In Saxony their governors were appointed by an aſſembly general of the nation, which was called Witennagemot, which, in the Saxon language, ſignifies the meeting of the wiſe men, and which regulated all the important affairs of the ſtate. When the Saxon conqueſts in England were divided into ſeven kingdoms, the monarchs being under a neceſſity of retaining great numbers of their own countrymen among their ſubjects, were cautious of exerciſing a deſpotic power, and therefore continued to hold the Witennagemot wherever the common intereſt of the people was concerned. From hence in ſome degree we are enabled to determine the nature of their conſtitution; as each kingdom of the Heptarchy had its ſovereign, it was partly monarchical; as the King could not make laws without the conſent of the principal men of the nation, it was, it ſome degree, ariſtocratical; and as the people, who held their lands of the nobles, were ſummoned to the general aſſembly, we have reaſon to ſuppoſe it was, in ſome meaſure, democratical. That the crown was elective ſeems probable from the diſtant branches of the royal family, often ſucceeding to the throne before thoſe who were the neareſt relations of the monarch.

During the dominion of theſe people, which laſted above ſix hundred years, the celebrated Alfred formed a code of laws, that will, for ever, do the greateſt honour to the memory of that amiable prince. Convinced that oppreſſion naturally follows power, to ſcreen the humble from the tyranny of the great, he inſtituted trials by jury; by which, in all criminal caſes it was ordained, that twelve men ſhould decide whether the accuſed perſon was guilty of the offence laid to his charge or not, and that the judge ſhould pronounce ſentence agreeably to their verdict. Theſe twelve jurymen were choſen from amongſt the peers of the delinquent. It is neceſſary to obſerve in this place, that in England there are but two degrees or orders of men; viz. the peers of the realm and commoners. All dukes, marquiſſes, earls, viſcounts, and barons are not only peers of the realm, but peers amongſt themſelves; ſo that the moſt inferior baron is the peer of the greateſt duke. The reſt of the people are called the commoners, without diſtinction, by which the pooreſt labourer is the peer of every one under the degree of a baron. The peers of the realm from this noble privilege, eſtabliſhed or revived by King Alfred, are judged by thoſe of their own rank; that is, by the reſt of the lords; and the commoners by their equals alſo. The only difference between the lords and commons in this matter, is, that every peer has a right to give his voice at the trial of any culprit, of the former denomination; and that twelve men only, are to acquit or condemn any perſon that is claſſed amongſt the latter.

After various revolutions, the ſeven kingdoms were reduced to one, the ſceptre of the Saxons paſſed into the hands of the Danes; and returned, in proceſs of time, into the poſſeſſion of the Saxons again.

During theſe affairs the Engliſh conſtitution, from the beſt accounts, appears to have ſuffered no little alteration; the nobles, by degrees, uſurped an authority which the laws had not entitled them to; they limited the prerogative of the King; and invaded the rights of the people, ſo that the government in England continually approached towards an Ariſtocracy. The inſolence of earl Goodwin to Edward the Confeſſor probably occaſioned that cautious monarch, who had good reaſon to ſuſpect that the earl had intentions of aſpiring to his crown, to invite over to his court William of Normandy. This viſit, furniſhed that enterprizing nobleman ſome years after with a pretence to inherit the throne, for on Harold’s being nominated ſucceſſor to King Edward, William inſiſted that he had been promiſed the crown by the late King, and that Harold himſelf had taken an oath to aſſiſt him in obtaining it; and ſubmitting his cauſe to the judgment of Pope Alexander II. Harold was declared an uſurper by that pontiff.

In conſequence of this deciſion, William invaded England with a powerful army, and ſlew Harold in the memorable battle of Haſtings; and, by that act, ended the government of the Saxons in England, two hundred and thirty ſeven years after the union of the Heptarchy, and ſix hunded and ſeventeen after the landing of Hengist.

William was ſo far from founding his title to the crown upon a right of conqueſt, that he took every method in his power to eſtabliſh the opinion of his being heir to King Edward, from the particular appointment of that monarch, and when he was crowned, ſome time afterwards, the people’s conſent was obtained before he aſcended the throne, and he even made a compact to inſure the liberties of his ſubjects, by ſwearing the ſame coronation oath which had uſually been taken by the Saxon monarchs. Though he violated this engagement afterwards, and greatly oppreſſed and impoveriſhed the people, yet the conſtitution, as an eminent writer obſerves, was not an abſolute monarchy, but an engraftment of the feudal tenures and other Norman cuſtoms upon the antient Saxon laws of Edward the Confeſſor, which King William not only ſwore to maintain, but confirmed afterwards in parliament.

Though it muſt be allowed, that theſe laws were greatly altered, and produced a conſiderable change in power and property, yet they were agreed to, by the whole legiſlature, and the liberty of the ſubject was, in ſome reſpects, preſerved; The freemen, ſays one of the ſtatutes enacted in this reign, ſhall hold and enjoy their land and poſſeſſions, free from all unjuſt exaction and tallage; and nothing ſhall be exacted from them, but their free ſervice, which they, by right, owe to the crown. This, by ſome learned writers, as it was confirmed to the people by the common council of the kingdom, is called the firſt Magna Charta of the Normans.

After the death of the conqueror, who bequeathed the crown to his ſecond ſon William Rufus, the whole nation felt, in the ſevereſt manner, what heavy burthens the feudal laws by arbitrary conſtructions could impoſe upon the ſubject; and how the rights of the King and liberties of the people were infringed by the power of the nobility.

It was from the reign of Henry I. that we ought to derive the firſt regular ſettlement of the Anglo-Norman conſtitution; though the commons, till long after this time, were greatly overbalanced in power and property by the clergy and nobles, who, while they interpoſed between the crown and the people, incroached upon the rights of the latter ſo much, that deſpotiſm itſelf could not be more oppreſſive, and the commonalty ſuffered all the evils of ſlavery under the appearance of freedom.

The feudal government having degenerated into a ſyſtem of tyranny in moſt parts of Europe, and the uſurpations of the nobles having become unbounded and intolerable; the cities of Italy became impatient to ſhake off the yoke of their inſolent lords; and about the beginning of the eleventh century, they united together, boldly aſſumed new privileges, and were rouzed by ſuch a ſpirit of independance, that they formed themſelves into corporate bodies; and, under pretence of recovering their antient property, took poſſeſſion of the caſtles of the barons, and obliged thoſe haughty lords to ſwear an oath of fidelity to them, and even become members of their community, and ſubject their eſtates to all taxes and fines impoſed by the common conſent of the people.

This revolution ſoon made its way into France, where Louis le Gros, in order to take away from the power of the nobility, conferred new privileges upon the inhabitants of that nation, and formed them into corporations, which relieved them from thoſe arbitrary and grievous impoſitions, to which they had formerly been ſubjected, and they were governed by known and equal laws.

Even in the feudal ſyſtem of policy no freeman could be governed or taxed, but by his own conſent. It was natural, therefore, for the towns, who formerly depended for protection on the lords of whom they held, as ſoon as they were infranchiſed, to be ambitious of acquiring all the rights eſſential to independency. In conſequence of this, as they gained any degree of credit and influence, they inſiſted on the privilege of a deciſive voice in enacting laws and granting ſubſidies.

The happy effects of admitting the repreſentatives of cities into the great council of the nation, were ſoon very apparent. An intermediate power between the King and nobles was eſtabliſhed; which, on ſome occaſions, checked the uſurpations of the one, and at other times oppoſed the encroachment of the other. It was not long before theſe new inſtitutions were introduced into England. Henry I. perceiving that the ſureſt method to obtain the crown and ſet aſide the pretenſions of his elder brother Robert, would be to eſtabliſh himſelf in the favour of the people, by procuring them ſuch national benefits, as would make his intereſt that of the public; took every method to alleviate the heavy burthens which had become ſo inſupportable to the lower rank of his ſubjects; he granted, to give liberty a more ſolid and laſting foundation, the outlines of that celebrated Charter which is the ſubject of the following ſheets. A Charter in which the Saxon laws in uſe under Edward the Confeſſor, were reſtored to the people, and which annulled all evil cuſtoms, illegal exactions and unjuſt oppreſſions. The King and his ſubjects thus united together by this great inſtrument of mutual obligation; the conduct of that monarch, for ſome time, entirely agreed with the engagements he had made; he remitted a number of debts that were due to the crown, and redreſſed ſeveral grievances which the people complained of, by mitigating the moſt oppreſſive of the feudal laws, and puniſhing ſuch perſons as were enemies to the people, and had made themſelves odious by an abuſe of their power.

On the acceſſion of King Stephen, he acknowledged his being elected by the conſent of the people: he granted them a Charter, in which he confirmed all their liberties, privileges, and immunities; and aboliſhed all the laws relating to hunting and forfeits which had been enacted ſince the conqueſt; and when he broke his compact, afterwards he involved himſelf in troubles that laſted during the greateſt part of his reign.

We ſhall fay nothing here of the grant of the Great Charter, which was obtained in the year one thouſand two hundred and fifteen, from King John, as that intereſting circumſtance is fully treated of in the following hiſtory. It would exceed the limits we have been obliged to preſcribe to ourſelves in this introductory eſſay to particularize the eſtabliſhment of the parliament under Edward I. and the various changes it underwent, from the fraud of ſome, and the violence of others, till the reign of that unfortunate monarch, Charles; whoſe unhappy diſputes with his commons in the year 1628, produced that ſpirited remonſtrance; intitled the petition of rights, which was ſo called, becauſe the drift of it was, not ta deſire of the King any grace or favour, but only the maintenance of the tights of the people.

This celebrated paper was preſented by the commons, the ſecond of June, 1628. and was drawn up in the following words:

“To the King’s moſt excellent Majeſty,

“Humbly ſhew unto our ſovereign lord the King, the lords ſpiritual and temporal, and commons in parliament aſſembled, that whereas, it is declared and enacted by a ſtatute, made in the time of the reign of King Edward I. commonly called Statutum de Tallagio non concedendo, that no tallage or aid ſhould be laid or levied, by the King or his heirs, in this realm, without the good will and aſſent of the archbiſhops, biſhops, earls, barons, knights, burgeſſes, and other freemen of the commonalty of this realm: and by authority of parliament holden in the five and twentieth year of the reign of King Edward III. it is declared and enacted, that from henceforth, no perſon ſhall be compelled to make any loans to the King againſt his will, becauſe ſuch loans were againſt reaſon, and the franchiſe of the land; and by other laws of this realm it is provided, that none ſhall be charged by any charge or impoſition, called a benevolence, nor by ſuch like charge, by which the ſtatutes beforementioned, and other good laws and ſtatutes of this realm, your ſubjects have inherited this freedom, that they ſhould not be compelled to contribute to any tax, tallage, aid, or other like charge, not ſet by common conſent in parliament.

“Yet nevertheleſs, of late, divers commiſſions, directed to ſundry commiſſioners in ſeveral counties with inſtructions, have been iſſued, by means whereof, your people have been, in divers Places, aſſembled, and required to lend certain ſums of money unto your majeſty, and many of them, upon their refuſal ſo to do, have had an oath adminiſtered unto them, not warrantable by the laws and ſtatutes of this realm, and have been conſtrained to become bound to make appearance, and give attendance before your privy-council and in other places, and others of them have been therefore impriſoned, confined, and ſundry other ways moleſted and diſquieted: and divers other charges have been laid and levied upon your people in ſeveral counties, by lord lieutenants, deputy lieutenants, commiſſioners for muſters, Juſtices of peace, and others, by command or direction from your majeſty, or your privy-council, againſt the laws and free cuſtoms of the realm. And where, alſo, by the ſtatute called, The Great Charter of the liberties of England; it is declared and enacted, That no freeman may be taken or impriſoned, or be diſſeized of his freehold of liberties, or his free cuſtoms, or be outlawed or exiled, or in any manner deſtroyed, but by lawful judgement of his Peers, or by the law of the land.

“And in the eight and twentieth year of the reign of King Edward III. it was declared and enacted by authority of parliament, That no man, of what eſtate or condition that he be, ſhould be put out of his lands or tenements, nor taken nor impriſoned, nor diſinherited, nor put to death without being brought to anſwer by due proceſs of law.

“Nevertheless, againſt the tenour of the ſaid ſtatutes, and other, the good laws and ſtatutes of your realm, to that end provided divers of your ſubjects have of late been impriſoned, without any juſt cauſe ſhewed; and when for their deliverance they were brought before your juſtices, by your majeſty’s writs of Habeas Corpus, there to undergo and receive as the court ſhould order, and their keepers commanded to certify the cauſes of their detainer; no cauſe was certified, but that they were detained by your majeſty’s ſpecial command, ſignified by the lords of your privy council, and yet were returned back to ſeveral priſons without being charged with any thing to which they might anſwer according to law.

“And whereas of late great companies of ſoldiers and mariners have been diſperſed into divers counties of the realm, and the inhabitants againſt their wills have been compelled to receive them into their houſes, and there to ſuffer them to ſojourn, againſt the laws and cuſtoms of this realm, and to the great grievance and vexation of the people.

“And whereas alſo by authority of parliament in the twenty fifth year of the reign of King Edward III. it is declared and enacted, that no man ſhould be fore-judged of life or limb, againſt the form of the Great Charter, and the laws of the land, and by the ſaid Great Charter, and other the laws and ſtatutes of this your realm, no man ought to be adjudged to death, but by the laws eſtabliſhed in this your realm, either by the cuſtoms of the ſame realm or by acts of parliament: and whereas no offender of what kind ſoever is exempted from the proceedings to be uſed, and puniſhments to be inflicted by the laws and ſtatutes of this your realm; nevertheleſs of late time, divers commiſſions under your majeſty’s great ſeal have iſſued forth, by which certain perſons have been aſſigned and appointed commiſſioners, with power and authority to proceed within the land, according to the juſtice of martial law againſt ſuch ſoldiers, and mariners, or other diſſolute perſons joining with them, as ſhould commit any murder, robbery, felony, mutiny, or other outrage or miſdemeanor, whatſoever; and by ſuch ſummary courſe and order as is agreeable to martial law, and as is uſed in armies in time of war, to proceed to the trial and condemenation of ſuch offenders, and them to cauſe to be executed and put to death according to the law martial.

“By pretext whereof ſome of your majeſty’s ſubjects have been by ſome of the ſaid commiſſioners put to death; when and where, if by the laws and ſtatutes of the land, they had deſerved death, by the ſame laws and ſtatutes alſo they might, and by no other ought, to have been judged and executed.

“And alſo ſundry grievous offenders by colour thereof, claiming an exemption, have eſcaped the puniſhments due to them by the laws and ſtatutes of this your realm, by reaſon that divers of your officers and miniſters of juſtice have unjuſtly refuſed or foreborne to proceed againſt ſuch offenders according to the ſame laws and ſtatutes, upon pretence that the ſaid offenders were puniſhable only by martial laws and by authority of ſuch commiſſion as aforeſaid; which commiſſion and all others of like nature, are wholly and directly contrary to the ſaid laws and ſtatutes of this your realm.

“They do therefore humbly pray your moſt excellent majeſty that no man hereafter be compelled to make or yield any gift, loan, benevolence, tax, or ſuch like charge, without common conſent by act of parliament; and that none be called to make anſwer, or take ſuch oath, or to give attendance, or be confined, or otherwiſe moleſted or diſquieted concerning the ſame, or for refuſal thereof: and that no freeman in any ſuch manner, as is before mentioned, be impriſoned or detained: and that your majeſty would be pleaſed to remove the ſaid ſoldiers and mariners, and that your people may not be ſo burthened in the time to come: and that the aforeſaid commiſſions for proceeding by martial law, may be revoked, and annulled; and that hereafter, no commiſſions of like nature, may iſſue forth to any perſon or perſons whatſoever, to be executed as aforeſaid, left by colour of them, any of your majeſty’s ſubjects be deſtroyed or put to death, contrary to the laws and franchiſes of the land.

“All which they moſt humbly pray of your moſt excellent majeſty, as their rights and liberties, according to the laws and ſtatutes of this realm: and that your majeſty would alſo vouchſafe to declare, that the awards, doings, and proceedings to the prejudice of your people in any of the premiſes, ſhall not be drawn hereafter into conſequence or example: and that your majeſty would be alſo graciouſly pleaſed, for the further comfort and ſafety of your people, to declare your royal will and pleaſure, that in the things aforeſaid, all your officers and miniſters ſhall ſerve you according to the laws and ſtatutes of this realm, as they tender the honour of your majeſty and the proſperity of this kingdom.”

Though this petition had for its foundation, Magna Charta, ſix other ſtatutes, and a great number of precedents, yet the king endeavoured to evade the paſſing of it into a law, and when it was carried, he was ſo offended with the attempts of his people for an effectual redreſs of their grievances, that he abruptly diſſolved the parliament, and never called another for twelve years afterwards.

In 1640, after the people had made various applications to the monarch, in conſequence of the principles of arbitrary power aſſerted by the court, having bred a general diſcontent, he ſummoned a parliament, which paſſed the celebrated triennial bill providing that a parliament ſhould be held every third year.

On the debate upon this bill, lord Digby, obſerved, that it had been a maxim among the wiſeſt legiſlators, that whoever means to ſettle good laws muſt proceed in them, with a ſiniſter opinion of all mankind; and ſuppoſe that whoever is not wicked, it is for want only of the opportunity. It is that opportunity of being ill, Mr. Speaker, ſaid he, that we muſt take away, if ever we mean to be happy, which can never be done, but by the frequency of parliaments. No ſtate can wiſely be confident of any public miniſter’s continuing good, longer than the rod is over him. Surely therefore there is no man but will conclude with me, that as the deficiency of parliaments, hath been the cauſa cauſarum of all the miſchiefs and diſtempers of the preſent times; ſo the frequency of them is the ſole catholic antidote that can preſerve and ſecure the future from the like.

The unhappy diviſions between this prince and his people, it is well known, at laſt terminated in a civil war, ſoon after which the King loſt his life, the parliament ſeized upon the whole ſovereign authority, and entirely ſubverted the conſtitution.

Upon the re-eſtabliſhment of the government at the reſtoration, the power of the crown was greatly increaſed by the ſervility of the members of the houſe of commons, till the lords, joining with the King, in an attempt to annex the taking and ſettling the public accounts to the prerogative, they met with great oppoſition from the repreſentatives of the people, who thought they had ſubmitted to be fleeced in a moſt unmerciful manner, were not quite ſo tractable as to give up all their rights, but ſpiritedly voted the King’s guards to be unconſtitutional and paſſed the Habeas Corpus bill, which will always make their memory held in eſtimation by every lover of his country.

About this period, the houſe was divided into two parties, one of which was diſtinguiſhed by the name of the Court, and the other by the title of the Country; the former, ſays ſir William Temple, were grown numerous by a practice introduced about five years before this time, by the lord treaſurer, Clifford, of downright buying off one man after another, as they could make the bargain. The country party ſtill continued the majority, and retained more credit upon the corruption of the others, and their profeſſion of adherence to the true intereſts of the nation, eſpecially in the points of France, and popery. Where theſe came in queſtion, many of the court party voted with thoſe of the country, who then carried all before them; but whenever the court appeared to fall in with the true intereſts of the nation, eſpecially in thoſe two points, then many of the country party meaning fairly, fell in with the court and carried the votes; as they ſoon did upon the King’s pretence to grow bold with France, and reſolve upon a war, if the peace was refuſed.

The parliaments held afterwards in the reign of King Charles II. behaved with great ſpirit in paſſing the celebrated excluſion bill; and though the only parliament ſummored by King James, acted with rather too much ſubmiſſion, in granting him the revenues enjoyed by his brother, and depending upon his word for the ſecurity of the church of England, they never gave up the true intereſt of their country, ſince they ſtedfaſtly refuſed ſome time after to coincide with his arbirtrary meaſures.

At the glorious revolution the Bill of Rights further contributed to preſerve the liberties of the people. The contents of this noble inſtrument are as follow:

“I. That the pretended power of ſuſpending of laws, or execution of laws, by regal authority, without conſent of parliament, is illegal.

“II. That the pretended power of diſpenſing with laws or the execution of laws, by regal authority, as it hath been aſſumed and exerciſed of late, is illegal.

“III. That the commiſſion for erecting the late court of commiſſioners for eccleſiaſtical cauſes and all other commiſſioners and courts of the like nature, are illegal and pernicious.

“IV. That the levying of money for or to the uſe of the crown, by pretence of prerogative, without grant of parliament, for longer time, or in any other manner than the ſame is, or ſhall be granted, is illegal.

“V. That it is the right of the ſubjects to petition the King, and all commitments and proſecutions for ſuch petitioning are illegal.

“VI. That the raiſing or keeping a ſtanding army within the kingdom in time of peace, unleſs it be with conſent of parliament, is againſt law.

“VII. That the ſubjects, which are proteſtants, may have arms for their defence, ſuitable to their condition, and as allowed by law.

“VIII. That election of members of parliament ought to be free.

“IX. That the freedom of ſpeech, and debates or proceedings in parliament, ought not to be impeached or queſtioned, in any court or place out of parliament.

“X. That exceſſive bail ought not to be required, nor exceſſive fines impoſed, nor cruel and unuſual puniſhments inflicted.

“XI. That jurors ought to be duly empannelled and returned; and jurors, which paſs upon men in trial for high-treaſon, ought to be freeholders.

“XII. That all grants and promiſes, of fines and forfeitures of particular perſons, before conviction, are illegal and void.

“XIII. And that for redreſs of all grievances, and for the amending, ſtrengthening, and preſerving of the laws, parliaments ought to be held frequently.”

Another popular bill, which paſſed in this reign, was that for limiting the duration of parliaments for three years; as the people had ſuffered extremely during the long ſitting of the houſe of commons in the former reigns, in which the triennal act paſſed by Charles I. had been repealed. To the proceedings of the houſe of commons at this time alſo, we owe our preſent happy ſituation, under the houſe of Hanover, the ſucceſſion of which was eſtabliſhed upon the following excellent conditions:

“I. That all things relating to the well governing of this kingdom, which are properly cognizable in the privy-council, ſhall be tranſacted there, and all reſolutions taken thereupon, ſhall be ſigned by the Privy-council.

“II. That no perſon whatſoever, that is not a native of England, Scotland or Ireland, or the dominions thereunto belonging; or who is not born of Engliſh parents beyond the ſeas, although ſuch perſons be naturalized or made denizens, ſhall be capable of any grant of lands, tenements, or hereditaments from the crown to himſelf, or any other in truſt for him.

“III. That upon the further limitation of the crown, in caſe the ſame ſhall hereafter come to any perſon, not being a native of this kingdom of England, this nation be not obliged to engage in any war for the defence of any dominion, or territories, not belonging to the crown of England, without the conſent of parliament.

“IV. That whoſoever ſhall hereafter come to the poſſeſſion of this crown, ſhall join in communion with the church of England as by law eſtabliſhed.

“V. That no pardon be pleadable to any impeachment in parliament.

“VI. That no perſon who ſhall hereafter come to the poſſeſſion of this crown, ſhall go out of the dominions of England, Scotland, or Ireland, without conſent of parliament.

“VII. That no perſon, who has any office under the King, or receives a penſion from the crown, ſhall be capable of ſerving as a member of the houſe of commons.

“VIII. That further Proviſions be made, for the confirming of all laws and ſtatutes for the ſecuring our religion and the rights and liberties of the people.

“IX. That judges’ commiſſions be made Quamdiu ſe bene geſſerint, and their ſaleries aſcertained and eſtabliſhed; but upon the addreſs of either houſe of parliament, it may be lawful to remove them.

“X. That the princes Sophia, dutcheſs dowager of Hanover, be declared the next in ſucceſſion to the crown of England, in the proteſtant line, after his majeſty and the princeſs, and the heirs of their bodies reſpectively; and that the further limitation of the crown be to the ſaid princeſs Sophia and the heirs of her body, being proteſtants.”

The national meetings in Queen Anne’s time, were replete with craft, faction, and perfidy; for though the honour of the Queen and the good of the public were loudly talked of, yet all was ſwallowed up in ſelf-intereſt, and clamour, cabal, and confuſion prevailed.

On the acceſſion of King George I. the diſorders of thoſe times made it neceſſary to paſs the riot act; which, as ſoon as tranquillity was reſtored, ſhould certainly have been repealed; as it has ſince been attended with many fatal conſequences, which are too recent in the minds of the public, to need a recapitulation here. The Habeas Corpus act was at this time ſuſpended, and the obſequious houſe of commons, to oblige the miniſtry, repealed the triennial bill, and ſtrange to tell! not only made all future parliaments ſeptennial, but alſo enacted, that they themſelves, who were choſen by their conſtituents for three years only, ſhould continue repreſentatives for ſeven.

The ſpeech of a worthy member in oppoſition to this ſtep, is not undeſerving the attention of our readers.

He obſerved, that the right of electing repreſentatives in parliament was inſeparably inherent in the people of Great Britain, and could never be thought to be deligated to the repreſentatives, unleſs they made the elected the elector, and at the ſame time ſuppoſed it the will of the people, that their repreſentatives ſhould have it in their power to deſtroy thoſe who made them, whenever a miniſtry ſhould think it neceſſary to ſcreen themſelves from their juſt reſentments; that this would be to deſtroy the fence of all their freedom; for if they had a right to continue themſelves one year, one month, or one day, beyond their triennial term, it will unavoidably follow, that they have it in their power to make themſelves perpetual. He further obſerved, that to ſay, the paſſing of this bill, was not to graſp to themſelves the right of election, but only to enlarge the time of calling new parliaments, was a manifeſt fallacy: for whenever the three years were expired, they could no longer be ſaid to ſubſiſt by the choice of the people, but by their own appointment.

For theſe reaſons, he thought the bill an open violation of the people’s liberties; or to ſpeak moſt mildly of it, a breach of the members truſt, in that part which would moſt ſenſibly affect them; and of that ill tendency in its conſequence, that as nothing but the ſecurity of the miniſtry could make it, at that time, needful; ſo nothing but a ſtanding force could make it laſting.

Notwithstanding the remonſtrances of thirty lords who entered their proteſts againſt this bill, becauſe, as they obſerved, frequent and new parliaments are required by the fundamental laws of the conſtitution, and that the bill, was, in their opinion, ſo far from preventing expences and corruptions that it would rather tend to increaſe them as the longer a parliament is to laſt, the more valuable a ſtation in it muſt become. And the greater will be the danger of corrupting the members of it, yet this extraordinary bill on the queſtion being put in the houſe of lords, was carried in the affirmative by ninety ſix votes againſt ſixty one.

In conſequence of this proceeding, various petitions were preſented to the houſe of commons, from different parts of the kingdom, declaring that the people looked upon it, as an attempt to overturn the conſtitution. The bill, however, paſſed the commons, by two hundred and ſixty-four, againſt one hundred and twenty-one, though the public had the greateſt right to oppoſe it, both in behalf of themſelves and their poſterity.

About the year 1717, the monarchical mode of governing by ſtanding armies was adopted by the houſe of commons, though great oppoſition was made to this ſtep by the patriotic members.

At the beginning of the reign of his late majeſty in the year 1732, the famous exciſe ſcheme was brought into the houſe by Sir Robert Walpole, which ſtriking at the very root of our liberties, raiſed ſuch a tumult in the nation, that a number of petitions againſt the bill were preſented to the houſe from the city of London, Briſtol, and moſt of the capital towns in the kingdom. This occaſioned the meaſure to be dropped, on which the people expreſſed their ſatisfaction by the greateſt tranſports of joy, and celebrated their triumph by burning the miniſtry in effigy.

A short time after the acceſſion of our preſent moſt gracious ſovereign, the cyder tax occaſioned a great clamour throughout the whole nation, it being looked upon as partial and oppreſſive, and the means of collecting it, dangerous and unconſtitutional. In conſequence of this, the people inſtructed the repreſentatives to oppoſe this ſcheme, and petition every branch of the legiſlature againſt it; notwithſtanding this, the bill paſſed and occaſioned great diſcontents amongſt the people, and continued in full force till it was repealed by means of the popular miniſtry in the year 1766.

To inveſtigate the merits of our preſent unhappy diſputes with the Americans, and the conteſt between the adminiſtration and Mr. Wilkes, would fill a conſiderable volume; but as the various grievances complained of by the people are enumerated in a conciſe and ſpirited manner, in the petition of the freeholders of Middleſex, it may not be unneceſſary to lay it, in this place, before our readers, eſpecially as we have already preſented them with copies of the moſt celebrated papers that have been written in the glorious cauſe of liberty.

To the King’s moſt Excellent Majeſty,
The Humble Petition of the Freeholders of the County of Middlesex.

Moſt Gracious Sovereign,

“We, your majeſty’s dutiful and loyal ſubjects, the freeholders of the county of Middleſex, beg leave, with all affectionate ſubmiſſion and humanity, to throw ourſelves at your royal feet, and humbly to implore your paternal attention to thoſe grievances, of which this county and the whole nation complain, and thoſe fearful apprehenſions with which the whole Britiſh Empire is moſt juſtly alarmed.

“With great grief and ſorrow we have long beheld the endeavours of certain evil minded perſons, who attempt to infuſe into your royal mind, notions and opinions of the moſt dangerous and pernicious tendency, and who promote and counſel ſuch meaſures as cannot fail to deſtroy that harmony and confidence, which ſhould ever ſubſiſt between a juſt and virtuous prince and a free and loyal people.

“For this diſaffected purpoſe, they have introduced into every part of the adminiſtration of our happy, legal conſtitution, a certain unlimited and indefinite diſcretionary power; to prevent which is the ſole aim of all our laws, and was the ſole cauſe of all thoſe diſturbances and revolutions, which formerly diſtracted this unhappy country; for our anceſtors, by their own fatal experiences, well knew, that in a ſtate, where diſcretion begins, law, liberty, and ſafety end. Under the pretence of this diſcretion, or, as it was formerly, and has been lately called—law of ſtate—we have ſeen:

“English ſubjects, and even a member of of the britiſh legiſlature, arreſted by virtue of a general warrant, iſſued by a ſecretary of ſtate, contrary to the law of the land:

“Their houſes rifled and plundered, their papers ſeized, and uſed as evidence upon trial:

“Their bodies committed to cloſe impriſonment:

“The Habeas Corpus eluded:

“Trial by jury diſcountenanced, and the firſt law-officer of the crown publicly inſinuating that juries are not to be truſted:

“Printers puniſhed by the miniſtry in the ſupreme court without a trial by their equals—without any trial at all:

“The remedy of the law for falſe impriſonment barred and defeated:

“The plaintiff and his attorney, for their appeal to the law of the land, puniſhed by expences and impriſonment, and made, by forced engagements, to deſiſt from their legal claim:

“A writing determined to be a libel by a court where it was not cognizable in the firſt inftance, contrary to law, becauſe all appeal is thereby cut off, and inferior courts and juries influenced by ſuch predetermination:

“A person condemned in the ſaid court as the author of the ſuppoſed libel unheard without defence or trial:

“Unjust treatment of petitions, by ſelecting only ſuch parts as might be wreſted to criminate the petitioner, and refuſing to hear thoſe which might procure him redreſs:

“The thanks of one branch of the legiſlature propoſed by a miniſter to be given to an acknowledged offender for his offence, with the declared intention of ſcreening him from law:

“Attachments wreſted from their original intent of removing obſtructions to the proceedings of law, to puniſh, by ſentence of arbitrary fine and impriſonment, without trial or appeal, ſuppoſed offences committed out of court:

“Perpetual impriſonment of an Engliſhman without trial, conviction, or ſentence, by the ſame mode of attachment, wherein the ſame perſon is at once party, accuſer, judge, and jury:

“Instead of the antient and legal civil police, the military introduced at every opportunity, unneceſſarily and unlawfully patrolling the ſtreets, to the alarm and terror of the inhabitants:

“The lives of many of your majeſty’s innocent ſubjects deſtroyed by military execution:

“Such military execution ſolemnly adjudged to be legal:

“Murder abetted, encouraged, and rewarded:

“The civil magiſtracy rendered contemptible by the appointment of improper and incapable perſons:

“The civil magiſtrates tampered with by adminiſtration, and neglecting and refuſing to diſcharge their duty:

“Mobs and rioters hired and raiſed by the miniſtry, in order to juſtify and recommend their own illegal proceedings, and to prejudice your majeſty’s mind by falſe inſinuations againſt the loyalty of your majeſty’s ſubjects:

“The freedom of election violated by corrupt and undue influence, by unpuniſhed violence and murder:

“The juſt yerdicts of juries, and the opinion of the judges, over-ruled by falſe repreſentations to your majeſty; and the determinations of the law ſet aſide, by new, unprecedented, and dangerous means; thereby leaving the guilty without reſtraint, and the injured without redreſs, and the lives of your majeſty’s ſubjects at the mercy of every ruffian protected by adminiſtration:

“Obsolete and vexatious claims of the crown ſet on foot for partial and election purpoſes:

“Partial attacks on the liberty of the preſs: the moſt daring and pernicious libels againſt the conſtitution, and againſt the liberty of the ſubject, being allowed to paſs unnoticed, whilſt the ſlighteſt libel againſt a miniſter is puniſhed with the utmoſt rigour:

“Wicked attempts to increaſe and eſtabliſh a ſtanding army, by endeavouring to veſt in the crown an unlimited power over the militia; in which, ſhould they ſucceed muſt, ſooner or later, ſubvert the conſtitution, by augmenting the power of adminiſtration in proportion to their delinquency:

“Repeated endeavours to diminiſh the importance of members of parliament individually, in order to render them more dependent on adminiſtration collectively. Even threats having been employed by miniſters to ſuppreſs the freedom of debate; and the wrath of parliament denounced againſt meaſures authorized by the law of the land:

“Resolutions of one branch of the legiſlature, ſet up as the law of the land, being a dire uſurpation of the rights of the two other branches, and therefore a manifeſt infringement of the conſtitution:

“Public money ſhamefully ſquandered and unaccounted for, and all inquiry into the cauſe of arrears in the civil liſt prevented by the miniſtry:

“Inquiry into a pay-maſter’s public accounts ſtopped in the exchequer, though the ſums unaccounted for by that pay-maſter, amount to above forty millions ſterling:

“Public loans perverted to private miniſterial purpoſes:

“Prostitution of public honours and rewards to men who can neither plead public virtue nor ſervices:

“Irreligion and immorality, ſo eminently diſcountenanced by your majeſty’s royal example, encouraged by adminiſtration both by example and precept:

“The ſame diſcretion has been extended by the ſame evil counſellors to your majeſty’s dominions in America, and has produced to our ſuffering fellow ſubjects in that part of the world, grievances and apprehenſions ſimilar to thoſe of which we complain at home.

“Moſt Gracious Sovereign,

“Such are the grievances and apprehenſions which have long diſcontented and diſturbed the greateſt and beſt part of your majeſty’s loyal ſubjects. Unwilling, however, to interrupt your royal repoſe, though ready to lay down our lives and fortunes for your majeſty’s ſervice, and for the conſtitution as by law eſtabliſhed, we have waited patiently, expecting a conſtitutional remedy by the means of our own repreſentatives: but our legal and free choice having been repeatedly rejected, and the right of election now finally taken from us by the unprecedented ſeating of a candidate who was never choſen by the county, and who, even to become a candidate, was obliged, fraudulently, to vacate his ſeat in parliament, under the pretence of an inſignificant Place, invited thereto by the prior declaration of a miniſter, that whoever oppoſed our choice, though but with four votes, ſhould be declared member for the county. We ſee ourſelves, even by this laſt act, deprived even of the franchiſes of Engliſhmen, reduced to the moſt abject ſtate of ſlavery, and left without hopes or means of redreſs but from your majeſty or God.

“Deign then, Moſt Gracious Sovereign, to liſten to the prayer of the moſt faithful of your Majeſty’s ſubjects; and to baniſh from your royal favour, truſt, and confidence, for ever, thoſe evil and pernicious counſellors, who have endeavoured to alienate the affection of your Majeſty’s moſt ſincere and dutiful ſubjects, and whoſe ſuggeſtions tend to deprive your people of their deareſt and moſt eſſential rights, and who have traiterouſly dared to depart from the ſpirit and letter of thoſe laws which have ſecured the crown of theſe realms to the houſe of Brunſwick; in which we make our moſt earneſt prayers to God, that it may continue untarniſhed to the lateſt poſterity.”

(Copy)

Signed by

1565 Freeholders.

We ſhall now diſmiſs this diſcourſe, with our ſincere wiſhes, that a ſpeedy end may be put to the preſent national diviſions, and that the vigour of the Britiſh conſtitution may remain unimpaired to the lateſt poſterity, earneſtly recommending to thoſe whom it may concern, the two following excellent obſervations from Sir William Temple’s eſſays:

“The firſt ſafety of princes and ſtates, lies in avoiding all councils, or deſigns of innovation, in antient and eſtabliſhed forms and laws, eſpecially thoſe concerning liberty, property, and religion, which are the poſſeſſions men will ever have moſt at heart, and thereby leaving the channel of known and common juſtice clear and undiſturbed.

“The ſecond, in purſuing the true and common intereſt of the nation they govern, without eſpouſing thoſe of any party or faction; or if theſe are ſo formed in a ſtate, that they muſt incline to one or other, then to chuſe and favour that which is moſt popular, or wherein the greateſt or ſtrongeſt part of the people appear to be engaged. For as the end of government ſeems to be Salus populi, the ſafety or welfare of the People; ſo the ſtrength of the government is the conſent of the people which made that maxim of Vox populi, Vox Dei: That is, the governors, who are few, will ever be forced to follow the strength of the governed, who are many.”