But, says Scævola, Lord Camden made parliament, and not the King, judges of the necessity.—That parliament may review the acts of ministers, is unquestionable; but there is a wide difference between saying, that the crown has a legal power and that the ministers may act at their peril. When we say that an act is illegal, we mean that it is forbidden by a joint resolution of the three estates. How a subsequent resolution of two of those branches can make it legal ab initio, will require explanation. If it could, the consequence would be truly dreadful, especially in these times. There is no act of arbitrary power which the king might not attribute to necessity, and for which he would not be secure of obtaining the approbation of his prostituted Lords and commons. If Lord Camden admits, that the subsequent sanction of parliament was necessary to make the proclamation legal, why did he so obstinately oppose the bill, which was soon after brought in, for indemnifying all those persons who had acted under it?—If that bill had not been passed, I am ready to maintain, in direct contradiction to Lord Camden's doctrine,
