" inherit a government is to inherit the people, as "if they were flocks and herds."

Now, Gentlemen, what is the tendency of this passage" All hereditary government is in its ná "ture tyranny?". So that no qualification whatever, not even the subordination to the law of the country, which is the only paramount thing that we know of in this country, can take it out of the description of tyranny; the regal office being neither more nor less than a trust executed for the subjects of this country; the person who fills the regal office being understood, in this country, to be neither more nor less than the chief executive magistrate heading the whole gradation of magistracy.

But without any qualification he states it roundly, that under all circumstances whatever hereditary government must in its nature be tyranny what is that but to hold out to the people of this country that they are nought but slaves? to be sure, if they are living under a tyranny, it is impossible to draw any other consequence.

This is one of those short propositions, that are crammed down the throat of every man that is accessible to their arts in this country; this is one of those propositions, which, if he believes, must have the due effect upon his mind, of saying, The case is come when I understand I am oppressed; I can bear it no longer.

dogma: "Or by what other fanciful name such "things may be called." Is that discussion? Contemptuous, vilifying, and degrading expressions of that sort are applied to that which we are accustomed to look to with reverence, namely, the representation of the whole body of magistracy and of the law" have no other significant explanation "than that mankind are heritable property. To "inherit a government is to inherit the people, as "if they were flocks and herds."

Why, Gentlemen, are the people of England to be told, without further ceremony, that they are inherited by a King of this country, and that they are precisely in the case of sheep and oxen? I leave you to judge, if such gross, contemptible, and abominable falsehood is delivered out in bits and scraps of this sort, whether that does not call aloud for punishment?

Gentlemen, only look at the truth; the converse is directly the case. The King of this country inherits an office under the law; he does not inherit persons; we are not in a state of villenage: the direct reverse to what is here pointed out is the truth of the matter; the King inherits an office, but as to any inheritance of his people, none, you know, belongs to him, and I am ashamed to say any thing more upon it.

The next is in page 47, in which this man is speaking of the Congress at Philadelphia in 1787, which was held because the government of that country

was found to be extremely defective as at first established.

"This Convention met at Philadelphia, in May "1787, of which General Washington was elected "president; he was not at that time connected with

66

any of the State-governments or with Congress. He "delivered up his commission when the war ended, "and since then had lived a private citizen.

"The Convention went deeply into all the sub"jects, and having, after a variety of debate and "investigation, agreed among themselves upon the "several parts of a federal constitution, the next "question was the manner of giving it authority " and practice."

What is the conclusion of that?-They certainly agreed upon an appointment of their federal constitution in 1787. I should have thought that a man, meaning nothing more than history, would have been very well contented to have stated what actually did happen upon that occasion; but, in order to discuss (as possibly it may be called) something that formerly did pass in this country, he chose to do it in these inflaming and contemptuous terms:

"For this purpose they did not, like a cabal of "courtiers, send for a Dutch Stadtholder or a Ger"man Elector; but they referred the whole matter to the sense and interest of the country."

Here again the Revolution and the Act of Settlement stare us in the face, as if the interest and the sense of the country were in no way consulted; but,

on the contrary, it was nothing more than a mere cabal of courtiers.-Whether that is or is not to be endured in this country, your verdict will show; but, in order to show you how totally unnecessary this passage was, except for the deliberate purpose of calumny; if this passage had been left out, the nar ration would have been quite perfect. I will read three or four lines just to show how perfect it would have been" The next question was about the * manner of giving it authority and practice." The passage beyond that which I call a libel,-" They * first directed that the proposed Constitution should

be published; secondly, that each State should "elect a Convention, for the purpose of taking it "into consideration, and of ratifying or rejecting "it" and so the story goes on-but, in order to explain what I mean by a dogma thrust in, I call your attention to this, as one of those which has no earthly connexion with the subject he was then speaking of.

Does not this passage stand insulated between the two parts of the connected story, officiously and de signedly thrust in for the purposes of mischief? Gentlemen, the artifice of that book consists also in this: the different wicked passages that are meant to do mischief in this country, are spread throughout it, and stuck in here and there, in a manner, that, in order to see the whole malignity of it, it is necessary to have a recollection of several preceding passages ; but these passages, when brought together, manifestly

show the full design of the writer, and therefore extracts of it may be made to contain the whole marrow; and at the same time that each passage, taken by itself, will do mischief enough, any man reading them together, will see that mischief come out much clearer than by a mere transient reading.

The next passage I have to observe upon is in page 52, and in page 52 he is pleased to express himself in this manner: he says,

"The history of the Edwards and the Henries, "and up to the commencement of the Stuarts, "exhibits as many instances of tyranny as could be "acted within the limits to which the nation had "restricted it; the Stuarts endeavoured to pass "those limits, and their fate is well known, In all "these instances we see nothing of a constitution, "but only of restrictions on assumed power.

Then, Gentlemen, from the reign of the Edwards and the Henries down to the Revolution, it was a regular progression of tyranny, not a progression of liberty but of tyranny, till the Stuarts stepped a little beyond the line in the gradation that was going for, wards, and that begot a necessity for a revolution; but of the Edwards I should have thought, at least, he might have spared the great founder of our jurisprudence, King Edward the First, beside many other Princes, the glory and the boast of this country, and many of them regarders of its freedom and constitution; but instead of that, this author would have the people of this country believe, that up to that