, but am so strongly
impressed with the baleful influence of aristocracy and nobility upon
human happiness and virtue, that if, as I am persuaded, monarchy cannot
exist without such supporters, I think that reason sufficient for the
preference I have given to the Republican system.

It is with reluctance that I quit the subjects I have just touched upon;
but the nature of this Address does not permit me to continue the
discussion. I proceed to what more immediately relates to this Kingdom
at the present crisis.

You ask with triumphant confidence, to what other law are the people of
England subject than the general will of the society to which they
belong? Is your Lordship to be told that acquiescence is not choice, and
that obedience is not freedom? If there is a single man in Great Britain
who has no suffrage in the election of a representative, the will of the
society of which he is a member is not generally expressed; he is a
Helot in that society. You answer the question, so confidently put, in
this singular manner: 'The King, we are all justly persuaded, has not
the inclination--and we all know that, if he had the inclination, he has
not the power--to substitute his will in the place of law. The House of
Lords has no such power. The House of Commons has no such power.' This
passage, so artfully and unconstitutionally framed to agree with the
delusions of the moment, cannot deceive a thinking reader. The
expression of your full persuasion of the upright intentions of the King
can only be the language of flattery. You are not to be told that it is
constitutionally a maxim not to attribute to the person of the King the
measures and misconduct of government. Had you chosen to speak, as you
ought to have done, openly and explicitly, you must have expressed your
just persuasion and implicit confidence in the integrity, moderation,
and wisdom of his Majesty's ministers. Have you forgot the avowed
ministerial maxim of Sir Robert Walpole? Are you ignorant of the
overwhelming corruption of the present day?

You seem unconscious of the absurdity of separating what is inseparable
even in imagination. Would it have been any consolation to the miserable
Romans under the second triumvirate to have been asked insultingly, Is
it Octavius, is it Anthony, or is it Lepidus that has caused this
bitterness of affliction? and when the answer could not be returned with
certainty, to have been reproached that their sufferings were imagi