But here again it may be said,that as liberty is a word of uncertain signification,so is constitution;that men have taught the most opposite doctrines,and pretended at least to build them on the principles of the constitution;that the rule therefore of determining our notions of liberty by the principles of our constitution,is no rule,and we are by consequence just where we were before.But the answer is ready.It is true that there were formerly men who persisted long in the attempt to talk and write that chimera called prerogative into vogue;to contend that it was something real,a right inherent in the crown,founded in the constitution of our government;and equally necessary to support the just authority of the prince,and to protect the subject.How we had like to have lost our liberty by the prevalence of such doctrines,by the consequences drawn from them,and the practices built upon them,hath been touched in the deduction of the state of parties.
But happily this kind of progression from a free to a slavish constitution of government,was stopped at the Revolution,and the notions themselves are so exploded in the course of six and forty years,that they are entertained at this hour by no set of men,whose numbers or importance give them any pretence to be reckoned among our national parties.--It is as true,that there are now men who pursue the very same design by different methods.The former attacked,these undermine our liberty.The former were the beasts of the field hinted at above;these are the insects of the earth;and like other insects,though sprung from dirt,and the vilest of the animal kind,they can nibble,and gnaw,and poison;and,if they are suffered to multiply and work on,they can lay the most fruitful country waste.Corruption and dependency are their favourite topics.They plead for the first as a laudable expedient of government;and for the last,I mean corrupt,private dependency,as an essential part of our constitution.When they have perplexed,as much as they are able,our ideas of dependency and independency,they reason,if I may give their sophisms so good a name,as if the independency of each part of the legislature,of the king particularly,arose from the dependency of the other parts on that part.Now this is both false and absurd.--It is false,because the constitutional independency of each part of the legislature arises from hence,that distinct rights,powers and privileges are assigned to it by the constitution.But then this independency of one part can be so little said to arise from the dependency of another,that it consists properly and truly in the free,unbiassed,uninfluenced and independent exercise of these rights,powers and privileges,by each part,in as ample an extent as the constitution allows,or,in other words,as far as that point,where the constitution stops this free exercise,and submits the proceedings of one part,not to the private influence,but to the public control of the other parts.Before this point,the independency of each part is meant by the constitution to be absolute.From this point,the constitutional dependency of each part on the others commences.To talk to natural independency belonging to the kingly office,to an house of peers,or an house of commons,the institutions of art,not of nature,is impertinent.It is absurd,because it absolutely destroys the very thing it is advanced to establish;for if A's independency arises from the dependency of B,and B's independency from the dependency of A,then are A and B both dependent,and there is no such thing as constitutional independency at all.The crown is the source of honours,and hath the disposal of public employments.This no man disputes;nor would any man,I believe,go about to alter.But will it follow that the constitutional independency of the king would be lost,because the House of Commons give the supplies,if he had not the power of giving part of this money,in places and pensions,back again to the members of that house?it would be easy for me to turn this whole profound reasoning into many,even ridiculous lights;but the subject creates other sentiments than those of mirth,though the logic employed about it deserves a ludicrous,not a serious treatment.I ask pardon for having said so much upon so slight an occasion,and I proceed.
Notwithstanding all these endeavours to puzzle our constitution,formerly in favour of that prerogative,by the weight of which it must have been crushed,and actually at this time in favour of that corruption and corrupt dependency by which it would be soon demolished;the main principles of the British constitution are simple and obvious,and fixed,as well as any truths can be fixed,in the minds of men,by the most determinate ideas.The state of our constitution then affords an easy and unerring rule,by which to judge of the state of our liberty.The improvement or decay of one,denotes the improvement or decay of the other;and the strength or weakness of one,the safety or danger of the other.We cannot lose our liberty,unless we lose our constitution;nor lose our constitution,unless we are accomplices to the violations of it;for this constitution is better fitted than any,ancient or modern,ever was,not only to preserve liberty,but to provide for its own duration,and to become immortal,if any thing human could be so.
I am,sir,etc.
