Sir ,If we had proposed nothing more to ourselves,in writing this dissertation on parties,than the entertainment,such as it is,of your readers,and our own amusement;we should not have dwelt,perhaps,so much on the nature of the British constitution,nor have recurred so often to assert the necessary independency of Parliaments on the crown.But we had another motive,which we are neither afraid,nor ashamed to avow.This necessary independency of Parliaments,in which the essence of our constitution,and by consequence of our liberty consists,seems to be in great,not to say,in imminent danger of being lost.They who are alarmed at every thing that is said in favour of our constitution,and of British liberty,and who are prejudiced against every man who writes or speaks in defence of them,may take,or affect to take,and try to give offence at this expression.But we desire to be understood,as we have explained our meaning upon some former occasion.We understand our constitution to be in danger,not only when it is attacked,but as soon as a breach is made,by which it may be attacked;and we understand this danger to be greater,or less,in proportion to the breach that is made,and without any regard to the probability or improbability of an attack.This explanation of our meaning is the better founded,because the nation hath an undoubted right to preserve the constitution not only inviolate,but secure from violations.Should corruption prevail among the members,which we trust will never happen,as notoriously as it does in the elections of Parliament,we all know how much the magnanimity of our present King would scorn to take so mean an advantage over the nation;how much,on the contrary,his heroical spirit would prompt him to maintain the liberty even of a degenerate people,who might deserve no longer the enjoyment of so invaluable a blessing,but who could never deserve to have it taken from them by a prince of that family,which was raised by them to the throne,for no other reason but to preserve it.
All this we know;and the nation may have,no doubt,the same confidence in every future King of the same illustrious and royal house.But this will not alter the case;nor make that,which I call danger,cease to be such.Should angels and arch-angels come down from heaven to govern us,the same danger would exist,until the springs,from whence it arises,were cut off;not because some angels and arch angels have fallen,and from being the guardians,have become the tempters and tormentors of mankind,and others therefore may fall;but because,as private liberty cannot be deemed secure under a government,wherein law,the proper and sole security of it,is dependent on will;so public liberty must be in danger,whenever a free constitution,the proper and sole security of it,is dependent on will;and a free constitution,like ours,is dependent on will,whenever the will of one estate can direct the conduct of all three.
Having thus explained what I mean by danger,and taken away all colour for cavil,it remains that I prove this danger to be real,and not the phantom of a crazy imagination,or a prejudiced mind.This shall be done therefore as shortly as I am able,and by an undeniable deduction of facts.
He who undertakes to govern a free people by corruption,and to lead them by a false interest,against their true interest,cannot boast the honour of the invention.The expedient is as old as the world,and he can pretend to no other honour than that of being an humble imitator of the devil.To corrupt our Parliaments hath been often attempted,as well as to divide our people,in favour of prerogative,and in order to let the arbitrary will of our princes loose from the restraints of law.We observed this in speaking of the reign of Charles the Second:but the efforts then made were ineffectual.
