112
laws of that colony, attend their county court at such a distance, with all their witnesses, monthly, till their litigation be determined ? Or does his Majesty seriously wish, and publish it to the world, that his subjects should give up the glorious right of representation, with all the benefits derived from that, and submit themselves the ab solute slaves of his sovereign will ? Or is it rather meant to confine the legislative body to their present numbers, that they may be the cheaper bargain, whenever they shall become worth a pur chase ?
One of the articles of impeachment against Tresilian, and the other Judges of Westminster Hall, in the reign of Richard the second, for which they suffered death, as traitors to their country, was, that they had advised the King, that he might dissolve his Par liament at any time : and succeeding Kings have adopted the opinion of these unjust Judges. Since the establishment, however, of the British constitution, at the glorious Revolution, on its free and antient principles, neither his Majesty, nor his ancestors, have exercised such a power of dissolution in the island of Great Bri tain ;* and, when his Majesty was petitioned, by the united voice of his people there, to dissolve the present Parliament, who had become obnoxious to them, his Ministers were heard to declare, in open Parliament, that his Majesty possessed no such power by the constitution. But how different their language, and his prac tice, here ! To declare, as their duty required, the known rights of their country, to oppose the usurpation of every foreign judicature, to disregard the imperious mandates of a Minister or Governor, have been the avowed causes of dissolving Houses of Representa tives in America. But if such powers be really vested in his Ma jesty, can he suppose they are there placed to awe the members from such purposes as these ? When the representative body have lost the confidence of their constituents, when they have notori ously made sale of their most valuable rights, when they have as sumed to themselves powers which the people never put into their hands, then, indeed, their continuing in office becomes dangerous to the state, and calls for an exercise of the power of dissolution. Such being the causes for which the representative body should, and should not, be dissolved, will it not appear strange, to an un biassed observer, that that of Great Britain was not dissolved, while those of the colonies have repeatedly incurred that sentence ?
- On further enquiry, I find two instances of dissolutions before the Parlia
ment would, of itself, have been at an end ; viz. the Parliament called to meet August 24, 1698, was dissolved by King William, December 19, 1700, and a new one called, to meet February 0, 1701, which was also dissolved, November 11, 1701, and a new one met December 30, 1701.
