er, allowing for a certain freedom of expression and the
earnest eagerness with which a man who is sincere in his doctrines
enforces them in his composition, a writer may not, without being exposed
to a charge of criminal intention, assert that there is no constitution
in this country. And let us take with us to this examination, that a man
is not to be too strictly tied to words, when under the impulse of warm
and keen feelings, and when the thoughts flow, as it were, at once from
the heart into the pen, he sits down to excite his countrymen to their
good, or warn them of their danger. You must not think to bind him down
with the shackles of verbal criticism, when he is too intent upon his
theme exactly to measure his expressions. Now, that the writer of this
paper is sincere in his opinions, whatever the quality of those opinions
is, it is difficult not to believe. He published his opinions, though he
exposed himself to punishment for them, and he perseveres in them while
he is suffering a heavy punishment. You can have no more convincing
proof of sincerity than this. But, what if a political writer has, in
the warmth of composition, asserted that in England we have no
constitution, who can misunderstand him? We cannot suppose he meant that
there was a dissolution of all law and government; because we know and
feel the contrary. Few would have occasion to ask him what he meant. If,
however, he were asked, he should explain by telling you, that the
constitution in theory is very much corrupted from the practice; and I
and you, and every person must admit, that the practice has strayed wide
from the theory; and, forced to admit this, I assert with a writer, who
(whatever was thought of him once, and whilst those who were the objects
of his reproach still lived) is now the pride and boast of the country,
both for the supreme elegance and the principles of his political
writings, that "wherever the practice deviates from the theory so far the
practice is vicious and corrupt." Now, saying no more than this, and
when it would have been the merest stupidity to understand him literally,
how can the writer be convicted of a design to bring the Government into
hatred and contempt, because he has expressed his meaning by saying
figuratively "there is no Constitution." But he has previously said,
that to talk about the British Constitution is, in his opinion,
dishonesty. I know he has. I did not mean to pass it, I will