pon
and usurp his power as governor general and absolute, there follows of
two things one: either you did not well understand what you were doing,
nor duly consider how far that power reached, or--much more probably--you
have fallen into the sin of disobedience, considering how solemnly you
swore allegiance to him.

Thus subtly and ably did Wilkes defend the authority of the man who had
deserted his post at a most critical moment, and had compelled the
States, by his dereliction, to take the government into their own hands.

For, after all, the whole argument of the English counsellor rested upon
a quibble. The people were absolutely sovereign, he said, and had lent
that sovereignty to Leicester. How had they made that loan? Through the
machinery of the States-General. So long then as the Earl retained the
absolute sovereignty, the States were not even representatives of the
sovereign people. The sovereign people was merged into one English Earl.
The English Earl had retired--indefinitely--to England. Was the sovereign
people to wait for months, or years, before it regained its existence?
And if not, how was it to reassert its vitality? How but through the
agency of the States-General, who--according to Wilkes himself--had been
fully empowered by the Provinces and Cities to confer the government on
the Earl? The people then, after all, were the provinces and cities. And
the States-General were at that moment as much qualified to represent
those provinces and cities as they ever had been, and they claimed no
more. Wilkes, nor any other of the Leicester party, ever hinted at a
general assembly of the people. Universal suffrage was not dreamed of at
that day. By the people, he meant, if he meant anything, only that very
small fraction of the inhabitants of a country, who, according to the
English system, in the reign of Elizabeth, constituted its Commons. He
chose, rather from personal and political motives than philosophical
ones, to draw a distinction between the people and the States, but it is
quite obvious, from the tone of his private communications, that by the
'States' he meant the individuals who happened, for the time-being, to be
the deputies of the States of each Province. But it was almost an
affectation to accuse those individuals of calling or considering
themselves 'sovereigns;' for it was very well known that they sat as
envoys, rather than as members of a congress, and were perpetually
obliged to recur t