y and retain the
same thing is altogether absurd. It is worse, for it supposes in any
strong combination of men a power and right of always dissolving the
social union; which power, however, if it exists, renders them again as
little sovereigns as subjects, but a mere unconnected multitude. It is
not easy to state for what good end, at a time like this, when the
foundations of all ancient and prescriptive governments, such as ours,
(to which people submit, not because they have chosen them, but because
they are born to them,) are undermined by perilous theories, that Mr.
Fox should be so fond of referring to those theories, upon all
occasions, even though speculatively they might be true,--which God
forbid they should! Particularly I do not see the reason why he should
be so fond of declaring that the principles of the Revolution have made
the crown of Great Britain _elective_,--why he thinks it seasonable to
preach up with so much earnestness, for now three years together, the
doctrine of resistance and revolution at all,--or to assert that our
last Revolution, of 1688, stands on the same or similar principles with
that of France. We are not called upon to bring forward these doctrines,
which are hardly ever resorted to but in cases of extremity, and where
they are followed by correspondent actions. We are not called upon by
any circumstance, that I know of, which can justify a revolt, or which
demands a revolution, or can make an election of a successor to the
crown necessary, whatever latent right may be supposed to exist for
effectuating any of these purposes.

40. Not the least alarming of the proceedings of Mr. Fox and his friends
in this session, especially taken in concurrence with their whole
proceedings with regard to France and its principles, is their eagerness
at this season, under pretence of Parliamentary reforms, (a project
which had been for some time rather dormant,) to discredit and disgrace
the House of Commons. For this purpose these gentlemen had found a way
to insult the House by several atrocious libels in the form of
petitions. In particular they brought up a libel, or rather a complete
digest of libellous matter, from the club called the Friends of the
People. It is, indeed, at once the most audacious and the most insidious
of all the performances of that kind which have yet appeared. It is said
to be the penmanship of Mr. Tierney, to bring whom into Parliament the
Duke of Portland formerly had