as his wild discourses are from solid argument.
The conclusion of his book is candid to extreme. He offers to grant me all I desire. He thinks he may safely admit that the case of Mr. Walpole makes directly against him, for it seems he has one grand solution in petta for all difficulties. If, says he, I were to allow all this, it will only prove that the law of election was different in Queen Anne's time, from what it is at present.
This, indeed, is more than I expected. The principle, I know, has been maintained in fact, but I never expected to see it so formally declared. What can he mean? does he assume this language to satisfy the doubts of the people, or does he mean to rouse their indignation; are the ministry daring enough to affirm, that the house of commons have a right to make and unmake the law of parliament at their pleasure?—Does the law of parliament, which we are often told is the law of the land;—does the common right of every subject of the realm depend upon an arbitrary capricious vote of one branch
