troops wantonly to butcher his helpless unarmed subjects; to fupport, defend, and reward fuch as were most active in that butchery, and to return formal public thanks to them allfor their alacrity in deftroying thofe by whofe honeft industry both he and they are fed. It is a conftitutional and an honeft ufe of his prerogative, to order for execution mifguided poor men, who were couvicted upon a furreptitious rider of an unreasonable penal ftatute; notwithstanding the whole court before whom they were tried, joined in reprefenting to him that they did not believe the parties guilty, and recommended them as proper objects of his mercy. It is a conftitutional ufe of his prerogative to pardon malefactors, convicted on the common law of England, of the most attrocious and aggravated murders; notwithstanding the Judges before whom they were tried, reprefented to him, that they were convicted by the cleareft evidence, and were by no means proper objects of his royal mercy. It is a conftitutional use of his prerogative to prorogue a Parliament in a fifter kingdom, when regulations were to be made without which their manufactures could not be carried on, and when none of the private bufinefs for the advantage of the country was finifhed; merely because they acted as the real reprefentatives of people, and would not lend themselves to fupport the pernicious meafures of the crown. It is a conftitutional ufe of his prerogative to diffolve the American affemblies (though not requested by the Electors) because they would infift on preferving the rights of their conftituents, and would not become the creatures of the royal governors. -Such, and many more fuch, are the ufes which his Majetty has been perfuaded to make of his prerogative. Both the ufes which he has made, and the ufes which he has not made of his prerogative, added to the abuses of his parliament are inconteftable reasons for my motion. This, Sir, is all I fhall at prefent fay upon the question: If any objection fhall be made, or argument unged againft it, I referve myself to anfwer them as well as I am able. I will not therefore now take up more of your time, but conclude with a motion that leave be given to bring in a bill, to fhorten the prefent duration of parliaments." [The remainder af this Debate in our next.] Designdee Engrard for the Political Register. He rules as absolutely, & with as much indignity to every depart ment of administration, as when he openly held the reins of Government? Anon. THE POLITICAL REGISTER, For MAY 1772, NUMBER LXIII. To the Printer of the Political Regifter. SIR, TH HE Royal Marriage-A&t has at length, I find, taken place, notwithstanding the ftrenuous oppofition made to it from a variety of motives. I do not in the main find fault with it, the notion being quite natural to all parents to have it in their power to difpofe of their Children in Marriage; and much more is it fo to Kings, who by having the fucceffion in rightful heirs to make provifions for, cannot be too follicitous that nothing in their marriage-connections should derogate from family-dignity, and the honour of the nation. Thus far this act may be culculated for good purposes; but I think, and fhall always think, that in a goverment, fuch as ours, it is throwing too much into the scale of royalty, to veft a King with fuch powers, as we are not fufficiently ΙΟ M m fufficiently apprized, and may never fathom, what views he he may have, and what attempts he may make, to alter the fuceffion at difcretion. It would have been therefore more eligible to have left this difcretionary power in the hands of the Parliament, with this clause, that as by the laws of God and confcience, nothing ought to be fo free as marriage-contracts, fo any of the Royal family might marry with whom they pleafed, and with full and uncontroled liberty in their choice; but fhould not be provided for by the ftate, without previously confulting the national wildom in Parliament, and obtaining its confeut. This is putting a British Royal Family, as is rational it fhould, on the footing of the children of the commonwealth, to be honourably dealt with, if found obedient to her directions, but punishable by fuch mark of difgrace if contrary to admonition, they abided by the fuggeftions of their own will. The iffue too of fuch marriages may be incapacitated to fucceed to the crown. The The marriages of English Princes of the blood royal, ought therefore to be contracted with liberty, because it is of the effence of marriage to be free; but in confequence of fuch regulation of parliament for national advice and approbation, it cannot be faid that this liberty confifts in the power of marrying with whom the fallies of paffion may prompt them, on the conditions, and in the time, that may feem agreeable to their fancies. Liberty in general, fays, Ulpian, confifts in nothing elfe, but the power of doing what the laws permit; and fpeaking particularly of marriage, he fays, that this liberty is grounded on the power of contracting it after the manner that the laws give leave. ancient jurifprudence acknowledged no marriages to be lawful, but those which were conformable to the laws of the ftate; and here we must place a diftinction between the legalty and validity of marriage. The validity of marriage is fo at the bar of confcience, and before God: no human laws can deftroy its obligation; neither can their force extend farther than to pains and penalties. A clandeftine marriage within the realm of England is not legal by the marriage act, but it is not the lefs valid and obligatory in confcience before God for being clandeftine. This is a point of view we must not lofe fight of. Civil liberty holds the middle between two extremities, which are, fervitude, and an abfolute licence for doing whatever one pleafes. In this fituation it can neither be the one, nor the other; because this not being in the abfolute dependance of fervitude, it has never the lefs |