The Virginia Gazette

LONDON, March 29.

Alderman TOWNSEND's Speech in Defence of the Lord Mayor.

Mr. SPEAKER,

HAVE listened, with the utmost Attention, to the Gentlemen who, on this Occasion, contended for the Omnipotence of the House; but I cannot say their Arguments have wrought my Conversion. Had not more weighty Arguments been applied to them, I violently suspect that they would have been still Incredulous. In Order to justify the Erasure of the Record entered in the Lord Mayor's Book, they have produced Instances in which the House has stopped the Course of Justice. But is this a rational Apology? Because the House has acted formerly in an arbitrary and despotick Manner, are we to copy their Example, and to set up the Standard of Tyranny? Precedents can never be a sufficient Sanction to what, in the Nature of Things, is illegal and unconstitutional. No Man of Sense ever quotes the Decisions of Antiquity, but as Circumstances excusatory or corroborative of what he has previously showed to be contrary or conformable to Reason. Were not this the Case, what would become of our dearest Rights? Precedents for the Violation of all our Liberties may be found in your Journals; and indeed the Journals are so discordant and contradictory that you need never be at a Loss for Precedents, whatever Side of the Question you embrace. They may be twisted and twined, like a Nose of Wax. Let us not then hear of Precedents in deciding a plain constitutional Question, whose Solution must be obvious to the meanest Capacity. If Precedents had any decisive Authority, what could have been more legal than General Warrants? They were countenanced by a Series of undisputed Precedents, not only before but since the Revolution. Yet, what was their Fate? When they came to be questioned, and were discovered not to be founded on any positive Law, they were set aside; since they were, both in Principle and in Practice, incompatible with a free Government.

Nor is this wonderful, when we consider that even positive Laws are repealed when it is found that they are prejudicial to the State. Salus Populi suprema Lex esto, was long the Maxim of the Roman Commonwealth; and I could wish that it were more attended to in this House. Were it the Standard of our Conduct, there would have been less Occasion for this Day's Debate. The Nation, and its Representatives, would not stand in diametrical Opposition; nor would the City of London find it necessary to set the Commons at Defiance. Unfortunately for this Country, too many of us are more assiduous to please female Caprice than to satisfy their Constituents. Instead of endeavouring to deserve well of the Publick, they strive to deserve well of one Woman, who has, during the present Reign, governed this Nation.

[Here several Members cried out, name her! name her!] Why then, if I must name her, her Name is Augusta, Princess Dowager of Wales.

[Here he was called to Order, but he proceeded.] Sir, I am not in a Humour to retract, or eat my Words. That Infamy I leave to the ministerial Gentry. I am not yet courtly enough to say, and unsay, the same Thing in a Breath. Were I such a crouching Spaniel, I should plead the Cause of Liberty with a very bad Grace. I do aver that for these ten Years past we have been governed by one Woman, and that the Woman is the Princess Dowager of Wales. If you doubt what I advance, appoint a Committee for inquiring into her Conduct, and I dare say that you will find my Assertion to be a Fact. It is not that I have any Aversion to Petticoat Government. My Objection is only to bad Government. I care not who is in leading Strings. Let national Affairs be properly managed, and I am satisfied. But, while the Rights of the People in general are invaded, while the particular Franchises of London are violated, while the Course of Justice is violently obstructed, and while successive Acts of Despotism render the People impatient of their Chain, and ripe for Resistance, I cannot help warning you of your Danger, and pointing out the proper Remedy for present and future Evils. If you do not punish great Criminals, the People, it is to be feared, will take the Execution of the Laws into their own Hands. Such a Conduct you would find more honourable, and in the End more safe, than to persecute, as you do, the Defenders of the Law and the Constitution. The City Magistrates will be all over the Empire considered, and justly considered, as Martyrs to Liberty; and they may raise a Flame which will only terminate in your Destruction. Recollect the Alarm occasioned by the Imprisonment of the seven Bishops. Do you imagine Men will now struggle less eagerly for their Rights than at the Revolution? Believe me, the Nation is not yet so tame or pusillanimous. It will as little suffer you to become the passive Instruments of Tyranny as the bigotted James. Let Despotism assume what Names or Appearances it pleas, let it be called a Star Chamber or a House of Commons, a King or a Parliament, the People will make a Defence suitable to the Nature of the Attack.

The Sovereign formerly claimed the Power of suspending the Laws, and of issuing Proclamations superior to Statutes, and even to Magna Charta. The People resisted. You now claim the same Power of suspending the Laws, and of passing Votes paramount in Authority to the most sacred and fundamental Constitutions of the Realm. You swallow up every Thing in the Gulf of your Privileges. How can you imagine that the People should not resist? They resisted, on the same Principle, in the Reign of Charles the Second; they resisted, on the same Principle, in the Reign of Queen Anne. What was the Consequence? A Dissolution of the tyrannical Bodies, that dared to be guilty of such Outrages. I hope no worse Consequence will attend your present Encroachments. That Event, which you dread as the greatest of Evils, is fervently prayed for by every honest Man, by every Friend to England; and, indeed, it is a Consummation devoutly to be wished for.