COPY of a LETTER to a Mem⯑ber of the SURRY Committee.

— I Have paid all the attention, that the ſhortneſs of the time would permit, in ſearching and procuring authorities, to enable you to oppoſe the objections lately made to annual parlia⯑ments, as ſtated in your kind letter of the 17th inſtant. — With reſpect to the firſt, i. e. their ‘incompetency, now that the empire is ſo vaſt, and foreign connections ſo interwoven with us;’ I beg leave to remind you, that the empire is not now more interwoven with foreign connec⯑tions, (I mean thoſe of Europe, which a⯑lone have power to affect us,) than they were when annual parliaments (and "more often if need be") were the eſta⯑bliſhed law of the land; I mean in the [4] glorious reign of king Edward III. when ſeveral of the richeſt and moſt populous provinces of France were the hereditary dominions of the family upon the throne; and when the remainder of that mighty and extenſive empire, with the exception of a very few provinces, (the great duke of Burgundy himſelf doing homage for his eſtates,) belonged abſolutely to the crown of England, by the right of con⯑queſt. But the true conſtitutional an⯑ſwer to the objection is, that all foreign dominions, acquired by the crown of England, ought to be governed by free par⯑liaments of their own, duly elected by the inhabitants of each diſtinct country reſ⯑pectively, who have not only the beſt right, but the beſt knowledge and abilities, how to preſcribe laws for their own go⯑vernment, ſafety, and neceſſities. This is the only true means of removing all dif⯑ficulty from the government of diſtant do⯑minions, becauſe, in the firſt place, it is [5] the only means that is ſtrictly conſiſtent with the natural rights of the inhabitants in each dominion, ſeparately conſidered; and alſo, 2dly, the only means of pre⯑venting the inhabitants of ſuch diſtant dominions or colonies, from invading the natural rights of each other, which is the ſource of civil war and diſunion; and, if this moſt eſſential principle of our conſti⯑tution, and of natural equity, had been regarded by adminiſtration, agreeably to what I have ſtated, in my Declaration of the Peoples Rights, reſpecting Ireland, we ſhould not have loſt America! — The only true means, for inſtance, to preſerve the Britiſh empire in Eaſt-India, which ſtill remains to us, is, to inſtruct the Sooders, and lower caſts of the Indian tribes, concerning their natural right to a ſhare in the government of thoſe coun⯑tries which they inhabit, that their duly elected repreſentatives, in a general aſ⯑ſembly, may have confidence to reject [6] and confute that deteſtable lie of the Bra⯑mins, by which they are holden in ſla⯑very, and rendered the prey of Tartarian, as well as European, wolves and tigers.

The Engliſh company of merchants, aided by the Britiſh government, have, at preſent, both power and influence ſuf⯑ficient to effect this, and reſtore them to their rights: this would be an obligation never to be forgotten, and which would eſtabliſh trade upon its proper baſis, and remove all difficulties, as well as expence, from the government of that vaſt empire; but, if the opportunity be too long ne⯑glected, it may be ſuddenly loſt for ever!

With reſpect to the ſecond objection, — ‘The apprehenſions of diſorder on too frequent elections.’ — The evidence of experience confutes it, as, I hope, I have already proved in the two little tracts, ^* [7] and of which the preamble to the wicked act of the 8th of king Henry VI. is itſelf an ample teſtimony; ^† becauſe the per⯑verters of the conſtitution, at that time, could not ſay that ‘man-ſlaughter, ri⯑ots, batteries, &c.’ had then happen⯑ed, as they really do now at our ſeptennial elections, but only in the future tenſe, that "they ſhall very likely ariſe and be." They could not complain, that there were a number of outrageous people at county elec⯑tions, and therefore they perverſely and deceitfully complained only of an outrage⯑ous and exceſſive number of people: the epi⯑thet, "outrageous," was not applicable to the people, and therefore they have deceitfully branded the innocent ſubſtan⯑tive, "number," with the charge of being "outrageous." The reaſon of this is [8] plain: the manner of wording the act, as it now ſtands, has the effect of an in⯑ſinuation againſt the behaviour of the people, that is, to a careleſs reader, and thereby it anſwered the deceitful purpoſe of thoſe who framed (or tranſlated) the act, which would have been null and void for want of truth, had the adjective, "outrageous," been applied to the other ſubſtantive, i. e. people; for falſehood in a preamble has the unqueſtionable effect of deſtroying the force of any ſtatute.

But, if the people really were outrageous at elections, as well as exceſſively numerous, yet, it is certain, that they had right on their ſide, and intended the good of the kingdom in general; becauſe they have the evidence of all antiquity, that the majority of theſe exceſſive numbers were generally for ſending to parliament the beſt and moſt reſpectable men they could find among them; which is not only pro⯑ved by the teſtimony I quoted from [9] Prynne, in p. 31 and 32 of my firſt little tract,^* but alſo by the evidence of that learned antiquarian, Browne Willis, Eſq. who tells us, in the preface of his Noti⯑tia parliamentaria, that ‘the knights of ſhires’ (viz. thoſe that were choſen by the outrageous and exceſſive number of peo⯑ple) ‘have, EVER, IN ALL COUNTIES, been choſen out of the principal gentry and quality: and though, ſays he, the citizens and burgeſſes were hereto⯑fore elected out of their reſpective communities, and were only the CHIEF and MOST EMINENT MERCHANTS, &c. of their own communities or cor⯑porate bodies; yet, in king Edward IV.'s time, we find a great many of them diſtinguiſhed by titles,’ &c. This affords a farther anſwer alſo to the firſt objection againſt annual parliaments.

For who are ſo fit to judge of public affairs, ‘now that the empire is ſo vaſt, [10] and foreign connexions ſo interwoven with us,’ (according to the objector's ſta⯑ting,) as ‘the principal gentry and qua⯑lity’ out of the counties, and the "chief and moſt eminent merchants" out of the trading cities and boroughs? and more eſpecially ſuch knights, citizens, and burgeſſes, as thoſe of ancient times, whoſe conduct in parliament procured them the honour of being annually retur⯑ned, and ſometimes more often, for ſeve⯑ral years together?

Thus, the two firſt objections againſt annual elections are manifeſtly without foundation; and, with reſpect to the third, that ‘it never was the law of the land,’ ^* it ſavours either of ſuch deplo⯑rable [11] ignorance, or of ſuch bare-faced falſehood and effrontery, as ſcarcely de⯑ſerves an anſwer!

If I have made any error or miſrepre⯑ſentation in either of the little tracts, let the objectors point it out, and they will not find me backward to ſubmit to truth; for that is my duty to God and man! — But, to condemn the doctrine in the lump, without deigning to give a ſingle reaſon or proof againſt it, though it is ſup⯑ported by the moſt unqueſtionable hiſto⯑rical evidence, of which many even of the original documents (I mean the an⯑nual, or rather ſeſſional, writs themſelves) do ſtill exiſt, in our public records, to this day, is ſuch a deteſtable perverſion of truth, ſuch a depravity of human nature, in the baneful ſervice of our great natu⯑ral enemy, the "father of lies," that I ſhould hardly have believed my own ears, had I been preſent when the objection was made.

[12]Perſons, who diſcover ſuch impotent malice againſt truth, muſt be warned of their ſpiritual danger, leſt they ſhould be loſt for ever!

That you may be able more eaſily to confute ſuch objectors, I have ſent you Browne Willis's Notitia parliamentaria; where you will find, in the very firſt ta⯑ble of writs, (viz. that for the county of Bedford,) examples of annual elections for twenty years together, in continual ſucceſſion, except in one ſingle inſtance; which omiſſion will be the more eaſily excuſed, if it be conſidered that there were two general elections in the year which preceded the year of omiſſion, as alſo two general elections in the year which followed it. — The period I refer to is be⯑tween the 15th of king Edward II. and the 15th of king Edward III. In the 6th year of the latter reign, there were three new parliaments; two in the 7th, two in the 10th, two in the 11th, two [13] in the 12th, two in the 13th, and FOUR in the 14th, year.^* This affords ample proof, not only that new parliaments ſhould be holden every year once, but even "more often if need be." The book con⯑tains a great abundance of other exam⯑ples: and, though the annual elections were ſometimes omitted, yet this affords no proof againſt the peoples right to have them. Another learned antiquarian, Mr. Gurdon, informs us, in his Hiſtory of the high Court of Parliament, page 282, that ‘new ſummonſes were to go out for a new parliament,^‖ once a year, [14] at the leaſt.’ This book I have alſo ſent for your peruſal, and likewiſe an hiſtori⯑cal [15] Treatiſe of Cities and Boroughs, by Dr. Brady, who bears ample teſtimony to the means which I have propoſed in my firſt tract, for obtaining a more equal repreſentation; for he proves, that, ‘IN SEVERAL COUNTIES, the CITIZENS and BURGESSES were choſen in the COUNTY-COURTS with the KNIGHTS, on the day of the KNIGHTS ELECTION, in the SAME court, and jointly returned in ONE INDENTURE, eſpecially before the ſtatute of the 23d of king Henry VI. and, in ſome, after that,’ &c. p. 75.

It would be too tedious to give you more proofs reſpecting ‘the law of the land,’ in anſwer to the third objec⯑tion; and, in anſwer to the fourth objec⯑tion, (‘that the whole conſtitution muſt be new-modelled to that idea,’) I ſhall be [16] ſtill more brief, having only to add, that we are far from deſiring that ‘the conſti⯑tution may be new-modelled;’ we only pray, that the unjuſt uſurpations, (made without the conſent of the people,) the corruptions, and other ſuch abuſes, may be taken away and reformed: and then the ancient conſtitution of annual elections, and "more often if need be," will recover its full vigour without any other altera⯑tion.