“Finally,” said one speaker, who perhaps was Lord Mansfield himself, “he is not a moderate minister who would rashly decide in favor of prerogative in a question where the rights of Parliament are involved, nor a prudent minister who, even in a doubtful case, commits the prerogative, by a wanton experiment, to what degree the people will bear the extent of it.  The opposite course was that by which a minister would consult the best interests of the crown, as well as of the people.  The safety of the crown, as well as the security of the subject, requires the closing up of every avenue that can lead to tyranny."[22]

These arguments prevailed, and the indemnity bill was passed, to quote the words of the “Annual Register”—­at that time written by Burke—­“very much to the satisfaction of the public.”  And that it should have been so accepted is creditable to the good-sense of both parties.  The precedent which was thus established does, indeed, seem to rest on a principle indispensable to the proper working of a constitutional government.  In so extensive an empire as ours, it is scarcely possible that sudden emergencies, requiring the instant application of some remedy, should not at times arise; and, unless Parliament be sitting at the time, such can only be adequately dealt with if the ministers of the crown have the courage to take such steps as are necessary, whether by the suspension of a law or by any other expedient, on their own responsibility, trusting in their ability to satisfy the Parliament, instantly convoked to receive their explanation, of the necessity or wisdom of their proceedings; and in the candor of the Parliament to recognize, if not the judiciousness of their action, at all events the good faith in which it has been taken, and the honest, patriotic intention which has dictated it.  The establishment of the obligation instantly to submit the question to the judgment of Parliament will hardly be denied to be a sufficient safeguard against the ministerial abuse of such a power; and the instances in which such a power has since been exercised, coupled with the sanction of such exercise by Parliament, are a practical approval and ratification by subsequent Parliaments of the course that was now adopted.[23]

The next year a not very creditable job of the ministry led to the enactment of a statute of great importance to all holders of property which had ever belonged to the crown.  In the twenty-first year of James I. a bill had been passed giving a secure tenure of their estates to all grantees of crown lands whose possession of them had lasted sixty years.  The Houses had desired to make the enactment extend to all future as well as to all previous grants.  But to this James had refused to consent; and, telling the Houses that “beggars must not be choosers,” he had compelled them to content themselves with a retrospective statute.  Since his time, and especially in the reigns of Charles II. and William III., the