Some hundred years ago when the peers were so great that the commons were looked upon as little better than their dependents, a bill was brought in for making some new additions to the power and privileges of the peerage.  After it was read, one Mr. Drewe a member of the house, stood up, and said, he very much approved the bill, and would give his vote to have it pass; but however, for some reasons best known to himself, he desired that a clause might be inserted for excepting the family of the Drewes.  The oddness of the proposition taught others to reflect a little, and the bill was thrown out.

Whether I were mistaken, or went too far in examining the dependency must be left to the impartial judgment of the world, as well as to the courts of judicature, although indeed not in so effectual and decisive a manner.  But to affirm, as I hear some do, in order to countenance a fearful and servile spirit, that this point did not belong to my subject, is a false and foolish objection.  There were several scandalous reports industriously spread by Wood and his accomplices to discourage all opposition against his infamous project.  They gave it out that we were prepared for a rebellion, that we disputed the King’s prerogative, and were shaking off our dependency.  The first went so far, and obtained so much belief against the most visible demonstrations to the contrary, that a great person of this kingdom, now in England, sent over such an account of it to his friends, as would make any good subject both grieve and tremble.  I thought it therefore necessary to treat that calumny as it deserved.  Then I proved by an invincible argument that we could have no intention to dispute His Majesty’s prerogative, because the prerogative was not concerned in the question, the civilians and lawyers of all nations agreeing that copper is not money.  And lastly to clear us from the imputation of shaking off our dependency, I shewed wherein as I thought this dependency consisted, and cited the statute above mentioned made in Ireland, by which it is enacted, that “whoever is King of England shall be King of Ireland,” and that the two kingdoms shall be “for ever knit together under one King.”  This, as I conceived, did wholly acquit us of intending to break our dependency, because it was altogether out of our power, for surely no King of England will ever consent to the repeal of that statute.

But upon this article I am charged with a heavier accusation.  It is said I went too far, when I declared, that “if ever the Pretender should come to be fixed upon the throne of England (which God forbid) I would so far venture to transgress this statute, that I would lose the last drop of my blood before I would submit to him as King of Ireland.”