of the choice of the Revolution Society, who have not a single vote for a king amongst them, either individually or collectively:  though I make no doubt they would soon erect themselves into an electoral college, if things were ripe to give effect to their claim.  His Majesty’s heirs and successors, each in his time and order, will come to the crown with the same contempt of their choice with which his Majesty has succeeded to that he wears.

Whatever may be the success of evasion in explaining away the gross error fact, which supposes that his Majesty (though he holds it in concurrence with the wishes) owes his crown to the choice of his people, yet nothing can evade their full, explicit declaration concerning the principle of a right in the people to choose,—­which right is directly maintained, and tenaciously adhered to.  All the oblique insinuations concerning election bottom in this proposition, and are referable to it.  Lest the foundation of the king’s exclusive legal title should pass for a mere rant of adulatory freedom, the political divine proceeds dogmatically to assert,[80] that, by the principles of the Revolution, the people of England have acquired three fundamental rights, all of which, with him, compose one system, and lie together in one short sentence:  namely, that we have acquired a right

1.  “To choose our own governors.”

2.  “To cashier them for misconduct.”

3.  “To frame a government for ourselves.”

This new, and hitherto unheard-of bill of rights, though made in the name of the whole people, belongs to those gentlemen and their faction only.  The body of the people of England have no share in it.  They utterly disclaim it.  They will resist the practical assertion of it with their lives and fortunes.  They are bound to do so by the laws of their country, made at the time of that very Revolution which is appealed to in favor of the fictitious rights claimed by the society which abuses its name.

These gentlemen of the Old Jewry, in all their reasonings on the Revolution of 1688, have a revolution which happened in England about forty years before, and the late French Revolution, so much before their eyes and in their hearts, that they are constantly confounding all the three together.  It is necessary that we should separate what they confound.  We must recall their erring fancies to the acts of the Revolution which we revere, for the discovery of its true principles.  If the principles of the Revolution of 1688 are anywhere to be found, it is in the statute called the Declaration of Right.  In that most wise, sober, and considerate declaration, drawn up by great lawyers and great statesmen, and not by warm and inexperienced enthusiasts, not one word is said, nor one suggestion made, of a general right “to choose our own governors, to cashier them for misconduct, and to form a government for ourselves.”