39.  Before society, in a multitude of men, it is obvious that sovereignty and subjection are ideas which cannot exist.  It is the compact on which society is formed that makes both.  But to suppose the people, contrary to their compacts, both to give away and retain the same thing is altogether absurd.  It is worse, for it supposes in any strong combination of men a power and right of always dissolving the social union; which power, however, if it exists, renders them again as little sovereigns as subjects, but a mere unconnected multitude.  It is not easy to state for what good end, at a time like this, when the foundations of all ancient and prescriptive governments, such as ours, (to which people submit, not because they have chosen them, but because they are born to them,) are undermined by perilous theories, that Mr. Fox should be so fond of referring to those theories, upon all occasions, even though speculatively they might be true,—­which God forbid they should!  Particularly I do not see the reason why he should be so fond of declaring that the principles of the Revolution have made the crown of Great Britain elective,—­why he thinks it seasonable to preach up with so much earnestness, for now three years together, the doctrine of resistance and revolution at all,—­or to assert that our last Revolution, of 1688, stands on the same or similar principles with that of France.  We are not called upon to bring forward these doctrines, which are hardly ever resorted to but in cases of extremity, and where they are followed by correspondent actions.  We are not called upon by any circumstance, that I know of, which can justify a revolt, or which demands a revolution, or can make an election of a successor to the crown necessary, whatever latent right may be supposed to exist for effectuating any of these purposes.

40.  Not the least alarming of the proceedings of Mr. Fox and his friends in this session, especially taken in concurrence with their whole proceedings with regard to France and its principles, is their eagerness at this season, under pretence of Parliamentary reforms, (a project which had been for some time rather dormant,) to discredit and disgrace the House of Commons.  For this purpose these gentlemen had found a way to insult the House by several atrocious libels in the form of petitions.  In particular they brought up a libel, or rather a complete digest of libellous matter, from the club called the Friends of the People.  It is, indeed, at once the most audacious and the most insidious of all the performances of that kind which have yet appeared.  It is said to be the penmanship of Mr. Tierney, to bring whom into Parliament the Duke of Portland formerly had taken a good deal of pains, and expended, as I hear, a considerable sum of money.