Besides, where the most honourable of the Land do not blush to accept such offices as groom of the bedchamber, master of the hounds, lords in waiting, captain of the honourable band of gentlemen-pensioners, is it astonishing that the bulk of the people should not ask of an occupation, what is it?
but what may be gained by it?
If the long equestrian train of equipage should make your Lordship sigh for the poor who are pining in hunger, you will find that little is thought of snatching the bread from their mouths to eke out the '_necessary_ splendour' of nobility.
I have not time to pursue this subject further, but am so strongly impressed with the baleful influence of aristocracy and nobility upon human happiness and virtue, that if, as I am persuaded, monarchy cannot exist without such supporters, I think that reason sufficient for the preference I have given to the Republican system.
It is with reluctance that I quit the subjects I have just touched upon; but the nature of this Address does not permit me to continue the discussion.

I proceed to what more immediately relates to this Kingdom at the present crisis.
You ask with triumphant confidence, to what other law are the people of England subject than the general will of the society to which they belong?
Is your Lordship to be told that acquiescence is not choice, and that obedience is not freedom?
If there is a single man in Great Britain who has no suffrage in the election of a representative, the will of the society of which he is a member is not generally expressed; he is a Helot in that society.

You answer the question, so confidently put, in this singular manner: 'The King, we are all justly persuaded, has not the inclination--and we all know that, if he had the inclination, he has not the power--to substitute his will in the place of law.

The House of Lords has no such power.

The House of Commons has no such power.' This passage, so artfully and unconstitutionally framed to agree with the delusions of the moment, cannot deceive a thinking reader.