The expression of your full persuasion of the upright intentions of the King can only be the language of flattery.

You are not to be told that it is constitutionally a maxim not to attribute to the person of the King the measures and misconduct of government.

Had you chosen to speak, as you ought to have done, openly and explicitly, you must have expressed your just persuasion and implicit confidence in the integrity, moderation, and wisdom of his Majesty's ministers.

Have you forgot the avowed ministerial maxim of Sir Robert Walpole?
Are you ignorant of the overwhelming corruption of the present day?
You seem unconscious of the absurdity of separating what is inseparable even in imagination.

Would it have been any consolation to the miserable Romans under the second triumvirate to have been asked insultingly, Is it Octavius, is it Anthony, or is it Lepidus that has caused this bitterness of affliction?
and when the answer could not be returned with certainty, to have been reproached that their sufferings were imaginary?
The fact is that the King _and_ Lords _and_ Commons, by what is termed the omnipotence of Parliament, have constitutionally the right of enacting whatever laws they please, in defiance of the petitions or remonstrances of the nation.