will live long enough to see an end put to the mischief which will be the result of the doctrine that has been inculcated; but the arrow is shot, and the wound already given.1
All arguments fetched from Locke, Harrington, and speculative men, who have written upon the subject of government, the law of nature, or of other nations, are little to the purpose, for we are not now settling a new constitution, but finding out and declaring the old one.2
The doctrine of representation seems ill founded; there are twelve millions of people in England and Ireland who are not represented.
The parliament first depended upon tenures; representation by election came by the favor of the crown, and the notion now taken up, that every subject must be represented by deputy, is purely ideal.
The doctrine of representation never entered the heads of the great writers in Charles the First's time against ship money or other illegal exertions of the prerogative, nor was the right of representation claimed in the Petition of Rights at the great era of the revolution.3
—thus he continued, after having answered one by one the writs and records quoted by Lord Camden, the arguments fetched from the Marches of Wales
, from the counties palatine, from Guernsey
, from the case of the clergy, as well as those drawn from the colonies of antiquity, and from the states of Holland;—
the colonists, by the condition on which they migrated, settled and now exist,