Wesley Corpus

27. Hitherto we have endeavoured to view this point in the mere light of reason; and, even by this, it appears, that this supposition, which has been palmed upon us as undeniable, is not only false, not only contrary to reason, but contradictory to itself; the very men who are most positive that the people are the source of power, being brought into an inextricable difficulty, by that single question, “Who are the people?” reduced to a necessity of either giving up the point, or owning that by the people, they mean scarce a tenth part of them. 28. But we need not rest the matter entirely on reasoning. Let us appeal to matter of fact; and, because we cannot have so clear a prospect of what is at a distance, let us only take a view of what has been in our own country. I ask, then, When did the people of England (suppose you mean by that word only half a million of them) choose their own Governors? Did they choose (to go no further) William the Conqueror? Did they choose King Stephen or King John? As to those who regularly succeeded their fathers, the people are out of the question. Did they choose Henry the Fourth, Edward the Fourth, or Henry the Seventh? Who will be so hardy as to affirm it? Did the people of England, or but fifty thousand of them, choose Queen Mary, or Queen Elizabeth, or King James the First? Perhaps you will say, “If the people did not give King Charles the supreme power, at least they took it away.” No; the people of England no more took away his power, than they cut off his head. “Yes; the Parliament did, and they are the people.” No; the Parlia ment did not : The House of Commons is not the Parliament, any more than it is the nation. Neither were those who then sat the House of Commons; no, nor one quarter of them. But, suppose they had been the whole House of Commons, yea, or the whole Parliament, by what rule of logic will you prove that seven or eight hundred persons are the people of England?