suppos'd to come immediately from the Crown"--This is reasoning
plausibly enough; but before I can give my full Assent to the
Conclusion, I must have good Grounds to believe this same Secretary to
be a Man of Wisdom and Integrity; a Character, which however
requisite, does not always belong to a Minister of State. If he is
deficient in both or either of these, we can have no Assurance, that
every Order coming from him is declaratory of the Pleasure of the
Sovereign: His want of Wisdom may render him altogether incapable of
understanding the Mind of his royal Master; or, failing in point of
Integrity he may maliciously and traiterously pervert his benevolent
Intentions for the Good of his Subjects. Whenever Orders are given by
a Secretary of State, that are evidently calculated to injure the
Publick, we are by no Means to suppose them to come immediately from
the Crown, for the King can do no Wrong: Will his Honor have us
believe that the King can do a weak & foolish, or a malevolent and
wicked Act? If not, such Instructions are to be look'd upon as the
acts of the Minister and not of the King. Ministers of state were
formerly shields to the persons of Kings from such kind of
imputations; but it is much to be feared, if care is not taken to
prevent it, the idle whimsies of Ministers, their weakness and folly,
or their daring and impudent attempts to destroy the Liberties of the
People, will be attributed to a Cause which no one, to be sure at
present, will chuse to mention.--I hope his Honor's reasoning, and his
correspondent Conduct, does not lead to this--The House of
Representatives seem to be aware of the Danger of such Doctrine, when
they expressly say, "They presume not to call in question the Wisdom
of their Sovereign or the rectitude of his Intentions"; at the same
time that they speak with a manly Freedom, of certain Instructions
that have come from Ministers of State, and even treat them with
Indignity and Contempt. His Honor presumes "they would not have done