appeal to his Majesty in Council to decide it. Would it not be as
reasonable for the House to appeal to the Body of their Constituents
to decide it? Whenever a Dispute has arisen within the Realm, between
the Crown & the two Houses of Parliament, or either of them, was it
ever imagind that the King in his privy Council had Authority to
decide it? However there is a Test, a Standard common to all, we mean
the publick Good. But your Honor must be very sensible that the
Illegality of holding the Court in any other place besides the Town of
Boston is far from being the only Dispute between your Honor & this
House: we contend, that the People & their Representatives have a
Right to withstand the abusive Exercise of a legal & constitutional
Prerogative of the Crown. We beg Leave to recite to your Honor what
the Great Mr Locke has advancd in his Treatise of civil Government,
upon the like Prerogative of the Crown. "The old Question, says he,
will be asked in this matter of Prerogative, who shall be Judge when
this Power is made a right Use of?" And he answers, "Between an
executive Power in being with such a Prerogative, and a Legislature
that depends upon his Will for their convening, there can be no Judge
on Earth, as there can be none between the Legislative & the People,
should either the Executive or Legislative when they have got the
Power in their Hands, design or go about to enslave or destroy them.
The People have no other Remedy in this, as in all other Cases, where
they have no Judge on Earth, but to appeal to Heaven. For the Rulers,
in such Attempts, exercising a Power the People never put into their
Hands (who can never be supposd to consent that any Body should rule
over them for their Harm) do that which they have not a Right to do.
And when the Body of the People or any single Man is deprivd of their
Right, or under the Exercise of a Power without Right, and have no
Appeal on Earth, then they have a Liberty to appeal to Heaven whenever
they judge the Cause of sufficient moment. And therefore, tho the