The weaker any cord is, the less will it bear to be stretched, and
the worse is the policy to stretch it, unless it is intended to break
it. Had anyone proposed the overthrow of Mr. Burke's positions, he
would have proceeded as Mr. Burke has done. He would have magnified
the authorities, on purpose to have called the right of them into
question; and the instant the question of right was started, the
authorities must have been given up.

It requires but a very small glance of thought to perceive that
although laws made in one generation often continue in force through
succeeding generations, yet they continue to derive their force from
the consent of the living. A law not repealed continues in force, not
because it cannot be repealed, but because it is not repealed; and
the non-repealing passes for consent.

But Mr. Burke's clauses have not even this qualification in their
favour. They become null, by attempting to become immortal. The
nature of them precludes consent. They destroy the right which they
might have, by grounding it on a right which they cannot have.
Immortal power is not a human right, and therefore cannot be a right
of Parliament. The Parliament of 1688 might as well have passed an
act to have authorised themselves to live for ever, as to make their
authority live for ever. All, therefore, that can be said of those
clauses is that they are a formality of words, of as much import as
if those who used them had addressed a congratulation to themselves,
and in the oriental style of antiquity had said: O Parliament, live
for ever!

The circumstances of the world are continually changing, and the
opinions of men change also; and as government is for the living, and