No certainly.We must keep our free constitution,with the small defects belonging to it,or we must change it for an arbitrary government,free perhaps from these defects,but liable to more and to worse.In short,we must make our option;and surely this option is not hard to be made,between the real and permanent blessings of liberty,diffused through a whole nation,and the fantastic and accidental advantages which they who govern,not the body of the people,enjoy under absolute monarchies.I will not multiply instances,though they crowd in upon me.--Two consuls were chosen annually at Rome,and the proconsular power in the government of provinces was limited to a year.Several inconveniencies arose,no doubt,from the strict observation of this institution.Some appear very plain in history:and of we may assure ourselves,that many arguments of conveniency,expediency,of preserving the tranquillity of the city,and of giving strength and weight to the arms and counsels of the commonwealth,were urged to prevail on the people to dispense with these institutions,in favour of Pompey and of Caesar.

What was the consequence?The pirates were extirpated,the price of corn was reduced,Spain was held in subjection,Gaul was conquered,the Germans were repulsed,Rome triumphed,her government flourished;but her constitution was destroyed,her liberty was lost.--The law of Habeas Corpus,that noble badge of liberty,which every subject of Britain wears,and by which he is distinguished so eminently,not from the slaves alone,but even from the freemen of other countries;the law of Habeas Corpus,I say,may be attended perhaps with some little inconveniencies,in time of sedition and rebellion.--The slow methods of giving money,and the strict appropriations of it,when given,may be attended with some inconveniency likewise,in times of danger,and in great exigencies of the state.But who will plead for the repeal of the Habeas Corpus Act;or who would not press for the revival of it,if it stood suspended for an indefinite,or even a long term?--Who will say that the practice of giving money without account,or passing votes of credit,by which the purse of the people is taken out of the hands of those whom the people trusted,and put into the hands of those whom they neither did,nor would have trusted;who will say that such a deviation from those rules of Parliament,which ought to be deemed sacred and preserved inviolate,may be established,or should not be opposed by all possible means,if it was established?