when possessed of an unrestrained power, have not made a very bad use of it - They have generally exercised such a power to the terror both of the good and the evil, and of the good more than the evil - While a governor is possessed of a power without any other check than that which the constitution has provided, upon a supposition that the king by charter may pay him as well as appoint him, for aught I can see, under such an administration as the present, I mean in England, he may make the people slaves as soon as he pleases and keep them so as long as he pleases. I have heard it asked, What! may not the king make a present to his governor of fifteen hundred sterling every year, if he sees fit? Is not his MAJESTY allowed to be upon a footing with even a private subject? This reasoning is very plausible, but I think not just. In some respects the king is more restrained than the lowest of his subjects. He may not for instance, turn a Roman Catholic, or marry one of that religion and hold his crown: He forfeits it by law if he does. And why? Because it has been found that the Roman Catholic principles are inconsistent with the principles of the British constitution, which is the rule of his government. And there is the same reason why the governor who is appointed by the crown, should stipulate with the people for his support, if that mutual check among the several powers of government, which is essential to every free constitution, is otherwise destroyed. - If the king's paying or making yearly presents to his governor, renders him a different being in the state from that which the Charter intends he shall be, and that to the prejudice of the people, the king by the compact may not pay him, for in such a case, it would be inconsistent with the principles of our constitution - No king can have a right to put it in the power of his governor to become a tyrant, or govern arbitrarily; for he cannot be a tyrant or govern arbitrarily himself.