find sufficient employment at home. In these circum- main an apology to be made to his navy and to his "You were once stances we might have dictated the law to Spain. There army. To the first he would say, are no terms to which she might have been compelled the terror of the world. But go back to your to submit. At the worst, a war with Spain alone carries harbors. A man, dishonored as I am, has no use for the fairest promise of advantage. One good effect, at your service." It is not probable that he would apleast, would have been immediately produced by it. pear again before his soldiers, even in the pacific The desertion of France would have irritated her ally, ceremony of a review.* But, wherever he appeared, and, in all probability, have dissolved the family the humiliating confession would be extorted from compact. The scene is now fatally changed. The him,-"I have received a blow, and had not spirit to advantage is thrown away. The most favorable op- resent it. I demanded satisfaction, and have acportunity is lost. Hereafter we shall know the cepted a declaration, in which the right to strike me value of it. When the French king is reconciled to again is asserted and confirmed." His countenance, his subjects-when Spain has completed her prepa- at least, would speak this language, and even his rations-when the collected strength of the house of guards would blush for him. Bourbon attacks us at once, the king himself will be able to determine upon the wisdom or imprudence of his present conduct. As far as the probability of argument extends, we may safely pronounce, that a conjuncture, which threatens the very being of this country, has been wilfully prepared and forwarded by our own ministry. How far the people may be animated to resistance, under the present administration, I know not; but this I know, with certainty, that. under the present administration, or if any thing like it should continue, it is of very little moment whether we are a conquered nation or not.* Having travelled thus far in the high road of matter of fact, I may now be permitted to wander a little into the field of imagination. Let us banish from our minds the persuasion that these events have really happened in the reign of the best of princes; let us consider, them as nothing more than the materials of a fable, in which we may conceive the sovereign of some other country to be concerned I mean to violate all the laws of probability, when I suppose that this imaginary king, after having voluntarily disgraced himself in the eyes of his subjects, might return to a sense of his dishonor; that he might perceive the snare laid for him by his ministers, and feel a spark of shame kindling in his breast. The part he must then be obliged to act would overwhelm him with confusion. To his parliament he must say, "I called you together to receive your advice, and have never asked your opinion."-To the merchant, "I have distressed your commerce; I have dragged your seamen out of your ships; I have loaded you with a grievous weight of insurances."To the landholder, "I told you war was too probable, when I was determined to submit to any terms of accom modation; I extorted new taxes from you before it was possible they could be wanted, and am now unable to account for the application of them."-To the public creditor, "I have delivered up your fortune a prey to foreigners, and to the vilest of your fellow subjects." Perhaps, this repenting prince might conclude with one general acknowledgement to them all: "I have involved every rank of my subjects in anxiety and distress; and have nothing to offer you, in return, but the certainty of national dishonor, an armed truce, and peace without security." If these accounts were settled, there would still reThe king's acceptance of the Spanish ambassador's declaration is drawn up in barbarous French, and signed by the earl of Rochford. This diplomatic lord has spent his life in the study and practice of etiquettes, and is supposed to be a profound master of the ceremonies. I will not insult him by any reference to grammar or common sense; if he were even acquainted with the common forms of his office, I should think him as well qualified for it, as any man in his majesty's service. The reader is requested to observe Lord Rochford's method of authenticating a public instrument "En foi de quoi, moi soussigne, un des principaux secretaires d'etat S. M. B. ai signe la presente de ma signature ordinaire, et icelle fait apposer le cachet de nos armes " In three lines there are no less than seven false concords. But the man does not even know the style of his office. If he had known it he would have said, "Nous, soussigne secretaire d'etat de S. M. B. avons signe, etc. But to return to our argument. The ministry, it seems, are laboring to draw a line of distinction between the honor of the crown and the rights of the people. This new idea has yet only been started in discourse; for, in effect, both objects have been equally sacrificed. I neither understand the distinction, nor what use the ministry propose to make of it. The king's honor is that of his people. Their real honor and real interest are the same. I am not contending for a vain punctilio. A clear, unblemished character comprehends not only the integrity that will not offer, but the spirit that will not submit to an injury: and, whether it belongs to an individual or to a community, it is the foundation of peace, of independence, and of safety. Private credit is wealth; public honor is security. The feather that adorns the royal bird supports his flight. Strip him of his plumage, and you fix him to the earth. SIR, LETTER XLIII. JUNIUS. TO THE PRINTER OF THE PUBLIC ADVERTISER I hope your correspondent, Junius, is better employed than in answering or reading the criticism of a newspaper. This is a task, from which, if we were inclined to submit to it, his friends ought to relieve him. Upon this principle, I shall undertake to answer Anti-Junius, more, I believe, to his conviction, than to his satisfaction. Not daring to attack the main body of Junius's last letter, he triumphs in having, as he thinks, surprised an out-post, and cut off a detached argument, a mere straggling proposi tion. But even in this petty warfare he shall find himself defeated. Junius does not speak of the Spanish nation as the natural enemies of England: he applies that description with the strictest truth and justice, to the Spanish court. Form the moment when a prince of the house of Bourbon ascended that throne, their whole system of government was inverted, and became hostile to this country. Unity of possession introduced a unity of politics; and Louis the Fourteenth had reason, when he said to his grandson, The Pyrenees are removed." The history of the present century is one continued confirmation of the prophecy. The assertion, "That violence and oppression at home can only be supported by treachery and submission abroad," is applied to a free people, whose rights are invaded, not to the government of a country, where despotic or absolute power is confessedly vested in the prince; and, with this application, the assertion is true. An absolute monarch, having no points to carry at home, will naturally maintain the honor of his crown in all his transactions with foreign powers. But if we could suppose the sovereign of a free nation possessed with a design to make himself *A mistake: he appears before them every day, with a mark of a blow upon his face. Proh pudor! JUNIUS. absolute, he would be inconsistent with himself, if he suffered his projects to be interrupted or embarrassed by a foreign war, unless that war tended, as in some cases it might, to promote his principal design. Of the three exceptions to this general rule of conduct, (quoted by Anti-Junius,) that of Oliver Cromwell is the only one in point. Harry the Eighth, by the submission of his parliament, was as absolute a prince as Louis the Fourteenth. Queen Elizabeth's government was not oppressive to the people, and as to her foreign wars, it ought to be considered, that they were unavoidable. The national honor was not in question: she was compelled to fight in defense In of her own person, and of her title to the crown. the common cause of selfish policy, Oliver Cromwell should have cultivated the friendship of foreign powers, or at least, have avoided disputes with them, the better to establish his tyranny at home. Had he been only a bad man, he would have sacrificed the honor of the nation to the success of his domestic policy. But, with all his crimes, he had the spirit of an Englishman. The conduct of such a man must always be an exception to vulgar rules. He had abilities sufficient to reconcile contradictions, and to make a great nation, at the same moment, unhappy and formidable. If it were not for the respect I bear the minister, I could name a man, who, without one much as grain of understanding, can do half as Oliver Cromwell. Whether or no there be a secret system in the closet, and what may be the object of it, are questions which can only be determined by appearance, and on which every man must decide for himself. The whole plan of Junius's letter proves, that he himself makes no distinction between the real honor of the crown and the real interest of the people. In the climax to which your correspondent objects, Junius adopts the language of the court, and, by that conformity, gives strength to his argument. He says that "the king has not only sacrificed the interest of the people, but (what was likely to touch him more nearly) his personal reputation, and the dignity of his crown." LETTER XLIV. 777 TO THE PRINTER OF THE PUBLIC ADVERTISER. SIR, To write for profit, without taxing the press; to write for fame, and to be unknown; to support the intrigues of faction, and to be disowned as a dangerous auxiliary by every party in the kingdom, are contradictions which the minister must reconcile before I forfeit my credit with the public. I may quit desertion. The reputation of these papers is an the service, but it would be absurd to suspect me of honorable pledge for my attachment to the people. To sacrifice a respected character, and to renounce the esteem of society, requires more than Mr. Wedderburne's resolution; and though in him it was rather a profession than a desertion of his principles, (I speak tenderly of this gentleman; for, when treachery is in question, I think we should make allowances for a Scotchman) yet we have seen him in the house of commons overwhelmed with confusion, have left no room for an accommodation with the and almost bereft of his faculties. But, in truth, sir piety of St. James's. My offenses are not to be redeemed by recantation or repentance. On one side, to their honest ambition. On the other, the vilest our warmest patriots would disclaim me as a burthen prostitution, if Junius could descend to it, would lose its natural merit and influence in the cabinet, and treachery be no longer a recommendation to the royal favor. When I hear The persons, who, till within these few years, have been most distinguished by their zeal for high-church and prerogative, are now, it seems, the great assertors of the privileges of the house of commons. This sudries with it a suspicious appearance. den alteration of their sentiments or language, carthe undefined privileges of the popular branch of the legislature exalted by tories and jacobites, at the expense of those strict rights which are known to the subject and limited by the laws, I cannot but suspect troy both law and privilege, by opposing them to each that some mischievous scheme is in agitation, to desThe queries put by Anti-Junius can only be an- other. They who have uniformly denied the power swered by the ministry. Abandoned as they are, I of the whole legislature to alter the descent of the fancy they will not confess, that they have, for so crown, and whose ancestors, in rebellion against his many years, maintained possession of another man's majesty's family, have defended that doctrine at the property. After admitting the assertion of the min-hazard of their lives, now tell us, that privilege of paristry, viz. "That the Spaniards had no rightful claim," and after justifying them for saying so, it is his business, not mine, to give us some good reason for their "suffering the pretensions of Spain to be a subject of negotiation." He admits the facts; let him reconcile them if he can. liament is the only rule of right, and the chief security of the public freedom. I fear, sir, that, while forms remain, there has been some material change in the substance of our constitution. The opinions of these Liberal minds are open to conviction; liberal docmen were too absurd to be so easily renounced. trines are capable of improvement. There are proselytes from atheism, but none from superstition. If their present professions were sincere, I think they could not be highly offended at seeing a question concerning parliamentary privilege unnecessarily started at a season so unfavorable to the house of commons, and by so very mean and insignificant a person as the minor Onslow. They knew that the present house of commons, having commenced hostilities with the people, and degraded the authority of the laws by their own example, were likely enough to be resisted per fas et nefas. If they were really friends to privilege, they would have thought the question of right too dangerous to be hazarded at this season, and, without the formality of a convenI have been silent hitherto, though not from that tion, would have left it undecided. op-shameful indifference about the interests of society, which too many of us possess, and call moderation. I confess, sir, that I felt the prejudices of my education in favor of a house of commons still hanging The last paragraph brings us back to the original question, Whether the Spanish declaration contains such a satisfaction as the king of Great Britain ought to have accepted? This was the field upon which he ought to have encountered Junius openly and fairly. But here he leaves the argument, as no longer defensible. I shall, therefore, conclude with one general admonition to my fellow subjects; that, when they hear these matters debated, they should not suffer themselves to be misled by general declamations upon the conveniences of peace, or the miseries of war. Between peace and war abstractedly, there is not, there cannot, be a question, in the mind of a rational being. The real questions are," Have we any security that the peace we have so dearly purchased will last a twelvemonth?" and if not, Have we, or have we not, sacrificed the fairest portunity of making war with advantage ?" PHILO JUNIUS about me. I thought that a question between law and privilege could never be brought to a formal decision without inconvenience to the public service, or a manifest diminution of legal liberty; that it ought, therefore, to be carefully avoided: and when I saw that the violence of the house of commons had carried them too far to retreat, I determined not to deliver a hasty opinion upon a matter of so much delicacy and importance. tion, and cannot fail of success. My premises, I know, will be denied in argument; but every man's conscience tells him they are true. It remains, then. to be considered, whether it be for the interest of the people, that privilege of parliament* (which in respect to the purposes for which it has hitherto been acquiesced under, is merely nominal) should be contracted within some certain limits; or, whether the subject shall be left at the mercy of a power, arbitrary upon the face of it, and notoriously under the direction of the crown. The state of things is much altered in this country since it was necssary to protect our representatives against the direct power of the crown. We have I do not mean to decline the question of right; on nothing to apprehend from prerogative, but every- the contrary, sir, I join issue with the advocates for thing from undue influence. Formerly, it was the privilege, and affirm, that, "excepting the cases interest of the people that the privileges of parliament wherein the house of commons are a court of judicashould be left unlimited and undefined. At present, ture (to which, from the nature of their office, a coit is not only their interest, but I hold it to be essen-ercive power must belong) and excepting such contially necessary to the preservation of the constitu- tempts as immediately interrupt their proceedings, tion, that the privileges of parliament should be they have no legal authority to imprison any man strictly ascertained, and confined within the narrow- for any supposed violation of privilege whatsoever." est bounds the nature of the institution will admit It is not pretended that privilege, as now claimed, of. Upon the same principle on which I would have has ever been defined or confirmed by statute: neither resisted prerogative in the last century, I now resist can it be said, with any color of truth, to be a part of privilege. It is indifferent to me, whether the crown, the common law of England, which had grown into by its own immediate act, imposes new, and dispenses prescription long before we knew any thing of the with old laws, or whether the same arbitrary power existence of a house of commons. As for the law of produces the same effects through the medium of parliament, it is only another name for the privilege the house of commons. We trusted our representa- in question, and since the power of creating new tives with privileges for their own defense and ours. new privileges has been formally renounced by both We cannot hinder their desertion, but we can pre- houses, since there is no code in which we can study vent their carrying over their arms to the service of the law of parliament, we have but one way left to the enemy. It will be said, that I begin with en- make ourselves acquainted with it; that is, to comdeavoring to reduce the argument concerning privi- pare the nature of the institution of a house of comlege to a mere question of convenience; that, I deny, mons with the facts upon record. To establish a at one moment, what I would allow at another; and claim of privilege in either house, and to distinguish that, to resist the power of a prostituted house of original right from usurpation, it must appear, that commons, may establish a precedent injurious to all it is indispensably necessary for the performance of future parliaments. To this I answer, generally, the duty they are employed in, and also that it has that human affairs are in no instance governed by been uniformly allowed. From the first part of this strict positive right. If change of circumstances description, it follows, clearly, that, whatever privilwere to have no weight in directing our conduct and ege does of right belong to the present house of comopinions, the mutual intercourse of mankind would mons, did equally belong to the first assembly of be nothing more than a contention between positive their predecessors, was so completely vested in them, and equitable right. Society would be a state of war, and might have been exercised in the same extent. and law itself would be injustice. On this general From the second we must infer, that privileges. ground, it is highly reasonable, that the degree of which for several centuries were not only ever our submission to privileges which never have been allowed, but never even claimed by the house of defined by any positive law, should be considered commons, must be founded upon usurpation. The as a question of convenience, and proportioned to the constitutional duties of a house of commons are not confidence we repose in the integrity of our repre- very complicated nor mysterious. They are to prosentatives. As to the injury we may do to any future pose or assent to wholesome laws, for the benefit of and more respectable house of commons, I own I am the nation. They are to grant the necessary aids to not now sanguine enough to expect a more plentiful the king; petition for the redress of grievances; and harvest of parliamentary virtue in one year than in prosecute treason or high crimes against the state. If another. Our political climate is severely altered; unlimited privilege be necessary to the performance and, without dwelling upon the deprivity of modern of these duties, we have reason to conclude, that, for times, I think no reasonable man will expect that, many centuries after the institution of the house of as human nature is constituted, the enormous influ- commons, they were never performed. I am not ence of the crown should cease to prevail over the bound to prove a negative; but I appeal to the Engvirtue of individuals. The mischief lies too deep to lish history, when I affirm, that, with the exceptions be cured by any remedy less than some great con- already stated, which yet I might safely relinquish, vulsions, which may either carry back the constitu- there is no precedent, from the year 1265, to the tion to its original principles, or utterly destroy it. death of queen Elizabeth, of the house of commons I do not doubt that, in the first session after the next having imprisoned any man (not a member of their election, some popular measures may be adopted. house) for contempt or breach of privilege. In the The present house of commons have injured them- most flagrant cases, and when their acknowledged selves by a too early and public profession of their principles; and if a strain of prostitution, which had no example, were within the reach of emulation, it might be imprudent to hazard the experiment too soon. But, after all, sir, it is very immaterial whether a house of commons shall preserve their virtue for a week, a month, or a year. The influence which makes a septennial parliament dependent on the pleasure of the crown, has a permanent opera *The necessity of securing the house of commons against the king's power, so that no interruption might be given either to the attendance of the members in parliament, or to the freedom of debate, was the foundation the addresses of new appointed speakers to the sover of parliamentary privilege; and we may observe, in all eign, the utmost privilege they demand, is liberty of speech, and freedom from arrests. The very word priti lege means no more than immunity, or a safegard to the party who possesses it, and can never be constructed in to an active power of invading the rights of others. privileges were most grossly violated, the poor com- | To whom will our honest representatives direct their mons, as they then styled themselves, never took the writ of rebellion? The guards, I doubt not, are power of punishment into their own hands. They willing enough to be employed; but they know either sought redress, by petition to the king, or, nothing of the doctrine of writs, and may think it what is more remarkable, applied for justice to the necessary to wait for a letter from lord Barrington. house of lords: and, when satisfaction was denied It may now be objected to me, that my arguments them or delayed, their only remedy was to refuse prove too much for that certainly there may be inproceeding upon the king's business. So little con- stances of contempt and insult to the house of comception had our ancestors of the monstrous doctrines mons, which do not fall within my own exceptions, now maintained concerning privilege, that, in the yet, in regard to the dignity of the house, ought not reign of Elizabeth, even liberty of speech, the vital to pass unpunished. Be it so. The courts of criminal principle of a deliberate assembly, was restrained by jurisdiction are open to prosecutions, which the attorthe queen's authority to a simple ay or no; and this ney-general may commence by information or indictrestriction, though imposed upon three successive ment. A libel tending to asperse or vilify the house parliaments,* was never once disputed by the house of commons, or any of their members, inay be as of commons. severely punished in the court of king's bench, as a libel upon the king. M. de Grey thought so, when he drew up the information of my letter to his majesty, or he had no meaning in charging it to be a scandalous libel upon the house of commons. In my opinion, they would consult their real dignity much better, by appealing to the laws, when they are offended, than by violating the first principle of natural justice, which forbids us to be judges, when we are parties to the cause.* I know there are many precedents of arbitrary commitments for contempt; but, besides that they are of too modern a date to warrant a presumption that such a power was originally vested in the house of commmons, fact alone does not constitute right. If it does, general warrants were lawful. An ordinance of the two houses has a force equal to law: and the criminal jurisdiction assumed by the commons in 1421, in the case of Edward Lloyd, is a good precedent to warrant the like proceedings against any man who shall unadvisedly mention the folly of a king, or the ambition of a princess. The truth is, sir, that the greatest and most exceptionable part of the privileges now contended for, were introduced and asserted by a house of commons, which abolished both monarchy and peerage, and whose proceedings, although they ended in one glorious act of substantial justice, could no way be reconciled to the forms of the constitution. Their successors profited by their example, and confirmed their power by a moderate or popular use of it. Thus it grew, by degrees, from a notorious innovation ot one period, to be tacitly admitted as the privilege of parliament at another. I do not mean to pursue them through the remainder of their proceedings. In their first resolutions, it is possible they might have been deceived by ill-considered precedents. For the rest, there is no color of palliation or excuse. They have advised the king to resume a power of dispensing with the laws by royal proclamation; and kings, we see, are ready enough to follow such advice. By mere violence, and without the shadow of right, they have expunged the record of a judicial proceeding. Nothing remained but to attribute to their own vote a power of stopping the whole distribution of criminal and civil justice. The public virtues of the chief magistrate have long since ceased to be in question. But, it is said, that he has private good qualities; and I myself have been ready to acknowledge them. They are now brought to the test. If he loves his people, he will dissolve the parliament, which they can never confide in or respect. If he has any regard for his own honor, he will disdain to be any longer connected with such abandoned prostitution. But, if it were conceivable, that a king of this country had lost all sense of personal honor, and all concern for the welfare of his subjects, I confess, sir, I should be If, however, it could be proved, from considerations of necessity or convenience, that an unlimited power of commitment ought to be entrusted to the house of commons, and that, in fact, they have exercised it without opposition, still, in contemplation of law, the presumption is strongly against them. It is a leading maxim of the laws of England (and without it all laws are nugatory) that there is no right without a remedy, nor any legal power without a legal course to carry it into effect. Let the power, now in question, be tried by this rule. The speaker issues his warrant of attachment. The party attached either resists force with force, or appeals to a magistrate, who declares the warrant illegal, and discharges the prisoner. Does the law provide no legal means for enforcing a legal warrant? Is there no regular proceeding pointed out in our law books, to assert and vindicate the authority of so high a court as the house of commons? The question is answered directly by the fact; their unlawful commands are resisted, and they have no remedy. The imprisonment of their own members is revenge in-appearing to be illegal, and yet give us no manner of redeed; but it is no assertion of the privilege they contend for. Their whole proceeding stops; and there they stand, ashamed to retreat, and unable to advance. Sir, these ignorant men should be informed, that the execution of the laws of England is not left in this uncertain, defenseless condition. If the process of the courts of Westminster-hall be re-edged to be illegal. sisted, they have a direct course to enforce submission. The court of king's bench commands the sheriff to raise the posse comitatus; the courts of chancery and exchequer issue a writ of rebellion; which must also be supported, if necessary, by the power of the county. * In the years 1593, 1597, and 1601. ted Mr. Wilkes, who had been guilty of a greater offense + Lord Chatham very pioperly called this the act of a * Upon their own principles, they should have commit-' mod, not of a senate. contented to renounce the forms of the constitution | the power of the house of commons to commit for once more, if there were no other way to obtain substantial justice for the people.* SIR, LETTER XLV. JUNIUS. contempt, is not so new as it appeared to many people; who dazzled with the name of privilege, had never suffered themselves to examine the question fairly. In the course of my reading this morning. I met with the following passage in the journals of the house of commons, (Vol. i. p. 603.) Upon occasion of a jurisdiction unlawfully assumed by the house in the year 1621, Mr. attorney-general Noye gave his opinion as follows: "No doubt but in some cases, this house may give judgment, in matters of returns, and concerning members of our house, or falling out in our view in parliament; but, for foreign matters, knoweth not how we can judge it; knoweth not that we have been used to give judgment in any case, but those before mentioned." Sir Edward Coke, upon the same subject, says, (page 604,) "No question but this is a house of record, and that it hath power of judicature in some cases; have power to judge of returns and members of our house. Once, no member, offending out of the parliament, when he came hither, and justified it, was censured for it." TO THE PRINTER OF THE PUBLIC ADVERTISER. May 1, 1770. They who object to detached parts of Junius's last letter, either do not mean him fairly, or have not considered the general scope and course of his argument. There are degrees in all the private vices; why not in public prostitution? The influence of the crown naturally makes a septennial parliament dependent. Does it follow, that every house of commons will plunge at once into the lowest depths of prostitution? Junius supposes, that the present house of commons, in going such enormous lengths, have been imprudent to themselves, as well as wicked to the public; that their example is not within the reach of emulation; and that, in the first session after the next election, some popular measures may probably be adopted. He does not expect Now, sir, if you will compare the opinion of these that a dissolution of parliament will destroy corrup-great sages of the law with Junius's doctrine, you tion, but that, at least, it will be a check and terror will find they tally exactly. He allows the power of to their successors, who will have seen, that, in flagrant cases, their constituents can and will interpose with effect. After all, sir, you will not endeavor to remove or alleviate the most dangerous symptoms, because you cannot eradicate the disease? Will you not punish treason or parricide, because the sight of a gibbet does not prevent highway robberies? When the main argument of Junius is admitted to They who would carry the privileges of parliament be unanswerable, I think it would become the minor farther then Junius, either do not mean well to the critic, who hunts for blemishes, to be little more dis-public, or know not what they are doing. The govtrustful of his own sagacity. The other objection is hardly worth an answer. When Junius observes, that kings are ready enough to follow such advice, he does not mean to insinuate, that, if the advice of parliament were good, the king would be so ready to follow it. PHILO JUNIUS. I confess my partiality to Junius, and feel a considerable pleasure in being able to communicate any thing to the public in support of his opinions. The doctrine laid down in his last letter, concerning | When Mr. Wilkes was to be punished, they made no scruple about the privileges of parliament; and although it was as well known as any matter of public record and uninterrupted custom could be, "That the members of either house are privileged, except in case of treason, felony, or breach of peace," they declared, without hesitation, "That privilege of parliament did not extend to the case of a seditious libel:" and undoubtedly they would have done the same if Mr. Wilkes had been prosecuted for any other misdemeanor whatsover. The ministry, are, of a sudden, grown wonderfully careful of privileges which their predecessors were as ready to invade. The known laws of the land, the rights of the subject, the sanctity of charters, and the reverence due to our magistrates, must all give way, without question or resistance, to a privilege of which no man knows either the origin or the extent. The house of commons judge of their own privileges without appeal: they may take offense at the most innocent action, and imprison the person who offends them during their arbitrary will and pleasure. The party has no remedy: he cannot appeal from their jurisdiction; and if he questions the privilege which he is supposed to have violated, it becomes an aggravation of his offenses. Surely this doctrine is not to be found in Magna Charta. If it be admitted without limitation, I affirm, that there is neither law nor liberty in this kingdom. We are the slaves of the house of commons; and, through them, we are the slaves of the king and his ministers. Anonymous. the house to commit their own members, which, however, they may grossly abuse; he allows their power in cases where they are acting as a court of judicature, viz., elections, returns, etc., and he allows it in such contempts as immediately interrupt their proceedings; or, as Mr. Noye expresses it, falling out in their view in parliament. ernment of England is a government of law. We betray ourselves, we contradict the spirit of our laws. and we shake the whole system of English jurispru dence, whenever we entrust a discretionary power over the life, liberty, or fortune of the subject, to any man, or set of men, whatsoever, upon a presumption that it will not be abused. PHILO JUNIUS. LETTER XLVII. TO THE PRINter of the Public AdvertISER. SIR, May 28, 1771. Any man who takes the trouble of perusing the journals of the house of commons, will soon be convinced, that very little, if any regard at all, ought to be paid to the resolutions of one branch of the legis lature, declaratory of the law of the land, or even of what they call the law of parliament. It will appear that these resolutions have no one of the properties by which, in this country particularly, law is dis tinguished from mere will aud pleasure; but that, on the contrary, they bear every mark of a power arbitrarily assumed and capriciously applied: that they are usually made in time of contest, and to serve some unworthy purpose of passion or party; that the law is seldom declared until after the fact by which it is supposed to be violated; that legislation and jurisdiction are united in the same persons, and exercised at the same moment; and that a court from which there is no appeal, assumes an original juris diction in a criminal case. In short, sir, to collect a thousand absurdities into one mass, "we have a law which cannot be known, because it is ex post facto: the party is both legislator and judge, and the juris diction is without appeal." Well might the judges say, "The law of parliament is above us." You will not wonder, sir, that with these qualifications, the declaratory resolutions of the house of |