direct their writ of rebellion? The guards, 1 doubt not, are willing enough to be employed; but they know nothing of the doctrine of writs, and may think it necessary to wait for a letter from lord Barrington.

It may now be objected to me, that my arguments prove too much: for that certainly there may be instances of contempt and insult to the house of commons, which do not fall within my own exceptions, yet, in regard to the dignity of the house, ought not to pass unpunished. Be it So. The courts of criminal jurisdiction are open to prosecutions, which the attorney-general may commence by information or indictment. A libel tending to asperse or vilify the house of commons, or any of their members, may be as 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.* *

* "If it be demanded, in case a subject should be committed by either house for a matter manifestly out of their jurisdiction, What remedy can he have? I answer, that it cannot well be imagined that the law, which favours nothing more than the liberty of the subject, should give us a remedy against commitments by the king himself, appearing to be illegal, and yet give us no manner of redress against a commitment by our fellow subjects, equally appearing to be unwarranted.

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 colour 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

But, as this is a case which I am persuaded, will never happen, it seems needless over-nicely to examine it." Hawkins, ii. 110.

N. B. He was a good lawyer, but no prophet.

*That their practice might be every way conformable to their principles, the house proceeded to advise the crown to publish a proclamation, universally acknowledged to be illegal. Mr. Moreton publicly protested against it before it was issued; and lord Mansfield, though not scrupulous to an extreme, speaks of it with horror. It is remarkable enough, that the very men who advised the proclamation, and who hear it arraigned every day, both within doors and without, are not daring enough to utter one word in its defence; nor have they ventured to take the least notice of Mr. Wilkes, for the discharging the persons apprehended

under it.

† Lord Chatham very properly called this the act of a mob, not of a senate.

his people, he will dissolve the parliament, which they can never confide in or respect. If he has any regard for his own honour, 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 honour, and all concern for the welfare of his subjects, I confess, sir, I should be contented to renounce the forms of the constitution once more, if there were no other way to obtain substantial justice for the people.* JUNIUS.

* 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 whatsoever. 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 offence 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 offence. 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.

SIR,

LETTER XLV.

To the Printer of the Public Advertiser.

May 1, 1771.

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 that a dissolution of parliament will destroy corruption, but that, at least, it will be a check and terror to their successors, who will have seen, that, in flagrant cases, their constituents can and will interpose with effect. After all, sir, will you not endeavour 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 high-way robberies? When the main argument of Junius is admitted to be unanswerable, I think it would

become the minor critic, who hunts for blemishes, to be little more distrustful 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.

LETTER XLVI.

To the Printer of the Public Advertiser.

SIR,

May 25, 1771.

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 the power of the house of com mons to commit for 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;