Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

to be made by one of their own party, even for the sake of argument, that no such statute, no such custom of parliament, no such case in point, can be produced. G. A. may, however, make the supposition with safety. It contains nothing but literally the fact; except that there is a case exactly in point, with a decision of the House, diametrically opposite to that which the present House of Commons came to in favour of Mr. Luttrell.

The Ministry now begin to be ashamed of the weakness of their cause; and as it usually happens with falsehood, are driven to the necessity of shifting their ground, and changing their whole defence. At first we were told, that nothing could be clearer, than that the proceedings of the House of Commons were justified by the known law and uniform custom of parliament. But now, it seems, if there be no law, the House of Commons have a right to make one; and, if there be no precedent, they have a right to create the first for this, I presume, is the amount of the questions proposed to Junius. If your correspondent had been at all versed in the law of parliament, or generally in the laws of this country, he would have seen that this defence is as weak and false as the former.

The privileges of either House of Parliament, it is true, are indefinite: that is, they have not been described or laid down in any one code or declaration

[blocks in formation]

66

whatsoever; but, whenever a question of privilege has arisen, it has invariably been disputed or maintained upon the footing of precedents alone *. In the course of the proceedings upon the Aylesbury election, the House of Lords resolved, "That neither "House of Parliament had any power, by any vote or declaration, to create to themselves any new privilege, that was not warranted by the known "laws and customs of Parliament."-And to this rule, the House of Commons, though otherwise they had acted in a very arbitrary manner, gave their assent; for they affirmed, that they had guided themselves by it, in asserting their privileges. Now, Sir, if this be true, with respect to matters of privilege, in which the House of Commons, individually, and as a body, are principally concerned, how much more strongly will it hold against any pretended power in that House to create or declare a new law, by which not only the rights of the House over their own member, and those of the member himself, are included, but also those of a third and separate party; I mean the freeholders of the kingdom? To do justice to the Ministry, they have not yet pretended that any one, or any two, of the three Estates, have power to make a new law, without the concurrence of the third. They know, that a man who maintains such a doctrine,

* This is still meeting the ministry upon their own ground; for, in truth, no precedents will support either natural injustice, or violation of positive rights.

is liable, by statute, to the heaviest penalties. They do not acknowledge that the House of Commons have assumed a new privilege, or declared a new law. On the contrary, they affirm, that their proceedings have. been strictly conformable to, and founded upon, the ancient law and custom of Parliament. Thus, therefore, the question returns to the point at which Junius had fixed it, viz. Whether or no this be the law of Par liament? If it be not, the House of Commons had no legal authority to establish the precedent; and the precedent itself is a mere fact, without any proof of right whatsoever.

Your correspondent concludes with a question of the simplest nature: Must a thing be wrong, because it has never been done before? No. But, admitting it were proper to be done, that alone does not convey an authority to do it. As to the present case, I hope I shall never see the time, when not only a single person, but a whole county, and, in effect, the entire collective body of the people, may again be robbed of their birth-right by a vote of the House of Commons. But if, for reasons which I am unable to comprehend, it be necessary to trust that House with a power so exorbitant and so unconstitutional, at least let it be given to them by an act of the legislature.

PHILO JUNIUS.

LETTER XVIII.

SIR,

TO SIR WILLIAM BLACKSTONE,

Solicitor General to Her Majesty.

July 29, 1769.

I SHALL make you no apology for considering a certain pamphlet, in which your late conduct is defended, as written by yourself. The personal interest, the personal resentments, and, above all, that wounded spirit, unaccustomed to reproach, and, I hope, not frequently conscious of deserving it, are signals which betray the author to us, as plainly as if your name were in the title-page. You appeal to the public, in defence of your reputation. We hold it, Sir, that an injury offered to an individual, is interesting to society. On this principle, the people of England made common cause with Mr. Wilkes. On this principle, if you are injured, they will join in your resentment. I shall not follow you through the insipid form of a third person, but address myself to you directly.

You seem to think the channel of a pamphlet more respectable, and better suited to the dignity of your cause, than that of a newspaper.-Be it so. Yet, if

[graphic][merged small]
« AnteriorContinuar »