tion, and in fimilar circumstances, the house of commons would reverfe their refolution, and receive the fame candidate as duly elected, whom they had before rejected.

THIS indeed would have been a moft extraordinary way of declaring the law of parliament, and what I prefume no man, whose understanding is not at crofs purposes with itself, could poffibly understand.

IF, in a cafe of this importance, I thought myself at liberty to argue from fuppofitions rather than from facts, I think the probability, in this inftance, is directly the reverse of what the ministry affirm; and that it is much more likely that the house of commons at that time would rather have ftrained a point in favour of Mr. Taylor, than that they would have violated the law of parliament, and robbed Mr. Taylor of a right legally vested in him, to gratify a refractory borough, which, in defiance of them, had returned a perfon branded with the strongest mark of the difpleasure of the house.

BUT really, Sir, this way of talking, for I cannot call it argument, is a mockery of the common understanding of the nation, too grofs to be endured. Our dearest interests are at ftake. An attempt has been made, not

merely

merely to rob a fingle county of its rights, but, by inevitable confequence, to alter the conftitution of the house of commons. This fatal attempt has fucceeded, and stands as a precedent recorded for ever. If the ministry are unable to defend their cause by fair argument founded on facts, let them spare us at least the mortification of being amufed and deluded like children, I believe there is yet a spirit of refistance in this country, which will not fubmit to be oppreffed; but I am fure there is a fund of good sense in this country, which cannot be deceived.

T will not be neceffary for Junius to take

IT

the trouble of anfwering your correfpondent G. A. or the quotation from a speech without doors, published in your paper of the 28th of laft month. The fpeech appeared before Junius's letter, and as the author feems to confider the great popofition, on which all his argument depends, viz, that Mr. Wilkes

was

was under that known legal incapacity, of which Junius Speaks, as a point granted, his speech is, in no thape, an answer to Junius, for this is the very question in debate...

As to G.. A. I obferve firft,, that if he did not admit Junius's state of the, question,he should have fhewn the fallacy of it, or given us a more exact one;-fecondly, that, confidering the many hours and days, which the miniftry and their advocates have wafted, in public debate, in compiling large, quartos, and collecting innumerable precedents, exprefsly to prove that the late proceedings of the house of commons are warranted by the law, custom, and practice of parliament, it is rather an extraordinary fuppofition, to be made by one of their own party even for the fake of argument, that no fuch ftatute, no fuch cuftom of parliament, no fuch cafe in point can be produced. G. A. may however make the fuppofition with fafety. It contains nothing, but literally the fact, except that there is a cafe exactly in point, with a decifion of the house, diametrically oppofite, to that which the prefent houfe of commons came. to in favour of Mr, Luttrell..

THE miniftry now begin to be afhamed of the weakness of their caufe, and, as it ufually happens with falsehood, are driven to the ne

ceffity

ceffity 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 cuftom 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 prefume is the amount of the queftions proposed to Junius. If your correfpondent had been at all verfed in the law of parliament, or generally in the laws of this country, he would have seen that this defence is as weak and falfe 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 whatfoever; but whenever a question of privilege has arifen, it has invariably been difputed or maintained upon the footing of precedents alone*. In the course of the proceedings upon the Aylefbury election, the houfe of lords refolved, "That neither houfe of parliament had any power, by any vote or declaration, to

66

THIS is again meeting miniftry upon their own ground; but precedents cannot vindicate either natural injuftice, or violation of pofitive right.

"" create

66

"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 otherwife they had acted in a very arbitrary manner, gave their affent, for they affirmed that they had guided themselves by it, in afferting 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 houfe, 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 thofe of a third and separate party, I mean the freeholders of the kingdom. To do juftice to the ministry, they have not yet pretended that any one or any two of the three eftates have power to make a new law, without the concurrence of the third. They know that a man who maintains fuch a doctrine, is liable, by ftatute, to the heaviest penalties. They do not acknowledge that the house of commons have affumed 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 cuftom of parliament. Thus therefore the

question