cedents, expressly to prove that the late proceedings of the house of commons are warranted by the law, cuftom, and practice of parliament, it is rather an extraordinary fuppofition, to be made by one of their own party, even for the sake of argument, that no such statute, no fuch custom 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 present house of commons came to in favour of Mr. Luttrell.

The miniftry now begin to be ashamed of the weakness of their caufe, and, as it ufually happens with falfehood, are driven to the neceflity of fhifting 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 juftified 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 firft ;-for this I prefume is the amount of the questions proposed to Junius. If your correfpondent had been at all verfed in the law of parliament, or generally in VOL. I. Q

the

the laws of this country, he would have feen that this defence is as weak and falfe as the for

mer.

The privileges of either houfe of parliament, it is true, are indefinite, that is, they have not been described or laid down in any one code or declaration whatsoever; but whenever a queftion of privilege has arisen, it has invariably been difputed or maintained upon the footing of precedents alone.In the courfe of the proceedings upon the Aylfbury election, the house of lords refolved," That neither house of parliament had

66

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 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

house,

*This is ftill meeting the miniftry on their own ground; for, in truth, no precedents will fupport either natural injuftice, or violation of positive right.

house, to create or declare a new law, by which not only the rights of the house over their own member, and thofe of the member himself are concluded, but also those of a third and feparate party, I mean the freeholders of the kingdom. To do juftice to the miniftry, 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 returns to the point, at which Junius has fixed it, viz. Whether or no this be the law of parliament. If it be not, the house of commons had no legal authority to eftablish the precedent; and the precedent itself is a mere fact, without any proof of right whatsoever.

Your correfpondent concludes with a question. of the fimpleft nature: Muft a thing be wrong, because it has never been done before? admitting it were proper to be done,

does not convey an authority to do it. Q 2

No. But,

that alone

As to the

prefent

prefent cafe, I hope I fhall never fee the time, when not only a fingle 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 reafons which I am unable to comprehend, it be neceffary to truft that house with a power fo exorbitant and fo unconstitutional, at least let it be given to them by an act of the legislature.

PHILO JUNIUS.

LET

LETTER XIX.

TO DR. WILLIAM BLACKSTONE, SOLICITOR

GENERAL TO HER MAJESTY..

SIR,

July 29, 1769.

I Shall make you no apology for confidering a

certain pamphlet, in which your late conduct is defended, as written by yourself. The perfonal intereft, the personal refentments, and above all, that wounded spirit, unaccustomed to reproach, and I hope not frequently confcious of deferving it, are fignals 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 interefting to fociety. On this principle the people of England made a common cause with Mr. Wilkes. On this principle, if you are injured, they will join in your refentment. I fhall not follow you through the infipid form of a third perfon, but address myself to you directly.

You feem to think the channel of a pamphlet more refpectable and better fuited to the dignity

of