to give judgment in any cafe, but thofe before"mentioned."

Sir Edward Coke, upon the fame fubject, fays, (page 104)" No queftion 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 houfe; one, no member,

offending out of the parliament, when he came "bitber and justified it, was cenfured for it."

Now, Sir, if you will compare the opinion of thefe great fages of the law with Junius's doctrine, you will find they tally exactly.-He allows the power of the houfe to commit their own members; (which however they may grossly abuse.) He allows their power in cafes where they are acting as a court of judicature, viz. elections, returns, &c.—and he allows it in fuch contempts as immediately interrupt their proceedings, or, as Mr. Noye expreffes it, falling out in their view in parliament.

They, who would carry the privileges of parliament farther than Junius, either do not mean well to the public, or know not what they are doing. The government of England is a government of law. We betray ourselves, we contradict the fpirit of our laws, and we shake the whole fyftem of English jurifprudence, whenever we intruft

intruft a difcretionary power over the life, liberty, or fortune of the fubject, to any man, or fet of men whatsoever, upon a prefumption that it will not be abused.

PHILO JUN US.

LET

ANY man, who takes the trouble of perufing

the journals of the house of commons, will foon be convinced, that very little, if any regard at all, ought to be paid to the refolutions of one branch of the legislature, declaratory of the law of the land, or even of what they call the law of parliament. It will appear that these refolutions have no one of the properties, by which, in this country, particularly, law is diftinguished from mere will and pleasure; but that, on the contrary, they bear every mark of power arbitrarily affumed and capriciously applied-That they are ufually made in times of conteft, and to ferve fome unworthy purpose of paffion or party;

that the law is feldom declared until after the fact, by which it is fuppofed to be violated ;-that legiflation and jurifdiction are united in the fame perfons, and exercised at the fame moment ;————— and that a court, from which there is no appeal, affumes an original jurifdiction in a criminal cafe ;

-in fhort, Sir, to collect a thousand abfurdities into one mafs, " we have a law, which cannot be "known because it is ex post facto, the party is "both legislator and judge, and the jurisdiction is "without appeal." Well might the judges fay, The law of parliament is above us.

You will not wonder, Sir, that, with the fe qualifications, the declaratory refolutions of the houfe of commons fhould appear to be in perpetual contradiction, not only to common fenfe and to the laws we are acquainted with, (and which alone we can obey) but even to one another. I was led to trouble you with these observations by a paffage, which, to speak in luteftring, I met with this morning in the courfe of my reading, and upon which I mean to put a question to the advocates for privilege. On the 8th of March 1704, (vide Journals, vol. 14. p. 565.), the house thought proper to come to the following refolutions.—1. "That no commoner of England, committed by "the house of commons for breach of privilege "or contempt of that houfe, ought to be, by any writ of Habeas Corpus, made to appear in "any other place, or before any other judicature, "during that feffion of parliament, wherein fuch "perfon was fo committed."

2. That the Serjeant at Arms, attending this "houfe

"house do make no return of or yield any obedience "to the faid writs of Habeas Corpus, and for fuch "his refufal, that he have the protection of the "houfe of commons."*.

Welbore Ellis, What fay you? Is this the law of parliament or is it not? I am a plain man, Sir,

and cannot follow you through the phlegmatic forms of an oration. Speak out, Grildrig,-fay yes, or no. If you fay yes, I shall then enquire by what authority Mr. De Grey, the honeft Lord Mansfield, and the Barons of the Exchequer, dared to grant a writ of Habeas Corpus for bringing the bodies of the Lord Mayor and Mr. Oliver before them, and why the Lieutenant of the Tower made any return to a writ, which the house of commons had, in a fimilar inftance, declared to be unlawful. If you fay no, take care you do not at VOL. II.

G g

once

If there be in reality any fuch law in England, as the law of parliament, which, (under the exceptions stated in my letter of privilege) I confefs, after iong deliberation, I very much doubt, it certainly is not conftituted by, nor can it be collected from the refolutions of either houfe, whether enacting or declaratory. I defire the reader will compare the above refolution of the year 1704, with the following of the 3d of April, 1628" Refolved, That the writ of Ha"beas Corpus cannot be denied, but ought to be granted to <6 every man, that is committed or detained in prifon, or "otherwise restrained, by command of the King, the Privy Council, or any other, he praying the same.”