arded at this feason, and, without the formality of a convention, would have left it undecided.

I have been filent hitherto, though not from that fhameful indifference about the interests of fociety, which too many of us profefs, and call moderation. I confefs, Sir, that I felt the prejudices of my education, in favour of a House of Commons still hanging about me. I thought that a question, between law and privilege, could never be brought to a formal decifion, without inconvenience tọ the public fervice, or a manifeft. diminution of legal liberty, and ought therefore to be carefully avoided and when I faw that the violence of the House of Commons had carried them too far to retreat, I determined not to deliver a hafty opi-. nion upon a matter of so much delicacy and impor

tance.

The ftate of things is much altered in this country, fince it was neceffary to protect our reprefentatives against the direct power of the crown. We have nothing to apprehend from prerogative, but every thing from undue influs the intereft of the people,

liament fhould be left

At prefent it is not it to be effentially

ne

neceffary to the prefervation of the conftitution, that the privileges of parliament should be ftrictly ascertained, and be confined within the narroweft bounds the nature of their inftitution will admit of. Upon the fame principle, on which I would have refifted prerogative in the last centuary, I now refift. privilege. It is indifferent to me, whether the crown, by its own immediate act, impofes new, and difpenfes, with old laws, or whether the fame arbitrary power produces the fame effects through the medium of the House of Commons. We trufted our reprefentatives, with privileges for their own defence and ours. We cannot hinder their desertion, but we can prevent their carrying over their arms to the fervice of the enemy.—It will be said, that I begin with endeavouring to reduce the argument concerning privilege to a mere queftion of convenience that I deny at one moment what I would allow at another; and that to refift the power of a prostituted Houfe of Commons may establish a precedent injurious to all future parliaments. To this I anfwer generally, that human affairs are in no inftance governed by strict pofitive right. If change of circumstances were to have no weight in directing our conduct and opinions, the mutual intercourse of mankind

-

would be nothing more than a contention be- · tween pofitive and equitable right. Society would be a state of war, and law itself would be injuftices On this general ground, it is highly reafonable, that the degree of our fubmiffion to privileges, which have never been defined by po fitive law, fhould be confidered as a question of convenience, and proportioned to the confidence we repose in the integrity of our representatives. As to the injury we may do to any future and more refpectable Houfe of Commons, I own I am not now fanguine enough to expect a more plentiful harveft of parliamentary virtue in one year than another. Our political climate is feverely altered; and, without dwelling upon the depravity of modern times, I think no reasonable man will expect that, as human nature is conftituted, the enormous influence of the crown fhould ceafe to prevail over the virtue of individuals. The mischief lies too deep to be cured by any remedy, less than fome great convulfion, which may either carry back the constitution to its orie ginal principles, or utterly deftroy it. I do not doubt that, in the first feffion after the next election, fome popular measures may be adopted. The prefent. Houfe of Commons have injured themselves by a too early and public profeffion of

their principles; and if a ftrain of prostitution, which had no example, were within the reach of emulation, it might be imprudent to hazard the experiment too foon, But after all, Sir, it is very immaterial whether a House of Commons fhall preserve their virtue for a week, a month,. or a year. The influence, which makes a feptennial parliament dependant upon the pleasure of the crown, has a permanent operation, and cannot fail of fuccefs.My premises, I know, will be denied in argument, but every man's confcience tells him they are true. It remains then to be confidered, whether it be for the intereft of the people that privilege of parliament, (which, in refpect to the purposes, for which it has hitherto been acquiefced under, is merely nominal) should be contracted within fome certain limits, or whether the fubject shall be left at

46

the

"The neceffity of fecuring the Houfe of Commons against "the King's power, so that no interruption might be given "either to the attendance of the members in parliament or 66 the freedom of debate, was the foundation of parliamen106 tary privilege; and we may obferve, in all the addreffes of new appointed Speakers to the Sovereign, the utmost pri"vilege they demand is liberty of speech and freedom from "arrests. The very word privilege, means no more than im"munity, or a fafeguard to the party who poffeffes it, and 66 can never be conftrued into an active power of invading the "rights of others."

the mercy of a power, arbitrary upon the face of it, and notoriously under the direction of the

crown.

I do not mean to decline the question of Right. On the contrary, Sir, I join iffue with the advocates for privilege, and affirm, that, "excepting "the cafes, wherein the House of Commons are

66

a court of judicature, [to which, from the na"ture of their office. a coercive, power muft belong] and excepting fuch contempts as imme"6 diately interrupt their proceedings, they have "no legal authority to imprison any man for any "fuppofed violation of privilege whatsoever."It is not pretended that privilege, as now claimed, has ever been defined.or confirmed by ftatute; neither can it be, faid, with any colour of truth, to be a part of the common law of England, which had grown into prefcription, long before we knew any thing of the existence of a House of Commons. As for the law of parliament it is only another name for the privilege in queftion; and fince the power of creating new privileges has been formally renounced by both houfes,-fince there is no code, in which we can ftudy the law of parliament, we have but one way left to make ourselves acquainted with it ;-that is, to compare the nature of the institution of a

Houfe