Between peace and war abstractedly, there is not, there cannot, be a question, in the mind of a rational being. The real questions are, Have we any security that the peace we have so dearly purchased will last a twelvemonth? and if not, Have we, or have we not, sacrificed the fairest opportunity of making war with advantage?

TO write for profit, without taxing the press; to write for fame, and to be unknown; to support the intrigues of faction, and to be disowned as a dangerous auxiliary by every party in the kingdom, are contradictions which the Minister must reconcile before I forfeit my credit with the public. I may quit the service, but it would be absurd to suspect me of desertion. The reputation of these papers is an honourable pledge for my attachment to the people. To sacrifice a respected character, and to renounce the

esteem of society, requires more than Mr. Wedderburne's resolution: and though in him it was rather a profession than a desertion of his principles, (I speak tenderly of this gentleman; for, when treachery is in question, I think we should make allowances for a Scotchman) yet we have seen him in the House of Commons overwhelmed with confusion, and almost bereft of his faculties. But, in truth, Sir, I have left no room for an accommodation with the piety of St. James's. My offences are not to be redeemed by recantation or repentance. On one side, our warmest patriots would disclaim me as a burthen to their honest ambition. On the other, the vilest prostitution, if Junius could descend to it, would lose its natural merit and influence in the cabinet, and treachery be no longer a recommendation to the royal favour.

The persons, who, till within these few years, have been most distinguished by their zeal for high-church and prerogative, are now, it seems, the great assertors of the privileges of the House of Commons. This sudden alteration of their sentiments, or language, carries with it a suspicious appearance. When I hear the undefined privileges of the popular branch of the Legislature exalted by Tories or Jacobites, at the expence of those strict rights which are known to the subject and limited by the laws, I cannot but suspect that some mischievous scheme is in agitation, to destroy both law and privilege, by opposing them to each other. They, who have uniformly denied the

power of the whole Legislature to alter the descent of the Crown, and whose ancestors, in rebellion against his Majesty's family, have defended that doctrine at the hazard of their lives, now tell us, that privilege of Parliament is the only rule of right, and the chief security of the public freedom. I fear, Sir, that, while forms remain, there has been some material change in the substance of our constitution. The opinions of these men were too absurd to be so easily renounced. Liberal minds are open to conviction; liberal doctrines are capable of improvement. There are proselytes from atheism, but none from superstition. If their present professions were sincere, I think they could not but be highly offended at seeing a question concerning parliamentary privilege, unnecessarily started at a season so unfavourable to the House of Commons, and by so very mean and insignificant a person as the minor Onslow. They knew that the present House of Commons, having commenced hostilities with the people, and degraded the authority of the laws by their own example, were likely enough to be resisted per fas et nefas. If they were really friends to privilege, they would have thought the question of right too dangerous to be hazarded at this season, and, without the formality of a convention, would have left it undecided.

I have been silent hitherto, though not from that shameful indifference about the interests of society, which too many of us profess, and call moderation.

I confess, 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 decision without inconvenience to the public service, or a manifest diminution of legal liberty; that it ought, therefore, to be carefully avoided: and when I saw that the violence of the House of Commons had carried them too far to retreat, I determined not to deliver a hasty opinion upon a matter of so much delicacy and importance.

The state of things is much altered in this country since it was necessary to protect our representatives against the direct power of the Crown. We have nothing to apprehend from prerogative, but every thing from undue influence. Formerly, it was the interest of the people that the privileges of Parliament should be left unlimited and undefined. At present, it is not only their interest, but I hold it to be essentially necessary to the preservation of the constitution, that the privileges of Parliament should be strictly ascertained, and confined within the narrowest bounds the nature of their institution will admit of. Upon the same principle on which I would have resisted prerogative in the last century, I now resist privilege. It is indifferent to me, whether the Crown, by its own immediate act, imposes new, and dispenses with old laws, or whether the same arbitrary power produces the same effects through the medium

of the House of Commons. We trusted our representatives with privileges for their own defence and ours. We cannot hinder their desertion, but we can prevent their carrying over their arms to the service of the enemy. It will be said, that I begin with endea vouring to reduce the argument concerning privilege to a mere question of convenience; that I deuy, at one moment, what I would allow at another; and that, to resist the power of a prostituted House of Commons, may establish a precedent injurious to all future parliaments. To this, I answer, generally, that human affairs are in no instance governed by strict positive right. If change of circumstance were to have no weight in directing our conduct and opinions, the mutual intercourse of mankind would be nothing more than a contention between positive and equitable right. Society would be a state of war, and law itself would be injustice. On this general ground, it is highly reasonable, that the degree of our submission to privileges which have never been defined by any positive law, should be considered 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 respectable House of Commons, I own I am not now sanguine enough to expect a more plentiful harvest of parliamentary virtue in one year than in another. Our political climate is severely altered; and, without dwelling upon the depravity of modern times, I think no reasonable man will expect that, as human