in question, be tried by this rule. The Speaker issues his warrant of attachment. The party attached either resists force with force, or appeals to a magistrate, who declares the warrant illegal, and discharges the prisoner. Does the law provide no legal means for enforcing a legal warrant? Is there no regular proceeding pointed out in our law books, to assert and vindicate the authority of so high a court as the House of Commons? The question is answered directly by the fact; their unlawful commands are resisted, and they have no remedy. The imprisonment of their own members is revenge indeed; but it is no assertion of the privilege they contend for *. Their whole proceeding stops; and there they stand, ashamed to retreat, and unable to advance. Sir, these ignorant men should be informed, that the execution of the laws of England is not left in this uncertain, defenceless condition. If the process of the courts of Westminster Hall be resisted, they have a direct course to enforce submission. The Court of King's Bench commands the sheriff to raise the posse comitatus; the Courts of Chancery and Exchequer issue a writ of rebellion; which must also be supported, * Upon their own principles, they should have committed Mr. Wilkes, who had been guilty of a greater offence than even the Lord Mayor or Alderman Oliver. But, after repeatedly ordering him to attend, they at last adjourned beyond the day appointed for his attendance, and, by this mean, pitiful evasion, gave up the point. if necessary, by the power of the country. To whom will our honest representatives direct their writ of rebellion?-The guards, I doubt not, are willing enough to be employed; but they know nothing of the doctrine of writs, and may think it necessary to wait for a letter from Lord Barrington. It may now be objected to me, that my arguments prove too much; for that certainly there may be instances of contempt and insult to the House of Commons, which do not fall within my own exceptions, yet, in regard to the dignity of the House, ought not to pass unpunished. Be it so. The courts of criminal jurisdiction are open to prosecutions, which the Attorney-General may commence by information or indictment. A libel tending to asperse or vilify the House of Commons, or any of their members, may be as severely punished in the Court of King's Bench, as a libel upon the King. Mr. de Grey thought so, when he drew up the information of my letter to his Majesty, or he had no meaning in charging it to be a scandalous libel upon the House of Commons. In my opinion, they would consult their real dignity much better, by appealing to the laws, when they are offended, than by violating the first principle of natural justice, which forbids us to be judges, when we are parties to the cause *. *"If it be demanded, in case a subject should be com. "mitted by either House for a matter manifestly out of I do not mean to pursue them through the remainder of their proceedings. In their first resolutions, it is possible they might have been deceived by ill-considered precedents. For the rest, there is no colour of palliation or excuse, They have advised the King to resume a power of dispensing with laws by royal proclamation*; and Kings, we see, are ready enough to follow such advice. By mere violence, and without the shadow of right, they have expunged "their jurisdiction, what remedy can he have? I answer, "that it cannot well be imagined that the law, which fa"vours nothing more than the liberty of the subject, should "give us a remedy against commitments by the King him. "self, appearing to be illegal, and yet give us no manner "of redress against a commitment by our fellow-subjects, "equally appearing to be unwarranted. But, as this is a "case which, I am persuaded, will never happen, it seems "needless overnicely to examine it." Hawkins, ii. 110. N. B. He was a good lawyer, but no prophet. * That their practice might be every way conformable to their principles, the House proceeded to advise the Crown to publish a proclamation, universally acknowledged to be illegal. Mr. Moreton publicly protested against it before it was issued; and Lord Mansfield, though not scrupulous to an extreme, speaks of it with horror. It is remarkable enough, that the very men who advised the proclamation, and who hear it arraigned every day, both within doors and without, are not daring enough to utter one word in its defence; nor have they ventured to take the least notice of Mr. Wilkes, for discharging the persons apprehended under it. the record of a judicial proceeding *. Nothing remained but to attribute to their own vote a power of stopping the whole distribution of criminal and civil justice. The public virtues of the Chief Magistrate have long since ceased to be in question. But it is said, that he has private good qualities; and I myself have been ready to acknowledge them. They are now brought to the test. If he loves his people, he will dissolve a Parliament, which they can never confide in or respect. If he has any regard for his own honour, he will disdain to be any longer connected with such abandoned prostitution. But, if it were con country had lost all ceivable, that a King of this sense of personal honour, and all concern for the welfare of his subjects, I confess, Sir, I should be contented to renounce the forms of the constitution once more, if there were no other way to obtain substantial justice for the people t. JUNIUS. • Lord Chatham very properly called this the act of a mob, not of a senate. + When Mr. Wilkes was to be punished, they made no scruple about the privileges of Parliament; and although it was as well known as any matter of public record and uninterrupted custom could be, That the members of either House are privileged, except in the case of treason, felony or LETTER XLV. TO THE PRINTER OF THE PUBLIC ADVERTISER. SIR, May 1, 1771. THEY who object to detached parts of Junius's last letter, either do not mean him fairly, or have not considered the general scope and course of breach of peace, they declared, without hesitation, That privilege of Parliament did not extend to the case of a seditious libel and undoubtedly they would have done the same if Mr. Wilkes had been prosecuted for any other mis. demeanor whatsoever. The Ministry are, of a sudden, grown wonderfully careful of privileges, which their predecessors were as ready to invade. The known laws of the land, the rights of the subject, the sanctity of charters, and the reverence due to our magistrates, must all give way, without question or resistance, to a privilege, of which no man knows either the origin or the extent. The House of Commons judge of their own privileges without appeal; they may take offence at the most innocent action, and im prison the person who offends them during their arbitrary will and pleasure. The party has no remedy; he cannot appeal from their jurisdiction; and if he questions the privilege which he is supposed to have violated, it becomes |