The Massachusetts spy. [volume] (Boston [Mass.]) 1770-1772, 1771-07-04

in favour Of Houie of Commons ffill hang
ing about me. | thought that quefiion,
between law and privilege, could never be
brought TO formal deciGon, without incon-
venience to the public fervice, or manifeis
diminution Of legal liberty, and ought there
fore to be carefully avoided: And when !
Jaw that the violence of the Houfc OF Com
mons had carried them too far to retreat,
determined not to deliver bafty opinion
upon mat er of 70 much deIicacy and
Importance.
The fate Of things is much altered in this
county, 6nce il was necefary to protect our
representatives againf the direct power Of
the crown. We have nothing to spprehend
from prerogative, but every thing from I'M
due influence. Formerly it was the eIeit
of the people, that the privileges of parla-
ment fhould be left unlimited and underlined.
At prefent it is not only their intereif, but |
hold it to be eiientislly neceilary to the pie
fervatioD of the contribution, that the priv
leges of parliament fhould be ftriefly alceT-
tanned, and be confirmed within the narrow
eft bounds the nature of their inltitution will
admit Of Upon the fame principle, on which
4 would have reflted prerogative in the laft
century, now refa privilege. 1t is in
different to me, whether the crown, by its
own i1nslediase aes imrofes new, and dif
pennies with I'D laws, or whether the fame
arbitrary power produces the fame effects
through the medium Of the Houie Of Com
mons. We huHed our representatives with
privileges for their own defence and ours.
We Cannot binder their defertion, but we can
prevent their carrying over their arms to The
fervice of the eremy. II will be faid, that |
begin with endeavouring to reduce the argu-
ment concerning privilege to meer queition
of convenience thatI deny at ore moment
what would allow at another and i:aat to
refiff the power of a proliituted Huuie Of
Commons, may effablifh precedent inju-
rious to all future parliaments. To this |
anfwer generally, that human affairs are in
no infance governed by ffrief pofiIive right.
If change of circumstances were to have no
weight in directing our condua and opinions,
the mutual intercourfe of mankind would be
nothing more than a contention between po-
litive and equitable right. Society would be
a fate Of war, and law itfelf would DC injuf-
tice. Ga this general ground, it is highly
reafouable, that the degree of our fubmfiion
to privileges, which have never been defined
by any poiitive law, fhould be conildered as
a quelfion Of convenience, and proportioned
to the confidence we repofe in the integrity
of our representatives. AS TO the injury we
may do TO any future and more Respectable
Houfe of Commons, own | am not now
fanguine enough to expect more plentiful
haryelf Of parliamentary virtue in one year
than another. Our political climate is f.
verely altered and, without dwelling upon
the deprayty of modern times, think no
Reasonable man will expect that, as human
nature is confituted, the enormous influence
of the crown ihould cesle to prevail over the
virtue ofindividuals. The mitchell lies too
deep to be cured by any remedy, lefs than
fome gieat convuihon, which may either
carry back the confituiion to its original
principles, or utterly dearoy it. ! do not
doubt that, in the fri fefion after the next
election, ione popular meafures may be
adopted. The prefent Houfe of Commons
have injsred themfelves by too early and
public protection Of their principles and if
iirain of profiiution, which had no example,
were within The reach of emulation, il might