The Massachusetts spy. [volume] (Boston [Mass.]) 1770-1772, 1771-07-04
G@0SL[5 T H U R S D AY, July 4, 1871.

loon. But after all, Sit, II is very lmma-
teri4l whether Houie of Commons fhzll
preierve their virtue fer week, month, or
year. The influence, which makes fep-
tenn!al parliament dependent upon the plea
fare OF The crown, has permanent operation,
and cannot fail OF fucceis. My promiies,
know, will be denied in Argument, but every
mans confidence tells him they are true. l.
remains rhsn T. be oopfidered, whether il b,
for the intefca of the peope, tina, privilege
Of parliament (Which, in reipeet to The pur.
po!ss toE which ii has hitherto been acquticsd
under, is merely nominal) ihoud be con-
tra6ied within iome certain limits, or whether
the fubje6t ihall be eft at he mercy of
power. arbitrary upon the face OF it, and no.
toEioUily under the direction of the crown.
Go not mean TO decline the quettion Of
right. On the contrary, Sir, join iilue with
the advocates for privilege, and affirm, 4" that
excepting the cafes wherein the Houfe of
Commons are a court of judcature 10 which,
from the nature of their Office, coercive
power mutt belong) and excepting fuch con
tempts as Immediately interrupt their pro.
ceedings, they have no legal authority to i'm.
piIfon any man fokany Iuppofed violation OF
privilege whatfoever." 1t is not pretended
that privilege, as now claimed, has ever beeh
defined or confirmed BY tatue; neither CAT
!. &c S:d, with any coloGr Of ;su;h, &c be
part of the common law of England, which
had grown into prefcription long before we
knew any thing of The exiaence of Hcuk
of Commons. AS for the law Of parliament,
it is only another name for the privilege in
queaion; and fince the power of creating
new privileges has been formally renowned
by beth houies,. --Gnce there is no code, in
which we can fudy the law Of parliament,
we have but one way left to make ourlelves
acquainted with il; that is, 10 compare the
natuie of the inltiiutiou of a Houle Of Com.
mons with the facts upon record. To eta
biilh clam ofPrivilege in either Houfe, and
to diiineuifh original right from an ufurpa-
ton, it mutt appear that ie is indllpenfably
ncceiAry for the performance of The duty
they are employed in, and allothat it has been
uniformly allowed. From the fri part OF
this defcriPtiOn it follows clearly, that what
ever privilege does of right belong to the pre-
feni Houfc of Commons, did equally belong
to the fri shembly of their predeoeAors,
was as completely vefed in them, and might
have been exeicifed in the fame extent.
From the fecond we NUT infer that privi-
legcs, which, for Geveral centuries, were not
only never allowed, but never even claimed
by the Houie of Commons, NUT be founded
upon uiurpAtion. The conftnutional duties
of Houle of Commons are not very com
plcaied, nor myferious. They are to pro-
poGc or allent TO wholefore laws, for the be-
neht of the nation. They are to grant the
necel1ary aids to the King ;---petition for the
redress of grievances, and profecute treafon,
or high crimes againl the fate. Illuminated
privilege be necefary to the performance Of
thefe duties, we have resGon TO conclude
thar, for many centuries after the infiitution
of the Houfe of Commons they were never
performed. am not bound TO prove ne
gative, but appeal TO the EOgiifh hifory
when affirm that, with the exceptions al
ready aated (which yet might fafely relin-
guilty. there is no precedenr, from the year
I76s to the death of Queen Elizabeth, OF
the Houie of Commons having imprifoned
any man mot member Of their houiel for
'coutenipt or breach Of privilege. 10 the mott
fragrant cafes, and when their acknowledged
privileges were mOf grossly vi0ia.cd, the