pofition to which it is applied. We are fure the doctrine is not to be found in any ftatute or law book, nor in the Journals of the House of Commons neither is it confonant with any juft or known analogy of law, as not re-electing would at most but infer a fuppofition of the electors approbation of the grounds of the expulfion, and by no means their acquiefcence in the conclufion of an implied incapacity. So were there is not one inftance of a re-election after expulfion but Mr. Woolafton's, that alone demonftrates that neither did the conftituents admit, nor the Houfe of Commons maintain incapacity to be the confequence of expulfion even the cafe of Mr. Walpole fhews, by the first re-election, the fenfe of the people, that expulfion did not infer incapacity, produced as it was under the influence of party violence, in the latter days of Queen Anne. And in fo far as it relates to the introduction of a candidate having a minority of votes, it decides exprefsly against the proceeding of the House of Commons in the late Middlefex Election.

4° Because as the conftitution hath been once already destroyed by the affumption and exercise of the very power which is now claimed, the day may come again when freedom of fpeech may be criminal in that Houfe, and every member who fhall have virtue enough to withstand the ufurpation of the time, and affert the rights of the peoE 2

ple,

ple, will for that offence be expelled by a factious and corrupt majority; and by that expulfion be rendered incapable of ferving the public: in which cafe the electors will find themfelves reduced to the miferable alternative of giving up altogether their right of election, or of choofing only fuch as are enemies of their country, and will be paffive at leaft, if not active in fubverting the conftitution.

5° Becaufe although it has been objected in the debate that it is unufual and irregular to either Houfe of Parliament to examine into the judicial. proceedings of the other, whofe decifions as they cannot be drawn into queftion by appeal, are, it is faid, to be fubmitted to without examination of the principles of them elfewhere, we conceive the argument goes directly to eftablifh the exploded doctrine of paffive obedience and non-refistance, which as applied to the acts of any branch of the fupreme power, we hold to be equally dangerous; and though it is generally true that neither House ought lightly and wantonly to interpose even an opinion upon matters which the conftitution hath intrufted to the jurifdiction of the other, we conceive it to be no lefs true that where under colour of a judicial proceeding, either Houfe arrogates to itself the powers of the whole legiflature, and makes the law which it profeffes to declare; the other not only may, but ought to affert its own.

right and those of the people: that this House has done fo in former inftances, particularly in the famous cafe of Afhfby and White, in which the firft refolution of the Lords declares, "that nei-` ther House of Parliament hath any power by any votes or declaration, to create themselves any new privilege, that it is not warranted by the known laws and cuftom of Parliament.” We ought to interfere at this time, as our filence upon fo important and alarming an occafion might be interpreted into an approbation of the measure, and be a means of lofing that confidence with the people which is fo effential to the public welfare, that this Houfe, the hereditary guardians of their rights, fhould at all times endeavour to main

tàin.

6° Because, upon the whole, we deem the power, which the Houfe of Commons have affumed to themselves, of creating an incapacity unknown to law, and thereby depriving, in effect, all the Electors of Great Britain of their invaluable right of election, confirmed to them by fo many folemn ftatutes, a flagrant ufurpation, as highly repugnant to every effential principle of the conftitution, as the claim of the Ship-money, by King Charles I. or that of the fufpending and difpenfing power by King James II. This being indeed in our opinion a fufpending and difpenfing power affumed and exercifed by the Houfe

of

of Commons, against the antient and fundamental liberties of the kingdom.

NUMBER II.

SATURDAY, MARCH 3, 1770

Potior vifa eft periculofa libertas quieto fervitia,

SALUST. FRAM.

Liberty with danger is preferable to fervitude with fecurity.

TH

HE Ps Dr of Ws not fatisfied with keeping her fon in leading ftrings, and directing every measure of government jointly with L-d Be and the D-e of B- -d, fhe was fo loft to all fense of honour and shame, and fo abandoned in principle as to facrifice the peace, profperity, and fecurity of the English Nation in one thousand feven hundred and fixty-two; for the fum of five hundred thoufand pounds, which the received from the Court of France; can the people of this country be fafe under fuch baneful influence are Englishmen to remain quiet after being thus betrayed and fold by the K-'s mr, are we to be deceived, abandoned and enflaved, by a German w and a prostituted Earl of the Houfe of Stuart.

Let