upon the footing of precedents alone[1]. In the course of the proceedings upon the Aylesbury election, the house of lords resolved, "That neither house of parliament had any power, by any vote or declaration, to create to themselves any new privilege, that was not warranted by the known laws and customs of parliament." And to this rule, the house of commons, though otherwise they had acted in a very arbitrary manner, gave their assent, for they affirmed that they had guided themselves by it, in asserting their privileges.—Now, Sir, if this be true with respect to matters of privilege, in which the house of commons, individually and as a body, are principally concerned, how much more strongly will it hold against any pretended power in that house, to create or declare a new law, by which not only the rights of the house over their own member, and those of the member himself are concluded, but also those of a third and separate party; I mean the freeholders of the kingdom. To do justice to the ministry, they have not yet pretended that any one, or any
- ↑ This is still meeting the ministry upon their own ground; for, in truth, no precedents will support either natural injustice, or violation of positive right.
