"The religious systems of those days were not less zealously espoused by the priesthood and their adherents, than the Thirty-nine Articles are in our days. Had they been consulted, and made the sole arbitrators of this affair, as has been suggested in the present instance by the last speaker, Christianity must have been crushed in the birth. We should never have heard of the scheme of redemption, in which we now all rejoice, and in which all the ends of the earth are, or may be blessed. For these, and various other reasons, which may be urged, I hope that at least the petition may be brought up and read, if not examined and discussed. This we owe to justice. This we owe to decency. Reason and common sense call for it from our hands, and Christianity cannot otherwise be satisfied."

Article VII.-That Junius was a Member of the House of Commons.

"As to the House of Commons, there may be more danger. But even there, I am fully satisfied, the ministry will exert themselves to quash such an enquiry, and on the other side, you will have friends"-Private Letter, No. 15. 29 July, 1769-To Sir William Blackstone"The remainder of your reflections upon Mr. Grenville's conduct destroy themselves. He could not possibly come prepared to traduce

your integrity to the House. He could not foresee that you would even speak upon the question, much less could he foresee that you would maintain a direct contradiction of that doctrine which you had solemnly, disinterestedly, and upon soberest reflection, delivered to the public. He came, armed indeed with what he thought a respectable authority, to support what he was convinced was the cause of truth, and, I doubt not, he intended to give you in the course of the debate an honourable and public testimony of his esteem. Thinking highly of his abilities, I cannot, however, allow him the gift of divi

nation."

14 Aug., 1769-"The truth of the matter is evidently this. Doctor Blackstone, while he was speaking in the House of Commons, never once thought of his Commentaries, until the contradiction was unexpectedly urged, and stared him in the face. Instead of defending himself upon the spot, he sunk under the charge in an agony of confusion and despair. It is well known that there was a pause of some minutes in the House, from a general expectation that the Doctor would say something in his own defence; but it seems his faculties were too much overpowered, to think of those subtleties and refinements which have since occurred to him. It was then Mr. Grenville received that severe

chastisement, which the Doctor mentions with so much triumph. I wish the honourable gentleman, instead of shaking his head, would shake a good argument out of it.' If to the elegance, novelty, and bitterness of this ingenious sarcasm, we add the natural melody of Sir Fletcher Norton's pipe [the Speaker], we shall not be surprised that Mr. Grenville was unable to make him any reply."

His farther antipathy to the Speaker I shall have occasion to notice in a subsequent Article.

28 May, 1770-"To support their former resolutions, they were obliged to violate some of the best known and established rules of the House. In one instance, they went so far as to declare, in open defiance of truth and common sense, that it was not the rule of the House to divide a complicated question at the request of a member. But after trampling upon the laws of the land, it was not wonderful that they should treat the private regulations of their own assembly with equal disregard. The Speaker, being young in office, began with pretended ignorance, and ended with deciding for the ministry. We were not surprised at the decision; but he hesitated and blushed at his own baseness, and every man was astonished."

This circumstance alludes to the choice of Sir Fletcher Norton as Speaker, on the death

of Sir John Cust. Sir Fletcher was strongly opposed by Lord George Sackville.-See parliamentary debates, 1770.

28 May, 1770-note-" This extravagant resolution appears in the votes of the House; but, in the minutes of the committees, the instances of resolutions contrary to law and truth, or of refusals to acknowledge law and truth when proposed to them, are innumerable."

Now such instances could only be known to a member; they never would make a public exposure of facts to criminate themselves.

14 Nov. 1770—"Your conduct [Lord Mansfield] it seems, must be defended in parliament. For what other purpose is your wretched friend, that miserable Serjeant, posted to the House of Commons? Is it in the abilities of a Mr. Leigh to defend the great Lord Mansfield? Or is he only punch of the puppet-shew, to speak as he is prompted, by the chief juggler behind the curtain."

"This paragraph gagged poor Leigh. I really am concerned for the man, and wish it were possible to open his mouth. He is a very pretty orator."

This was written preparatory to Lord George Sackville's vehement attack on Lord Mansfield, three weeks afterwards.

22 April, 1771-"To sacrifice a respected

character, and to renounce the esteem of society, requires more than Mr. Wedderburne's resolution; and though in him it was rather a pro- . fession than a desertion of his principles, yet we have seen him in the House of Commons, overwhelmed with confusion, and almost bereft of his faculties."

13 Dec. 1770-"The House of Lords, justly offended at the accuracy and precision, with which a certain noble Duke's oration has been delivered to the public, and concluding that the very words must have been taken down in writing, by some foreign enemy, have determined to preserve the honour of their members, and the credit of their eloquence, by ordering all strangers to be carefully excluded. But not to give offence, the exclusion is made general; their lordships very properly considering that the members of the House of Commons are no more fit to be trusted with the debates of a public assembly, than the spies or emissaries of a foreign ambassador, or so many Jesuists in disguise."

This precautionary measure was taken at the time, under a supposition that no one but a member of the House of Commons could possess such ready information on every subject, as was so promptly laid before the public; indeed, it must strike every reader, that the members of the Upper House were not without their suspicions.