But, sir, there is one motive to moderation that has seldom been found less efficacious than the consideration of the laws of justice or humanity.  We ought to be withheld by regard to our posterity, and even to ourselves, from any exorbitant extension of our privileges.  We know, that authority once exerted, is claimed afterwards by prescription.  And who knows by what sudden rotation of power he may himself suffer by a precedent which he has concurred to establish, and feel the weight of that oppressive power which he first granted for the punishment of another?

Mr. Howe spoke thus:—­Sir, I am always unwilling to oppose any proposal of lenity and forbearance, nor have now any intention of heightening the guilt of this man by cruel exaggerations, or inciting the house to rigour and persecution.

But let us remember, sir, that justice and mercy are equally to be regarded, and while we pity the folly of a misguided, or, perhaps, a thoughtless offender, let us not suffer ourselves to be betrayed, by our compassion, to injure ourselves and our posterity.

This house, sir, has always claimed and exerted the privilege of judging of every offence against itself, a privilege so long established, and so constantly exercised, that I doubt whether the inferiour courts of judicature will take cognizance of an attack upon us; for how can they venture to decide upon a question of such importance without any form or precedent for their proceedings.

There seems also to be at this time, sir, an uncommon necessity for tenaciousness of our privileges, when, as some whispers, which have been wafted from the other house, inform us, a motion has been made in terms which might imply the subordination of this assembly, an assertion without foundation either in reason or justice, and which I shall always oppose as destructive to our rights, and dangerous to our constitution.

Let us, therefore, sir, retain in our hands the cognizance of this affair, and let the criminal either suffer his punishment from our sentence, or owe his pardon to our mercy.

[It was agreed that the printer of the daily paper should attend next day, when, being called in, it was proposed that he should be asked, whether he printed the paper complained of.  It was objected to, for the same reason as the question about the author’s being in the gallery, because the answer might tend to accuse himself; and he being withdrawn, a debate of the same nature ensued, and the question being put whether he should be asked, if he be the person that printed the daily paper shown to him, which paper the house the day before resolved to contain a malicious and scandalous libel, etc. it was, on a division, carried in the affirmative, by two hundred and twenty-two against one hundred and sixty-three:  accordingly he was called in again, and being asked the question, he owned that he printed the said paper from a printed