"To establish a claim of privilege in either house, and to distinguish _original right from usurpation_, it must appear that it is indispensably necessary for the performance of the duty, and also that it has been uniformly allowed. From the first part of this description it follows, clearly, that whatever privilege does of right belong to the present House of Commons, did equally belong to the first assembly of their predecessors, was so completely vested in them, and might have been exercised in the same extent. From the second we must infer that privileges which, for several centuries, were not only never allowed, but never even claimed by the House of Commons, must be founded upon usurpation."--Let. 44. In regard to America, I have shown their views to run parallel. Mr. Paine says in Crisis vii: "The ministry and minority have both been wrong." And Junius says in his first Letter: "But unfortunately for his country, Mr. Grenville was at any rate to be distressed because he was minister, and Mr. Pitt and Lord Camden were to be the patrons of America because they were in opposition." The minority here meant no more than the ruin of a minister and split the nation, without doing the colonies any good. Mr. Paine also says of Lord Chatham on this same point in Crisis viii: "An opinion hangs about the gentlemen of the minority, that America would relish measures under their administration which she would not from the present cabinet. On this rock Lord Chatham would have split had he gained the helm." I bring forward this parallel to show three things, the same political opinions, the same views of the parties in England, and the same figures of speech, all thrown into the same subject-matter. This, together with the same resemblance in style, surely point to the same author. This leads me on to speak of other private opinions. And first of lawyers, and especially Lord Mansfield: _Paine._ "It is difficult to know when a lawyer is to be believed."--Let. to Erskine, Int. _Junius._ "As a practical profession, the study of the law requires but a moderate portion of abilities. The learning of a pleader is usually upon a level with his integrity. The indiscriminate defense of right and wrong contracts the understanding, while it corrupts the heart. Subtlety is soon mistaken for wisdom, and impunity for virtue. If there be any instances upon record as some there are undoubtedly of genius and morality united in a lawyer, they are distinguished by their singularity, and operate as exceptions."--Let. 67.