same sort with the first. It conveys a sneer as little worthy of the gravity of your character, as it is useless to your defence. It is of little moment to the public to enquire, by whom the charge was conceived, or by whom it was adopted. The only question we ask is, whether or no it be true. 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 divination. As to what you are pleased to call a plan coolly formed to impose upon the House of Commons, and his producing it without provocation at midnight, I consider it as the language of pique and invective, therefore unworthy of regard. But, Sir, I am sensible I have followed your example too long, and wandered from the point.

The quotation from your commentaries is matter of record. It can neither be altered by your friends, nor misrepresented by your enemies; and I am willing to take your own word for what you have said in the House of Commons. If there be a real difference between what you have written and what you have spoken, you confess that your book ought to be the standard. Now, Sir, if words mean any thing, I apprehend that, when a long enumeration of disqualifications (whether by statute or the custom of parliament) concludes with these general comprehensive words, "but subject to these restrictions and disqualifications, every subject of the realm is eligible of common right,” a reader of plain understanding, must of course rest satisfied that no species of disqualification whatsoever had been omitted. The known

character of the author, and the apparent accuracy with which the whole work is compiled, would confirm him in his opinion; nor could he possibly form any other judgment, without looking upon your commentaries in the same light in which you consider those penal laws, which though not repealed, are fallen into disuse, and are now in effect A SNARE TO THE UNWARY*.

You tell us indeed that it was not part of your plan to specify any temporary incapacity, and that you could not, without a spirit of prophecy, have specified the disability of a private individual, subsequent to the period at which you wrote. What your plan was I know not; but what it should have been, in order to complete the work you have given us, is by no means difficult to determine. The incapacity, which you call temporary, may continue seven years; and though you might not have foreseen the particular case of Mr. Wilkes, you might and should have foreseen the possibility of such a case, and told us how far the House of Commons were authorized to proceed in it by the law and custom of parliament. The freeholders of Middlesex would then have known what they had to trust to, and would never have returned Mr. Wilkes, when colonel Luttrell was a candidate against him. They would have chosen some indifferent person, rather than submit to be represented by the object of their contempt and detestation.

Your attempt to distinguish between disabilities, which affect whole classes of men, and those which affect individuals only, is really unworthy of your understanding. Your commentaries had taught me that, although the instance, in which a penal law is exerted, be particular, the laws themselves are general. They are made for the benefit and instruction of the public, though the penalty falls only upon an

If, in stating the law upon any point, a judge deliberately affirms that he has included every case, and it should appear that he has purposely omitted a material case, he does in effect lay a snare for the unwary.— AUTHOR.

This last part of the sentence is a quotation artfully selected from Blackstone's own works, and turned against himself. EDIT.

individual. You cannot but know, Sir, that what was Mr. Wilkes's case yesterday may be yours or mine to-morrow, and that consequently the common right of every subject of the realm is invaded by it. Professing therefore to treat of the constitution of the House of Commons, and of the laws and customs relative to that constitution, you certainly were guilty of a most unpardonable omission in taking no notice of a right and privilege of the House, more extraordinary and more arbitrary than all the others they possess put together. If the expulsion of a member, not under any other legal disability, of itself creates in him an incapacity to be re-elected, I see a ready way marked out, by which the majority may at any time remove the honestest and ablest men who happen to be in opposition to them. To say that they will not make this extravagant use of their power, would be a language unfit for a man so learned in the laws as you are. By your doctrine, Sir, they have the power, and laws you know are intended to guard against what men may do, not to trust to what they will do.

Upon the whole, Sir, the charge against you is of a plain, simple nature: It appears even upon the face of your own pamphlet. On the contrary, your justification of yourself is full of subtlety and refinement, and in some places not very intelligible. If I were personally your enemy, I should dwell, with a malignant pleasure, upon those great and useful qualifications, which you certainly possess, and by which you once acquired, though they could not preserve to you the respect and esteem of your country. I should enumerate the honours you have lost, and the virtues you have disgraced: but having no private resentments to gratify, I think it sufficient to have given my opinion of your public conduct, leaving the punishment it deserves to your closet and to yourself.

JUNIUS.

LETTFR XIX.

TO THE PRINTER OF THE PUBLIC ADVERTISER.

SIR,

14 August, 1769. A CORRESPONDENT of the St. James's Chronicle first wilfully misunderstands JUNIUS, then censures him for a bad reasoner*. JUNIUS does not say that it was incumbent upon

*The following is a copy of the letter alluded to:

ONCE more Mr. JUNIUS, and but once, let me address a few words to you on the subject of your Antiblackstonian letter, reminding you at the same time, that I am no formal defender of the celebrated commentator (who wants no such defence), but that it is my sole purpose to shew that you are not a competent reader of his works, or that you have wilfully and malevolently perverted them.

You tell Mr. Blackstone that "his attempt to distinguish between disabilities that affect whole classes of men, and those which affect individuals only, is really unworthy his understanding." And yet, Sir, that is no new distinction; it is not framed and invented by Mr. Blackstone. Private or personal laws, whether inflicting penalties and disabilities, or conferring privileges and immunities, on the particular object of them, and distinguished from the general and permanent course of law, have been known under all states, and under every legislation, both ancient and modern. They are enacted pro re nata, and lose all their force as soon as they have operated upon the individuals marked out by them. But, "you have been taught, you say, (yet surely not from the commentaries) that, although the instance in which a penal law is exerted, be particular, the laws themselves (I must suppose you to speak of the laws now under debate) are general." But, before you could write thus, what dæmon of confusion must have seized your noddle! Were the votes of the House, by which Sir Robert Walpole, Mr. Ward, and many others, have been expelled, and the act of parliament which inflicted a perpetual exclusion on the S. S. Directors, general laws? Was the vote to expel Mr. Wilkes in the last parliament, a general law? So far from it, that its force was quite evaporated, and it could not operate even upon him, in the present. Another vote of expulsion was necessary; and the two votes put together could no more expel Mr. Townshend and Mr. Sawbridge from the House of Commons, than the decree of the Roman senate, on Cataline and the rest of the conspirators, could send our hero and his whole gang to Tyburn.

Acts of attainder come under the same description of personal, temporary and particular laws; and that I may help you the better to understand

this

Doctor Blackstone to foresee and state the crimes, for which Mr. Wilkes was expelled. If, by a spirit of prophecy, he had even done so, it would have been nothing to the purpose. The question is, not for what particular offences a person may be expelled, but generally whether by the law of parliament expulsion alone creates a disqualification. If the affirmative be the law of parliament, Doctor Blackstone might and should have told us so. The question is not confined to this or that particular person, but forms one great general branch of disqualification, too important in itself, and too extensive in its consequences, to be omitted in an accurate work expressly treating of the law of parliament.

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 melothis whole matter, and shew you, at the same time, the accuracy and consistency of Mr. Blackstone, I shall give you his account of them: (Comm. b. iv. p. 256.) “As for acts of parliament to attaint particular persons of treason and felony, or to inflict pains and penalties, beyond or contrary to the common law, to serve a special purpose, I speak not of them; (mark that, JUNIUS,) being to all intents and purposes, new laws, made pro re nata, and by no means an execution of those already in being." I shall now take my leave of you, having, I hope, sufficiently proved to Mr. Baldwin's readers, in the instance you have afforded me, how prettily sometimes a man may write, without being able to read.

Middle-Temple, August 6, 1769.

EDIT.

PUBLIUS.