before the House of Commons, that they had power to expel, to disable, and to render incapable for offences. In virtue of this power they expelled him.

HAD they, in the very vote of expulsion, adjudged him, in terms, to be incapable of being re-elected, there must have been at once an end with him. But though the right of the house, both to expel, and adjudge incapable, was clear and indubitable,. it does not appear to me, that the full operation and effect of a vote of expulsion singly was so. The law in this case had never been expressly declared. There had been no event to call up such a declaration. I trouble not myself with the grammatical meaning of the word expulsion. I regard only its legal meaning. This was not, as I think, precisely fixed. The house thought proper to fix it, and explicitly to declare the full consequences of their former vote, before they suffered these consequences to take effect. And in this proceeding they acted upon the most liberal and solid principles of equity,

The house thought proper to fix it, &c.] The reader cannot but perceive, that Blackstone here imputes to that House of Commons who expelled Walpole, an intention which there is no express evidence of their having entertained. But, by such an assumption, even along, his argument is utterly vitiated.

On the contrary, the probability is, that this House of Com mons, being chiefly Tories, and wishing to have a Tory instead of a Whig representative of Lynn Regis, must have proceeded as far in Taylor's favour as they thought themselves at all warranted by the law of parliament,

justice,

justice, and law. What then did the burgesses of Lynn collect from the second vote? Their subsequent conduct will tell us: it will with certainty tell us, that they considered it as decisive against Mr. Walpole: it will also, with equal certainty, tell us that, upon supposition that the law of election stood then, as it does now, and that they knew it to stand thus, they inferred "that, at a future election, and in case of a similar return, the house "would receive the same candidate, as duly elected,. "whom they had before rejected." They could infer nothing but this.

66

It is needless to repeat the circumstance of dissimilarity in the present case. It will be sufficient to observe, that as the law of parliament, upon which the House of Commons grounded every step of their proceedings, was clear beyond the reach of doubt, so neither could the freeholders of Middlesex be at a loss to foresee what must be the inevita-' ble consequence of their proceedings in opposition to it. For, upon every return of Mr. Wilkes, the house made enquiry, whether any votes were given to any other candidate?

BUT I could venture, for the experiment's sake, even to give this writer the utmost he asks: to allow the most perfect similarity throughout in these two cases; to allow, that the law of expulsion was quite as clear to the burgesses of Lynn, as to the freeholders of Middlesex. It will, I am confident, avail his cause but little. It will only prove, that

the

the law of election, at that time, was different from the present law. It will prove, that in all cases of an incapable candidate returned, the law then was, that the whole election should be void. But now we know that this is not law. The cases of Malden and Bedford were, as has been seen, determined upon other and more just principles. And these determinations are, I imagine, admitted on all sides to be law.

I WOULD willingly draw a veil over the remaining part of this paper. It is astonishing, it is painful, to see men of parts and ability, giving into the most unworthy artifices, and descending so much below their true line of character. But, if they are not the dupes of their sophistry, (which is hardly to be conceived) let them consider that they are something much worse.

THE dearest interests of this country are its laws and its constitution. Against every attack upon these, there will, I hope, be always found amongst us the firmest spirit of resistance, superior to the united efforts of faction and ambition. For ambition, though it does not always take the lead of faction, will be sure in the end to make the most fatal

But now we know that this is not law.] Blackstone, here, with daring absurdity, ascribes to the House of Commons the whole authority of the three branches of the legislature.

Malden and Bedford, &c.] The incapacity of the persons chosen for these places, had been created by an act of the legislature, including King, Lords, and Commons.

advantage

advantage of it, and draw it to its own purposes. But, I trust, our day of trial is yet far off; and that there is a fund of good sense in this country, which cannot long be deceived, by the arts either of false reasoning or false patriotism.

LETTER XX.

TO THE PRINTER OF THE PUBLIC ADVERTISER.

THE object of this Letter is, to refute the substance of the preceding Paper.

JUNIUS, first, laughs at the formality and labour of the ministerial

pamphlets; then demonstrates the expulsion of Walpole to be inapplicable, as a precedent to justify that of Wilkes; produces the case of Mr. Wollaston, to prove that persons against whom there was nothing but expulsion barely, were legally re-eligible into the House of Commons; and concludes his reasonings, by proving; slightingly, that there was extreme absurdity in quoting, in the present instance, the cases of Bedford and Malden, or introducing, for illustration, the case of the clergyman, which had been supposed by Blackstone. Thus far, except only in the first paragraph, this Letter is written with extraordinary plainness. Its author shews a solicitude for nothing but clearness, precision, and force of argument. He abstains from all ornament, but that which consists ́in correctness of style, in a fit division of his sentences, in purity and propriety of phrase. But, having finished the argumentative part of his Letter, he rises, at once, into a strain of impassioned eloquence. At the very mention of the position, that the law of parliament in elections might have changed, simply by the fiat of the House of Commons, his whole soul seems to kindle into rage; and, to the close of the Letter, he goes on in a vehement flow of mingled argument and ardent sentiments, the most eloquent and the most impressive.

SIR,

8. August, 1769.

THE

HE gentleman, who has published an answer to Sir Wiliam Meredith's pamphlet, having honoured me with a postscript of six quarto pages, which he moderately calls bestowing a very few words upon me, I cannot, in common politeness,

refuse