2. I carefully avoided entering into the merits of Mr. Walpole's case. I did not enquire, whether the House of Commons acted justly, or whether they truly declared the law of parliament. My remarks went only to their apparent meaning and intention, as it stands declared in their own resolution.

3. I never meant to affirm, that a commitment to the Tower created a disqualification. On the contrary, I considered that idea as an absurdity, into which the ministry must inevitably fall, if they reasoned right upon their own principles.

The case of Mr. Wollaston speaks for itself. The ministry assert that expulsion alone creates an absolute, complete incapacity to be re-elected to sit in the same parliament. This proposition they have uniformly maintained, without any condition or modification whatsoever. Mr. Wollaston was expelled, re-elected, and admitted to take his seat in the same parliament.-I leave it to the public to determine, whether this be a plain matter of fact, or mere nonsense and declamation.

JUNIUS.

LETTER XXII.

TO THE PRINTER OF THE PUBLIC ADVERTISER.

4 Sept. 1769.

ARGUMENT against FACT; or, A new system of political Logic, by which the ministry have demonstrated, to the satisfaction of their friends, that expulsion alone creates a complete incapacity to be re-elected; alias, that a subject of this realm may be robbed of his common right, by a vote of the House of Commons.

FIRST FACT.

Mr. Wollaston, in 1698, was expelled, re-elected, and admitted to take his seat.

1

ARGUMENT.

As this cannot conveniently be reconciled with our general proposition, it may be necessary to shift our ground, and look back to the cause of Mr. Wollaston's expulsion. From thence it will appear clearly that, " although he was expelled, he had not rendered himself a culprit too ignominious to sit in parliament, and that having resigned his employment, he was no longer incapacitated by law." Vide Serious Considerations, page 23. Or thus, "The house, somewhat inaccurately, used the word EXPELLED; they should have called it A MOTION." Vide Mungo's case considered, page 11. Or in short, if these arguments should be thought insufficient, we may fairly deny the fact. For example; " I affirm that he was not re-elected. The same Mr. Wollaston, who was expelled, was not again elected. The same individual, if you please, walked into the house, and took his seat there, but the same person in law was not admitted a member of that parliament, from which he had been discarded." Vide Letter to JUNIUS, page 12.

SECOND FACT.

Mr. Walpole having been committed to the Tower, and expelled for a high breach of trust and notorious corruption in a public office, was declared incapable, &c.

ARGUMENT.

From the terms of this vote, nothing can be more evident than that the House of Commons meant to fix the incapacity upon the punishment, and not upon the crime; but lest it should appear in a different light to weak, uninformed persons, it may be adviseable to gut the resolution, and give it to the public, with all possible solemnity, in the following terms, viz. "Resolved, that Robert Walpole, Esq. having been that session of parliament expelled the house, was and is incapable of being elected a member to serve in that present parliament." Vide Mungo, on the use of quotations, page 11.

N. B. The author of the answer to Sir William Meredith*

seems to have made use of Mungo's quotation, for in page 18, he assures us, "That the declaratory vote of the 17th of February, 1769, was indeed a literal copy of the resolution of the house in Mr. Walpole's case."

THIRD FACT.

His opponent, Mr. Taylor, having the smallest number of votes at the next election, was declared NOT DULY ELECTED.

ARGUMENT.

This fact we consider as directly in point to prove that Mr. Luttrell ought to be the sitting member, for the follow-ing reasons, "The burgesses of Lynn could draw no other inference from this resolution, but this, 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." Vide Postscript to JUNIUS, p. 37. Or thus: " This their resolution leaves no room to doubt what part they would have taken, if, upon a subsequent re-election of Mr. Walpole, there had been any other candidate in competition with him. For, by their vote, they could have no other intention than to admit such other candidate." Vide Mungo's case considered, p. 39. Or take it in this light. The burgesses of Lynn, having, in defiance of the house, retorted upon them a person, whom they had branded with the most ignominious marks of their displeasure, were thereby so well intitled to favour and indulgence, that the house could do no less than rob Mr. Taylor of a right legally vested in him, in order that the burgesses might be apprized of the law of parliament; which law the house took a very direct way of explaining to them, by resolving that the candidate with the fewest votes was not duly elected:-" And was not this much more equitable, more in the spirit of that equal and substantial justice, which is the end of all law, than if they had violently adhered to the strict maxims of law?" Vide Serious Considerations, p. 33 and 34. "And if the present House of Commons had chosen to follow the spirit of this resolution, they would have received and established the candidate with the fewest votes." Vide Answer to Sir W. Μ. p. 18.

Permit me now, Sir, to shew you that the worthy Dr. Blackstone sometimes contradicts the ministry as well as himself. The Speech without doors asserts*, page 9, "That the legal effect of an incapacity, founded on a judicial determination of a competent court, is precisely the same as that of an incapacity created by act of parliament." Now for the Doctor. The law and the opinion of the judge are not always convertible terms, or one and the same thing; since it sometimes may happen that the judge may mistake the law. Commentaries, Vol. I. p. 71.

The answer to Sir W. M. asserts, page 23, "That the returning officer is not a judicial, but a purely ministerial officer. His return is no judicial act."-At 'em again, Doctor. The Sheriff, in his judicial capacity is to hear and determine causes of 40 shillings value and under in his county court. He has also a judicial power in divers other civil cases. He is likewise to decide the elections of knights of the shire (subject to the control of the House of Commons), to judge of the qualification of voters, and to return such as he shall DETERMINE to be duly elected. Vide Commentaries, page 332. Vol. I.

What conclusion shall we draw from such facts, such arguments, and such contradictions? I cannot express my opinion of the present ministry more exactly than in the words of Sir Richard Steele, " that we are governed by a set of drivellers, whose folly takes away all dignity from distress, and makes even calamity ridiculoust."

PHILO JUNIUS.

* See an extract from this speech, inserted in the note to Letter XVII. p. 115. EDIT.

† In a pamphlet written by Steele upon the issue of the South-Sea incorporation, at the period when Walpole was just re-emerging from obscurity, to take a more decided and loftier management of public affairs.

-EDIT

LETTER XXIII.

TO HIS GRACE THE DUKE OF BEDFORD.

MY LORD, 19 Sept. 1769. You are so little accustomed to receive any marks of respect or esteem from the public*, that if, in the following lines a compliment or expression of applause should escape

* The unpopular peace of 1763 was negotiated by the Duke of Bedford, and gave rise to a variety of public commotions which at length broke out into acts of open insurrection among the Spital-fields weavers, who exclaimed that their trade was ruined by its commercial stipulations. The rumour became current that the French court had purchased this peace by bribes to the Princess Dowager of Wales, Lord Bute, the Duke of Bedford, and Mr. Henry Fox, afterwards Lord Holland: and such was its general belief that the House of Commons thought proper to appoint a committee to examine into its truth; who traced it chiefly to a Dr. Musgrave, who nevertheless does not appear to have suffered from this libellous report, which, as he affirmed, he had brought home with him from Paris. The public disfavour with which the terms of the peace were received, produced a fresh disagreement between Lord Bute and the Duke of Bedford on his return home. Upon the death of Lord Egremont however, Lord Bute found himself compelled once more to apply to the Duke of Bedford for his interest, who, conscious of his importance, exacted not only from Lord Bute but from the king himself a submission to whatever terms he chose to impose, and it was upon this occasion that he insisted upon the dismissal of Lord Bute's brother, Mr. Stuart Mackenzie, from his office, although Mackenzie had received his majesty's solemn promise that he should preserve it for life.

Incapable of submitting to such severe treatment, his Majesty soon afterwards intreated the Duke of Newcastle and Lord Rockingham to rescue him from the Bedford party. They consented, and the Duke was again dismissed with contumely. When his Majesty became disgusted, as he soon did, with this ministry also, Lord Bute applied in the king's name to George Grenville for support, and the Duke of Bedford, who was on terms of the closest friendship with him, once more strove to enter into the cabinet; but on this occasion Lord Bute had spirit enough to treat his offer with the utmost contempt. Lord Chatham was next applied to, who consented to take the lead, provided he was allowed the nomination of his own friends into certain offices he should designate; and this being granted, to strengthen his own hands, he re-introduced the Duke of Bedford, along with his Grace of Grafton:--and on his own resignation, he left them both in the respective offices they filled at the time of the address of the present letter to the former of these noblemen. EDIT.