Had they, in the very vote of expulfion, adjudged him, in terms, to be incapable of being reelected, 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 expulfion fingly was fo. The law in this cafe had never been exprefsly declared. There had been no event to call up fuch a declaration. I trouble not myself with the grammatical meaning of the word expulfion. I regard only its legal meaning. This was not, as I think, precifely fixed. The houfe thought proper to fix it, and explicitly to declare the full confequences of their former vote, before they fuffered thefe confequences to take effect. And in this proceeding they acted upon the most liberal and folid principles of equity, justice, and law. What then did the burgeffes of Lynn collect from the fecond vote? Their fubfequent conduct will tell us : it will with certainty tell us, that they confidered it as decifive against Mr. Walpole: it will also, with equal certainty, tell us, that, upon fuppofition that the law of election ftood then as it does now, and that they knew it to ftand thus, they inferred," that at a future election, and in case of a fimilar return, the houfe would receive the "fame candidate, as duly elected, whom they had before rejected." They could infer nothing but this. It is needless to repeat the circumftance of dif fimilarity in the prefent cafe. It will be fufficient to obferve, 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 lofs to foresee what must be the inevitable confequence of their proceedings in oppofition to it; for, upon every return of Mr. Wilkes, Wilkes, the houfe made enquiry whether any votes were given to any other candidate. But I could venture, for the experiment's fake, even to give this writer the utmost he afks; to allow the most perfect fimilarity throughout in these two cafes; to allow, that the law of expulfion was quite as clear to the burgeffes of Lynn, as to the freeholders of Middlefex. It will, I am confident, avail his caufe but little. It will only prove, that, that the law of election at that time was different from the prefent law. It will prove, that, in all cafes of an incapable candidate returned, the law then was, that the whole election fhould be void. But now we know that this is not law. The cafes of Malden and Bedford were, as has been seen, determined upon other and more juft principles. And these determinations are, I imagine, admitted on all fides to be law. I would willingly draw a veil over the remaining part of this paper. It is aftonishing, it is painful, to fee men of parts and ability giving into the moft unworthy artifices, and defcending fo much below their true line of character. But, if they are not the dupes of their fophiftry, (which is hardly to be conceived), let them confider that they are fomething much worse. The deareft interefts of this country are, its laws and its conftitution. Against every attack upon thefe, there will, I hope, be always found amongst us the firmeft fpirit of refiftance; fuperior to the united efforts of faction and ambition. For ambition, though it does not always take the lead of faction, will be fure, in the end, to make the most. fatal advantage of it, and draw it to its own purpofes. But, I truft, our day of trial is yet far off; and there is a fund of good fenfe in this country,. which cannot long be deceived by the arts, either of falfe reasoning or false patriotism. LETTER XX. TO THE FRINTER OF THE PUBLICK ADVER TISER. SIR, Aug. 8. 1769. HE gentleman who has published an anfwer to Sir William Meredith's pamphlet, having honoured me with a poftfcript of fix quarto pages, which he moderately calls beftowing a very few words upon me, I cannot, in common politenefs, refuse him a reply. The form and magnitude of a quarto impofes upon the mind; and men, who are unequal to the labour of difcuffing an intricate argument, or wish to avoid it, are willing enough to fuppofe, that much has been proved, because much has been faid. Mine, I confefs, are humble labours. I do not prefume to inftruct the learned, but fimply to inform the body of the people; and I prefer that channel of conveyance which is likely to fpread fartheft among them. The advocates of the miniftry feem to me to write for fame, and to flatter themfelves, that the fize of their works. will make them immortal. They pile up reluctant quarto upon folid folio, as if their labours, because they are gigantick, could contend with truth and heaven. The writer of the volume in queftion, meets me upon my own ground. He acknowledges there is no ftatute, by which the specifick disability we speak of is created; but he affirms, that the cuftom of parliament has been referred to, and that a cafe ftrictly in point has been produced, with the decifion of the court upon it.—I thank him for coming fo fairly to the point. He afferts, that the cafe of Mr. Walpole is ftrictly in point, to prove that expulfion creates an abfolute incapacity of being re-elected; and for this purpose he refers generally generally to the firft vote of the House upon that occafion, without venturing to recite the vote itself. The unfair, difingenuous artifice of adopting that part of a precedent which feems to fuit his purpose, and omitting the remainder, deferves fome pity, but cannot excite my refentment. He takes ad vantage eagerly of the firft refolution, by which Mr. Walpole's incapacity is declared; but as to the two following, by which the candidate with the fewest votes was declared "not duly elected," and the election itfelf vacated, I dare fay he would be well fatisfied if they were for ever blotted out of the journals of the House of Commons. In fair argument, no part of a precedent fhould be admitted, unless the whole of it be given to us to gether. The author has divided his precedent; for he knew, that, taken together, it produced a confequence directly the reverfe of that which he endeavours to draw from a vote of expulfion. But, what will this honeft perfon say, if I take him at his word, and demonftrate to him, that the House of Commons never meant to found Mr. Walpole's incapacity upon his expulfion only? What fubterfuge will then remain? Let it be remembered, that we are fpeaking of the intention of men who lived more than half a century ago; and that fuch intention can only be collected from their words and actions, as they are delivered to us upon record. To prove their defigns by a fuppofition of what they would have done, opposed to what they actually did, is mere trifling and impertinence. The vote, by which Mr. Walpole's incapacity was declared, is thus expreffed That Robert Walpole, Efq; having "been this feffion of parliament committed a pri"foner to the Tower, and expelled this House, for 66 a breach of truft in the execution of his office, "and notorious corruption, when fecretary at war, "was and is incapable of being elected a member : " to to ferve in this prefent parliament." Now, Sir, to my understanding, no propofition of this kind can be more evident, than that the House of Commons, by this very vote, themselves underftood, and meant to declare, that Mr. Walpole's incapacity arose from the crimes he had committed, not from the punishment the Houfe annexed to them. The high breach of truft, the notorious. corruption, are stated in the strongest terms. They do not tell us that he was incapable because he was expelled, but because he had been guilty of fuch offences as juftly rendered him unworthy of a feat in parliament. If they had intended to fix the disability upon his expulfion alone, the mention of his crimes in the fame vote would have been highly improper. It could only perplex the minds of the electors, who, if they collected any thing from fo confufed a declaration of the law of parliament, must have concluded, that their reprefentative had been declared incapable, becaufe he was: highly guilty, not because he had been punished.. But, even admitting them to have understood it in the other fenfe, they must then, from the very terms. of the vote, have united the idea of his being fent to the Tower with that of his expulfion, and confidered his incapacity as the joint effect of both †. I do. It is well worth remarking, that the compiler of a certain quarto, called, The Cafe of the last Election for the County of Middlejex confidered, has the impudence to recite this very vote in the following terms, vide page II. Refolved, That Robert Wal"pole, Efq; having been that feffion of parliament expelled the "House, was and is incapable of being elected a member to serve " in the present parliament." There cannot be a stronger positive proof of the treachery of the compiler, nor a stronger prefumptive proof that he was convinced that the vote, if truly recited, would. overturn his whole argument. ADDRESSED TO THE PRINTER OF THE PUBLICK ADVERTISER. V mons |