On the contrary, they affirm that their proceedings have been ftrictly conformable to and founded upon the ancient law and custom of parliament. Thus therefore the question returns to the point, at which Junius had fixed it, viz. Whether or no this be the law of parliament. If it be not, the house of commons had no legal authority to establish the precedent; and the precedent itself is a mere fact, without any proof of right whatsoever.

Your correfpondent concludes with a queftion of the fimpleft nature: Must a thing be wrong, because it has never been done before? No. But admitting it were proper to be done, that alone does not convey an authority to do it. As to the prefent cafe, I hope I shall never fee the time, when not only a fingle perfon, but a whole county, and in effect the entire collective body of the people may again be robbed of their birth-right by a vote of the house of commons. But if, for reasons which I am unable to comprehend, it be neceffary to truft that house with a power fo exorbitant and fo unconftitutional, at least let it be given to them by an act of the legislature.

PHILO JUNIUS.

LETTER XVI.

ADDRESSED TO THE PRINTER OF THE PUB LIC ADVERTISER.

SIR,

A

14. August, 1769.

Correfpondent of the St. James's Evening Poft firft wilfully mifunderftand Junius, then cenfures him for a bad reafoner. Junius does not fay that it was incumbent upon Doc. tor Blackstone to foresee and ftate the crimes for which Mr. Wilkes was expelled. If, by a fpirit of prophecy he had even done fo, it would have been nothing to the purpose. The question is, not for what particular offences a perfon may be expelled, but generally whether by the law of parliament expulfion alone creates a difqualification. If the affirmative be the law of parliament, Doctor Blacksone might and fhould have told us fo. The question is not confined to this or that particular perfon, but forms one great general branch of disqualification, too important in itself, and too extenfive in its confequences, to be omitted in an accurate work expressly treating of the law of parliament.

The

The truth of the matter is evidently this. Doctor Blackstone, while he was fpeaking in the houfe of commons, never once thought of his Commentaries, until the contradiction was unexpectedly urged, and ftared him in the face. Inftead of defending himself upon the spot, he funk under the charge, in an agony of confufion and despair. It is well known that there was a paufe of fome minutes in the houfe, from a general expectation that the Doctor would fay fomething in his own defence; but it feems, his faculties were too much overpowered to think of thofe fubtleties and refinements, which have fince occurred to him. It was then Mr. Grenville received that fevere chaftisement, which the Doctor mentions with fo much triumph. I wish the honourable gentleman, inftead of fhaking his head, would shake a good argument out of it. If to the elegance, novelty, and bitterness of this ingenious farcasm, we add the natural melody of the amiable Sir Fletcher Norton's pipe, we shall not be furprised that Mr. Grenville was unable to make him any reply.

As to the Doctor, I would recommend it to him to be quiet. If not, he may perhaps hear again from Junius himself.

PHILO JUNIUS.

LET.

LETTER

* XVIII.

TO THE PRINTER OF THE PUBLIC ADVER

TISER.

4. Sept. 1769.

ARGUMENT against FACT; or, A new fyftem of political Logic, by which the miniftry have demonftrated, to the fatisfaction of their friends, that expulfion alone creates a complete incapacity to be re-elected; alias, that a fubject of this realm may be robbed of his common right, by a vote of the house of commons.

FIRST FACT.

MR. Wollaften, in 1698, was expelled, re-elected, and admitted to take his feat.

ARGUMENT.

As this cannot conveniently be reconciled with our general propofition, it may be neceffary to shift our ground, and look back to the caufe of Mr. Wollafton's expulfion. From thence it will appear clearly that, "although "he was expelled, he had not rendered him

"felf

23.

66

"felf a culprit too ignominious to fit in parliament, and that having refigned his em"ployment, he was no longer incapacitated "by law." Vide Serious Confiderations, page Or thus, "The house, somewhat inaccurately, ufed the word EXPELLED; they "fhould have called it AMOTION." Vide Mungo's Cafe confidered, page 1I. Or in short, if these arguments fhould be thought infufficient, we may fairly deny the fact. For example; "I affirm that he was not re-elected. "The fame Mr. Wollafton, who was expel"led, was not again elected. The fame indi"vidual, if you please, walked into the house, "and took his feat there, but the fame perfon "in law was not admitted a member of that "parliament, from which he had been dif "carded." 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 pu

nishment,