LETTER XIX.

ADDRESSED TO THE PRINTER OF THE

SIR,

PUBLIC ADVERTISER.

14. August, 1769.

A CORRESPONDENT of

the St. James's Evening Post first wilfully misunderstands Junius, then censures him for a bad reafoner. Junius does not fay that it was incumbent upon Doctor Blackstone to forefee and state the crimes, for which Mr. Wilkes was expelled. If, by a spirit 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 Blackstone might and fhould have told us fo. The question is not confined to this or that particular person, but forms one great general branch of difqualification, toɔ important in itself, and too extenfive in its confequences, to be omitted in

VOL. I.

K

an

an accurate work exprefsly 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 ftared him in the face. Instead of defending himself upon the spot, he funk under the charge, in an agony of confufion and defpair. It is well known that there was a pause of some minutes in the house, 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 those subtleties and refinements, which have fince occurred to him. It was then Mr. Grenville received that severe chaftifement, which the Doctor mentions with so much triumph. I wish the honourable gentleman, instead of shaking his head, would fhaké 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 fhall not be furprised that Mr. Grenville was unable to make him any reply.

As

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.

Postscript to a Pamphlet intitled, ‹ An Anfwer to the Question stated.' Supposed to be written by Dr. Blackstone, Solicitor to the Queen, in answer to Junius's Letter.

SINCE thefe papers were fent

to the prefs, a writer in the public papers, who fubfcribes himself Junius, has made a feint of bringing this question to a short iffue. Though the foregoing obfervations contain in my opinion, at least, a full refutation of all that this writer has offered, I fhall, however, beftow a very few words upon him. It will coft me very little trouble to unravel and expose the fophiftry of his argument.

I TAKE the queftion, says he, to be strictly this: Whether or no it be the known esta⚫blished law of parliament, that the expulfion * of a member of the house of commons of ⚫ itself

K 2

• itself creates in him fuch an incapacity to be • re-elected, that, at a fubfequent election, any votes given to him are null and void; and that any other candidate, who, except the perfon expelled, has the greatest number ' of votes, ought to be the fitting member.'

WAVING for the prefent any objection I may have to this ftate of the queftion, I shall venture to meet our champion upon his own ground; and attempt to fupport the affirmative of it, in one of the two ways, by which he fays it can be alone fairly fupported. If there be no ftatute, fays he, in which the fpecific difability is clearly created, &c. (and 'we acknowledge there is none) the custom

of parliament muft then be referred to, and fome cafe or cafes, ftrictly in point, must be produced, with the decifion of the court < upon them.' Now I affert, that this has been done. Mr. Walpole's cafe is strictly in point, to prove that expulfion creates abfolute incapacity of being re-elected. This was the clear decifion of the house upon it; and was a full declaration, that incapacity was the neceffary confequence of expulfion. The ław was as clearly and firmly fixed by this refolution, and is as binding in every fubfequent

quent cafe of expulfion, as if it had been declared by an exprefs ftatute, " That a mem"ber expelled by a refolution of the house. "of commons fhall be deemed incapable of being re-elected." Whatever doubt then there might have been of the law before Mr. Walpole's cafe, with refpect to the full operation of a vote of expulfion, there can be The decifion of the house upon

none now.

this cafe is ftrictly in point to prove, that expulfion creates abfolute incapacity in law of being re-elected.

BUT incapacity in law in this inftance must have the fame operation and effect with incapacity in law in every other inftance. Now, incapacity of being re-elected implies in its very terms, that any votes given to the incapable person, at a subsequent election, are null and void. This is its neceffary operation, or it has no operation at all. It is vox et præterea nihil. We can no more be called upon to prove this propofition, than we can to prove that a dead man is not alive, or that twice two are four. When the terms are understood, the propofition is felf-evident.