"pable." In this proceeding, I am authorised to affirm, they have neither ftatute nor custom, nor reason, nor one fingle precedent to support them. On the other fide, there is indeed a precedent fo ftrongly in point, that all the inchanted castles of ministerial magic fall before it. In the year 1698, (a period which the rankeft tory dare not except against) Mr. Wollafton was expelled, re-elected, and admitted to take his feat in the fame parliament. The miniftry have precluded themselves from all objections drawn from the cause of his expulfion, for they affirm abfolutely that expulfion of itself creates the difability. Now, Sir, let fo phiftry evade, let falfehood affert, and impudence deny here ftands the precedent, a land-mark to direct us through a troubled fea of controversy, confpicuous and unremoved.

I have dwelt the longer upon the difcuffion of this point, because in my opinion it comprehends the whole question. The reft is unworthy of notice. We are enquiring whether incapacity be or be not created by expulfion. In the cafes of Bedford and Malden, the incapacity of the perfons returned was matter of public notoriety, for it was created by act of Parliament. But really, Sir, my honest friend's fuppofitions are as unfavourable to him as his facts. He well knows that the clergy, befides that they are reprefented in common with

1

their fellow subjects, have also a separate parliament of their own;-that their incapacity to fit

in the house of commons has been confirmed by repeated decifions of the house, and that the law of parliament, declared by thofe decifions, has been for above two centuries notorious and undisputed. The author is certainly at liberty to fancy cafes, and make whatever comparisons he thinks proper; his fuppofitions ftill continue at a distance from fact, as his wild difcourfes are from folid argu

ment.

The conclufion of his book is candid to an extreme. He offers to grant me all I defire. He thinks he may safely admit that the case of Mr. Walpole makes directly against him, for it seems he has one grand folution in petto for all difficul ties. If, fays he, I were to allow all this, it will only prove, that the law of election was different, in queen Ann's time, from what it is at prefent.

This indeed is more than I expected. The principle, I know, has been maintained in fact, but I never expected to fee it fo formally declared,

What can he mean? does he affume this language to fatisfy the doubts of the people, or does he mean to rouse their indignation; are the ministry daring enough to affirm that the house of commons have a right to make and unmake the law of parliament at their pleasure does the law of parliament,

parliament, which we are so often told is the law of the land-does the common right of every fubject of the realm depend upon an arbitrary, capricious vote of one branch of the legislature-The voice of truth and reafon must be filent.

The miniftry tell us plainly that this is no longer a question of right, but of power and force alone. What was law yesterday is not law to-day and now it seems we have no better rule to live by than the temporary discretion and fluctuating integrity of the house of commons.

Profeffions of patriotifm are become stale and ri-+ diculous. For my own part, I claim no merit from endeavouring to do a fervice to my fellow fubjects. I have done it to the best of my understanding; and without looking for the approbation of other men, my confcience is fatisfied. What remains to be done concerns the collective body of the people. They are now to determine for themselves, whether they will firmly and conftitutionally affert their rights, or make an humble flavifh furrender of them at the feet of the miniftry. To a generous mind there cannot be a doubt. We owe it to our ancestors to preferve entire those rights, which they have delivered to our care; we owe it to our pofterity, not to fuffer their dearest inheritance to be deftroyed. But if it were poffible for us to be fenfible of thefe facred claims, there is

yet

yet an obligation binding upon ourselves, from which nothing can acquit us-a personal intereft, which we cannot furrender. To alienate even our own rights, would be a crime as much more enormous than fuicide, as a life of civil fociety and freedom is fuperior to a bare existence; and if life be the bounty of heaven, we fcornfully reject the nobleft part of the gift, if we consent to surrender that certain rule of living, without which the condition of human nature is not only miserable, but contemptible.

JUNIUS.

LETTER XX.

I

SIR,

August 22, 1769,

Muft beg of you to print a few lines, in explanation of fome paffages in my last letter, which I fee have been misunderstood.

1. When I faid, that the house of commons never meant to found Mr. Walpole's incapacity on his expulfion only, I meant no more than to deny the general propofition, that expulfion alone creates the incapacity. If there be any thing ambiguous in the expreffion, I beg leave to explain it by faying, that, in my opinion, expulfion neither creates,

nar

nor in any part contributes to create the incapacity in question.

2. I carefully avoided entering into the merits of Mr. Walpole's cafe. I did not enquire whether the houfe 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 ftands declared in their own refolution.

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

The cafe of Mr Wollafton fpeaks for itself. The miniftry affert that expulfion alone creates an abfolute, complete incapacity to be re elected to fit in the fame parliament. This propofition they have uniformly maintained, without any condition or modification whatsoever. Mr. Wollafton was expelled, re-elected, and admitted to take his feat in the fame parliament.- I leave it to the public to determine, whether this be a plain matter of fact, or mere nonfenfe and declamation.

JUNIUS,

LET