cover that this is a contention in which every thing may be loft, but nothing can be gained; and as you became minifter by accident, were adopted without choice, trufted without confidence, and continued without favour, be affured that, when

ever an occafion preffes, you will be difcarded without even the forms of regret, You will then have reaalon to be thankful, if you are permitted to retire to that feat of learning, which, in contemplation of the fyftem of your life, the compa rative purity of your manners with thofe of their high steward, and a thousand other recommending circumstances, has chofen you to encourage the growing virtue of their youth, and to prefide over their education. Whenever the fpirit of diftributing prebends and bifhopricks fhall have departed from you, you will find that learned feminary perfectly recovered from the delirium of an installation, and, what in truth it ought to be, once more a peaceful scene of flumber and meditation. The venerable tutors of the univerfity will no longer distress your modefty, by propofing you for a patern to their pupils. The learned dulnefs of declamation will be filent; and even the venal muse, though happiest in fiction, will forget your virtues. Yet, for the benefit of the fucceeding age, I could wish that your retreat might be deferred until your morals fhall happily be ripened to that maturity of

Corruption, at which philofophers tell us, the worff examples cease to be contagious.

JUNIUS.

LETTER

13 SIR,

XVII.

July 19, 1769.

A Great deal of ufelefs argument might have

been faved, in the political contest, which has arisen from the expulfion of Mr. Wilkes, and the fubfequent appointment of Mr. Luttrell, if the "queftion had been once ftated with precision, to the fatisfaction of each party, and clearly understood by them both. But in this, as in almost every other difpute, it ufually happens that much time is loft in referring to a multitude of cafes and precedents, which prove nothing to the purpose, or in maintaining propofitions, which are either not difputed, or, whether they be admitted or denied, are entirely indifferent as to the matter in debate ; until at laft the mind, perplext and confounded with the endless fubtleties of controverfy, lofes fight of the main queftion, and never arrives at truth. Both parties in the difpute are apt enough to practife thefe difhoneft artifices. The man who is confci ous of the weaknefs of his caufe, is interested in concealing it; and, on the other fide, it is not uncommon to fee a good cause mangled by advocates who do not know the real ftrength of it.

I should

I fhould be glad to know, for inftance, to what purpose in the prefent cafe fo many precedents have been produced to prove, that the houfe of commons have a right to expel one of their own members, that it belongs to them to judge of the validity of elections; or that the law of parliament is part of the law of the land? After all these propofitions are admitted, Mr. Luttrell's right to his feat will continue to be juft as difputable as it was before. Not one of them is at present in agitation. Let it be admitted that the house of commons were authorised to expel Mr. Wilkes; that they are the proper court to judge of elections, and that the law of parliament is binding upon the people; ftill it remains to be enquired whether the -house, by their refolution in favour of Mr. Luttrell, have or have not truly declared that law. To facilitate this enquiry, I would have the queftion cleared of all foreign or indifferent matter. following ftate of it will probably be thought a fair one by both parties; and then I imagine there is no gentleman in this country who will not be capable of forming a judicious and true opinion upon it. I take the question to be ftrictly this: Whether or no it be the known eftablished law of parliament, that the expulfion of a member of the houfe of commons of itfelf creates in him fuch an incapacity to be re-elected, that, at a fubfequent elections

The

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?

To prove that the affirmative is the law of par, liament, I apprehend it is not fufficient for the prefent house of commons to declare it to be fo. We may fhut our eyes indeed to the dangerous confequences of fuffering one branch of the legislature to declare new laws, without argument or example, and it may perhaps be prudent enough to fubmit to authority; but a mere affertion will never convince, much less will it be thought reasonable to prove the right by the fact itself. The miniftry have not yet pretended to such a tyranny over our minds. To fupport the affirmative fairly, it will either be neceffary to produce fome ftatute in which that pofitive provifion fhall have been made, that fpecific difability clearly created, and the confequences of it declared; or, if there be no such statute, the cuftom of parliament must then be referred to, and fome cafe or cafes, ftrictly in point, must be produced, with the decifion of the court upon them; for I readily admit that the custom of parliament, once clearly proved, is equally binding with the common and ftatute law.

The confideration of what may be reasonable or unreasonable makes no part of this question. We

are

1

are enquiring what the law is, not what it ought to be. Reason may be applied to fhew the impropriety or expedience of a law, but we must have either ftatute or precedent to prove the existence of it. At the fame time I do not mean to admit that the late refolution of the house of commons is defenfible on general principles of reason, any more than in law. This is not the hinge on which the debate turns,

Suppofing therefore that I have laid down an accurate state of the question, I will venture to affirm, ift. That there is no ftatute existing by which that specific difability, which we fpeak of, is created. If there be, let it be produced. The argument will then be at an end.

2dly. That there is no precedent in all the proceedings of the house of commons which comes entirely home to the prefent cafe, viz. where an

expelled member has been returned again, and another candidate, with an inferior number of ་ votes, has been declared the fitting member." If there be fuch a precedent, let it be given to us plainly, and I am fure it will have more weight than all the cunning arguments which have been drawn from inferences and probabilities.

The ministry, in that laborious pamphlet which I prefume contains the whole ftrength of the party, have declared, that Mr. Walpole's was the first

and