LETTER

SIR,

XIX.

August, 8, 1769.

'HE gentleman, who has published an answer

THE

to Sir William Meredith's pamphlet, having honoured me with a poftfcript of fix quarto pages, which he moderately calls, bestowing very few words upon me, I cannot, in common politeness, refufe 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 instruct the learned, but fimply to inform the body of the people; and I prefer that channel of conveyance, which is likely to spread fartheft among them. The advocates of the ministry feem to me to write for fame, and to flatter themselves, 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 gigantic, could contend with truth and heaven.

The writer of the volume in queftion meets me upon my own ground. He acknowledges there is

no

* Entitled an answer to the queftion stated, with a Poftfcript in anfwer to Junius's Letter XVH, vide page 84.

no ftatute, by which the fpecific difability we speak of is created, but he affirms, that the custom of parliament has been referred to, and that a case 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 reelected; and for this purpose he refers generally to the first vote of the house upon that occasion, without venturing to recite the vote itfelf. The unfair, difingenubus 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 advantage eagerly of the firft refolution, by which Mr. Walpole's incapacity is declared; and as tó the two following, by which the candidate with the fewest votes was declared "not duly elected," and the election itself vacated, I dare fay, he would be well fatisfied, if they were for ever blotted out of the journals of the houfe of commons. In fair argument, no part of a precedent should be admitted, unless the whole of it be given to us together. 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 fay, 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 speaking of the intention of men, who lived more than half a century ago, and that such 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 a breach of truft in the execution of his of

fice, and notorious corruption when a fecretary "at war, was and is incapable of being elected a "member to ferve in this present parliament." Now, Sir, to my understanding, no propofition of this kind can be more evident, than that the house of commons, by this yery vote, themfelves under. ftood, and meant not to declare, that Mr. Walpole's incapacity arofe from the crimes he had committed,

mitted, nor from the punishment the house annexed to them. The high breach of trust, the notorious corruption are ftated in the strongest terms. They do not tell us 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 representative had been declared incapable because he was highly guilty, not because he had been punished. But even admitting them to have understood it in the other fense, they must then, from the very terms of the vote, have united the idea of his being sent to the Tower with that of his expulfion, and confidered his incapacity as the joint effect of both.

I do not mean to give an opinion upon the juftice of the proceedings of the house of commons, with regard to Mr. Walpole; but certainly, if I admitted their cenfure to be well founded, I could no way avoid agreeing with them in the confequence they drew from it. I could never have a doubt,

in

in law or reason, that a man convicted of a high breach of truft, and of a notorious corruption, in the execution of a public office, was and ought to be incapable of fitting in the fame parliament. Far from attempting to invalidate that vote, I should have wished that the incapacity declared by it could legally have been continued for ever.

Now, Sir, obferve how forcibly the argument returns. The house of commons, upon the face of their proceedings, had the strongest motives to declare Mr. Walpole incapable of being re-elected. They thought fuch a man unworthy to fit among them. To that point they proceeded no further; for they respected the rights of the people, while they afferted their own. They did not infer, from Mr Walpole's incapacity, that his opponent was duly elected; on the contrary they ceclared Mr. Taylor Not duly elected," and the election itself yoid.

66

Such, however, is the precedent, which my honeft friend affures us is ftrictly in point to prove, that expulfion of itself creates an incapacity of being elected. If it had been fo, the prefent houfe of commons fhould at least have followed ftrictly the example before them, and should have stated to us, in the fame vote, the crimes for which they expelled Mr. Wilkes; whereas they refolve fimply, that " having been expelled, he was and is inca