you

word for what you have faid in the house of commons. If there be a real difference between what have written and what you have spoken, you confefs that your book ought to be the ftandard. Now, Sir, if words mean any thing, I apprehend that, when a long enumeration of difqualifications (whether by ftatute or the custom of parliament) concludes with thefe general comprehenfive words, "but fubject to these restric❝tions and difqualifications, every subject of "the realm is eligible of common right," a reader of plain understanding, muft of courfe reft fatisfied that no fpecies of difqualification whatfoever had been omitted. The known character of the author, and the apparent accuracy with which the whole work is compiled, would confirm him in his opinion; nor could he poffibly form any other judgment, without looking upon your commentaries in the fame light in which you confider those penal laws, which though not repealed, are fallen into disuse, and are now in effect A SNARE TO THE UNWARY *.

* If, in stating the law upon any point, a judge deliberately affirms that he has included every cafe, and it should appear that he has purposely omitted a material cafe, he does in effect lay a fnare for the unwary.

You

You tell us indeed that it was not part of your plan to specify any temporary incapacity, and that you could not, without a spirit of prophecy, have specified the disability of a private individual, fubfequent to the period at which you wrote. What your plan was I know not; but what it fhould have been, in order to complete the work you have given us, is by no means difficult to determine. The incapacity, which you call temporary, may continue feven years; and though you might not have foreseen the particular cafe of Mr. Wilkes, you might and should have foreseen the poffibility of such a case, and told us how far the house of commons were authorized to proceed in it by the law and custom of parliament. The freeholders of Middlesex would then have known what they had to trust to, and would never have returned Mr. Wilkes, when colonel Luttrell was a candidate against him. They would have chosen fome indifferent perfon, rather than fubmit to be represented by the object of their contempt and deteftation

YOUR attempt to distinguish between difabilities, which affect whole claffes of men, and those which affect individuals only, is really

un

unworthy of your understanding. Your commentaries had taught me that, although the inftance, in which a penal law is exerted, be particular, the laws themselves are general. They are made for the benefit and inftruction of the public, though the penalty falls only upon an individual. You cannot

but know, Sir, that what was Mr. Wilkes's cafe yesterday may be your's or mine tomorrow, and that confequently the common right of every subject of the realm is invaded by it. Profeffing therefore to treat of the constitution of the house of commons, and of the laws and cuftoms relative to that conftitution, you certainly were guilty of a moft unpardonable omiffion in taking no notice of a right and privilege of the house, more extraordinary and more arbitrary than all the others they poffefs put together. If the expulfion of a member, not under any legal difability, of itfelf creates in him an incapacity to be elected, I fee a ready way marked out, by which the majority may at any time remove the honefteft and ablest men who happen to be in oppofition to them. To say that they will not make this extravagant use of their power, would be a language unfit for a man fo learned in the laws

as

as you are. By your doctrine, Sir, they have the power, and laws you know are intended to guard against what men may do, not to trust to what they will do.

UPON the whole, Sir, the charge against you is of a plain, fimple nature: It appears even upon the face of your own pamphlet. On the contrary, your juftification of yourself is full of fubtlety and refinement, and in fome places not very intelligible. If I were perfonally your enemy, I should dwell, with a malignant pleasure, upon those great and ufeful qualifications, which you certainly poffefs, and by which you once acquired, though they could not preferve to you the respect and esteem of your country. I fhould enumerate the honours you have loft, and the virtues you have disgraced: but having no private resentments to gratify, I think it fufficient to have given my opinion of your public conduct, leaving the punishment it deferves to your closet and to yourself.

JUNIUS.

LET

LETTER XIX.

ADDRESSED TO THE PRINTER OF THE

SIR,

PUBLIC ADVERTISER.

14. Auguft, 1769. A CORRESPONDENT of

the St. James's Evening Post first wilfully mifunderstands Junius, then cenfures him for a bad reafoner. Junius does not say that it was incumbent upon Doctor Blackstone to foresee 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 purpofe. 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 should have told us fo. The question is not confined to this or that particular perfon, but forms one great general branch of difqualification, too important in itself, and too extensive in its confequences, to be omitted in

VOL. I.

K

an