mons grounded every step of their proceedings, was clear beyond the reach of doubt, fo neither could the freeholders of Middlefex be at a lofs to foresee what must be the inevitable confequence of their proceedings in oppofition to it. For upon every return of Mr. Wilkes, the house made enquiry, whether any votes were given to any other candidate?

BUT I could venture, for the experiment's fake, even to give this writer the utmost he afks; to allow the most perfect fimilarity throughout in these two cafes; to allow, that the law of expulfion was quite as clear to the burgeffes of Lynn, as to the freeholders of Middlefex. It will, I am confident, avail his caufe but little. It will only prove, that, the law of election at that time was different from the prefent law. It will prove, that, in all cafes of an incapable candidate returned, the law then was, that the whole election fhould be void. But now we know that this is not law. The cases of Malden and Bedford were, as has been seen, determined upon other and more juft principles. And these determinations are, I imagine, admitted on all fides, to be law.

I

I WOULD willingly draw a veil over the remaining part of this paper. It is astonishing, it is painful, to fee men of parts and ability, giving into the most unworthy artifices, and defcending fo much below their true line of character. But if they are not the dupes of their fophiftry, (which is hardly to be conceived) let them confider that they are fomething much worse.

THE dearest interests of this country are its laws and its conftitution. Against every attack upon thefe, there will, I hope, be always found amongst us the firmest spirit of refiftance; fuperior to the united efforts of faction and ambition. For ambition, though it does not always take the lead of faction, will be fure in the end to make the most fatal advantage of it, and draw it to its own. purposes. But, I truft, our day of trial is yet far off; and there is a fund of good fenfe in this country, which cannot long be deceived, by the arts either of falfe reafoning or falfe patriotism.

LET

LETTER

XX.

TO THE PRINTER OF THE PUBLIC AD

SIR,

VERTISER.

8. August 1769.

THE gentleman, who has

published an anfwer to Sir William Meredith's pamphlet, having honoured me with a poftfcript of fix quarto pages, which he moderately calls, bestowing a very few words upon me, I cannot, in common politeness, refufe him a reply. The form and magnitude of a quarto imposes upon the mind; and men, who are unequal to the labour of difcuffing an intricate argument, or wifh to avoid it, are willing enough to fuppofe, that much has been proved, becaufe much has been faid. Mine, I confefs, are humble labours. I do not prefume to inftruct the learned, but fimply to inform the body of the people; and I prefer that channel of conveyance, which is likely to fpread fartheft among them. The advocates of the miniftry feem to me to write for fame, and to flatter themselves, that the fize of their works will make them immortal.

They

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 ftatute, by which the fpecific difability we fpeak of is created, but he affirms, that the cuftom of parliament has been referred to, and that a cafe strictly 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 case of Mr. Walpole is strictly in point to prove that expulfion creates an abfolute incapacity of being re-elected; and for this purpose he refers generally to the first vote of the house upon that occafion, without venturing to recite the vote itself. The unfair, difingenuous. artifice of adopting that part of a precedent,. which feems to fuit his purpofe, and omitting the remainder, deferves fome pity, but cannot excite my refentment. He takes advantage eagerly of the first resolution, by which Mr. Walpole's incapacity is declared; but as to the two following, by which the candidate with the feweft votes was declared "not

duly elected," and the election itself va cated, I dare fay he would be well fatisfied,

if they were for ever blotted out of the jour nals of the houfe of commons. In fair argument, no part of a precedent fhould 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 reverse of that, which he endeavours to draw from a vote of expulfion. But what will this honest 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 fuch 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 vo e, by which Mr. Walpole's incapacity was declared, is thus expreffa,That Robert Walpole, Efq: ha