SUCH, however, is the precedent, which my honest friend affures us is strictly in point to prove, that expulfion of itself creates an incapacity of being elected. If it had been fo, the prefent houfe of commons should at leaft have followed ftrictly the example before them, and fhould have ftated 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 incapable." In this proceeding I am authorized to affirm, they have neither ftatute, nor custom, nor reason, nor one fingle precedent to fupport 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 rankest Tory dare not except againft) Mr. Wollafton was expelled, re-elected, and admitted to take his feat in the fame parliament. The ministry have precluded themselves from all objections drawn from the caufe of his expulfion, for they affirm abfolutely, that expulfion of itself creates the difability. Now, Sir, let fophiftry evade, let falsehood affert, and impudence deny here ftands the precedent,

cedent, a land-mark to direct us through a troubled fea of controverfy, 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 enquir ing whether incapacity be or not be 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 honeft friend's fuppofitions are as unfavourable to him as his facts. He well knows that the clergy, befides that they are represented in common with their fellowfubjects, 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 houfe, and that the law of parliament, declared by thofe decifions, has been for above two centuries notorious and undifputed. The author is certainly at liberty to fancy cafes, and make whatever comparisons he thinks proper; his fuppofitions still continue as diftant from L 4 fact,

fact, as his wild difcourfes are from folid argument.

THE Conclufion of his book is candid to extreme.

He offers to grant me all I defire. He thinks he may fafely admit that the cafe of Mr. Walpole makes directly against him, for it seems he has one grand folution in petto for all difficulties. If, fays he, I were to allow all this, it will only prove, that the law of election was different, in Queen Anne'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 see 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 miniftry 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, which we are so often told is the law of the land ;-does the common right of every subject of the realm depend upon an arbitrary capricious vote of one

E

branch

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 difcretion and fluctuating integrity of the house of commons.

PROFESSIONS of patriotifm are become ftale and ridiculous. For my own part, I claim no merit from endeavouring to do a service 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 fatisficd. 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, flavish 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 these rights, which they have delivered to our care: we owe it to our pofterity, not to fuffer their

deareft

dearest inheritance to be destroyed. But if it were poffible for us to be infenfible of these facred claims, there is yet an obligation binding upon ourselves, from which nothing can acquit us, a perfonal intereft, which we cannot surrender. To alienate even our own rights, would be a crime as much more enor mous than suicide, as a life of civil fecurity and freedom is fuperior to a bare existence and if life be the bounty of heaven, we scornfully reject the noblest part of the gift, if we consent to furrender that certain rule of living, without which the condition of human nature is not only miferable, but contemptible,

I MUST beg of you to print a

few lines, in explanation of some passages in laft letter, which I fee have been mifunderstood.

my

1. WHEN