1. WHEN I faid, that the houfe of commons never meant to found Mr. Walpole's incapacity on his expulfion only, I meant no more than to deny the general propofition, that expulfion alone creates the incapacity. If there be any thing ambiguous in the expreffion, I beg leave to explain it by saying, that, in my opinion, expulfion neither creates, nor in any part contributes to create the incapacity in question.

2. I CAREFULLY avoided entering into the merits of Mr. Walpole's cafe. I did not enquire, whether the house of commons acted justly, or whether they truly declared the law of parliament. My remarks went only to their apparent meaning and intention, as it ftands declared in their own refolution.

3. I NEVER meant to affirm, that a com→ mitment to the Tower created a disqualification. On the contrary, I confidered that idea as an absurdity, into which the ministry must inevitably fall, if they reasoned right upon their own principles.

THE cafe of Mr. Wollafton fpeaks for itself. The ministry affert that expulfion alone

creates

creates an abfolute, complete incapacity to be re-elected to fit in the fame parliament. This propofition they have uniformly maintained, without any condition or modification whatsoever. Mr. Wollafton was expelled, re-elected, and admitted to take his feat in the fame parliament.-I leave it to the public to determine, whether this be a plain matter of fact, or mere nonsense or declamation. JUNIUS.

LETTER XXII.

ΤΟ THE PRINTER OF THE PUBLIC

ADVERTISER.

4. Sept. 1769.

ARGUMENT against FACT; or, A new fyftem of political Logic, by which the miniftry have demonftrated, to the fatiffaction of their friends, that expulfion alone creates a complete incapacity to be re-elected; alias, that a subject of this realm may be robbed of his common right, by a vote of the house of commons.

FIRST FACT.

MR. Wollafton, in 1698, was

expelled, re-elected, and admitted to take his

feat.

ARGU

ARGUMENT.

As this cannot conveniently be reconciled with our general propofition, it may be neceffary to shift our ground, and look back to the cause of Mr. Wollafton's expulsion. From thence it will appear clearly that, "al. though he was expelled, he had not ren"dered himself a culprit too ignominious to "fit in parliament, and that having refigned "his employment, he was no longer inca"pacitated by law." Vide Serious Confiderations, page 23. Or thus, "The houfe, "fomewhat inaccurately, ufed the word EX“PELLED; they should have called it Amo"TION." Vide Mungo's cafe confidered, page Or in short, if these arguments (hould be thought infufficient, we may fairly deny the fact. For example; "I affirm that he

11.

was not re-elected. The fame Mr. Wol"lafton, who was expelled, was not again "elected. The fame individual, if you

please, walked into the house, and took his

feat there, but the fame perfon in law was "not admitted a member of that parliament, " from which he had been discarded."

Letter to Junius, page 12.

Vide

SE

SECOND FACT.

Mr. Walpole having been committed to the Tower, and expelled for a high breach of trust and notorious corruption in a public office, was declared incapable, &c.

ARGUMENT.

FROM the terms of this vcte, nothing can be more evident than that the houfe of commons meant to fix the incapacity upon the punishment, and not upon the crime; but left it fhould appear in a different light to weak, uninformed persons, it may be adviseable to gut the resolution, and give it to the public, with all poffible folemnity, in the following terms, viz. Refolved, that Ro"bert Walpole, Efq; having been that ses"fion of parliament expelled the house, was "and is incapable of being elected member "to ferve in that prefent parliament." Vide Mungo, on the use of quotations, page 11.

N. B. THE author of the answer to Sir William Meredith seems to have made ufe of Mungo's quotation, for in page 18, he affures us, "That the declaratory vote of the 17th "of February, 1769, was indeed a literal

copy

His opponent, Mr. Taylor, having the smalleft number of votes at the next election, was declared NOT DULY ELECTED.

ARGUMENT.

THIS fact we confider as directly in point to prove that Mr. Luttrell ought to be the fitting member, for the following reasons. "The burgelles of Lynn could draw no "other inference from this refolution, but "this, that at a future election, and in case "of a fimilar return, the house would re❝ceive the fame candidate as duly elected, "whom they had before rejected." Vide PoftScript to Junius, p. 37. Or thus: "This "their refolution leaves no room to doubt "what part they would have taken, if, upon "a subsequent re-election of Mr. Walpole, "there had been any other candidate in com

petition with him. For, by their vote,

they could have no other intention than to "admit fuch other candidate." Vide Mun

go's cafe confidered, p. 39. Or take it in this light. The burgeffes of Lynn having,

in