magic fall before it. In the year 1698, (a period which the rankeft Tory dare not except against) Mr. Wollafton was expelled, re-elected, and admitted to take his feat in the fame parliament. The miniftry have precluded themselves from all objectious drawn from the caufe of his expulfion, for they affirm abfolutely that expulfion of itself creates the disability. Now, Sir, let fophiftry evade, let falfehood affert, and impudence deny here ftands the precedent, 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, becaufe in my opinion it comprehends the whole question. The reft is unworthy of notice. We are enquiring whether incapacity be or be not created by expulfion. In the cafes of Bedford and Malden, the incapacity of the per. fons returned was matter of public notoriety, for it was created by act of parliament. But really Sir, my honest friend's fuppofitions are as unfa. vourable to him as his facts. He well knows that the clergy, befides that they are represented in common with their fellow-subjects, have also a feparate parliament of there own that their incapacity to fit in the houfe of commons has been confirmed by repeated decifions of the house, and

that

that the law of parliament, declared by thofe decifions, has been for above two centuries notorious and undisputed. The author is certainly at liberty to fancy cafes, and make whatever comparisons he thinks proper; his fuppofitions still continue at a diftance from fact, as his wild difcourses 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 feems he has one grand solution 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 Ann's time, from what it is at prefent.

The

This indeed is more than I expected. principle, I know, has been mantained in fact, but I never expected to fee 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 roufe there indignation; are the miniftry. daring enough to affirm that the house of com. mons have a right to make and unmake the law of parliament at their pleasure -Does the law of parliament, which we are fo often told is the law of the land?Does the common right of every fubject of the realm depend upon an arbitrary,

trary, capricious vote of one branch of the legiflature? The voice of truth and reason must be filent.

force alone.

The ministry tells us plainly that this is no longer a question of right, but of power and What was law yesterday is not law to-day and now it feems we have no better rule to live by than the temporary difcretion and fluctuating integerity of the house of commons.

:

Profeffions of patriotism are become ftale and ridiculous. For my own part, I claim no merit from endeavouring to do a fervice to my fellowfubjects. I have done it to the best of my underftanding; and without looking for the approbation of other men, my confcience is fatisfied.. 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 surrender of them at the feet of the miniftry. To a generous mind, there cannot be a doubt. We owe it to our ancesters to preferve entire thefe rights, which they have delivered to our care? we owe it our, pofterity, not to fuffer their dearest inheritance to be deftroyed. But if it were poffible for us to be infenfible of thofe facred claims, there is yet an obligation binding upon ourselves, from which nothing can acquit

us,

us, der.

a personal intereft which we cannot furrenTo alienate even our own rights, would be a crime as much more enormour than fuicide, as a life of civil fociety and freedom is fuperior to a bare existence; and if life be the bounty of heaven, we fcornfully reject the nobleft 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.

JUNIUS.

LETTER

XVIII.

TO THE PRINTER OF THE PUBLIC AEVERTSIER,

I.

SIR,

muft beg of you to print a few lines, in expla nation of fome paffages in my last letter, which I fee have been misunderstood

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 faying, that, in my opinion expulfion neither creVOL. I.

I

ates,

ates, 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 commitment to the Tower created a difqualification. On the contrary, I confidered that idea as an abfurdity into which the miniftry muft inevitably fall, if they reafoned right upon their own principles.

The cafe of Mr. Wollafton speaks for itself. The miniftry affert that expulfion alone 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 nonfenfe and declamation.

JUNIUS.

LET