2dly. That there is no precedent in all the proceedings of the house of commons, which comes entirely home to the prefent cafe, viz. ' where an expelled member has been returned again, and another candidate, with an inferior number of votes, has been declared the fitting member.' If there be fuch a precedent, let it be given to us plainly, and I am fure it will have more weight than all the cunning arguments which have been drawn from inferences and probabilities. The miniftry, in that laborious pamphlet which I prefume contains the whole ftrength of the party, have declared*, That Mr. Walpole's was the first ' and only inftance, in which the electors of any ' county or borough had returned a perfon expel led to ferve in the fame parliament.' It is not poffible to conceive a cafe more exactly in point. Mr. Walpole was expelled, and, having a majority of votes at the next election, was returned again. The friends of Mr. Taylor, a candidate fet up by the miniftry, petitioned the house that he might be the fitting member. Thus far the circumstances tally exactly, except that our house of commons faved Mr. Luttrell the trouble of petitioning. The point of law however was the fame. It came regularly before the house, and it was Cafe of the Middlefex election confidered, page 38. was their business to determine upon it. They did determine it, for they declared Mr. Taylor not duly elected. If it be faid that they meant this refolution as matter of favour and indulgence to the borough, which had retorted Mr. Walpole upon them, in order that the burgeffes, knowing what the law was, might correct their error, I answer, I. That it is a strange way of arguing to oppofe a fuppofition, which no man can prove, to a fact which proves itself. II. That if this were the intention of the house of commons, it must have defeated itself. The burgeffes of Lynn could never have known their error, much less could they have corrected it, by any inftruction they received from the proceedings of the house of commons. They might perhaps have forefeen, that, if they returned Mr. Walpole again, he would again be rejected; but they never could infer, from a resolution by which the candidate with the feweft votes was declared not duly elected, that, at a future election, and in fimilar circumftances, the house of commons would reverse their refolution, and receive the fame candidate as duly elected, whom they had before rejected. This This indeed would have been a most extraordinary way of declaring the law of parliament, and what I prefume no man, whofe understanding is not at cross purposes with itself, could poffibly understand. If, in a cafe of this importance, I thought myfelf at liberty to argue from fuppofitions rather than from facts, I think the probability, in this cafe, is directly the reverfe of what the miniftry affirm; and that it is much more likely that the houfe of commons at that time would rather have ftrained a point in favour of Mr. Taylor, than that they would have violated the law of parliament and robbed Mr. Taylor of a right legally vefted in him, to gratify a refractory borough, which, in defiance of them, had returned a perfon branded with the strongest mark of the displeasure of the houfe. But really, Sir, this way of talking, for I cannot call it argument, is a mockery of the common understanding of the nation, too glofs to be endured. Our deareft interefts are at ftake. An attempt has been made, not merely to rob a fingle county of its rights, but, by inevitable confequer.ce, to alter the conftitution of the houfe of This fatal attempt has fucceeded, and ftands as a precedent recorded for ever. If the miniftry commons. miniftry are unable to defend their caufe by fair. argument founded on facts, let them spare us at leaft the mortification of being amused and deluded like children. I believe there is yet a fpirit of refiftance in this country, which will not fubmit to be oppreffed; but I am fure there is a fund of good fenfe in this country, which cannot be deceived. JUNIUS. LET IT will not be neceffary for Junius to take the trouble of answering your correfpondent G. A. or a quotation from a speech without doors, published in your paper of the 28th of last month. The speech appeared before Junius's letter, and as the author feems to confider the great propofition, on which all his argument depends, viz. That Mr. Wilkes was under that known legal incapacity, of which Junius fpeaks as a point granted, his fpeech is, in no fhape, an answer to Junius, for this is the very question in debate. As to G. A. I obferve firft, that if he did not admit Junius's ftate of the question, he should have fhewn the fallacy of it, or given us a more exact one-secondly, that, confidering the many. hours and days, which the miniftry and their advocates have wafted, in public debate, in compiling large quartos, and collecting innumerable pre cedents, |