the cafe of an offence within the criminal jurifdiction of the houfe, or, in cafes out of the reach of that jurifdiction, for the removal of a member whom the house deems unfit to execute the trust reposed in him, and to enable the electors to make a better choice.

Much light will be obtained, by examining what title the house can fet up to the power of difabling, by direct and express sentence, any perfon from being elected; in what cafes this power has been exercised, in what times it has been carried to its utmost length, and how long it has been abandoned. For if it fhall appear that this power is not founded in reafon or practice, it will be difficult to maintain that an incapacity, which the house cannot inflict by an exprefs refolution and judgment, fhall follow by implication and inference, as the confequence of a much milder fentence.

It will be neceffary alfo to examine, how far either precedent or practice, common fenfe or good policy, fupport or controvert the conclufion; that incapacity of being elected is the implied confequence of an expulfion, in either of the cafes which I have mentioned; but particularly in fuch a case as Mr. Wilkes's, where the house expels, not for an offence against the house, and within its criminal jurifdiction, but merely for the unfitnefs and unworthiness of the member.

In this course, I mean to pursue this enquiry, and I fhall clofe it, with stating the confequences which I apprehend from the judgment lately given, and in what manner, and to what degree, they feem to affect the conftitution of this country."

These are the general outlines of the work contained in chap. I. The fecond chapter gives an ample enumeration of the qualification of candidates, and their difabilities at common and statute law; from which an inference is drawn against the power of the houfe, to disable by its own refolution, and applied to Mr. Wilkes's cafe. In chap. 3, the writer demonftrates, that expulfion does not imply an incapacity of being re-elected, in the common fenfe and meaning of the word. And of the two purposes for which the house exercifes the power of expulfion, he fhews that Mr. Wilkes's cafe comes under that of removing members for their unfitnefs. And in explaining the charge brought against him, he follows the thread of Mr. Grenville's arguments almoft word for word. The power of the house to disable by express fentence is contefted at large in chap. 4, and finally difallowed, when exercised for punishment. In chapter 5, it is afferted, that with respect to unfitnefs only, which was Mr. Wilkes's cafe, the houfe has no power to difable-It may expel, but the electors can re-elect. And the consequences are confidered, as well where the house abuses its power in

expelling

expelling a good man, and refuses to receive a member legally elected, as where the electors perfevere in fending a bad man back to parliament. Under this head our writer betrays his weakness, and affronts the understanding of the purchafers of his work, for after having purfued his fubject in a masterly manner, fupported by precedents from the law of the land, and from the cuftom of parliament, and raised our expectations of his abilities, when he comes to a delicate point, which has never yet been treated by the writers on either fide of the queftion, and which he had better not have ftarted fince he could not manage it, inftead of difcuffing it rationally, he defcends to a puerility of fatire, and difmiffes it with an aukward witticifm. We are apt to think every critical reader will not only be difappointed, but exasperated at this part of the work. For after having told you what punishment the house would deferve for expelling a good member, no lefs than diffolution; when he comes to the question of what is to be done where the electors perfevere in fending back a bad man to parliament, to the difgrace of his friend Wilkes, and without attempting to justify the electors of Middlefex-he only tells you, that one fcabby Sheep could not infect the whole flock. That he always thought it a grofs affront to the house of commons to imagine, that one bad man can do any mischief in it. And that it puts the members there on the footing of old maids and prudes, who are afraid to let fin come near them, left they fhould be tempted to tafte it." Could the adverfaries of Mr. Wilkes have painted him in blacker colours than this writer, who in other refpects may be called his fiery friend.

Chapter 6, opens with marking the difference in the language of parliament, between expulfion and disability. And feveral cafes fuppofed to be favourable to the writer's opinion, but which have been brought to prove the very contrary by other authors, are ftated at large. This chapter concludes with an observation that may prove hereafter of great utility to Mr. Wilkes. It is this, "That Mr. Wilkes's cafe is not one of those in which conviction in the king's courts works an incapacity of holding offices of truft."

The other arguments that have been made ufe of to prove the incapacity of Mr. Wilkes, and that in particular of his being a prifoner in execution, form the material part of the next chapter. In which our author returns to his old trick of chicaning on knotty points which he cannot masterHis comparison between Mr. Wilkes's imprisonment, and that of a debtor is truly ridiculous, and not in the leaft to the purpose, as will fully appear by comparing his reafoning on this head, with the obfervations of the writer of the re

mark

marks on Mr. Grenville's fpeech, relative to the incapacity arifing from Mr. Wilkes's fituation.

Chapter 8, contains obfervations and criticisms on fome late publications upon the fame subject.

We now come to the concluding part, the fcope of chapter 9, being to point out the danger of tranfgreffing the bounds prefcribed by law-And to fhew how this precedent tends to varying the rights of election in all places, and particularly to extend the landed qualification of electors for counties.

What he advances on this ufeful part of his fubject, is too remarkable and conclufive to be paffed over in filence, we fhall therefore give it in his own words, and so take leave of the performance which ought to be well ftudied by young members of parliament and lawyers, who may be employed in parliamentary business respecting elections.

"Not only elections ought to be free; but the members ought to be well affured, that they may debate without fear, and correfpond with their conftituents in perfect fecurity. Now a member may be expelled for writing to his conftituents a fair, modeft, and honourable account of his own conduct. For it must be impoffible to vindicate his own conduct without cenfuring that which he oppofed. In the warmth of a debate an intemperate leader may take offence. The house may be complaifant enough to make the quarrel its own. The offender may be brought to the bar immediately and expelled. A free animadverfion on the worst letter that a fecretary of ftate could write may be taken up by the house as a ground for expulfion. Any imprisonment for any offence, conviction for a crime for which the pillory might have been ordered, and, upon the fame principle, for which fentence of imprisonment might have paffed, all these are now held fit and justifiable caufes of expulfion. Ample provifion is made for removing from the house all troublesome members, who are offenfive to a great leader, and difturb his reft. Incapacity for the reft of the parliament,, perhaps in the prime of their lives, in the most important part of that parliament, is to follow as the neceffary confequence of the expulfion. The feverity of this new law of parliament will be felt equally by the electors and elected. Their country will want the fervice of the expelled members: in bad times every good man is of great value. While on the other hand, wicked and abandoned minifters will have fecured fuccefs to their defperate defigns, by removing their principal opponents and intimidating the

reft.

The judgment in queftion is confeffedly not a judgment upon the ftatute law; it is not upon the law, nor by the custom of parliament: For the precedents, and the general course of proceedings

proceedings in the house of commons, are againft it. It is not founded on the opinion of learned men, thofe fages who have left us their collections and observations on the laws of this country; nor on any tradition delivered down from ancient times. The circumstances of the case taken altogether are new; even Mr. Walpole's cafe differs effentially from it, and fuggefts ftrong and convincing arguments against its power of the house to difable in confequence of an expulfion and still stronger against its power to admit the fecond on the poll in confequence of fuch difability.

It is a moft dangerous thing to allow to any houfe of commons, or to any court, fuch latitude of construction either of the common or ftatute law, as may impair and diminish the rights of the electors. In other cafes, that construction which most extends their right is most favoured. I have seen it laid down in our law books, that all restraints upon common right, whether by charter, bye-law, or ufage, are to be ftrictly conftrued; and with regard to the right of electing to public trufts, no charter nor bye-law can in any respect leffen, or confine it to a smaller number than that in which the antient law has placed it.

No authority less than the whole legiflature can take away the right of a fingle elector. In a late inftance, a doubt whether certain cuftomary freeholders had a right to vote in elections of knights of fhires, was not left to be decided by a refolution of the house. An act of parliament was thought neceffary to declare they had not; however fatisfactory might be the treatise wrote by Dr. Blackstone to prove, that the claim they fet up was ill founded. They were in possession, at least in fome places, and therefore confidered as not fit to be removed but by act of parliament.

In the prefent cafe, the electors in general are in poffeffion of the right of returning whom they pleafe, not being difqualified by the known laws of the land. A new disqualification is fet up by a vote of one houfe of parliament, not known before, attempted in the cafe of Mr. Walpole, imperfectly executed then, and never acknowledged. This is now carried into effect, and a member fits confeffedly upon a minority of votes. The precedent will hardly ftop here; temptations will daily prefent themselves. The influence of the crown, within the house and out of it, grows immenfely. We do not discover that fpirit of difintereftedness and independence, that firmness and virtue, fo neceffary to encounter this influence, and prevent its fatal effects. The time perhaps is not very diftant, when we may fee the most hideous monfter that was ever produced; a houfe of commons fervile and abject to the court, licking the duft from the feet of the favourite,

haughty,

haughty, arbitrary, and tyrannical to those who gave it being.

Then the rights of the electors will be things to be laughed at. Upon the principle, that the vote of the house once given in a cafe competent to its fupreme jurifdiction is the law of the land, which of thofe rights will be any longer secure? The fame authority which, under pretence of declaring the law, may fet up a difqualification not known to the law of the land, nor to be found in the hiftory of parliament, will play with its judicature at pleasure, and transfer the rights of election from one fet of men to another, as shall beft answer its own purposes.

It is but one little ftep further, and the houfe may reduce the number of freeholders to the wifh of a minifter. Stealing above 12d. is grand larceny by an act of parliament, 3 E. I. Criminal courts are as liberal as they can be in the execution of that law. If no evidence of the value is given by the profecutor; or if that value is not fixed accurately, the judges will often recommend it to the jury, or at leaft tell them that they are at liberty to find the value of the things stolen under 12d.; having refpect to the great alteration in the yalue of money fince the paffing of that act. This liberality, being in favour of life, and not carried fo far as to difpenfe with the law by a pofitive direction, where the value of the things ftolen is afcertained by evidence, is very commendable.

By ftatute 8 H. VI. c. 7. Forty fillings a year in freehold lands give the freeholder a right to vote. Whatever restraints have been fince impofed upon him, they have been imposed, not by a refolution of the houfe, but by act of parliament. If this latitude of conftruction is permitted in one house only, and the competency of the house entitles its decifions upon the rights of the electors to be confidered as the law of the land, have we not reason to fear that it may become a question, to be decided there, whether the forty fillings, which give the freeholder his qualification, fhall be conftrued according to the value of money in the time of H. VI. or according to its prefent value? Dr. Blackftone has already made the computation. He tells us, in his Commentaries, that forty fhillings in the time of H. VI. are equivalent to twenty pounds in our time. And if a house of commons fhould hereafter be inclined to put that conftruction upon the qualification of a freeholder, and fix it at twenty pounds a year, I have no doubt that there might be found more than one court lawyer to argue, from the liberality with which the courts of law carry into execution the act of E. I. in cafes of grand larceny, from the competency of the house to decide upon the rights of election, and from its fupremacy, that it was a good judgment, and well founded in common law.