N. B. The author of the answer to Sir William Meredith* seems to have made use of Mungo's quotation, for in page 18, he assures us, "That the declaratory vote of the 17th of February, 1769, was indeed a literal copy of the resolution of the house in Mr. Walpole's case."

THIRD FACT.

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

ARGUMENT.

This fact we consider as directly in point to prove that Mr. Luttrell ought to be the sitting member, for the following reasons, "The burgesses of Lynn could draw no other inference from this resolution, but this, that at a future election, and in case of a similar return, the house would receive the same candidate as duly elected, whom they had before rejected." Vide Postscript to JUNIUS, p. 37. Or thus: "This their resolution 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 competition with him. For, by their vote, they could have no other intention than to admit such other candidate." Vide Mungo's case considered, p. 39. Or take it in this light.-The burgesses of Lynn, having, in defiance of the house, retorted upon them a person, whom they had branded with the most ignominious marks of their displeasure, were thereby so well intitled to favour and indulgence, that the house could do no less than rob Mr. Taylor of a right legally vested in him, in order that the burgesses might be apprized of the law of parliament; which law the house took a very direct way of explaining to them, by resolving that the candidate with the fewest votes was not duly elected:-" And was not this much more equitable, more in the spirit of that equal and substantial justice, which is the end of all law, than if they had violently adhered to the strict maxims of law?" Vide Serious Considerations, p. 33 and 34. “And if the present House of

Sir W. Blackstone.

Commons had chosen to follow the spirit of this resolution, they would have received and established the candidate with the fewest votes." Vide Answer to Sir W. M. p. 18.

Permit me now, Sir, to shew you that the worthy Dr. Blackstone sometimes contradicts the ministry as well as himself. The Speech without doors asserts*, page 9, "That the legal effect of an incapacity, founded on a judicial determination of a competent court, is precisely the same as that of an incapacity created by act of parliament." Now for the Doctor. The law and the opinion of the judge are not always convertible terms, or one and the same thing; since it sometimes may happen that the judge may mistake the law. Commentaries, Vol. I. p. 71.

The answer to Sir W. M. asserts, page 23, “That the returning officer is not a judicial, but a purely ministerial officer. His return is no judicial act."-At 'em again, Doctor. The Sheriff, in his judicial capacity is to hear and determine causes of 40 shillings value and under in his county court. He has also a judicial power in divers other civil cases. He is likewise to decide the elections of knights of the shire (subject to the control of the House of Commons), to judge of the qua lification of voters, and to return such as he shall DETERMINE to be duly elected. Vide Commentaries, page 332. Vol. I.

What conclusion shall we draw from such facts, such arguments, and such contradictions? I cannot express my opinion of the present ministry more exactly than in the words of Sir Richard Steele," that we are governed by a set of drivellers, whose folly takes away all dignity from distress, and makes even calamity ridiculoust."

PHILO JUNIUS.

* See an extract from this speech, inserted in the note to Letter XVII. p. 115. EDIT.

† In a pamphlet written by Steele upon the issue of the South-Sea incorporation, at the period when Walpole was just re-emerging from obscurity, to take a more decided and loftier management of public affairs. -EDIT.

LETTER XXIII.

TO HIS GRACE THE DUKE OF BEDFORD.

MY LORD, 19 Sept. 1769. You are so little accustomed to receive any marks of respect or esteem from the public, that if, in the following lines a compliment or expression of applause should escape

The unpopular peace of 1763 was negotiated by the Duke of Bedford, and gave rise to a variety of public commotions which at length broke out into acts of open insurrection among the Spital-fields weavers, who exclaimed that their trade was ruined by its commercial stipulations. The rumour became current that the French court had purchased this peace by bribes to the Princess Dowager of Wales, Lord Bute, the Duke of Bedford, and Mr. Henry Fox, afterwards Lord Holland: and such was its general belief that the House of Commons thought proper to appoint a committee to examine into its truth; who traced it chiefly to a Dr. Musgrave, who nevertheless does not appear to have suffered from this libellous report, which, as he affirmed, he had brought home with him from Paris. The public disfavour with which the terms of the peace were received, produced a fresh disagreement between Lord Bute and the Duke of Bedford on his return home. Upon the death of Lord Egremont however, Lord Bute found himself compelled once more to apply to the Duke of Bedford for his interest, who, conscious of his importance, exacted not only from Lord Bute but from the king himself a submission to whatever terms he chose to impose, and it was upon this occasion that he insisted upon the dismissal of Lord Bute's brother, Mr. Stuart Mackenzie, from his office, although Mackenzie had received his majesty's solemn promise that he should preserve it for life.

Incapable of submitting to such severe treatment, his Majesty soon afterwards intreated the Duke of Newcastle and Lord Rockingham to rescue him from the Bedford party. They consented, and the Duke was again dismissed with contumely. When his Majesty became disgusted, as he soon did, with this ministry also, Lord Bute applied in the king's name to George Grenville for support, and the Duke of Bedford, who was on terms of the closest friendship with him, once more strove to enter into the cabinet; but on this occasion Lord Bute had spirit enough to treat his offer with the utmost contempt. Lord Chatham was next applied to, who consented to take the lead, provided he was allowed the nomination of his own friends into certain offices he should designate; and this being granted, to strengthen his own hands, he re-introduced the Duke of Bedford, along with his Grace of Grafton:-and on his own resignation, he left them both in the respective offices they filled at the time of the address of the present letter to the former of these noblemen. EDIT.

me, I fear you would consider it as a mockery of your established character, and perhaps an insult to your understanding. You have nice feelings, my Lord, if we may judge from your resentments. Cautious therefore of giving offence, where you have so little deserved it, I shall leave the illustration of your virtues to other hands. Your friends have a privilege to play upon the easiness of your temper, or possibly they are better acquainted with your good qualities than I am. You have done good by stealth. The rest is upon record. You have still left ample room for speculation, when panegyric is exhausted.

You are indeed a very considerable man. The highest rank; a splendid fortune; and a name, glorious till it was yours, were sufficient to have supported you with meaner abilities than I think you possess. From the first you derived a constitutional claim to respect; from the second, a natural extensive authority;-the last created a partial expectation of hereditary virtues. The use you have made of these uncom> mon advantages might have been more honourable to yourself, but could not be more instructive to mankind. We may trace it in the veneration of your country, the choice of your friends, and in the accomplishment of every sanguine hope, which the public might have conceived from the illustrious name of Russell.

The eminence of your station gave you a commanding prospect of your duty. The road, which led to honour, was open to your view. You could not lose it by mistake, and you had no temptation to depart from it by design. Compare the natural dignity and importance of the richest peer of England; the noble independence, which he might have maintained in parliament, and the real interest and respect, which he might have acquired, not only in parliament, but through the whole kingdom; compare these glorious distinctions with the ambition of holding a share in government, the emoluments of a place, the sale of a borough, or the purchase of a corporation; and though you may not regret the virtues, which create respect, you may see with anguish, how much

# See note to p. 148. EDIT.

real importance and authority you have lost. Consider the character of an independent virtuous Duke of Bedford; imagine what he might be in this country, then reflect one moment upon what you are. If it be possible for me to withdraw my attention from the fact, I will tell you in theory what such a man might be.

Conscious of his own weight and importance, his conduct in parliament would be directed by nothing but the constitutional duty of a peer. He would consider himself as a guardian of the laws. Willing to support the just measures of government, but determined to observe the' conduct of the minister with suspicion, he would oppose the violence of faction with as much firmness, as the encroachments of prerogative. He would be as little capable of bargaining with the minister for places for himself, or his dependents, as of descending to mix himself in the intrigues of opposition. Whenever an important question called for his opinion in parliament, he would be heard, by the most profligate minister, with deference and respect. His authority would either sanctify or disgrace the measures of government.-The people would look up to him as to their protector, and a virtuous prince would have one honest man in his dominions, in whose integrity and judgment he might safely confide. If it should be the will of Providence to afflict him with a domestic misfortune, he would submit to the stroke, with feeling, but not without dignity. He would consider the people as his children, and receive a generous heart-felt consolation, in the sympathizing tears, and blessings of his country.

Your Grace may probably discover something more intelligible in the negative part of this illustrious character. The man I have described would never prostitute his dignity in parliament by an indecent violence either in opposing or defending a minister. He would not at one moment rancorously persecute, at another basely cringe to the favourite of his Sovereign. After outraging the royal dignity with peremptory conditions, little short of menace and hostility, he would never descend to the humility of soliciting an inter

* The Duke lately lost his only son, by a fall from his horse.