of these sacred claims, there is yet an obligation binding upon ourselves, from which nothing can acquit us; a personal interest which we cannot surrender. To alienate even our own rights, would be a crime as much more enormous than suicide, as a life of civil security and freedom is superior to a bare existence and if life be the bounty of heaven, we scornfully reject the noblest part of the gift, if we consent to surrender that certain rule of living, without which the condition of human nature is not only miserable but con temptible. JUNIUS. LETTER XXI. SIR, To the Printer of the Public Advertiser. August 22, 1769. I MUST beg of you to print a few lines in explanation of some passages in my last letter, which, I see, have been misunderstood 1. When I said that the House of Commons never meant to found Mr. Walpole's incapacity on his expulsion only, I meant no more than to deny the general proposition, that expulsion alone creates the incapacity. If there be any thing ambiguous in the expression, I beg leave to explain it, by saying, that, in my opinion, expulsion 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 case. I did not inquire 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 stands declared in their own resolution. 3. I never meant to affirm that a commitment to the Tower created a disqualification. On the contrary, I considered that idea as an absurdity, into which the Ministry must inevitably fall, if they reasoned right upon their own principles. what The case of Mr. Wollaston speaks for itself. The Ministry assert, that expulsion alone creates an absolute, complete incapacity, to be re-elected to sit in the same Parliament. This proposition they have uniformly maintained, without any condition or modification soever. Mr. Wallaston was expelled, re-elected, and admitted to take his seat in the same Parliament. I leave it to the public to deter mine whether this be plain matter of fact, or mere nonsense or declamation. JUNIUS. LETTER XXII. To the Printer of the Public Advertiser. September 4, 1769. ARGUMENT against Fact; or, a new system of Political Logic, by which the Ministry have demonstrated to the satisfaction of their friends, that expulsion alone creates a complete incapacity to be re-elected; alias, That a subject of tins Realm may be robbed of his common Right, by a Vote of the House of Commons. FIRST FACT. Mr. Wollaston, in 1698, was expelled, rc-elected, and admitted to take his seat. ARGUMENT. As this cannot conveniently be reconciled with our general proposition, it may be necessary to shift our ground and look back to the cause of Mr. Wollaston's expulsion. From thence it will appear clearly, that, “although "he was expelled, he had not rendered him"self a culprit, too ignominious to sit in par"liament: and that, having resigned his em"ployment, he was no longer incapacitated "by law." Vide Serious Considerations, page 23. Or thus: "The House, somewhat inaccurately, used the word expelled; they should have called it "a motion." Vide Mungo's Case considered, page 11. Or, in short, if these arguments should be thought insufficient, we may fairly deny the fact. For example; "I '' "affirm that he was not re-elected. The same "Mr. Wollaston, who was expelled, was not "again elected. The same individual, if you please, walked into the House, and took his "seat there; but the same person, in law, was "not admitted a member of that parliament, "from which he had been discarded." Vide Letter to Junius, page 12. SECOND FACT. Mr. Walpole, having been committed to the Tower, and expelled, for a high breach of trust,, and notorious corruption in a public effice, was declared incapable, &c. ARGUMENT. From the terms of this vote, nothing can be more evident, than that the House of Commons meant to fix the incapacity upon the punishment, and not upon the crime; but, lest it should appear in a different light to weak, uninformed persons, may be advisable to gut the resolution, and give it to the public, with all possible solemnity, in the following terms, viz. "Resolved, That Robert Walpole, "Esq. having been that session of parliament "expelled the House, was, and is incapable "of being elected a member to serve in that "present 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 use of Mungo's quotation; for in page 18, he assures 66 us, "That the declaratory vote of the 17th "of February, 1769, was indeed, a literal copy "of the resolution of the House in Mr. Wal"pole'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 in"ference from this resolution, but this, that, "at a future election, and in case of a simi"lar return, the House would receive the "same candidate as duly elected, whom they "had before rejected." Vide Postscript to Junius, page 37. Or thus: "This, their resolu"tion, leaves no room to doubt what part "they would have taken, if, upon a subse"quent 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, page 39. Or, take it in this light. The bur gesses 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 entitled 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 apprised 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, page 33 and 34. "And if the present House of "Commons had chosen to follow the spirit of "this resolution, they would have received "and established the candidate with the few"'est votes." Vide Answer to Sir W. M. page 18. Permit me now, Sir, to show you, that the worthy Dr. Blackstone sometimes contradicts the Ministry, as well as himself. The speech, without doors, asserts, page 9th, "That the "legal effect of an incapacity, founded on a "judicial determination of a complete court, |