between what you have written, and what you have spoken, you confess that your book ought to be the standard. Now, Sir, if words mean any thing, I apprehend, that, when a long enumeration of disqualifications (whether by statute, or the custom of parliament) concludes with these general comprehensive words, "but subject to these restrictions and disqua"lifications, every subject of the realm is eligible of "common right;" a reader, of plain understanding, must of course rest satisfied, that no species of disqualification whatsoever had been omitted. The known character of the author, and the apparent accuracy with which the whole work is compiled, would confirm him in his opinion: nor could he possibly form any other judgment, without looking upon your commentaries in the same light in which you consider those penal laws, which, though not repealed, are fallen into disuse, and are now, in effect, a snare to the unwary *.

You tell us, indeed, that it was not part of your plan to specify any temporary incapacity; and that you could not, without a spirit of prophecy, have specified the disability of a private individual, subsequent to the period at which you wrote. What your plan

* If, in stating the law upon any point, a judge delibe. rately affirms that he has included every case, and it should appear that he has purposely omitted a material case, he does, in effect, lay a snare for the unwary.

was, I know not; but what it should have been, in order to complete the work you have given us, is by no means difficult to determine. The incapacity, which you call temporary, may continue seven years; and though you might not have foreseen the particular case of Mr. Wilkes, you might, and should, have foreseen the possibility of such a case, and told us how far the House of Commons were authorized to proceed in it, by the law and custom of parliament. The freeholders of Middlesex would then have known what they had to trust to, and would never have returned Mr. Wilkes, when Colonel Luttrell was a candidate against him. They would have chosen some indifferent person, rather than submit to be represented by the object of their contempt and detestation.

Your attempt to distinguish between disabilities, which affect whole classes of men, and those which affect individuals only, is really unworthy of your understanding. Your commentaries had taught me, that, although the instance in which a penal law is exerted, be particular, the laws themselves are general: they are made for the benefit and instruction of the public, though the penalty falls only upon an individual. You cannot but know, Sir, that what was Mr. Wilkes's case yesterday, may be yours or mine to-morrow, and that, consequently, the common right of every subject of the realm is invaded by it. Pro

fessing, therefore, to treat of the constitution of the House of Commons, and of the laws and customs relative to that constitution, you certainly were guilty of a most unpardonable omission, in taking no notice of a right and privilege of the House, more extraordinary and more arbitrary than all the others they possess, put together. If the expulsion of a member, not under any legal disability, of itself creates in him an incapacity to be elected, I see a ready way marked out, by which the majority may, at any time, remove the honestest and ablest men who happen to be in opposition to them. To say that they will not make this extravagant use of their power, would be a language unfit for a man so learned in the laws as you are. By your doctrine, Sir, they have the power; and laws, you know, are intended to guard against what men may do, not to trust to what they will do.

Upon the whole, Sir, the charge against you is of a plain, simple nature; it appears even upon the face of your own pamphlet. On the contrary, your justification of yourself is full of subtilty and refinement, and in some places not very intelligible. If I were personally your enemy, I should dwell with a malignant pleasure upon those great and useful qualifications which you certainly possess, and by which you once acquired, though they could not preserve to yon, the respect and esteem of your country; I should enumerate the honours you have lost, and the virtues

you have disgraced; but, having no private resentments to gratify, I think it sufficient to have given my opinion of your public conduct, leaving the punishment it deserves to your closet and to yourself.

A CORRESPONDENT of the St. James's Evening Post first wilfully misunderstands Junius, then censures him for a bad reasoner. Junius does not say that it was incumbent upon Doctor Blackstone to forsee and state the crimes for which Mr. Wilkes was expelled. If, by a spirit of prophecy, he had even done so, it would have been nothing to the purpose. The question is, not for what particular offences a person may be expelled, but, generally, whether, by the law of parliament, expulsion alone creates a disqualification. If the affirmative be the law of

parliament, Doctor Blackstone might, and should, have told us so. The question is not confined to this or that particular person, but forms one great general branch of disqualification, too important in itself, and too extensive in its consequences, to be omitted in an accurate work expressly treating of the law of parliament.

The truth of the matter is evidently this: Doctor Blackstone, while he was speaking in the House of Commons, never once thought of his commentaries, until the contradiction was unexpectedly urged, and stared him in the face. Instead of defending himself upon the spot, he sunk under the charge in an agony of confusion and despair. It is well known that there was a pause of some minutes in the House, from a general expectation that the Doctor would say something in his own defence; but it seems his faculties were too much overpowered to think of those subtilties and refinements which have since occurred to him. It was then Mr. Grenville received that severe chastisement which the Doctor mentions with so much triumph I wish the honourable gentleman, instead of shaking his head, would skake a good argument out of it. If to the elegance, novelty, and bitterness of this ingenious sarcasm, we add the natural melody of the amiable Sir Fletcher Norton's pipe, we shall not be surprised that Mr. Grenville was unable to make him any reply.

: