Supposing, therefore, that I have laid down an accurate state of the question, I will venture to affirm, 1st, That there is no statute existing, by which that specific disability which we speak of is created. If there be, let it be produced. The argument will then be at an end.

2dly, That there is no precedent, in all the proceedings of the House of Commons, which comes entirely home to the present case, viz. "Where an expelled member has been returned ❝again, and another candidate, with an inferior "number of votes, has been declared the sitting "member." If there be such a precedent, let it be given to us plainly; and I am sure it will have more weight than all the cunning arguments which have been drawn from inferences and probabilities.

The Ministry, in that laborious pamphlet, which, I presume, contains the whole strength of the party, have declared, "That Mr. Walpole's

66

was the first and only instance in which the "electors of any county or borough had returned 66 a person expelled to serve in the same par"liament." It is not possible to conceive a case 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 set up by the ministry, petitioned the House that he might be the sitting member. Thus far the circumstances tally exactly, except that our House of Commons saved Mr. Luttrell the trouble of petitioning. The point of the law, however, was the same. It came regularly before the House, and it was their business to determine upon it. They did determine it; for they declared Mr. Taylor not duly elected. If it be said, that they meant this resolution as matter of favour and indulgence to the borough, which had retorted Mr. Walpole upon them, in order that the burgesses, knowing what the law was, might correct their error, I answer,

I. That it is a strange way of arguing, to oppose a supposition, 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 burgesses of Lynn could never have known their error, much less could they have corrected it by any instruction they received from the proceedings of the House of Commons. They might, perhaps, have foreseen,

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 fewest votes was declared not duly elected, that, at a future election, and in similar circumstances, the House of Commons would reverse their resolution, and receive the same candidate as duly elected, whom they had before rejected.

This, indeed, would have been a most extraordinary way of declaring the law of parliament, and what, I presume, no man, whose understanding is not at cross purposes with itself, could possibly understand.

If, in a case of this importance, I thought myself at liberty to argue from suppositions rather than from facts, I think the probability, in this instance, is directly the reverse of what the Ministry affirm; and that it is much more likely that the House of Commons, at that time, would rather have strained 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 vested in him, to gratify a refractory borough, which, in defiance of them, had re

turned a person branded with the strongest mark of the displeasure of the House.

But really, Sir, this way of talking (for I cannot call it argument,) is a mockery of the common understanding of the nation, too gross to be endured. Our dearest interests arc at stake. An attempt has been made, not merely to rob a single county of its rights, but, by inevitable consequence, to alter the constitution of the House of Commons. This fatal attempt has succeeded, and stands as a precedent recorded for ever. If the ministry are unable to defend their cause by fair argument, founded on facts, let them spare us, at least, the mortification of being amused and deluded, like children. I believe, there is yet a spirit of resistance in this country, which will not submit to be oppressed; but I am sure there is a fund of good sense in this country, which cannot be deceived.

JUNIUS,

LETTER XVII.

TO THE

PRINTER OF THE PUBLIC ADVERTISER.

SIR,

August 1, 1769.

IT will not be necessary for Junius to take the trouble of answering your correspondent G. A. or the 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 seems to consider the great proposition on which all his argument depends, viz. that Mr. Wilkes was under that known legal incapacity of whick Junius speaks, as a point granted, his speech is in no shape an answer to Junius, for this is the very question in debate.

As to G. A. I observe, first, that if he did not admit Junius's state of the question, he should have shewn the fallacy of it, or given us a more exact one. Secondly, that, considering the many hours and days which the Ministry and their advocates have wasted in public debate, in compiling large quartos, and collecting innumerable precedents, expressly to prove, that the late proceedings of