tions are, I imagine, admitted on all sides to be law.

I would willingly draw a veil over the remaining part of this paper. It is astonishing, it is painful, to see men of parts and ability giving in to the most unworthy artifices, and descending so much below their true line of character. But, if they are not the dupes of their sophistry (which is hardly to be conceived) let them con sider that they are something much worse.

The dearest interests of this country are its laws and its constitution. Against every attack upon these, there will, I hope, be always found amongst us the firmest spirit of resistance; superior to the united efforts of faction and ambition. For, ambition, though it does not always take the lead of faction, will be sure, in the end, to make the most fatal advantage of it, and draw it to its own purposes. But, I trust, our day of trial is yet far off; and

there is a fund of good

sense in this country, which cannot long be deceived by the arts either of false reasoning, or false patriotism.

LETTER XX.

TO THE

PRINTER OF THE PUBLIC ADVERTISER,

SIR,

August 8, 1769.

THE gentleman who has published an answer to Sir William Meredith's pamphlet, having honoured me with a postscript of six quarto pages, which he moderately calls bestowing a very few words upon me, I cannot, in common politeness, refuse him a reply. The form and magnitude of a quarto imposes upon the mind; and men, who are unequal to the labour of discussing an intricate argument, or wish to avoid it, are willing enough to suppose that much has been proved, because much has been said. Mine, I confess, are humble labours. I do not presume to instruct the learned, but simply to inform the body of the people; and I prefer that channel of conveyance which is likely to spread farthest among them. The advocates of the Ministry seem to me to write for fame, and to flatter themselves, that the size of their works will make them immortal. They pile up reluctant quarto upon solid folio, as if their

labours, because they are gigantic, could contend with truth and heaven.

The writer of the volume in question meets me upon my own ground. He acknowledges there is no statute by which the specific disability we speak of is created; but he affirms, that the custom of parliament has been referred to, and that a case strictly in point has been produced, with the decision of the court upon it. I thank him for coming so fairly to the point. He asserts, that the case of Mr. Walpole is strictly in point, to prove that expulsion creates an absolute incapacity of being re-elected; and for this purpose, he refers generally to the first vote of the House upon that occasion, without venturing to recite the vote itself. The unfair, disingenuous artifice of adopting that part of a precedent which seems to suit his purpose, and omitting the remainder, deserves some pity, but cannot excite my resentment. He takes advantage eagerly of the first resolution, by which Mr. Walpole's incapacity is declared; but as to the two following, by which the candidate with the fewest votes was declared

not duly elected," and the election itself vacated, I dare say he would be well satisfied, if they were for ever blotted out of the Journals

of the House of Commons. In fair argument, no part of a precedent should be admitted, unless the whole of it be given to us together. The author has divided his precedent; for he knew, that, taken together, it produced a consequence directly the reverse of that which he endeavours to draw from a vote of expulsion. But, what will this honest person say, if I take him at his word, and demonstrate to him, that the House of Commons never meant to found Mr. Walpole's incapacity upon his expulsion only? What subterfuge will then remain ?

Let it be remembered, that we are speaking of the intention of men, who lived more than half a century ago; and that such intention can only be collected from their words and actions, as they are delivered to us upon record. To prove their designs by a supposition of what they would have done, opposed to what they actually did, is mere trifling and impertinence. The vote, by which Mr. Walpole's incapacity was declared is thus expressed: "That Robert. Walpole, Esq. having been, this session of par66 liament, committed a prisoner to the Tower, " and expelled this House for a breach of trust "in the execution of his office, and notorious

66

86 corruption, when secretary at war, was, and "is incapable, of being elected a member to

serve in this present parliament*." Now, Sir, to my understanding, no proposition of this kind can be more evident, than that the House of Commons, by this very vote, themselves understood, and meant to declare, that Mr. Walpole's incapacity arose from the crimes he had committed, not from the punishment the House annexed to them. The high breach of trust, the notorious corruption, are stated in the strongest terms. They do not tell us that he was incapable, because he was expelled, but because he had been guilty of such offences as justly rendered him unworthy of a seat in parliament.— If they had intended to fix the disability upon his expulsion alone, the mention of his crimes in the same vote would have been highly improper. It could only perplex the minds of the electors, who, if they collected any thing

It is well worth remarking, that the compiler of a certain quarto, called, The Case of the last Election for the County of Middlesex considered, has the impudence to recite this very vote in the following terms, vide page 11," Resolved, "That Robert Walpole, Esq. having been this session of parliament expelled the House, was, and is, incapable of being elected a member to serve in the present parliament." There cannot be a stronger positive proof of the treachery of the compiler, nor a stronger presumptive proof, that he was convinced that the vote, if duly recited, would overturn his whole argument.