Lynn collect from the second vote? Their subsequent conduct will tell us: it will with certainty tell us, that they considered it as decisive against Mr. Walpole it will also, with equal certainty, tell us that, upon supposition that the law of election stood then, as it does now, and that they knew it to stand thus, they inferred, "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." They could infer nothing but this.

It is needless to repeat the circumstance of dissimilarity in the present case. It will be sufficient to observe, that as the law of parliament, upon which the House of Commons grounded every step of their proceedings, was clear beyond the reach of doubt, so neither could the freeholders of Middlesex be at a loss to foresee what must be the inevitable consequence of their proceedings in opposition to it. For, upon every return of Mr. Wilkes, the house made inquiry, whether any votes were given to any other candidate?

But I could venture, for the experiment's sake, even to give this writer the utmost he asks: to allow the most perfect similarity throughout in these two cases; to allow, that the law of expulsion was quite as clear to the burgesses of Lynn, as to the freeholders of Middlesex. It will, I am confident, avail his cause but little. It will only prove, that the law

of election, at that time, was different from the present law. It will prove, that in all cases of an incapable candidate, returned, the law then was, that the whole election should be void. But now we know that this is not law. The cases of Malden and Bedford were, as has been seen, determined upon other and more just principles. And these determinations 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 into 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 consider 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 ad

But now we know that this is not law.] Blackstone, here, with daring absurdity, ascribes to the House of Commons the whole authority of the three branches of the legislature.

Malden and Bedford, &c.] The incapacity of the persons chosen for these places, had been created by an act of the legislature, inluding King, Lords, and Commons.

222

vantage of it, and draw it to its own purposes. But, I trust, our day of trial is yet far off; and that 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.

THE object of this Letter is to refute the substance of the preceding Paper.

JUNIUS, first, laughs at the formality and labour of the ministerial

pamphlets; then demonstrates the expulsion of Walpole to be inappli cable, as a precedent to justify that of Wilkes; produces the case of Mr. Wollaston, to prove that persons against whom there was nothing but expulsion barely, were legally re-eligible into the House of Commons; and concludes his reasonings, by proving, slightingly, that there was extreme absurdity in quoting, in the present instance, the cases of Bedford and Malden, or introducing, for illustration, the case of the clergyman, which had been supposed by Blackstone. Thus far, except only in the first paragraph, this Letter is written with

extraordinary plainness. Its author shews a solicitude for nothing but clearness, precision, and force of argument. He abstains from all ornament, but that which consists in correctness of style, in a fit division of his sentences, in purity and propriety of phrase. But, having finished the argumentative part of his Letter, he rises, at once, into a strain of impassioned eloquence. At the very mention of the position, that the law of parliament in elections might have changed, simply by the fiat of the House of Commons, his whole soul seems to kindle into rage; and, to the close of the Letter, he goes on in a vehement flow of mingled argument and ardent sentiments, the most eloquent and the most impressive.

SIR,

8. August, 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 parlia

I do not presume to instruct the learned, &c.] There is great art in this endeavour to prepossess the minds of readers, against the elaborate and bulky pamphlets of Blackstone and the other defenders of the obnoxious decision, as well as in favour of his own plainness. Every reader, I should suppose, must unavoidably feel. this art successful.

As if their labours, because they are gigantic, could contend with truth and Heaven.] The reader easily perceives, that the metaphor, is here, blown up into bombast.