to make their own fortunes, without the leaft regard to the liberties of the fubject, or the intereft of their mafter.

Themistocles being defired at a feaft, to touch a lute, faid he could not fiddile, but yet he could make a small town a great city. On the contrary, there may be found statesmen in thefe days, that can fiddle very cunningly, but yet are fo far from being able to make a fmall fate great, that their gift lies another way; they can bring a flourishing eftate to ruin and decay.

Kings and Bears often worry their keepers, is one of our English Proverbs; and the truth of it is confirmed by a thousand inftances in hiftory, and ought to be a warning to all bad minifters: Some of whom have been fo fenfible of their danger, that they have ufed their mafters little better than Bears, keeping them almost constantly muzzled and tied up, till they grow very tame, and find it for their advantage to lead them about themfelves.

A certain noble ftatefman (once a

Letter concerning the

A Great deal of ufclefs argument might have been faved, in the political conteft, which has arifen upon the expulfion of Mr. Wilkes, and the fubfequent appointment of Mr. Luttrell, if the question had been once ftated with precifion, to the fatisfaction of each party, and clearly underftood by them both. But in this, as in almost every other difpute, it ufually happens that much time is loft in referring to a multitude of cafes and precedents, which prove nothing to the purpofe; or in maintaining propofitions, which are either not difputed, or, whether they be admitted or denied, are entirely indifferent as to the matter in debate; until at last the mind, perplext and confounded with the endlefs fubtleties of controverfy, lofes fight of the main question, and never arrives at truth. Both parties in the difpute are apt enough to practife thefe difhoneft artifices. The man, who is confcious of the weaknefs of his caufe, is interested in conVOL. III.

25

great commoner) can neither be a good man, nor a virtuous citizen, or he would not, all this while, have kept quiet, nor meddied neither way, when civil difcord has raged, and when his fellow citizens are divided into ftrong and powerful factions among themselves; that inftead of a little felfifh cunning, in thinking it a wifer part to lie by till the ftorm is blown over, he ought to ufe his utmost endeavours to calm thefe tumults, and be an active mediator to reconcile differences; that he fhould bend all his faculties to fet thofe right who are pursuing measures deftructive of tre public good, and to perfuade them to facrifice to their country's fafety, refentments of every kind whatever : not forgetting, that Solon, the Athenian, made a law which branded with infamy thofe who in times of civil fed:tion, flood neuter; these are fuch men as are half honeft, which my Lord Rochefter fays, is being very great knaves.

Right of Election, &c.

cealing it; and on the other fide it is not uncommon to fee a good caufe mangled by advocates, who do not know the real ftrength of it.

--

I fhould be glad to know, for inftance, to what purpose, in the prefent cafe, fo many precedents have been produced to prove, that the house of commons have a right to expell one of their own members;--- that it belongs to them to judge of the validity of elections; or that the law of Parliament is part of the law of the land. After all thefe propofitions are admitted, Mr. Luttrell's right to his feat will continue to be just as difputable as it was before. Not one of them is at prefent in agitation. Let it be admitted that the house of commons were authorised to expel Mr. Wilkes;

--

that they are the proper court to judge of elections; and that the law of parliament is binding upon the people. Still it remains to be enquired, whether the houfe, by their refolution in favour of Mr. Luttrell, D

have

66

have or have not truly declared that law. To facilitate this inquiry, I would have the queftion cleared of all foreign or indifferent matter. The following state of it will probably be thought a fair one by both parties; and then I imagine there is no gentleman in this country, who will not be capable of forming a judicious and true opinion upon it. I take the queftion to be ftrictly this: "Whether 66 or no it be the known established "law of parliament, that the expul"fion of a member of the houfe of 66 commons, of itfelf, creates in him "fuch an incapacity to be re-elected, "that, at a fubfequent election, any votes given to him are null and void; and that any other candidate, "who, except the perfon expelled, "has the greatest number of votes, ought to be the fitting member." To prove that the affirmative is the law of parliament, I apprehend it is not fufficient for the prefent Houfe of Commons to declare it to be fo. We may fhut our eyes indeed to the dangerous confequences of fuffering one branch of the legislature to declare new laws, without argument or example, and it may perhaps be prudent enough to fubmit to authority; but a mere affertion will never convince much lefs will it be thought reafonable to prove the right by the fact itself. The miniftry have not yet pretended to fich a tyranny over our minds. To fupport the affirmative fairly, it will either be neceffary to produce fome fiatute, in which that pofitive provifion fhall have been made, that specific difability clearly created, and the confequences of it declared; or if there be no fuch ftatute, the cuftom of parliaraent must then be referred to, and fome cafe or cafes, ftrictly in point, must be produced, with the decifion of the court upon them; for I readily admit that the cuftom of parliament, once clearly proved, is equally binding with the common and flatute law.

The confideration of what may be reafonable or unreafonable, makes no part of this question. We are eniring what the law is, not what it Cught to be. Reafon may be applied 1 fhow the impropr.ety or expedience

of a law, but we must have either flatute or precedent to prove the existence of it. At the fame time I do not mean to admit that the late refolution of the Houfe of Commons is defenfible on general principles of reafon, any more than in law. This is not the hinge on which the debate turns.

Suppofing, therefore, that I have laid down an accurate state of the queftion, I will venture to afirm, 1ft, That there is no ftatute exifting, by which that fpecific difability, which we fpeak 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 prefent cafe, viz." where an

66

expelled member has been returned "again, and another candidate, with

an inferior number of votes, has "been declared the fitting member." If there be fuch a precedent, let it be given to us plainly, and I am fure 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 prefume contains the whole strength of the party, have declared That Mr. Walpole's was "the first and only inftance, in "which the electors of any county or "borough had returned a perfon ex"pelled to ferve in the fame parlia"ment." It is not poffible to conceive a cafe 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 fet up by the miniftry, petitioned the Houfe, that he might be the fitting member. Thus far the circumstances tally exactly, except that our Houfe of Commons faved Mr. Luttrell the trouble of petitioning. The point of law however was the fame. It came regularly before the Houle, and it was their bufinefs to determine upon it. They did determine it, for they declared Mr. Taylor not duly elected. If it be faid that they meant this refolution as matter of favour a..d indul

gence

gence to the borough, which had retorted Mr. Walpole upon them, in order that the burgeffes, knowing what the law was, might correct their error I anfwer,

I. That it is a strange way of arguing to oppofe a fuppofition, which no man can prove, to a fact which proves itfelf.

II. That if this were the intention of the Houfe of Commons, it must have defeated itself. The burgeffes of Lynn could never have known their error, much lefs could they have corrected it, by any instruction they received from the proceedings of the Houfe of Commons. They might perhaps have forefeen that, if they returned Mr. Walpole again, he would again be rejected; but they never could infer, from a refolution by which the candidate with the feweft votes was declared not duly elected, that, at a future election, and in fimilar circumftances, the Houfe cf Commons would reverfe their refolution, and receive the fame candidate as duly elected, whom they had before rejected.

This indeed would have been a moft extraordinary way of declaring the law of parliament, and what I prefume no man, whofe understanding is not at cross-purpofes with itself, could poffibly understand.

If, in a cafe of this importance, I thought myself at liberty to argue

27

from fuppofitions rather than from facts, I think the probability, in this cafe, is directly the reverfe of what the miniftry affirm; and that it is much more likely that the House of Commons at that time would rather have trained 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 vefted in him, to gratify a refractory borough, which, in defiance of them, had returned a perfon branded with the ftrongest mark of the dif pleasure 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 grofs to be endured. Our dearest interests are at ftake. An attempt has been made, not merely to rob a fingle county of its rights, but, by inevitable confequence, to alter the conftitution of the Houfe of Com. mons. This fatal attempt has fucceeded, and ftands as a precedent recorded for ever. If the miniftry are unable to defend their caufe, by fair argument founded on facts, let them fpare us at leaft the mortification of being amufed and deluded like children. I believe there is yet a spirit of refiftance in this country, which will not fubmit to be oppreffed; but I am fure there is a fund of good fenfe in this country, which cannot be deceived. JUNIUS.

L.

TITUS VESPASIAN governed this ifland as Roman emperor about the year of our Lord 81. Unusual joy was expreffed when he afcended the imperial throne, from his goodness of heart, and love to his people. He was defervedly called, THE DARLING AND DELIGHT OF MANKIND. His greatest

Bristol, July 12, 1769. happiness was to redress the grievances of his fubjects, often saying, NO MAN OUGHT TO GO SAD FROM

PRESENCE OF HIS PRINCE.

THE

This love to his fubjects was fo great, that one day recollecting he had not done any thing remarkable to promote their happinefs, he lamented to his attendants, in the language of his country, perdidimus diem, we have loft a day. To his glory it is recorded, HE WAS AN ENEMY ΤΟ PROMOTERS

AND EXTORTERS OF PENAL LAWS. We are not told how thefe extorters oppreffed his fubjects, whether in their perfons or proper

D 2

ties,

ties, or whether they wanted to extort confeffions from the fuppofed quilty. That thefe extorters might have a pretence for oppreffion, under fome penal law, (be this as it was) it is evident fome of his officers wanted to ftretch the law beyond its due bounds. But this he would by no means fuffer, but, as a juft punishment for fuch pefts of fociety, ordered thefe extorters, first to be publicly whipped, and then banished his prefence and kingdom forever knowing it was impoffible for himself and his fubjects to live happily together, if fuch incendiaries were fuffered to remain about him. Would to God every Prince from Titus Vefpafian to this day, had followed fo good an example. Though fo good a prince, fome of his fubjects fpoke evil against him, (or, to give our author's account a more modern drefs, wrote libels against him) but Titus was not moved in the least. However, his officers of state could not bear it; they laid great accufa

tions against the authors, alleging the dignity of his perfon, required fuch feditious libellers, ought to be feverely punished. But Titus tood by his people, and could by no means be prevailed upon by fuch bad advice; and at last filenced all thofe evil counsellors with this moft remarkable saying, SO LONG AS WE DO NOTHING THAT

DESERVES REPROOF, LET US NOT VALUE LIVES. The hiftorian informs us, that this moft amiable Prince punifhed the extorters of penal laws, banished his evil counfellors, and did every thing in his power to make his people happy. Still he had a brother near him, who, when he found he could not corrupt his mind by bad advice, procured this Prince to be poifoned. Is not this fufficient to convince all princes how neceffary it is for their own fafety, and the happinefs of his people, to remove all evil counfellors from about their perfons, however nearly they be connected?