ENG1 
the houfe punifh twice for the fame offence? Shall we 
aft in direft oppofition, not to the forms only, but to the 
very effence of the conftitution ? Shall we blend the exe¬ 
cutive and judicial powers with the legiflative, and take 
upon ourfelves the odium of trying and punifhing in a 
fummary manner an offence cognizable by the laws in 
the ordinary courts of judicature ?” 
It is Angular, that the apparently obvious and probable 
confequence of this expul (ion, does not feem to have 
occurred either to the minifters of the crown, or to the 
members in oppofition. But whatever might have been 
previoully expefted, the faft is, that, a new writ being 
ilfued, Mr. Wilkes was a fecond time returned with the 
greateft unanimity. The lioufe now began to perceive 
the dilemma in which it had with fuch hade involved it- 
felf. By proceeding in this bufinefs, they muff incur the 
refentment of the eleftors ; by receding, it were impof- 
fible to efcape cenfure. Preferring what appeared to 
them the lead of two evils, they refolved, “ that Mr. 
Wilkes, having been once expelled, was incapable of 
fitting in the fame parliament, and that the eleftion was 
therefore void.” The freeholders of Middlefex, equally 
determined with the houfe of commons, chofe him a third 
time their reprefentative, with the fame unanimity. The 
eleftion was again declared void by the commons; and 
in order to terminate a conteft in which the houfe ap¬ 
peared to fo little advantage, colonel Luttrell voluntarily 
vacated his feat in parliament, with a view to offer him- 
felf as a candidate for Middlefex ; being previoufly 
affured that he fliould at all events, and whatever might 
be the difparity of numbers upon the poll, be the fitting 
member. At the fourth eleftion Mr. Wilkes was again 
returned by the fherifFs; the votes in his favour being 
1243 to 296 : but, on a petition from colonel Luttrell, he 
was, after a vehement debate continued to a very late 
hour, (March 3, 1769,) declared duly elefted ! 
By this decifion the nation was thrown into a great 
confternation, which only ferved to (hew how a compa¬ 
ratively trivial queftion may be magnified into artificial 
importance, by making it the objeft of political and per- 
fonal contention. It could not be denied that the houfe 
of commons had ever exercifed a judicial authority, which 
could in no other hands be fo properly placed, in deter¬ 
mining upon the validity of returns, and the qualifications 
of their own members. This authority might undoubtedly 
be abufed or indifcreetly exercifed, but all power is in its 
own nature liable to abufe ; and if fo vague an objection 
be admitted, the powers vefted in all political bodies, 
however conftituted, muff be annihilated, and the bands 
of civil fociety are at once diffolved. The power of ex- 
pulfion for fuch offences as appear to the houfe to render 
any of its members unworthy of the truft repofed in them, 
had been exercifed in numerous instances from time im¬ 
memorial; and though no cafe precifely fintilar to the 
prefent in all its circumftances could be adduced, the 
houfe of commons now exifting had certainly as valid a 
right to make a precedent in a new cafe within the limits 
of their own peculiar jurifdiftion as any former houfe of 
commons, or as the courts fitting in Weftminfter-hall ; 
and, had the exptilfion of Mr. Wilkes been itfelf a po¬ 
pular meafure, the fubf^quent fteps taken by the houfe 
would no doubt have been deemed perfeftly regular, as 
analogous to the fpirit of former decifions, conformable 
to the general powers of adjudication vefted in the houfe, 
and neceffarily flowing front the original and eftabliftted 
parliamentary right of expulfion. It muft neverthelefs 
be acknowledged, that a difcretionary power of expulfion 
is liable to be perverted to very bad purpofes ; and there¬ 
fore it was judged proper by an aft palled in the courfe 
of the enfuing feftion, to fpecify the offences which (hall 
in future render incapacitation the neceffary refult of ex- 
pulfion ; and thus, inftead of encroaching on the rights 
of the people in matters of eleftion, this houfe of com¬ 
mons did in reality fix-legal and definite boundaries to 
their own power. 
Vol. VI. No. 387. 
, A N D. 74! 
The houfe of commons proceeded, after the queftion of 
the Middlefex eleftion was thus determined, to the ufual 
bufinefs of the feftion, and thirty-three thoufand men 
were voted for the fea and land fervice of the year 1769. 
The charter of the Eaft-India company was prolonged tor 
the further term of five years, on conditions fimilar to 
the laft agreement ; but the company were now allowed 
to increafe their dividend to twelve and a half percent, 
during this term, provided they did not in any one year 
raife it above one per cent. On the other hand, fliould 
the dividend be reduced below the prefent ftandard of ten 
per cent, the ftipulated payment of four hundred thou¬ 
fand pounds per annum to the public fliould be propor¬ 
tionally diminifhed ; and if the dividend fliould fink to fix 
per cent, the payment to the public fliould wholly ceafe. 
In May, 1769, a circular letter was written by the earl 
of Hillfborough, fecretary of ftate for America, to all the 
different colonies, acquainting them, “ that it was the 
intention of his majefty’s minifters to propofe, in the next 
feftion of parliament, taking off the duties upon glafs, 
paper, and colours, on confideration of fuch duties having 
been laid contrary to the true principles of commerce ; 
and affuring them, that at no time liad they entertained 
any defign to propofe to parliament to lay any further 
taxes on America for the purpofe of railing a revenue.” 
Notwithftanding the falvo of commercial principles, it 
was fufficiently evident that this conceflion wms folely and 
wifely made with a view to conciliate America in this 
crilisof difaffeftion. But as the wifdom of man is gene¬ 
rally blended with a portion of folly, the duty on tea was 
purpofely left as a mark of the legiflative fupremacy of 
Britain, very contrary to the inclinations and earned en¬ 
deavours of the minifter, who, by cogent arguments, de- 
monftrated in council the impolicy of leaving that fatal 
germ of contention to expand into incurable animofity. 
But though the duke of Grafton was on this occafion 
powerfully fupported by lord Camden, and various other 
names of the higheft refpeftability, his grace’s fyftem of 
moderation was moft unfortunately over-ruled in the ca¬ 
binet; and from this period the duke of Grafton enter¬ 
tained fixed and ferious ideas of relinquiftiing his ftation 
fo foon as a fucceffor could be provided by his majefty. 
The ferment raifed in the nation by the-late decifion 
of the houfe of commons, feemed in the mean time daily 
to increafe in violence ; the freeholders of the county of 
Middlefex were highly incenfed, declaring, that the right 
of eleftion had been wrefted from them, by the unprece¬ 
dented feating of a candidate who was never chofen by 
the county. The public dilfatisfaftion became apparent 
throughout the kingdom ; and their grievances were mag¬ 
nified by an innumerable multitude of political publica¬ 
tions, in which the conduft of the adminiftration was ar¬ 
raigned in the bittereft terms. Among thefe, the national 
attention was particularly attrafted by a feries of letters 
appearing under the fignature of Junius, and written in a 
ftyle fo rnafterly as to be deemed, in point of compofiticn, 
equal to any literary produftions in the Englilh language. 
They confifted, however, of little elfe than fplendid de¬ 
clamation and poignant invective, and difcovered a pow¬ 
erful malignity of difpofition, which, now the paflions 
and follies of the day have vanifhed, and given place to 
other paflions and other follies, muft excite dilregard; 
particularly as the author was not, nor probably ever 
will be, known. Of thefe celebrated letters, by far the 
moft memorable is that'addrelied to the king, in which 
the writer, with equal elegance and energy of diction, 
affected ta exhibit to tire view of his fovereign a moft 
ftriking picture of his adminiftration. On the appearance 
of this letter, the attorney-general had orders immedi¬ 
ately to file a bill in the court of king’s bench, againft 
the publifher, Woodfall, for uttering a falfe and feditious 
libel; but the jury returned their verdict, “ Guilty of 
printing and publilhing only;” which verdift amounting 
to an acquittal, the defendant was difcharged. 
By an a) moft total feceflion from bufinefs for two years, 
9 C tlie 
