Argument.
As this cannot conveniently be reconciled with our general proposition, it may be necessary to shift our ground, and look back to the cause of Mr. Wollaston's expulsion. From thence it will appear clearly, that, "although he was expelled, he had not rendered himself a culprit, too ignominious to sit in parliament; and that, having resigned his employment, he was no longer incapacitated by law." Vide Serious Considerations, page 23. Or thus, "The House, somewhat inaccurately, used the word EXPELLED; they should have called it a Amotion." Vide Mungo's Case considered, page' 11. Or, in short, if these arguments should be thought insufficient, we may fairly deny the fact. For example: "I affirm that he was not re-elected. The same Mr. Wollaston, who was expelled, was not again elected. The same individual, if you please, walked into the House, and took his seat there; but the same person, in law, was not admitted a member of that parliament, from which he had been discarded." Vide Letter to Junius, page 12.
