appropriated to the civil list, debts had been contracted to the amount
of L513,511, which his majesty trusted that house would enable him to
discharge. The opposition demanded the production of papers to account
for these arrears, which were promised by Lord North, if they would vote
the money first. This proposition was warmly opposed, but, in the end,
the house showed its loyalty by voting the money. On the 9th of May, the
king went down to prorogue parliament. This was the day after the last
vehement debate and division on the election of Wilkes; and as he was
passing from the palace to the house of lords, he was grossly insulted
by the populace. In his speech, his majesty exhorted the members, with
more than ordinary earnestness, to exert themselves in their several
counties to repress the efforts of the disaffected, and in maintaining
public peace and good order.

DISCONTENTS IN ENGLAND AND IRELAND.

There was great occasion for his majesty's advice to the members of
parliament, but they were powerless to effect that which he desired, and
which was a "consummation devoutly to be wished" by every lover of good
order. During this summer, discontent was more prevalent than at any
preceding period of this reign. The disputes with the Americans, and
the expulsion of Wilkes from his seat in parliament, had the effect of
keeping the public mind in a state of constant excitement. This latter
cause gave the greater umbrage to the people, because a man was sitting
in his place who was supported only by a minority. This involved a
constitutional right of great importance, and a question was mooted,
whether expulsion constituted disqualification during the current
parliament. The pen of Dr. Johnson was employed in proving
the affirmative; his chief argument being, that the power of
disqualification was necessary to the house of commons, for otherwise
expulsion would not be a real, but a nominal punishment. Other pens were
employed in proving the contrary; and among them was that of Junius,
whose argument rested on the axiom that political expediency does not
prove existing law, and who defied his opponents to produce any statute
applicable to the subject. Junius also argued that, although the
house of commons could expel, the concurrence of every branch of the
legislature was necessary to incapacitate. Junius, whose extraordinary
powers as a writer on politics have rarely, if ever, been surpassed,
was the most bitter