Page images
PDF
EPUB

Mr. Cornwall, and, above all, by Mr. George Grenville. The masterly speech of the latter does great credit to his judgment and foresight. When a minister, he had been the first to bring the House of Commons into collision with Wilkes: but he now recoiled from the struggle which was impending. Having shown the injustice of the proposed punishment, he proceeded to show its impolicy and danger. He predicted that Wilkes would be re-elected, and that the House would have but two alternatives,both objectionable; either to expel him again, and suspend the issue of the writ for the entire Parliament; or to declare another candidate, with a minority of votes,—to be elected, on the ground of Wilkes' legal disqualification. In both cases the law would be violated, and the rights of the electors invaded. And in warning them of the dangerous contest they were about to commence, he predicted that the power and popularity of the demagogue would suddenly be reduced, if he were relieved from his martyrdom, and admitted to the legislature, where his true character would be discovered.

But all these arguments and cautions were proffered in vain. The House, making common cause with the court,-had resolved to scourge the insolent libeller who had intruded himself into their councils; and, regardless of future consequences, they voted his expulsion by a large majority. According to Burke, 'the point to be gained by the cabal was this: that a precedent should be established, tending to show that the favour of the

1 Parl. Hist., xvi. 546; Cavendish Deb., i. 151.

people was not so sure a road as the favour of the court, even to popular honours and popular trusts.' 'Popularity was to be rendered, if not directly penal, at least highly dangerous." This view, however, is too deep and philosophical, to have been the true The court party, having been defied and insulted by a political opponent, were determined to crush him; and scarcely stopped to consider whether the laws were outraged or not.

one.

Up to this time, whatever may have been the injustice and impolicy of their proceedings, the Commons had not exceeded their legal powers. The grounds on which they had expelled a member may have been insufficient; but of their sufficiency, they alone were competent to judge.

They were now, however, about to commit unwarrantable excesses of jurisdiction, and to Wilkes reviolate the clearest principles of law. As elected. Mr. Grenville had predicted, Wilkes was immediately re-elected without opposition. The next day, on the motion of Lord Strange, the House resolved that Mr. Wilkes having been, in His election this session of Parliament, expelled the void. House, was and is incapable of being elected a member, to serve in this present Parliament.' The election was accordingly declared void, and a new writ issued. There were precedents for this course; for this was not the first time the Commons

1 Present Discontents; Works, ii. 294.

declared

2 So stated by a member who was present; Parl. Hist., xvi. 580. Feb. 17th, 1769; Cavendish Deb., i. 345.

See May's Law of Parliament (6th Ed.), 58; Townsend's Mem., ii. 100.

had exceeded their jurisdiction; but it could not be defended upon any sound principles of law. If by a vote of the House, a disability, unknown to the law, could be created,—any man who became obnoxious might, on some ground or other, be declared incapable. Incapacity would then be declared,-not by the law of the land, but by the arbitrary will of the House of Commons. On the other hand, the House felt strongly that their power of expulsion was almost futile, if their judgment could be immediately set aside by the electors; or, as it was put by General Conway, if a gentleman who returns himself for any particular borough, were to stand up and say that he would, in opposition to the powers of the House, insist upon being a member of Parliament."

Again reelected, and election declared

void.

Colonel
Luttrell.

Again, with still increasing popularity, Wilkes was re-elected without opposition; and again a new writ was issued. In order to prevent a repetition of these fruitless proceedings, an alternative, already pointed out by Opposed by Mr. Grenville,--was now adopted. Colonel Luttrell, a member, vacated his seat, and offered himself as a candidate. Wilkes was, of course, returned by a large majority. He received one thousand one hundred and forty-three votes': Colonel Luttrell only two hundred and ninety-six. There were also two other candidates, Mr. Serjeant Whitaker and Mr. Roache, the former of whom had five votes, and the latter none. The Commons immediately pronounced the

Again returned; but Colonel Luttrell seated.

Cavendish Deb., i. 352.

return of Wilkes to be null and void; and, having called for the poll-books, proceeded to vote,though not without a strenuous opposition, that Henry Lawes Luttrell ought to have been returned.' To declare a candidate, supported by so small a number of votes, the legal representative of Middlesex, was a startling step in the progress of this painful contest; but the ultimate seating of another candidate, notwithstanding Wilkes' majorities, was the inevitable result of the decision which affirmed his incapacity.

Leave was given to petition the House against Colonel Luttrell's election, within fourteen days. Of this permission the electors soon availed themselves; and, on the 8th May, they were heard by counsel, at the bar of the House. Their arguments were chiefly founded upon the original illegality of the vote, by which Wilkes' incapacity had been declared; and were ably supported in debate, particularly by Mr. Wedderburn, Mr. Burke, and Mr. George Grenville: 2 but the election of Colonel Luttrell was confirmed by a majority of sixty-nine.

Wilkes was now effectually excluded from Parliament; but his popularity had been in- Popularity creased, while the House, and all concerned of Wilkes. in his oppression, were the objects of popular indignation. As some compensation for his exclusion from the House of Commons, Wilkes was elected an alderman of the city of London. A liberal subscription was also raised, for the payment of his debts.

1 April 14th, 1769; Cavendish Deb., i. 360-386. Ayes, 197; Noes. 143-Majority, 54.

2 Cavendish Deb., i. 406; Ann. Reg., 1769, p. 68*.

Efforts to

So dangerous a precedent was not suffered to rest unquestioned. Not only the partisans of proceedings Wilkes, but the statesmen and lawyers opposed to the government, continued to

reverse the

against

him.

protest against it, until it was condemned.

By Lord

Chatham,

[ocr errors]

On the 9th January, 1770, Lord Chatham,-reappearing in the House of Lords after his Jan., 1770. long prostration,-moved an amendment to the address, denouncing the late proceedings in the House of Commons, as refusing, by a resolution of one branch of the legislature, to the subject his common right, and depriving the electors of Middlesex of their free choice of a representative." Lord Camden, the chancellor, now astonished the Lords by a statement that for some time he had beheld with silent indignation, the arbitrary measures which were pursuing by the ministry;' and, that as to the incapacitating vote, he considered it as a direct attack upon the first principles of the constitution."2 Lord Mansfield, while he said that his opinion upon the legality of the proceedings of the House of Commons was locked up in his own breast, and should die with him,' (though for what reason it is not easy to explain,) argued that in matters of election the Commons had a complete jurisdiction, without appeal; that their decisions could only be reversed by themselves, or by Act of Parliament; and that except in discussing a bill, the Lords could not inquire into the question, without violating the privileges of the other House.

1 Parl. Hist., xvi. 653.

2 This speech is not reported in the Parl. Hist., but is printed from the Gentleman's Mag. of Jan., 1770, in a note; Parl. Hist., xvi. 644, n.

« PreviousContinue »