inducing his Majesty to give that answer is of the most dangerous tendency,' as the exercise of the clearest rights of the subject to petition the king for redress of grievances, had been checked by reprimand.' He maintained the constitutional right of the subject to petition for redress of all grievances; and the justice of the complaints which the city of London had laid at the foot of the throne. But the motion provoked little discussion, and was rejected.' And again, on the 14th May, Lord Chatham moved an address for a dissolution of Parliament. But all strangers, except peers' sons and members of the House of Commons, having been excluded from this debate, no record of it has been preserved. The question was called for at nine o'clock, and negatived.2

Lord

Chatham's bill to reverse the judgment of the

6

On the 1st of May, Lord Chatham presented a bill for reversing the several adjudications of the House of Commons, in Wilkes' case. The bill, after reciting all these resoluCommons. tions, declared them to be arbitrary and illegal;' and they were 'reversed, annulled, and made void.' Lord Camden said, 'The judgment passed upon the Middlesex election has given the constitution a more dangerous wound than any which were given during the twelve years' absence of Parliament in the reign of Charles I.;' and he trusted that its reversal would be demanded, session after session, until the people had obtained redress. Lord Mansfield deprecated any interference with the

Parl. Hist., xvi. 666.

2 Ibid., 979.

privileges of the Commons, and the bill was rejected by a large majority.'

Chatham's

5th Dec.,

Richmond's

April,

The next session witnessed a renewal of discussions upon this popular question. On the 5th Lord December, Lord Chatham moved another resolution, resolution; which met the same fate as 1770. his previous motions on the subject.2 On the 30th April, the Duke of Richmond moved to Duke of expunge from the journals of the House motion, the resolution of the 2nd of February, 1771. 1770, in which they had deprecated any interference with the jurisdiction of the Commons, as unconstitutional. He contended that if such a resolution were suffered to remain on record, the Commons might alter the whole law of elections, and change the franchise by an arbitrary declaration; and yet the Lords would be precluded from remonstrance. Lord Chatham repeated his opinion, that the Commons had daringly violated the laws of the land;' and declared that it became not the Lords to remain 'tame spectators of such a deed, if they would not be deemed accessory to their guilt, and branded with treason to their country.' The ministers made no reply, and the question was negatived.3

A few days afterwards, Lord Chatham moved an address for a dissolution, on the ground of the violations of law by the Commons in the Middlesex election, and the contest which had lately arisen.

1 Parl. Hist., xvi. 955; Walpole's Mem., iv. 121; Rockingham Mem., ii. 177.

2 Parl. Hist,, xvi. 1302. It was superseded by adjournment. Parl. Hist., xvii, 214.

1

between them and the city magistracy; but found no more than twenty-three supporters.2

The concluding incidents of the Middlesex election may now be briefly told, before we advert to a still more important conflict which was raging at this time, with the privileges of the Commons; and the new embarrassments which Wilkes had raised.

Sir George Savile's motion, 1772.

In the next session, Sir George Savile, in order to renew the annual protest against the Middlesex election, moved for a bill to secure the rights of electors, with respect to the eligibility of persons to serve in Parliament. Lord North here declared, that the proceedings of the Commons had been highly consistent with justice, and the law of the land; and that to his dying day he should continue to approve of them.' The motion was defeated by a majority of forty-six.3 In 1773, Mr. Wilkes brought his case before the House, in the shape of a frivolous complaint against the Deputy-Clerk of the Crown, who had refused to give him a certificate, as one of the members for Middlesex. Sir G. Savile, also, renewed his motion for a bill to secure the rights of electors, and found one hundred and fifty supporters. Mr. Burke took this occasion to predict that, there would come a time when those now in office would be reduced to their penitentials, for having turned a deaf ear to the voice of the people.' In 1774, Sir G. Savile renewed his

Mr. Wilkes complains of the Deputy-Clerk of the Crown.

1 See infra, p. 41.

6

2 May 1st, 1771; Parl. Hist., xvii. 224. Parl. Hist., xvii. 838.

3 Feb. 27th, 1772; Ibid., 318.

motion for a bill to secure the rights of electors, with the usual result.'

elected in

Parliament,

The Parliament, which had been in continual conflict with Wilkes for five years, was now wilkes dissolved; and Wilkes was again returned the new for Middlesex. According to the resolu- 1774. tion of the Commons, his incapacity had been limited to the late Parliament; and he now took his seat without further molestation. Before the meeting of Parliament, Wilkes had also attained the highest civic honour,-being elected Lord Mayor of London.

6

the resolu

He did not fail to take advantage of his new privileges; and on the 22nd February, 1775, Moves to he moved that the resolution which had expunge declared his incapacity, be expunged from tion. the journals, as subversive of the rights of the whole body of electors.' He said, 'the people had made his cause their own, for they saw the powers of the government exerted against the constitution, which was wounded through his sides.' He recapitulated the circumstances of his case; referred very cleverly to the various authorities and precedents; and showed the dangerous consequences of allowing a resolution to remain upon the journals, which was a violation of the law. He was ably supported by Mr. Sergeant Glynn, Sir George Savile, and Mr. Wedderburn; and in the division secured one hundred and seventy-one votes.2

He renewed this motion in 1776,3 in 1777,4 in

1 Parl. Hist., xvii. 1057. Parl. Hist., xviii. 1336.

2 171 to 239; Ibid., xviii. 358.

1 Ibid., xix. 193.

expunged,

1779,' and in 1781.2 At length, on the 3rd of Resolution May, 1782, he proposed it for the last time, 1782. and with signal success. The Rockingham ministry was in office, and had resolved to condemn the proceedings of the Commons, which its leading members had always disapproved. Mr. Fox was now the only statesman, of any eminence, by whom Wilkes' motion was opposed. He had always maintained that the Commons had not exceeded their powers; and he still consistently supported that opinion, in opposition to the premier and the leaders of his party. Wilkes' motion was now carried by a triumphant majority of sixty-eight; and by order of the House, all the declarations, orders, and resolutions, respecting the Middlesex election, were expunged from the journals, as being subversive of the rights of the whole body of electors in this kingdom.3

Abuses of

privilege; their

danger.

Thus at length, this weary contest was brought to a close. A former House of Commons, too eager in its vengeance, had exceeded its powers; and now a succeeding Parliament reversed its judgment. This decision of 1782 stands out as a warning to both Houses, to act within the limits of their jurisdiction, and in strict conformity with the laws. An abuse of privilege is even more dangerous than an abuse of prerogative. In the one case, the wrong is done by an irresponsible body: in the other the ministers who advised it, are open to censure and punishment. The judgment of 2 Ibid., xxii. 99.

1 Parl. Hist., xx. 144.

Ayes, 115; Noes, 47; Parl. Hist., xxii. 1407.