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 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 one. 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. 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 unwar- Wilkes re 1 Present Discontents; Works, ii. 294. elected. His elec tion de rantable excesses of jurisdiction, and to violate the clearest principles of law. As Mr. Grenville had predicted, Wilkes was immediately re-elected without opposition. The next day, on the motion of Lord clared void. Strange, the House resolved that Mr. Wilkes "having been, in this session of Parliament, expelled the 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 had exceeded their jurisdiction; but it could not be defended upon sound principles of law. If by a vote of the House, a disa bility, 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 expul sion 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.”4 Again reelected, and Again, with still increasing popularity, Wilkes was election de- re-elected without opposition; and again a new writ was clared void. issued. In order to prevent a repetition of these fruitless proceedings, an alternative, — already pointed out Opposed by by Mr. Grenville,-was now adopted. Colonel Luttrell, a member, vacated his seat, and offered himself as Colonel 1 So stated by a member who 3 See May's Law of Parliament (4th Ed.), 59; Townsend's Mem., ii. 100. 4 Cavendish Deb., i. 352. turned; 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. Sergeant Whitaker and Mr. Roache, the former of whom had five votes, and the latter none. The Commons immediately pronounced the Again rereturn of Wilkes to be null and void; and, having but Colonel called for the poll-books, proceeded to vote,-though Luttrell not without a strenuous opposition, that Henry Lawes Luttrell ought to have been returned.1 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 Grenville2; but the clection of Colonel Luttrell was confirmed by a majority of sixty-nine. seated. Wilkes was now effectually excluded from Parlia- Popularity ment; but his popularity had been increased, while the of Wilkes. House, and all concerned in his oppression, were the objects of popular indignation. As some compensation 1 April 14th, 1769; Cavendish Deb., i. 360-386. Ayes 197, Noes 143-Majority 54. 2 Cavendish Deb., i. 406. Efforts to reverse the proceed him. 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. So dangerous a precedent was not suffered to rest unquestioned. Not only the partisans of Wilkes, but ings against the statesmen and lawyers opposed to the government, continued to protest against it, until it was condemned. On the 9th January, 1770, Lord Chatham,―re-apJan., 1770. pearing in the House of Lords after his long pros tration, moved an amendment to the address, de By Lord Chatham, --- nouncing the late proceedings in the House of Commons, as "refusing, by a resolution of one branch of the legis lature, to the subject his common right, and depriving the electors of Middlesex of their free choice of a representative." 1 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." 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. the Gentleman's Mag. of Jan., 1770, in a note; Parl. Hist., xvi. 644, . Lord Lord Chatham replied in his finest manner. Mansfield's remarks on the invasion of the privileges of the other House, called forth this comment: "What is this mysterious power,-undefined by law, unknown to the subject, which we must not approach without awe, nor speak of without reverence, - which no man may question, and to which all men must submit? My Lords, I thought the slavish doctrine of passive obedience had long since been exploded; and when our kings were obliged to confess that their title to the crown, and the rule of their government, had no other foundation than the known laws of the land, I never expected to hear a divine right, or a divine infallibility attributed to any other branch of the legislature." He then proceeded to affirm that the Commons "have betrayed their constituents, and violated the constitution. Under pretence of declaring the law, they have made a law, and united in the same persons, the office of legislator and of judge." His amendment was negatived; but the stirring eloquence and constitutional reasoning of so eminent a statesman, added weight to Wilkes' cause. ings in the In the Commons also, very strong opinions were ex- Proceedpressed on the injustice of Wilkes' exclusion. Sir Commons, George Savile especially distinguished himself by the 1770. warmth of his language; and accused the House of having betrayed the rights of its constituents. Being threatened with the Tower, he twice repeated his opinion; and, declining the friendly intervention of Colonel Conway and Lord North, who attributed his language to the heat of debate, he assured the House that if he was in a rage," he had been so ever since the fatal vote was passed, and should be so till it is rescinded." Mr. Sergeant Glynn thought "his declara2 Ibid., 699. 1 Parl. Hist., xvi. 647. |