Графични страници
PDF файл
ePub

question: But I look forward to others, and am determined, as far as my poor ability extends, to convey to those who come after me, the blessings which I cannot long hope to enjoy myself.'

The House agreed to fixing the twenty-fourth day of January, for taking into consideration the state of the nation. But at that time there being no Lord Chancellor, the motion was adjourned to the second of February.-On the twenty-ninth of January, four days previous to the next debate, the Duke of Grafton resigned. The want of a Lord Chancellor determined his Grace to quit his situation.

Even this resignation, added to the many others which had preceded it, had no effect upon the Court. The resolution of the private, or confidential cabinet, was still to persevere-tó rely upon the power of the Crown-and if that was not sufficient, to depend upon the army. The Duke of Grafton's place was given to Lord North: he was now First Lord of the Treasury, Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Minister of the House of Commons. The Great Seal was put into commission, having been refused by Lord Mansfield and Sir John Eardly Wilmot. The latter refused on account of his age. The former, because his post of Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench afforded a more permanent emolument.

CHAPTER XXXVII.
XXXVII

Lord Chatham's Speech on the decision of the House of Commons on the Middlesex Election-His Speech on Secret Influence-On the Civil List, and dismission of Lord Camden-Fact concerning Queen Anne's Civil List-Mr. Grenville's Election Bill.

On the second day of February, 1770, the House of Lords being in committee on the state of the nation, Lord Rockingham moved, That the House of Commons, in the exercise of its judicature in matters of election, is bound to judge according to the law of the land, and the known and established law and custom of Parliament, which is part thereof.

The Earl of Sandwich opposed the motion; and Lord Chatham replied to Lord Sandwich.

Lord Chatham began with observing, that the noble Lord had been very adroit in referring to the Journals, and in collecting every circumstance that might assist his argument. Though my long and almost continued infirmities, said he, have denied me the hour of ease to obtain these benefits, yet, without the assistance of the journals, or other collaterals, I can reply to both the precedents which his Lordship has produced.

'I will readily allow the facts to be as the noble Earl has stated them, viz. That Lionel, Earl of Middlesex, as well as Lord Bacon, were both, for certain crimes and misdemeanours, expelled this house, and incapacitated from ever sitting here ; without occasioning any interference from the other branches of the Legislature.

Neither of these cases bear any analogy to the present case. They affected only themselves. The rights of no constituent body were affected by them. It is not the person of Mr. Wilkes that is complained of; as an individual, he is personally out of the dispute. The cause of complaint, the great cause, is, that the inherent rights and franchises of the people are, in this case, invaded, trampled upon, and annihilated. Lord Bacon and Lord Middlesex represented no county, or city. The rights of no freeholder, the franchises of no elector, were destroyed by their expulsion. The cases are as widely different as north from south. But I will allow the noble Earl a succedaneum to his argument, which, probably, he has not as yet thought of. I will suppose he urges "That whatever authority gives a seat to a Peer, it is at least equally as respectable as to a Commoner, and that, both in expulsion and incapacitation, the injury is directly the same:"-Granted; and I will further allow, that if Mr. Wilkes had not been re-elected by the

people, the first expulsion, I believe, would be efficient. Therefore, my Lords, this comparison. ceases; for, except these noble Lords mentioned had received a fresh title, either by birth or patent, they could not possibly have any claim after the first expulsion. The noble Lord asks, "How came this doctrine to be broached?" And adds, " Who should be more tenacious of their liberties and privileges than the members themselves?" In respect to the latter part of this question, I agree none should be so proper as themselves to protect their own rights and privileges; and I sincerely lament that they have, by their recent conduct, so far forgot what those privileges are, that they have added to the long list of venality from Esau to the present day. In regard to the first part, "How came this doctrine to be broached?" I must tell the noble Lord it is as old as the Constitution itself; the liberties of the people, in the original distribution of government, being the first thing provided for; and in the case of Mr. Wilkes, though we have not instances as numerous as in other cases, yet it is, by no means, the less constitutional; like a comet in the firmament, which however it may dazzle and surprise the vulgar and untutored, by unfrequency of its appearance, the philosopher, versed in astronomic science, it affects no more than any other common process of nature, being perfectly simple, and to him perfectly intelligible. Need I remind

you, my Lords, at this period, of that common school-boy position, "that the constitution of this country depends upon King, Lords, and Commons, that each by its power is a balance to the other?" If this is not the case, why were the three estates constituted? Why should it be necessary before an act of Parliament takes place, that their mutual concurrence should be had? My Lords, I am ashamed to trudge in this common track of argument; and have no apology to make, but that I have been drawn into it by the noble Lord's asserting, "We had no right to interfere with the privileges of the other House."

The noble Earl has been very exact in his calçulation of the proportion of persons who have petitioned; and did the affair rest merely on this calculation, his argument would be unanswerable; but will he consider what numbers, whose private sentiments felt all the rigour of parliamentary proceedings, but for want of a few principals to call them together, and collect their opinions, have never reached the ear of their sovereign. If we add to this number, the interest made use of on the side of government, to suppress all petitions, with the authority that placemen have necessarily over their dependants, it is very surprising, that out of forty counties, thirteen had spirit and independence sufficient to stem such a tide of venality. But I will

« ПредишнаНапред »