supported by the Opposition; and numerous amendments having been made by the supporters of government, by which its character became wholly changed, the bill was withdrawn.1 The scene of this protracted contest was now varied for a time. Appeals to Parliament had been made The city adin vain; and the city of London resolved to carry dress to the king, 1770. up their complaints to the throne. A petition had been presented to the king in the previous year, to which no answer had been returned. And now the Lord Mayor, aldermen, and livery, in Common Hall assembled, agreed to an address, remonstrance, and petition to the king, 66 which, whatever the force of its statements, was conceived in a tone of unexampled boldness. "The majority of the House of Commons," they said, "have deprived your people of their dearest rights. They have done a deed more ruinous in its consequences than the levying of ship-money by Charles I., or the dispensing power assumed by James II." They concluded by praying the king "to restore the constitutional government and quiet of his people, by dissolving the Parliament and removing his evil ministers forever from his councils." 2 In his answer, his Majesty expressed his concern that any of his subjects "should have been so far misled as to offer him an address and remonstrance, the contents of which he could not but consider as disrespectful to himself, injurious to Parliament, and irreconcilable to the principles of the constitution." " 8 The Commons, whose acts had been assailed by the remonstrance, were prompt in rebuking the city, Joint address and pressing forward in support of the king. Houses to the They declared the conduct of the city "highly king. 1 Parl. Hist. xvi. 830-833; Cavendish Deb. i. 435. 2 The address is printed at length; Cavendish Deb. i. 576. of both * Having returned this answer, the king is said to have turned round te his courtiers, and burst out laughing. — Public Advertiser, cited in Lord Buckingham's Mem. ii. 174. Lord Chatham con demns the king's answer. unwarrantable," and tending "to disturb the peace of the kingdom;" and having obtained the concurrence of the Lords, a joint address of both Houses, conveying this opinion, was presented to the king. In their zeal, they had overlooked the unseemliness of lowering both Houses of Parliament to a level with the corporation of the city of London, and of wrangling with that body, at the foot of the throne. The city was ready with a rejoinder, in the form of a further address and remonstrance to the king. Lord Chatham, meanwhile, and many of the leaders of the Whig party, saw, in the king's answer, consequences dangerous to the right of petitioning. Writing to Lord Rockingham, April 29th, Lord Chatham said: "A more unconstitutional piece never came from the throne, nor any more dangerous, if left unnoticed." 1 And on the 4th of May, not deterred by the joint address already agreed to by both Houses, he moved a resolution in the House of Lords, that the advice 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 ques tion was called for at nine o'clock, and negatived. 8 On the 1st of May, Lord Chatham presented a bill for reversing the several adjudications of the House of Commons, 1 Rockingham Mem. ii. 177; Woodfall's Junius, ii. 104. 2 Parl. Hist. xvi. 966. 8 lbid. 979. in Wilkes's case. The bill, after reciting all these resolutions, declared them to be "arbitrary and illegal;" and Lord Chatthey were "reversed, annulled, and made void." ham's bill to Lord Camden said, "The judgment passed reverse the upon judgment of the Com the Middlesex election, has given the consti- mons, 1770. tution 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 privileges of the Commons, and the bill was rejected by a large majority.1 The next session witnessed a renewal of discussions upon this popular question. On the 5th December, Lord Chat ham's resolu tion, 5th mond's mo Lord Chatham moved another resolution; which met the same fate as his previous motions on the Dec., 1770. subject.2 On the 30th April, the Duke of Richmond moved to expunge from the journals of the House the Duke of Richresolution of the 2d of February, 1770, in which tion, April they had deprecated any interference with the 1771. 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. A few days afterwards, Lord Chatham moved an address for a dissolution, on the ground of the violations of law by 1 Parl. Hist. xvi. 955; Walpole's Mem. iv. 121; Rockingham Mem. il 177. 2 Parl. Hist. xvi. 1302. It was superseded by adjournment. 8 lbid. xvii. 214. the Commons in the Middlesex election, and the contest which had lately arisen 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. Mr. Wilkes the Deputy Clerk of the Crown. In 1773, Mr. Wilkes brought his case before the House, in the shape of a frivolous complaint against the complains of 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 motion for a bill to secure the rights of electors, with the usual result.5 The Parliament, which had been in continual conflict with Wilkes elected Wilkes for five years, was now dissolved; and Wilkes was again returned for Middlesex. According to the resolution of the Commons, his in in the new Parliament, 1774. 1 See infra, p. 389. 2 May 1st, 1771; Parl. Hist. xvii. 224. 4 Parl. Hist. xvii. 838. 5 lbid. 1057. capacity 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 honor, being elected Lord Mayor of London. resolution. He did not fail to take advantage of his new privileges and on the 22d February, 1775, he moved that Moves to ex the resolution which had declared his incapacity, punge the be expunged from 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 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.1 Resolution 1782. He renewed this motion in 1776,2 in 1777,8 in 1779,* and in 1781.5 At length, on the 3d of May, 1782, he proposed it for the last time, and with signal suc- expunged, cess. 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's 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's 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 1 171 to 239; Parl. Hist xviii. 358. 2 Ibid. 1336. Ibid. xix. 193. 4 Ibid. xx. 144. 5 Ibid. xxii. 99. |