ment; but his popularity had been increased, while the House, and all concerned 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. reverse the So dangerous a precedent was not suffered to rest Efforts to unquestioned. Not only the partisans of Wilkes, but proceedings the statesmen and lawyers opposed to the government, against continued to protest against it, until it was condemned. him. Chatham, On the 9th January, 1770, Lord Chatham,-re- By Lord appearing in the House of Lords after his long pros- Jan., 1770. tration,-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"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."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 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, 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. - Lord Chatham replied in his finest manner. Lord 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. In the Commons also, very strong opinions were Commons, expressed on the injustice of Wilkes' exclusion. Sir George Savile especially distinguished himself by the 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 Proceed ings in the 1770. 1 1 Parl. Hist., xvi. 647. 1 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 declaration not only innocent, but laudable." A formidable opposition showed itself throughout the debate; and while in the Lords, the Chancellor had pronounced his opinion against the incapacitating vote, -in the Commons, the Solicitor-General, Mr. Dunning, also spoke and voted against the government. The question had thus assumed a formidable aspect, and led to changes which speedily ended in the breaking up of the Duke of Grafton's administration. resolutions. On the 25th January, 1770, Mr. Dowdeswell moved a Mr. Dowresolution in a committee of the whole House, "That deswell's this House in 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." This premiss could neither be denied nor assented to by the government without embarrassment; but Lord North adroitly followed it out by a conclusion, "that the judgment of this House was agreeable to the said law of the land, and fully authorised by the law and custom of Parliament." 2 On the 31st January, Mr. Dowdeswell repeated his attack in another form, but with no better success. The matter was now again taken up in the House of Lord Lords. On the 2nd February, in committee on the ham's mostate of the nation, Lord Rockingham moved a resolu- Feb., 1770 tion similar to that of Mr. Dowdeswell. Though unsuccessful, it called forth another powerful speech from Lord Chatham, and a protest signed by forty-t w peers. The rejection of this motion was immediately Rocking tion, 2nd The city address to the king, 1770. followed,-without notice, and after twelve o'clock at night, by a motion of Lord Marchmont, that to impeach a judgment of the House of Commons would be a breach of the constitutional right of that House. Lord Camden, being accused by Lord Sandwich of duplicity, in having concealed his opinion as to the illegality of the incapacitating vote, while a member of the cabinet, asserted that he had frequently declared it to be both illegal and imprudent. On the other hand, the Duke of Grafton and Lord Weymouth complained that he had always withdrawn from the Council Board to avoid giving his opinion,— a circumstance explained by Lord Camden on the ground that as his advice had been already rejected, and the cabinet had resolved upon its measures, he declined giving any further opinion.1 In either case, it seems, there could have been no doubt of his disapproval of the course adopted by ministers. The next effort made in Parliament, in reference to Wilkes' case, was a motion by Mr. Herbert for a bill to regulate the consequences of the expulsion of members. But as this bill did not reverse, or directly condemn the proceedings in the case of Wilkes, it was not very warmly 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.2 The scene of this protracted contest was now varied for a time. Appeals to Parliament had been made in vain; and the city of London resolved to carry up their complaints to the throne. A petition had been presented to the king in the previous year, to which no 1 Parl. Hist., xvi. 823. 2 Ibid., 830-833; Cavendish Deb., i. 435. 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, 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 for ever from his councils."1 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."2 both to the The Commons, whose acts had been assailed by the Joint adremonstrance, were prompt in rebuking the city, and dress of pressing forward in support of the king. They declared Houses the conduct of the city "highly unwarrantable,” and king. 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 1 The address is printed at length, Cavendish Deb., i. 576. 2 Having returned this answer, the king is said to have turned round to his courtiers, and burst out |