1769. The HISTORY of the laft Seffion of Parliament. fecond day of the December following. Here, were we to confine ourselves to the regular fucceffion of bufinefs, we fhould naturally leave Mr. Wilkes's caufe, and go on with the intervening Occurrences of parliament; but as his caufe has been confidered in a very important light, not only by Great Britain, but by all the dependencies on the British nation; as it is at this hour fuppofed to be immediately connected with the very existence of our conftitution; and as a discontinuation of the iffue, now we have unavoidably gone fo far, would doubt lefs be difpleafing to our readers; we fhall for once facrifice order to neceffity, and instead of dreading the cenfure of the public, we fall fatter ourfelves with the hope of their generous approbation.. Mr. Wilkes defiring to be prefent, on the fecond of December, to fupport the allegations of his petition, and the houfe being made acquainted with his defire, the marfhal of the King's Bench was ordered to bring him in cuftody to the bar, if he should choose to be brought up, and a number of witneffes were alfo ordered to attend; when, after various adjournments, and a minute examination of Mr. Wilkes's complaint, it was refolved, "That the two orders made by Lord Mansfield, lord chief justice of the King's Bench, for the amendment of the informations, exhibited in the faid Court against Mr. Wilkes, were according to law and juítice, and the practice of the faid court, and confirmed by the fubsequent determination of the faid court; and that the complaint of Mr. Wilkes, in refpect thereof, is frivolous; and that the afperfions upon the faid chief justice, for making the faid two orders, thereby conveyed, are utterly groundless, and tend to prejudice the minds of the people against the adminiftration of public juice." It was at the fame time refolved that the charge against Philip Carteret Webb, Efq; was not made good. As to the complaint againft Lord Egremont, and Lord Hallifax, it was not at all enquired into, the former being dead, and an action then depending against the latter inthe regular courts of law, at the fuit of Mr. Wilkes, for the recovery of damages. This was not the only circumftance, 291 however, in which Mr. Wilkes fuftained a mortification from parliament, for notwithstanding he was then fuffering from the former freedom of his pen, he ftill indulged himfelf in new liberties against the government, and feemed aftonished that the miniftry fhould proceed to any difagreeable extremities with him, though he was inceffantly harraffing them with fresh provocations. A conduct of this reftless nature, his best friends very openly condemned, and, above every thing elle, condemned a preface which he wrote to a letter written by Lord Weymouth, who, as fecretary of itate, directed Daniel Ponton, Efq; chairman of the Surry quarter feffions, to fupport the execution of the laws, by an effectual exertion of the military power. In Mr. Wilkes's preface to this letter, which was published in The Saint James's Chronicle, he termed it a bloody fcroll, and other. wife mentioned it with an uncommon bitterness of animadverfion, At this time the voice of popularity was unufually vehement in his favour, and it was even thought that administration would have gladly fuffered him to take his feat for Middlefex, if by this intemperate, and indeed ufelefs, attack, he had not compelled them to a continuation of feverity. A complaint therefore was made in the house against Mr. Wilkes, for writing and publihing the preface fo repeatedly taken notice of, when after a conference with the lords, a great deal of time spent upon the matter, and Mr. Wilkes's not only acknowledging himself, with much boldness, the author, but even triumphing in that circumftance, the commons, on the fecond of February, refolved, "That the introduction of a letter addressed to Daniel Ponton, Efq; chairman of the quarter feffions at Lambeth, of which introduction John Wilkes, Efq; a member of the houfe, had confefied himself the author and publisher, was an infolent, fcandalous, and feditious libel, tending to inflame and tir up the minds of his majefty's fubjects to fedition, and to a total fubverfion of all good order, and legal government." At the fame time the house being informed, that one Mr. Allen had challenged Sir William Meredith Bart. for words which as a member he had spoken in the courfe 292 The HISTORY of the laft Seffion of Parliament. June of the debate, an order was iffued for Mr. Wilkes, however, like another Though the friends of Mr. Wilkes condemned the indifcreet introduction to Lord Weymouth's letter, which they confidered as the fource of all freth difficulties in the affairs of that gentleman, they now began to transfer the object of difpute from Mr. Wilkes and the adminiftration, to an important conteft between the free holders of Middlesex and the House of Commons. In this light even many members of the houfe appeared to view it, who, though no admirer of the perfon elected, nevertheless infifted that the electors had a right of choofing whom they pleafed, and ob ferved, in the courfe of feveral very fpirited debates, that the House of Commons was not a felf-conftituted power, acting by an inherent right, but an elected body, reftrained within the limits of a delegated authority; hence, as they were chofen, they could not difpute the right of their conftituents, without fapping the foundation of their own existence, and infringing the fundamental principles of the conftitution. They obferved, that the law of the land had regulated the qualifications of members to ferve in parliament, and that the freehol ders of every county had an indifputable title to return whom they thought proper, provided he was legally qualified. The conftitution, they remarked, had given no one county, or number of counties, a claim to fit in judgement upon, much less to dispute the choice of any other county, and if the freeholders them felves were not poffeffed of this privilege, it confequently followed, that it could not be poffeffed by people, whofe only importance arofe from their delegation, They therefore concluded, that let Mr. Wilkes's private character be what it would, ftill as he was not incapacited from ferving in parliament by the laws of the land, the House of Commons were conftitutionally obliged to receive him as a just reprefentative for the county of Middlesex. To these arguments, urged with great reason, and fupported with great firmness, it was anfwered, that in this country there was a law of usage, as well as a law of right, and that the law of ufage was held even fuperior to the actual law of property. On this occafion, the celebrated cafe of Richmond Park was inftanced, where, though every body knew the right was folely vefted in the crown, till the fubject claimed a footway, from the length of custom, and even triumphed over the claim of property, from having enjoyed the privilege of a foot path immemorially. To fhew the law or ufage of parlia ment 1759. The HISTORY of the laft Seffion of Parliament. mentin aftill clearer light, it was obferv. tution. The motive for granting parliamentary privilege originally, the friends for the expulfion reprefented, was no lefs obvious than it was falutary, it was to prevent the bufinefs of the kingdom from fuftaining any injury by the abfence of its fenators. The law of the land allowed a fubject to arrest the perfon of a debtor for the recovery of property; yet the law of parliament, repeatedly strengthened by the determination of the courts, made a particular exception in favour of members, and would not expofe any body entitled to a feat in either house to fuch a predicament, for fear the interest of the nation fhould be prejudiced by the lofs of a legiflator. "Here, faid the fpeakers on this fide of the qution, private good is facrificed to public utility, and the claim of justice is evidently fet afide for the common benefit of the nation; if reafon therefore allows fuch a privilege to the individual reprefentative of one particular place, it cannot furely deny an equal privilege to the collective repre 293 fensation of the whole people? The conftitution furely is as much affected where the letter of the law is infringed with regard to property, as with relation to franchife? Where is the line to be drawn? Shall one man be allowed a privilege which is denied to the united Houfe of Commons; or is the law of parliament right, where it fcreens a member from the payment of a debt; and is it wrong, where it pronounces upon the nature of elections? If parliament has no just title to exercife the privileg of expulfion, it has no juft title to the exercife of any other privilege; the fame custom, the fame propriety, which fupport the legality of their other privileges, fupport the legality of this, and it cannot be taken away, without violating the law of the land, which has fo repeatedly ratified he privileges of parliament, and violating the conftitution alfo, upon which the law of the land is evidently founded. The fpeakers against the expulfion have adopted a very extraordinary principle during the courfe of this debate, which is, that the commons want to infringe upon the liberties of the people, without ever recollecting, that the commons and the people are virtually the fame, and that any endeavour to make them separate bodies, is no lefs dangerous than it is prepofterous. If the commons in their reprefentative capacity have privileges which render them important, that importance increases the confequence of the people in their capacity of delegation; the people cannot be fecure, unless the commons are secure, they are infeparably connected both in intereft and in freedom, and though upon fome occafions the privilege of parliament may be a feeming oppreffion to individuals, the loss of it would be attended with very fatal effects to the whole community. maintain our conftitution in a state of vigour, the commons must have equal privileges with the peers, and the peers, as in the cafes of Lord Bacon and Lord Macclesfield, claim a power of expelling their members. Though did the commons even make an improper use of their privilege on the prefent occafion, in rejecting an imprifoned convict, the freeholders of Middlesex make a ftill more improper To ufe 294 The HISTORY of the laft Seffion of Parliament. Jun ufe of their rights in fending a man, fo circumstanced, as their reprefentative into parliament." Such was the general fcope of the arguments on both fides of the queftion, while the public waited, in the utmcft anxiety, to fee if any oppofition would be made to Mr. Wilkes, in confequence of a new writ for a fresh election on the 16th of March; a gentleman indeed, Mr. Charles Dingley, an eminent merchant of London, on the day of election appeared at the Huftings, defirous of offering his fervices to the county, but the torrent of popularity fwelled fo amazingly high in Mr. Wilkes's favour, that nobody was hardy enough to propofe him, and Mr. Wilkes was a third time elected by the freeholders, and the next day March the 17th, a third time rejected by the house. A fourth writ was now iffued, and Mr. Wilkes, in a long address to the county, made a more trenuous declaration, if poffible, than any of his former ones, to fight the constitutional combat, for the univerfal benefit of his country, telling the conftituents, that the manly fpirit they had exerted on the late elections, in direct oppofition to every art and intrigue of a corrupt adminiftration, could not fail of making a ftrong impreffion upon a fet of men who fought the ruin of public liberty, who had long lost all fight of national good, and who would not poffibly refrain from farther acts of defpotifm. Whatever the confequences might be, he informed them that they had done their duty, and established a fufficient claim to the admiration of latelt poterity. From the difficulty, nay the impoffibility, of finding any one freeholder at the laft election to propofe Mr. Dingley a candidate, it was at first imagined, that Mr. Wilkes would be again re-elected without the appearance of an oppofition. A little time, however, proved the fallibility of appearances, and produced an opponent, who, notwithstanding the univerfal obloquy he thereby expofed himself to, as well as the danger which was actually to be apprehended from the fury of an enraged populace, had neverthelefs fufficient refolution to enter upon fo arduous an undertaking. This opponent was the hon. Henry Lawes Luttrell, eldest fon of Lord Irnham (an Irish nobleman of large fortune) à lieutenant colonel of horie, and that very time a member for Boffiney in Cornwall. Mr. Luttrell accepted a nominal employment, the ftewardship of the Chiltern Hundred, on purpote to vacate his feat; and the public were inflamed with the most eager expectation of the day, which was to determine the conteft between Mr. Wilkes and this unexpected competitor. The day at laft arrived-and Colonel Luttrell, though policies had been opened upon his life, though every mode of intimidation, which party rage could dictate, was used to terrify him from his purpofe, and tho he was actually attacked by a prodigious multitude on his way to the place of election, reached the Huftings without any accident, and had 296 freeholders to give him their fuffrage.. Mr. Wilkes, however, had 1143, and the theriffs confequently declared him duly elected. But, on the 15th of April, two days after this declaration, the Houfe of Commons entering into the merits of the matter, refolved, "That Henry Lawes Luttrell, Efq; ought to have been returned a knight of the fhire to ferve in the prefent parliament for the county of Middlefex," and ordered the deputy clerk of the crown to amend the return, by rafing out the name of Mr. Wilkes, and inferting the name of Colonel Luttrell in its place. The commons at the fame time allowed fourteen days for any petition against the colonel's election, and within the fourteen were prefented with one figned by feveral very reputable freeholders, complaining that Lawes Luttrell, Efq; was unduly returned; the 8th of May was therefore fet apart for attending to the bufinefs of this com plaint, when the former resolution of the houfe was confirmed, and the parliament prorogued the day after. 1769. Locke on Perfonal Identity confidered. word perfon. This to me seems very unaccountable, who am not able to conceive how Mr. Locke's opinion of perfonal identity can be right, if his opinion of perfon be wrong. According to you, Mr. Locke's opinion of perfonal, identity is an opinion of the identity of what is not a perfon: you neverthelefs call yourfelf a defender of Mr. Locke's opinion of perfonal identity against an antagonist whofe very ingenious and fubtle arguments are levelled at Mr. Locke's opinion of the identity of what Mr. Locke calls a person. In the appendix to your defence, you tell us that the word perfon, according to the received fenfe in all claffical authors, ftands for a guife, character, quality, mask. But, alas! perfon, according to this definition, will not answer your purpose, for none of thefe things have confcioufnefs. Permit me to advife you to be reconciled to your friend, who calls that invifible being a perfon, of which perfon or guife is, only a fign. The figure is very commonly used by which we call the thing fignified by name of its character or g. Thus Mr. Locke defines perfon to be a thinking, intelligent being, that has reafon, reflection, &c. And it is the opion of this great man that the identity of this being confifts in consciousness. But against this opinion there lies mighty objection. Every perfon finds, by experience, that his confciousness undergoes a perpetual change; now whatever fuffers a change, becomes, different thing from what it was. Confequently, if perfonal identity confifts in confcioufnefs, this identity conits in what does not remain the ame; or, in other words, perfonal dentity confifts in diverfity. How diferent from this opinion of Mr. Locke as that of the author of pfalm 102, who addreffing the Creator of the unierfe, thus expreffes himself: "Thou, Lord, in the beginning haft laid the Foundation of the earth; and the Heavens are the work of thy hands. They fhall perish, but thou shalt enBure; they all fhall wax old as doth a garment, and as a vesture fhalt thou hange them, and they fhall be changd, but thou art the fame." Here we nd an infpired writer declaring the dentity of the fupreme Spirit to cont in immutability. 295 In p. 22 of your defence you quote from the Minute Philofopher what the author calls a demonftration against Locke's opinion. This famous demonfiration is, you fay, egregious, trifling, and may fafely be trufied with the reader. I readily agree with Bishop Berkeley, that what he calls a demonftration against Locke, really is fuch. I readily agree with you, that this demonftration may fafely be trusted with the reader; let me add, that it would be very unsafe for you to attempt to answer it. It was a favourite tenet of Mr. Locke, that the foul does not always think, and this opinion you likewife undertake to patronize; but it may be afked how you can reconcile this doctrine with what you advance at the foot of p. 32? where I find this affertion, Time unperceived is no time, abfolute time is a mere fiction. I will take it for granted that, when the foul perceives time, it thinks; but, according to you, there is no time, unless the foul perceives it; there is, confequently, no time, unless the foul thinks, therefore the foul thinks at all times, or always. I hope what I have faid will not prevent a replication from the ingenious author of the effay; I fhall read with pleafure whatever flows from his pen. I fhall add no more; but for your greater prefent fatisfaction refer you to the writings of the fagacious and worthy bishop of Carlisle, who, I am told, has written on the foul, and foul fleeping, in a very masterly manner. As for you, Sir, I believe it may be as well if you trouble yourself no more to write on these abitrufe matters. I am, Sir, Your most humble Servant, Bristol, May 18. C. BENSON. To the AUTHOR of the LONDON I SIR, MAGAZINE. Was highly entertained with Philanthropos's letter to Doctor N-1, p. 91. of you Magazine for February. What pains does he take to ridicule that gentleman, who is an honour to the univerfity of which he is a member, and greatly esteemed by all his acquaintance? Can Philanthropos make us believe that the doctor leffens himself in magnifying |