306 Ch. 21. 1777 Alderman Sawbridge's charge of corruption. VIOLENT LANGUAGE OF vehemence and exaggeration which they applied to every measure of administration, whether great or small, whether right or wrong; but like men who hoped some day to serve the Crown themselves, they refrained from touching the real point, and thereby causing irritation in a quarter where offence was neither forgotten nor forgiven. Such was the tone of Lord John Cavendish, of Burke and Fox. The only members who shewed no such prudent forbearance were Wilkes and Sawbridge. The former had nothing either to gain or lose by the favour or displeasure of the Court. Sawbridge, a coarse outspoken man, who thought that triennial parliaments were the remedy for all constitutional maladies, bluntly declared that the Civil List had been employed in corrupting both Houses by means of pensions, bribes and gratuities. This language called forth a storm of exclamations from the courtiers and King's friends behind the Treasury Bench. Several voices eagerly demanded that the words should be taken down. Burke interposed to allay the excitement, by suggesting with a touch of sarcasm, that Sawbridge only meant to imply that influence had been exercised. But the sturdy citizen adhered to his words, not without a secret sympathy and approbation on the part of the House, and no further notice was taken. The Civil List Bill, in which both Houses had doubtless a peculiar interest, was passed by large majorities. A singular incident, however, at SAWBRIDGE AND WILKES. tended the last stage of the proceedings. When a bill for the particular service of the Crown is presented for the Royal Assent, it had been customary for the Speaker to address some dutiful and complimentary expressions to the Throne. On this occasion, the Speaker, in accordance with the precedents, made an address, but his language so far from being dutiful or complimentary, was of a very different character. Standing at the bar of the Lords, the representative of the Commons addressed his Majesty in terms such as had never before been heard in that place and presence. He said, that at a time when the country was labouring under burthens almost too heavy to be borne, the Commons had not only granted his Majesty an immediate supply for the relief of his necessities, but also a large additional revenue, far beyond former precedents, and far beyond his Majesty's expenses. The King was then admonished to make a proper use of the funds which the Commons had so liberally granted. The Speaker concluded with a set phrase which might have been considered an empty compliment, or a sarcastic allusion to the parsimony of the Court. 307 Ch. 21. 1777 This language was highly resented as insolent Rigby's accusation against and disloyal by the whole tribe of courtiers; but, the Speaker. as the statement was strictly true, and the terms employed were not positively indecent, the more prudent of the King's friends thought it better to let the matter pass without further notice. Rigby, 308 INCONVENIENCES OF THE FIRST 1777 Ch. 21. however, whose coarse zeal and impudent servility could not be repressed, took occasion two days after the House had, according to the usual form, thanked the Speaker for his speech, to accuse him of grossly misrepresenting the sentiments of the House. Upon this the Speaker immediately desired that his speech and the vote of thanks should be read. Fox proposed a resolution expressly approving the conduct of the Chair; observing that it was impossible for Sir Fletcher Norton to retain his office if the House concurred in the opinion of the paymaster. To this the Speaker assented; but he went farther, and required that Fox's motion should be agreed to. A strong feeling evidently pervaded the House; and Lord North, who had witnessed with uneasiness the presumptuous effrontery of his subordinate, gave him no support. Rigby then lowered his tone, and endeavoured to evade the question by an adjournment; but the House was in no temper for a compromise, and Fox's motion was adopted nemine contradicente. Motion to admit strangers to the House. A motion was made this session to appropriate a portion of the galleries for strangers, and to admit them regularly during the debates. This proposal, however, met with little support; and, though some accommodation has been provided for strangers in later times, the House has never gone the length of sanctioning their presence by formal resolution; and, to this day, it is competent to any member to have the galleries cleared ADMISSION OF STRANGERS. by merely noticing the fact that strangers are present. The Standing Orders still prohibit the introduction of strangers. For many years after the Revolution, the orders were, as a general rule, enforced; but, after the Hanoverian succession, a greater laxity took place, until at length the admission of strangers was practically the rule, their exclusion the exception. From the time when the House yielded to the press the right of publishing its debates and proceedings, the privilege of sitting with closed doors was rarely exercised, and has long since been wholly discontinued. The introduction of strangers under this irregular license caused great confusion and even interruption of business. The lobbies were so thronged with candidates for admission that members could with difficulty make their way into the House. On great days the galleries were crowded with strangers, who occupied the seats to the exclusion of members. Sometimes they mingled with the members on the floor itself; and, on very exciting occasions, they have been known to push far beyond the bar to the very centre of the House. The House of Commons in those days was altogether a very disorderly assembly; and, under a weak or irresolute Speaker, the debates were often conducted in a most tumultuous manner. As an instance of the authority exercised by e Hist. Temple Luttrell's Speech on introducing the Motion.-Parl. 309 Ch. 21. 1777 310 Ch. 21. 1777 OFFENSIVE CONDUCT OF MEMBERS. the famous speaker Onslow, it was mentioned that he would not suffer members to stand on the floor, or by the Chair talking; and that, when members transgressed his rules, he would call them to order, and desire the House to support him. The violence of language and the personality which characterised the debates gave rise to offensive and indecent expressions of applause and dissent. The bad speakers were treated with a rudeness which the good nature and good breeding of a modern House of Commons would hardly tolerate. A general coughing, sneezing, hawking, spitting, blowing of noses, assailed the unfortunate member who rose at the wrong time, or who had not the art of pleasing his impatient and fastidious audience. According to a contemporary account, the House of Commons of 1777 were instantly seized with a sort of influenza on such an occasion.g We may justly boast of the improved decorum and civility of modern manners; nevertheless, if a past generation could retort upon posterity, a member of a parliament of George the Third, who never thought of going down to the House but in full costume, with bag, wig, and sword, would be shocked at the spectacle of honourable gentlemen lounging on the benches in round hats, and of a f Rigby in the same debate. • Public Advertiser, 27th May, 1777, on a speech of Fox's this session, with reference to Indian affairs, says there were cries of bravo and clapping of hands; but these vulgar ebullitions were, the reporter takes care to mention, 'unprecedented.'- Parl. Hist. xix. 283. |