Imagens da página
PDF
ePub

the ever steady friends of liberty and their country, poured balm into my wounds. They are healed. Scarcely a scar remains but I feel, deeply feel, the wounds given to the Conftitution. They are ftill bleeding. This House only can heal them. They only can restore the constitution to its former state of purity, health, and vigour. May I be permitted to point out the mode of the cure, and the falutary methods I think you ought to apply? Before I proceed to the reinedy, I fhall beg the indulgence of the House to state the cafe, and I hope they will forgive a dry but candid narrative of facts, because I mean to argue from them. I will give them as briefly as poffible, and with all the impartiality of a by-ftandeṛ.

"Mr. Wilkes was firft elected for the county of Middlesex on the 28th of March, 1768: he was expelled the 3d of February, 1769, and the second time chofen, without oppofition, the 16th of the fame month: on the day following, the election was vacated, and he was declared by a majority of the House incapable of being elected into that Parliament. Notwithstanding this refolution of the Houfe, he was a third time, on the 16th of March, elected without oppofition; for I fuppofe the ridiculous attempt of a Mr. Dingley, who had not a fingle freeholder to propofe or vote for him, can hardly be called an oppofition. That election, however, was declared void the next day. On the 13th of April Mr. Wilkes was a fourth time elected, by a majority of 1143 votes, against Mr. Luttrel, who had only 296. The fame day the House voted, "That Mr. Luttrell ought to have been returned." On the 25th of April a petition was prefented to the Houfe, from the freeholders of Middlefex, by a worthy Baronet, (Sir George Saville,) who is not only an honour to this House, but to human nature; notwithstanding which the Houfe, on the 8th of May, refolved, "That Henry Lawes Luttrell, Efq. is duly elected a Knight of the Shire to ferve in this prefent Parliament for the county of Middlefex."

Thefe

These are the leading facts. I will not trouble the clerks, Sir, to read all the refolutions to which I have alluded: they are most of them fresh in the memories of gentlemen; I only call for that of February, 1769, respecting incapacity as the certain confequence of expulfion.

The clerk having read the refolution, I think it fair to ftate to the House the whole of what I intend to move in confequence of the facts I have stated, and the refolution first read. The first motion I intend is, that the resolution of this House, of the 17th of February, 1769, "That John Wilkes, Efq. having been, in this feffion of Parliament, expelled this House, was, and is incapable of being elected a member to ferve in this present Parliament." This I hold of neceffity to restore the Conftitution, which that refolution tears up by the roots. I fhall then, if I fucceed, if justice and a reverence for the Conftitution prevail in this Parliament, proceed to the other motion, "That all the declarations, orders and refolutions, of this House, respecting the election of John Wilkes, Efq. for the county of Middlefex, as a void election, the due and legal election of Henry Lawes Luttrell, Efq. into the last Parliament, for the county of Middlesex, and the incapacity of John Wilkes, Efq. to be elected a member to serve in the faid Parliament, be expunged from the journals of this House, as being fubverfive of the rights of the electors of this kingdom.”

The words of the refolution, of the 17th of February, 1769, which I mean particularly to combat, are, "was and is incapable," and the explanation of them the fame day in the order for a new writ" in the room of John Wilkes, Efq. who is adjudged incapable of being elected a member to ferve in this prefent Parliament." In the first formation of this government, in the original fettlement of our Conftitution, the people exprefly referved to themselves a very confiderable part of the legislative power, which they consented to share jointly with a King and Houfe of Lords. From the great population of our inland, this power could not be exercised perfon

[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors]

ally, and therefore the many were compelled to delegate that power to a few, who thus became their deputies and agents only, their representatives. It follows directly, from the very idea of choice, that fuch choice must be free and uncontrolled, admitting of no reftrictions but the law of the land, to which Kings and Lords are equally subject, and what must arise from the nature of the truft. A Peer of Parliament, for instance, cannot be elected a Member of the House of Commons, because he already forms a part of another branch of the fame legislative body. A lunatic has a natural incapacity. Other inftances might be mentioned, but thofe two are fufficient. The freedom of election is then the common right of the people, their fair and just share of power, and I hold it to be the most glorious inheritance of every subject of this realm, the nobleft, and, I truft, the most solid part of that beautiful fabric, the English Conftitution. Here I might lean, Sir, on the most respectable authorities which can be cited, the Supreme Judicature of the kingdom, and the venerable Judges of former ages, as well as of our own times. I met them accidentally this morning in the courfe of my reading, as an old friend (the Duke of Grafton) of Wilkes and Liberty, now, alas, lost to every fenfe of duty to his country, frequently tells another affembly, he accidentally meets all the tirefome quotations he makes. The House of Peers, in the cafe of Afhby and White in 1709, determined, "a man has a right to his freehold by the common law, and the common law having annexed his right of voting to his freehold, it is of the nature of his freehold, and must depend upon it." On the fame occafion likewife they declared, "it is abfurd to fay, the elector's right of chufing is founded upon the law and cuftom of Parliament. It is an original right, part of the conftitution of this kingdom, as much as a Parliament is, and from whence the perfons elected to ferve in Parliament do derive their authority, and can have no other but that which is given to them by those that have the original right to chuse them." The greatest

[merged small][ocr errors]

law authorities, both ancient and modern, agree in opinion, that every subject of the realm, not disqualified by law, is eligible of common right. Lord Coke, Lord Chief Justice Holt, and Mr. Justice Blackstone, are the only authorities I fhall cite. I regard not, Sir, the flavifh courtly doctrines propagated by lawyers in either House of Parliament, as to the rights of the subject, no more than I do as to what they call high treason and rebellion. Such doctrines are delivered here only to be reported elsewhere. These men have their reward. But the venal tongue of a prostitute Advocate or Judge is best anfwered by the wife and fober pen of the fame man, when in a former cool moment, unheated by party rage, or faction, after the fulleft deliberation, he gave to the nation, to the present age, and to pofterity, a fair and impartial detail of their undoubted rights, and when he laid down in clear and express terms the plain law of the land. Lord Coke fays, "He which is eligible of common right, cannot be disabled by the fame ordinance in Parliament, unless it had been by act of Parliament.” Lord Chief Justice Holt declares, "The election of Knights belongs to the freeholders, and it is an original right, vefted in, and infeparable from, the freehold, and can no more be fevered from their freehold, than their freehold itself can be taken away." Mr. Juftice Blackstone, in the first book of his Commentaries, has the following words: "Subject to these restrictions and disqualifications, every subject of the realm is eligible of common right." This common right of the subject, Sir, was violated by the majority of the laft House of Commons, and I affirm that they, and in particular, if I am rightly informed, the noble Lord with the blue ribband committed high treafon against Magna Charta. This Houfe only, without the leaft interference of the other parts of the Legislature, took upon them to make the law. They adjudged me incapable of being elected a member to serve in that Parliament, although I am qualified by the law of the land; and the noble Lord declared, "if any other candidate had only fix votes, he

2

would

would feat him for Middlefex." I repeat it, Sir, this violence was a direct infringement of Magna Charta, high treafon against the facred charta of our liberties. The words to which I allude ought always to be written in letters of gold: "No freeman can be diffeized of his freehold, or liberties, or free customs, unless by the lawful judgement of his peers, or by the law of the land." By the conduct of that majority, and of the noble Lord, they affumed to themselves the power of making the law, and at the fame moment invaded the rights of the People, the King, and the Lords. The two laft tamely acquiefced in the exercife of a power, which had been in a great inftance fatal to their predeceffors, had put an end to their very existence; but the People, Sir, and in particular the spirited freeholders of this county, whofe ruling paffion is the love of liberty, have not yet forgiven the attack made on their rights. So dangerous a precedent of violence and injustice, which may in future times be cited by a defpotic Minister of the Crown, ought to be expunged from the journals of this House.

I have heard and read much of precedents to justify the proceedings of the majority in the last House of Commons. I own, Sir, I value very little the doctrine of precedents. There is fcarcely any new villany under the Sun. A precedent can never justify any action that is in itfelf wicked; a robbery, for inftance, on the heaths of Hounslow or Bagfhot, of which there are innumerable precedents. The baseft actions may be justified by precedents drawn from bad times and bad men. The fole question is, whether this power is not a direct ufurpation on the rights of the People? If that is proved, I care not how long the ufurpation has continued, how often been practifed. It is high time to put an end to it. It was the cafe of general warrants. One precedent, however, the most infifted upon, I must take notice of, because it is faid fully to come up to the point; but, in my opinion, in almost every part it proves the contrary of what it has been brought to support; I mean the remarkable cafe of Mr. Walpole in 1711, a period

« AnteriorContinuar »