Imagens da página
PDF
ePub

in which the rankeft Tory principles were countenanced more than in any period of our history prior to 1760. The cafe has been fo partially quoted, even by a perfon (Jeremiah Dyson, Efq.) whofe fole merit here was an affumed accuracy, which he never poffeffed, that I fhall defire it may be read to the House from our journals, when it will appear to be resolved, "That Robert Walpole, Efq. having been this feffion of Parliament committed a prifoner to the Tower of London, and expelled this Houfe, for an high breach of truft in the execu tion of his office, and notorious corruption when Secretary at War, was and is incapable of being elected a member to serve in the prefent Parliament." Now, Sir, I must observe, that even that Parliament, at an æra fo hoftile to the liberties not only of England, but of Europe, did not venture to adjudge him incapable of being elected a member to ferve in that Parliament only because he was expelled; but in the body of the resolution itself they add another reason, which would be trifling, if one was fufficient and adequate to the point, the high breach of trust in the execution of his office, notorious corruption, when Secretary at War. As trustees for the public, they affigned a cause which must interest every member of the community, In the cafe of Mr. Wilkes, the late majority declared, “That John Wilkes, Efq. having been in this feffion of Parliament expelled this Houfe, was and is incapable of being elected a member to ferve in this prefent Parliament." The having being expelled, whether justly or unjustly, is the only reafon they gave to the public. I fhall not yet, Sir, difmifs the cafe of Mr. Walpole. It will prove another propofition I have maintained, the injustice of the late majority in seating Mr. Luttrell in this House. The fact is, that the House of Commons having expelled Mr. Walpole, ordered a new writ to iffue. At the fubfequent election Mr. Walpole was again restored. A Mr. Taylor, who had a minority of votes, petitioned, but the election was vacated. Had the doctrine propagated by the late majority, and by the noble Lord in the blue ribband, been.

[ocr errors]

juft,

juft, Mr. Taylor ought to have been feated; the House should have refolved, he ought to have been returned, and the groffeft injustice was actually done to him. But even that Parliament, whofe memory the nation execrates, dared not to proceed to fuch enormous wickedness. It was referved for the prefent æra, when fhame has loft its blufh. Mr. Luttrell was for fome years declared to reprefent the county of Middlefex, although a great majority of the freeholders abhorred and reprobated the idea, and on every public occafion declared it.

Sir, when the strong reasons on which any doctrine is founded bear me out, I care little about precedents. I recollect, however, another inftance of Mr. Woollafton, which directly meets an objection which has been much relied on, "That expulfion neceffarily implies incapacity." It is the last I fhall defire the clerk to read. I wifh him to turn to the journals of February 20, 1698, where he will find it refolved, "That Richard Woollafton, Efq. being a member of the House of Commons, and having fince been concerned and acted as a receiver of the duties, &c. contrary to the act made in the 5th and 6th of His Majefty's reign, &c. be expelled this House." Now, Sir, I defy all the fubtilety of the most expert Court lawyer amongst us, all fophiftry of the bar, to reconcile this cafe with the most favourite Court tenet, "That expulfion implies incapacity, because the fact is entertained, that a new writ did iffue for the borough of Whitchurch, and that Mr. Woollafton was re-elected, and fat in the fame Parliament." Incapacity therefore does not neceffarily follow expulfion.

I am ready to admit, that where a clear legal incapacity exifts, all votes given to a person incapacitated are thrown away, if they are knowingly given to them. But, Sir, I beg leave to affert, that this was not the cafe in the Middlesex election. Mr. Wilkes was qualified by the law of the land, and the freeholders, who perfectly understood the clear point of law as well as their own rights, expreffly declared in the petition prefented on the 29th of April to the House, "Your peti

tioners

tioners beg leave to represent to this honourable House, that the faid Henry Lawes Luttrell had not the majority of legal votes at the said election; nor did the majority of the freeholders, when they voted for John Wilkes, Efq. mean thereby to throw away their votes, or to wave their right of reprefentation; nor would they by any means have chofen to be represented by the said Henry Lawes Luttrell, Efq. Your petitioners therefore apprehend he cannot fit as the reprefentative of the faid county in Parliament, without a manifeft infringement of the rights and privileges of the freeholders thereof."

This House, Sir, is created by the People, as the other is by the King. What right can the majority have to fay to any county, city, or borough, you fhall not have a particular perfon your representative, only because he is obnoxious to us, when he is qualified by law? Every county, city, or borough, has an equal right with all other counties, cities, and boroughs, to its particular deputy in the great Council of the nation. Each is diftinct, free, and independent. I do not mean, Sir, now to enter into the argument, whether it may not be fit to give this House the power of expulfion in the first instance for very flagrant and infamous crimes, either committed, or of which the member may be convicted, fubfequent to his election. That might seem an appeal to the People, the fending the member back to his conftituents. If, however, they differ in opinion from the Houfe, and re-elect him, he ought to fit, because he claims his feat under the fame authority each member holds his, a delegation from the People. The first appeal to the conftituents may feem juft. The appeal certainly lies to them, and it is by their representation only you are a House of Parliament. They have the right of chufing for themselves, not you for them.

Sir, I will venture to affert, that the law of the land, by which all Courts of Judicature are equally bound, is overturned by the powers lately exercifed by a majority of the Houfe. The right of election is placed not in you, but in

other

other hands, in thofe of your conftituents. Your predeceffors not only robbed a particular county of its noblest privileges, but they changed the conftitution of a Houfe of Commons. The freeholders of this county and the nation abhorred the action, and poured their execrations on the authors. But, Sir, if you can expel whom you please, and reject those dif agreeable to you, the House will be felf-created and felf-exifte ing. The original idea of your representing the People will be loft. The confequences of fuch a principle are to the highest degree alarming. A more forcible engine of despotism cannot be put into the hands of any Minifter. I wish gentle. men would attend to the plain confequences of fuch proceedings, and confider how they may be brought home to themfelves. A member hated or dreaded by the Minister is accused of any crime; for instance, of having written a pretended libel: I mention this inftance as the crime leaft likely to be committed by most of the members of this House. No proof whatever is given on oath before you, because you cannot administer an oath. The Minifter invades immediately the right of Juries. Before any trial, he gets the paper voted a libel, and the member whom he wishes to have expelled, is deemed to be the author; which fact you are not competent to try. Expulfion means, as it is pretended, incapacity. The member is adjudged incapable; he cannot be re-elected; and thus is he excluded from Parliament. A Minifter by fuch maneuvers may garble a House of Commons till not a single enemy of his own, or friend of his country, is left here, and the representation of the People is in a great degree loft. Corruption had not lent defpotifm wings to fly fo high in the times of Charles I., or the Minifter of that day would have been contented with expelling Hampden and the four other heroes, because they had immediately been adjudged incapable, and he thereby incapaciated them from thwarting in Parliament the arbitrary measures of a wicked Court.

Upon

Upon all these confiderations, in order to quiet the minds of the people, to restore our violated conftitution to its original purity, to vindicate the injured rights of this county in particular, and of all the electors of this kingdom, and that not the leaft trace of the violence and injuftice of the last Parliament may difgrace our records, I humbly move, "That the refolution of this House, of the 17th of February, 1769, That John Wilkes, Efq. having been in this feffion of Parliament expelled this Houfe, was and is incapable of fitting in the prefent Parliament,' be expunged from the journals of this Houfe, as being fubverfive of the rights of the whole body of electors of this kingdom."

Mr. Wilkes, February 21, 1775

The urgency of the matter I am going to move, induces me to take this early notice of it, as it is interesting to our conftitution, and the rights and liberties of a free people. I need hardly, I prefume, mention, that what I allude to is the Weftminster election; the refult of which is a novelty in the laws of this country and in the laws of Parliament. I could not imagine that any Returning Officer would be bold enough to commit an infraction of those laws which have cost our ancestors fo much trouble. I was therefore surprised that the High Bailiff of Westminster fhould, contrary to the common practice at elections, refuse to make a return, notwithstanding a fcrutiny had been demanded by the unfuccefsful candidate. It was an attempt to alter the eftablifhed laws of the land; which expreffly declared, that the officer fhould make a return within the time limited by Act of Parliament, according to the voice or fenfe of a legal majority of voters. [Hear! Hear! Hear! now refounded from the oppofite fide of the Houfe.] I am sensible of the partiality of some gentlemen of a certain defcription, and therefore I am not furprifed at their exclamations of Hear! Hear! Hear! But I cannot conceive why the phrase legal majority fhould be fo particularly noticed by them. I confefs

« AnteriorContinuar »