and delivered in his qualification. But he soon received the obvious answer that being in custody at the bar, the acts affecting members sitting in the House, did not apply to his case.1

Libel upon

mouth.

But a graver matter in which Wilkes had involved himself, was now to be considered. He had published a letter from Lord Weymouth to the magistrates Lord Weyof Surrey, advising them to call in the military for the suppression of riots; with a prefatory letter of his own in which he had applied the strongest language to the Secre tary of State; and had designated the late collision between the troops and the populace in St. George's Fields, as a bloody massacre. Here again, a strange and irregular proceeding was resorted to. The letter was a libel upon a Secretary of State, as an officer of the Crown; who, being also a peer, complained of it as a breach of privilege. But instead of proceeding against the author in the House of Lords, the paper was voted an insolent, scandalous, and seditious libel; and a conference was held with the Commons on the conduct of Wilkes, as a member of their House. They immediately took the matter up; and rushing headlong into a quarrel which did not concern them, called upon Wilkes for his defence. He boldly confessed himself the author of the prefatory letter; and gloried in having brought "to light that bloody scroll" of Lord Weymouth. The letter was voted to be an insolent, scandalous, and seditious libel. A motion was then made for the expulsion of Wilkes, Resolutions founded upon several distinct grounds: first, this for his expul last seditious libel, which, if a breach of privilege, was cognizable by the Lords, and not by the Commons; and, if a seditious libel, was punishable by law: secondly, the publication of the "North Briton," five years before, for which Wilkes was already under sentence, and had suffered expul

sion.

1 Com. Journ. Nov. 14th, 1768, to Feb. 1st, 1769; Cavendish Deb. i. 46131.

2 Lord' Journ. xxxii. 213.

His election

tion.1

8

licted, Wilkes was immediately reëlected without opposiThe next day, on the motion of Lord declared void. Strange, the House resolved that Mr. Wilkes "having been, in this session of Parliament, expelled th House, was and is incapable of being elected a member, to serve in this present Parliament." The election was accordingly declared void, and a new writ issued. There were precedents for this course; for this was not the first time the Commons had exceeded their jurisdiction; but it could not be defended upon sound principles of law. If by a vote of the House, a disability, unknown to the law, could be created, any man who became obnoxious might, on some ground or other, be declared incapable. Incapacity would then be declared, not by the law of the land, but by the arbitrary will of the House of Commons. On the other hand, the House felt strongly that their power of expulsion was almost futile, if their judgment could be immediately set aside by the electors; or, as it was put by General Conway, "if a gentleman who returns himself for any particular borough, were to stand up and say that he would, in opposition to the powers of the House, insist upon being a a member of Parliament." 4

Again reelected, and election declared void.

Again, with still increasing popularity, Wilkes was reelected without opposition; and again a new writ was issued. In order to prevent a repetition of these fruitless proceedings, an alternative, already pointed out by Mr. Grenville, was now adopted. Colonel Luttrell, a member, vacated his seat, and Colonel Lut- offered himself as a candidate. Wilkes was, of course, returned by a large majority. He received one thousand one hundred and forty-three votes; Colonel Luttrell only two hundred and ninety-six. There were also

Opposed by

trell.

1 So stated by a member who was present; Parl. Hist. xvi. 580.

2 Feb. 17th, 1769; Cavendish Deb. i. 345.

3 See May's Law of Parliament (4th Ed.), 59; Townsend's Mem in. 10 Cavendish Deb. i. 352.

two other candidates, Mr. Sergeant Whitaker and Mr. Roache, the former of whom had five votes, and the latter none. The Commons immediately pronounced the return of Again returnWilkes to be null and void; and, having called for onel Luttrell ed; but Colthe poll-books, proceeded to vote, though not seated. without a strenuous opposition, that Henry Lawes Luttrell ought to have been returned.1 To declare a candidate, supported by so small a number of votes, the legal represen tative of Middlesex, was a startling step in the progress of this painful contest; but the ultimate seating of another candidate, notwithstanding Wilkes's majorities, was the inevitable result of the decision which affirmed his incapacity.

Leave was given to petition the House against Colonel Luttrell's election, within fourteen days. Of this permission the electors soon availed themselves; and, on the 8th May, they were heard by counsel, at the bar of the House. Their arguments were chiefly founded upon the original illegality of the vote, by which Wilkes's incapacity had been declared; and were ably supported in debate, particularly by Mr. Wedderburn, Mr. Burke, and Mr. George Grenville; 2 but the election of Colonel Luttrell was confirmed by a majority of sixty-nine.

Popularity of
Wilkes.

Wilkes was now effectually excluded from Parliament; 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.

So dangerous a precedent was not suffered to rest unques tioned. Not only the partisans of Wilkes, but the Efforts to restatesmen and lawyers opposed to the government, continued to protest against it, until it was con- against him. demned.

verse the pro ceedings

1 April 14th, 1769; Cavendish Deb. i. 360-386. Ayes 197, Noes 143 -Majority 54.

2 Cavendish Deb. i. 406.

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 authorized by the law and custom of Parliament." 1 On the 31st January, Mr. Dowdeswell repeated his attack in another form, but with no better success.2

Lord Rock

The matter was now again taken up in the House of Lords. On the 2d February, in committee on Ingham's mo- the state of the nation, Lord Rockingham moved tion, 20 Feb., 1770. a resolution similar to that of Mr. Dowdeswell. Though unsuccessful, it called forth another powerful speech from Lord Chatham, and a protest signed by forty-two peers. The rejection of this motion was immediately 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 accuse 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.* 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's 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

1 Parl. Hist. xvi. 797.

2 lbid. 800

8 Ibid. 814.

4 Ibid. 823.

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.1

The scene of this protracted contest was now varied for

66

a time. Appeals to Parliament had been made The city adin vain; and the city of London resolved to carry dress to the king, 1770. up their complaints to the throne. A petition had been presented to the king in the previous year, to which no 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 forever from his councils." 2

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." &

The Commons, whose acts had been assailed by the remonstrance, were prompt in rebuking the city, Joint address and pressing forward in support of the king. Houses to the They declared the conduct of the city "highly king.

1 Parl. Hist. xvi. 830-833; Cavendish Deb. i. 435.

2 The address is printed at length; Cavendish Deb. i. 576.

of both

9 Having returned this answer, the king is said to have turned round to his courtiers, and burst out laughing. — Public Advertiser, cited in Lord Rockingham's Mem. ii. 174.