DEBATES ON THE MIDDLESEX ELECTION, ETC.
Lord North, with whose administration commences a momentous era in the annals of Great Britain, was eldest son to the Earl of Guildford. In private life he was one of the most amiable and worthy of men, and he was a man of elegant acquirements. In public life, also, he was scarcely less honoured. Brought up amidst official duties, and aiming constantly at legislatorial distinction, he had acquired eminent skill in managing a debate, while his good humour and equanimity of temper secured to him a greater share of esteem and affection than was perhaps ever possessed by any other minister. Yet his estimable qualities and his political skill had not sufficient potency to disarm opposition. In the very outset of his administration, indeed, the opposition made him feel that he had not taken possession of a bed of roses; or, at least, roses without thorns. The principal object of the late debates in the house of lords was to procure a vote in favour of the Middlesex electors: with the same end in view, Mr. Dowdeswell now moved another resolution in the commons; namely, “That by the law of the land, and the law and usage of parliament, no person eligible of common right can be incapacitated by a resolution of the house, but by an express act of parliament only.” This undeniable proposition placed ministers in a dilemma, for it was only a prelude to others, and if they agreed to it and rejected those that followed, they would seem to resist conclusions from premises they had themselves conceded; while if they rejected it, it would appear as if the house of commons was a capricious court; a court neither bound by law nor by the usages of parliament. The debate on the question was one of great violence; and in the course of it, Colonel Barre compared the state to a vessel in a storm which had parted with her mainmast (Grafton,) and was trying to sail under a jury-mast (North). The new premier acknowledged that the storm was great, but asserted that the ship was not compelled to hang out lights for pilots, as her own crew were capable of conducting her safely into port. And so it proved. North avoided the snare laid for him by moving as an amendment, “That the judgment of the house on the Middlesex election is conformable to law and the usage of parliament,” which was eventually carried by a large majority.
On the 2nd of February, pursuant to notice, the Marquess of Rockingham made a similar motion to that of Mr. Dowdeswell in the house of lords. He moved, “That the house of commons, in the exercise of its judicature in matters of elections, is bound to judge according to the law of the land, and the known and established law and custom of parliament, which is part thereof” This was opposed by Lord Sandwich on the ground of improper interference with the lower house, which, if aggrieved, had the means of redress in its own power. Lord Sandwich was answered by Lord Chatham. In the course of his speech, Sandwich had alluded to the expulsion of Lionel, Earl of Middlesex, and the great Lord Bacon, “for certain crimes and misdemeanours,” from which he argued that the peers now ought to take no more notice of the expulsion of Wilkes, than the commons then had taken notice of the expulsion pronounced by their lordships on the above-named noble offenders. To this point Chatham replied: “Neither of these cases bear any analogy to the present case. They affected only themselves: the rights of no constituent body were affected by them. It is not the person of Mr. Wilkes we complain of; as an individual he is personally out of the dispute. The cause of complaint, the great cause is, that the inherent rights and franchises of the people are in this case invaded, trampled upon, annihilated. Lord Bacon and Lord Middlesex represented no county or city: the rights of no freeholder, the franchises of no elector, were destroyed by their expulsion!” In his speech, Chatham declaimed with great severity against the gross dereliction of principle shown by the commons. They were, indeed, he said, the proper protectors of their own rights and privileges; but he lamented that they had, by their recent conduct, forgotten those privileges, and had added to the long list of venality from Esau to the present day. The vote of the commons which made Colonel Luttrell representative for Middlesex, he maintained, was a gross invasion of law and of the rights of election; a dangerous violation of the constitution; a treacherous surrender of privileges; and a corrupt sacrifice of honour. He added, that to gratify the resentment of certain individuals, the laws had been despised and destroyed, and that since the commons had slavishly obeyed the commands of his majesty’s ministers, and proved themselves corrupt, it was necessary for their lordships to step forward and oppose themselves, on the one hand, to the justly incensed and intemperate rage of the people, and, on the other to the criminal and malignant conduct of his majesty’s ministers: their lordships were the constitutional barrier between the extremes of liberty and prerogative. The house was excited, but the motion was negatived by a large majority. On the ministerial side, the Earl of Marchmont then moved, “That any resolution of the lords directly or indirectly impeaching a judgment of the house of commons, in a matter where their jurisdiction is competent final, and conclusive, would be a violation of the constitutional right of the commons, tending to make a breach between the two houses of parliament, and leading to general confusion.” In his speech, the Earl lost his temper and his discretion, imprudently hinting that if the opposition went one step further it would be necessary to call in the aid of Foreign assistance. He was called to order by the Duke of Richmond, and when he attempted to explain, he found himself unable, and Lord Mansfield was compelled to relieve him, by declaring as a lawyer and a statesman, that their lordships had no right to interfere in any determination of the commons. The Earl of Egmont pursued the same course, and declared that the people were guilty of treason in offering such petitions as they had recently offered to his majesty. The Earl of Chatham again rose, and after thanking Lord Egmont in an ironical strain for his lenity in allowing the petitioners to wear their heads, he defended the petitions as praiseworthy and constitutional, and re-asserted that the house of lords had a right to interfere, when either an invasion of the people’s liberty was attempted, or an unconstitutional determination made. This was in reply to the statement of Lord Mansfield, and he then praised the abilities of that nobleman at the expense of his honour, honesty, and patriotism. Chatham next complained of the ministerial motion, and of the late hour—for it was midnight—at which it had been made. He proposed an adjournment for two days. “If,” he exclaimed, “the constitution must be wounded, let it not receive its mortal stab at this dark hour, when honest men are asleep in their beds, and when only felons and assassins are seeking for prey.” Ministers, however, seem to have acted upon the well-known adage, that “delays are dangerous.” The adjournment was rejected, and at two o’clock in the morning Marchmont’s motion was carried. Protests were entered against both decisions, the former being signed by forty-two, and the latter by forty peers.
Similar discussions led to similar results in the house of commons. On the 5th of February a debate was there entered upon, in which the opposition urged that the expulsion of Wilkes had been determined by ministers in council, and a motion was also made to bring in a bill to regulate and define the consequences of expulsion from the house; but the ministers in each instance were victorious. The exertions of the opposition, however, were warmly supported by a large majority of the liverymen of London, who busied themselves in getting up memorials and remonstrances, and hence they were nothing daunted by their repeated defeats. Ministers were, indeed, attacked upon other points of their policy besides the matter of Wilkes Thus, on the 2nd of March, Lord Craven, acting with the opposition, moved an address to the throne, beseeching his majesty forthwith to take proper steps for such an increase of seamen in the royal navy as should effectually preserve the honour and security of his; majesty’s kingdom and colonies. This was made the medium of severe censures on the dismissal of able officers for their votes in parliament, and also on the entire management of the navy. Earl Chatham supported the motion, and condemned the conduct of ministers in this particular branch of the national service, as base and unworthy. In his speech he again adverted to his favourite topic; that of the secret influence which was at work near the throne. This influence he denounced as dangerous, base, unconstitutional, and wicked; and maintained that it had occasioned all the unhappiness of the nation, and created confusion in the government of the colonies. He then asserted that this invisible influence was still working for evil, for although the favourite (Bute) was gone to Turin, Mazarine absent was Mazarine still; and his influence by means of agents was potent as ever. Then, raising his voice, he exclaimed, “This country was sold at the late peace! We were sold by the court of Turin to the court of France!” Chatham then indirectly accused the king of insincerity and treachery to himself, personally, during the time that he was minister; asserting that after he had given his approbation to plans and measures one week, he would let them vanish into air the next, and that all his promises and assurances were broken through an in-invisible influence. The king was defended by the Duke of Grafton, who hinted that the intellect of Chatham was affected; but this only drew forth a repetition of the accusation in stronger language. “I rise,” said he, “neither to deny nor retract, nor to explain away the words I have spoken. As for his majesty, I have always found him everything gracious and amiable in the closet; so amiably condescending as to promise, in every repeated audience, not only to forgive, but to supply the defects of health by his cheerful support, and by the ready assistance of all his immediate dependents. Instead of this, all the obstacles and difficulties which attended every great and public measure did not arise from those out of government: they were suggested, nourished, and supported by that secret influence I have mentioned, and by the industry of those very dependents; first by secret treachery, then by official influence, and afterwards in public councils. A long train of these practices has at length unwillingly convinced me that there is something behind the throne greater than the king himself.”
It seems clear that when the Earl of Chatham made these assertions, the councils of the king were no longer biassed by the influence of the Earl of Bute; but, notwithstanding, the charges made all the impressions on the public mind which he could have desired. Some even declared that they knew the secret agents that went between the absent lord, the princess dowager and the king, and Mr. Dyson, Mr. Bradshaw, both placemen and members of parliament, and subsequently, Mr. Jenkinson (afterwards Baron Hawkesbury and Earl of Liverpool,) were expressly named as the principal of the parasites. The popular credulity on this subject appeared to receive confirmation from the conduct of the king towards the “good citizens” of London. Four days after this debate in the house of lords the common hall of the city took into consideration a memorial complaining that a petition which had been presented to his majesty by the citizens remained unanswered. This memorial, after the lord mayor Beckford had delivered an exciting harangue, was adopted by acclamation, and with three rounds of applause. At first the king refused to hear this memorial; but he at length consented, and it was carried up to St. James’s on the 14th of March by the lord mayor, and more than two hundred common-councilmen, liverymen, and city officers. It was read to the king as he sat upon his throne, and perhaps the ears of royalty were never destined to hear stronger remonstrances than this memorial contained. It told him that secret and evil counsellors, combined with a corrupt parliament, robbed the people of their dearest rights, and that they had done a deed more ruinous in its consequences than the levying of ship-money by Charles I., or the dispensing power assumed by James IL, and which deed must vitiate all the further proceedings of the present parliament; it called God and man to witness that the citizens would not be thus cheated of their liberties; and that as they were gained by the stern virtues of their ancestors, so they should be preserved by themselves; and it concluded by praying that the king would dissolve the present parliament, and remove from him all evil counsellors. With a clouded brow the king in reply pronounced the contents of this memorial to be disrespectful to himself, injurious to his parliament, and irreconcilable to the principles of the constitution; and he asserted that he had ever made the law of the land the rule of his conduct, that he esteemed it his chief glory to rule over a free people, and that he had a right to expect from them a steady and affectionate support. The city deputation withdrew, amidst the manifest resentment of the courtiers, and the court instantly resolved to bring the memorial before the notice of parliament. This was done on the 19th of March, when it was moved by Sir Thomas Clavering, “That to deny the legality of the present parliament, and to assert that the proceedings thereof are not valid, is highly unwarrantable, and has a manifest tendency to disturb the peace of the kingdom, by withdrawing his majesty’s subjects from then-obedience to the laws of the realm.” This motion was warmly opposed, but it was carried by a large majority, and an address to the king was also agreed to in condemnation of the city memorial, both by the lords and the commons. It is said that the king graciously received this address, but that he thought the city magistrates ought to have been proceeded against by parliament for their conduct. On the other hand, the city and the people of Middlesex were offended by the conduct of the opposition, and the smallness of the minority that voted against the address, and they passed strong resolutions, expressing their discontent. The blame was chiefly imputed to the Rockingham party; and the Rev. Mr. Home—better known at a later date by the name of Home Tooke—who had begun to rule the democracy at the Mile-end and Brentford meetings, announced his intention of exposing that party; but this was prevented chiefly through the influence of the Earl of Chatham. Instead of this, indeed, the reverend orator employed his talents in getting up a strong petition and remonstrance to the king from the freeholders of Middlesex, and which was presented on the 31st of March; the Earl of Chatham having previously thanked him for his able exertions in the cause of freedom, and for abstaining from his proposed attack on the Rockingham party.