On a motion denouncing the most unbecoming treatment which the city of London had of late experienced from his Majesty’s ministers, it was suggested to draw up the strongest remonstrance possible on the violated right of election. Upon which, Alderman Wilkes, remarking upon the peculiar delicacy of his situation, said—
“that he would not mention a syllable about the person excluded; but if the House of Commons could seat any gentlemen among them who was not chosen by the people, the constitution was torn up by the roots, and the people had lost their share in the legislative power; that the disabling any person from sitting in Parliament, who was not disqualified by law, was an injury to every County, City, and Borough, and a dissolution of the form of government established by law in this Kingdom.”
The recorder cavilled at certain spirited expressions in the drawing-up of the remonstrance, particularly respecting the king’s answer, which he declared could not be considered an act of the ministers, but must be held to be the king’s personally. The committee was shocked at the recorder’s bringing home to the king one of the most unconstitutional acts of his ministry, and without one dissentient voice determined to overrule the objection of the recorder, whereon this functionary protested against the remonstrance in strong terms as a Libel. Alderman Wilkes then rose and mentioned his unwillingness to speak again, but he was forced to it by the recorder’s declaration that the remonstrance was a libel; that he too claimed to know something of the nature of a libel; that he did not speak from theory only, but had bought much experience on that subject; that the remonstrance was founded throughout on known and glaring facts, every word bearing the stamp of truth; that the particular act complained of in the violated right of election was a malicious and wilful act of the majority in the House of Commons, for the minister had declared, that “if any person had only four votes for Middlesex, he should be the sitting member for the county!” The lord mayor, Beckford, confirmed Wilkes’s assertion, concluding, “I was then present in the House of Commons.”
The remonstrance was accordingly presented; in it astonishment was expressed at the censure lately passed by the throne upon the faithful and afflicted citizens, laying their complaints and injuries at the feet of their Sovereign, as the father of his people, able and willing to redress their grievances.
The concluding paragraph was very much to the purpose, and displayed no diminution of firmness:—
“Your Majesty cannot disapprove that we here assert the clearest principles of the constitution against the insidious attempts of evil counsellors to perplex, confound, and shake them. We are determined to abide by those rights and liberties, which our forefathers bravely vindicated, at the ever-memorable Revolution, and which their sons will ever resolutely defend. We therefore now renew, at the foot of the throne, our claim to the indispensable right of the subject—a full, free, and unmutilated Parliament, legally chosen in all its members; a right which this House of Parliament have manifestly violated, depriving, at their will and pleasure, the county of Middlesex of one of its legal representatives, and arbitrarily nominating, as a Knight of the Shire, a person not elected by a majority of the freeholders. As the only constitutional means of reparation now left for the injured electors of Great Britain, we implore, with most urgent supplications, the dissolution of the present parliament, the removal of evil ministers, and the total extinction of that fatal influence which has caused such national discontent.
“In the meantime, Sire, we offer our constant prayers to Heaven, that your Majesty may reign, as Kings only can reign, in and by the hearts of a loyal, dutiful, and free people.”
To this remonstrance the king’s answer was:—
“I should have been wanting to the public as well as to myself, if I had not expressed my dissatisfaction at the late Address. My sentiments on that subject continue the same; and I should ill deserve to be considered as the father of my people, if I could suffer myself to be prevailed upon to make such an use of my prerogative as I cannot but think inconsistent with the interest and dangerous to the constitution of the kingdom.”
After His Majesty had been pleased to make the foregoing answer, the lord mayor requested leave to reply, which, being granted, Beckford made the dignified and noble response which is a matter of history:—
(“If worth allures thee, think how Beckford shone
Who dar’d to utter Truths before the throne.”)