The death of the prince of Wales was fatal to a bill which had been brought into the house of commons, for naturalizing all foreign protestants who should settle within the dominions of Great Britain. Political arithmeticians have generally taken it for granted, that to every commercial nation an increase of people is an increase of opulence; and this maxim is certainly true, on the supposition that every individual is industrious, and that there is a sufficient field for employment; but all these general maxims ought to be received under certain qualifications. When all branches of manufacture are overstocked, an addition of workmen will doubtless be an additional incumbrance on the community. In the debates which this bill produced, the members of the ministry were divided among themselves. The measure was enforced by the chancellor of the exchequer, Mr. W. Pitt, and Mr. Lyttelton; and in opposing it the earl of Egmont was joined by Mr. Fox, secretary at war. Petitions and counter-petitions were presented by the merchants of London, Bristol, and other trading towns of the kingdom. All merchants and traders of foreign extraction exerted themselves vigorously in its behalf, and it was without doubt countenanced by the administration; but the project was odious to the people in general. The lord mayor, aldermen, and commons of London, in common-council assembled, composed a remonstrance to the lower house, setting forth the danger and inutility of a general naturalization of foreign protestants. A petition of the merchants and principal inhabitants of Bristol represented that such a law would be prejudicial to the trade and commerce of this kingdom, by preventing many industrious artificers from procuring a sufficient support for themselves and their families, and of consequence increasing the rates of the poor; that the introduction of such a number of foreigners, instead of being a support to the present happy establishment, might endanger the very basis of our constitution; that it would greatly tend to the diminution of our manufactures, as many strangers would doubtless come and reside in England for a time, in order to learn the methods and management of our manufacturers and artificers; and, after having obtained this instruction, return to their native countries, where they would establish and carry on works of the same nature. The twentieth day of March being appointed for the third reading of the bill, it was postponed in consequence of the unfortunate death of the prince of Wales; and other petitions from different cities of the kingdom being mustered against it in the sequel, the ministry did not think proper to persist in any unpopular measure at such a delicate conjuncture; so the bill was no more brought upon the carpet. Divers other regulations, relating to civil policy as well as to the commerce of Great Britain, were propounded in the house of commons; but these proposals proved abortive, either because they appeared crude and indigested in themselves, or the house could not obtain proper information touching the allegations they contained.
CENSURE PASSED UPON A PAPER ENTITLED “CONSTITUTIONAL QUERIES.”
There were no other transactions in this session, except the concurrence of both houses in stigmatizing a printed paper, entitled “Constitutional Queries, earnestly recommended to the serious consideration of every true Briton;” and the steps taken by the commons, in consequence of the commotions occasioned by the Westminster election. The above-mentioned paper, which had been conveyed by letter to the majority of both houses, was communicated to the lords in the month of January by the duke of Marlborough, who moved for resolutions against it as a seditious libel, and that the concurrence of the commons might be desired. A conference accordingly ensued, and both houses concurred in voting the paper a false, malicious, scandalous, infamous, and seditious libel; containing the most false, audacious, and abominable calumnies and indignities upon his majesty; and the most presumptuous and wicked insinuations that our laws, liberties, and properties, and the excellent constitution of this kingdom, were in danger under his majesty’s legal, mild, and gracious government; with intent to instil groundless suspicions and jealousies into the minds of his majesty’s good subjects, and to alienate their affections from his majesty and the royal family. It was therefore resolved by the lords spiritual and temporal, and commons in parliament assembled, that, in abhorrence and detestation of such abominable and seditious practices, the paper should be burnt by the hands of the common hangman in the new Palace-yard of Westminster; and this sentence was executed accordingly. Then they presented an address to his majesty, desiring that the most effectual means might be taken for discovering the author, printer, or publisher, that he or they might be brought to condign punishment. Directions were given for this purpose; but without effect. Those concerned in writing, printing, and circulating the paper, had acted with such caution that not one of them was ever discovered.
PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMONS ON THE WESTMINSTER ELECTION.
The proceedings of the commons with respect to the election of a burgess for Westminster were attended with some extraordinary circumstances, which we shall now record for the edification of those who pique themselves on the privileges of a British subject. We have already observed, that a majority appearing on the poll for lord Trentham, the adherents of the other candidate, sir George Vandeput, demanded a scrutiny, which was granted by the high bailiff of Westminster, the returning officer. During this tedious investigation, which rolled chiefly on the qualifications of voters, he acted with such address and seeming candour as gave entire satisfaction to both parties, till at length he determined in favour of lord Trentham, whom he returned as duly elected. Those who styled themselves the independent electors did not acquiesce in this determination without clamour, reproach, menaces, and riot. They taxed Mr. Leigh, the high-bailiff, with partiality and injustice; they loudly affirmed that ministerial influence had been used in the most scandalous manner; and, finally, joined sir George Vandeput in a petition to the lower house, complaining of an undue election and return of a member for the city of Westminster. The commons, instead of inquiring into the merits of these petitions, ordered them to lie upon the table; and, without any complaint from any person whatever, a motion was made that Leigh, the high-bailiff, should attend the house immediately, in order to make them acquainted with what he had done in pursuance of the directions he had formerly received from that house, touching the execution of the writ for electing a new member to represent the city of Westminster. As this motion had been preconcerted, Leigh was attending in the lobby, and immediately called into the house to be examined on this subject. Having, in the course of his examination, alleged that the election had been protracted by affected delays, he was asked by whom, and by what means; but, before he could answer, the earl of Egmont, interposing, objected to the question as improper, and moved for the order of the day. A debate immediately ensued, in which the impropriety of the question was demonstrated by Mr. Henley, now lord-keeper, Dr. Lee, and some others, the most sensible and moderate members of the house; but they were opposed with great violence by lord viscount Corke, Henry Fox, esquire, sir William Young, colonel Lyttelton, and the weight of the ministry; so that the motion for the order of the day was carried in the negative, and the high-bailiff required to answer the question. Thus interrogated, he declared that he had been impeded in the scrutiny, and maltreated, by Mr. Crowle, who had acted as counsel for sir George Vandeput, by the honourable Alexander Murray, brother to lord Elibank, and one Gibson, an upholsterer, who had been very active, zealous, and turbulent in his endeavours to promote the interest of sir George Vandeput, or rather to thwart the pretensions of the other candidate, who was supposed to be countenanced by the ministry. These three persons, thus accused, were brought to the bar of the house, notwithstanding the strenuous remonstrances of several members, who opposed this method of proceeding, as a species of oppression equally arbitrary and absurd. They observed, that, as no complaint had been preferred, they had no right to take cognizance of the affair; that if any undue influence had been used, it would naturally appear when the merits of the election should fall under their inquiry; that a complaint having been lodged already against the returning officer, it was their duty to investigate his conduct, and punish him if he should be found delinquent; but that nothing could be more flagrantly unjust, and apparently partial, than their neglecting the petitions of the other candidate and electors, and encouraging the high-bailiff, who stood charged with iniquity, to recriminate upon his accusers, that they might be disabled from giving evidence on the inquiry into the merits of the election. What difference is it to the subject whether he is oppressed by an arbitrary prince, or by the despotic insolence of a ministerial majority? Mr. Crowle alleged, in his own vindication, that he had been employed as counsel by the electors of Westminster, and attended the scrutiny in that character; that after the high-bailiff had, in the course of the last session, received the order of the house to expedite the election, he hurried on the scrutiny with such precipitation as, he apprehended, was unjust and prejudicial to his clients; that, in this apprehension, he (Mr. Crowle) insisted upon the high-bailiff’s proceeding with more deliberation, and in so doing he thought he did his duty to his employers. Some evidence being examined against him, declared he had not only protracted the scrutiny, but also spoken disrespectful words of the house of commons; he was therefore reprimanded on his knees by the speaker, and discharged.
MR. MURRAY SENT PRISONER TO NEWGATE.
Mr. Murray being charged with having uttered some threatening and affrontive expressions, the house adjourned the consideration of this affair for some days, at the expiration of which Mr. Murray was to be heard by his counsel; but, in the meantime, they ordered him to be taken into custody by the sergeant-at-arms attending the house. This step however was not taken without a warm opposition by some of the most sedate and intelligent members of the house, who considered it as a cruel act of oppression. They observed, that in cases of breach of privilege, no person complained of was ever taken into custody until after he had been fully heard in his defence; that this was literally prejudging the cause before it had been examined; and the oppression was the greater, as the alleged offence consisted entirely of words, of which no complaint or information had been made for above eight months after the supposed offence had been committed; and, even then, not till an accusation had been lodged against the informant, upon the trial of which accusation the persons informed against might very probably be the most material witnesses. They observed, that in one of the highest offences which can be committed by words, namely, that of denying the king’s right to the crown, or renouncing the trinity, the information must be brought in three or four days after the words are spoken; the words must be proved to have been spoken maliciously, directly, and advisedly, and the prosecution must commence in three months after the information. These suggestions made no more impression than if they had been uttered in a desert. Those who were secure in their number, asserted that the house of commons was not restricted by the forms or proceedings at common law; and that it was necessary to vindicate their own honour and dignity, by making examples of those who seemed to hold them in contempt. Mr. Murray was committed to the custody of the sergeant-at-arms, and found bail; and Gibson was sent prisoner to Newgate, from whence he was in a few days released, upon presenting an humble petition, professing his sorrow for having incurred the displeasure of the house, to the bar of which he was brought, and received a reprimand on his knees from the speaker. In the meantime, divers witnesses being examined before the house, declared, That Mr. Murray had been seen, about the time of the return of a member for Westminster, heading and exciting a tumult to acts of violence against the high-bailiff. The majority, therefore, after a long and warm debate, agreed, that for his dangerous and seditious practices, in violation and contempt of the privileges of the house, and of the freedom of elections, he should be committed close prisoner to Newgate Then, in the close of another violent debate, they resolved that he should be brought to the bar of the house, to receive that sentence on his knees. He accordingly appeared, and being directed by the speaker to kneel, refused to comply. He knew that he could not be discharged from Newgate during the session, without petitioning, acknowledging his offence, and making such concessions as he thought would imply a consciousness of guilt; he considered this whole transaction as an oppressive exertion of arbitrary power, and, being apprized of the extent of their authority, determined to bear the brunt of their indignation, rather than make submissions which he deemed beneath the dignity of his character. When he refused to humble himself, the whole house was in commotion; he was no sooner removed from the bar than they resolved, that his having in a most insolent and audacious manner refused to be on his knees at the bar of that house, in consequence of their former resolution, was a high and most dangerous contempt of the authority and privilege of the commons; it was therefore ordered, that he should be committed close prisoner to Newgate, debarred the use of pen, ink, and paper; and that no person should have access to him without the leave of the house. Finally, a committee was appointed to consider what methods might be proper to be taken by them, in relation to this instance of contempt. Meanwhile, the petitioners against the return made by the high-bailiff, perceiving the temper of the house, and the complexion of the majority, withdrew their petition; and the order which had passed for hearing the merits of the election was discharged. Mr. Murray being taken dangerously ill in Newgate, application was made to the commons, by some of his relations, that he might be removed to a more convenient situation; and his physician being examined, gave it as his opinion that he was infected with the gaol distemper. Upon this representation, the house agreed that the speaker should issue a warrant for removing him from Newgate to the custody of the sergeant-at-arms, but this favour he refused to accept, and expressed the warmest resentment against those relations who had applied to the commons in his behalf. Thus he remained sequestered even from his own brother and sister, under the displeasure of the commons of England, who condescended so far as to make resolutions touching the physician, apothecary, and nurse who attended this prisoner. But the prorogation of parliament having put an end to their authority for that session, Mr. Murray was discharged of course, and conducted by the sheriffs from Newgate to his own house, in procession, with flags and streamers exhibiting the emblems of liberty.