the Commons in the Middlesex election, and the contest which had lately arisen between them and the city magistracy; but found no more than twenty-three supporters.2 1 The concluding incidents of the Middlesex election may now be briefly told, before we advert to a still more important conflict which was raging at this time, with the privileges of the Commons; and the new embarrassments which Wilkes had raised. Sir George Savile's motion, 1772. In the next session, Sir George Savile, in order to renew the annual protest against the Middlesex election, moved for a bill to secure the rights of electors, with respect to the eligibility of persons to serve in Parliament. Lord North here declared, that the proceedings of the Commons had "been highly consistent with justice, and the law of the land; and that to his dying day he should continue to approve of them." The motion was defeated by a majority of forty-six.3 Mr. Wilkes the Deputy Clerk of the Crown. In 1773, Mr. Wilkes brought his case before the House, in the shape of a frivolous complaint against the complains of Deputy-Clerk of the Crown, who had refused to give him a certificate, as one of the members for Middlesex. Sir G. Savile, also, renewed his motion for a bill to secure the rights of electors, and found one hundred and fifty supporters. Mr. Burke took this occasion to predict that, "there would come a time when those now in office would be reduced to their penitentials, for having turned a deaf ear to the voice of the people." In 1774, Sir G. Savile renewed his motion for a bill to secure the rights of electors, with the usual result.5 The Parliament, which had been in continual conflict with Wilkos elected Wilkes for five years, was now dissolved; and In the new 1774. Wilkes was again returned for Middlesex. According to the resolution of the Commons, his in 1 See infra, p. 389. 2 May 1st, 1771; Parl. Hist. xvii. 224. 4 Parl. Hist. xvii. 838. 5 Ibid. 1057. capacity had been limited to the late Parliament; and he now took his seat without further molestation. Before the meeting of Parliament, Wilkes had also attained the highest civic honor, being elected Lord Mayor of London. resolution. He did not fail to take advantage of his new privileges and on the 22d February, 1775, he moved that Moves to ex the resolution which had declared his incapacity, punge the be expunged from the journals, "as subversive of the rights of the whole body of electors." He said, "the people had made his cause their own, for they saw the powers of government exerted against the constitution, which was wounded through his sides." He recapitulated the circumstances of his case; referred very cleverly to the various authorities and precedents; and showed the dangerous consequences of allowing a resolution to remain upon the journals, which was a violation of the law. He was ably supported by Mr. Sergeant Glynn, Sir George Savile, and Mr. Wedderburn; and in the division secured one hundred and seventy-one votes.1 Resolution 1782. He renewed this motion in 1776,2 in 1777,3 in 1779, and in 1781.5 At length, on the 3d of May, 1782, he proposed it for the last time, and with signal suc- expunged, cess. The Rockingham ministry was in office, and had resolved to condemn the proceedings of the Commons, which its leading members had always disapproved. Mr. Fox was now the only statesman of any eminence, by whom Wilkes's motion was opposed. He had always maintained that the Commons had not exceeded their powers; and he still consistently supported that opinion, in opposition to the premier and the leaders of his party. Wilkes's motion was now carried by a triumphant majority of sixty-eight; and by order of the House, all the declarations, orders, and resolutions, respecting the Middlesex election, were expunged 1 171 to 239; Parl. Hist. xviii. 358. 2 Ibid. 1336. Ibid. xix. 193. 4 Ibid. xx. 144. 5 lbid. xxii. 99. from the journals, as being subversive of the rights of the whole body of electors in this kingdom.1 Abuses of privilege; Thus at length, this weary contest was brought to a close A former House of Commons, too eager in its vengeance, had exceeded its powers; and now their danger. a succeeding Parliament reversed its judgment. This decision of 1782, stands out as a warning to both Houses, to act within the limits of their jurisdiction, and in strict conformity with the laws. An abuse of privilege is even more dangerous than an abuse of prerogative. In the one case, the wrong is done by an irresponsible body : in the other the ministers who advised it, are open to censure and punishment. The judgment of offences especially, should be guided by the severest principles of law. Mr. Burke applied to the judicature of privilege, in such cases, Lord Bacon's description of the Star Chamber, "a court of criminal equity:" saying, "a large and liberal construction in ascertaining offences, and a discretionary power in punishing them, is the idea of criminal equity, which is in truth a monster in jurisprudence." 2 The vindictive exercise of privilege, once as frequent as it was lawless, discredited and condemned. Exclusion of was noW But before Wilkes had obtained this crowning triumph over the Commons, he had contrived to raise anstrangers other storm against their privileges, which profrom debates. duced consequences of greater constitutional im portance; and again this bold and artful demagogue became the instrument, by which popular liberties were extended. Among the privileges of Parliament, none had been more frequently exercised by both Houses, than the exclusion of strangers from their deliberations; and restraints upon the publication of debates. The first of these privileges is very ancient; and probably originated in convenience, rather than in any theory of secrecy in their proceedings. The mem1 Ayes 15; Noes 47; Parl. Hist. xxii. 1407. 2 Present Discontents, Works, ii. 297. hers met not so much for debate, as for deliberation: they were summoned for some particular business, which was soon disposed of; and as none but those summoned, were expected to attend, the chambers in which they assembled, were sim ply adapted for their own accommodation. Hence the occasional intrusion of a stranger was an inconvenience, and a disturbance to the House. He was in the midst of the members.—standing with them in the gangway, or taking his place, where none but members had the privilege of sitting. Such intrusion resembled that of a man who, in the present day, should force his way into Brookes's or the Carlton, and mingle with the members of the club. Some strangers even entered the House, pretending to be members.1 Precautions were necessary to prevent confusion; for even so late as 1771 a stranger was counted in a division. Hence, from early times, the intrusion of a stranger was generally punished by his immediate commitment, or reprimand. The custom afterwards served as an auxiliary to the most valuable of all privileges, - the freedom of speech. What a member said in his place, might indeed be reported to the king, or given in evidence against him in the Court of King's Bench, or the Stannary Court, by another member of the House; but strangers might be there, for the very purpose of noting his words, for future condemnation. So long, therefore, as the Commons were obliged to protect themselves against the rough hand of prerogative, they strictly enforced the exclusion of strangers. Long after that danger had passed away, the privilege was maintained as a matter of custom, rather than Relaxation o the privilege. of policy. At length apprehensions arose from another quarter; and the privilege was asserted as a protection to Parliament, against the clamors and intimidation of the people. But the enforcement of this privilege was grad 1 Mr. Perne, March 5th, 1557; Mr. Bukeley, May 14th, 1614. ually relaxed. When the debates in Parliament began to excite the interest of the public, and to attract an eager audience, the presence of strangers was connived at. They could be dismissed in a moment, at the instance of any member; but the Speaker was not often called upon to enforce the orders of the House. Towards the middle of last century, attendance upon the debates of both Houses of Parliament, had become a fashionable amusement. On the 9th of December, 1761, the interest excited by a debate in the Commons, on the renewal of the Prussian Treaties was so great, that Lord Royston, writing to Lord Hardwicke, said: "The House was hot and crowded, as full of ladies as the House of Lords when the King goes to make a speech. The mem bers were standing above half way up the floor." It became necessary on this occasion, to enforce the standing order for the exclusion of strangers. And in this way, for several years the presence of strangers, with rare exceptions, was freely admitted. But the same Parliament which had persecuted Wilkes, was destined to bring to an issue other great questions, affecting the relations of Parliament to the people. It is not surprising that the worst of Parliaments should have been the most resolute in enforcing the rule for excluding strangers. It was at war with the public liberties; and its evil deeds were best performed in secret. The exclusion of strangers was generally more strict than had been customary; and whenever a popular member of Opposition en Exclusion of strangers, 1770. 1 Rockingham Mem. i. 71. 2 This Parliament, assembled May 10th, 1768, and dissolved Jun 221, 1774, was commonly called the unreported Parliament, in consequel.ce of the strict enforcement of the standing order for the exclusion of strangers. Pref. to Cavendish's Deb. Sir Henry Cavendish has supplied a great hiatus in the debates of this period, and it is much to be regretted that the publication of his valuable work has never been completed. They consist of forty-nine small 4to volumes, amongst the Egerton MSS. at the British Museum. of which less than half were edited by Mr. Wright, and published in two volumes. |