His elec tion de rantable excesses of jurisdiction, and to violate the clearest principles of law. As Mr. Grenville had predicted, Wilkes was immediately re-elected without opposition. The next day, on the motion of Lord clared void. Strange, the House resolved that Mr. Wilkes "having been, in this session of Parliament, expelled the 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 member of Parliament."4 Again reelected, and Again, with still increasing popularity, Wilkes was election de- re-elected without opposition; and again a new writ was clared void. issued. In order to prevent a repetition of these fruitless proceedings, an alternative, already pointed out Opposed by by Mr. Grenville,-was now adopted. Colonel Luttrell, a member, vacated his seat, and offered himself as Colonel 1 So stated by a member who 3 See May's Law of Parliament (4th Ed.), 59; Townsend's Mem., ii. 100. 4 Cavendish Deb., i. 352. 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 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 Again rereturn of Wilkes to be null and void; and, having but Colonel called for the poll-books, proceeded to vote, though seated. not 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 representative of Middlesex, was a startling step in the progress of this painful contest; but the ultimate seating of another candidate, notwithstanding Wilkes' 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' incapacity had been declared; and were ably supported in debate, particularly by Mr. Wedderburn, Mr. Burke, and Mr. George Grenville2; but the election of Colonel Luttrell was confirmed by a majority of sixty-nine. turned; Luttrell of Wilkes. Wilkes was now effectually excluded from Parlia- Popularity ment; but his popularity had been increased, while the House, and all concerned in his oppression, were the objects of popular indignation. As some compensation 1 April 14th, 1769; Cavendish Deb., í. 360–386. Ayes 197, Noes 143-Majority 54. 2 Cavendish Deb., i. 406. Efforts to reverse the him. By Lord 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. 1 So dangerous a precedent was not suffered to rest proceed- unquestioned. Not only the partisans of Wilkes, but ngs against the statesmen and lawyers opposed to the government, continued to protest against it, until it was condemned. On the 9th January, 1770, Lord Chatham,-re-apJan., 1770. pearing in the House of Lords after his long prostration, moved an amendment to the address, denouncing the late proceedings in the House of Commons, as "refusing, by a resolution of one branch of the legislature, to the subject his common right, and depriving the electors of Middlesex of their free choice of a representative." Lord Camden, the Chancellor, now astonished the Lords by a statement "that for some time he had beheld with silent indignation, the arbitrary measures which were pursuing by the ministry;" and, "that as to the incapacitating vote, he considered it as a direct attack upon the first principles of the constitution."2 Lord Mansfield, while he said that his opinion. upon the legality of the proceedings of the House of Commons was "locked up in his own breast, and should die with him," (though for what reason it is not easy to explain,) argued that in matters of election the Commons had a complete jurisdiction, without appeal; that their decisions could only be reversed by themselves, or by Act of Parliament; and that except in discussing a bill, the Lords could not inquire into the question, without violating the privileges of the other House. 1 Parl. Hist., xvi. 653. 2 This speech is not reported in the Parl. Hist., but is printed from the Gentleman's Mag. of Jan., 1770, in a note; Parl. Hist., xvi. 644, n. Lord Lord Chatham replied in his finest manner. Mansfield's remarks on the invasion of the privileges of the other House, called forth this comment: "What is this mysterious power,-undefined by law, unknown to the subject, which we must not approach without awe, nor speak of without reverence, — which no man may question, and to which all men must submit? My Lords, I thought the slavish doctrine of passive obedience had long since been exploded; and when our kings were obliged to confess that their title to the crown, and the rule of their government, had no other foundation than the known laws of the land, I never expected to hear a divine right, or a divine infallibility attributed to any other branch of the legislature." He then proceeded to affirm that the Commons "have betrayed their constituents, and violated the constitution. Under pretence of declaring the law, they have made a law, and united in the same persons, the office of legislator and of judge." His amendment was negatived; but the stirring eloquence and constitutional reasoning of so eminent a statesman, added weight to Wilkes' cause. 1 ings in the In the Commons also, very strong opinions were ex- Proceedpressed on the injustice of Wilkes' exclusion. Sir Commons, George Savile especially distinguished himself by the 1770. warmth of his language; and accused the House of having betrayed the rights of its constituents. Being threatened with the Tower, he twice repeated his opinion; and, declining the friendly intervention of Colonel Conway and Lord North, who attributed his language to the heat of debate, he assured the House that if he was in a rage," he had been so ever since the fatal vote was passed, and should be so till it is rescinded." Mr. Sergeant Glynn thought "his declara2 Ibid., 699. 1 Parl. Hist., xvi. 647. Mr. Dowdeswell's resolu tions. Lord Rockingham's motion, 2nd Feb., 1770. tion not only innocent, but laudable." A formidable opposition showed itself throughout the debate; and while in the Lords, the Chancellor had pronounced his opinion against the incapacitating vote,-in the Commons, the Solicitor-General, Mr. Dunning, also spoke and voted against the government. The question had thus assumed a formidable aspect, and led to changes, which speedily ended in the breaking up of the Duke of Grafton's administration. On the 25th January, 1770, Mr. Dowdeswell moved a resolution in a committee of the whole House, "That this House in its judicature in matters of election, 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 premiss could neither be denied nor assented to by the government without 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 authorised by the law and custom of Parliament." On the 31st January, Mr. Dowdeswell repeated his attack in another form, but with no better success.2 The matter was now again taken up in the House of Lords. On the 2nd February, in committee on the state of the nation, Lord Rockingham moved 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 |