election, and the contest which had lately arisen between them and the city magistracy; but found no more than twenty-three supporters.2 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. motion, In the next session, Sir George Savile, in order to Sir George renew the annual protest against the Middlesex elec- Savile's tion, moved for a bill to secure the rights of electors, 1772. 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 complains of the In 1773, Mr. Wilkes brought his case before the Mr. Wilkes House, in the shape of a frivolous complaint against of the Dethe Deputy-Clerk of the Crown, who had refused to puty-Clerk give him a certificate, as one of the members for Crown. 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 con- Wilkes 1 See infra, p. 413. 2 May 1st, 1771; Parl. Hist., xvii. 224. 3 Feb. 27th, 1772; ibid., 318. 4 Parl. Hist., xvii. 838. 5 Ibid., 1057. elected in the new Parlia flict with Wilkes for five years, was now dissolved; and ment, 1774. Wilkes was again returned for Middlesex. According to the resolution of the Commons, his incapacity 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 honour, being elected Lord Mayor of London. Moves to expunge tion. He did not fail to take advantage of his new prithe resolu- vileges; and on the 22nd February, 1775, he moved that the resolution which had declared his incapacity, 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 expunged, 1782. success. He renewed this motion in 17762, in 17773, in 1779', and in 1781.5 At length, on the 3rd of May, 1782, he proposed it for the last time, and with signal 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 ex 1 171 to 239; Parl. Hist., xviii. 358. 2 Ibid., 1336. 3 Ibid., xix. 193. 5 Ibid., xxii. 99. ceeded 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 from the journals, as being subversive of the rights of the whole body of electors in this kingdom.1 danger. Thus at length, this weary contest was brought to a Abuses of privilege; close. A former House of Commons, too eager in its their vengeance, had exceeded its powers; and now 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." The vindictive exercise of privilege,-once as frequent as it was lawless,—was now discredited and condemned. 66 of strangers But before Wilkes had obtained this crowning triumph Exclusion over the Commons, he had contrived to raise another from de storm against their privileges, which produced conse 2 Present Discontents, Works, ii. 1 Ayes, 115; Noes, 47; Parl. Hist., xxii. 1407. 297. bates. quences of greater constitutional importance; 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 members 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 assem bled, were simply 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.2 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, 1 Mr. Perne, March 5th, 1557; Mr. Bukeley, May 14th, 1614. 2 Com. Journ., xxxiii. 212. 3 Ibid., i. 105, 118, 417, 484; ibid., ii. 74, 433. 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. of the pri Long after that danger had passed away, the privi- Relaxation lege was maintained as a matter of custom, rather than vilege. of policy. At length apprehensions arose from another quarter; and the privilege was asserted as a protection to Parliament, against the clamours and intimidation of the people. But the enforcement of this privilege was gradually 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 members were standing above half way up the floor." It became necessary on this occasion, to enforce the standing order for the exclusion of strangers.1 And in this way, for several years the presence of stran |