106

1771.

CHARLES JAMES FOX.

Ch. 15. gentleman calling a very eminent man 'a profligate minister' behind his back as well as to his face.' This was in allusion to Barré's celebrated attack on Pitt just after he entered Parliament in 1762. The rejoinder was overwhelming. If the honorable gentleman had enquired at home he would have found my conduct on that occasion spoken of with approbation.' It was generally believed that Lord Holland had instigated Barré to do that which he dared not do himself. Oliver, a man of courage and spirit, on hearing what had been said of him, returned to the House, and compelled the insolent young Tory to retract his language. Charles Fox, notwithstanding this rebuke, gave utterance to his impatience at the 'lenient' policy which the House seemed inclined to pursue. He expressed great contempt for the people.' Who were the people? One year the freeholders of Middlesex are the people of England; next year the City of London are the people of England; and this year if the Lord Mayor and a couple of aldermen are the people of England, we are certainly engaged in a controversy with the people of England. The opinion of this House must be taken to be the opinion of the people until the contrary is proved.' At this time Fox had shown but little promise of the great reputation which he afterwards acquired. He is sometimes, indeed, mentioned as a prodigy even at this early period. But any youth of twenty-one who could have the consummate impudence to

6

BURKE AND LUTTRELL.

107

1771.

speak every day, and upon almost every question, Ch. 15. would probably impress many of his hearers with an opinion of his ability. We are assured, however, by a competent judge, that it was only by slow degrees Fox rose to become the most brilliant and accomplished debater the House had ever seen.k

and Mr.Burke.

Another fitting champion of parliamentary pri- Mr. Luttrell vilege was Luttrell, the mock member for Middlesex, who called Burke to order for having presumed, in the course of his speech, to censure the conduct of the House of Commons in superseding the electors of Middlesex. He could not sit and hear his seat called in question. The honourable gentleman,' said Burke, 'has reason to honour himself. He is a much greater man than I am. He was elected in a much more honourable way by greater constituents.' Some members, in the course of the debate, had been content to prove that the arbitrary proceedings of the House were sanctioned by precedent. Burke, to shew the folly of an implicit reliance on precedent, quoted a well-known but extreme case of one of the loyal and Protestant parliaments of James the First. One Floyd, a Papist, had, it seemed, written something disrespectful of the King's daughter, the Queen of Bohemia. The House of Commons had no hesitation in voting that this

* LORD BROUGHAM'S Statesmen of the Time of George the Third.

108

Ch. 1 .15.

1771.

Lord North's proposal.

QUESTION AS TO

libel was a breach of their privileges. The only
question was what punishment they should in-
flict. One member wished to have the delinquent
whipped; another thought he should be bored in
the tongue; a third was for having his tongue cut
out. Branding in the forehead was also suggested;
and there was one gentleman who urged that the
criminal should be hanged outright. In the result,
the poor man was condemned to stand in pillory
and to pay a fine of a thousand pounds. This
sentence he received at the bar upon his knees.k

After a long discussion in which the modera-
tion which had prevailed on the preceding
day was entirely departed from, Lord North
proposed a middle course; and on his motion
the House resolved that the Lord Mayor be
at liberty to be heard by his counsel upon all
such points as do not contravene the privilege
of the House.' Lord North's resolution was in
its terms an absurdity, inasmuch as the whole case
of the magistrates unavoidably resolved itself into
a denial of the privilege of the House. The Lord
Mayor did not contravene the privilege of the
House generally, nor even the power of com-
mitment for a breach of privilege; what he main-
tained was, that in the particular instance, the
privilege of Parliament was in conflict with the
privilege of the city, and that the latter privilege
was a part of the statute law. It became neces-

1 Cavendish Debates.

PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE.

sary, therefore, that he should establish three points-1. That the privilege as claimed by the city was conferred by their charters; 2. That these charters were confirmed by Act of Parliament; 3. That the privilege of one branch of the Legislature could not contravene the law of the land. But, subjected to the restriction imposed by the House, it is manifest the argument could not have taken so wide a range. If the third proposition was interdicted, it was to no purpose that the first and second were conceded. The Lord Mayor was well advised in declining to rest the case for the city upon an argument for which he was not allowed to lay an adequate foundation.

109

Ch. 15.

1771.

Having by this disingenuous proceeding denied Arbitrary spirit of the the claim of the subject to be heard by counsel in House. defence of his liberty, the House by the next step they took in this business, sufficiently disclosed the arbitrary spirit by which they were influenced. The clerk to the Lord Mayor having been ordered to attend with his books containing the proceedings of the court, they compelled that officer under duress, to expunge at the table from the record which he produced, the recognizance of Whittam, their messenger, to appear at the next quarter sessions to answer the charge of assault which had been preferred before the city magistrates. This was followed by a resolution, That no prosecution, suit or proceeding, be commenced or carried on, for or on account of the said pretended assault

110

Ch. 15.

1771.

Proceedings of the Lord Mayor.

Committal of the Lord Mayor to

the Tower.

THE CITY MAGISTRATES

or false imprisonment.'

Many members of the Opposition, shocked and disgusted, quitted the House, that they might not witness an audacious interruption of the course of justice, and the violation of its records, which they were unable to prevent.

The Lord Mayor having then declined to avail himself of counsel who was denied freedom of speech, merely put in the documentary evidence upon which the pretensions of the city were founded, and awaited the decision of the House. After a protracted and angry debate, they resolved, that the release of a person taken into custody by virtue of a speaker's warrant; the apprehension of their messenger, and the holding him to bail, were severally breaches of privilege. These resolutions were opposed on the ground that the refusal to hear the city magistrates by their counsel was a denial of justice; and on the first of the resolutions being carried by a large majority, Sir George Savile, Mr. Burke, and Colonel Barré again retired from the House, followed as before by about thirty members.

Having gone this length, the House could hardly stop short of the last extremity. If an humble individual would certainly have been visited with condign punishment for these manifold breaches of privilege, the House could hardly shrink from taking a similar course because the delinquent was a great and powerful magistrate. They resolved, therefore, that the Lord Mayor