DETERMINING DISPUTED ELECTIONS.

bility than any of its opponents, urged that the measure had not had a fair trial, and that it should be subjected to the test of the general election which was about to take place, before it became a permanent part of parliamentary law. The most frivolous objection was made by Fox, who was apprehensive that the privilege of the House would be impaired by delegating its powers to a Select Committee. But the question was, whether the constituencies had not a prior right that their elections should be determined by a competent and impartial tribunal? And as this tribunal consisted of a Committee of the House

itself, the powers and privileges of the House underwent no compromise. The Bill, though opposed by most of the members of the Government, was carried by a majority of two to one in a full House; and to the credit of Parliament remained the law until its principles were farther developed by the Act of 1848.

211

Ch. 18.

--

1774

One of the most animated debates of the Debate on Horne Tooke's session was occasioned by a challenge thrown out Libel. to the House, by a notorious libeller, to engage in another conflict with the Press. And so flagrant as well as unprovoked, was the insult offered, that had it not been for the signal discomfiture which the House had sustained in its last rash quarrel with the printers, it is hardly possible that they could have failed to obtain public sympathy and support, in punishing their profligate assailant. Parson Horne, who had obtained an evil notoriety

212

1774

HORNE TOOKE'S ATTACK

for his wit and impudence, incited by the success
which had attended Wilkes and other less skilful
antagonists, in their quarrels with the House of
Commons, was disposed, it seemed, to try his
fortune in this line of political adventure. And
lest the House, discouraged by its late reverses,
should decline the contest, he made his attack so
direct and pointed, that it could not fail to be
noticed. It was at the Speaker himself that this
ribald priest thought proper to fling his insult;
and the pretence was so futile and frivolous as
hardly to colour his design. Two petitions had
been presented by the member for Norfolk, one
for, and the other against a Local Inclosure Bill.
The adverse petition came from a small proprietor
named Tooke, a person who patronized Horne,
and whose name Horne afterwards assumed. In took.
ordering these petitions to be brought to the table
in the usual way, the Speaker, who does not
appear to have had the slightest interest in the
matter, observed, in answer to some question or
expression of opinion, that they were ordinary
petitions on an ordinary Inclosure Bill. For this
the Speaker was assailed by Horne, in a long and
abusive letter, inserted in the Public Advertiser.
He was accused of a scandalous breach of trust, of
diverting the attention of the House by a false
assertion as to the character of the proceeding
referred to, of wilfully misleading the member to
whom the petitions had been entrusted, and of
thus fraudulently smuggling the measure through

ON THE SPEAKER.

the House, for the purpose of gratifying the promoter of the Bill, who was a creature of the minister, the brother of a chief justice, and a connection of Lord Boston.'

213

Ch. 18.

1774

summoned to

House.

The Speaker thought fit to inform the House The printer of this insult, and Woodfall, the printer, was the Bar of the summoned to the bar. Woodfall immediately named the Reverend Mr. Horne as the author of the libel, and Horne was accordingly ordered to attend. This man, who excelled the most skilful and practical lawyer in readiness and ingenuity, no less than in coolness and assurance, was one of those bullies whose pen and tongue were more formidable than the weapons of an ordinary swaggerer. He had been engaged in several contests, and whatever the quality of his antagonist, had always obtained the advantage. His disputes

with Junius and Wilkes were still fresh in the recollection of the town. His subsequent altercations with the Attorney General who prosecuted, and with the Lord Chief Justice who tried him for his life, were remarkable examples of ready wit, courage, and effrontery. In provoking a quarrel with the House of Commons, Horne appears to have been encouraged by the City; for when the officer of the House came to serve him with the order, he was found with Oliver, the Alderman, who had been committed to the Tower for his conduct in the affair of the printers. Horne on receiving the summons, affected to treat it as served upon the wrong person, and informed the messenger

214

Ch. 18.

1774

PROCEEDINGS OF THE HOUSE

that when the House thought proper to require his attendance, he should be happy to wait upon it; and he wrote a letter to the chief clerk to the same purport. Upon this report the House pronounced him guilty of a contempt, and the Serjeant-at-Arms was directed to bring him to the bar. He accordingly appeared in custody, and was informed by the Speaker of the gross libel and breach of privilege with which he was charged. Horne in reply took no notice whatever of the libel, but made a long speech, the insolence of which was rendered more keen by the affectation of deference and humility under which it was veiled, arguing that he could not possibly be guilty of a contempt of the House, as he had sent such a polite answer when the messenger first waited upon him, and afterwards shewed so much alacrity in his obedience, when he received their second and peremptory order. Upon this Oliver, by previous concert, stood up, and moved that Horne had exculpated himself, and should therefore be discharged. This motion was, of course, negatived, and Horne was required to answer the substantive charge of libel. To which Horne replied, after some impertinence, that he should take the course usual in a court of justice, and plead' Not guilty.' He was ordered to withdraw. The House it seemed were quite unprepared for this answer; and a difficulty arose in proving the authorship of the libel. The Solicitor-General said it could not be proved by confronting him

AGAINST TOOKE AND WOODFALL.

with Woodfall, because Woodfall was himself in custody as an accessory upon the same charge; and such evidence would consequently be a violation of a well-established principle of criminal law. Woodfall, however, was called in, and asked whether any person was present when Mr. Horne gave him the letter containing the libel. Woodfall having replied in the negative, an attempt was made to adjourn the enquiry, for the purpose of obtaining, if possible, the necessary proof. This motion was strongly opposed both by the friends of the press, and by those members who desired to redeem the House from the ridicule into which it had been betrayed by the ingenuity of Horne. Among the latter were Lord North and the law officers. The result was, that after an unsuccessful effort to prove the case by the journeymen in Woodfall's printing-office, the House was completely baffled. Woodfall was discharged because he had at once given up the name of the libeller; and the Reverend Mr. Horne was discharged, because there was no legal proof of his identity with the Reverend Mr. Horne who had offered so gross an insult to the House.

215

Ch. 18.

1774

conduct of the

While the profligate author of this scandalous Indiscriminate libel on the first commoner in the country House. thus escaped without punishment, so little discrimination did the House observe in their denunciation of libels, that a foolish Jacobite paragraph, reflecting on the Revolution of 1688, was thought a fit subject to be brought before the