Abbildungen der Seite

of the received principles of law. As this was deemed a point of great importance, to prevent a hasty decision, and give ample time for deliberation, final judgment was adjourned until next term. On the recurrence of that period, the judges, on April 17, 1771, finally and unanimously declared in favour of the defendant, in consequence of which the second verdict was set aside.

This, of course, afforded no small exultation to Mr. Horne, who had directed and superintended the proceedings: as he had thus publicly proved, in the face of the whole nation, that the lord chief justice, great and able as he assuredly was, could not now be considered as infallible: and from this day forward, he took every opportunity to arraign the conduct, underrate the talents, and oppose the opinions of that celebrated man. Nor did his resentment against Mr. Onslow end here; for he opposed him at the next general election, and, being indefatigable in his canvass of the county, and a man of no common influence, contributed not a little to prevent his return. Perceiving the hon. William Norton, now lord Grantley, and who had just returned from his travels, to be a young man of great hopes and promising talents, he warmly seconded his pretensions, which appear to have obtained general

approbation, and that gentleman being accordingly elected, conducted himself so, as to give entire satisfaction to all parties, until, by the demise of his father, he became a peer of the realm.

Junius, who was afterwards one of the bitterest of Mr. Horne's antagonists, at an early period predicted the fate of the controversy. In a private letter* addressed to Mr. Woodfall, dated "Wednesday night, August 16, 1769," he affects to express great contempt for Mr. Onslow; and presumes to add, "depend upon it, he will get nothing but shame by contending with Mr. Horne."

It is but justice, however, to observe, that both lord Hillsborough and Mr. Pownall publicly disavowed all knowledge of this transaction, the suit relative to which is said to have been attended with an expense estimated at not less than one thousand five hundred pounds to the plaintiff, while it cost no more than two hundred pounds to the defendant.

*No. 7, p. 197, vol. i, of the new edit. There also will be found the two letters afterwards alluded to, vindicating the character of Mr. Onslow.


FROM 1770 TO 1771.

Mr. Horne suggests the idea of a Reply to the King, and obtains a Statue for the Lord Mayor. -Founds the "Society for Supporting the Bill of Rights."-Countenances Bingley in his Refusal to answer Interrogatories.

MEANWHILE, the ministers still remained unpopular, and the county of Middlesex, which was deprived of the services of its favourite representative, was eager, on all occasions, to attack their principles and impeach their conduct. On turning to the proceedings of this period, it will be found, that the vicar of New Brentford was not idle. Incited by his usual enthusiasm, he not only acted a conspicuous part on every public occasion, but for a time exercised a kind of paramount jurisdiction over all the political proceedings of that day. A variety of proofs of his influence might be here readily adduced; and the following extract from



[ocr errors]

an address of the freeholders to the king, moved and carried by him, April 30, 1770, at the Mile End Assembly Room, will at least tend to show, that the language of those times was not deficient in energy.

"Your majesty's servants have attacked our liberties in the most vital part; they have torn away the very heart-strings of the constitution, and have made those very men the instruments of our destruction, whom the laws have appointed as the immediate guardians of our freedom. Yet, although we feel the utmost indignation against the factions, the honest defenders of our rights, and constitution, will ever claim our praise: but that the liberties of the people have been most grossly violated by the corrupt influence of ministers, since the days of sir Robert Walpole, is too notorious to require either illustration or comment."

Not only petitions, but remonstrances to the throne, were at this moment meditated in various places. The counties of Middlesex and Surrey had requested his majesty to dissolve the parliament, in consequence of the illegal rejection of Mr. Wilkes by the house of commons, after having been returned for the fourth time, as knight of the shire. On March 28, 1770, the city of Westminster also voted a remonstrance, in which an allusion was made " to the same

secret and unhappy influence to which all their grievances have been originally owing."

Nearly at the same time the lord mayor, aldermen, and livery of the city of London, in common hall assembled, resolved on " an humble address, remonstrance, and petition." But on the sheriffs repairing as usual to St. James's, to know his majesty's pleasure, as to the day when they should attend to present the same, some difficulties were started on the part of the ministers; however, in consequence of the spirited conduct of Mr. Townshend, the senior sheriff, who declined the intervention of the two secretaries of state, and refused to communicate to any other person than the king the subject of their message, an audience was at length obtained. On this occasion the citizens, as usual, complain to the sovereign: "that, under the same secret and malign influence, which, through every successive administration, has defeated every good, and suggested every bad intention, the majority of the house of commons have deprived your people of their dearest rights. They have done a deed more ruinous in its consequences," add they, "than the levying of ship-money by Charles the First, or the dispensing power assumed by James the Second. A deed which must vitiate all the future proceed


« ZurückWeiter »