mit an idea, that our rights stand on a footing different from those of the people. Let us be cautious how we invade the liberties of our fellow-subjects, however mean, however remote; for be assured, my lords, that in whatever part of the empire you suffer slavery to be established, whether it be in America or in Ireland, or here at home, you will find it a disease which spreads by contact, and soon reaches from the extremities to the heart. The man who has lost his own freedom, becomes from that moment an instrument in the hands of an ambitious prince, to destroy the freedom of others. These reflections, my lords, are but too applicable to our present situation. The liberty of the subject is invaded, not only in provinces, but here at home. The English people are loud in their complaints: they proclaim with one voice the injuries they have received: they demand redress, and depend upon it, my lords, that one way or other, they will have redress. They will never return to a state of tranquillity until they are redressed; nor ought they; for in my judgment, my lords, and I speak it boldly, it were better for them to perish in a glorious contention for their rights, than to purchase a slavish tranquillity at the expence of a single iota of the constitution. Let me entreat your lordships, then, in the name of all the duties you owe to your Sovereign, to your country, and to yourselves, to perform that office to which you are called by the constitution; by informing his Majesty truly of the condition of his subjects, and of the real cause of their dissatisfaction. I have considered the matter with most serious attention; and as I have not in my own breast the smallest doubt that the present universal discontent of the nation arises from the proceedings of the House of Commons upon the expulsion of Mr. Wilkes, I think that we ought, in our Address, to state that matter to the King. I have drawn up an Amendment to the Address, which I beg leave to submit to the consideration of the House; namely, that after the words "and which alone can render our delibe"rations respectable and effectual," be inserted the following words:

sent; but he differed very much from the
noble duke, with respect to the propriety
or utility of those general assurances con-
tained in the latter part of the Address. That
the most perfect harmony in that House
would have but little effect towards quiet-
ing the minds of the people, and removing
their discontent. That it was the duty of
that House to enquire into the causes of
the notorious dissatisfaction expressed by
the whole English nation, to state those
causes to the Sovereign, and then give
him their best advice in what manner he
ought to act. That the privileges of the
House of Peers, however transcendant,
however appropriated to them, stood in
fact upon the broad bottom of the people.
They were no longer in the condition of
the barons, their ancestors, who had sepa-
rate interests and separate strength to sup-
port them. The rights of the greatest
and of the meanest subjects now stood on
the same foundation: the security of law,
common to all. It was therefore their
highest interest, as well as their duty, to
watch over, and guard the people; for,
when the people had lost their rights, those
of the peerage would soon become insig-
nificant. To argue from experience, he
begged leave to refer their lordships to a
most important passage in history, de-
scribed by a man of great abilities, Mr.
Robertson. This writer, in his Life of
Charles the Fifth (a great, ambitious,
wicked man), informs us that the peers of
Castile were so far cajoled and seduced
by him, as to join him in overturning that
part of the cortez, which represented the
people. They were weak enough to
adopt, and base enough to be flattered
with an expectation, that by assisting their
master in this iniquitous purpose, they
should increase their own strength and
importance. What was the consequence?
They exchanged the constitutional autho-
rity of peers, for the titular vanity of
grandees. They were no longer a part of
a parliament, for that they had destroyed;
and when they pretended to have an opi-
nion as grandees, he told them he did not
understand it; and naturally enough, when
they had surrendered their authority,
treated their advice with contempt. The
consequences did not stop here. He made
use of the people whom he had enslaved
to enslave others, and employed the
strength of the Castilians to destroy the
rights of their free neighbours of Arragon."

My lords, let this example be a lesson to us all. Let us be cautious how we ad

"And for these great and essential purposes, we will, with all convenient speed, "take into our most serious consideration, "the causes of the discontents which prevail in so many parts of your Majesty's "dominions, and particularly the late pro"ceedings in the House of Commons,

"touching the Incapacity of John Wilkes, stractedly and generally what the law was, "esq. expelled by that House, to be and for the direction of others; but as "elected a member to serve in this pre-judges, drawing the law from the severa "sent parliament, thereby refusing, by sources from which it ought to be drawn, "a Resolution of one branch of the legis- for their own guidance in deciding the "lature only, to the subject his common particular question before them, and ap❝right, and depriving the electors of Mid-plying it strictly to the decision of that "dlesex of their free choice of a repre❝sentative."

The cautious and guarded terms in which this Amendment is drawn up, will, I hope, reconcile every noble lord who hears me to my opinion; and as I think no man can dispute the truth of the facts, so I am persuaded no man can dispute the propriety and necessity of laying those facts before his Majesty.

question. That, for his own part, whereever the statute law was silent, he knew not where to look for the law of parlia ment, or for a definition of the privileges of either House, except in the proceed. ings and decisions of each House respectively. That he knew of no parliamentary code to judge of questions depending on the judicial authority of parliament, but the practice of each House, moderated or Lord Mansfield began with affirming, extended according to the wisdom of the that he had never delivered any opinion House, and accommodated to the cases upon the legality of the proceedings of before them. That a question, touching the House of Commons on the Middlesex the seat of a member in the lower House, election, nor should he now, notwithstand- could only be determined by that House; ing any thing that might be expected from there was no other court where it could him. That he had locked it up in his be tried, nor to which there could be an apown breast, and it should die with him: peal from their decision. That wherever that he wished to avoid speaking on the a court of justice is supreme, and their sensubject; but that the motion made by the tence final (which he apprehended no man noble lord, was of a nature too extraor- would dispute was the case in the House of dinary and too alarming, to suffer him to Commons, in matters touching elections), be silent. He acknowledged the unhappy the determination of that court must be distracted state of the nation; but he was received and submitted to as the law of happy enough to affirm, with a safe con- the land; for if there be no appeal from a science, that he had no ways contributed judicial sentence, where shall that sento it. That, in his opinion, declarations tence be questioned, or how can it be reof the law made by either House of par- versed? He admitted that judges might liament were always attended with bad be corrupt, and their sentences erroneous; effects: he had constantly opposed them but these were cases, for which, in respect whenever he had an opportunity, and in to supreme courts, the constitution had his judicial capacity thought himself provided no remedy. That, if they wil bound never to pay the least regard to fully determined wrong, it was iniquitous them. That, although thoroughly con- indeed, and in the highest degree detestvinced of the illegality of general warrants, able. But it was a crime, of which no which indeed naming no persons, were no human tribunal could take cognizance, warrants at all, he was sorry to see the and it lay between God and their conHouse of Commons by their vote declare sciences. That he avoided entering into them to be illegal. That it looked like a the merits of the late decision of the House legislative act, which yet had no force nor of Commons, because it was a subject he effect as a law: for, supposing the House was convinced the Lords had no right to had declared them to be legal, the courts enquire into or discuss. That the amendin Westminster would nevertheless have ment proposed by the noble lord threatenbeen bound to declare the contrary; and ed the most pernicious consequences to consequently to throw a disrespect on the the nation, as it manifestly violated every vote of the House: but he made a wide form and law of parliament, was a gross distinction between general declarations attack upon the privileges of the House of of law, and the particular decision which Commons, and, instead of promoting that might be made by either House, in their harmony which the King had recomjudicial capacity, on a case coming regu- mended, must inevitably throw the whole larly before them, and properly the sub- country into a flame. That there never ject of their jurisdiction. That here they was an instance of the Lords enquiring did not act as legislators, pronouncing ab-into the proceedings of the House of Com.

done, or that the case should be provided for by an act of the legislature. That, indeed, might be effectual. But whether such a remedy be proper or necessary in the present case, or whether, indeed, it be attainable, considering that the other House must give their consent to it, is not a question now before us. If such a Bill should be proposed, it will be regular and parliamentary, and we may then, with propriety, enter into the legal merits of the decision of the House of Commons. As for the Amendment proposed by the noble lord, I object to it as irregular and unparliamentary. I am persuaded, that it will be attended with very pernicious consequences to this country, and that it cannot possibly produce a single good one. The Earl of Chatham :

My lords; there is one plain maxim, to which I have invariably adhered through life: that in every question, in which my liberty or my property were concerned, I should consult and be determined by the dictates of common sense. I confess, my lords, that I am apt to distrust the refinements of learning, because I have seen the ablest and the most learned men equally liable to deceive themselves, and to mislead others. The condition of human nature would be lamentable indeed, if nothing less than the greatest learning and talents, which fall to the share of so small a number of men, were sufficient to direct our judgment and our conduct. But Providence has taken

mons with respect to their own members; much less of their taking upon them to ensure such proceedings, or of their advising the crown to take notice of them. If, indeed, it be the noble lord's design to quarrel with the House of Commons, I confess it will have that effect, and immediately. The lower House will undoubtedly assert their privileges, and give you vote for vote. I leave it, therefore, to your lordships, to consider the fatal effects which may arise in such a juncture as the present, either from an open breach between the two Houses of parliament, or between the King and the House of Commons. But, my lords, if I could suppose it were even advisable to promote a disagreement between the two Houses, I would still recommend it to you to take care to be in the right; whenever I am forced into a quarrel, I will always endeavour to have justice on my side. Now, my lords, admitting the House of Commons to have done wrong, will it mend the matter for your lordships to do ten times worse? And that I am clearly convinced would be the case, if your lordships were obliged to declare any opinion of your own, or offer any advice to the crown, on a matter in which, by the constitution of this country, you have no right whatever to interfere. I will go farther, my lords; I will affirm, that such a step would be as ineffectual as it would be irregular. Suppose the King, in consequence of our advice, should dissolve the parliament (for that, I presume, is the true object of the noble lord's Amend-better care of our happiness, and given us, ment), the next House of Commons that meets, if they know any thing of their own privileges, or the laws of this country, will undoubtedly, on the very first day of the session, take notice of our proceedings, and declare them to be a violation of the rights of the Commons. They must do so, my lords; or they will shamefully betray their constituents and themselves. A noble lord (lord Marchmont) near me, has proposed that we should demand a conference with the other House. It would be a more moderate step, I confess, but equally ineffectual. The Commons would never submit to discuss their privileges with the Lords. They would not come to a conference on the subject; or, if they did come, they would soon break it up with indignation. If, then, the Commons have done wrong, I know of no remedy, but either that the same power should undo the mischief they have

in the simplicity of common sense, a rule for our direction, by which we shall never be misled. I confess, my lords, I had no other guide in drawing up the Amendment, which I submitted to your consideration; and before I heard the opinion of the noble lord who spoke last, I did not conceive that it was even within the limits of possi bility for the greatest human genius, the most subtle understanding, or the acutest wit, so strangely to misrepresent my meaning, and to give it an interpretation so entirely foreign from what I intended to express, and from that sense which the very terms of the Amendment plainly and distinctly carry with them. If there be the smallest foundation for the censure thrown upon me by that noble lord, if, either expressly, or by the most distant implication, I have said or insinuated any part of what the noble lord has charged me with, discard my opinions for ever, discard the motion with contempt.

Is

disputably true, my lords, that Mr. Wilkes
had a common right, and that he lost it
no other way but by a resolution of the
House of Commons? My lords, I have
been tender of misrepresenting the House
of Commons: I have consulted their
Journals, and have taken the very words of
their own resolution. Do they not tell
us, in so many words, that Mr. Wilkes,
having been expelled, was thereby ren-
dered incapable of serving in that parlia
ment! and is it not their resolution alone,
which refuses to the subject his common
right? The Amendment says farther, that
the electors of Middlesex are deprived of
their free choice of a representative.
this a false fact, my lords? or have I given
an unfair representation of it? Will any
man presume to affirm that colonel Lut-
trell is the free choice of the electors of Mid-
dlesex? We all know the contrary. We
all know that Mr. Wilkes (whom I men-
tion without either praise or censure) was
the favourite of the county, and chosen by
a very great and acknowledged majority,
to represent them in parliament. If the
noble lord dislikes the manner in which
these facts are stated, I shall think myself
happy in being advised by him how to al-
ter it. I am very little anxious about
terms, provided the substance be pre-
served; and these are facts, my lords,
which I am sure will always retain their
weight and inportance, in whatever form
of language they are described.

My lords, I must beg the indulgence of the House. Neither will my health permit me, nor do I pretend to be qualified to follow that learned lord minutely through the whole of his argument. No man is better acquainted with his abilities and learning, nor has a greater respect for them, than I have. I have had the pleasure of sitting with him in the other House, and always listened to him with attention. I have not now lost a word of what he said, nor did I ever. On the present question I meet him without fear. The evidence which truth carries with it, is superior to all argument; it neither wants the support, nor dreads the opposition of the greatest abilities. If there be a single word in the Amendment to justify the interpretation which the noble lord has been pleased to give it, I am ready to renounce the whole: let it be read, my lords; let it speak for itself. (It was read)-In what instance does it interfere with the privileges of the House of Commons? In what respect does it question their jurisdiction, or suppose an authority in this House to arraign the justice of their sentence? I am sure that every lord who hears me, will bear me witness, that I said not one word touching the merits of the Middlesex election; so far from conveying any opinion upon that matter in the Amendment, I did not even in discourse deliver my own sentiment upon it. I did not say that the House of Commons had done either right or wrong; but, when Now, my lords, since I have been forced his Majesty was pleased to recommend it to enter into the explanation of an amendto us to cultivate unanimity amongst our-ment, in which nothing less than the genius selves, I thought it the duty of this House, of penetration could have discovered an obas the great hereditary council of the crown, scurity, and having, as I hope, redeemed to state to his Majesty the distracted con- myself in the opinion of the House, havdition of his dominions, together with the ing redeemed my motion from the severe events which had destroyed unanimity representation given of it by the noble among his subjects. But, my lords, I lord, I must a little longer intreat your stated those events merely as facts, with- lordships' indulgence. The constitution out the smallest addition either of censure of this country has been openly invaded in or of opinion. They are facts, my lords, fact; and I have heard, with horror and which I am not only convinced are true, but astonishment, that very invasion defended which I know are indisputably true. For on principle. What is this mysterious example, my lords, will any man deny that power, undefined by law, unknown to the discontents prevail in many parts of his subject, which we must not approach Majesty's dominions? or that those dis- without awe, nor speak of without revecontents arise from the proceedings of the rence, which no man may question, and to House of Commons touching the declared which all men must submit? My lords, I incapacity of Mr. Wilkes? It is impossi- thought the slavish doctrine of passive obeble: no man can deny a truth so noto-dience had long since been exploded: and, rious. Or will any man deny that those proceedings refused, by a resolution of one branch of the legislature only, to the subject his common right? Is it not in[VOL. XVI.]

when our kings were obliged to confess that their title to the crown, and the rule of their government, had no other founda tion than the known laws of the land, I [2 U]

ceived and submitted to, as, ipso facto, the law of the land. My lords, I am a plain man, and have been brought up in a religious reverence for the original simplicity of the laws of England. By what sophistry they have been perverted, by what artifices they have been involved in obscu

never expected to hear a divine right, or a divine infallibility, attributed to any other branch of the legislature. My lords, I beg to be understood, no man respects the House of Commons more than I do, or would contend more strenuously than I would, to preserve to them their just and legal authority. Within the bounds pre-rity, is not for me to explain; the princiscribed by the constitution, that authority is necessary to the well-being of the people: beyond that line, every exertion of power is arbitrary, is illegal; it threatens tyranny to the people, and destruction to the state. Power without right is the most odious and detestable object that can be offered to the human imagination: it is not only pernicious to those who are subject to it, but tends to its own destruction. It is what my noble friend (lord Lyttelton) has truly described it, Res detesta⚫bilis et caduca.' My lords, I acknowledge the just power, and reverence the constitution of the House of Commons. It is for their own sake that I would prevent their assuming a power which the constitution has denied them, lest, by grasping at an authority they have no right to, they should forfeit that which they legally possess. My lords, I affirm that they 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.

ples, however, of the English laws, are still sufficiently clear: they are founded in reason, and are the master-piece of the human understanding; but it is in the text that I would look for a direction to my judgment, not in the commentaries of modern professors. The noble lord assures us, that he knows not in what code the law of parliament is to be found; that the House of Commons, when they act as judges, have no law to direct them but their own wisdom; that their decision is law; and if they determine wrong, the subject has no appeal but to Heaven. What then, my lords, are all the generous efforts of our ancestors, are all those glorious contentions, by which they meant to secure to themselves and to transmit to their posterity a known law, a certain rule of living; reduced to this conclusion, that instead of the arbitrary power of a king, we must submit to the arbitrary power of a House of Commons? If this be true, what benefit do we derive from the exchange? Tyranny, my lords, is detestable in every shape; but in none so formidable as when it is assumed and exercised by a number of tyrants. But, my lords, this is not the fact, this is not the constitution; we have a law of parliament, we have a code in which every honest man may find it. We have Magna Charta, we have the Statute Book, and the Bill of Rights.

I shall endeavour to adhere strictly to the noble lord's doctrine, which is indeed impossible to mistake, so far as my memory will permit me to preserve his expressions. He seems fond of the word 'jurisdiction; and I confess, with the force and effect which he has given it, it is a word of copious meaning and wonderful extent. If a case should arise unknown to these If his lordship's doctrine be well founded, great authorities, we have still that plain we must renounce all those political English reason left, which is the foundamaxims by which our understandings have tion of all our English jurisprudence. hitherto been directed, and even the first That reason tells us that every judicial elements of learning taught us in our court, and every political society, must be schools when we were school-boys. My vested with those powers and privileges lords, we knew that jurisdiction was no- which are necessary for performing the thing more than jus dicere; we knew that office to which they are appointed. It legem facere and legem dicere were powers tells us also, that no court of justice can clearly distinguished from each other in have a power inconsistent with, or parathe nature of things, and wisely separated mount to, the known laws of the land by the wisdom of the English constitution; that the people, when they choose their rebut now, it seems, we must adopt a new presentatives, never mean to convey to system of thinking. The House of Com-them a power of invading the rights, or mons, we are told, have a supreme jurisdic- trampling on the liberties of those whom tion; and there is no appeal from their sen- they represent. What security would tence, and that, wherever they are com- they have for their rights, if once they adpetent judges, their decision must be re-mitted that a court of judicature might de

: