son why we should not give them the sanction of our authority. Lord Clare: I have an objection to the motion besides that which has been just suggested to be the only one that can be brought: if we come to the resolution proposed, we shall incur the disgrace and danger of a House that is divided against itself, for it is diametrically opposite to the last resolution which we came to in this very committee; I will not pay so bad a compliment to this House as to suppose that such resolution was contrary to self-evident principles of right, which are the foundation of all law, and therefore I cannot suppose with the hon. gentleman that the resolution now moved for, is consonant to such principles. I do not pretend that Mr. Wilkes is incapacitated by act of parliament, yet I say that in my opinion he is legally incapacitated, and as in this particular my opinion agrees with a resolution already past, I cannot concur in this motion for a contrary resolution. Captain Constantine Phipps : Sir; I agree that laws cannot make the difference between right and wrong, but they declare what is right and wrong, to prevent the artifices of sophistry, and the labour of deduction, and they enforce the one and discourage the other by securing advantages and inflicting punishment. The constituent parts of the legislature of this country are well known: nothing is law that restrains common right, but what receives the sanction of their united acts, and by laws which have received that sanction, judges and juries, and even Houses of Parliament, are regulated and restrained, as well as private individuals. The law of the land might have incapacitated Mr. Wilkes, by adjudging him to have forfeited his common right, and the laws of the land restrains us from incapacitating him, his common right remaining till such law takes it away: I am therefore for precluding farther debate on this subject by the resolution now moved for. Mr. Rice: We have already voted that the transaction in question was agreeable to the law of the land; to what purpose then is it for gentlemen to insist that we are not at liberty to act contrary to the law of the land? [VOL. XVI.] Mr. Howard: Gentlemen have objected to the motion of my worthy friend, by saying that the House would, by the resolution proposed, be divided against itself; but as two negatives are known to make an affirmative, I shall give my vote for the motion, upon his principle, that the House may not be divided against itself. We voted the return of Mr. Wilkes as legally elected to be right, and we afterwards voted that he was not capable of election; thus were we divided against ourselves, but if now we vote that Mr. Wilkes was not incapable of election, we shall unvote the contradiction, and so get right at last. If the resolution of this House incapacitated Mr. Wilkes, how came the sheriffs not to be bound by it? The truth is, the sheriffs were neither bound by it, nor even supposed to be bound by it, by those who insisted that the vote was law; they were bound by the laws of the land and their oaths, and such was the force of this truth, that it was assented to by necessity, and the assent declared before its consequences were seen. We have been told by an hon. gentleman (Mr. Onslow,) that the sense of many respectable and uninfluenced persons without doors was declared to be with the House in the rejection of Mr. Wilkes, upon a supposition that our vote incapacitated; but will that hon. gentleman abide by his declaration? Will he now stand forth and say that no influence was used in the county to which he particularly alludes? Will he say that no honours were conferred on presenting the Surrey address? Mr. Blackstone : Sir; I think it incumbent upon me to declare, that in my opinion, this House is competent in the case of elections, and that there is no appeal from its competence to the law of the land. There are cases in which the other House is competent: if the House of Lords in these laws should determine contrary to the law of the land, what is the remedy? and what is the remedy if the privy council, or the court of delegates should make such a determination? If such resolutions of the Lords, the Council and the Delegates are final, why not the resolutions of this House? As to the question whether expulsion does of itself imply incapacity, I have never answered it in the affirmative, neither have I ever declared the contrary. [3 F] I did not vote in the question last year, and I shall not, by any vote that I may now give, be included in that question. Mr. Dunning: Sir; if it had not been too late I should have spoken in the last debate, in answer to a learned gentleman, who among other persons that are allowed to be incapacitated, and yet are not incapacitated by law, mentioned paupers. I shall therefore now take up the question, and deliver it as my opinion that paupers are incapacitated by law; paupers from the first æra of votery were excluded. The law has virtually excluded them by having never given them a right. None had a right to vote for members, who could not contribute to pay them, for at that time it is well known the members had wages for their service: certificate men, as they are called, were also excluded for the same reason; they were supposed to be residents of the place whence the certificate came, as they were liable at any time to be claimed by that parish. As an argument to prove that expulsion incapacitates in this House, it was said that a person expelled a corporation for perjury, is not qualified for being replaced; but though I admit the fact, I deny the inference; such a person's incapacity does not arise from his expulsion, but his perjury. That expulsion incapacitates seems now, indeed, to be given up and it seems clear to me that if expulsion does not incapacitate, the House, of itself, cannot create incapacity. If in Mr. Wilkes's case you have acted agreeably to the resolution now proposed, you ought to thank those who made the motion; and if not, you ought to thank them for offering you a line of direction in future times. Dr. Hay: Sir; I am always sorry to differ from the learned gentleman who spoke last, but I must say, that in my opinion, expulsion does imply incapacity; if not, the pretended right of this House to expel is altogether nugatory and ineffectual, and amounts to nothing more than a right of declaring a mere speculative difference of opinion from that of the electors of a county; a right which is as amply enjoyed and exercised in every coffee-houseclub, as in this assembly. Mr. Justice Blackstone supported the opinion of Dr. Hay, and was answered by Mr. Edmund Burke. Mr. Charles Fox | spoke in answer to Mr. Burke, but the topic has been so exhausted, that the speeches verbatim would neither contain any thing new, or exhibit any thing in a new light. Lord North : Expulsion, Sir, is certainly one of the oldest rights of this House, and it cannot be denied that expulsion has hitherto rendered the party incapable of sitting in the same House; will you, then, condemn the judgments of parliament? Pass a vote of condemnation extrajudicially without any case before you? Surely such a vote will be a reproach to your own acts, and throw an indelible disgrace upon your proceedings in a future session: it is not the ministry but the House of Commons that is concerned in this debate, and therefore I move to leave the Chair; my intention however is not to put an end to the committee, but only to this question, and if my present motion is carried, I will then move to revive the committee. [This motion not being seconded, the debate went on.] Mr. Wedderburn: When this committee sat last, the conclusion that it came to concerning this question, was in every respect strange and unnatural. The resolution now moved for will put all right. The noble lord asks, will the House of Commons censure and disgrace itself? let me ask in my turn will the House of Commons compose the minds of the people? will they recover the good opinion and confidence of those whom some gentlemen have been pleased to call, the rabble, the base-born, the scum of the earth? Mr. Edward Thurlow: Sir; as the argument now seems to be carried on by questions, I shall ask in my turn, how came the House of Commons to determine who should sit among them formerly, if they cannot determine who shall sit among them now? how came they to determine that the Attorney General, the Solicitor General, and the Masters in Chancery could not sit here, because they might possibly be called upon to attend the House of Lords; and how came this determination to be acquiesced in till these persons were re-admitted by a subsequent vote? There is a well-known case, which shews it to be so in the time of queen Elizabeth, that of the Soli citor General (Onslow) who was chosen Speaker.* Mr. Serjeant Glynn observed, that the House had a power of restraining its members, as to rights which interfered with their bers, as to rights which interfered with their duty and situation, as members, either in point of attendance or independance; but that it did by no means follow, that it could deprive them of their common right; and therefore the instances which had been given, with respect to the Attorney and Solicitor General, and Masters in Chancery, were not in point. Mr. Beckford (lord mayor of London,) said, that the parliament should have done in this case, as it did with the South Sea Directors, who were incapacitated by a bill. Corporations are the creatures of the crown; we, said he, are the creatures of the people; and however some gentlemen may affect to lessen their importance, by opprobrious names, the greatest rascals will be found to be those in laced coats. He that has forty shillings a year, is as good a man, and has the same rights in this country, as he that has an annual revenue of two thousand pounds. I never look for honesty either at St. Giles's, or St. James's. Mr. Thomas De Grey observed, that the petitioners had nothing to lose, but a great deal to get; that all who subscribed the petitions were in that predicament. Upon this he was called to order by Mr. Sheriff Townshend, who asked what the gentleman meant by the subscribers of petitions having nothing to lose, and much to get. This produced a warm altercation, in which the Committee lost sight of the question, and never recovered it. Mr. Cornwall and lord Barrington exchanged some expressions of quick resentment. Colonel Barré : Lord North replied with great spirit and good humour: The gentleman does me honour in deviating from this great question, to mention a man of so little consequence as myself: as to the noble duke, whose merit I know, and whose merit he seems disposed to acknowledge from the moment that he went out of office, he is not much obliged to him for his compliment, though, perhaps, it is the greatest he can pay him. As to places, a subject upon which that gentleman and his party are particularly eloquent; it is true, that many are now vacant, which I hope will be soon filled up with men of ability. Will the hon. gen tleman have one? I wish he would. Colonel Barré. Places must certainly go a begging, when they are offered to so insignificant a man as I am. No, Sir, I refuse them with contempt. Mr. Grenville then made an attempt to Houses have been guilty of wilful error. recover the question, and said: I fear both I have sat thirty years in parliament, and I think I cannot be mistaken; I speak from what I have seen, and I am sorry for it. Those that say all they like, may chance to hear what they do not like. Mr. Luttrell. It is very true, Sir, that those who say all they like, may chance to hear what they do not like. The hon. gentleman, I believe, will not much like to hear, that having been traduced by a libel, I found, upon the examination of a printer, that it came from à near relation of that hon. gentleman. Sir; the premier, (duke of Grafton,) has resigned, and it may be said of Mr. Grenville. Let him make the him, "that nothing in his office, became charge good: appoint a committee to enhim like the quitting it." There was quire: I declare that I never was consome honour as well as prudence, in leav-cerned either directly or indirectly in any ing a distempered administration, in which such libel, let it have been traced to whom he must give and receive infection. A it would. noble lord, who has succeeded to the danger and disgrace, said in a former debate, that it was not ambition, but the hope of doing good, which induced him to accept of the office he held: and it is not much to • See vol. 1, p. 704. Sir Gilbert Elliot then spoke warmly, and with some relation to the question; he concluded by saying, that there seemed to be a combination to sweep away the old furniture of St. James's, and to sweep away that House. Mr. Whitworth declared the constitu tion to be totally annihilated, and Mr. Cavendish offered something in favour of the question, upon which, Mr. Sheriff Sawbridge got up, and spoke to this effect: Mr. Luttrell told me that a printer said, I had indemnified him for printing a libel on Mr. Luttrell, and Mr. Sheriff Townshend; but upon enquiry, the printer utterly denied it. Mr. Luttrell. One man who was in office under the late chancellor, I think he was a secretary, fell upon his knees to me, and begged mercy! crying out, Good God! What will not the rage of party do! Mr. Grenville. I desire that the House will appoint a committee, to enquire whether I have ever been concerned in a libel, and who Iras. Mr. Luttrell. I did not charge that gentleman. Mr. Walsingham. The noble lord who was hinted at by Mr. Luttrell, in what he has alledged against a near relation of Mr. Grenville's, (lord Temple) has given me authority to say, that he knew nothing of the letters which he calls libels. The debate thus terminated, having continued till near one o'clock. Debate in the Commons on Ordering certain Words of the Speaker to be taken down.*] February 16. Sir Francis Vincent reported from the committee on the State of the Nation, the Resolution they had come to, "That this House, in the exercise of its judicature in matters of election, is bound to judge according to the law of the land, and the known and established law and custom of parliament, which is part thereof; and that the judgment of this House, declared in the Resolution of the 17th of February last, That John Wilkes, esq., having been in this session of parliament expelled this House, was, and is, incapable of being elected a member to serve in this present parliament,' was agreeable to the said law of the land, and fully authorized by the law and custom of parliament." warmly declared themselves of sir William's opinion. The Speaker said, that as he was scarce warm in the Chair, it would have been but candid in sir William to have apprized him of his intention to call upon him for his opinion, that he might have been prepared: he, however, had examined the Journal, on that head, and cited a case or two. Sir William Meredith said the Speaker had used him very ill, in taking notice of his not giving the Speaker notice of his intended motion. He appealed to the House if public notice had not been given in the committee on the State of the Nation, when it was declared that it would be attempted to be divided. Even the cases which the Speaker had cited out of the Journals shewed that this was so understood by the Speaker. It was not necessary for any member to acquaint the Speaker of his motions; and he should think himself the less so, as the Speaker had shewn, from his knowledge on this question, that he had less occasion to do so. The Speaker on this got up and said: In candour I did expect he would have communicated his motion to me; but I find I am not to expect candid treatment from that gentleman. The House then called out, "Take down his words."* The Speaker, when "Not finding any precise rule, by which it can be collected what are the directions of the House,' and being of opinion, that the Speaker is the only person from whom the Clerk ought to receive the sense, or directions, or orders of the House; the rule I have laid down to myself, and have observed upon these occasions has been, to wait for the directions of the Speaker; and not to consider myself as obliged to look upon the call of one member, or any number of members, as the directions of the House, unless they are conveyed to me through the usual and only channel by which, in my opinion, the Clerk can receive them. I difficulties, when, upon the 16th of February was therefore put under very extraordinary 1770, exceptions were taken to some expressions, used from the chair by sir Fletcher Norton, then Speaker; but, notwithstanding the loud and repeated cries of several members, and that I was often particularly called upon by Mr. Dowdeswell, and many others, to do my duty, and write down the words, I recollected my own rule, and declined writing them down, till I had the consent of the Speaker for so doing: and if the Speaker had not given me From the Journals, Gentleman's Maga- that consent, I should have persisted in declinzine, and London Museum. Sir William Meredith observed, that the said Resolution contained a complicated question, and that it was the undoubted right of any one member of the House to have it separated, before any question could be put upon it. Mr. Thomas Pitt and Mr. Grenville ing to take them down; and would afterwards the confusion was a little subsided, disired he might finish his sentence; which he did; and then the words were taken down by the Clerk at the table, thus: "When I expected candid treatment from that member, I was mistaken; for I find I am not to expect candor from that gentleman, in any motions he is to make to the chair.” And the said Words, so taken down, being read to the House; a right to say, I was not to expect candor on that subject. I did not, in justice I ought not to have made a general reflection upon the member's character; but, if the member had said what I understood he said, I had a right to say what I did. I can make no apology for what I said; but will abide the sense of the House." This again inflamed matters. Mr. Grenville then continued, that he was sorry to find himself mistaken, as to what the Speaker had said; that by say Mr. Speaker declared, That those were not the words which he had made use of, but that they were as followeth : "Ining he meant no general reflection, it was candor, I hoped he would have informed me of the motion he intended to make; but I now find, from what the member has said, that I am not to expect that candid treatment from him:-for he said in his speech, That, from this time forward, he will have no communication with the Chair." The House was now in an universal uproar; this addition by no means altering the sense of it. Sir William Meredith complained of the most unjust treatment in the censure these words contained of his candour. Lord North and the minis. try justified them: for some time no person could be heard distinctly. The minority represented the heinousness of the words, whilst the others vindicated them: at length, when the noise subsided a little, The Speaker said, "he did not mean any general reflection on the character of the member." Lord Granby, lord G. Sackville, and two or three more, said this apology was sufficient from one gentleman to another, and hoped sir William would take them as, a sufficient apology, and let the thing drop. Mr. Grenville, after laying down very properly the bad consequence of such words coming from the Chair, said, as the Speaker had made that apology, by saying that he did not mean any reflection on sir W. Meredith, he hoped the affair would immediately subside. The Speaker then interrupted him, and said, "What I said, arose out of what I understood the member to have said. If he disclaimed candor with the Chair, I had have submitted the regularity of my conduct, in this particular, to the House, and received their explanation of the rule, Whether the Clerk is justified in obeying any other orders or directions but what are signified to him by the Speaker?" Hatsell. clear that he meant particular ones on sir W. Meredith; and as no gentleman in the House was ever allowed to use disrespectful words to another, without apology, he thought the House had a right to expect the same behaviour from the Chair, which ought to be a pattern to the House, of order and gentlemanly deportment. The House was now inflamed to a high degree. The ministry still contending for the innocence and propriety of the words, whilst the minority attacked the Speaker in a manner that few persons could bear. Mr. Dowdeswell observed, that the words were disorderly in the highest degree; if they had fallen in common debate, from one member to another, they must be looked on as such; but that the weight they carried with them, as coming from the Chair, would also be looked on as a censure on the member, and tending to destroy the freedom of debate; for if censures of that nature were permitted to fall so lightly from the Chair, we might at some future period of time have a Speaker who might be the tool of administration, and particular members might, in a great degree, be censured so as to be silenced, destroying, by that means, the freedom of debate. Sir Gilbert Elliot observed, that the debate had now continued four hours; no question had yet been moved on the matter; he therefore imagined the gentlemen of the minority had nothing to move, and thought the House might as well adjourn. Mr. Dowdeswell then said, he had a motion in his hand, which he had had ready above two hours, but had hoped the Speaker would make it unnecessary, by making the proper apology; but as he found that not to be the case, he moved, "That the Words spoken by Mr. Speaker, from the Chair, are disorderly, importing |