274 WILKES EXPELLED THE HOUSE. CH. IX. their mode of dealing with it. To pronounce an offence against a peer of Parliament a breach of the privileges of the House of Commons would have been too violent. But they proceeded to try Wilkes as for a libel. And, instead of requiring him to attend in his place, or to withdraw, according to the practice of the House when the conduct of one of its members is to be impugned, they had him brought to the bar in custody, and there required him to answer to a charge of libel, in support of which, they had without a shadow of authority, and by usurping the functions of a court of law, already taken evidence. Wilkes might, of course, have declined such an unconstitutional and illegal authority. But Wilkes' mode of defence. it suited his purpose to accept the issue now ripe for trial between the House and the Constituency. When put to his defence, therefore, he at once avowed the publication of the libel; and, with the cool effrontery which belonged to him, added the expression of his regret, not for having written it, but for the mildness of the language in which it was couched. Expulsion of Wilkes moved by Lord The expulsion of Wilkes was, therefore, moved by Lord Barrington, the Secretary-at-War and a leading member of the King's party.* Barrington. The grounds stated were not merely the seditious libel which he had just avowed, but the libels for which he had already suffered the penalty of expulsion in former Parliaments. A proceeding so repugnant to the principles of national justice, as to inflict the same punishment twice for one offence, could not pass altogether unquestioned in an assembly, of which some of the members were men of integrity and independence. But the motion was carried by a large majority. A new writ for Middlesex was accordingly ordered. Wilkes was again put in nomination, and re *He had been a partisan of Bute's. 1769. RE-ELECTION AND INCREASED POPULARITY. 275 turned almost unanimously; his opponent, Serjeant Whitaker, a respectable member of the bar, obtaining only five votes. The House of Commons was determined to per severe. Commons to persevere, On the day following the return House of of the writ, they resolved, by an increased determined majority, That having been expelled, Mr. Wilkes was incapable of serving in that Parliament.' The election was, therefore, declared void, and another writ was issued. To return Wilkes again in the face of this resolution was to treat the House with open defiance and contempt. But the freeholders of the metropolitan county did not for a moment hesitate to take this course. Many persons of weight and character, who had hitherto taken no part in the quarrel, now came forward and made common cause with the electors of Middlesex in defence of the violated rights of the Constituency. Money was subscribed, not merely to defray the expenses of the Middlesex elections, but to liquidate the private debts of the candidate who was the champion of the people; and an association was formed, under the title of the Supporters of the Bill of Rights.' Under these circumstances, no man of character could be found to undertake the hopeless wilkes elected and invidious task of becoming the Court for Middlesex. and House of Commons' candidate at the new election. One Dingley, indeed, a broken speculator, who had made a ridiculous attempt to procure an address to the King from a public meeting in the City, appeared on the hustings at Brentford; but as he could not induce any person to put him in nomination, Wilkes was declared duly elected. The House of Commons had hitherto been content with annulling the choice of the electors. Colonel The Government were now prepared to go a step farther, and, by means of their servile Luttrell. 276 RIGHT OF EXPULSION. CH. IX. majority, to seat a man whom the electors had rejected. Colonel Luttrell, a young officer of the Guards, without any pretension to the representation of Middlesex, was the individual fixed upon to be the sitting member; and as if to make their settled purpose more apparent, Luttrell already possessed a seat in Parliament which he was obliged to vacate on becoming a candidate for the representation of another constituency. Col. Luttrell The influence of the Court obtained 296 votes for their candidate, against 1143 freely and eagerly recorded for Wilkes. The latter was, of course, declared duly elected. ⚫ declared member. Motion to erase the name of Wilkes. On the return of the writ, a motion was made to erase the name of Wilkes, and substitute that of Luttrell. But the House hesitated to go the length of bestowing the seat upon a candidate whom the Constituency had refused. After a warm debate, the Government prevailed only by a small majority. Right of the expel a member. There was no reasonable ground, however, for this squeamishness. The House of Commons has the right of expulsion over its own members, and though the infliction of this extreme penalty on the mere allegation of an offence against the law of the land was a stretch of power, still the House must, in every instance, be guided by its own discretion in the exercise of a privilege which is neither defined nor limited by any general law. The House was, therefore, justified according to strict parliamentary law, in the first expulsion of Wilkes. But the act of expulsion purged his offence, as far as guilt attached to him in his capacity as a member of Parliament. Even a convicted felon, after he has suffered the punishment awarded by the law, is restored to his civil rights. Again, every man, subject to certain qualifications and disqualifications by statute law, is eligible to serve in Par 1769. UNJUSTIFIABLE CONDUCT OF THE HOUSE. 277 liament as a representative of the people. Wilkes laboured under none of the incapacities so ascertained. It is plain, therefore, that when the House of Commons avoided his re-election, on the ground that he was disqualified by their resolution, they assumed nothing less than a dispensing power. The violation of the law of the realm, and of the essential rights of the electoral body, was complete when they voted that a knight of the shire duly elected was not duly elected; and the instalment of a candidate who had not been chosen, in the place of the rightful and legal representative, was but the logical consequence of the act which they had already com mitted. Grenville's These scandalous proceedings were reprobated by almost every man of mark and station in the House of Commons. Grenville, remonstrances. surpassed by none in his knowledge of parliamentary law, in his tenacity of privilege, and in his assertion of the power and authority of the House of Commons, denounced these unconstitutional and lawless votes with the combined weight of argument and authority. As he had been prepared to vindicate the just claims of Parliament even, if necessary, by force of arms, so did he now, from the same upright motive, resist an aggression which neither law nor precedent could justify. If the House of Commons had been swayed by any consideration of public spirit, the integrity, the knowledge and experience of Grenville must, on such a question as this at least, have gone far to influence its deliberations. But in vain were the high constitutional arguments of an English statesman addressed to an assembly which represented, not English interests or feelings, but the crooked policy and petty vindictiveness of the Court. Whenever the people had an opportunity, directly or indirectly, of expressing their sentiments, in 278 PUBLIC DISCONTENT. CH. IX. regard to the conduct of the Court and Parliament, Public indigna- they were those of indignation and contion excited. tempt. An attempt made by the obscure adventurer Dingley to get up a loyal address to the King during the Middlesex elections resulted in some excesses on the part of the populace. The rioters were prosecuted; but the grand jury of Middlesex ignored the bills. Wilkes himself, as a martyr in the cause of liberty, received not only every mark of public sympathy and respect, but also honours and rewards of which he was personally unworthy. His action against the Secretary of State for seizing his papers by a general warrant, after having been delayed by every species of chicanery on the part of the defendant, came on for trial in the midst of this agitation, and resulted in a verdict with damages of four thousand pounds. A vacancy occurring about the same time in one of the City wards, Wilkes was elected an alderman almost by acclamation. His debts were paid, and a competency for life was provided for him by public subscription. Middlesex petition the Crown. Nor were there wanting demonstrations of a still The county of more grave and ominous character. The metropolitan county, not satisfied with the reiterated expression of its opinion at the poll, drew up a manifesto of grievances in the form of a petition to the throne. The language of this paper was more libellous and seditious, inasmuch as it was more vigorous and pointed, than any for which Wilkes had been pursued with such infatuated pertinacity. But the Court were content to receive this insult in sullen silence. The city of Westminster petitioned expressly for a change of administration and a dissolution of Parliament. The county of York, under the guidance of the Marquis of Rockingham,* took the milder course of thanking their * Burke's Correspondence, vol. i. p. 186.-Though the great orator urges more vigorous counsels on the weak and fastidious |