1770.

THE CITY ADDRESS.

339

The City's ad

by the Crown.

had not been an instance of an answer from the throne carrying with it a degree of censure. But it may be also said, that since the dress censured Revolution such an address had never been carried up to the throne. There are many who think that the throne should never be approached but with the choicest expressions of duty and loyalty. To such persons the tone and language of the City remonstrance must appear altogether unjustifiable. But it would be difficult to show, that it is inconsistent with a due respect for monarchy-for a constitutional and limited monarchy at least that a free people should sometimes address their complaints to the Sovereign in plain and simple language. The City address was, no doubt, exaggerated in its terms, and not altogether accurate in its assertions. Still it was far from being that mere ebullition of civic insolence which courtiers and flatterers would fain have made it out. The City had received provocation. Their first petition, which was not so strongly worded as many other petitions emanating from less important bodies, had not received the common courtesy of an answer. In complaining of undue irresponsible influence under the direction of the Crown, the Corporation did no more than had been done by every minister who had served the Crown since the accession of His Majesty. In saying that the House of Commons was corrupt, and that its proceedings had been illegal, they merely repeated what had been said by men of the highest mark in their places in Parliament; by Lord Chatham in one House, and by Sir George Savile in the other. The question was, whether the country should be governed by a free Parliament, acting under the guidance of known responsible ministers, or by a packed Parliament under the direction of a secret irresponsible cabal. If such is a true statement of the issue between the Crown and the country, then surely it became a body of Englishmen to lay aside courtly

340

BECKFORD'S DEFENCE OF THE CITY. CH. II.

phrases, and to tell the Sovereign the truth in plain terms. But if there was no corruption in the House of Commons, and no intrigue in the Court, then, indeed, the language of the remonstrance was to the last degree insolent and seditious.

The anger

The anger of

of the Court was extreme; and finding that the movers of the City agitation were the Court. not accessible by the ordinary process of the law, they tried to engage Parliament in their design of inflicting vengeance on the petitioners. But even if the Court had been content to let the matter rest, the House of Commons could hardly have passed over imputations of the grossest kind upon their character and title, contained in a paper which had been laid at the foot of the throne. Sir Thomas Clavering, a country gentleman, moved for a copy of the remonstrance; and such was the temper of the majority that some violent proceeding would have been adopted, had it not been for the prudence of Lord North as well as the firmness of the City representatives.*

Angry feelings

of the Crown.

The principal members of the Corporation were members of the House of Commons. Lord Firmness of the Mayor Beckford and Alderman Trecothick City members. immediately stood up, justified what had been done, and challenged the censure of the House. The Sheriffs, Townshend and Sawbridge, followed to the same purpose. Lord North then interposed, and seeing the danger of provoking a collision with the City, and thus reviving the agitation of the preceding

* Let it be sufficient, when I tell you that I have been menaced with impeachment, sequestration of my estates and banishment; but I was supported by a worthy colleague, one of your representatives, and your two worthy Sheriffs; and I verily believe that without such support, something

very hostile and disagreeable to me, your Lord Mayor, would have been the consequence.'BECKFORD'S Speech to the Livery on announcing the King's Answer to the Address and Remonstrance. -Gentleman's Magazine, vol. xl. p. 166.

1770.

WEDDERBURN'S SPEECH.

341

year, aimed at imparting a calmer tone to the debate. Contenting himself with a simple denial of parliamentary corruption, he addressed his argument to that part of the City manifesto which was the least defensible. To contend that the House of Commons had ceased legally to represent the people, because they had committed one questionable or even illegal act, was utterly extravagant. The bonds of law and order might constantly be in danger of dissolution, if such a doctrine were to obtain; since the House of Commons is the last resort of that supreme power which must exist in every polity. Such vast responsibility can rest only on the ample faith and dutiful obedience of the great body of the people. To censure the conduct of the House, even to dispute the validity of its acts, as was done in the case of the Middlesex election, was one thing; but to deny the title of the House of Commons is to deny the title of Parliament, since the other branches of the legislature have no power to make binding laws without the concurrence of the representative body.*

Lord North's conduct.-Wedderburn's

Lord North attacked this point, upon which he could obtain an easy victory, as if it had been the material point in the remonstrance. He would no doubt have got speech. rid of Clavering's motion, had he been a free agent; but, urged on by the Court, he assented to it, the less reluctantly, perhaps, because he knew it could end in nothing. Wedderburn, in an excellent speech, showed the House that the remonstrance was protected by the express terms of the Bill of Rights; and asked. the Government whether they proposed to proceed

Upon this view, that the House of Commons, by their vote on the Middlesex election, had ceased to become a legal assembly, Sheriff Townsend refused to pay the land-tax; and being distrained upon, brought an action

of trespass against the bailiff. Lord Mansfield, who tried the cause, told the jury that the only question was, whether there was any government in the country? Yet the verdict was for the defendant.

342

POPULAR MOVEMENTS.

CH. XI

against the Corporation by quo warranto, after the precedent of 1679, or whether they meant to bring in a bill of pains and penalties?

*

The issue of the debate was for some time doubtful. If the Opposition had been firm and united, it is said they might have prevailed; but the moderate Whigs and temperate statesmen' of the Rockingham school, who regarded the City movement with great aversion, either stayed away or voted with the Court. The motion was carried by a large majority. The debate was renewed when the papers came regularly before the House, but the matter ended in an empty resolution.

Westminster remonstrance.

If the Court were indignant at the City address, the people of London and its neighbourhood were not less exasperated at the unprecedented style of the royal answer. The City of Westminster immediately sent up a petition, or remonstrance, after the pattern of London. The counties of Middlesex and Kent did the like. Lord Chatham Popular move- gave his sanction and support to these tioned by Lord popular movements. He had announced Chatham. his intention of attending at the Westminster meeting, but was prevented by illness. Lord Rockingham, at his instance, was present at a great political dinner, given by the Lord Mayor to the members of the Opposition in both Houses, on the very day that the resolution of the Commons on the City remonstrance was sent up to the Lords for their

ments sanc

concurrence.

Chatham's con

A few weeks afterwards, Chatham brought in a bill, condemnatory of the resolutions of demnatory bill. the Lower House with respect to the Middlesex election. The enacting clause was in the following extraordinary terms:That all the adjudications contained in the above-mentioned re

*Calcraft to Chatham, March 13.-Chatham Corr.

1770.

DEBATE ON THE MIDDLESEX ELECTION.

343

speech.

solutions are arbitrary and illegal, and the same are and shall be hereby reversed, annulled, Chatham's and made void to all intents and purposes whatsoever.' To suppose that the House of Commons which had passed the several resolutions recited in this bill by large majorities only a year previously, could concur in such an enactment, was to expect a marvel. Nor could a House of Commons of any spirit have suffered the hereditary branch of the legislature to originate a bill which dealt with the right of election. But the bill was of course introduced only for the purpose of keeping up the agitation against the Government. Chatham's speech on the occasion was, according to his practice in opposition, highly aggressive and inflammatory. He accused the King, almost in plain terms, as the author of the proceedings which he asked the House to pronounce 'arbitrary and illegal.' He was called to order, but he refused either to retract his words or to explain away their meaning. Lord Mansfield, without venturing expressly to defend the Mansfield's doctrine of the Lower House, opposed the speech. bill on the ground that it professed to interfere in a matter which belonged exclusively to the Commons. They are the only judges of questions arising out of contested elections, and from their judgments there was no appeal. This called up his rival, Camden, who supported his friend and patron, Chatham, in a speech more declamatory than argumentative. He also alluded in a significant manner to

6

Camden's

the secret influence' which had decided speech. that 'Wilkes should not sit,' and repeated the ominous allusions to Charles the First and Hampden, which formed part of every speech and paper on this subject. After the bill had been rejected, Lord Chatham desired that the House might be summoned for the following day, when he intended to submit a motion of great importance.

Chatham pro

poses a vote of censure.