be a breach of the constitutional right of that House. Lord Camden, being accused by Lord Sandwich of duplicity, in having concealed his opinion as to the illegality of the incapacitating vote, while a member of the cabinet, asserted that he had frequently declared it to be both illegal and imprudent. On the other hand, the Duke of Grafton and Lord Weymouth complained that he had always withdrawn from the Council Board to avoid giving his opinion,a circumstance explained by Lord Camden on the ground that as his advice had been already rejected, and the cabinet had resolved upon its measures, he declined giving any further opinion. In either case, it seems, there could have been no doubt of his disapproval of the course adopted by ministers. The next effort made in Parliament, in reference to Wilkes' case, was a motion by Mr. Herbert for a bill to regulate the consequences of the expulsion of members. But as this bill did not reverse, or directly condemn the proceedings in the case of Wilkes, it was not very warmly supported by the Opposition; and numerous amendments having been made by the supporters of government, by which its character became wholly changed, the bill was withdrawn.2 address to the king, The scene of this protracted contest was now varied The city for a time. Appeals to Parliament had been made in vain; and the city of London resolved to carry up their 1770. complaints to the throne. A petition had been presented to the king in the previous year, to which no answer had been returned. And now the Lord Mayor, aldermen, and livery, in Common Hall assembled, agreed to an "address, remonstrance, and petition" to the king, 1 Parl. Hist., xvi. 823. VOL. I. D D 2 Ibid., 830- 833; Cavendish Deb., i. 435. which, whatever the force of its statements, was conceived in a tone of unexampled boldness. "The majority of the House of Commons," they said, "have deprived your people of their dearest rights. They have done a deed more ruinous in its consequences than the levying of ship-money by Charles I., or the dispensing power assumed by James II." They concluded by praying the king "to restore the constitutional government and quiet of his people, by dissolving the Parliament and removing his evil ministers for ever from his councils." 1 In his answer, his Majesty expressed his concern that any of his subjects "should have been so far misled as to offer him an address and remonstrance, the contents of which he could not but consider as disrespectful to himself, injurious to Parliament, and irreconcilable to the principles of the constitution."2 The Commons, whose acts had been assailed by the remonstrance, were prompt in rebuking the city, and pressing forward in support of the king. They declared the conduct of the city "highly unwarrantable," and tending "to disturb the peace of the kingdom;" and having obtained the concurrence of the Lords, a joint address of both Houses, conveying this opinion, was presented to the king. In their zeal, they had overlooked the unseemliness of lowering both Houses of Parliament to a level with the corporation of the city of London, and of wrangling with that body, at the foot of the throne. The city was ready with a rejoinder, in the form of a further address and remonstrance to the king. 1 The address is printed at length, Cavendish Deb., i. 576. 2 Having returned this answer, the king is said to have turned round to his courtiers, and burst out laughing.-Public Advertiser, cited in Lord Rockingham's Mem., ii. 174. hạm con king's an swer. Lord Chatham, meanwhile, and many of the leaders Lord Chatof the Whig party, saw, in the king's answer, conse- demns the quences dangerous to the right of petitioning. Writing to Lord Rockingham, April 29th, Lord Chatham said: "A more unconstitutional piece never came from the throne, nor any more dangerous, if left unnoticed." And on the 4th of May, not deterred by the joint address already agreed to by both Houses, he moved a resolution in the House of Lords, that the advice inducing his Majesty to give that answer "is of the most dangerous tendency," as "the exercise of the clearest rights of the subject to petition the king for redress of grievances, had been checked by reprimand." He maintained the constitutional right of the subject to petition for redress of all grievances; and the justice of the complaints which the city of London had laid at the foot of the throne. But the motion provoked little discussion, and was rejected. And again, on the 14th May, Lord Chatham moved an address for a dissolution of Parliament. But all strangers, except peers' sons and members of the House of Commons, having been excluded from this debate, no record of it has been preserved. The question was called for at nine o'clock, and negatived.3 Chatham's mons, On the 1st of May, Lord Chatham presented a bill Lord for reversing the several adjudications of the House bill to reof Commons, in Wilkes' case. The bill, after reciting verse the judgment all these resolutions, declared them to be "arbitrary of the Comand illegal;" and they were "reversed, annulled, and made void.” Lord Camden said, "The judgment passed upon the Middlesex election, has given the constitution a more dangerous wound than any which 1 Rockingham Mem., ii. 177; Woodfall's Junius, ii. 104. 2 Parl. Hist., xvi. 966. 1770. Lord Chat ham's resolution, 5th Dec., 1770. Duke of motion, were given during the twelve years' absence of Parliament in the reign of Charles I. ;" and he trusted that its reversal would be demanded, session after session, until the people had obtained redress. Lord Mansfield deprecated any interference with the privileges of the Commons, and the bill was rejected by a large majority.1 The next session witnessed a renewal of discussions upon this popular question. On the 5th December, Lord Chatham moved another resolution; which met the same fate as his previous motions on the subject.2 On the 30th April, the Duke of Richmond moved to expunge from the journals of the House April 1771. the resolution of the 2nd of February, 1770, in which they had deprecated any interference with the jurisdiction of the Commons, as unconstitutional. He contended that if such a resolution were suffered to remain on record, the Commons might alter the whole law of elections, and change the franchise by an arbitrary declaration; and yet the Lords would be precluded from remonstrance. Lord Chatham repeated his opinion, that the Commons "had daringly violated the laws of the land;" and declared that it became not the Lords to remain "tame spectators of such a deed, if they would not be deemed accessory to their guilt, and branded with treason to their country." The ministers made no reply, and the question was negatived.3 A few days afterwards, Lord Chatham moved an address for a dissolution, on the ground of the violations of law by the Commons in the Middlesex 1 Parl. Hist., xvi. 955; Walpole's Mem., iv. 121; Rockingham Mem., ii. 177. 2 Parl. Hist., xvi. 1302. It was superseded by adjournment. 3 Parl. Hist., xvii. 214. election, and the contest which had lately arisen between them and the city magistracy1; but found no more than twenty-three supporters. The concluding incidents of the Middlesex election may now be briefly told, before we advert to a still more important conflict which was raging at this time, with the privileges of the Commons; and the new embarrassments which Wilkes had raised. motion, In the next session, Sir George Savile, in order to Sir George renew the annual protest against the Middlesex elec- Savile's tion, moved for a bill to secure the rights of electors, 1772. with respect to the eligibility of persons to serve in Parliament. Lord North here declared, that the proceedings of the Commons had "been highly consistent with justice, and the law of the land; and that to his dying day he should continue to approve of them." The motion was defeated by a majority of forty-six.3 complains of the In 1773, Mr. Wilkes brought his case before the Mr. Wilkes House, in the shape of a frivolous complaint against of the Dethe Deputy-Clerk of the Crown, who had refused to puty-Clerk give him a certificate, as one of the members for Crown. Middlesex. Sir G. Savile, also, renewed his motion. for a bill to secure the rights of electors, and found one hundred and fifty supporters. Mr. Burke took this occasion to predict that, "there would come a time when those now in office would be reduced to their penitentials, for having turned a deaf ear to the voice of the people." In 1774, Sir G. Savile renewed his motion for a bill to secure the rights of electors, with the usual result.5 The Parliament, which had been in continual con- Wilkes 1 See infra, p. 413. 2 May 1st, 1771; Parl. Hist., xvii. 224. 3 Feb. 27th, 1772; ibid., 4 Parl. Hist., xvii. 838. 5 Ibid., 1057. 318. elected in |