XII. 1770. CHAP. results in the lower house; but the exertions of opposition were supported by a large majority of the liverymen of London. At a common-hall on the sixth of March, which was attended by about 3000 persons, the lord mayor spoke in strong terms respecting the violated freedom of election, and other popular topics; after which, a prepared paper, intitled an Address, Remonstrance, and Petition to the King,' was produced for signatures, and received with shouts of applause : it expressed strong indignation against that secret and malign influence, which, under a series of administrations, had defeated every good, and suggested every bad measure: it affirmed that the house of commons had 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.; a deed, which must vitiate all the proceedings of this parliament, which cannot be valid without a legal house of commons: and it concluded with beseeching his majesty to dissolve the present parliament, and to dismiss from his councils those evil ministers who had violated its free constitution. The king, in his answer, pronounced the contents of this remonstrance 'to be disrespectful to himself, injurious to parliament, and irreconcilable to the principles of the constitution:' but the factious spirit of the people had an excuse in the folly of the government; more especially in that alliance between royal prerogative and parliamentary privilege, so dangerous to civil liberty, which began about this time, and against which a constitutional opposition was maintained up to that period when the great act of parliamentary reform was carried. A petition, or remonstrance, similar in its language, was sent from the city of Westminster; and this example was followed by the county of Middlesex, at the instigation of the Rev. John Horne, who had taken a very active part, during the late elections, in favor of the popular idol. Release of On the twelfth of April, the term of Wilkes's imprisonment being ended, he was discharged from confinement; when he published an address to his electors, accusing ministers of tyranny, and declaring himself Wilkes. XII. 1770. ready to die in the cause of liberty. The exertions of CHAP. Lord Chatham during this turbulent session were vigorous and constant: on the first of May he brought forward a bill, for reversing the adjudications of the house of commons respecting the claims of Wilkes to serve in the present parliament; in descanting on which, he declared, that a violent outrage had been committed against every thing dear and sacred to Englishmen. 'I am afraid,' he concluded, 'that this measure originated too near the throne: but I hope his majesty will soon open his eyes, and see it in all its deformity.' He was opposed by lord Mansfield, who observed, with regard to Mr. Wilkes's majority on the poll, that he was nobody in the eye of the law, and therefore colonel Luttrell had in fact no opponent: that in contested elections, application for redress of grievances is never made to the electors, or to the people at large; but to the house of commons, who are sole judges without appeal. Lord Camden considered these opinions as full of unconstitutional doctrine: he thought the decision of the house arbitrary and dictatorial; the effect of that secret influence, which was to be obeyed though it tore out the heart-strings of the constitution: the question ought to be taken in a larger sense, not as candidate against candidate, but as the electors of Middlesex against the assumed power of the commons. 'In the case of ship money,' said his lordship, 'the people justly joined in the cry, and it ceased to be a question between Mr. Hambden and the king: it was the people of England against venal and oppressive ministers. Should this bill be rejected, he trusted in the good sense and spirit of the people to renew their claim to a free and full representation in parliament, as an inherent and unalienable right.' It was rejected by eighty-nine against forty-three: a protest was signed by thirty-three peers; and before the house adjourned, lord Chatham desired it might be summoned for the fourth of May; 'for,' said he, 'I have a motion of great importance to make relative to the king.' CHAP. XII. 1770. Accordingly, on the day appointed, his lordship moved, that it is the opinion of this house, that the advice inducing his majesty's answer to the late address of the city of London, is of a most dangerous tendency; inasmuch as the exercise of the rights of the subject has been checked and reprimanded by an answer so harsh, as to have no precedent in the history of this country; and such as the Stuarts had never dared to venture on at the zenith of their power.' In the course of his speech he strove to regain his popularity in the city by unbounded adulation; but it is scarcely necessary to add that he was defeated by a large majority; while the address itself gave birth to a resolution of the house of commons, that 'to deny the legality of the present parliament, or to assert that its acts were invalid, was unwarrantable, and tended to destroy the allegiance of his majesty's subjects:' also a joint address from both houses was presented to the king, thanking him for his conduct on the occasion alluded to. Lord Chatham, not deterred by his late failures, moved, on the fourteenth of May, for an address to dissolve parliament: he brought forward the discontents in England, Ireland, and America; and showed, from the situation of public affairs, the great necessity of a house of commons in which the people might have confidence. Speaking of the mode of reforming that assembly, he said;-' instead of depriving a county of its representatives, one or more members ought to be added to its representation, in order to counterbalance the weight of corrupt and venal boroughs: the house however would not on this occasion listen to his arguments; but raising the cry of 'question, question,' put a rude negative on the motion. If it was satisfactory to him to obtain applause from the populace, and to receive a vote of thanks from the city of London, he enjoyed that gratification; though many persons whose opinions he could not despise, began to think that he was tarnishing the lustre of his character, and 'cancelling some of those obligations which the country owed him for his services in ad- CHAP. ministration.'6 Early in this session a bill was proposed by Mr. Dowdeswell, to disqualify certain inferior officers of the revenue from voting for members of parliament; their principals being disqualified from sitting in the house: both classes, it was said, were under the influence of the crown, and the departments of the revenue were becoming so numerous as to render that influence inconsistent with a free representation. The motion however was rejected, as unfair in its attempt to deprive many individuals of the rights of British subjects, on the presumption of dependence and corruption which were not proved: but an act was passed for altering the law of privilege, so far as it extended to the effects and domestics of the members of either house: lord Mansfield, who supported this motion, was accused of a desire to gain popularity; but he defended himself with great spirit. An inquiry into the accounts of the civil list during the year 1769 was a popular subject in both houses; the expenses having greatly increased, and it being inferred that the money was employed in the corruption of electors. It was answered, that the civil list being intirely the revenue of the crown, the crown had a right to expend it according to its pleasure: if an additional grant had been asked, then the expenditure might have been investigated, for the purpose of ascertaining the necessity of that grant: on these grounds the motion was negatived; and some other attempts to interfere with the management of the king's revenue met with a similar fate. XII. 1770. A measure of much greater importance was Mr. Mr. G. G. Grenville's bill for regulating the proceedings of Grenville's election the house of commons on controverted elections: bill. • Ellis's Original Letters, second series, vol. iv. p. 528. CHAP. 1770. America. were often found to bias their decisions. Mr. Grenville therefore proposed a plan analogous to the trial by jury in the first instance the presence of at least 100 members was required; when the names of all were to be put into six boxes, and drawn out till they amounted to forty-nine; of these the litigants were alternately to strike off one, till they were reduced to thirteen; who, with the two nominees, were to be sworn a select committee, invested with power to examine records, papers, and witnesses, and to determine conclusively on the case. This bill was strongly opposed in the commons during all its stages; and at the third reading its rejection was moved by Mr. Wellbore Ellis, who was seconded by Charles Fox, at this time a strenuous advocate of regal prerogative and ministerial influence: but though lord North and several members of administration supported the opposition, it passed into a law, and is considered to have had a very beneficial effect on the legislature. Debates on American affairs began early in the session to occupy the attention of parliament, in consequence of a petition presented from some British merchants, stating the immense losses which they had sustained by the non-importation of their goods. On the fifth of March, lord North proposed a bill to repeal the revenue act of 1767, excepting only that part which imposed a duty on tea: he expressed a strong disapprobation of the act in question; but censured it only as an inexpedient or unproductive impost, not as an illegal or impolitic claim: 'the articles taxed,' he said, 'being chiefly of British manufacture, ought to have been encouraged, instead of being burdened with payments.' The duty on tea was continued, to maintain our right of taxation; and it could not be supposed that an impost of three pence per pound, on an article from which one shilling per pound was deducted when exported to America, would offend the colonists, unless they had determined to rebel. The minister however took a wrong view of this matter: experience might have taught him that the |