Imágenes de página
PDF
ePub

f, either expressly, or by the most distant implication, I have said or insinuated any part of what the noble Lord has charged me with, discard my opinions forever, discard the motion with con.empt.

ing in that Parliainent? And is it not their re olution alone which refuses to the subject his common right? The amendment says farther that the electors of Middlesex are deprived of their free choice of a representative. Is this a false fact, my Lords? Or have I given an unfair representation of it? Will any man presume to affirm that Colonel Luttrell is the free choice of the electors of Middlesex? We all know the contrary. We all know that Mr. Wilkes (whom I mention without either praise or censure) was the favorite of the county, and chosen by a very great and acknowledged majority to represent them in Parliament. If the noble Lord dislikes the manner in which these facts are stated, I shall think myself happy ir being advised by him how to alter it. I am very little anxious about terms, provided the substance be preserved; and these are facts, my Lords, which I am sure will always retain their weight and importance, in whatever form of language they are described.

My Lords, I must beg the indulgence of the House. Neither will my health permit me, nor do I pretend to be qualified to follow that learned Lord minutely through the whole of his argument. No man is better acquainted with his abilities and learning, nor has a greater respect for them than I have. I have had the pleasure of sitting with him in the other House, and always listened to him with attention. I have not now lost a word of what he said, nor did I ever. Upon the present question I meet him without fear. The evidence which truth carries with it is superior to all argument; it neither wants the support, nor dreads the opposition of the greatest abilities. If there be a single word in the amendment to justify the interpretation which the noble Lord has been pleased to give it, I am ready to renounce the whole. Let it be read, Now, my Lords, since I have been forced tc my Lords; let it speak for itself. [It was read.] enter into the explanation of an amendment, in In what instance does it interfere with the priv- which nothing less than the genius of penetraileges of the House of Commons? In what re-tion could have discovered an obscurity, and havspect does it question their jurisdiction, or sup-ing, as I hope, redeemed myself in the opinion pose an authority in this House to arraign the of the House, having redeemed my motion from justice of their sentence? I am sure that every the severe representation given of it by the noble Lord who hears me will bear me witness, that Lord, I must a little longer entreat your LordI said not one word touching the merits of the ships' indulgence. The Constitution of this counMiddlesex election. So far from conveying any try has been openly invaded in fact; and I have opinion upon that matter in the amendment, I heard, with horror and astonishment, that very did not even in discourse deliver my own senti- invasion defended upon principle. What is this nents upon it. I did not say that the House of mysterious power, undefined by law, unknown Commons had done either right or wrong; but, to the subject, which we must not approach when his Majesty was pleased to recommend it without awe, nor speak of without reverence— to us to cultivate unanimity among ourselves, I which no man may question, and to which all thought it the duty of this House, as the great men must submit? My Lords, I thought the hereditary council of the Crown, to state to his slavish doctrine of passive obedience had long Majesty the distracted condition of his dominions, since been exploded; and, when our Kings were ogether with the events which had destroyed obliged to confess that their title to the Crown, ananimity among his subjects. But, my Lords, and the rule of their government, had no other I stated events merely as facts, without the foundation than the known laws of the land. I smallest addition either of censure or of opinion. never expected to hear a divine right, or a diThey are facts, my Lords, which I am not only vine infallibility, attributed to any other branch convinced are true, but which I know are indis- of the Legislature. My Lords, I beg to be unputably true. For example, my Lords: will any derstood. No man respects the House of Comman deny that discontents prevail in many parts mons more than I do, or would contend more of his Majesty's dominions? or that those dis- strenuously than I would to preserve to them contents arise from the proceedings of the House their just and legal authority. Within the bounds of Commons touching the declared incapacity of prescribed by the Constitution, that authority is Mr. Wilkes? It is impossible. No man can necessary to the well-being of the people. Bedeny a truth so notorious. Or will any man yond that line, every exertion of power is arbideny that those proceedings refused, by a reso- trary, is illegal; it threatens tyranny to the peolution of one branch of the Legislature only, to ple, and destruction to the state. Power with the subject his common right? Is it not indis-out right is the most odious and detestable object puably true, my Lords, that Mr. Wilkes had a common right, and that he lost it no other way but by a resolution of the House of Commons? My Lords, I have been tender of misrepresenting the House of Commons. I have consulted their journals, and have taken the very words of their own resolution. Do they not tell us in so many words, that Mr. Wilkes having been expelled was thereby rendered incapable of serv

that can be offered to the human imagination. It is not only pernicious to those who are sub ject to it, but tends to its own destruction. I is what my noble friend [Lord Lyttleton] ta truly described it, "Res detestabilis et caduca." My Lords, I acknowledge the just power, an reverence the constitution of the House of Con

2 thing hateful, and destined to destruction

[ocr errors]

mons. It is for their own sakes that I would | Parliament. We have a code in which every honprevent their assuming a power which the Con- est man may find it. We have Magna Charta stitution has denied them, lest, by grasping at We have the Statute Book, and the Bill of Rights an authority they have no right to, they should If a case should arise unknown to these great forfeit that which they legally possess. My authorities, we have still that plain English rea Lords, I affirm that they have betrayed their son left, which is the foundation of all our Enconstituents, and violated the Constitution. Un-glish jurisprudence. That reason tells us, that der pretense of declaring the law, they have nade a law and united in the same persons the ffice of legislator and of judge!

every judicial court, and every political society, must be vested with those powers and privileges which are necessary for performing the office to I shall endeavor to adhere strictly to the no- which they are appointed. It tells us, also, that Ele Lord's doctrine, which is, indeed, impossible no court of justice can have a power inconsistent to mistake, so far as my memory will permit me with, or paramount to the known laws of the to preserve his expressions. He seems fond of land; that the people, when they choose their the word jurisdiction; and I confess, with the representatives, never mean to convey to them force and effect which he has given it, it is a a power of invading the rights, or trampling on word of ec pious meaning and wonderful extent. the liberties of those whom they represent. If his Lordship's doctrine be well founded, we What security would they have for their rights, must renounce all those political maxims by if once they admitted that a court of judicature which our understandings have hitherto been might determine every question that came bedirected, and even the first elements of learning fore it, not by any known positive law, but by taught in our schools when we were schoolboys. the vague, indeterminate, arbitrary rule of what My Lords, we knew that jurisdiction was noth- the noble Lord is pleased to call the wisdom of ing more than "jus dicere." We knew that "le- the court? With respect to the decision of the gem facere" and "legem dicere" [to make law courts of justice, I am far from denying them and to declare it] were powers clearly distin- their due weight and authority; yet, placing them guished from each other in the nature of things, in the most respectable view, I still consider and wisely separated by the wisdom of the En- them, not as law, but as an evidence of the law. glish Constitution. But now, it seems, we must And before they can arrive even at that degree adopt a new system of thinking! The House of authority, it must appear that they are foundof Commons, we are told, have a supreme juris- ed in and confirmed by reason; that they are diction, and there is no appeal from their sen- supported by precedents taken from good and tence; and that wherever they are competent moderate times; that they do not contradict any judges, their decision must be received and sub-positive law; that they are submitted to withmitted to, as ipso facto, the law of the land. My out reluctance by the people; that they are unLords, I am a plain man, and have been brought questioned by the Legislature (which is equivaap in a religious reverence for the original sim-lent to a tacit confirmation); and what, in my plicity of the laws of England. By what soph-judgment, is by far the most important, that they istry they have been perverted, by what artifices they have been involved in obscurity, is not for me to explain. The principles, however, of the English laws are still sufficiently clear; they are founded in reason, and are the masterpiece of the human understanding; but it is in the text that I would look for a direction to my judgment, not in the commentaries of modern professors. The noble Lord assures us that he knows not in what code the law of Parliament is to be found; that the House of Commons, when they act as judges, have no law to direct them but their own wisdom; that their decision is law; and if they determine wrong, the subject has no appeal but to Heaven. What then, my Lords? Are all the generous efforts of our ancestors, are all those glorious contentions, by which they meant to secure to themselves, and to transmit to their posterity, a known law, a certain rule of living, reduced to this conclusion, that instead of the arbitrary power of a King, we must submit to the arbitrary power of a House of Commons? If this be true, what benefit do we derive from the exchange? Tyranny, my Lords, is detestable in every shape, but in none so formidable as when it is assumed and exercised by a number of tyrants. But, my Lords, this is not the fact; this is not the Constitution. We have a law of

do not violate the spirit of the Constitution. My Lords, this is not a vague or loose expression. We all know what the Constitution is. We all know that the first principle of it is, that the subject shall not be governed by the arbitrium of any one man or body of men (less than the whole Legislature), but by certain laws, tɔ which he has virtually given his consent, which are open to him to examine, and not beyond his ability to understand. Now, my Lords, I affirm, and am ready to maintain, that the late decision of the House of Commons upon the Middlesex election is destitute of every one of those properties and conditions which I hold to be essential to the legality of such a decision. (1.) It is not founded in reason; for it carries with it a contradiction, that the representative should perform the office of the constituent body. (2.) It is not supported by a single precedent; for the case of Sir Robert Walpole is but a half precedent, and even that half is imperfect. Incapac ity was indeed declared, but his crimes are stated as the ground of the resolution, and his opponen was declared to be not duly elected, even after his incapacity was established. (3.) It contra. dicts Magna Charta and the Bill of Rights, by which it is provided, that no subject shall be de prived of his freehold, unless by the judgment of

nis peers, or the law of the land; and that elections of members to serve in Parliament shall be free. (4.) So far is this decision from being submitted to by the people, that they have taken the strongest measures, and adopted the most positive language, to express their discontent. Whether it will be questioned by the Legislature, will depend upon your Lordships' resolution, but that it violates the spirit of the Constitution, will, I think, be disputed by no man who has heard this day's debate, and who wishes well to the freedom of his country. Yet, if we are to believe the noble Lord, this great grievance, this manifest violation of the first princi- | ples of the Constitution, will not admit of a remedy. It is not even capable of redress, unless we appeal at once to Heaven! My Lords, I have better hopes of the Constitution, and a firmer confidence in the wisdom and constitutional authority of this House. It is to your ancestors, my Lords, it is to the English barons, that we are indebted for the laws and Constitution we possess. Their virtues were rude and uncultivated, but they were great and sincere. Their understandings were as little polished as their manners, but they had hearts to distinguish right from wrong; they had heads to distinguish truth from falsehood; they understood the rights of humanity, and they had spirit to maintain them. My Lords, I think that history has not done justice to their conduct, when they obtained from their sovereign that great acknowledgment of national rights contained in Magna Charta: they did not confine it to themselves alone, but delivered it as a common blessing to the whole people. They did not say, these are the rights of the great barons, or these are the rights of the great prelates. No, my Lords, they said, in the simple Latin of the times, "nullus liber homo" [no free man], and provided as carefully for the meanest subject as for the greatest. These are uncouth words, and sound but poorly in the ears of scholars; neither are they addressed to the criticism of scholars, but to the hearts of free mea. These three words, "nullus liber homo," have a meaning which interests us all. They deserve to be remembered they deserve to be inculcated in our minds-they are worth all the classics. Let us not, then, degenerate from the glorious example of our ancestors. Those iron barons (for so I may call them when compared with the silken barons of modern days) were the guardians of the people; yet their virtues, my Lords, were never engaged in a question of such importance as the present. A breach has been made in the Constitution-the battlements are dismantledthe citadel is open to the first invader-the walls totter-the Constitution is not tenable. What remains, then, but for us to stand foremost in the breach, and repair it, or perish in it?

Great pains have been taken to alarm us with the consequences of a difference between the two houses of Parliament; that the House of Commons will resent our presuming to take notice of their proceedings; that they will resent our daring to advise the Crown, and never for

|

give us for attempting to save the state. My Lords, I am sensible of the importance and diff culty of this great crisis: at a moment such as this, we are called upon to do our duty, without dreading the resentment of any man. But if apprehensions of this kind are to affect us, let us consider which we ought to respect most, the representative or the collective body of the people. My Lords, five hundred gentlemen are not ten millions; and if we must have a contention, let us take care to have the English nation on our side. If this question be given up, the freeholders of England are reduced to a condition baser than the peasantry of Poland. If they desert their own cause, they deserve to be slaves! My Lords, this is not merely the cold opinion of my understanding, but the glowing expression of what I feel. It is my heart that speaks. I know I speak warmly, my Lords; but this warmth shall neither betray my argument nor my temper. The kingdom is in a flame. As mediators between the King and people, it is our duty to represent to him the true condition and temper of his subjects. It is a duty which no particular respects should hinder us from performing; and whenever his Majesty shall demand our advice, it will then be our duty to inquire more minutely into the causes of the pres ent discontents. Whenever that inquiry shall come on, I pledge myself to the House to prove that, since the first institution of the House of Commons, not a single precedent can be produced to justify their late proceedings. My noble and learned friend (the Lord Chancellor Camden) has pledged himself to the House that he will support that assertion.

My Lords, the character and circumstances of Mr. Wilkes have been very improperly introduced into this question, not only here, but in that court of judicature where his cause was tried-I mean the House of Commons. With one party he was a patriot of the first magnitude; with the other, the vilest incendiary. For my own part, I consider him merely and indifferently as an English subject, possessed of cer tain rights which the laws have given him, and which the laws alone can take from him. I am neither moved by his private vices nor by his public merits. In his person, though he were the worst of men, I contend for the safety and security of the best. God forbid, my Lords, that there should be a power in this country of measuring the civil rights of the subject by his moral character, or by any other rule but the fixed laws of the land! I believe, my Lords, I shall not be suspected of any personal partiality to this unhappy man. I am not very conversant in pamphlets or newspapers; but, from what I have heard, and from the little I have read, 1 may venture to affirm, that I have had my share in the compliments which have come from that quarter. As for motives of ambition (for I must

3 Lord Chatham here refers, among others, to Ju nius, who had attacked him about a year before it his first letter. At a later period Junius changed

take to myself a part of the noble Duke's insin- | beg pardon, by his n..nisters—but I have sufsation), I believe, my Lords, there have been fered myself to be so too long. For some time times in which I have had the honor of standing in such favor in the closet, that there must have been something extravagantly unreasonable in my wishes if they might not all have been gratified. After neglecting those opportunities, I am now suspected of coming forward, in the decline of life, in the anxious pursuit of wealth and power which it is impossible for me to enjoy. Be it so! There is one ambition, at least, which I ever will acknowledge, which I will not renounce but with my life. It is the ambition of delivering to my posterity those rights of freedom which I have received from my ancestors. I am not now pleading the cause of an individual, but of every freeholder in England. In what manner this House may constitutionally interpose in their defense, and what kind of redress this case will require and admit of, is not at present the subject of our consideration. The amendment, if agreed to, will naturally lead us to such an inquiry. That inquiry may, perhaps, point out the necessity of an act of the Legislature, or it may lead us, perhaps, to desire a conference with the other House; which one noble Lord affirms is the only parliamentary way of proceeding, and which another noble Lord assures us the House of Commons would either not come to, or would break off with indignation. Leaving their Lordships to reconcile that matter between themselves, I shall only say, that before we have inquired, we can not be provided with materials; consequently, we are not at present prepared for a confer

ence.

I have beheld with silent indignation the arbitrary measures of the minister. I have often drooped and hung down my head in council, and disapproved by my looks those steps which 1 knew my avowed opposition could not prevent I will do so no longer, but openly and boldly speak my sentiments. I now proclaim to the world that I entirely coincide in the opinion ex pressed by my noble friend-whose presence again reanimates us-respecting this unconstitutional vote of the House of Commons. If. in giving my opinion as a judge, I were to pay any respect to that vote, I should look upon myself as a traitor to my trust, and an enemy to my country. By their violent and tyrannical conduct, ministers have alienated the minds of the people from his Majesty's government—I had almost said from his Majesty's person-insomuch, that if some measures are not devised to appease the clamors so universally prevalent, I know not, my Lords, whether the people, in despair, may not become their own avengers, and take the redress of grievances into their own hands." After such a speech, Lord Camden could not, of course, expect to hold office. He was instantly dismissed. It was a moment of extreme excitement. Lord Shelburne went so far as to say in the House, "After the dismission of the present worthy Lord Chancellor, the seals will go begging; but I hope there will not be found in this kingdom a wretch so base and mean-spirited as to accept them on the conditions on which they must be offered." This speech of Lord Chatham decided the fate of the Duke of Grafton. The moment a leader was found to unite the different sections of the Opposition, the attack was too severe for him to resist. The next speech will show the manner in which he was driven from power.

It is not impossible, my Lords, that the inquiry I speak of may lead us to advise his Majrsty to dissolve the present Parliament; nor have t any doubt of our right to give that advice, if we should think it necessary. His Majesty will then determine whether he will yield to the united petitions of the people of England, or main- Lord Mansfield had a difficult part to act on tain the House of Commons in the exercise of a this occasion. He could not but have known legislative power, which heretofore abolished the | that the expulsion of Wilkes was illegal; and House of Lords, and overturned the monarchy. this is obvious from the fact that he did not atI willingly acquit the present House of Com-tempt to defend it. He declared that, on this mons of having actually formed so detestable a design; but they can not themselves foresee to what excesses they may be carried hereafter; and, for my own part, I should be sorry to trust to their future moderation. Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it; and this I know, my Lords, that where law ends, tyranny begins!

[blocks in formation]

point, "he had never given his opinion, he would not now give it, and he did not know but he might carry it to the grave with him." All he contended was, that "if the Commons had passed an unjustifiable vote, it was a matter between God and their own consciences, and that nobody else had any thing to do with it." Lord Chat ham rose a second time, and replied, "It plainly appears, from what the noble Lord has said, that he concurs in sentiment with the Opposi tion; for, if he had concurred with the ministry, he would no doubt have avowed his opinionthat it now equally behooves him to avow it in behalf of the people. He ought to do so as an honest man, an independent man, as a man of been more fully known, that the King dictated the measures against Wilkes. He entered with all the feelings of a personal enemy into the plan of expel ling him from the House, and was at last beaten by the determination of his own subjects.

courage and resolution. To say, that if the House of Commons has passed an unjustifiable vote, it is a matter between God and their own consciences, and that nobody else has any thing to do with it, is such a strange assertion as I have never before heard, and involves a doctrine subversive of the Constitution. What! If the House of Commons should pass a vote abolishing this House, and surrendering to the Crown all the rights and interests of the people, would it be only a matter between them and their conscience, and world nobody have any 'hing to do with it? You would have to do with

it! I should have to do with it! Every man in the kingdom would have to do with it! Every man would have a right to insist on the repea of such a treasonable vote, and to bring the au thors of it to condign punishment. I would, therefore, call on the noble Lord to declare his opinion, unless he would lie under the imputation of being conscious of the illegality of the vote, and yet of being restrained by some unworthy motive from avowing it to the world." Lord Mans field replied not."-Gentleman's Magazine fo January, 1770.

SPEECH

OF LORD CHATHAM ON A MOTION OF LORD ROCKINGHAM TO INQUIRE INTO THE STATE OF THE NATION, DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS, JANUARY 22, 1770.

INTRODUCTION.

THE preceding speech of Lord Chatham, in connection with the decisive step taken by Lord Camien, threw the Duke of Grafton and his ministry into the utmost confusion; and an adjournment of a week was resorted to, for the purpose of making new arrangements. During this time, the Marquess of Granby deserted the administration, apologizing for the vote he had given for seating Colonel Luttrell in the House, and deploring it as the greatest misfortune of his life. He resigned all his places, except his commission as Colonel. Mr. Grenville, Mr. Dunning, the Dukes of Beaufort and Manchester, the Earls of Coventry and Huntington, and a number of others, followed his example. A reconciliation took place between Lord Chatham and Lord Rockingham, and the Opposition was completely organized under their guidance. It was decided to follow up the blow at once, by a motion from Lord Rockingham for an "inquiry into the state of the nation," which allows the utmost latitude for examining into the conduct of a minister. Ac cordingly, Lord Rockingham moved such an inquiry, almost immediately after the Lords again met. Is supporting this motion, he maintained, that the existing discontents did not spring from any immediate temporary cause, but from a maxim which had grown up by degrees from the accession of George III., viz., "that the royal prerogative was sufficient to support the government, whatever might be the hands to which the administration was committed." He exposed this Tory principle as fatal to the liberties of the people. The Duke of Grafton followed in a few explanatory remarks; and Lord Chatham then de livered the following speech, which contains some passages of remarkable boldness and even vehemenco

SPEECH, &c.'

MY LORDS, I meant to have arisen immediately to second the motion made by the noble Lord [Rockingham]. The charge which the noble Duke [Grafton] seemed to think affected himself particularly, did undoubtedly demand an early answer. It was proper he should speak before me, and I am as ready as any man to applaud the decency and propriety with which he has expressed himself.

I entirely agree with the noble Lord, both in the necessity of your Lordships' concurring with the motion, and in the principles and arguments by which he has very judiciously supported it. I see clearly that the complexion of our government has been materially altered; and I can trace the origin of the alteration up to a period

This is the topic so powerfully discussed in Mr. Burke's pamphlet, entitled, "Thoughts on the Cause of the Present Discontents," one of the most ingenious and able productions of that great writer.

2 This speech, like the last, was reported at the time by a gentleman, who is now ascertained to have been Sir Philip Francis.

which ought to have been an era of happiness and prosperity to this country.3

My Lords, I shall give you my reasons for concurring with the motion, not methodically, but as they occur to my mind. I may wander, perhaps, from the exact parliamentary debate, but I hope I shall say nothing but what may de. serve your attention, and what, if not strictly proper at present, would be fit to be said when the state of the nation shall come to be considered. My uncertain state of health must plead my excuse. I am now in some pain, and very probably may not be able to attend to my duty when I desire it most, in this House. I thank

3 When George III. came to the throne, England was in the midst of that splendid career of victories by which Lord Chatham humbled the enemies of his country, and established her power in every quarter of the globe. The peace which was made two years after, under the influence of Lord Bute, was generally considered a disgrace to the nation, and from that time dissatisfaction began to prevai' in all classes of society:

« AnteriorContinuar »