\i 
 
 I
 
 GRM/VU.I. C, * 
 
 (* 
 
 /tffe> 
 
 THE LIBRARY 
 
 OF 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY 
 OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 LOS ANGELES 
 
 FREDERIC THOMAS BLANCHARD 
 ENDOWMENT FUND
 
 THE 
 
 GENTLEMAN, 
 
 _ ^f fc'C^UL ~M rvxvXAn/t/j 
 ON THE 
 
 MOTION 
 
 FOR 
 
 Expelling Mr. W I L K E S, 
 
 FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 1769. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 Printed for J. ALMON, oppofite Burlington- 
 Houfe in Piccadilly. 
 
 M DCC LXIX. 
 [Price One Shilling.;
 
 DA 
 
 ADVERTISEMENT. 
 
 MINUTES of the following Speech having been 
 taken at the time it was made, and fome copies ha- * . 
 ving been handed about, one of them fell into the pof- /.I X K $& 
 feflion of the publifher ; but before he would offer it to 
 the public, he fubmitted it to the perufal of fome Gen- 
 tlemen, who had heard the Speech delivered, and whofe 
 accurate and retentive memories have fupplied every de- 
 fect in the minutes. He can therefore now venture to 
 vouch for its authenticity ; and affaires the public, it is 
 really and literally what the title imports it to be, The 
 Speech of a right honourable Gentleman, upon the mo- 
 tion for expelling Mr. Wilkes the firft time from his feat 
 in theprefent parliament for the county of Middlefex. 
 
 To prevent the reader from confounding the fubfe- 
 quent proceedings againft Mr. Wilkes with that which 
 gave occafion to this Speech, the fatal confequences of 
 which are therein fo clearly predicted, it may be proper 
 to remark, that Mr. Wilkes was firft -elected for the 
 county of Middlefex, on the 28th day of March, 1768 ; 
 that he was expelled on the 3d of February, 1769, the < 
 day on which this Speech was delivered j that he was 
 rechofen for Middlefex the i6th day of the fame month; 
 that his election was declared void, and himfelf declared 
 incapable of being elecled into the prefent parliament, 
 on the 1 7th day of the fame month ; that he was again 
 eleled on the i6th day of March, when no other can- 
 didate appeared, except Mr. Dingly, who had not one 
 vote ; that his election was again declared void on the 
 1 7th day ot the fame month ; that on the I3th day of 
 April he was returned by the fheriffs, as having 1143 
 votes, and Col. Luttrell only 296. That on the i5th 
 day of the fame month, the Houfe of Commons voted, 
 *' That Mr. Luttrell ought to have been returned ; " 
 and that Gentleman took his feat accordingly. That a 
 Petition from feveral freeholders of the county of Mid- 
 dlefex having been prefented againft Mr. Luttrell on the 
 29th day of April, the Houfe of Commons voted, on 
 the 8th of May, " That Henry Lawcs Luttrell, Efq; 
 " is duly elected a Knight of the Shire, to fejve in this 
 " prefent Parliament, for the County of Middlefex." 
 
 927123
 
 t 5 J 
 
 SPEECH, 
 
 ON THE 
 
 MOTION for Expelling Mr. WILKES, 
 Friday, February 3, 1769. 
 
 Motion made by Lord Barrington, andfeconded 
 by Mr. Rigby. 
 
 HpHAT John Wilkes, Efq; a member of 
 J^ this Houfe, who hath at the Bar of this 
 Houfe confeffed himfelf to be the Author 
 and Publifher of what this Houfe has re- 
 folved to be aninfolent, fcandalous, and fe- 
 ditious Libel, and who has been convicted 
 in the Court of King's Bench, of having 
 Printed and Publifhed a Seditious Libel, and 
 three obfcene and impious Libels, and by the 
 judgment of the faid Court has been fenten- 
 ced to undergo twenty-two Months Impri- 
 fonment, and is now in Execution under the 
 faid Judgment, be expelled this Houfe. 
 
 Mr. Speaker, 
 
 I have endeavoured to form my judgment 
 
 with regard to this Queftion, which was 
 
 not unexpected, upon the fullefl and mod 
 
 impartial confideration ; and having done 
 
 B fo,
 
 [ 6 ] 
 
 fo, I do not think myfelf obliged to make 
 the leaft apology to any individual, or body 
 of men whatfoever, for the opinion which 
 I {hall deliver upon this fubjeft. 
 
 I mould indeed have wiftied that I could 
 with propriety have declined delivering my 
 fentiments concerning it, becaufe I am tho- 
 roughly fenfible that whatever my opinion 
 /hall be, it will be liable to great mifcon- 
 ftru&ions and mifreprefentations, both with- 
 in thefe walls and without doors. If I give 
 my vote for the motion as it was made to 
 you, it will be faid, that I do it from a cruel 
 unrelenting difpofition, to gratify a private 
 and perfonal refentment for the abufe Mr. 
 Wilkes has fo liberally thrown upon me, 
 and for that purpofe under the mafk of zeal 
 for the caufe of God and of the King, to 
 perfevere in loading an unhappy man, who, 
 it has been frequently faid in this Houfe, 
 has been already too feverely opprefled by 
 my means, or at leaft with my concurrence ; 
 or it would perhaps be attributed, efpecially 
 after the temperate conduct which I have 
 endeavoured to hold during this feffion, to 
 an abject flattery to power, with the mean 
 paltry view of obtaining court favour. On 
 the other hand, if I give my vote againft 
 the expulfion of Mr. Wilkes, I (hall be 
 charged with levity and inconfiftency, with 
 changing my opinions as it may beft fuit my 
 fituation either in or out of office, with a- 
 dopting new principles from new habitudes 
 
 and
 
 r 7 3 
 
 and connections, and with a factious denga 
 of courting popularity, and diftreffing all 
 legal government, by fupporting and pro- 
 tedting a man, whofe behaviour 1 had fo re- 
 peatedly and fo heavily cenfured. If I know 
 4 my own failings, revenge and cruelty are 
 among the vices to which I am leaft incli- 
 ned ; and if I may truft to the reproaches 
 thrown out againft me by my enemies, I 
 have been often accufed of obftinacy and 
 inflexibility of temper, but feldom or never 
 I think with being too much difpofed to al- 
 ter my opinions according to the will of 
 others, or to fail along the tide of papular 
 prejudice. 1 fhould flatter myfelf therefore, 
 that the charge of facrificing principles to 
 court favour or popular applaufe, could not 
 with juftice be applied to me, notwithftand- 
 ing which I will again freely own, that I 
 fhould have wifhed for many reafons not to 
 have been under the neceffity of deciding 
 upon this Queftion, either one way or the 
 other. But as it has been propofed to you, 
 I think it would be a bafe and unworthy 
 conduct meanly to hide my head or to run 
 away from the difficulty. On the contrary, 
 it is the duty of every honeft man, if he is 
 convinced that the judgment which he has 
 formed is a right one, to declare it publicly 
 in his place, to abide by it, and boldly to 
 face any difficulties which may encounter it. 
 I am under no reftraint either from this or 
 that fide of the Houfe, I know and feel my 
 B 2 own
 
 I 8 I 
 
 own independence on both, and while I con- 
 tinue here, I will exert it, and upon this 
 occafion execute an office greater than any 
 which the wildeft applaufe of the multitude 
 can give, or than the King himfelf can be- 
 ftow, greater than the office of Firft Com- 
 miffioner of the Treafury, or either of the 
 Secretaries of State. The honourable and 
 noble office of fpeaking the truth, and of do- 
 ing impartial juftice. I will not palliate 
 this man's offences, or try to move your 
 compaffion : for that would be to appeal to 
 your weaknefs againft your judgment, much 
 lefs will I inveigh againft him in bitter terms, 
 and ftrive to excite your indignation : for 
 inftead of your weaknefs I mould then apply 
 to your wicked paffions. With thefe fen- 
 timents I mall proceed to the immediate 
 examination of the Queftion before you. 
 And in the firft place, I cannot agree with 
 thofe who have urged in behalf of Mr. 
 Wilkes, that this motion ought not to be 
 complied with, becaufe he is already the 
 moft unhappy, as well as the moft oppreffed 
 and injured man that this age has feen : he 
 is indeed unhappy, becaufe he is guilty, and 
 guilt muft ever produce unhappinefs -, but 
 in other refpedls, confidering his repeated 
 offences, he has certainly been more fortu- 
 nate, than his moft fanguine wifhes could 
 have expected. I mean not to enter into 
 the detail of all that has happened to him, 
 it would carry me too far, but to juftify 
 
 what
 
 [ 9 1 
 
 what I have faid, let me afk a few queftions. 
 When he wrote that feditious libel againft 
 the King and both Houfes of Parliament, 
 could he forefee that he fhould be taken up 
 by a General Warrant, againft the declared 
 opinion and defire of the two Secretaries of 
 State, who repeatedly propofed to have his 
 name inferted in the warrant of apprehen- 
 fion, but were overuled by the lawyers and 
 clerks of the office, who infifted they could 
 not depart from the long eftablifhed prece- 
 dents and courfe of proceedings. Could 
 Mr. Wilkes forefee, that after an hundred 
 years practice, under the eye of the greateft 
 lawyers, before the fupreme courts of juf- 
 tice, without being ever questioned in one 
 lingle inftance, that this irregularity and il- 
 legality would be firft found out in his cafe, 
 and afterwards adopted by the voice and 
 clamour of the people upon the occafion of 
 his apprehenfion ? Had he been tried and 
 convicted without this irregularity, what 
 would have been his fituation, and where 
 his popularity and the liberal fupport which 
 he has met with ? What would have be- 
 come of the large damages which he has al- 
 ready obtained by this means, or the im- 
 menfe fums which he now fues for, and on 
 which he places his laft dependance ? Are 
 thefe the proofs that he has been the moft 
 unfortunate, or is it more true that he has 
 been the moft opprefTed and injured man 
 this age has feen. Dr. Shebbeare was ta- 
 ken
 
 [ 10] 
 
 en up by a General Warrant from the Se- 
 cretary of State, dated 12 January, 1758, 
 conceived word for word in the fame terms, 
 for writing the fixth letter to the people of 
 England on the progrefs of national ruin, 
 in which is mewn, that the prefent grandeur 
 of France and calamities of this nation are 
 owing to the influence of Hanover on the 
 councils of England. Under this General 
 Warrant all his papers were feized as in the 
 cafe of Mr. Wilkes, and he was prolecuted 
 for this offence by Mr. Pratt, then Attorney 
 General, now Lord Chancellor of Great 
 Britain. He was tried and convi&ed of it 
 on the 1 7th of May, and on the 28th of 
 November following he was fentenced to be 
 fined, to fland in the pillory, to be impri- 
 foned for three years, and then to give fe- 
 curity for his good behaviour for feven years. 
 The profecution againft Mr. Wilkes was 
 directed by the unanimous addrefs of both 
 Houfes of Parliament. He was tried and 
 convidted by a favourable jury, for a libel 
 certainly not lefs feditious or criminal than 
 Dr. Shebbeare's. He was fentenced to be 
 fined five hundred pounds, and to be impri- 
 foned for one year inftead of three years, and 
 the ignominious part of the puniihment was 
 wholly remitted. He was tried and con- 
 victed likewife for being the author and 
 publiftier of the three obfcene and impious 
 libels, upon a profecution directed in confe- 
 quence of an addrefs from the Houfe of 
 
 Lords,
 
 [ II ] 
 
 Lords, for which he received exactly the 
 fame fentence as for the former offence. 
 Was he for either of thefe offences, or in- 
 deed for all of them taken together, fo fe- 
 verely dealt with as Dr. Shebbeare for one 
 alone. I do not go any further back, tho' 
 a multitude of fimilar inftances, and fome 
 more fevere even than that of Dr. Shebbeare 
 might be produced within thefe laft forty or 
 fifty years'. What I have already mentioned 
 feems to me fully fufficient to fhew, that 
 Mr. Wilkes is not entitled to any extraor- 
 dinary favour on the prefent occafion, from 
 the plea of his having been the object of 
 extraordinary feverity during the courfe of 
 the former proceedings. But, though not 
 to favour, yet he is moft certainly entitled 
 to that juftice which is due to every man, 
 and which we ought to be more particular- 
 ly careful to preferve, in an inftance where 
 paffion and prejudice may both concur in the 
 violation of it. Thefe are principles which 
 no one will difpute with me, and in confe- 
 quence of them, after having thoroughly 
 confideredthe charge contained in your Quef- 
 tion, and the arguments urged in fupport of 
 it, I am clearly of opinion, that I ought not 
 to give my aflent to the proportion which 
 has been made to you j becaufc if I did, I 
 mould thereby commit a capital injuftice. 
 I am fenfible that the expreflion is a'itrong 
 one, and that it is incumbent upon me to 
 fhew my reafons for applying it to the mo- 
 
 tioa
 
 [ JO 
 
 tion now under your confideraticm, which I 
 mall endeavour to do as fully and as fatisfao 
 torily as I am able. 
 
 * Mr. I perfectly agree with the gentleman * 
 y on ' who has told you, that this Houfe has -a 
 right to enquire into the condudt of its 
 members, and that they have exercifed that 
 right in a great variety of inftances, in which 
 they have tried, cenfured and expelled them 
 according to the eflablimed courfe of our 
 proceedings, and the law of parliament, 
 which is part of the law of the Kingdom. 
 Let us examine the propolition now before 
 you by this rule, and we mall then be able 
 to judge, whether it is conformable to the 
 ufage and law of parliament, to the prac- 
 tice of any other court of juftice in the king- 
 dom, or to the unalterable principles of na- 
 tural equity ; or whether it is a new and 
 dangerous mode of proceeding, unfuppor- 
 ted by any precedent or example in the 
 Journals of parliament, or the records of 
 any other court, calculated merely to ferve 
 a prefent purpole, and as fuch, well de- 
 ferving the term which I gave to it of a 
 capital injuftice. The charge contained in 
 this motion confifts of four articles, each 
 of which it has been contended is futiicient 
 fingly to juftify the conclufion drawn from 
 .them all put together, that Mr. Wilkes 
 ought to be expelled. Upon this complica- 
 ted charge, the Houfe is now called upon to 
 gjve a judgment for or againft the queftion. 
 
 It
 
 [ 13 J 
 
 It is a well known and undeniable rule in 
 this Houfe, founded in common fenfe, that, 
 whenever a queftion, even of the mod tri- 
 vial nature is complicated, and contains 
 different branches, every individual Mem- 
 ber, has an indubitable right to have the 
 queftion feparated, that he may not be ob- 
 liged to approve or difapprove in the lump, 
 but that every part of the proportion mould 
 Hand or fall abftradtedly upon its own me- 
 rits. I need not mew the propriety and the 
 abfolute neceffity for this i it is fo felf evi- 
 dent, that every argument I could urge in 
 fupport of it would only weaken it. And 
 furely if it holds good in all cafes where we 
 act only in a deliberative capacity, it will not 
 be contended, that it is lefs true, or lefs ne- 
 celiary, when we are to exercife our judicial 
 powers, when we are to cenfure and to pu- 
 nim, and to affect not only the rights of our 
 own member, but the franchifes of thofe 
 who fent him hither as their reprefentative. 
 I may fafely challenge the gentlemen, the 
 mod knowing in the Journals of this Houfe, 
 to produce a fmgle precedent of a (imilar 
 nature. And if none (hall be produced, as I 
 am convinced there cannot, am I not found- 
 ed in faying, that this is a new attempt, 
 unfupported by law and ufage of parliament. 
 But this mode of proceeding is not only 
 new and unprecedented, it is likewife dange- 
 rous and unjuft. For the proof of it, let 
 me recall to your minds what has palled in 
 
 C the
 
 [ H] 
 
 the courfe of this debate ; one very learned 
 te ', M /: and worthy gentleman, * who fpoke early, 
 
 Blackltcnc .' ,11 i r i - 
 
 declared, that he gave his conient to this 
 motion for expulfion, upon that article of 
 the charge alone, which relates to the three 
 o.bfcene and impious libels, difavowing, in 
 the mofl direct terms, all the other articles, 
 becaufe he thought, that the libel relative 
 to Lord Weymouth's letter was ipt proper- 
 ly and regularly brought before us, and that 
 Mr. Wilkes, having been already expelled 
 by a former parliament, for the feditious li- 
 bel of the North Briton, ought not to be 
 punifhed and expelled a fecond time by a 
 fubfequent parliament for the fame offence. 
 His argument was, that the former Houfe of 
 Commons, having vindicated the honour of 
 the King and of Parliament, he hoped this 
 Houfe would not {hew lefs zeal to vindicate 
 tbe caufe of God and of Religion. He fpoke 
 with a becoming zeal and indignation, rai- 
 fed, as he told us, by having read fome of 
 the wicked and impious expreffions contain- 
 ed in the Record now upon your table. His 
 opinions (which were foon after followed 
 t Mr. Ser-by another learned gentleman, -f- who adopt- 
 rcs 'ed the fame train of reafoning) joined to 
 the ferious manner in which he delivered 
 them, feemed to make great impreffion up- 
 on the Houfe, and tho' 1 differ with him in 
 his conclufion, yet I agree with him in his 
 principles, and was glad to fee this offence 
 treated as it ought to be. For, if we treat 
 
 it
 
 it with mirth and levity, we in fome meafure 
 juftify the libel itfelf by our conduct, and 
 /hare the guilt of the author. On the other 
 hand, what were the arguments of the two 
 noble lords*, who fpoke lately for the ex- * L<m? 
 pulfion ? They agreed indeed with the learn - efmpbei 
 ed gentlemen in the conclulion, but difFer-LodPai 
 ed widely in the premifes with regard to 
 the articles of the charge on which they 
 founded their judgment. They both dif- 
 claimed the article of the three obfcene and 
 impious libels as any ground for this pro- 
 ceeding, They expreffed their difapproba- 
 tion of the manner in which the copy of 
 them was obtained from Mr. Wilkes's fer- 
 vant, and their doubts with regard to his 
 intention to publifh them. One of them 
 therefore defired to draw a veil over that part 
 of the charge, that it might no more be 
 mentioned, and the other wimed to bury the 
 whole of that tranfaclion in oblivion. The 
 firft, waving the reft of the charge grounded 
 his aflent to the motion upon the feditious 
 libel of the North Briton ; the latter, if I 
 miftake not, upon the libel againft lord 
 Weymouth. Thefe fentiments likewife 
 feemed to meet with great approbation from . 
 many of your members. Another gentle- 
 man-f-, who is very converfant in the Jour-* Mr. 
 nals of the Houfe, and could not therefore 
 but be fenfible both of the novelty and 
 danger of this proceeding upon fuch an ac- 
 cumulated and complicated charge, thought 
 C 2 it
 
 [ '6 1 
 
 it neceiTary to take a different ground. He 
 feemed to wave the criminal parts of the 
 charge, but iniifled ftrongly upon Mr. 
 V/ilkes's incapacity of continuing a member 
 of Parliament, anting from his imprifon- 
 tuent, which the Houfe had declared to he 
 no cafe of privilege, and from which they 
 could not therefore difcharge him, 
 
 1 have ftated thefe arguments, and I ap- 
 peal to the Houfe, whether I have miire- 
 prefented them. I might in the fame man^- 
 ner go thro' the red: of this debate ; I think 
 not above two gentlemen, who have fpokea 
 together, have agreed in affigning the fam,e 
 offence as the proper ground for this expul- 
 fion. It is impoitible to form any judgment 
 concerning the fentiments of thole who 
 have not fpoken, except from thofe who 
 have, and from the approbation which has 
 been given to what they declared. If I am 
 to judge from thence, 1 fhould imagine, that 
 the opinions of thofe who concur in this 
 queftjon of expulfion, are almoft equally di- 
 vided ajnong the feveral branches of the 
 charge contained in it ; but however tha.t 
 may be, it is undeniably true, that great 
 numbers of gentlemen apprqve of fome 
 parts of the charge, and difapprove of others, 
 and fo, vice verja. What then may be the 
 confequence of blending the whole of this 
 matter together ? Is it not evident, that by 
 this unworthy artifice, Mr. Wilkes may be 
 expelled, although three parts in four of 
 
 thofe
 
 thofe \vbo expell him fhould have declared 
 againft his expullion upon every one of the 
 articles contained in this charge. Would 
 not this fevere punimment be inflicted upon 
 him, in that cafe, by a minority, againft the 
 fenfe and judgment of a great majority of 
 this Houfe ? To explain this in a manner 
 obvious to the apprehenfion of every gentle- 
 man who hears me, let me fuppofe, that an 
 indictment were framed, confining of four 
 diftinct offences, each inferring the penalty of 
 death; charging for example that theprilb- 
 ner on the firft of May had committed trea- 
 fon, on the firft of June murther, on the 
 firft of July robbery, and on the nrft of 
 Auguft forgery. Let me fuppofe any court 
 of judicature in the kingdom ignorant and 
 wicked enough to admit of, and to try the 
 prifoner upon fuch a complicated indict- 
 ment, notwithstanding any objection he 
 could make to it. Might he not be found 
 guilty of each of thefe offences by three dif- 
 ferent jurymen, and declared innocent by 
 nine, and would he not in fact by this contri- 
 vance be condemned to death by three, al- 
 though acquitted by nine? What would 
 mankind, what would you yourfelves fay of 
 fuch a fentence fo obtained ? Would you 
 not think the term of capital injuftice too 
 foft an expremon ? Would you not call it 
 the worft of murthers, a murther under the 
 colour of law and juftice ? The punimment 
 would indeed be different, becaufe the of- 
 fences
 
 fences arc fo, but the mode of proceeding 
 on the prefent occafion is exactly the fame, 
 and equally inconfiftent with the law and 
 ufage of parliament, with the practice of 
 every court of judicature in any civilized 
 country, and with the unalterable principles 
 of natural equity. But I will reftrain my 
 expreffions, and leave this part of the Quef- 
 tion to your own feelings, which I am per- 
 fuaded will enforce it more ftrongly than any 
 arguments of mine. 
 
 I have hitherto taken the whole of this 
 complicated charge together, and have mown 
 the dangerous confequences refulting from 
 it ; I will now unravel the web, and con- 
 fider the different parts of it feparately and 
 diftin&ly. The firft which prefents itfelf is 
 the libel relative to Lord Weymouth's letter, 
 which has been new chriftened for this fpe- 
 cial purpofe. It was complained of in the 
 other Houfe as a breach of privilege, and as 
 agrofs and impudent libel, which it certain- 
 ly is, againft a peer of the realm, and one 
 of his Majefty's principal fecretaries of ftate. 
 But when it appeared to be written by Mr. 
 Wilkes, it was to change its name and its 
 nature. The particular complaint and all 
 mention of the noble Lord concerned in it 
 was to be dropped, and it became at once a 
 matter of fedition againft the ftate. With 
 what view was this alteration made ? Why 
 did not the Houfe of Lords addrefs the King, 
 to have it profecuted by the Attorney Ge- 
 neral,
 
 [ 19] 
 
 neral, in the fame manner as was done with 
 regard to the three obfcene and impious 
 libels which were written by the fame per- 
 fon then a member of this Houfe, and were 
 likewife complained of as a breach of pri- 
 vilege againft a peer of parliament ? What 
 was the motive for this difference of pro- 
 ceeding in the other Houfe, on two offences 
 of the fame nature againft the fame perfon ? 
 It was not out of regard to us and to our 
 privileges, for they well knew, that we had 
 joined with them in a folemn declaration, 
 that in this cafe there was no privilege, 
 and they themfelves had proceeded in 
 confequence of it againft this very man then 
 a member of parliament, for a limilar of- 
 fence, without communicating it to the 
 Houfe of Commons. Can any reafon be af- 
 figned for this, except a defire in their Lord- 
 fhips to fhift the jurifdiction, and inftead of 
 fending it to the courts of law, where li- 
 bels againft minifters have hitherto always 
 been tried, to tranfmit it to us to be pu- 
 nimed, contrary to all precedent and exam- 
 ple, by an extraordinary extenlion of our 
 judicature ? And will this Houfe, whofe 
 peculiar duty it is to watch over and 
 to guard the laws of the land from all en~ 
 croachments, and who have looked with 
 the moft jealous eye upon every act which 
 has the leaft tendency to exempt the peers 
 of the realm, and their caufes from that 
 jurifdiclioo which is common to all, will 
 
 this
 
 this Houfe, I fay, lend its name to fuch an 
 evafion, and extend its judicature for fuch 
 a purpofe ? fhall we take upon ourfelves fo 
 odious an office, and anfwer fuch a demand 
 at fight, with no other view, than to fave 
 their Lordihips the difficulty and obloquy, 
 which is the ufual confequence of thefe pro- 
 fecutions ? If this attempt mould fucceed, 
 and fo eafy and fummary a method mould bo 
 marked out for the punimment of thofe 
 who mail libel miniflers of ftate, this pro- 
 bably will not be the laft application which 
 we mail receive of this nature. We have 
 enough to do, too much I fear, to maintain 
 our own authority and dignity unimpeach- 
 ed, and furely the other Houfe has fuffici- 
 ent power in themfelves, with the affiftance 
 of the courts of law, to vindicate their mem- 
 bers from every infult. 
 
 The next article is that of the feditious li- 
 bel the North Briton, for which, the author 
 and publifher was defervedly profecuted, 
 tried and convicted five years ago, in confe- 
 quence of the unanimous addrefs of both 
 Houfes of Parliament. He was likewife 
 expelled by the laft Houfe of Commons for 
 the indignity offered to them by one of their 
 own members, of which they were the only 
 judges, and which they alone could punifh ; 
 a cafe fo widely different from that of a li- 
 bel on any particular perfon or minifter of 
 ftate, that it is quite unneceilary to do more 
 ... ^ tkijuj to mark it out to your obfervation. 
 
 r <jr 
 
 :^ 
 
 ...: 
 
 ' _." 
 
 " "* ' "
 
 For this libel of the North Briton Mr. 
 Wilkes has been fentenced, and is now un- 
 dergoing the punifhment infli&ed on him 
 by Law. He has likewife been punifhed 
 by expulfion from the former Houfe of Com- 
 mons for the particular offence committed 
 againft them. There is not a rule more 
 facred in the jurifprudence of this country, 
 than that a man once acquittedor condemned, 
 mall not be tried or punifhed again by the 
 fame judicature for the fame offence. How 
 many notorious criminals daily efcape by the 
 ftrift obfervance of this rule, and yet the 
 principle of it is fo falutary, and fo deeply 
 rooted in the minds of men, that no one 
 dares to fet his face againft it, and to avow 
 an intention to break through it. It was 
 but a few days ago that I fpoke and voted 
 to reftrain Mr. Wilkes from entering into the 
 greater part of his petition, becaufe the 
 iubje<ft matter of his complaint had been 
 fully heard, and the parties to it duly ac- 
 quitted by the laft Houfe of Commons. 
 The Houfe, after long debate, adopted the 
 reafoning, and Mr. Wilkes was retrained 
 accordingly. 
 
 And mall I, within the little fpace of a 
 few days, forget every argument which I 
 then ufed againft him, and declare without 
 mame that the fame rule of law, which was 
 conclufive when urged in behalf of his ad- 
 verfaries, mould in the fame caufe be of no 
 avail when pleaded in his favour. Is this 
 
 D that
 
 [ 22] 
 
 confiftency upon which I, and thofe 
 who hear me, are to value ourfelves ? I 
 have not taken up that facr^d principle fo 
 lightly, nor will I fo wantonly depart from 
 it. Permit me to give you an inftance of 
 it. Many years ago, a propofition was made 
 to allow of a revision of the fentence of a 
 court martial. The Queftion was folemnly 
 argued. I then fat at the treafury board 
 
 * M w **k a - m ""ft cr * f r whom I had the high- 
 ham, eft perfonal regard and refpect j and yet 
 
 in opposition to him, and to the fend* 
 , Lord ments of thofe -f-, with whom I was con- 
 Temple nedled by the neareft ties both of blood and 
 c^atbam. friendihip, I repeatedly voted and fpoke a- 
 
 gainft that revifion, in conjunction with a 
 tLord noble perfon J, who then fat at the fame 
 Lyttieton. {j 0ar( j w jth me> an & ail honourable gentle- 
 
 General man ||, an officer of the army, who after- 
 
 Comvay. wafds hdd thg office Q Qne of hig JVJ a j e f. 
 
 ty's Principal Secretaries of State, who now 
 
 hears me, and to whom I appeal for the 
 
 truth of what I have faid upon this fubject. 
 
 Is not this the revifion of a fentence given 
 
 io a former parliament in order to encreafe 
 
 it ? And if this motion for the expulfion of 
 
 Mr. Wilkes, as grounded upon that offence, 
 
 mall prevail, will he not be twice expelled 
 
 and twice punifhed for one crime by the 
 
 fiime judicature, in direct violation of that 
 
 falutary principle, to the truth of which 
 
 we ourfelves have fo lately aflented. 
 
 The
 
 r 23 ] 
 
 The third article contained in the charge 
 
 O 
 
 is for Printing and Publishing three impious 
 and obfcene Libels, under the title of the 
 EfTay upon Woman ; I truft that none who 
 hear me, I am fure that no one who knows 
 me will believe, that I mean to palliate that 
 crime, or the feditious and dangerous Libel 
 which I have juft now mentioned. I will 
 go further, I cannot agree with thofe who 
 think, that the papers relative to it were, 
 obtain'd by thofe who profecuted him in 
 any undue or improper manner. The con- 
 trary has appeared by Mr. Wilkes's own evi- 
 dence a few days ago. That Profecution 
 was begun in another place, and I had no- 
 thing to do with it -, but in juftice to thofe 
 who were concerned, I muft fay, that there 
 was not the lead foundation for all that ca- 
 lumny that has been propagated with regard 
 to the manner of obtaining them, for the 
 truth of which I appeal to the examination 
 which the Houfe has fo lately made on Mr. 
 Wilkes's petition upon that fubjecl:. I muft 
 therefore freely declare, that this obfervation 
 has no weight with me. The other part of 
 the objection is founded upon the evidence 
 given at your Bar, that Mr. Wilkes had 
 directed only 12 copies of them to be 
 printed, and had fh'iclly ordered, that they 
 mould all be delivered into his own hands, 
 from whence it is urged, that he had no in- 
 tention to publifh them at large. This may 
 be indeed a circumftance of alleviation, 
 D z which
 
 which I am the more authorifed to fay, as 
 I am informed it was mentioned by the 
 *Mr. ^[.learned judge *, in mitigation of the fentence 
 ike Yates. gj ven againft him in the court of King's 
 Bench. But the ftrongeft plea in his de- 
 fence upon this head is, that the crime was 
 committed five years ago, that the law has 
 already punimed it, that the laft Houfe of 
 Commons, though they were not ignorant 
 of it when they proceeded againft him, and 
 certainly were not partial to him, yet, as 
 they were not particularly concerned in it, 
 did not think it right for them to interfere 
 in it. It might therefore be thought a hard- 
 fhip to him to let it pafs unnoticed by them, 
 and many years after to transfer it to another 
 parliament, and to referve it in fo unufual a 
 manner for a frefh cenfure. 
 
 The laft article of this complicated charge 
 
 is, that Mr. Wilkes has been fentenced by 
 
 the judgment of the court of King's Bench 
 
 toundergo twenty-two months imprifonment, 
 
 and that he is now in execution under that 
 
 judgment. This circumftance has been 
 
 principally relied upon and enforced by a 
 
 + Mr D .gentleman -f-, who has labour'd very ftrongly 
 
 ion. to prove that, as Mr. Wilkes is thereby 
 
 diiabled from taking his feat, and doing his 
 
 duty for fixteen months to come, this difa- 
 
 bility alone is a proper and fufficient ground 
 
 to juftify the propofition which has been 
 
 made to you for expelling him. You have 
 
 been told very truly, that his conftituents 
 
 have
 
 have the clearefl and moft undeniable right 
 to the attendance of their reprefentatives in 
 parliament, that there is no privilege which 
 we are or ought to be fo tender of as to free 
 our members from the leaft reftraint, which 
 may prevent or even interrupt them in the 
 exercife of this duty, that this confideration is 
 of fuch infinite moment, that the ufual courfe 
 of juftice in all civil cafes is to give way to 
 it and be fufpended, in order to preferve the 
 right of our conftituents from being violated 
 in the fmalleft degree : that we have already 
 declared, that Mr. Wilkes is not entitled by. 
 privilege of parliament to be difcharged from 
 his imprifonment, and that we have no other 
 method to enforce the attendance of our 
 member : that under thefe circumstances he 
 would for a long time to come be utterly dif- 
 abled from performing that duty which he 
 owes to his conftituents, unlefs the king 
 mould be pleafed to pardon him, which 
 would in effect be leaving to the option of 
 the crown to determine, whether one of our 
 members mould or mould not take his feat 
 in this Houfe. I entirely concur with the 
 general pofitions which have been laid down 
 as the foundation of this argument, but I 
 differ extremely in the confequences which 
 have been drawn from it, and think that I 
 can (hew to a demonstration, that by the 
 law and conftant ufage of parliament, the 
 inability of attending his duty for the fpace 
 of a year or two has never been deemed a 
 
 fufficient
 
 iufficient reafon for the expuifion of a mem- 
 ber. I fay his inability, for his imprifon- 
 ment has juftly been ftated, not as a frefh. 
 crime, but as an inability in him to attend, 
 and in the Houfe to reclaim him. The pro- 
 pofition therefore is, that whenever a member 
 is retrained from doing his duty here, and 
 that the Houfe cannot compel his attendance 
 without the immediate interpofition and 
 confent of the Crown, in all fuch cafes the 
 Houfe is bound by the law and practice of 
 parliament to proceed to an expuifion of the 
 member fo difabled. 
 
 Let us fee how 'far this doctrine is war- 
 ranted by former precedents. Not one has 
 been produced in fupport of it. On the 
 contrary, need I put that gentleman in mind 
 of a multitude of examples, many of which 
 have happened in our own time, which 
 prove the very reverfe of it. Does he not 
 remember the cafe of lord Barrymore and 
 Sir John Douglas, both of them members 
 of this Houfe, who were imprifbned upon 
 the fufpenfion of the Habeas Corpus Adt 
 for a longer period of time than Mr. Wilkes, 
 and who could not be deliver'd from that 
 imprifonment without the interpofition and 
 confent of the Crown ? many cafes of a fi- 
 milar nature muft be frefh in the memory 
 of us all, but there is one which I cannot 
 mention without a particular refpecl: and 
 reverence to the perfon concerned in it. I 
 .mean the cafe of Sir William Wyudham. 
 
 H
 
 [ *7 1 
 
 He was imprifoned in the Tower for up- 
 wards of two years, during which time the 
 county which he reprefented, and the pub- 
 lic in general, were deprived of thofe fer- 
 vices for which he was fo eminently quali- 
 fied, and which he performed with fo much 
 honour to himfelf and advantage to them. 
 But though the times were warm and vio- 
 lent, and many wifhed to get rid of thofe 
 abilities which they were well acquainted 
 with, yet no man ventured in that or any 
 of the other inftances to maintain the doc- 
 trine now laid down, that becaufe the par- 
 ties were retrained from their attendance 
 here by a legal imprifonment, from which 
 this Houfe could not deliver them without 
 the interpolition and confent of the Crown, 
 they therefore ought by the law and confli- 
 tution of Parliament to be expelled. I am 
 well aware that in thefe cafes it may be faid, 
 the parties had not been convicted, that 
 there is therefore a great difference as to the 
 certainty of the crime imputed to them. It 
 is true, and God forbid that I iliould draw 
 any parallel of that kind, but with regard 
 to the reftraint abftracted from the crime, 
 which is made the only foundation of this 
 part of the argument, it is exactly the fame 
 as in the prefent inflance. Nor will thecon- 
 fequences ftop here, if it mould be admit- 
 ted that this argument is v/ell founded ; I 
 am convinced the gentleman who urged it 
 was not aware of them. Would he wifh 
 
 that
 
 [aS J 
 
 that all thofe whom the king can by law 
 reftrain from their attendance in this Houfe 
 for the fpace of 1 5 or 1 6 months, and who 
 are thereby unable to difcharge the duty 
 which they owe to their conftituents. 
 Would he wifh, I fay, that they mould be 
 all declared, ipfo facto, incapable of fitting 
 in parliament after that reftraint mall be 
 ended ; has he forgotten how many officers, 
 both in the land and fea fervice, whilft they 
 were members of this Houfe, were abfent 
 for many years together, during the late 
 war ? Are there not many in the fame 
 fituation, who are at this very time actually 
 employed upon military fervices in our gar- 
 rifons abroad ? Can they leave that duty 
 without the interpofition and confent of the 
 Crown > or, if they cannot, will it be con- 
 tended, that they are difabled from ever re- 
 turning amongft us, and that their feats 
 are thereby vacated. This doctrine, if true, 
 would prove, that the gentlemen of the Ar- 
 my and of the Navy, who from the nature 
 and condition of the refpective fervices, are 
 at all times liable to this objection, are for 
 that reafon not eligible into this Houfe, and 
 would be the ftrongeft argument for an act 
 of parliament declaring their incapacity. 
 Many other cafes might be put of tempora- 
 ry difabilities, even for a longer fpace of 
 time, which have never been, and I believe 
 never will be deemed proper grounds for an 
 expulfion. I mail not however ilate them 
 
 parti-
 
 particularly, becaufe thofe which I have 
 already ftated will furely be fufficient to con- 
 vince the Houfe, that this proportion is di- 
 rectly contrary to the practice, and that it 
 has never been warranted in any one inftance 
 by the law and ufage of parliament. 
 
 But it has been urged, whatever may be 
 the cafe in point of form, with regard to 
 the feveral articles contained in this queftion, 
 whether taken together as an accumulated 
 and complicated charge, or conudered fepa- 
 rately and diftinctly, yet this Houfe muft 
 neceffarily be the judges, whether any mem- 
 ber of their own is or is not a fit perfon to 
 fit amongft them, and it has been argued, 
 that if the laft parliament thought him un- 
 fit, the prefent has certainly an equal right 
 to adjudge that he is fo. It has been alked, 
 what merit has he had fince that time to 
 recommend him, and to induce the prefent 
 parliament to think him a properer man to fit 
 amongft them, than he was to fit among 
 their predecefTors. This would indeed be a 
 conclusive argument, if we really had that 
 difcretionary power of excluding all thofe 
 whom we think improper upon which it is 
 founded. But we have no fuch general au- 
 thority veiled in us, nor is there a fingle 
 precedent where we have pretended to exer- 
 cife it. Whenever this Houfe has expelled 
 any member, it has invariably afiign'd fome 
 particular offence as the reafon for fuch ex- 
 pulfion. By the fundamental principles of 
 E this
 
 r 3i 
 
 this conftitution, the right of judging upon 
 the general propriety or unfitnefs of their 
 representatives is entrufled with the elec- 
 tors, and when chofen, this Houfe can 
 only exclude or expell them for fome dif- 
 ability eftabliflied by the law of the land, 
 or for ibme fpecific offence alledged and 
 proved. If it were otherwife, we mould in 
 fact elect ourfelves, inftead of being chofen 
 by our refpective conftituents. If I had 
 been one of the electors for the county of 
 Middlefex, I mould have mown by my 
 vote the opinion which I entertained with 
 regard to the conduct and character of Mr. 
 Wilkes, and to the propriety of choofing 
 him a knight of the mire for that county. 
 I had not only a right, but it would have 
 been my duty to have manifefted that opi- 
 nion. But when he is chofen and returned 
 hither ; my duty is widely different. We 
 are now acting in our judicial capacity, and 
 are therefore to found the judgment which 
 we are to give, not upon our wimes and in- 
 clinations, not upon our private belief or 
 arbitrary opinions, but upon fpecific facts 
 alledged and proved according to the eftablifh- 
 ed rules and courfe of our proceedings. 
 When we are to act as judges, we are not 
 ; to afilime the character of legiflators, any 
 more than the Court of King's Bench, who 
 \v-ere bound to reverfe Mr. Wilkes's outlaw- 
 ry if they found any irregularity in it, tho* 
 pofiibly they were convinced in their 
 
 private
 
 [3' ] 
 
 private opinions, that it would have been 
 more beneficial to the ftate to have confirmed 
 it. If we depart from this principle, and 
 allow to ourfelves a latitude of judging in 
 queftions of this nature, if we are to admit 
 thofe whom we think moll: proper, and to 
 expell thofe whom we think moft improper, 
 to what lengths will not this doctrine carry 
 us ? There never was a parliament chofen, 
 into which there were not fome perfons elec- 
 ted whom the greater part of" the Houfe 
 thought unworthy of that honour. I fpeak 
 of former parliaments, and it becomes us 
 to be careful that pofherity mould not fpeak 
 ftill worfe of us. Let me fuppofe for a mo- 
 ment, that this were true, to a certain de- 
 gree even in the prefent parliament, and that 
 it were carried ftill farther from party pre- 
 judice, or from motives lefs defenfible.. 
 This would indeed be the fure means of 
 purging the Houfe effectually from all ill 
 humours within thefe walls, and of dif- 
 perfing them at the fame time through every 
 corner of the kingdom. But if this fum- 
 mary mode of reafoning was really meant 
 to be adopted, there was certainly no occa- 
 lion for our fitting four or five days and 
 nights together, to decide a queftion, which 
 might as well have beea determined in fo 
 many minutes. I cannot therefore bring 
 myfelf to think, that any gentleman will 
 avow the propofition to this extent. But 
 perhaps fome may wifhto flicker themfelves 
 E 2 under
 
 [ 3* .1 
 
 under the other part of the argument, and 
 may contend, that a Man who has been ex- 
 pelled by a former Houfe of Commons can- 
 not, at leaft in the judgment of thofe who 
 concurred in that fentence, be deemed a 
 proper perfon to fit in the prefent parlia- 
 ment, unlefs he has fome pardon to plead, 
 or fome merit to cancel his former offences. 
 They will find upon examination that this 
 doctrine is almoft as untenable as the other. 
 Votes of cenfure, and even commitments by 
 either Houfe of Parliament acting in that 
 capacity only, determine, as it is well known, 
 with the fertion. There are indeed fome in- 
 ftances, where in matters of contempt and 
 refufal to fubmit to the orders of the Houfe, 
 the proceeding has been taken up again iri 
 a following feffion. But to transfer an ex- 
 pulfion from one parliament to another, 
 and by this means to eftablifh a perpetual 
 incapacity in the party fo expelled, which 
 mufi be the confequence of it, as this ob- 
 jection will hold equally ftrong in any fu- 
 ture parliament as in the prefent. This I 
 fay, would be contrary to all precedent and 
 example, and inconfiftent with the fpirit of 
 the conftitution. I could cite many prece- 
 dents to prove the firn* part of rny afTertion, but 
 one alone will be fufficient for my purpofe, 
 becaufe that is fo fignal, and fo memorable 
 in all its circumftances, as to render any 
 confirmation or inforcement of it quite unne- 
 ceflary. In quoting this precedent I beg 
 
 leave
 
 [ 33 I 
 
 leave to fay, that I do not intend to throw 
 any imputation on any perfon whatfoever, 
 I neither mean to acquit or to condemn thofe 
 who were parties to it, but merely to ftate 
 the fad: as it appears from your journals, 
 and then to fubmit the refult of it to the 
 judgment of thofe who hear me. The cafe 
 I allude to was that of Mr. Walpole, who 
 was afterwards firft minifter to king George 
 the Firft and king George the Second for 
 the term of twenty years and upwards, On 
 the 1 7th of January ij^ he was voted 
 by the Houfe of Commons guilty of a high 
 breach of truft and notorious corruption, in 
 receiving the fum of 500 guineas, and taking 
 a note for 500 pounds more on account of 
 two contracts made by him when fecretary 
 at war, purfuant to a power granted by the 
 lord treafurer, and for this offence he was 
 committed prifoner to the Tower and ex- 
 pelled the Houfe. He was immediately re- 
 elecTied, but declared incapable of being 
 chofen during that parliament. However, 
 on the diffolution of it a year and a half after- 
 wards, he was again chofen into the new 
 parliament, was admitted to take his feat 
 without the leaft queftion or objection on 
 account of his former expuliion, and con- 
 tinued a Member of the Houfe of Com- 
 mons in every fubfequent parliament till the 
 year 1742, when he was created earl of Or- 
 ford. It cannot be denied that the offence 
 was in its nature infamous, and fuch a one 
 
 as
 
 [ 341 
 
 as rendered the perfon guilty of it unfit to 
 be trufted with the power to give, or to 
 manage the public money. The fame 
 party that expelled him, whofe enmity was 
 aggravated by his great talents and know- 
 ledge of bulinefs, continued equally ad- 
 verie to him, and equally prevalent in the 
 new parliament ; but however defirous they 
 were to get rid of him, and however vio- 
 lent upon many other occafions, yet in the 
 very zenith of their power, they did not 
 dare to fet up this pretence, or to urge the 
 expulfion of a former parliament, although 
 not two years before, as a fufficient ground 
 for re-expelling or declaring him incapable 
 of fitting in a new parliament. If this 
 could have been attempted, every circum- 
 fiance concurred to make them wim it. The 
 crime itfelf was breach of truft, and no- 
 torious corruption in a public officer relative 
 to public money, an offence in the eye of 
 parliament certainly not lefs infamous or 
 lets criminal than writing and publilhing 
 a feditious libel. Few if any were more 
 obnoxious, or more formidable to them 
 than the gentleman who had been the ob- 
 ject of their juftice or refentment. The 
 heat of party rage had been pleaded 
 in excufe, if not in juftification of many 
 extravagancies on both fides, but they 
 thought this meafure beyond the mark of a 
 common violence, and therefore dared not 
 to attempt it. I have faid before, that it 
 
 was
 
 [35] 
 
 was not my intention to approve or to blame 
 the cenfure then patted upon that extraor- 
 dinary man. It was the fubjed: of great 
 difcuffion and altercation at the time. I do 
 not wim to revive paft heats. The prefent 
 are more than furficienr, and all wife and 
 good men mould endeavour by juftice and 
 moderation to allay them. Let us therefore 
 take it either way. Let us fuppofe, that he 
 was guilty or innocent of the charge to the 
 utmoft extent, and then let us conlider how 
 the cafe will apply to that part of the 
 queftion which is now before us. The 
 crime, as it related to a fraud concerning 
 the public revenue, was certainly under the 
 immediate cognizance of this Houfe, and 
 was perhaps punimable in no other manner. 
 They punimed it as feverely as they could, 
 both by imprifonment and expulfion ; the 
 former of which ended in a few months, and 
 the confequences of the latter in a year and 
 an half. If he was guilty of a high breach 
 of trulr. and notorious corruption, he was 
 certainly very unfit to be inverted with the 
 moft facred truft in the kingdom, that of a 
 member of the legiilature. Had the Quef- 
 tion been aiked upon that occafion likewife, 
 what merit he had after his firft expulfion to 
 recommend him to the fubfequent parlia- 
 ment ? The anfwermuft have been, that he 
 had perfifted in juftifying what he had 
 done, that he had appealed not only to his 
 electors, but to the world at large in more 
 
 than
 
 than one printed pamphlet, accufing the 
 Houfe of Commons which had condemned 
 him, of violence and injuftice. With all 
 thefe aggravations, and with every other in- 
 ducement, what could have protected him, 
 what could have prevented his re-expulfion, 
 but the notoriety and the certainty thatfucha 
 meafurcwasnotconfiftentwiththeknownlaw 
 and ufage of parliament, even when exerted 
 againft a guilty and obnoxious man ? This is 
 the ftate of the argument upon that fuppo- 
 fition -, but if we take the other part of the 
 alternative, and fuppofe that he was inno- 
 cent of the charge, the proportion would 
 be much ftronger, we muft then confider 
 him in the light of a man expelled by party 
 rage, or on worfe motives, not for his 
 crimes but for his merit, not that he was 
 unfit, but that he was too well qualified 
 for the truft repofed in him. What would 
 have been the confequence, if this doctrine 
 of transferring the difability incurred by a 
 former fentence to a fubfequent parliament 
 had been then eftablimcd. The public and 
 this Houfe would have been deprived for 
 ever of thofe fervices, which from his 
 knowledge and talents they had a right to 
 expect, and which they fo much relied up- 
 on, particularly in the important bufinefs 
 of the finances of this kingdom, and that 
 gentleman and his family would have been 
 precluded, irreparably precluded, by an un- 
 juft judgment, from thofe great emoluments 
 
 and
 
 [ 37 ] 
 
 and high honours which were conferred up- 
 on him by two fucceffive kings, as the re- 
 wards of his adminiftration. That lofs 
 however would have been the misfortune of 
 individuals, but a much heavier, a much 
 more extenfive misfortune would have be- 
 fallen the parliament and the conftitution, 
 if fo dangerous a precedent had taken place. 
 An eafy and effectual plan would have been 
 marked out to exclude from this Houfe for 
 ever, by an unjuft vote once pafled, any 
 member of it who mould be obnoxious to 
 the rage of party, or to the wantonnefs of 
 power. Let not your prejudices, let not 
 your juft refentments againft the conduct 
 and character of the man, who is now the 
 object of our deliberation, prevail upon you 
 to ground any part of your proceedings up- 
 on flich deftructive and fatal principles. 
 Confider that precedents of this nature are; 
 generally begun in the firft inftance againft 
 the odious and the guilty, but when once 
 eftablimed, are eafily applied to and made ufe 
 of againft the meritorious and the innocent: 
 that die moft eminent and bed deferving 
 members of the ftate, under the colour of 
 fuch an example, by one arbitrary and dif- 
 cretionary vote of one Houfe of Parlia- 
 ment (the worft fpecies of Oftracifm) may 
 be excluded from the public councils, cut 
 off and profcribed from the rights of every 
 fiibjecT: of the realm^ not for a term of 
 vears alone, but for ever: that a claim of 
 
 F this
 
 this nature would be to aflume to the majo- 
 rity of this Houfe alone, the powers of the 
 whole legiflature , for nothing fhort of their 
 united voice, declared by an act of parlia- 
 ment, has hitherto pretended to exercife 
 fuch a general difcretion of puniming, con- 
 trary to the ufual forms of law, and of. en- 
 abling fuch a perpetual incapacity upon any 
 individual. There are indeed fome inftances 
 * Bills of of the latter * kind in our ftatute books, 
 
 Pen" S ltii" d ^ ut even tnere tnev ^ ave been frequently 
 animadverted upon, and heavily cenfured 
 as acts of violence and injuftice, and breaches 
 of the conftitution. Let us remember the 
 well known obfervation of the learned and 
 fenfible author of L'Efprit des Loix, who 
 flates it as one of the excellencies of the 
 Englifli conftitution, of which he was a 
 profeffed admirer, " that the judicial pow- 
 " er is feparated from the legiflative ;" and 
 tells us, " that there would be no liberty if 
 " they were blended together, that the 
 " power over the life and liberty of the 
 " citizens would then be arbitrary ; for the 
 " judge would be the legiflator." Shall we 
 then, who are the immediate delegated 
 guardians of that liberty and conftitution, 
 ihall we fet the wicked example, and at- 
 tempt to violate them to gratify our paf- 
 fions or our prejudices ? And for whom 
 and upon what occafion ? Not to preferve 
 r- the facred perfon of fovereign from aflafli- 
 nation, or his kingdoms from invafion or -f- 
 
 rebellion,
 
 [ 39 ] 
 
 rebellion, not to defeat the arbitrary defigns 
 of a defperate minifter or a defpotic court *, * Lord 
 but to inflict an additional punilhment upon |^ ffoid>? 
 a libeller, who appears by the queftion it- 
 felf to have been convicted of the greater 
 part of his offences by due courfe of law, 
 and to be in actual imprifonment at this mo- 
 ment, under a legal fentence pronounced 
 by the fupreme court of criminal juftice in 
 confequence of that conviction. Can we 
 fay, that there are not laws in being, to 
 preferve the reverence due to the magiftrate, 
 and to protect the dignity of the crowrt 
 from fcandalous and feditious libels ? Are 
 they not fufficient, if temperately and firm- 
 ly executed, to punim and to deter the moil 
 daring from the commiflion of thofe of* 
 fences. If they are, for what purpofe is 
 this application ? If they are not, can the 
 proportion now made to you be deemed the 
 proper or the effectual method of enforcing 
 them ? 
 
 This brings me to the only part of the 
 queftion which I have not yet touched upon ; 
 I mean the propriety and wifdom of this 
 meafure -, fuppofing even that it were clearly 
 warranted by the law of the land, by the 
 law and ufage of parliament, by the fpirit 
 of our conftitution, and by the general 
 principles of natural juftice : the contrary 
 of which I think I have manifeftly fhown 
 in every one of thofe particulars. What 
 then are the motives of propriety and wif- 
 F 2 dom
 
 [40] 
 
 dom by which we are called upon to come 
 into this extraordinary refolution ? I (hall 
 probably be told, that it is to check and to 
 reftrain the fpirit of faction and diforder, to 
 re-eftabli(h the credit and authority of go- 
 vernment, and to vindicate the honour of 
 this Houfe, by expr effing our abhorrence of 
 thefe offences. No man has been more 
 defirous to attain thefe neceffary purpofts 
 than I have been, or will now let his foot 
 farther for the accompli foment of them by 
 all juft and legal means, in every inftance 
 confident with the public fafety. I have 
 not changed my fentiments relative to Mr. 
 Wilkes, of whom I continue to think ex- 
 actly in the fame manner as I have 1 long 
 done ; but, whatever my fentiments are, it 
 cannot be denied, that he is now become 
 an object of popular favour. Nor is that 
 popular favour confined to this capital, or 
 to its neighbourhood alone, but is extended 
 to the diftant parts of the kingdom. The 
 temper of the people you have been truly 
 told, has on feveral occafions appeared to 
 be diforderly and licentious, fpurning at 
 the laws and at all lawful authority. The 
 difficulties we have to druggie with, arifing 
 from the interior condition of this country, 
 from the dilobedience of odr colonies, and 
 from the ftate of our foreign affairs, are 
 augmented to fuch a degree, as to form a 
 very dangerous criiis. The refpect and re- 
 verence due to the parliament, and the 
 
 confidence
 
 confidence repofed in this Houfe, are vifibly 
 diminimed. Under thefe circumftances does 
 it not behove us to be doubly cautious, not 
 to exceed the ftricteft bounds of law and of 
 the conftitution ? Is it not more advifeable, 
 if the cafe can admit of a doubt, to concili- 
 ate the heated minds of men by temper and 
 difcretion, than to inflame them by adding 
 frefh fuel to difcontent * Our fituation, I 
 am fure, demands the firm fupport of an 
 united people, and their affectionate reliance 
 upon the wifdom of thofe who govern them. 
 Till that can be reflored, at leaft in fome 
 meafure, we may look around for order and 
 for obedience in vain. If his Majefty's fer- 
 vants can think that this proceeding is the 
 likely means to reftore it, let them, for the 
 fake of this Houfe, whofe exiftence de- 
 pends upon the good opinion of our con- 
 ilituents, as their happinefs does upon us. 
 Let them for their own fakes, confult that 
 befl guide to all human wifdom, the ex- 
 perience of paft times, and where can they 
 confult it more properly than in the hiftory 
 of our own country. There they will find 
 fome of the ableft minifters and the moft 
 victorious generals that any age could boaft 
 of, difgraced and overturned in the midft of 
 their fuccefs and triumph by a popular cla- 
 mour of the danger of the church. The 
 reverend incendiary Dr. Sacheverell, was 
 unwifely profecuted by this Houfe. He 
 became by that means the favourite and the 
 
 idol
 
 [42 ] 
 
 idol of the people throughout England as 
 much, nay more, than Mr, Wilkes is now. 
 The Queen herfelf was flopped and infulted 
 in her chair during the trial, with God fave 
 Dr. Sacheverell. I heartily wifh that nofimi- 
 lar infult may have been offered to our pre- 
 fent fovereign. The profecution went on and 
 the ferment encreafed. The event verified 
 a famous expreffton in thofe days, " that 
 " the whigs had wifhed to roaft a parfon, and 
 " that they had done it at fo fierce a fire, 
 " that they had burnt themfeives," for the 
 minifters were difmifled, and the parliament 
 diffolved. The reverend doctor, the mob 
 idol, when he ceafed to be a martyr, foon 
 funk into his original infigniftcancy, from 
 which that martyrdom alone had raifed him. 
 Mr. Wilkes, apprehenfive of the fame fate, 
 and thoroughly fenfible, that the continuance 
 of his popularity will depend upon your 
 conduct, ufes every means in his power to 
 provoke you to fome inftance of unufual 
 feverity. Suppofe that you could other- 
 wife have doubted of it, yet his behaviour 
 here at your bar, when called upon to juf- 
 tify himfelf, is fully fumcient to prove the 
 truth of what I have afferted. If he had 
 intended to deprecate your refentment, and 
 to ftop your proceedings againft him, he is 
 not fo void of parts and underftanding, as 
 to have told you in the words he ufed at the 
 bar (when charged with writing the Libel 
 againft lord Weymouth) " that he was only 
 
 forry
 
 [43 1 
 
 forry he had not exprefTed himfelf upon 
 " that fubjec! in ftronger terms, and that he 
 " certainly would do To whenever a fimilar 
 " occafion mould prefent itfelf j" nor would 
 hehave afked, " whether the precedents quo- 
 " ted by lord Mansfield were not all takea 
 " from the Star Chamber." If he had wifhed 
 to prevent his expullion, he would have em- 
 ployed other methods to accomplifh his 
 purpofe ; but his object is not to retain his 
 feat in this Houfe, but to ftand forth to the 
 deluded people as the victim of your re- 
 fentment, of your violence and injuftice. 
 This is the advantage which he manifeftly 
 feeks to derive from you, and will you be 
 weak enough to give it to him, and to fall 
 into fo obvious a fnare ? What benefit will 
 you gain, or what will he lofe, if this mo- 
 tion for his expulfion mall take effect ? 
 Whatever talents he has to captivate or to 
 inflame the people without doors, he has 
 none to render him formidable within thefe 
 walls, or to combat the weighty and power- 
 ful arguments which minifters know how 
 to employ. He has holden forth high 
 founding and magnificent promifes of the 
 fignal fervices which he will perform to his 
 country in parliament, and there are many 
 who are ignorant and credulous enough to 
 believe them. Whenever he comes here, 
 I will venture to prophecy that they will be 
 grevoufly difappointed. That difappoint- 
 ment will be followed by difguft and anger, 
 
 at
 
 [44] 
 
 at their having been fo grofsly deceived, and 
 will probably turn the tide of popular pre- 
 judice. But as foon as he fhall be excluded 
 from, this Houfe, they will give credit to him 
 for more than he has even promifed. They 
 will be perfuaded, that every real and ima- 
 ginary grievance would have been redreffed 
 by his patriotic care and influence. If in 
 this fituation, any untoward accident, any 
 diftrefs mail befall us, the ferment will be 
 encreafed by this circumflance, and the lan- 
 guage of an uninformed and mifled people 
 will be, " aye, ifmafter Wilkes had been in 
 " the Houfe he would have prevented it ; 
 " they knew that, and therefore would not 
 " fuffer him to come amongft them." Such 
 will be the reafoning, and fuch the confe- 
 quences attending this meafure j but they 
 are not the only confequences which ought 
 to be weighed and confidered, before you 
 engage in it. Look a little forward to the 
 courfe of your future proceedings, and fee 
 in what difficulties you will involve your- 
 felves. In the prefent difpofition of the 
 county of Middlefex, you cannot entertain a 
 doubt, but that Mr. Wilkes will be re-elect- 
 ed after his expulfion. You will then pro- 
 bably think yourfelves under a neceffity of 
 expelling him again, and he will as certain- 
 ly be again re-elected. What fteps can the 
 Houie then take to put an end to a difgrace- 
 ftil conteft, in which their juftice is arraign- 
 ed, and their authority and digqity eflential- 
 
 ly
 
 [ 45 1 
 
 ly compromifed. You cannot, by the rules 
 of the Houfe, refcind the vote for excluding 
 Mr. Wilkes, in the fame feffion in which 
 it has paHed, and 1 know but two other me- 
 thods which you can purfue. They have both 
 been the fubjedt of common converfation, 
 and are both almoft equally exceptionable. 
 You may refufe to iflue a new writ, and by 
 that means deprive the freeholders of this 
 county of the right of chufing any other 
 reprefentative, poffibly for the whole term 
 of the prefent parliament. There are fome 
 examples of this kind in the cafe of cor- 
 rupt boroughs, where this Houfe has fuf- 
 pended the ifTuing a new writ for the 
 remainder of a feffion, as a punifhment up- 
 on the voters for the moft flagrant bribery; 
 but I cannot believe, that it will be thought 
 juft or advifable to inflict the fame punim- 
 ment during the term of a whole parlia- 
 ment, inftead of a fingle feffion, upon the 
 electors of a great county, for no crime, 
 except that of rechuling a man whom this 
 Houfe had cenfured and expelled. If you 
 do not adopt this proceeding, the other al- 
 ternative will be to bring into this Houfe, 
 as the knight of the mire for Middlefex, a 
 man chofen by a few voters only, in contra- 
 diction to the declared fenfe of a great ma- 
 jority of the freeholders on the face of the 
 poll, upon a fuppofition, that all the votes 
 of the latter are forfeited and thrown away 
 on account of the expulfion of Mr. Wilkes. 
 G If
 
 If fuch a propofition (hall ever be brought 
 before us, it will then be time enough to 
 enter into a full difcuffion of it ; at prefent 
 I will only fay that, I believe there is no 
 example, of iuch a proceeding, that if it 
 hall appear. to be new and unfounded in 
 the law of the land, nay, if any reafonable 
 doubt can be entertained of its legality, the 
 attempt to forfeit the freeholders votes in this 
 manner will be highly alarming and dange- 
 rous. Are thefe then the proper expedients 
 to check and to reftrain the fpiritof faction 
 and of diforder, and to bring back the minds 
 of men to a fenfe of their duty ? Can we feri- 
 pufly think they will have that falutary ef- 
 fecl: ? Surely it is time to look forwards and 
 to try other meafures. A wife government 
 knows how to enforce with temper, or to 
 conciliate with dignity, but a weak one is 
 odious in the former, and contemptible in 
 the latter. How many arguments have we 
 ' heard from the adminiftratton in the courle 
 of this femon, for conciliating meafures to- 
 wards the fubje&s in the American colonies, 
 upon queflions where the legiilative autho- 
 rity of Great Britain was immediately con- 
 cerned ? And is not the fame temper, the 
 fame fpiritofconriliation, at leaft equally ne- 
 cefTary towards the fubje&s within this king- 
 dom, or is this the only part of the King's 
 dominions where it is not advifablc to mow 
 it? Let not any gentleman think, that by 
 conciliation I mean a blind and bale compli- 
 ance
 
 [47] 
 
 ance with popular opinions, contrary to our 
 honour or juftice; that would indeed be 
 unworthy of us. I mean by conciliation, 
 a cool and temperate conduct, unmixed with 
 paffion, or with prejudice. No man wifhes 
 more than I do to flop any excefs on either 
 fide, or is more ready to refift any tumultu- 
 ous violence founded upon unreafonable 
 clamour. Such a clamour is no more than 
 a fudden guft of wind which paries by and 
 is forgotten ; but when the public difcon- 
 tent is founded in truth and reafon ; when 
 the fky lowers and hangs heavy all around 
 us, a ftonn may then arife, which may tear 
 up the constitution by the roots, and make 
 the palace of the King himfelf. As for me 
 I have given my opinion, and I have chofen 
 to do it without concert or participation. I 
 can affure the Houfe, that fome of my near- 
 eft friends did not know the part which I 
 ftiould take, I determined not to tell it, 
 that I might keep myfelf unengaged and 
 free to change it, if I thought proper, during 
 the courfe of the debate* I do not mean by 
 this to fay, that I came into the Houfe 
 without having formed an opinion ; on the 
 contrary, I had weighed and coniidered it 
 thoroughly, and my judgment upon it is 
 the refult of my moft ferious deliberation. 
 I know not what others may think, or who 
 will act with me upon this occafion. Thofe 
 who were once my friends may have adopted 
 other ideas and other principles,- and even 
 G 2 thoie
 
 [48 3 
 
 thofe who ftill continue to be fo, may pofli- 
 bly entertain different fentiments from mine 
 upon this fubjecl:. That confideration muft 
 not prevent me from doing juftice, but God 
 forbid, that they mould not exercife the 
 fame liberty, and follow their opinions, as 
 I do mine. They know that I have not 
 afked one of them to attend during any 
 part of this bufmefs, nor have I defired 
 their concurrence. Many of them fit a- 
 round rne, and I appeal to them for the 
 truth of what I have faid. Thus far then I 
 have difcharged my duty, with no other 
 view, but to do that which appears to me 
 mofl conformable to the ends of juftice and 
 of the public welfare, mofl for the fafety 
 and honour of the king and the kingdom. 
 Whilfl my little endeavours can contribute 
 but a mite to thefe great purpofes, I will 
 continue to exert them as freely as I have 
 now done ; but whenever the violence or 
 corruption of the times, either within or 
 without thefe walls, will not permit me to 
 follow thofe diftatss uncontrouled, 1 will 
 leave this place and retire from an affembly, 
 which can no longer be called a free parlia- 
 ment. Many extravagancies committed by 
 Mr. Wilkes and his adherents have been ur- 
 ged, and even magnified, as if they could 
 juftify any extravagance of power to reprefs 
 them. It has been afked, are thefe offences 
 to pafs unpunifhed, and are we not to vindi- 
 cate our own credit, as well as that of the 
 
 government,
 
 [49 J 
 
 government, by expremng our abhorrence 
 of them ? Have 1 been an advocate for their 
 paffing unpunished ? Have I flopped or 
 neglected to enforce the cenfure of the 
 law ? Was he not profecuted, tried and 
 convicted, and when he left the kingdom 
 to avoid his fentence, was he not outlaw- 
 ed ? Let me go farther. Had Mr. Wilkes 
 ventured to return home whilft I had the 
 honour to be entrufted with the executive 
 powers of the ftate, he mould not have 
 remained out of cuftody four and twenty 
 hours, without fubmitting himfelf to the 
 juftice or the mercy of the King, whom he 
 had fo grievoufly offended. He knew it, 
 and therefore did not return till he met 
 with more encouragement. This furely was 
 not the behaviour, nor is this the language 
 of one of his partizans. Compare it with 
 the conduct of thole who now hold the 
 chief office and authority of the govern- 
 ment, and who call fo loudly for vengeance 
 and for punimment. Did they not give 
 their lupport to him abroad after his con- 
 viction and outlawry, and keep up an in- 
 tercourfe and correfpondence with him, 
 even whilft they were the King's minifters ? 
 Was he not permitted to return to Eng- 
 land, to appear publicly in this capital, for 
 months together, and to walk daily under 
 the windows of the palace unmolefted, un- 
 confmed, and unpunifhed ? They could not 
 plead ignorance of the feditious libel againft 
 
 the
 
 [ 5 ) 
 
 the King and both Houfes of Parliament, 
 nor of the three impious libels contained in 
 the ErTay upon Woman, for dll of which 
 he had been legally tried and convicted. 
 Why then was he not called to his fentence, 
 and the laws carried into execution, agree- 
 able to the folemn afTurances given by the 
 King in anfwer to both Houfes of Parlia- 
 ment, when they jointly addreffed his ma- 
 jefly to carry on this profecution ? What 
 was become of the executive power, and 
 how were thofe who were inverted with it 
 justified in fufpending the ufual courfe of 
 the law, againft the exprefs direction of 
 the King, enforced by the recommendation 
 of both Houfes of Parliament ? What were 
 the inducements at that time to fuch ex- 
 traordinary favour and lenity, and what are 
 now the motives for this extraordinary re- 
 fentment and feverity ? The firft circum- 
 ilance which feems to have awakened their 
 attention, was Mr. Wilkes offering himfelf 
 a candidate for the city of London and 
 the county of Middlefex, againft the incli- 
 nation of the miniftry : but the proceedings 
 againft him were then carried on like the 
 feeble efforts of men not half awake, or 
 not half in earneft. Many days patted over 
 before the officers of the crown would ven- 
 ture to execute the common procefs of the 
 law for apprehending him ; and to obviate 
 this difficulty, they had at laft recourfe to 
 the fhameful expedient of ftipulating with 
 
 Mr.
 
 [5' I 
 
 Mr. Wilkes himfelf, the terms upon which 
 he would confent to be taken into cufto- 
 dy. To follow that precedent you ought 
 now at leaft to afk him, upon what terms 
 he will confent to be expelled. Perhaps, if 
 properly applied to, he may condefcend to 
 this requeft as gracioufly as he did to the 
 former, and as voluntarily as he furrendered 
 himfelf a prifoner, when he was taken with 
 impunity out of the hands of the officers 
 of juftice by twenty perfons, almoft in light 
 of the court of King's Bench then fitting 
 in Weftminfter hall. Such was the firm 
 and fpirited conduct by which the fupreme 
 authority of the laws was fupported and 
 preferved. The outlawry was reverfed 
 for an error fo trivial, that the court of 
 King's Bench declared when they reverfed 
 it, that they were almoft afhamed to men- 
 tion it. When the judgment was given, 
 the firft law officer of the crown in demand- 
 ing it did not think proper to enforce the 
 penalty according to cuftom, and it was 
 therefore milder than ufual. In the firft 
 feffion of this parliament, Mr. Wilkes was 
 returned a member of it, and fuffered to 
 continue without any notice taken of him ! 
 The beginning of the prefcnt feffion paffed 
 in the fame manner. What is it then which 
 has roufed the languid fpirit of admini- 
 ftration, awd called down the vengeance of 
 the Houfe of Commons of Great Britain ? 
 Not the feditious and dangerous libel of 
 
 the
 
 [ 52 1 
 
 the North Briton, not the impious libels of 
 the EfTay upon Woman, not all the extra- 
 vagancies which have been urged in this 
 day's debate ; all thefe were known before, 
 and were not deemed fufficient for the ex- 
 ertion of the common cenfures of the law ; 
 but he has iince prefumed to write an info- 
 lent libel upon a fecretary of flate. This 
 it feems is that capital and decifive offence, 
 which is to raife our indignation to its high- 
 eft pitch. The honour of our King, and 
 the reverence due to our Religion, were 
 paffed over in filence and forgotten. They 
 are now to be thrown into the fcale, to 
 make up the weight, and to induce us to 
 efpoufe the quarrel of a minifter. To ac- 
 complim this important purpofe, we are to 
 violate not only the forms, but the effence 
 of our conftitution. The Houfe of Com- 
 mons is to blend the executive and judicial 
 powers of the ftate with the legiflative, to 
 extend their jurifdidlion, that they may take 
 upon themfelves the odium of trying and 
 punifhing in a fummary manner, an offence 
 which does not relate to thernfelves, but is 
 under the immediate cognizance of the 
 courts of law. In the exercife of it they 
 are to form an accumulative and complica- 
 ted charge, which no other court, nor even 
 they themfelves, have ever admitted in any 
 other inftance. They are to mingle up new 
 crimes with old, and to try a man twice by 
 the lame judicature for the fame offence. 
 
 They
 
 [ S3 1 
 
 They are to transfer the cenfures of a for- 
 mer parliament, contrary to all precedent, 
 and to make them the foundation of the 
 proceedings of a fubfequent one. They 
 are to afTume a power to determine upon 
 the rights of the people, and of their re- 
 prefentatives, by no other rule, but that of 
 their own inclination or difcretion ; and 
 laftly, they are to attempt to perfuade man- 
 kind, that they do all thefe things to vindi- 
 cate their own honour, to exprefs their re- 
 fpect for their King, and their zeal for the 
 facred names of their God, and their Re- 
 ligion. Thus are we to add hypocrify to 
 violence, and artifice to oppreffion, not 
 remembering, that falmood and diffimu- 
 lation are only the wrong fides of good 
 fenfe and ability, which fools put on, 
 and think they wear the robe of wif- 
 dom. If the Houfe of Commons mall 
 fuffer themfelves to be made the inftru- 
 ments, in fuch hands, to carry fuch a plan 
 into execution, they will fall into the low- 
 eft ftate of humiliation and contempt. An 
 individual indeed may exempt himfelf from 
 the difgrace attending it, but the dilhonour 
 and odium of it will cleave to that AlTem- 
 bly, which ought to be the conftant object 
 of public reverence and affection. I have 
 done my duty in endeavouring to prevent 
 it, and am therefore carelefs of the confe- 
 quences of it to myfelf. I expect that what 
 I have faid will be mifreprefented out of 
 H this
 
 r 54 1 
 
 this Houfe, perhaps in that place, where 
 of all others a mifreprefentation of what 
 pafies here will be moft criminal. Thofe 
 who have heard me muft know, that I 
 have neither invidioufly aggravated, nor 
 fa&ioufly extenuated Mr. Wilkes's offences. 
 If he (hall commit frefh crimes, they will 
 call for frefh puni(hment, the law is open, 
 that law which is the fecurity of us all, 
 to which Mr. Wilkes has been, and cer- 
 tainly will be amenable. Let him undergo 
 the penalties of that law, whatever they 
 may be, but not of an undefined, difcreti- 
 onary power, the extent of which no man 
 knows, the extent of the mifchiefs arifing 
 from it, to every thing which is dear to us, 
 no man can tell. 
 
 I feel that I have troubled the Houfe too 
 long, but this is no common QuefKon, and 
 I truft, that the fame indulgence which has 
 been my encouragement, will be my excufe 
 and j unification. 
 
 FINIS.
 
 it OCT o i 
 
 THE LIBRARY 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 
 LOS
 
 V/V/K7" Ow v/ 
 
 ..H. S .9. U ..i.RN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
 
 A nnn nnn noo n
 
 
 I\ 
 
 
 <^ 
 
 V 
 
 M -r 
 
 N 
 
 / 
 
 /