Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

with a decision of the House, diametrically opposite to that which the present House of Commons came to in favour of Mr. Luttrell.

The ministry now begin to be ashamed of the weakness of their cause, and, as it usually happens with falsehood, are driven to the necessity of shifting their ground, and changing their whole defence. At first we were told that nothing could be clearer than that the proceedings of the House of Commons were justified by the known law and uniform custom of parliament. But now it seems, if there be no law, the House of Commons have a right to make one, and if there be no precedent, they have a right to create the first;-for this, I presume, is the amount of the questions proposed to JUNIUS. If your correspondent had been at all versed in the law of parliament, or generally in the laws of this country, he would have seen that this defence is as weak and false as the former.

The privileges of either House of Parliament, it is true, are indefinite, that is, they have not been described or laid down in any one code or declaration whatsoever; but when

"Thus then it appeared to me, that the general rule, that in case of a known legal incapacity in the person having the majority of voices, the capable person next upon the poll, although chosen by a minority, is duly elected, is consonant to reason, is the dictate of common sense.

"That it had also the sanction of authority, I was as clearly convinced. The practice of the courts of law, in such cases, seems not to be disputed; they have, by repeated decisions, established the principle.

"Upon these grounds, therefore, both of reason and authority, I not only thought myself fully justified in giving my vote, that Mr. Luttrell was duly elected, but in truth I could not think myself at liberty to vote otherwise, being convinced, that as, on the one hand, by so voting I should do no wrong to the 1143 freeholders of Middlesex, who, for the chance of being able to overbear the authority of the House of Commons, which had adjudged Mr. Wilkes to be incapable, had chosen to forego their right of taking part in the nomination of a capable person in his room; so, by a contrary decision, I should have done a most manifest injustice to Mr. Luttrell, and to the 296 freeholders who voted for him; and who, in failure of a nomination by an equal number of freeholders of any other capable candidate, had, upon every principle of reason, and every rule of law, as well as according to the uniform usage of parliament, conferred upon him a clear title to sit as one of the representatives for the county of Middlesex." EDIT.

[ocr errors]

ever a question of privilege has arisen, it has invariably been disputed or main 'ned upon the footing of precedents alone*. In the course of th proceedings upon the Aylesbury election, the House of L. rds resolved, "That neither House of Parliament had any wer, by any vote or declaration, to create to themselves an new privilege that was not warranted by the known laws and customs of parliament." And to this rule the House of Commons, though otherwise they had acted in a very arbitrary manner, gave their assent, for they affirmed that they had guided themselves by it, in asserting their privileges.Now, Sir, if this be true with respect to matters of privilege, in which the House of Commons, individually and as a body, are principally concerned, how much more strongly will it hold against any pretended power in that House, to create or declare a new law, by which not only the rights of the House over their own member, and those of the member himself are concluded, but also those of a third and separate party, I mean the freeholders of the kingdom. To do justice to the ministry, they have not yet pretended that any one or any two of the three estates have power to make a new law, without the concurrence of the third. They know that a man who maintains such a doctrine, is liable, by statute, to the heaviest penalties. They do not acknowledge that the House of Commons have assumed a new privilege, or declared a new law. On the contrary, they affirm that their proceedings have been strictly conformable to and founded upon the ancient law and custom of parliament. Thus therefore the question returns to the point, at which JUNIUS had fixed it, viz. Whether or no this be the law of parliament. If it be not, the House of Commons had no legal authority to establish the precedent; and the precedent itself is a mere fact, without any proof of right what

soever.

Your correspondent concludes with a question of the simplest nature: Must a thing be wrong, because it has never

This is still meeting the ministry upon their own ground; for, in truth, no precedents will support either natural injustice, or violation of positive right.

been done before? No. But admitting it were proper to be done, that alone does not convey an authority to do it. As to the present case, I hope I shall never see the time, when not only a single person, but a whole county, and in effect the entire collective body of the people may again be robbed of their birthright by a vote of the House of Commons. But if, for reasons which I am unable to comprehend, it be necessary to trust that House with a power so exorbitant and so unconstitutional, at least let it be given to them by an act of the legislature.

PHILO JUNIUS.

LETTER XVIII.

TO DR. WILLIAM BLACKSTONE, SOLICITOR GENERAL TO HER

SIR,

MAJESTY.

29 July, 1769. I SHALL make you no apology for considering a certain pamphlet, in which your late conduct is defended, as written by yourself. The personal interest, the personal resent ments, and above all, that wounded spirit, unaccustomed to reproach, and I hope not frequently conscious of deserving

*This was at last admitted by the friends of the Solicitor General. The pamphlet was entitled, "An answer to the question stated;" and was a reply to a pamphlet from Sir William Meredith, one of the most active members of parliament of the Whig party, entitled, "The question stated," in reference to the adjudication of Wilkes's incapacity to sit in parliament after his last election; in the course of which also, the inconsistency of opinion between that delivered by the Solicitor General in his Commentaries, and that on the point in question was severely animadverted upon.

The press was overwhelmed with tracts on this dispute from both sides, Of these, the chief, independently of Sir William Meredith's, and the reply to it by Sir William Blackstone, were "The case of the last election for the county of Middlesex considered," attributed to Mr. Dyson, who was nicknamed, by his opponents, Mungo: "Serious Considerations;" "Mungo on the use of Quotations;" "Mungo's case considered;" "Letter to JUNIUS;"" Postscript to JUNIUS," published in a subsequent edition to Sir William Blackstone's reply, and "The False Alarm," written by Doctor Johnson. Of all these some incidental notice is taken in the course of the volumes before us. EDIT.

it, are signals which betray the author to us as plainly as if your name were in the title-page. You appeal to the public in defence of your reputation. We hold it, Sir, that an injury offered to an individual is interesting to society. On this principle the people of England made common cause with Mr. Wilkes. On this principle, if you are injured, they will join in. your resentment. I shall not follow you through the insipid form of a third person, but address myself to you directly.

You seem to think the channel of a pamphlet more respectable and better suited to the dignity of your cause, than that of a news-paper. Be it so. Yet if news-papers are scur rilous, you must confess they are impartial. They give us, without any apparent preference, the wit and argument of the ministry, as well as the abusive dulness of the opposition. The scales are equally poised. It is not the printer's fault if the greater weight inclines the balance.

Your pamphlet then is divided into an attack upon Mr. Grenville's character, and a defence of your own. It would have been more consistent perhaps with your professed intentions, to have confined yourself to the last. But anger has some claim to indulgence, and railing is usually a relief to the mind. I hope you have found benefit from the experiment. It is not my design to enter into a formal vindication of Mr. Grenville, upon his own principles. I have neither the honour of being personally known to him*, nor do I pretend to be completely master of all the facts. I need not run the risk of doing an injustice to his opinions, or to his conduct, when your pamphlet alone carries, upon the face of it, a full vindication of both.

Your first reflection is, that Mr. Grenvillet was, of all

This, as already observed in the Preliminary Essay, is a truly singular assertion when taken in connection with the fact, that Mr. Grenville, of all the political characters of the day, appears to have been our author's favourite. He voluntarily omits every opportunity of censuring him, and readily embraces every occasion of defending and extolling his conduct and principles. EDIT.

Mr. Grenville had quoted a passage from the Doctor's excellent commentaries, which directly contradicted the doctrine maintained by the Doctor in the House of Commons.

[blocks in formation]

men, the person, who should not have complained of inconsistence with regard to Mr. Wilkes*. This, Sir, is either an unmeaning sneer, a peevish expression of resentment, or, if it means any thing, you plainly beg the question; for whether his parliamentary conduct with regard to Mr. Wilkes has or has not been inconsistent, remains yet to be proved. But it seems he received upon the spot a sufficient chastisement for exercising so unfairly† his talent of misrepresentation. You are a lawyer, Sir, and know better than I do, upon what particular occasions a talent for misrepresentation may be fairly exerted; but to punish a man a second time, when he has been once sufficiently chastised, is rather too severe. It is not in the laws of England; it is not in your own commentaries, nor is it yet, I believe, in the new law you have revealed to the House of Commons. I hope this doctrine has no existence but in your own heart. After all, Sir, if you had consulted that sober discretion, which you seem to oppose with triumph to the honest jollity of a tavern, it might have occurred to you that, although you could have succeeded in fixing a charge of inconsistence upon Mr. Grenville, it would not have tended in any shape to exculpate yourself.

Your next insinuation, that Sir William Meredith had hastily adopted the false glosses of his new ally, is of the

* It has been already observed that the opposition to Wilkes commenced with Mr. George Grenville, who advised the issue of the General Warrant. It is observed also in the same note, that Grenville afterwards deserted the ministry, and attached himself strenuously to the Whig party. See note in Vol. I. p. 105. Upon this apparent inconsistency JUNIUS shrewdly remarks, that whatever propriety or impropriety there might have been in Mr. Grenville's opposing Wilkes personally—the present question has nothing to do with it—as he now supports him not on account of his personal character, but as the instrument of the people at large, whose rights and privileges the ministry have grossly violated by their conduct towards him. EDIT.

An inaccurate expression in the pamphlet alluded to. The chastisement that ensued is related in Vol. I. p. 127. Blackstone was thunderstruck at the contradiction pointed out by Grenville, and was incapable of uttering a word in his defence:-a pause ensued, and Mr. Grenville insultingly shook his head: for the rest see the page as above referred te

« AnteriorContinuar »