Page images
PDF
EPUB

cind any number of fubjects both from their elective and representative rights for ever, and not difqualify a member, and render the votes of the conftituents ineffectual for the duration of one parliament. Is not the authority to exert fuch a power by the commons, in concert with the king and lords, as diametrically repugnant to the defign, and as fubverfive of the ends to which they are delegated by the people, as if it was exacted by themselves alone? They can, therefore, have no greater title to the exercise of this power in their general legislative capacity than in their feparate. Both rights stand on the fame bafis; both are equally beneficial or equally prejudicial to the people themselves; and, therefore, both muft be alike rejected or received.'

This is placing the cafe of Mr. Wilkes upon a broad bottom; but we are afraid that this manner of reasoning may be carried fo far, as to deftroy the validity of all human laws, and even the first principles of government. If every man was originally by nature equal with another, by what authority was he deprived of that equality? If the question, however, is bounded, it must operate with great strength. That the freeholders of Middlefex, as fuch, can act in no judicial capacity, except when they are lawfully fummoned by law or the king's writ, is well known to all who know this conftitution. If they petition as individuals, to fet aside a resolution of the house of commons, every individual in England ought to have the fame liberty. We may go a step farther: if the freeholders of England have a right to infift upon diffolving the existence of the commons, that part of the people, who are not freeholders, have a right to recur to the laws of natural equality, and to demand the fame privileges as the freeholders enjoy. All this must lead to a ftate of mere confufion and anarchy, as is attempted to be proved in this publication.

The electors, fays this writer, are no more the people, than the representatives are the elective body. Nay, the former are not poffeffed of a right which the latter enjoy, that of being elected to the important truft of legiflation and the public good. If the conftituents therefore have elected, as the people, they have chofen, under a power alfo which they do not poffefs; and thus the powers of election, being made by those who did not make themselves, they could not make that power. The very delegation, therefore, of authority to the commons, as the reprefentatives of the people, being imparted by their conftituents only, is illegal, and has no ftability. And this refult is confecutive of the fallaciousness of that very principle, which declares their power is founded on their being elected by the people.

[blocks in formation]

Thefe even are not the fole confequences, detrimental as they are, which will devolve on the devoted state, should the preceding principle be thoroughly adopted. The king himself and the houfe of lords, being not felf-created, but made by the conftitution: thefe can no more make their own powers than the commons, because they did not make themselves. And thus these two eftates being in the fame impotent situation, the whole conftitution, king, lords, and commons, the ftatute, common, canon, and all other laws, the executive pow ers, courts, magiftrates, and other officers, muft vanish like the bafelefs fabric of a vifion, and leave the governors without power, the people without reftraint, and every thing reduced to anarchy and confufion; and the conftitution itself muft be annihilated. Such will be the effect of that position, that the commons cannot make their own powers, because they did not make themfelves. The error of this principle arifes folely from the confidering those things to be emanations from the conftitution, which form that conftitution itself.'

Our author follows this argument very clofely, but we must refer the reader to the work itself for the connection of his reafoning. Though we cannot approve of every thing advanced in this pamphlet, yet it must be acknowledged, that the arguments are built upon a more extenfive and liberal plan, than that of any other we have feen upon the same subject.

TH

XIII. The Falfe Alarm. 8vo Pr. 1. Cadell.
is.

HIS writer marches against the Goliah of fedition, clad in the fimple, but impenetrable, armour of truth and philofophy. He fortifies himself with few or no precedents from the journals, nor does he rear the ponderous fpear of law, but the weapons he employs are keen and irrefiftible.

After an introduction upon the advancement of civil wisdom for quieting the minds of men, and the difficulty which it encounters in its progrefs; he confiders the ferment that now rages in this nation as propagated from papers, petitions, and pamphlets. It may, fays he, not be improper to lay before the public the reflections of a man who cannot favour the oppofition, for he thinks it wicked; and cannot fear it, for he thinks it weak.'

The cafe of Mr. Wilkes naturally takes the lead in this argumentation. As to the perfon of Mr. Wilkes, lampoon itfelf, fays he, would difdain to speak ill of him, of whom no man fpeaks well. It is fufficient that he is expelled the house

of

of commons, and confined in goal as being legally convicted of fedition and impiety."

Notwithstanding the high opinion we have of this author, we cannot help thinking that he refembles the man in the play, who laughs with the tear in his eye. His even proclaiming the oppofition to be weak, may be juftly confidered as an implied declaration that it is strong; and we are forry to fee fo able a champion encounter fo feeble an adverfary. As to the character of Mr. Wilkes, we may affirm, that what is here faid of him does no fervice to the cause in which this author has engaged.

After fome arch ridicule thrown out against imaginary grievances of the Middlefex electors, he obferves that that county, diftinguished from the city, has no claim to particular confideration; and he thinks that the confinement of Mr. Wilkes cannot at all meliorate his morals, nor is it a fufficient reason why he should come out of goal a legiflator. He next examines fome of the moft fpecious arguments for his eligibility into parliament, notwithstanding his expulfion. He ob ferves that where there is a poffibility of offence, there fhould be a poffibility of punishment; and that a member of the houfe of commons cannot be cited for his conduct in parliament before any other court; and therefore, if the house cannot punish him, he may attack with impunity the rights of the people, and the title of the king.'-Our author's reafoning upon this head, and upon the powers of the houfe of commons is fhrewd and fenfible. As in fome cafes the members of parliament are above the controul of the courts of law, civil order undoubtedly requires that they fhould be under the jurifdiction. of their respective houfes, that they may not abufe fuch an exemption. He then ftates the cafe of Mr. Wilkes, his expul, fion, his incapacitation, his re-election, and the admiffion of Mr. Luttrell upon a minority of votes; and according to him the question must be, whether a fmaller number of legal votes, fhall not prevail against a greater number of votes not legal. It must be confidered, that thofe votes only are legal which are legally given; and that thofe only are legally given, which are given for a legal candidate.'

Our

This we think is a full and a fair ftate of the cafe. author then examines whether a man expelled, can be fo difqualified by a vote of the house, as that he fhail be no lon ger eligible by lawful electors.' To prove the affirmative of this propofition he appeals to the unwritten law of focial nature, and to the great and pregnant principle of political neceffity. If, fays he, the commons have only the power of difmiffing for a few days the man whom his conftituents can

[blocks in formation]

immediately fend back, if they can expel but cannot exclude, they have nothing more than nominal authority, to which perhaps obedience never may be paid.'

This writer quotes Mr. Selden as an advocate for the power of perpetual difability being lodged in the commons. As he does not quote the particular paffage of Selden where this doctrine is found, we must fuppofe that he alludes to the words of the fpeech of that great man against Sir Edward Sawyer. If that is the paffage in queftion, though we alJow it is very pregnant, we cannot think it amounts to the power of a perpetual difability, for all that Selden fays is કંડ to maintain the privileges of our house, we can fine as well as, the lords. And as they difable lords from fitting there, fo we can disable any member of our own houfe from fitting here." After all, it is very poffible that this writer might have had fome other paffage of Selden in his view, which has not come to our knowledge.

[ocr errors]

After fome farther reasoning on the fame fubject, which we think conclufive to prove that expulfion infers exclufion, he fhews the abfurdity of fuppofing that expulfion is only a difmiffion of the reprefentative to his conftituents, who may, if they think proper, re-elect and return him to the fame parliament. This, fays our author, (in a ftile which may be thought a little lexiphantic,) is plaufible but not cogent. It is a fcheme of reprefentation, which would make a fpecious appearance in a political romance, but cannot be brought into practice among us, who fee every day the towering head of fpeculation bow down unwillingly to grovelling experience.' He then fhews, that expulfion without exclufion might very often be defireable; fome, for inftance, by the favour of others which perhaps they may gratify by the act which provoked the expulfion. In fhort, was that the cafe, none would dread expulfion but those who bought their elections, and who would be obliged to buy them again at a higher price.' He proceeds to expose the futility of all arguments drawn from an act of the 4th and 5th of queen Anne, and which means no more than a permiffion for the electors to re-chufe those members whose feats may be vacated by their accepting a place of profit. He examines with great accuracy several other arguments that have been alledged against the power of exclufion upon expulfion; and, we think, undeniably proves that they all operate direally against the re-admiffion of Mr. Wilkes into this parlia ment. He then examines the groundless alarms that have been circulated among the people on this occafion. Outcries, fays he, uttered by malignity, and ecchoed by folly; general accufations of indeterminate wickedness, and obfcure

hints of impoffible defigns, difperfed among those that do not know their meaning, by thofe that know them to be falfe, have difpofed part of the nation, though but a small part, to pefter the court with ridiculous petitions.'

[ocr errors]

We next meet with a very entertaining account of the progrefs of a petition, and the means of obtaining names to it; and our author feems to think that that great engine of fedition has recoiled upon its authors. They thought, fays he, that the terms they fent were terms of weight, which would have amazed all and ftumbled many; but the confternation is now over, and their foes stand upright, as before."

We shall here take our leave of this writer, who finishes his publication by recapitulating the infults and indignities that have been offered to the perfon of his majefty; and we heartily wish that he may prophefy truly as to the inefficacy and end of all our public commotions,

MONTHLY CATALOGUE.

14. The Crifis. In Anfwer to the Falfe Alarm. 8vo. Pr. 11. Murray,

WE have read this publication with great attention, but cannot difcern in it the fmalleft effort towards reafoning; the whole of its argumentation amounts to the polite Billingf gate of, You lie, you lie, you bh.

15. An Addrefs to Junius, upon the Subject of bis Letter in the Public Advertiser, December 19, 1759. 8vo. 6d. Dodsley.

This writer affects to think that Mr. Wilkes is the author of the letters figned Junius, and he attacks him in pretty much the fame unargumentative manner, which we can by no means recommend to our readers. We are, however, to observe, that this Addrefs to Junius, is confined to the fubject of his letter in the Public Advertiser, Dec. 19, 1769.

16. An impartial Answer to the Doctrine delivered in a Letter, which appeared in the Public Advertiser, on the 19th of December, 1769, under the Signature of Junius. By Charles Fearne, Efq. 8vo. 1. Murray..

The declamation and invective of Junius, and his unargu mentative writings, cannot justify this author in adopting the fame manner.-Non tali auxilio.

$7. The

« PreviousContinue »