measure. Has it not been done by all ministers for many years, and that with little or no objection? 2. This ordinary measure is of exceeding little importance to the nation in general: so little, that it was never before thought worthy to be put into the list of public grievances: so little, that it never deserved the hundredth part of the outcry which has been made concerning it.

I do not defend the killing of Mr. Allen. But I would have the fact truly represented. By the best information I can gain, I believe it stands just thus: About that time the mob had been very turbulent. On that day they were likely to be more insolent than ever. It was therefore

judged proper to send a party of soldiers to prevent or repress their violence. Their presence did not prevent it; the mob went so far as to throw stones at the soldiers themselves. One of them hit and wounded a soldier; two or three pursued him; and fired at one, whom, being in the same dress, they supposed to be the same man. But it was not; it was Mr. Allen. Now, though this cannot be excused, yet, was it the most horrid villany that ever was perpetrated? Surely, no. Notwithstanding all the tragical exclamations which have been made concerning it, what is this to the killing a man in cool blood? And was this never heard of in England?

I do not defend the measures which have been taken relative to the Middlesex election. But let it be remembered, First, that there was full as much violence on the one side as on the other. Secondly, that a right of expulsion, of putting a member out of the house, manifestly implies a right of exclusion, of keeping him out; otherwise that right amounts to just nothing at all. Thirdly, that consequently, a member expelled is incapable of being reelected, at least during that session; as incapable as one that is disqualified any other way. It follows, Fourthly, that the votes given for this disqualified person are null and void, being, in effect, given for nobody. Therefore, Fifthly, if the other candidate had two hundred votes, he had a majority of two hundred.

Let it be observed farther, if the electors had the liberty of choosing any qualified person, it is absolute nonsense to talk of their being deprived of the liberty of choosing, because they were not permitted to choose a person utterly unqualified.

But suppose a single borough or county were deprived of this in a single instance; (which undoubtedly is the case, whenever a person duly elected does not sit in the house ;) how is this depriving the good people of England, the nation, of their birthright? What an insult upon common sense is this wild way of talking! If Middlesex is wronged (put it so) in this instance, how is Yorkshire or Cumberland affected by it; or twenty counties and forty boroughs besides; much less all the nation? "O, but they may be affected by and by." Very true! And the sky may fall!

To see this whole matter in the clearest light, let any one read and consider the speech of Lord Chief Justice Mansfield, on a motion, made by Lord Chatham, "to repeal and rescind the resolutions of the house of commons, in regard to the expulsion and incapacitation of Mr. Wilkes:"

"In this debate, though it has been already spoken to with great eloquence and perspicuity, I cannot content myself with only giving a single vote; I

feel myself under a strong necessity of saying something more. The subject requires it; and though the hour is late," (it being then near ten o'clock,) "I shall demand your indulgence, while I offer my sentiments on this motion. “I am sure, my lords, many of you must remember, from your reading and experience, several persons expelled the house of commons, without ever this house once pretending to interfere or call in question by what authority they did so. I remember several myself;" (here his lordship quoted several cases ;) "in all which, though most of the candidates were sure to be re-chosen, they never once applied, resting contented with the expulsatory power of the house, as the only self sufficient, dernier resort of application.

"It has been echoed on all sides, from the partisans of this motion, that the house of commons acted illegally, in accepting Colonel Luttrel, who had but two hundred and ninety-six votes, in preference to Mr. Wilkes, who had one thousand one hundred and forty-three. But this is a mistake of the grossest nature imaginable, and which nothing but the intemperature of people's zeal could possibly transport them to, as Mr. Wilkes had been previously considered by the laws as an unqualified person to represent the people in parliament; therefore it appears very plainly, that Colonel Luttrel had a very great majority, not less than two hundred and ninety-six, Mr. Wilkes being considered as nobody in the eye of the law; consequently, Colonel Luttrel had no legal opposition.

"In all contested elections, where one of the parties think themselves not legally treated, I should be glad to know to whom it is they resort? Is it to the freeholders of the borough, or the county they would represent? Or is it to the people at large? Who cannot see at once the absurdity of such a question? Who so ignorant of our laws, that cannot immediately reply and say, 'It is the house of commons who are the only judges to determine every nicety of the laws of election; and from whom there is no appeal, after they have once given their determination?' All the freeholder has to do is to determine on his object, by giving him his vote; the ultimate power lies with the house of commons, who is to judge of his being a legal object of representation in the several branches of his qualifications. This, my lords, I believe, is advancing no new doctrine, nor adding an iota to the privilege of a member of the house of commons, more than what the constitution long ago has given him; yet here is a cry made, in a case that directly applies to what I have been speaking of, as if it was illegal, arbitrary, and unprecedented.

"I do not remember, my lords, in either the course of my reading or observation ever to have known an instance of a person's being re-chosen, after being expelled, till the year 1711; then, indeed, my memory serves me with the case of Sir Robert Walpole. He was expelled the house of commons, and was afterward re-chosen: But this last event did not take place till the meeting of the next parliament; and during that interval, I find no debate about the illegality of his expulsion, no interference of the house of lords, nor any addresses from the public, to decry that measure by a dissolution of parliament.

"Indeed, as for a precedent of one house interfering with the rules, orders, or business of another, my memory does not serve me at present with the recollection of a single one. As to the case of Titus Oates, as mentioned by the noble lord in my eye, (Lord Chatham,) he is very much mistaken in regard to the mode; his was a trial in the king's bench, which, on a writ of error, the house of commons interfered in, and they had an authority for so doing. A judge certainly may be mistaken in points of law; the wisest and the best of us may be so at times; and it reflects no discredit, on the contrary, it does particular honour, when he finds himself so mistaken, to reverse his own decree. But for one house of parliament interfering with the business, and reversing the resolutions, of another, it is not only unprecedented, but unconstitutional to the last degree.

"But suppose, my lords, that this house coincided with this motion; suppose we all agreed, nem. con., to repeal and rescind the resolutions of the

house of commons, in regard to the expulsion and incapacitation of Mr. Wilkes ;-Good God! what may be the consequence! The people are violent enough already; and to have the superior branch of legislation join them, would be giving such a public encouragement to their proceedings, that I almost tremble while I even suppose such a scene of anarchy and confusion." What then can we think of the violent outcry, that the nation is oppressed, deprived of that liberty which their ancestors bought with so much treasure and blood, and delivered down through so many generations? Do those who raise this cry believe what they say? If so, are they not under the highest infatuation? seeing that England, from the time of William the Conqueror, yea, of Julius Cæsar, never enjoy. ed such liberty, civil and religious, as it does at this day. Nor do we know of any other kingdom or state in Europe or in the world, which enjoys the like.

I do not defend the measures which have been taken with regard to America: I doubt whether any man can defend them, either on the foot of law, equity, or prudence. But whose measures were these? If I do not mistake, Mr. George Grenville's. Therefore the whole merit of these measures belongs to him, and not to the present ministry.

"But is not the general dissatisfaction owing, if not to any of the preceding causes, to the extraordinary bad conduct of the parliament, particularly the house of commons?" This is set in so clear a light by a late writer, that I need only transcribe his words :

:

"The last recess of parliament was a period filled with unprecedented troubles; and the session opened in the midst of tumults. Ambitious men, with a perseverance uncommon in indolent and luxurious times, rung all the changes of popular noise for the purpose of intimidation. The ignorant, who could not distinguish between real and artificial clamours, were alarmed; the lovers of their own ease wished to sacrifice the just dignity of the house of commons to a temporary relief, from the grating sound of seditious scurrility. "Hence the friends of the constitution saw the opening of the session with anxiety and apprehension. They were afraid of the timidity of others, and dreaded nothing more than that panic to which popular assemblies, as well as armies, are sometimes subject. The event has shown that their fears were groundless: The house supported its decisions against the current of popu far prejudice; and, in defending their own judicial rights, secured the most solid part of the liberties of their constituents.

"Their firm adherence to their resolutions was not more noble than their concessions in the matter of their own rights was disinterested and generous. The extensive privileges which, in a series of ages, had accumulated to the members of both houses, were certainly inconsistent with the impartial distribution of justice. To sacrifice these privileges was not only diametrically opposite to the idea of self interest, with which some asperse the legisla ture, but it has also thrown a greater weight into the scale of public freedom than any other act passed since the Revolution. And it has reflected honour on the present administration, that a bill, so very favourable to the liberty of the subject, was brought in, and carried through by them.

"The arbitrary manner of determining petitions about elections has been a serious complaint, and of long continuance. I shall not deny to Mr. Grenville the merit of bringing in a bill for remedying this grievance; but its passing as it did is a certain proof that the pretended influence of administration over a majority of the house is a mere bugbear, held forth for private views by the present opposition.

"During the whole session, the house of lords behaved with that dignity and unalterable firmness which became the first assembly in a great nation. Attacked with impertinent scurrility, they smiled upon rage, and treated the

ravings of a despotic tribune with contempt. When, with an infamous perversion of his pretended love to freedom, he attempted to extend the control of the peers to the resolutions of the representatives of the people, they nobly rejected the golden bait; and scorned to raise the dignity of their house upon the ruins of the other. They, in short, throughout the session, showed a spirit that disdained to be braved, a magnanimity that diminished their own personal power for the ease and comfort of the inferior subject.

"If the conduct of parliament is in any instance blamable, it is in a lenity that is inconsistent with the vulgar idea of political courage. They have been attacked with scurrility in the lower house; in the upper, they have been treated with indecency and disrespect. Their prudence and love for the public peace prevailed over their resentment. They knew that legal punishment is in these times the road to popularity; and they were unwilling to raise insignificant men into a consequence that might disturb the State."

So far we have gained. We have removed the imaginary causes of the present commotions. It plainly appears, they are not owing to the extraordinary badness, either of the king, of his parliament, of his ministers, or of the measures which they have taken. To what then are they owing? What are the real causes of this amazing ferment among the people?

Before I say any thing on this subject, let me remind you once more, that I do not dictate; I do not take upon me to affirm any thing, but simply tell you what I think. I think, the first and principal spring of the whole motion is French gold. "But why do you think so?" I will tell you as plainly as I can:

A person of a complete, uniform character, encumbered with no religion, with no regard to virtue or morality, squanders away all that he has. He applies for a place, but is disappointed. He is thoroughly exasperated, abuses the ministry, asperses the king's mother in the grossest manner, is prosecuted, (not for this, but other achievements,) and retires to France. After some time, he suddenly returns to London, sets up for a patriot, and vehemently inveighs against evil counsellors, grievances, and mal-administration. The cry spreads; more and more espouse his cause, and second him with all their might. He becomes head of the party; and not only the vulgar but the world runs after him. He drives on with still increasing nuinbers, carrying all before him, inflaming the nation more and more, and making their minds evil affected, in appearance toward the ministers of state, but in reality toward the king. Now, can any reasonable man believe that the French are ignorant of all this; or that they have no hand at all therein, but are mere unconcerned spectators? Do they not understand their own interest better? If they did not kindle the fire, will they not use all means to prevent its going out? Will they not take care to add fuel to the flame? Will they not think forty or fifty thousand louis-d'ors well bestowed on so important an occasion?

I cannot but think this is (at least) one principal spring of all the present commotions. But may not other causes likewise concur? As, First, covetousness; a love of English as well as of French gold. Do not many hunger after the lucrative employments which their neighbours enjoy? They had rather have them themselves. And will not those that are hungry naturally cry for food? Secondly, ambition. How many desire honour, perhaps more than they do money itself! and how various

are the shapes which they will put on in order to attain it? Thirdly, those who are not so much under the power of these, are yet susceptible of pride or envy; and frequently of both together. To these we may, Fourthly, add resentment. Many doubtless look upon themselves as injured, were it only on this account, that they are not regarded, yea, and recompensed, as their merits or services deserve. Others are angry because they are disappointed; because, after all their schemes, which they imagined could not fail of success, they are not able to carry their point.

Now, all these, united by these various motives, some encouraged by good pay in hand, (and perhaps by promises of more,) others animated by covetousness, by ambition, by envy, pride, and resentment, by every means animate all they have access to. They treat both rich and poor. according to their rank, with all elegance and profuseness. They talk largely and vehemently. They write abundantly, having troops enough in their service. They publish addresses, petitions, remonstrances, directed nominally to the king, (otherwise they would not answer the end,) but really to the people. Herein their orators make use of all the powers of rhetoric. They bring forth their strong reasons,―the very best which the cause will bear. They set them off with all the beauty of language, all the poignancy of wit. They spread their writings in pamphlets, newspapers, magazines, &c, to every corner of the land. They are indefatigable in their work; they never stop to take breath; but as they have tongues and pens at command, when one has done, another begins, and so on and on with a continuance. By this means the flame spreads wider and wider; it runs as fire among the stubble. The madness becomes epidemic, and no medicine hitherto has availed against it. The whole nation sees the State in danger, as they did the Church sixty years ago; and the world now wonders after Mr. Wilkes, as it did then after Dr. Sacheverel.

One means of increasing the ferment is the suffering no contradiction; the hooting at all who labour for peace, and treading them down like dirt; the using them just as they do the king, without either justice or mercy. If any writes on that head, presently the cry is raised," O, he only writes for pay!" But, if he does, do not those on the other side too? Which are paid best I do not know; but doubtless both are paid. a very few old-fashioned mortals excepted, who, having nothing to hope, and nothing to fear, simply consider the good of their country.

"But what do you think the end will be?" It is easy to foresee this. Supposing things to take their natural course, they must go from bad to

worse.

In stipulam veluti cum flamma furentibus Austris

Incidit, aut rapidus montano flumine torrens
Exiit, oppositasque evicit gurgite moles.

[As when fire, impelled by furious winds, seizes on stubble; or a swift mountain torrent bursts forth, and levels with its whirling rage the opposing mounds.] The people will be inflamed more and more; the torrent will swell higher and higher, till at length it bursts through all opposition, and overflows the land. The consequences of these commotions will be (unless a higher hand interpose) exactly the same as those of the like commotions in the last century. First, the land will become a field of blood; many thousands of poor Englishmen will sheathe their swords