A History of Parliamentary Elections and Electioneering 47

A History of Parliamentary Elections and Electioneering 47

“These proceedings have totally destroyed the confidence

of your Majesty’s subjects in one essential branch of the

legislative power, and if that branch is chosen in a manner

not agreeable to the laws and constitution of the kingdom, the

authority of Parliament itself must suffer extremely, if not

totally perish.”

 

The remonstrance from which the above paragraphs are extracted was,

together with a petition from the county of Kent, presented to His

Majesty at St. James’s; both being received and handed to the lord of

the bedchamber in waiting; _but no answer was returned_.

 

The electors of the city of Westminster also drew up a similar

“Address, Remonstrance, and Petition”--

 

“their former application to the throne having been

ineffectual, and new and exorbitant grievances being beyond

patient endurance. By the same secret and unhappy influence

to which all our grievances have been originally owing, the

redress of those grievances has been now prevented; and the

grievances themselves have been repeatedly confirmed; with

this additional circumstance of aggravation, that while the

invaders of our rights remain the directors of your Majesty’s

councils, the defenders of those rights have been dismissed

from your Majesty’s service--your Majesty having been advised

by your ministers to remove from his employment, for his vote

in Parliament, the highest officer of the Law (Lord Camden),

because his principles suited ill with theirs, and his pure

distribution of justice with their corrupt administration of

the House of Commons.

 

“We beg leave, therefore, again to represent to your Majesty

that the House of Commons have struck at the most valuable

liberties and franchises of all the electors of Great Britain;

and by assuming to themselves a right of choosing, instead

of receiving a member when chosen, and by transferring to

the representative what belonged to the constituent, they

have taken off from the dignity, and, we fear, impaired the

authority of Parliament itself.

 

“We presume again, therefore, humbly to implore from your

Majesty the only remedies which are in any way proportioned to

the nature of the evil; that you would be graciously pleased

to dismiss _for ever_ from your councils those ministers who

are ill-suited by their dispositions to preserve the principles

of a free, or by their capacities to direct the councils of

a great and mighty kingdom; And that by speedily dissolving

the present Parliament, your Majesty will show by your own

example, and by their dissolution, the rights of your people

are to be inviolable, and that you will never necessitate so

many injured, and, by such treatment, exasperated subjects, to

continue the care of their interests to those from whom they

must withdraw their confidence; to repose their invaluable

privileges in the hand of those who have sacrificed them; and

their trust in those who have betrayed it.

 

* * * * *

 

“We find ourselves compelled to urge, with the greatest

importunity, this our humble but earnest application, as

every day seems to produce the confirmation of some old, or

to threaten the introduction of some new injury. We have the

strongest reason to apprehend that the usurpation begun by the

House of Commons upon the right of electing, may be extended

to the right of petitioning, and that under the pretence of

restraining the abuse of this right, it is meant to bring into

disrepute, and to intimidate us from the exercise of the right

itself.”

 

The representatives elected by the people had done their utmost, as

respected the venal majority, to betray their trust and those who

had sent them to the Commons. Resistance was countenanced, and, by

counter-addresses to the throne, the king was prejudiced against

listening to the wishes of the people. This remonstrance elicited his

Majesty’s reply “_that he would lay it before his Parliament_;” a

curious conclusion, inasmuch as his afflicted subjects specially prayed

therein that the king would be their safeguard against the majority

in that body, who had betrayed the nation, and to the deliberation of

that corrupted assembly the complaint--which affected the duration of

the House--was to be submitted for redress! The remonstrance, which

resembled an impeachment of the administration, was, in fact, handed

to the ministers under accusation, to be by them resisted, prosecuted,

or rendered ineffective at their discretion. The indignant judgments

enunciated by “Junius” against these unprincipled politicians, foes to

the kingdom, have been abundantly confirmed by the verdict of posterity.

 

The reception otherwise accorded to the Westminster remonstrance was

altogether undignified. When the deputation, headed by Sir Robert

Bernard, who had been returned member for that city by the unanimous

suffrage of the constituency, arrived at the palace gate, an extra

guard of soldiers was immediately turned out, not, however, as a

compliment, for--

 

“although there was not the least appearance of anything

disorderly, yet the soldiers behaved in a most insolent

manner, and struck many persons with their bayonets, and that

without provocation. The Gentlemen having alighted from their

carriages, amidst the acclamations of the people, walked

through the lane of soldiers, and went upstairs to the Levee

Room door, where they were met by one of the Grooms of the

Bedchamber, who asked Sir Robert Bernard if he had anything

to present to his Majesty? To which Sir Robert replied,

‘Yes, the Address, Remonstrance, and Petition of the City

of Westminster.’ Upon which the Groom of the Bedchamber

said, ‘He would go and acquaint the Lord-in-Waiting.’ He

went immediately, but not returning soon, Sir Robert Bernard

proposed to go into the Levee Room, which he did. On opening

the door, the same Groom of the Bedchamber said he could

not find the Lord-in-Waiting; but should soon. However, the

Gentlemen went on, and after some time the Lord-in-Waiting

came to them, and said, if they had anything to deliver to

his Majesty, he would receive it in the next room, whither

they accordingly went; and after some time, his Majesty coming

into the room, Sir Robert presented the Remonstrance open. His

Majesty delivered it to the Lord-in-Waiting, who delivered it

to another, who handed it to the Groom of the Bedchamber, and

he carried it off.”

 

The recreant majority of the Commons, still at the bidding of degraded

ministers, continued to address the king with counter-petitions

intended to bring into disrepute the remonstrances of the people--those

very constituents who had chosen them as the defenders of their

liberties.

 

Finally, another effort was made by the city, and a general assembly

was held for that purpose, when the chief magistrate, the Court of

Aldermen, and Common Council resolved to renew their petition, and

further to consider the king’s “answer.”

 

“A motion was then made, that the thanks of this Court be given

to Lord Chatham for his late conduct in Parliament, and for

his zeal shown for the most sacred Rights of Election and of

petitioning, and for the promise of his endeavours to support

an independent and more equal representation.”

 

On a motion denouncing the most unbecoming treatment which the city

of London had of late experienced from his Majesty’s ministers, it

was suggested to draw up the strongest remonstrance possible on the

violated right of election. Upon which, Alderman Wilkes, remarking upon

the peculiar delicacy of his situation, said--

 

“that he would not mention a syllable about the person

excluded; but if the House of Commons could seat any gentlemen

among them who was not chosen by the people, the constitution

was torn up by the roots, and the people had lost their share

in the legislative power; that the disabling any person from

sitting in Parliament, who was not disqualified by law, was an

injury to every County, City, and Borough, and a dissolution of

the form of government established by law in this Kingdom.”

 

The recorder cavilled at certain spirited __EXPRESSION__s in the drawing-up

of the remonstrance, particularly respecting the king’s answer, which

he declared could not be considered an act of the ministers, but must

be held to be the king’s personally. The committee was shocked at the

recorder’s bringing home to the king one of the most unconstitutional

acts of his ministry, and without one dissentient voice determined

to overrule the objection of the recorder, whereon this functionary

protested against the remonstrance in strong terms as a LIBEL.

Alderman Wilkes then rose and mentioned his unwillingness to speak

again, but he was forced to it by the recorder’s declaration that the

remonstrance was a libel; that he too claimed to know something of

the nature of a libel; that he did not speak from theory only, but

had bought much experience on that subject; that the remonstrance was

founded throughout on known and glaring facts, every word bearing the

stamp of truth; that the particular act complained of in the violated

right of election was a malicious and wilful act of the majority in the

House of Commons, for the minister had declared, that “if any person

had only four votes for Middlesex, he should be the sitting member for