The Earl of Chatham, after paying some compliments to the Duke of Ancaster, said,

"That he should have been happy to be able to concur with the noble Duke in every part of an address which was meant as a mark of respect and duty to the Crown; he professed personal obligations to the King, and veneration for him; but though he might differ from the noble Duke in the form of expressing his duty to the Crown, he hoped he should give his Majesty a more substantial proof of his attachment than if he agreed to the motion. At his time of life, and loaded as he was with infirmities, he might perhaps have stood excused had he continued in his retirement, and never taken part again in public affairs. But the alarming state of the nation called upon him, forced him, to come forward once more, and to execute that duty which he owed to God, to his Sovereign, and to his country he was determined to perform it, even at the hazard of his life. There never was a period which called more forcibly than the present for the serious attention and consideration of that House; and as they were the grand hereditary counsellors of the Crown, it was particularly their duty, at a crisis of such importance and danger, to lay before their Sovereign the true state and condition of his subjects, the discontent which universally prevailed amongst them, the distresses under which they laboured, the injuries they complained of, and the true causes of this unhappy state of affairs. 'He had heard with great concern of the distemper among the cattle,* and was very ready to give his approbation to those prudent measures which the Council had taken for putting a stop to so dreadful a calamity. He was satisfied there was a power, in some degree arbitrary, with which the constitution trusted the Crown, to be made use of under correction of the legislature, and at the hazard of the Minister, upon any sudden emergency, or unforeseen calamity which might threaten the welfare of the people or the safety of the state. Upon this principle he had himself advised a measure which he knew was not strictly legal; but he had recommended it as a measure of necessity, to save a starving people from famine, and had submitted to the judgment of his country.†

66

"He was extremely glad to hear, what he owned he did not believe when he came into the House, that the King had reason to expect that his endeavours to secure the peace of this country would be successful, for certainly

*The speech from the Throne began with informing the Houses of Parliament that the distemper had lately broken out among the horned cattle. Hence this session was called "The Horned Cattle Session."

+ In consequence of the high price of wheat, and of apprehensions of a scarcity, the Government of which Lord Chatham was at the head, issued an order in council on the 26th of September, 1766, directing an embargo to be laid on the exportation of wheat. As it had not, however, then reached the utmost price within which its exportation was permitted by 15 Car. II. c. 7, an act of Parliament, 7 Geo. III. c. 7, was passed, indemnifying all persons concerned in issuing or executing the above order in council.

a peace was never so necessary as at a time when we were torn to pieces by divisions and distractions in every part of his Majesty's dominions. He had always considered the terms of the late peace, however excusable in the then exhausted condition of this country, as by no means equal, in point of advantage, to what we had a right to expect from the successes of the war, and from the still more exhausted condition of our enemies. Having deserted our allies, we were left without alliances, and, during a peace of seven years, had been every moment on the verge of war. France, on the contrary, had attentively cultivated her allies, particularly Spain, by every mark of cordiality and respect. If a war were unavoidable, we must enter into it without a single ally, while the whole House of Bourbon was united within itself, and supported by the closest connexions with the principal powers of Europe. The situation of our foreign affairs was undoubtedly a matter of moment, and highly worth their Lordship's consideration; but he declared with grief there were other matters still more important, and more urgently demanding their attention-he meant the distractions and divisions which prevailed in every part of the empire. He lamented the unhappy measure which had divided the colonies from the mother country, and which he feared had drawn them into excesses which he could not justify. He owned his natural partiality to America, and was inclined to make allowances even for those excesses. They ought to be treated with tenderness; for in his sense they were ebullitions of liberty, which broke out upon the skin, and were a sign, if not of perfect health, at least of a vigorous constitution, and must not be driven in too suddenly, lest they should strike to the heart. He professed himself entirely ignorant of the present state of America, and should therefore be cautious of giving any opinion of the measures fit to be pursued, with respect to that country. It was a maxim he had observed through life, when he had lost his way, to stop short, lest, by proceeding without knowledge, and advancing (as he feared a noble Duke* had done) from one false step to another, he should wind himself into an inextricable labyrinth, and never be able to recover the right road again. As the House had yet no materials before them by which they might judge of the proceedings of the colonies, he strongly objected to their passing that heavy censure upon them, which was conveyed in the word unwarrantable, contained in the proposed address. It was passing a sentence without hearing the cause, or being acquainted with the facts, and might expose the proceedings of the House to be received abroad with indifference and disrespect. If unwarrantable meant anything, it must mean illegal; and how could their Lordships decide that proceedings which had not been stated to them in any shape, were contrary to law? What he had heard of the combinations of the Americans, and of their success in supplying themselves with goods of their own manufacture, had indeed alarmed him much for the commercial interests of the mother country; but he could not conceive in what sense they could be

The Duke of Grafton.

called illegal, much less how a declaration of that House could remove the evil. They were dangerous, indeed, and he greatly wished to have that word substituted for unwarrantable. We must look for other remedies. The discontent of two millions of people deserved consideration; and the foundation of it ought to be removed. This was the true way of putting a stop to combinations and manufactures in that country. But he reserved himself to give his opinion more particularly upon this subject, when authentic information of the state of America should be laid before the House; declaring only for the present, that we should be cautious how we invaded the liberties of any part of our fellow-subjects, however remote in situation, or unable to make resistance. Liberty was a plant that deserved to be cherished; he loved the tree, and wished well to every branch of it. Like the vine in the Scripture, it had spread from east to west, had embraced whole nations with its branches, and sheltered them under its leaves. The Americans had purchased their liberty at a dear rate, since they had quitted their native country, and gone in search of freedom to a desert.

"The parts of the address which he had already touched upon, however important in themselves, bore no comparison to that which still remained. Indeed there never was a time at which the unanimity recommended to them by the King was more necessary than at present; but he differed very much from the noble Duke with respect to the propriety or utility of those general assurances contained in the latter part of the address. The most perfect harmony in that House would have but little effect towards quieting the minds of the people, and removing their discontent. It was the duty of that House to inquire into the causes of the notorious dissatisfaction expressed by the whole English nation, to state those causes to their Sovereign, and then to give him their best advice as to the manner in which he ought to act. The privileges of the House of Peers, however transcendent, however appropriated to them, stood, in fact, upon the same broad bottom as the rights of the people. They were no longer in the condition of the barons their ancestors, who had separate interests and separate strength to support them. The rights of the greatest and of the meanest subjects now stood upon the same foundation-the security of law, common to all. It was, therefore, their highest interest, as well as their duty, to watch over and guard the people; for when the people had lost their rights, those of the peerage would soon become insignificant. To argue from experience, he begged leave to refer their Lordships to a most important passage in history, described by a man of great abilities, Mr. Robertson. This writer, in his life of Charles the Fifth (a great, ambitious, and wicked man,) informs us, that the peers of Castile were so far cajoled and seduced by him, as to join him in overturning that part of the Cortes which represented the people.* They were weak enough to adopt, and base enough to be flattered with an expectation, that, by assisting their master in this iniquitous purpose, they should

*Hist. of Charles V. b. iii, & vi.

increase their own strength and importance. What was the consequence? They exchanged the constitutional authority of peers for the titular vanity of grandees. They were no longer a part of a parliament, for that they had destroyed; and when they pretended to have an opinion as grandees, he told them he did not understand it; and, naturally enough, when they had surrendered their authority, treated their advice with contempt. The consequences did not stop here. He made use of the people whom he had enslaved to enslave others, and employed the strength of the Castilians to destroy the rights of their free neighbours of Arragon.

66

My Lords, let this example be a lesson to us all. Let us be cautious how we admit an idea that our rights stand on a footing different from those of the people. Let us be cautious how we invade the liberties of our fellow-subjects, however mean, however remote for be assured, my Lords, that in whatever part of the empire you suffer slavery to be established, whether it be in America, or in Ireland, or here at home, you will find it a disease which spreads by contact, and soon reaches from the extremities to the heart. The man who has lost his own freedom, becomes from that moment an instrument in the hands of an ambitious prince, to destroy the freedom of others. These reflections, my Lords, are but too applicable to our present situation. The liberty of the subject is invaded, not only in the provinces, but here at home. The English people are loud in their complaints; they proclaim with one voice the injuries they have received; they demand redress, and depend upon it, my Lords, that one way or other they will have redress. They will never return to a state of tranquillity until they are redressed; nor ought they; for in my judgment, my Lords, and I speak it boldly, it were better for them to perish in a glorious contention for their rights, than to purchase a slavish tranquillity at the expense of a single iota of the constitution. Let me entreat your Lordships, then, in the name of all the duties you owe to your Sovereign, to the country, and to yourselves, to perform that office to which you are called by the constitution, by informing his Majesty truly of the condition of his subjects, and of the real cause of their dissatisfaction. I have considered the matter with most serious attention, and as I have not in my own breast the smallest doubt that the present universal discontent of the nation arises from the proceedings of the House of Commons upon the expulsion of Mr. Wilkes, I think that we ought, in our address, to state that matter to the King. I have drawn up an amendment to the address, which I beg leave to submit to the consideration of the House:

“And for these great and essential purposes we will, with all convenient speed, take into our most serious consideration the causes of the discontents which prevail in so many parts of your Majesty's dominions, and particularly the late proceedings of the House of Commons, touching the incapability of John Wilkes, Esq. (expelled by that House), to be elected a member to serve in this present Parliament, thereby refusing (by a resolution of one branch of the Legislature only) to the subject his common right, and

depriving the electors of Middlesex of their free choice of a representative.'

"The cautious and guarded terms in which the amendment is drawn up will, I hope, reconcile every noble Lord who hears me to my opinion; and as I think that no man can dispute the truth of the facts, so, I am persuaded, no man can dispute the propriety and necessity of laying those facts before his Majesty."

Lord Mansfield began with affirming, " that he had never delivered any opinion upon the legality of the proceedings of the House of Commons on the Middlesex election, nor should he now, notwithstanding anything that might be expected from him. He had locked it up in his own breast, and it should die with him: he wished to avoid speaking on the subject; but the motion made by the noble Lord was of a nature too extraordinary and too alarming to suffer him to be silent. In his own opinion, declarations of the law made by either House of Parliament were always attended with bad effects; he had constantly opposed them whenever he had an opportunity, and, in his judicial capacity, thought himself bound never to pay the least regard to them. Although thoroughly convinced of the illegality of general warrants, which, indeed, naming no persons, were no warrants at all, he was sorry to see the House of Commons, by their vote, declare them to be illegal. It looked like a legislative act, which yet had no force or effect as a law; for, supposing the House had declared them to be legal, the courts in Westminster would nevertheless have been bound to declare the contrary; and, consequently, to throw a disrespect upon the vote of the House: but he made a wide distinction between general declarations of law, and a particular decision which might be made by either House, in their judicial capacity, upon a case coming regularly before them, and properly the subject of their jurisdiction. Here they did not act as legislators, pronouncing abstractedly and generally what the law was, and for the direction of others; but as judges, drawing the law from the several sources from which it ought to be drawn, for their own guidance in deciding the particular question before them, and applying it strictly to the decision of that question. For his own part, wherever the statute law was silent, he knew not where to look for the law of Parliament, or for a definition of the privileges of either House, except in the proceedings and decisions of each House respectively. He knew of no parliamentary code to judge of questions depending upon the judicial authority of Parliament, but the practice of each House, moderated or extended according to the wisdom of the House, and accommodated to the cases before them. A question touching the seat of a member in the Lower House could only be determined by that House: there was no other court where it could be tried, or to which there could be an appeal from their decision. Wherever a court of justice is supreme, and their sentence final (which he apprehended no man would dispute was the case in the House of Commons in matters touching elections), the determination of that court must be received and submitted to as the law of the