citor General (Onslow) who was chosen Speaker.*

Mr. Serjeant Glynn observed, that the Mr. Serjeant Glynn observed, that the House had a power of restraining its members, as to rights which interfered with their duty and situation, as members, either in duty and situation, as members, either in point of attendance or independance; but that it did by no means follow, that it could deprive them of their common right; and

therefore the instances which had been given, with respect to the Attorney and Solicitor General, and Masters in Chancery, were not in point.

Mr. Beckford (lord mayor of London,) said, that the parliament should have done in this case, as it did with the South Sea Directors, who were incapacitated by a bill. Corporations are the creatures of the crown; we, said he, are the creatures of the people; and however some gentlemen may affect to lessen their importance, by opprobrious names, the greatest rascals will be found to be those in laced coats. He that has forty shillings a year, is as good a man, and has the same rights in this country, as he that has an annual revenue of two thousand pounds. I never look for honesty either at St. Giles's, or St. James's.

Mr. Thomas De Grey observed, that the petitioners had nothing to lose, but a great deal to get; that all who subscribed the petitions were in that predicament.

Upon this he was called to order by Mr. Sheriff Townshend, who asked what the gentleman meant by the subscribers of petitions having nothing to lose, and much to get. This produced a warm altercation, in which the Committee lost sight of the question, and never recovered it. Mr. Cornwall and lord Barrington exchanged some expressions of quick resentment.

Colonel Barré :

Sir; the premier, (duke of Grafton,) has resigned, and it may be said of him," that nothing in his office, became him like the quitting it." There was some honour as well as prudence, in leaving a distempered administration, in which he must give and receive infection. A noble lord, who has succeeded to the danger and disgrace, said in a former debate, that it was not ambition, but the hope of doing good, which induced him to accept of the office he held: and it is not much to

* See vol. 1, p. 704.

Lord North replied with great spirit and good humour: The gentleman does me honour in deviating from this great question, to mention a man of so little consequence as myself: as to the noble duke, whose merit I know, and whose merit he seems disposed to acknowledge from the moment that he went out of cffice, he is not much obliged to him for his compliment, though, As to places, a subject upon which that perhaps, it is the greatest he can pay him. gentleman and his party are particularly eloquent; it is true, that many are now vacant, which I hope will be soon filled up tleman have one? I wish he would. with men of ability. Will the hon. gen

Colonel Barré. Places must certainly go a begging, when they are offered to so insignificant a man as I am. No, Sir, I refuse them with contempt.

Mr. Grenville then made an attempt to recover the question, and said: I fear both Houses have been guilty of wilful error. I have sat thirty years in parliament, and I think I cannot be mistaken; I speak from what I have seen, and I am sorry for it. Those that say all they like, may chance to hear what they do not like.

Mr. Luttrell. It is very true, Sir, that those who say all they like, may chance to hear what they do not like. The hon. gentleman, I believe, will not much like to hear, that having been traduced by a libel, 1 found, upon the examination of a printer, that it came from a near relation of that hon. gentleman.

Mr. Grenville. Let him make the charge good: appoint a committee to enquire: I declare that I never was concerned either directly or indirectly in any such libel, let it have been traced to whom it would.

Sir Gilbert Elliot then spoke warmly, and with some relation to the question; he concluded by saying, that there seemed to be a combination to sweep away the old furniture of St. James's, and to sweep away that House.

Mr. Whitworth declared the constitu

tion to be totally annihilated, and Mr. Cavendish offered something in favour of the question, upon which,

Mr. Sheriff Sawbridge got up, and spoke to this effect: Mr. Luttrell told me that a printer said, I had indemnified him for printing a libel on Mr. Luttrell, and Mr. Sheriff Townshend; but upon enquiry, the printer utterly denied it.

Mr. Luttrell. One man who was in office under the late chancellor, I think he was a secretary, fell upon his knees to me, and begged mercy! crying out, Good God! What will not the rage of party do!

Mr. Grenville. I desire that the House will appoint a committee, to enquire whether I have ever been concerned in a libel, and who has.

Mr. Luttrell. I did not charge that gentleman.

Mr. Walsingham. The noble lord who was hinted at by Mr. Luttrell, in what he has alledged against a near relation of Mr. Grenville's, (lord Temple) has given me authority to say, that he knew nothing of the letters which he calls libels.

The debate thus terminated, having continued till near one o'clock.

Debate in the Commons on Ordering certain Words of the Speaker to be taken down.] February 16. Sir Francis Vincent reported from the committee on the State of the Nation, the Resolution they had come to, "That this House, in the exercise of its judicature in matters of election, is bound to judge according to the law of the land, and the known and established law and custom of parliament, which is part thereof; and that the judgment of this House, declared in the Resolution of the 17th of February last, That John Wilkes, esq., having been in this session of parliament expelled this House, was, and is, incapable of being elected a member to serve in this present parliament,' was agreeable to the said law of the land, and fully authorized by the law and custom of parliament."

6

Sir William Meredith observed, that the said Resolution contained a complicated question, and that it was the undoubted right of any one member of the House to have it separated, before any question could be put upon it.

Mr. Thomas Pitt and Mr. Grenville

warmly declared themselves of sir William's opinion.

The Speaker said, that as he was scarce warm in the Chair, it would have been but candid in sir William to have apprized him of his intention to call upon him for his opinion, that he might have been prepared: he, however, had examined the Journal, on that head, and cited a case or two.

Sir William Meredith said the Speaker had used him very ill, in taking notice of his not giving the Speaker notice of his intended motion. He appealed to the House if public notice had not been given in the committee on the State of the Nation, when it was declared that it would be attempted to be divided. Even the cases which the Speaker had cited out of the Journals shewed that this was so understood by the Speaker. It was not necessary for any member to acquaint the Speaker of his motions; and he should think himself the less so, as the Speaker had shewn, from his knowledge on this question, that he had less occasion to do so.

The Speaker on this got up and said: In candour I did expect he would have communicated his motion to me; but. I find I am not to expect candid treatment from that gentleman.

The House then called out, "Take down his words."* The Speaker, when

"Not finding any precise rule, by which it can be collected what are the directions of the House,' and being of opinion, that the Speaker is the only person from whom the Clerk ought to receive the sense, or directions, down to myself, and have observed upon these or orders of the House; the rule I have laid occasions has been, to wait for the directions of the Speaker; and not to consider myself as obliged to look upon the call of one member, or any number of members, as the directions of the House, unless they are conveyed to me through the usual and only channel by which, in my opinion, the Clerk can receive them. Í difficulties, when, upon the 16th of February was therefore put under very extraordinary 1770, exceptions were taken to some expressions, used from the chair by sir Fletcher Norton, then Speaker; but, notwithstanding the loud and repeated cries of several members, and that I was often particularly called upon by Mr. Dowdeswell, and many others, to do my duty, and write down the words, I recollected my own rule, and declined writing them down, till I had the consent of the Speaker for so doing and if the Speaker had not given me

ing to take them down; and would afterwards

the confusion was a little subsided, disired he might finish his sentence; which he did; and then the words were taken down by the Clerk at the table, thus: "When I expected candid treatment from that member, I was mistaken; for I find I am not to expect candor from that gentleman, in any motions he is to make to the chair."

And the said Words, so taken down, being read to the House;

candor

a right to say, I was not to expect on that subject. I did not, in justice I ought not to have made a general reflection upon the member's character; but, if the member had said what I understood he said, I had a right to say what I did. I can make no apology for what I said; but will abide the sense of the House." This again inflamed matters.

Mr. Grenville then continued, that he was sorry to find himself mistaken, as to what the Speaker had said; that by say

The House was now in an universal uproar; this addition by no means altering the sense of it. Sir William Meredith complained of the most unjust treatment in the censure these words contained of his candour. Lord North and the minis. try justified them: for some time no person could be heard distinctly. The minority represented the heinousness of the words, whilst the others vindicated them: at length, when the noise subsided a little, The Speaker said, "he did not mean any general reflection on the character of the member."

Lord Granby, lord G. Sackville, and two or three more, said this apology was sufficient from one gentleman to another, and hoped sir William would take them as a sufficient apology, and let the thing drop.

Mr. Grenville, after laying down very properly the bad consequence of such words coming from the Chair, said, as the Speaker had made that apology, by saying that he did not mean any reflection on sir W. Meredith, he hoped the affair would immediately subside.

The Speaker then interrupted him, and said, "What I said, arose out of what I understood the member to have said. If he disclaimed candor with the Chair, I had

clear that he meant particular ones on sir W. Meredith; and as no gentleman in the House was ever allowed to use disrespectful words to another, without apology, he thought the House had a right to expect the same behaviour from the Chair, which ought to be a pattern to the House, of order and gentlemanly deportment.

The House was now inflamed to a high degree. The ministry still contending for the innocence and propriety of the words, whilst the minority attacked the Speaker in a manner that few persons could bear.

Mr. Dowdeswell observed, that the words were disorderly in the highest degree; if they had fallen in common debate, from one member to another, they must be looked on as such; but that the weight they carried with them, as coming from the Chair, would also be looked on as a censure on the member, and tending to destroy the freedom of debate; for if censures of that nature were permitted to fall so lightly from the Chair, we might at some future period of time have a Speaker who might be the tool of administration, and particular members might, in a great degree, be censured so as to be silenced, destroying, by that means, the freedom of debate.

Sir Gilbert Elliot observed, that the debate had now continued four hours; no question had yet been moved on the matter; he therefore imagined the gentlemen of the minority had nothing to move, and thought the House might as well adjourn.

Mr. Dowdeswell then said, he had a motion in his hand, which he had had ready above two hours, but had hoped the Speaker would make it unnecessary, by making the proper apology; but as he found that not to be the case, he moved, "That the Words spoken by Mr. Speaker, from the Chair, are disorderly, importing

an improper reflection on a member of| this House, and dangerous to the freedom of debate in this House."

Colonel Barré seconded the motion in a strong, nervous speech, in which he expatiated on the disorder such expressions were likely to introduce; gave many hints of a Speaker who was not Speaker of the whole House, but only of one side of it: some more violent declamations were made; but the Speaker finding himself supported by the ministry, declared his determination to abide by the censure or acquittal of the House.

About nine o'clock, the debate growing tedious, and every severe thing having been said which the matter would allow of, some members began to hint at expedients, how to erase this disagreeable transaction from the Journals, that it might not appear to the world that a Speaker had so expressed himself; as an acquittal would be as dangerous to future parliaments, as a censure would be to lessen the dignity of this. Some moved to adjourn; but that appeared improper, as the transaction would be on the Journals, and the adjournment seemed a poor subterfuge to rescue the Speaker from censure others wished the motion for taking down the words, which was made by Mr. Cornwall, might be withdrawn; but this could not be without leave of the whole House. Mr. Cornwall, himself, desired it much; but one or other always prevented it. Sir W. Meredith behaved from the first exceeding well: he first shewed a proper spirit at the being so insulted; and when he saw the House desired a reconciliation might take place, did not oppose himself to it, but promoted it a good deal. At last lord North said, the only way was, to put the question as proposed by Mr. Dowdeswell, which was done, and carried in the negative. The debate lasting from

four to near ten.

Feb. 19. The House having resumed the adjourned consideration of the Report from the Committee on the State of the Nation, sir W. Meredith moved, “That it is the rule of this House, that a complicated question which prevents any member from giving his free assent or dissent to any part thereof, ought, if required, to be divided."*

"When a question is complicated, that is, consists of two or more propositions, it has been often said, that it is the right of any member

On this the Minority observed, that the freedom of debate absolutely required such a decision, as without it no person could, agreeably to his conscience, give a vote therein, unless he assented or dissented to both parts of it; that the common rule of nature demanded it, as in common conversation, if you ask my assent to such a question, I shall undoubtedly desire you to divide it, or else I shall answer to each separately; that even in courts of justice, in the case of a man accused of felony and burglary, the jury acquit him of one and find him guilty of the other: that this practice would not be liable to any inconvenience; as if the majority of the House determined that any question was not complete, they would not allow it to be divided, even under this rule; that it would give great ease to the freedom of debate, and destroy the absurdity which was manifest even from the present matter before the House. They did not produce any authorities, as it never had been reduced to a written rule; nor could they shew from the Journals that this had been the practice.

The Ministry therefore argued, that as this question was a question of fact, and as no authority had been shewn that it was either a written rule or practice, they certainly would not assent to the proposition as it stood on the paper: that there were, on the contrary, innumerable instances on the Journals of complex questions, some of which, on a motion, the House had agreed to divide; that it certainly would be an infamous practice to tack an improper proposition to a very proper one, to force the former down by

to have it divided, in order that he may give his opinion upon each proposition separately. This was a very favourite topic with Mr. George Grenville, and often repeated by him, and at last insisted on so much, in the question about the Middlesex election, on the 16th of Feb.

1770, that it was thought necessary to take the sense of the House upon it; which was done by a question, and carried in the negative, on the 19th of February: so that this matter is now at rest. Upon this occasion, every thing was urged that could be said in favour of the doctrine, as laid down by Mr. Grenville; but the truth is, there does not appear the least trace, in the history of the proceedings of either House of Parliament, of this ever having been the practice; indeed, it would introduce universal confusion; for who is to decide, whether a question is complicated or not?—where' it is complicated-into how many propositions it may be divided ?" Hatsell.