Oldalképek
PDF
ePub

DEDICATION. a This positive denial, of an arbitary power being vested in the legislature, is not in fact a new doctrine. When the Eari of Lindsay, in the year 1675, brought a bill into the House of Lords, "To prevent the dangers which might arise from persons disaffected "to government," by which an oath and penalty was to be imposed upon the members of both Houses, it was affirmed, in a protest signed by twenty-three lay peers (my lords the bishops were not accustomed to protest)," That the privilege of sitting and voting in parliament "was an honour they had by birth, and a right so inherent in them, "and inseparable from them, that nothing could take it away, but "what, by the law of the land, must withal take away their lives, and "corrupt their blood." These noble peers (whose names are a reproach to their posterity) have, in this instance, solemnly denied the power of parliament to alter the constitution. Under a particular proposition, they have asserted a general truth, in which every mania England is concerned.

་་

"

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

PREFACE. 6 The following quotation from a speech delivered by Lord Chatham on the 11th of December 1770, is taken with exactness. The reader will find it curious in itself, and very fit to be inserted here. My Lord, The verdict given in Woodfall's trial was,-guilty of printing and publishing only:-upon which two motions were made in court; one, in arrest of judgement, by the defendant's counsel, grounded upon the ambiguity of the verdict; the other, by the "counsel for the crown, for a rule upon the defendant to show cause why the verdict should not be entered up according to the legal import of the words. On both motions a rule was granted, and soon after the matter was argued before the Court of King's Bench. "The noble judge, when he delivered the opinion of the court upon "the verdict, went regularly though the whole of the proceedings at "nisi prius, as well as the evidence that had been given, as his own charge to the jury. This proceeding would have been very proper, "had a motion been made on either side for a new trial; because either a verdict given contrary to evidence, or an improper charge by the judge at nisi prius, 16 held to be a sufficient ground for granting a new trial. But when a motion is made in arrest of judgment, or "for establishing the verdict by entering it up according to the legal import of the words, it must be on the ground of something appearing on the face of the record: and the court, in considering "whether the verdict shall be established or not, are so confined to "the record, that they cannot take notice of any thing that does not appear on the face of it; in the legal phrase, they cannot travel out "of the record. The noble judge did travel out of the record; and I affirm that his discourse was irregular, extrajudicial, and unprecedented. His apparent motive for doing what he knew to be wrong was, that he might have an opportunity of telling the public "extrajudicially, that the other three judges concurred in the doc"trine laid down in his charge."

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Parliamentary History, Vol. VII. p. 406. d Monsieur de Lolme.

LETTERS. a The Duke of Grafton took the office of Secretary of State, with an engagement to support the Marquis of Rockingham's administration. He resigned, however, in a little time, under pretence that he could not act without Lord Chatham, nor bear to see Mr. Wilkes abandoned; but that, under Lord Chatham, he would act in any office. This was the signal of Lord Rockingham's dismis. sion. When Lord Chatham came in, the duke got possession of the Treasury. Reader, mark the consequence!

This happened frequently to poor Lord North.

c Yet Junius has been called the partizan of Lord Chatham! d That they should retract one of their resolutions, and erase the entry of it.

e It was pretended that the Earl of Rochford, while ambassador in France, had quarrelled with the Duke of Choiseuil; and that therefore he was appointed to the Northern department, out of compliment to the French minister.

f The late Lord Granby.

This man, being committed to the court of King's Bench for a contempt, voluntarily made oath, that he would never answer interrogatories, unless he should be put to the torture.

h It has been said, I believe truly, that it was signified to Sir William Draper, as the request of Lord Granby, that he should desist from writing in his Lordship's defence Sir William Draper certainly drew Junius forward to say more of Lord Granby's character then he originally intended. He was reduced to the dilemma of either being totally silenced, or of supporting his first letter. Whether Sir Wil liam had a right to reduce him to this dilemma, or to call upon him for his name, after a voluntary attack on his side, are questions submitted to the candour of the public.—The death of Lord Granby was lamented by Junius. He undoubtedly owed some compensations to the public, and seemed determined to acquit himself of them. In private life, he was unquestionably that good man who, for the interest of his country, ought to have been a great one. Bonum virum facile dixeris;-magnum libenter. I speak of him now without partiality:-I never spoke of him with resentment. His mistakes, in public conduct, did not arise either from want of sentiment, or want of judgment, but in general from the difficulty of saying No to the bad people who surrounded him.

As for the rest, the friends of Lord Granby should remember, that he himself thought proper to condemn, retract, and disavow, by a most solemn declaration in the House of Commons, that very system of political conduct which Junius had held forth to the disapprobation of the public.

¿ Les rois ne se sont reservé que les graces. Ils renvoient les condamnations vers leurs officiers. Montesquieu.

k Whitehall, March 11. 1769. His Majesty has been graciously pleased to extend his royal mercy to Edward M'Quirk, found guilty of the murder of George Clarke, as appears by his royal warrant to the tenor following:

GEORGE R.

WHEREAS a doubt had arisen in our Royal breast concerning the evidence of the death of George Clarke, from the representations of William Bloomfield, Esq. surgeon, and Solomon Starling, apothecary; both of whom, as has been represented to Us, attended the deceased before his death, and expressed their opinions that he did not die of the blow he received at Brentford: and whereas it appears to Us, that neither of the said persons were produced as witnesses upon the trial, though the said Solomon Starling had been examined before the Coroner; and the only person called to prove that the death of the said George Clarke was occasioned by the said blow, was John Foot, surgeon, who never saw the deceased till after his death: We thought fit thereupon to refer the said representations, together with the report of the Recorder of Our City of London, of the evidence given by Richard and William Beale, and the said John Foot, on the trial of Edward Quirk, otherwise called Edward Kirk, otherwise called Edward M'Quirk, for the murder of the said Clarke, to the master, wardens, and the rest of the court of examiners of the Surgeons Company, commanding them likewise to take such further examination of the said persons so representing, and of said John Foot, as they might think necessary, together with the premises above mentioned, to form and report to Us their opinion, " Whether it did or did not appear to "them, that the said George Clarke died in consequence of the blow "he received in the riot at Brentford, on the 8th of December last." And the said court of examiners of the Surgeons Company having thereupon reported to Us their opinion, "That it did not appear to "them that he did;" We have thought proper to extend Our Royal mercy to him the said Edward Quirk, otherwise Edward Kirk, otherwise called Edward M'Quirk, and to grant him Our free pardon for the murder of the said George Clarke, of which he has been found guilty. Our will and pleasure therefore is, that he the said Edward Quirk, otherwise called Kirk, otherwise called Edward M'Quirk, be inserted for the said murder in Our first and next general pardon that shall come out for the poor convicts of Newgate, without any condition whatsoever; and that in the mean time you take bail for his appearance, in order to plead Our said parden. And for so doing, this shall be your warrant.

Given at Our Court at St. Jame's, the 10th day of March 1769, in the ninth year of Our reign.

By his Majesty's command,

To our trusty and well-beloved James Eyre, Esq. Recorder of our city of London, the Sheriffs of Our said City and County of Middlesex, and all others whom it may concern.

ROCHFORD.

/ This unfortunate person had been persuaded by the Duke of Grafton to set up for Middlesex, his Grace being determined to seat him in the House of Commons, if he had but a single vote. It happened unluckily that he could not prevail upon any one freeholder to put him in nomination.

Z

m Sir Fletcher Norton, when it was proposed to punish the - sheriffs, declared in the House of Commons, that they, in returning Mr. Wilkes, had done no more than their duty.

n The reader is desired to mark this prophecy.

o The Duke, about this time, had separated himself from Ann Parsons; but proposed to continue united with her, on some Platonic terms of friendship, which she rejected with contempt. His baseness to this woman is beyond description or belief.

p To understand these passages, the reader is referred to a noted pamphlet, called, "The History of the Minority."

9 His Grace had lately married Miss Wrottesly, niece of the Good Gertrude, Duchess of Bedford.

r Miss Liddel, after her divorce from the Duke, married Lord Upper Ossory.

s The wise Duke, about this time, exerted all the influence of government to procure addresses to satisfy the King of the fidelity of his subjec's. They came in very thick from Scotland; but, after the appearance of this letter, we heard no more of them.

t It is hardly necessary to remind the reader of the name of Bradshaw.

u Sir John Moore.

The reader will observe, that these admissions are made, not as of truths unquestionable, but for the sake of argument, and in order to bring the real question to issue.

w Precedents, in opposition to principles, have little weight with Junius; but he thought it necessary to meet the ministry upon their own ground.

x Case of the Middlesex Election considered, p. 38.

y This is still meeting the ministry upon their own ground; for, in truth, no precedents will support either natural injustice, or violation of positive right.

z Mr. Grenville had quoted a passage from the Doctor's cxcellent Commentaries, which directly contradicted the doctrine maintained by the Doctor in the House of Commons.

a (page 77.) If, in stating the law upon any point, a judge deliberately affirms that he has included every case, and it should appear that he has purposely emitted a material case, he does in effect lay a snare for the unwary.

It is well worth remarking, that the compiler of a certain quarto, called "The case of the last election for the county of Middlesex, considered," has the impudence to recite this very vote in the following terms, vide page II. "Resolved, that Robert Walpole, Esq. having "been that session of parliament expelled the House, was and is incapable of being elected a member to serve in the present parlia"ment." There cannot be a stronger positive proof of the treachery of the compiler, nor a stronger presumptive proof that he was convinc d that the vote, if truly recited, would overturn his whole argument.

ес

SIR,

[ocr errors]

€ TO THE PRINTER OF THE PUBLIC ADVERTISER.

May 22. 1777.

VERY early in the debate upon the decision of the Middlesex. election, it was observed by Junius, that the House of Commons had not only exceeded their boasted precedent of the expulsion and consequent incapacitation of Mr. Walpole, but that they had not even adhered to it strictly as far as it went. After convicting Mr. Dyson of giving a false quotation from the Journals, and having explained the purpose which that contemptible fraud was intended to answer, he proceeds to state the vote itself by which Mr. Walpole's supposed incapacity was declared, viz.-" Resolved, That Robert Walpole, Esq. having been this session of parliament committed a prisoner "to the Tower, and expelled this House for a high breach of trust in "the execution of his office, and notorious corruption when Secretary. "at War, was and is incapable of being elected a member to serve in "the present parliament :"-and then observes, that, from the terms of the vote, we have no right to annex one incapacitation to the expulsion only; for that, as the proposition stands it must arise equally from the expulsion and the commitment to the Tower. I believe Sir, no man who kuows any thing of Dialectics, or who understands English, will dispute the truth and fairness of this construction. But Junius has a great authority to support him, which, to speak with thes Duke of Grafton, I accidentally met with this morning in the course of my reading. It contains an admonition, which cannot be repeated too often. Lord Sommers, in his excellent tract upon the rights of the people, after reciting the votes of the convention of the 28th of January 1687, viz." That King James the second having endeavour"ed to subvert the constitution of this kingdom, by breaking the original contract between king and people, and by the advice of Jesuits, and other wicked persons, having violated the fundamental "laws, and having withdrawn himself out of this kingdom, hath "abdicated the government," &c.-makes this observation upon it: “The word abdicated relates to all the clauses aforegoing, as well as "to his deserting the kingdom, or else they would have been wholly " in vain." And that there might be no pretence for confining the abdication merely to the withdrawing, Lord Sommers farther observes, "That King James, by refusing to govern us according to that law "by which he held the crown, implicitly renounced his title to it.”

[ocr errors]

If Junius's construction of the vote against Mr. Walpole be now admitted (and indeed I cannot comprehend how it can honestly be disputed), the advocates of the House of Commons must either give up their precedent entirely, or be reduced to the necessity of maintaining one of the grossest absurdities imaginable, viz. "That a

commitment to the Tower is a constituent part of, and contributes "half at least to, the incapacitation of the person who suffers it." I need not make you any excuse for endeavouring to keep alive the attention of the public to the decision of the Middlesex election. The more I consider it, the more I am convinced that, as a fact, it is indeed highly injurious to the rights of the people; but that, as a precedent, it is one of the most dangerous that ever was established

« ElőzőTovább »