Oldalképek
PDF
ePub
[blocks in formation]

A remarkable opportunity, Sir, of improving the national taste in painting, which was lately lost, I hope may now be recovered. The incomparable sir Joshua Reynolds, and some other great painters, who do honour to our country, generously offered the late bishop of London, [Dr. Richard Terrick] to adorn the cathedral of St. Paul's, that glorious monument of the magnificence of our ancestors, with some of their most valuable works; but the proposition had to encounter the absurd, gothic prejudices of a tasteless and ignorant prelate, which were found to be insuperable. We have the satisfaction at present of having in the see of London a gentleman [Dr. Robert Lowth] not only of solid piety, but of the soundest learning, and of exquisite classical taste. I hope at such a favourable moment the proposition will be renewed and accepted.

As almost all arts and sciences, as well as some of the most useful manufactures, have a connection with each other, they will likewise give each other a mutual assistance. The beautiful art of engraving, which is now carried among us to an astonishing degree of perfection, will come to the aid of her sister painting. We have shewn our attention to that art this very session. I hope hereafter, even in this cold, raw climate, to be warmed with the glowing colours of our own gobelins tapestry, and I wish encouragement was given by parliament to that noble manufacture, which in France almost rivals the powers of painting. The important advantages of such a commerce too we may learn from our neighbours.

I am not alarmed, Sir, at the great expence, which some gentlemen seem to dread as the inevitable consequence of what I have mentioned. The treasures of a state are well employed in works of national magnificence. The power and wealth of ancient Greece were most seen and admired in the splendor of the temples, and other sublime structures of Pericles. He boasted, that every art would be exerted, every citizen in the pay of the state, and the city, not only beautified, but maintained by itself. The sums he expended on the public buildings of lettered Athens, in the most high and palmy state of Greece, after the brilliant victories over the Persians, diffused riches and plenty among the people at that time, and will be an eternal monument of the glory

of that powerful republic. The Parthenon only, or Temple of Minerva, acknowledged to be the most beautiful piece of antiquity now remaining in the world, which is of the purest white marble, cost, with its statues and sculptures, above a thousand talents, near 200,000!.

One observation here, Sir, naturally occurs, which justice to the Trustees of the British Museum demands. No public money has ever been more faithfully, more frugally applied to the purposes for which it has been given, than what they have received. Perhaps the Trustees of the British Museum are the only body of men, who have never been suspected of want either of fidelity or economy. I think, therefore, we may safely trust them farther, not penuriously, but largely, on a great national concern, especially when their accounts are so frequently submitted to the examination of parliament.

Learning, Sir, and the polite arts, have scarcely more than three enemies, ignorance and stupidity always, superstition often. The noble lord with the blue ribbon, who is at the head of the finances of this country, possesses wit, genius, a great deal of true taste, and a very cultivated understanding. The most important establishment of this kingdom in taste and literature, now supplicates his assistance and protection, and I trust the arts will find in him a generous benefactor and a powerful protector.

The House then went into the committee. Sir Grey Cooper moved, "that 3,000l. be granted towards enabling the Trustees of the British Museum to carry on the execution of the trusts reposed in them by parliament."

Mr. Burke observed, that the House had of late shewn a most generous and giving disposition, both of their own, and the public money; probably they remained still in the same good temper. To make a trial of that, he begged leave to amend the hon. gentleman's motion, and instead of 3,000l. insert 5,000l. Parliament had been liberal of late, not of single thousands, or hundreds of thousands, but millions, granted for slaying their brethren and fellow-subjects in America; and surely they would not be more backward to encourage and protect the liberal and polite arts, than to forward the destruction of their species, and effect all those horrid mischiefs which are the inevitable consequences of civil war.

The motion was seconded by Mr.

Wilkes; but the question being put on sir Grey Cooper's motion, the committee divided: Ayes 74, Noes 60.

Mr. Wilkes's Motion for expunging the Resolution respecting his Expulsion.] April 29. Mr. Wilkes rose and said: Sir; the important rights of election in the people are so deeply interested in the question which I think it my duty to move again to this House, that no apology can be necessary for my embracing this, and every opportunity, which the forms of parliament permit, of bringing this business again to our consideration. Every elector in the kingdom, Sir, was injured by the Resolution of the last parliament in the case of the Middlesex elections. A fatal precedent is thereby created of making an incapacity by a vote of this House, where the law of the land, and common right, rendered the party eligible. The words of the Resolution of the 17th Feb. 1769, are, "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." By this arbitrary and capricious vote the House established an incapacity unknown to the laws of the land. It is a direct assuming of the whole legislative power, for it gives to the Resolution of one House the virtue of an act of the entire legislature to bind the whole. The King, the Lords, the Commons of the realm, suffer alike from this usurpation. It effectually destroys both the form and essence of this free constitution. The right of representation is taken away by this vote. It is difficult, Sir, to decide, whether the despotic body of men, which composed the last rotten parliament, intended by the whole of their conduct in the Middlesex elections to cut up by the roots our most invaluable franchises and privileges, or only to sacrifice to the rage of an incensed court one obnoxious individual. In either case the rights of the nation were betrayed by that parliament, and basely surrendered into the hands of the minister, that is, of the crown.

We are, Sir, the guardians of the laws. It is our duty to oppose all usurped power in the King or the Lords. We are criminal, when we consent to the exercise of any illegal power, much more, when we either exercise, or solicit it ourselves. This the late House of Commons did in the Address to his Majesty to dispense with the laws for the apprehending of two persons, not [VOL. XIX.]

felons, but honest laborious printers, Wheble and Thompson, in 1771. Yet I have heard this day, and frequently of late, that very House of Commons, notwithstanding this and many other violations of freedom, spoken of here with great applause. Gentlemen, Sir, look much displeased. There is not, however, Sir, I am satisfied, one gentleman of the law, who will now get up in his place, and justify the illegal proclamation, which was protested against in this House by some of the ablest lawyers among us before it issued, and has since been universally condemned. It was by me set aside judicially, and a man apprehended under that royal proclamation discharged.

I observe, Sir, on all occasions, a tenderness for the proceedings of that parliament which it in no respect merited. If, however, they had been guilty of no other outrage against the freedom of the subject, this alone respecting the Middlesex election, by which the constitution is overturned, was sufficient for their full disgrace in the annals of our country. The present question has been fully debated twice in this parliament, many times in the last House of Commons, and I believe every precedent quoted, which could be produced, from times the most favourable, as well as the most hostile, to liberty, from the remarkable case of Wollaston, in the reign of king William, to that no less celebrated one of Walpole, in the latter end of queen Anne. An archangel descended among us would scarcely give a new, original idea on this subject. I shall therefore reserve myself, Sir, for the reply, if I hear any material objection to the motion, which I shall have the honour of submitting to this House. I can foresee only one objection, which I shall endeavour to obviate, and I hope the House will think that delicacy ought to yield to justice.

Gentlemen, I observe, have scruples of rescinding former resolutions, not knowing, they say, where such a practice may stop. It is a scruple, in my opinion, very illfounded. The first great object is truth, and we ought to follow where that leads. If the last parliament have acted wrong, let us reform their errors. If they have established a wicked precédent, we ought to reverse it. If we have ourselves committed injustice, let us afford all the reparation in our power. We have given the world a remarkable instance of our repentance this very session, in the case of Mr. Rumbold and Mr. Sykes. The 22d [0]

of November last the order to the Attorney General to prosecute Thomas Rumbold, esq. and Francis Sykes, esq. as principal promoters and suborners of corrupt and wilful perjury at the election for Shaftesbury, was discharged, on the motion of as respectable a gentleman (Sir G. Savile) as ever sat in parliament. That order, however, was made by ourselves in the very last session, on the 14th of February preceding the reversal.

As little delicacy, Sir, has been shewn by us to the acts of former parliaments, as to our own resolutions, Have we manifested any tenderness to the memory of the first parliament which was called in his present Majesty's reign? That parliament declared, and declared truly, in the Civil List Act, that 800,000l. was "a competent revenue for defraying the expences of his Majesty's civil government, and supporting the dignity of the crown of I have not yet, Sir, an inclination to Great Britain." Within these few days quit the company of Messrs. Sykes and we declared that 800,000l, was not a com, Rumbold. Their case will serve me petent sum, and "That for the better farther in my reasonings. It is a strong support of his Majesty's household, and argument against expulsion necessarily in- of the honour and dignity of the crown, cluding incapacitation. I will suppose, there be granted to his Majesty, during his Sir, that instead of the House having de- life, out of the aggregate fund, the clear termined, in April 1775, in the first session yearly sum of 100,000l. to commence from of the present parliament, that neither of the 5th of January 1777, over and above those two gentlemen, on account of their the yearly sum of 800,000l. granted by an notorious bribery and corruption at Act made in the first year of his Majesty's Shaftesbury, were duly elected, it had then reign." If the sum of 800,000l. was combeen voted that they were guilty of being petent to these great purposes, we had no the principal promoters and suborners of right to vote more of the people's money. wilful and corrupt perjury, a resolution We were improvident, and prodigal trusthe House did actually come to in Fe- tees for the nation, not to use a more bruary 1776, and in consequence of so harsh expression. We likewise voted the black a crime they had been expelled. last week above 600,000, as the last parSubornation of wilful and corrupt per- liament had above 500,000l. much above a jury is surely a more atrocious sin, and million in all, on the same pretext of paymore merits expulsion, than the writing a ing the debts of the King, when his Malibel. Afterwards let me likewise suppose jesty had enjoyed a competent revenue of the House change their opinion, and find 800,000l. clear of all deductions and conthey proceeded without sufficient evidence, tingencies, and those debts were of the a resolution the House did actually come most suspicious nature even as to the into in November 1776. By the courtly, dependency of this House. Let us not but unparliamentary, doctrine now pre- therefore, Sir, affect more tenderness for tended to be established, that expulsion the last parliament in so flagrant an inmeans incapacitation, you would not have stance of injustice, as the case of the Midit in your power to restore them to their dlesex election, than we have shewn to seats, although you were perfectly con- them, and to ourselves too, in other revinced of their innocence. Justice would spects. We ought, if we are men of ho call aloud upon you to do it, because it nour and principle, to do justice to all the appeared that no legal proof, no sufficient electors of this kingdom, and by a formal evidence was given, on which you had repeal to make satisfaction to those zealous founded so rash, so unjustifiable a judg- defenders of liberty, the spirited free. ment; but the cries of justice would little holders of this injured and insulted avail with a venal senate against ministe- country. I desire, Sir, to recall to the rial despotism, or a royal edict in the form memory of many gentlemen, what passed of a parliamentary resolution. My first in this House the last parliament, on one expulsion, Sir, in January 1764, was for of the great debates respecting the Midbeing the author of the North Briton, No. dlesex elections. A noble lord, the darl45. Where is to this hour the legal proofing of his country, as well as the favourite by the oaths of twelve of my countrymen to be found of that charge? I have never even been tried on that accusation. A court of law determined on the charge of republication, a charge which might have been brought against 500 other persons.

of our army, whose memory is dear to every Englishman, for he joined to the bravery of Cæsar all the mild and gentle qualities of our English hero, Edward the Black Prince; that noble lord, Sir, stood up in his place here, and solemnly asked

Debate in the Commons on the Bill för licensing a Play-house in Birmingham.] On the motion for the second reading a Bill for enabling his Majesty to license a Play-house in the town of Birmingham,

pardon of his country for having, as he said, wounded the constitution, and violated the rights and privileges of this kingdom, by voting as he had done in this House in the business of the Middlesex elections. He did not stop there. He was anxious to make public reparation for a mistaken opinion, but of such moment; and he afterwards joined the opposition in an important question respecting the discontents of the people on this very subject. We may all, Sír, imitate the love of justice and candour, if we cannot reach the high courage, of that illustrious, immortal character, the late marquis of Granby.

While the resolution which I have mentioned is suffered to continue on our Journals, I shall believe, Sir, that the elective rights of the nation lie at the mercy of the minister, that is in fact of the crown; that the dignity and independency of parliament are in danger of being entirely destroyed. It is evident, that no gentleman now holds his seat by the choice of his constituents, but only by the good-will, and at the pleasure, of the munister, or by the royal permission. The tenure is equally precarious and unjust, for the constitution has clearly lodged in the people the power of being represented in this House by the man who is the object of their choice. A committee can never have but that single question to determine, provided the party is by law eligible, and has pursued only those methods which are warranted by law. I will seize every opportunity of importuning, of conjuring the House, if they have any reverence for the laws, utterly to rescind this unconstitutional and iniquitous resolution. We owe it to the present, and to every future age, and therefore I move," That the Resolution of this House of the 17th of February, 1769, 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,' be expunged from the Journals of this House, as being subversive of the rights of the whole body of electors of this kingdom."

There was no reply. The question was immediately called for, and the House

divided.

Tellers.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]

Sir William Bagot said he opposed the motion, because he disliked licensed theatres in manufacturing towns, and the fatal tendency of having theatres indiscriminately established throughout the kingdom. He drew a picture of a variety of mischiefs which might ensue in such a town as Birmingham, from Mr. Yates's having a power to act there, and defy the power of magistracy, urging, that forcing of tickets upon the working manufacturers, in lieu of wages, had already been practised to such a shameful degree, that a magistrate, since dead, (Mr. Worley Birch) who was himself systematically a man of pleasure, admired plays, and was fond of actors and actresses, had at one time found it necessary to interfere, and inform the actors, even though they were his favourites, that if he heard any more of such pernicious practices, he would not suffer them to play there again. Sir Wm. further said, that once they were sent out of town, and that they were not permitted to act in Birmingham again for three suc cessive years. He observed, that the answer to him would be, "that it was improper to trust the case in the hands of magistracy; when it was notorious that there had been two unlicensed theatres suffered to be open at once for the two last summers." In reply to this he had to state the fact: there was no magistrate then near Birmingham; Mr. Worley Birch was too much indisposed to attend business for some time previous to his death, and, since that event, no new commission had been sent down till the spring of 1776, when the King-street company of players, who were preparing to act, were prevented from so doing by the new magistrate. Sir William dwelt on the bad consequences of forcing tickets on the poor mechanics, and declared it was not only owing to their immediate masters, but also to the employers of those masters, the factors for foreign countries, who obliged the masters to put off what number they thought proper: in order still more to enforce his arguments on this head, he drew a melancholy picture of the distresses of the poor people after they had received the tickets, shewing the difficulties they labour under, even to re-obtain half-price for them, and asserting, that they were frequently ob

liged to send their children to the avenues of the theatre to sell them for what they could get, and that the gentlemen who could pass through such a range of unfortunate beings, in their way to the theatre, without feeling for their distress, must love tragedies better than he did. By way of proving the fatal tendency of establishing theatres indiscriminately in any kingdom, sir William adverted to the times of the Romans, when he declared the giving theatres was the cause of the decline of the state; he declared, that to add to the dissipation of the people was always the maxim adopted by those who meant to enslave them, and that the common means of fixing slavery on any people was by giving theatres. He bid the House recollect the ancient medals, on the reverse of which was a theatre, with the words Ludi instituti. These were melancholy instances of the truth of what he had asserted, as it appeared from the words round the edges of such medals, that the Romans were also obliged to establish granaries of corn, and to give the people bread, at the same time; this latter, he feared, wonld be the next step with Birmingham, if the House gave them a theatre. Here sir William introduced a kind of apostrophe on the subject of the Roman medals, appealing to the House how much more glorious it was to cast medals on any conquest, and how much better the inscriptions of De Germanis, or De Britannis, appeared, than that of Ludi instituti. From this digression he returned to his main subject, and remarked, that Birmingham was a village; that it had, from the industry and abilities of its inhabitants, grown into a large town; its glory, however, was in its village situation, and he wished it to retain it; he wanted not to see it ornamented with any royal trinkets, no royal charter, no royal incorporation, no royal theatres. And why, when the sense of the inhabitants was clearly against a limited theatre, should the House force one upon them? Why also give it to Mr. Yates, who had professedly broken the law for five and twenty years? There was, indeed, one reason: Mr. Yates had sent a card to every member, with his compliments, and begged their support of the Bill. Mr. Yates's compliments! The Speaker, he doubted not, had received one; he hoped he would attend to it properly. Sir William ended with intreating, that every gentleman would remember Mr. Yates's compliments!

Mr. James Luttrell agreed, that the Bill ought to be thrown out. He said that the practice of forcing tickets upon the workmen, instead of money to support their families, was very iniquitous, and unless the players could be turned out of the town, it would be impossible to prevent those crimes; that many complaints required redress, which could not be obtained if the theatre was licensed, and it would be very dangerous for parliament to point out, and for his Majesty to countenance any description of talents and merit, which did not contribute to benefit the manu factories. He spoke warmly against Mr. Yates, the petitioner; said the petition was impudence, and the application ingratitude; therefore, if discretionary powers ought to be given to any man, Mr. Yates was the last person Birmingham could approve of, or that the House could with decency admit of.

Mr. Fox objected to the asperity of the terms used by the hon. gentleman who spoke last, as improper for the place, the subject, and the person to whom they were applied. He had always retained a grateful sense of the entertainment he had received from actors of Mr. Yates's acknowledged merit; and he could perceive nothing in his conduct, on the present occasion, to justify such epithets. If the party, to whom they were applied, had been in a higher rank, it would, to say no worse, have been extremely indecent to have so treated him; and it must be very unpleasant and mortifying to any man. He therefore thought it extremely wrong, and could not be a silent auditor of such seve rities against a person who had only exercised that right which every other man had of applying to parliament. He declared himself for the second reading of the Bill, and sending it to a committee, when the true sense of the inhabitants might probably be collected. If any thing could be decided, one way or the other, he thought the probability was, that the majority of the inhabitants were in favour of the Bill, from the open and continued encouragement they had given to theatrical entertainments for such a number of years back. In his opinion, dramatic exhibitions had their use every where, and often drew the attention of the common people, and prevented them from wasting their time and money in employments of a much more dangerous and pernicious nature. In general, they tended to civilize and polish the manners of nations;

« ElőzőTovább »