existed in Great Britain, is scarcely to be credited*. And it may justly be asserted, that on no similar occasion had so little complaint been made that returns were obtained by means of corruption. СНАР. 1784. Above all the contests, that for Westminster claims Contest for notice, from the length of its duration, the eagerness Westminster. with which it was conducted, its result, and the consequences. The candidates were, Mr. Fox and Sir Cecil Wray, who had represented the city in the last Parliament, and Lord Hood, the great naval commander. The Court, Carlton House, the nobility, men of influence in every rank of life, shared in strenuous and and unremitting efforts on the one or the other side. Ladies of the first quality and fashion solicited the suffrages of very humble voters, and person, purse, and pen were all earnestly employed. A large assemblage daily attended the hustings, clamouring for and against the candidates. Taverns and ale-houses were thronged with their numbers, bands of men, armed with bludgeons, were engaged to keep access free for the voters, and daily engagements of great numbers on a side took place, in many of which severe injuries were inflicted, and on one occasion death ensued. The walls were covered with bills, and the newspapers teemed with eulogies and satires. This conflict was 1st April to maintained to the latest moment allowed by law, to the 17th May. full period of forty days, and such was the exhausted state of the voters, that in several of those days, in a period of six hours, not so many as twenty were produced. Lord Hood could hardly be considered a contending party, as he was the object of hostility to neither; all the invective and abuse so copiously poured out, were directed against the other two candidates. Until the twenty-third day, Mr. Fox was in a minority; but he then passed his adversary, and finally exhibited on the poll a majority over Sir Cecil Wray of two *Copied from the Annual Register, vol. xxvii. p. 147. This work was, at that time, devoted to the interests of the opposition; and, if not written, at least inspected before publication, by one of the most able members of that party. It contains, in the page referred to, and that preceding, an eloquent statement of the causes to which the party were desirous that their defeat should be ascribed. CHAP. 1784. Scrutiny granted. hundred and thirty-six*. When this result was announced, a written paper was delivered to the High Bailiff, the returning officer, signed by Sir Cecil Wray and thirteen electors, demanding a scrutiny: the demand was acceded to, and a day appointed on which it should commence, although Mr. Fox and some of his friends protested against the proceeding. The Return to the High Bailiff, in his return to the precept, stated the precept. 18th. Meeting of 19th. proceedings, the number of votes for each candidate, and the scrutiny demanded by Sir Cecil Wray, adding that he could not make any other return until the scrutiny should be determined. Westminster, therefore, was without a representative; but Mr. Fox sat in Parliament as member for Kirkwall and the dependant burghst. On the meeting of the new Parliament, Mr. Cornwall was unanimously re-elected Speaker; Mr. Fox hailed it as a happy omen that the Speaker of the last Parliament a Parliament which posterity would pronounce the most glorious that had ever met in this country-was, by the friends of the present administration, called to the chair. In his speech from the throne, the King expressed King's speech. his satisfaction at the sentiments of loyalty and attachment to the constitution which the people had every where displayed; recommended temper and wisdom; referred to the estimates, and, after mentioning the supplies, noticed the alarming progress of frauds in the revenue, often attended with violence; and the affairs of the East India Company, an object deeply connected with the general interests of the country. In conclusion, his Majesty declared a resolution uniformly to adhere to the true principles of our free constitution, by supporting and maintaining, in their just balance, The numbers were-Lord Hood, 6694; Mr. Fox, 6,234; Sir Cecil Wray, 5998. All the facts, and many of the publications in prose and verse, respecting this most extraordinary contest, are collected in a large quarto volume, very laboriously, if not very impartially, compiled, entitled, "History of the Westminster "Election, by Lovers of Truth and Justice." It comprised also a full report of the proceedings at the Old Bailey against seven persons who were indicted for the murder, and all were acquitted. the rights and privileges of every branch of the legislature. CHAP LVII 1784. Lords. An address was moved by the Earl of Macclesfield, seconded by Lord Falmouth, and, after a few words Address of the from Earl Fitzwilliam, censuring the late dissolution as unnecessary and unwarrantable, carried without amendment or division. mons. In the House of Commons, Mr. John James Ha- 24th. milton, afterward Marquis of Abercorn, proposed the of the Comaddress, and his motion was seconded by Sir William Molseworth. An amendment, moved by the Earl of Surrey, and seconded by Colonel North, rescinding the paragraph which expressed approbation of the late dissolution, occasioned a debate, in which pledges as to the future, retrospection of the past, charges of inconsistency, and denials or vindications, abounded; but no political point of importance was introduced. The division gave the ministers a majority exceeding two to one*. A week after the address had been carried, Mr. Burke observed that the King's speech and the address, although couched in pretty general terms, and holding a language far from objectionable in the abstract, involved a variety of weighty and important matters, that called for serious and deliberate discussion; meaning therefore, at some future day, to bring them before the House in such a manner as should challenge their maturest attention, he gave notice of a motion on the subject. 31st. Notice of a motion by Mr. Burke. He moves an 14th June. Mr. Pitt, who, in this Parliament, represented the University of Cambridge, made a few observations on a practice so unusual as making remarks on the King's speech when the fittest time, that of moving the address, had elapsed; but Mr. Burke, on the day he had address and mentioned, moved for an address and representation to representation. the King, which was drawn up with his usual eloquence and ability. He acted solely from himself, he said, without having consulted any; it was not, therefore, a party question, but exclusively his own. In the intended representation, severe animadversions were made on some paragraphs in the King's speech. #282 to 114. CHAP. 1784. 18th May. The allusion to the loyalty of Parliament was construed into an insinuation that there was some occasion for recommending that quality, and the phrase respecting the balance of rights and privileges was wholly foreign to Parliamentary usage. It was recommended that, instead of the inconsiderate speculations of inexperienced men, resort should be had to those solid maxims of government which had prevailed since the accession of his Majesty's family. The rights of each House and the prerogative of the Crown were equally allowed; but prerogative was not to be employed to intimidate individuals from proposing, or the House from receiving or passing, bills. The continuance of ministers in office, the dissolution of Parliament, the India bill, and all the transactions relative to that country, were considered at great length; and, in conclusion, the House was required to exculpate itself by anticipation, if its proceedings should be ill-adapted, feeble, and ineffectual: if delinquency should be proved, and no delinquent called to account; if any person should be caressed, promoted, and raised to power, in proportion to the enormity of his offences; if no relief should be given to the natives of India, and if that empire should fall into ruin irretrievable, and in its fall crush the credit and overwhelm the revenues of the nation. "We stand acquitted to our honour and to our con"science," was the conclusion, "who have reluctantly "seen the weightiest interests of our country, at times "the most critical to its dignity and safety, rendered the "sport of the inconsiderate and unmeasured ambition "of individuals, and, by that means, the wisdom of his Majesty's government degraded in the public estima"tion, and the policy and character of this renowned "nation rendered contemptible in the eyes of all Europe." 66 66 Mr. Windham seconded the motion; but it was negatived without a division or debate*. A matter so fertile in topics of discussion as the See the Representation, with preface and notes, Burke's Works, vol. iv. p. 133; and it is faithfully transcribed, with all its appendages, into the Parliamentary History. CHAP. LVII. 1784. Westminster election, could not be passed over without much debate. On the motion for the choice of a speaker, Mr. Fox complained that the House was incomplete, as there were no members for the city in Mr. Fox. which they were assembled. Parliament was treated in a most contemptuous manner by the High Bailiff. The bare reading of his special return would prove at once how little ground he had for refusing duly to perform his duty: he would move that the consideration of his conduct should precede the address. Mr. Pitt observed, that, until a speaker should have Mr. Pitt. been chosen, even the return could not be read. Motion by After the election of a speaker, and before the ad- 24th. dress was proposed, the return was read; and Mr. Lee, Mr. Lee. late Attorney-general, referring to the statute which requires the return of writs of election*, moved that the High Bailiff ought to have returned two citizens to serve in that Parliament. Kenyon. Sir Lloyd Kenyon, Master of the Rolls, said, the Sir Lloyd House was now, contrary to the first principles of justice, required to censure and punish, without hearing the accused, and moved the previous question. The statute cited by Mr. Lee related only to returning officers for counties, but did not apply to Mr. Corbett; he was High Bailiff of a city or town, had no writ to send into Chancery, but a precept to be returned to the Sheriff of Middlesex. Mr. Fox charged the Master of the Rolls with Mr. Fox. grossly perverting the axiom audi alteram partem. The High Bailiff was, in fact, the only party before the House; his conduct was avowed, and the reasons for it were upon the table. He, himself, was another party: but, although he was actually present as member for another place, still, he was virtually absent; and he observed, that those who had advised the curious return which had been made, had, as far as in them lay, contrived it, that he should not have even the possibility of appealing to any tribunal, except the High Bailiff on a scrutiny. Had Sir Cecil Wray been returned, he might have had redress from a committee. * 10 and 11 W. III. c. 7. |
