A History of Parliamentary Elections and Electioneering in the Old Days: Showing the State of Political Parties and Party Warfare at the Hustings and in the House of Commons from the Stuarts to Queen VictoriaGrego, Joseph
History
A History of Parliamentary Elections and Electioneering in the Old Days: Showing the State of Political Parties and Party Warfare at the Hustings and in the House of Commons from the Stuarts to Queen Victoria
Grego, Joseph
Great Britain -- Politics and government; Great Britain. Parliament -- Election
The recorder cavilled at certain spirited expressions in the drawing-up
of the remonstrance, particularly respecting the king’s answer, which
he declared could not be considered an act of the ministers, but must
be held to be the king’s personally. The committee was shocked at the
recorder’s bringing home to the king one of the most unconstitutional
acts of his ministry, and without one dissentient voice determined
to overrule the objection of the recorder, whereon this functionary
protested against the remonstrance in strong terms as a LIBEL.
Alderman Wilkes then rose and mentioned his unwillingness to speak
again, but he was forced to it by the recorder’s declaration that the
remonstrance was a libel; that he too claimed to know something of
the nature of a libel; that he did not speak from theory only, but
had bought much experience on that subject; that the remonstrance was
founded throughout on known and glaring facts, every word bearing the
stamp of truth; that the particular act complained of in the violated
right of election was a malicious and wilful act of the majority in the
House of Commons, for the minister had declared, that “if any person
had only four votes for Middlesex, he should be the sitting member for
the county!” The lord mayor, Beckford, confirmed Wilkes’s assertion,
concluding, “I was then present in the House of Commons.”
The remonstrance was accordingly presented; in it astonishment was
expressed at the censure lately passed by the throne upon the faithful
and afflicted citizens, laying their complaints and injuries at the
feet of their Sovereign, as the father of his people, able and willing
to redress their grievances.
The concluding paragraph was very much to the purpose, and displayed no
diminution of firmness:--
“Your Majesty cannot disapprove that we here assert the
clearest principles of the constitution against the insidious
attempts of evil counsellors to perplex, confound, and shake
them. We are determined to abide by those rights and liberties,
which our forefathers bravely vindicated, at the ever-memorable
Revolution, and which their sons will ever resolutely defend.
We therefore now renew, at the foot of the throne, our claim
to the indispensable right of the subject--a full, free, and
unmutilated Parliament, legally chosen in all its members;
a right which this House of Parliament have manifestly
violated, depriving, at their will and pleasure, the county of
Middlesex of one of its legal representatives, and arbitrarily
nominating, as a Knight of the Shire, a person not elected
by a majority of the freeholders. As the only constitutional
means of reparation now left for the injured electors of Great
Britain, we implore, with most urgent supplications, the
dissolution of the present parliament, the removal of evil
ministers, and the total extinction of that fatal influence
which has caused such national discontent.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account