citizens would then be arbitrary, for the judge would
be the legislator.” And, having thus proved
that it would be a violation of the recognized constitution
to found a second expulsion on the first, he proceeded
to argue that to expel him for this new offence would
be impolitic and inexpedient, as a step which would
inevitably lead to a contest with the constituency
which he represented, since, “in the present
disposition of the county of Middlesex, no one could
entertain a doubt that Wilkes would be re-elected.
The House would then probably think itself under a
necessity of again expelling him, and he would as
certainly be again re-elected. The House might,
indeed, refuse to issue a new writ, which would be
to deprive the freeholders of Middlesex of the right
of choosing any other representative; but he could
not believe that the House would think it fit to inflict
such a punishment on the electors of a great county.
Should it not do so, the other alternative would be
to bring into the House as representative and knight
of the shire for Middlesex a man chosen by a few voters
only, in contradiction to the declared sense of a
great majority of the freeholders on the face of the
poll, upon the supposition that all the votes of the
latter were forfeited and thrown away on account of
the expulsion of Mr. Wilkes.” It seemed
premature to discuss that point before it arose, and
therefore the Speaker contented himself for the present
with saying that “he believed there was no example
of such a proceeding; and that, if it should appear
to be new and unfounded as the law of the land, or
even if any reasonable doubt could be entertained
of its legality, the attempt to forfeit the freeholders’
votes in such a manner would be highly alarming and
dangerous.”
Few prophecies have been more exactly fulfilled.
The House did expel Mr. Wilkes; he did offer himself
for re-election, and was re-elected; and the minister,
in consequence, moved and carried a resolution 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.” And, in pursuance of this vote,
a writ was again issued. At the end of another
month the proceeding required to be repeated.
Wilkes had again offered himself for re-election.
No other candidate had presented himself, and, in
answer to an inquiry, the under-sheriff reported that
“no other candidate had been proposed but John
Wilkes, Esq., and that no elector had given or tendered
his vote for any other person.” Once more
the House resolved that he was “incapable of
being elected,” and issued a new writ. But
on this second occasion the ministry had provided
a rival candidate in the person of the Honorable H.K.
Luttrell. He was duly proposed and seconded; a
poll was taken and kept open for several days, and,
as it appeared at the close that 1143 votes had been
given for Wilkes and 296 for Mr. Luttrell, the sheriff
again returned Wilkes as duly elected.