The Parliament to which he had first been returned, now approaching the expiry of its legal term, was dissolved in the spring of 1768.  Wilkes, then an outlaw in Paris, returned to England, and announced himself as a candidate for the city.  When the election was over, his name stood last on the poll.  But his ancient fame as the opponent and victim of the court five years before, was revived.  After his rejection in the city, he found himself strong enough to stand for the county of Middlesex.  Here he was returned at the head of the poll after an excited election.  Wilkes had been tried in 1764, and found guilty by the King’s Bench of republishing Number Forty-five of the North Briton, and of printing and publishing the Essay on Woman.  He had not appeared to receive sentence, and had been outlawed in consequence.  After his election for Middlesex, he obtained a reversal of his outlawry on a point of technical form.  He then came up for sentence under the original verdict.  The court sent him to prison for twenty-two months, and condemned him to pay a fine of a thousand pounds.

Wilkes was in prison when the second session of the new Parliament began.  His case came before the House in November 1768, on his own petition, accusing Lord Mansfield of altering the record at his trial.  After many acrimonious debates and examinations of Wilkes and others at the bar of the House, at length, by 219 votes against 136, the famous motion was passed which expelled him from the House.  Another election for Middlesex was now held, and Wilkes was returned without opposition.  The day after the return, the House of Commons resolved by an immense majority, that having been expelled, Wilkes was incapable of serving in that Parliament.  The following month Wilkes was once more elected.  The House once more declared the election void.  In April another election took place, and this time the Government put forward Colonel Luttrell, who vacated his seat for Bossiney for the purpose of opposing Wilkes.  There was the same result, and for the fourth time Wilkes was at the head of the poll.  The House ordered the return to be altered, and after hearing by counsel the freeholders of Middlesex who petitioned against the alteration, finally confirmed it (May 8, 1769) by a majority of 221 to 152.  According to Lord Temple, this was the greatest majority ever known on the last day of a session.

The purport and significance of these arbitrary proceedings need little interpretation.  The House, according to the authorities, had a constitutional right to expel Wilkes, though the grounds on which even this is defended would probably be questioned if a similar case were to arise in our own day.  But a single branch of the legislature could have no power to pass an incapacitating vote either against Wilkes or anybody else.  An Act of Parliament is the least instrument by which such incapacity could be imposed.  The House might perhaps expel Wilkes, but it could not