Wesley Corpus

Treatise Free Thoughts On Public Affairs

AuthorJohn Wesley
Typetreatise
YearNone
Passage IDjw-treatise-free-thoughts-on-public-affairs-010
Words371
Catholic Spirit Universal Redemption Christology
Wilkes being considered as nobody in the eye of the law; consequently, Colonel Luttrel had no legal opposition. “In all contested elections, where one of the parties think themselves not legally treated, I should be glad to know to. whom it is they resort? Is it to the freeholders of the borough or the county they would represent? Or is it to the people at large? Who cannot see at once the absurdity of such a ques tion? Who so ignorant of our laws, that cannot immediately reply and say, ‘It is the House of Commons who are the only judges to determine every nicety of the laws of election; and from whom there is no appeal, after they have once given their determination?’ All the freeholder has to do is to determine on his object, by giving him his vote; the ultimate power lies. with the House of Commons, who is to judge of his being a legal object of representation in the several branches of his qualifications. This, my Lords, I believe, is advancing no new doctrine, nor adding an iota to the privilege of a member of the House of Commons, more than what the constitution long ago has given him; yet here is a cry made, in a case that directly applies to what I have been speaking of, as if it was illegal, arbitrary, and unprecedented. “I do not remember, my Lords, in either the course of my reading or observation ever to have known an instance of a person's being re-chosen, after being expelled, till the year 1711; then, indeed, my memory serves me with the case of Sir Robert Walpole. He was expelled the House of Commons, and was afterwards re-chosen: But this last event did not take place till the meeting of the next Parliament; and during that interval, I find no debate about the illegality of his expulsion, no interference of the House of Lords, nor any addresses from the public, to decry that measure by a dissolution of Parliament. “Indeed, as for a precedent of one House interfering with the rules, orders, or business of another, my memory does not serve me at present with the recollection of a single one.