Treatise Free Thoughts On Public Affairs
| Author | John Wesley |
|---|---|
| Type | treatise |
| Year | None |
| Passage ID | jw-treatise-free-thoughts-on-public-affairs-010 |
| Words | 371 |
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.