POLITICAL HISTORY 



years' imprisonment for libel, and to a fine of 1,000. Riots took place 

 in his favour, and an unhappy collision between the mob and the military 

 occurred in St. George's Fields. 



Owing to his imprisonment, Wilkes was unable to take his seat in 

 the first session of Parliament. In the second session he was expelled 

 by the Commons on four charges, for the first three of which he had 

 already suffered, and for the fourth (that of libel on the Secretary of State) 

 it was not within the province of the Commons to punish him. The 

 reason for this unconstitutional action was that the court party, to whom 

 the Commons were bound by a process of corruption and bribery, were 

 determined that no amount of popularity should prevail against their 

 own dignity. The weakness and irregularity of the Commons' action 

 was proclaimed even in the House itself by a powerful party, led by 

 Burke, Pitt, Dowdeswell, and George Greville.* 46 Wilkes's constituents 

 were by no means overawed by the attitude of the authorities. His 

 supporters raised 20,000 to pay his debts, and he was immediately 

 re-elected for Middlesex. Parliament declared his election to be void. 

 With increasing popularity, Wilkes was again elected without opposition, 

 and again his election was declared void. 448 To prevent a repetition of 

 the farce, Colonel Luttrell vacated his seat and offered himself as candi- 

 date for Middlesex. He obtained only 296 votes to Wilkes's i,i43, 447 

 but the Commons rejected Wilkes and declared Colonel Luttrell to be 

 returned. A petition of the freeholders of Middlesex was presented to 

 Parliament on 24 May, 1769, by Mr. Serjeant Glynn and others, 448 in 

 which they pleaded against having a candidate forced upon the county, 449 

 but Colonel Luttrell's election was confirmed. As evidence of Wilkes's 

 continued popularity he was elected successively 46 alderman, sheriff, and 

 Lord Mayor of London, and a subscription was again raised to pay his 

 debts. In 1774 he was returned for Middlesex and took his seat 

 unmolested. 



An exciting contest took place in 1802 between Sir Francis Burdett 

 and Mr. William Mainwaring. Burdett was already well known as the 

 champion of liberty of speech ; he was foremost among the opposers of 

 the government, had exposed the grievances of war taxation, and the 

 abuse of power over those who were offensive to the ministry. 451 He 

 had just rendered great service to the public by obtaining an inquiry into 

 the mismanagement of Coldbath Fields Prison, where suspected persons 

 were detained under the Habeas Corpus Suspension Acts ; when it was 

 shown that no distinction had been made between the treatment of these 

 persons and that accorded to convicted felons. His opponent, Main- 

 waring, was the magistrate who had most strenuously objected to the 

 investigation of the prison abuses, and true to their liberal principles, 



'" Cavendish, Debates, \, 151. M Ibid. 345 ; Feb. 17, 1769. 



147 Erskine May, op. cit. i, 397. H> Political Tracts, 8, Signed by 1,565 freeholders. 



M> ' 1 he case of the late Election for the County of Middlesex condemned on the Principles of 

 the Constitut : on and the Authorities of the Law* (1769). 



160 ' The Sentiments of an English Freeholder on the Late Decision of the Middlesex Election.' 

 '" Diet. Nat. Stag, vii, 297. 



a 57 8 



