o many hands. To us, at least, it seems
clear that they were the work of Philip Francis.

The electors of Middlesex did petition against the substitution of the
despised Luttrell for the adored Wilkes. The consideration of the
petition was the occasion for one of the most memorable debates that
can be recorded of an age rich in memorable debates. On the one side
the influence of the Ministry and the influence of the King induced
Blackstone to deny himself and to falsify those principles of
constitutional law with which his name is associated. On the other
side principles as little honorable but a far acuter political
perception urged Wedderburn, who was nominally a King's man, to go over
to the popular cause with the air of a Coriolanus. On the one side
Fletcher Norton upheld the authority of the resolution. On the other
side George Grenville argued against it with an acumen which showed
that an able lawyer might have {132} been a great lawyer. In that
famous debate Burke spoke at his best, and yet the event of that debate
was not the speech of Burke, was not the speech of the experienced
politician, of the seasoned statesman, of the famous man of letters,
but the speech of a young man who was almost a boy, the speech of
Charles James Fox. All who have written on the debate agree in their
admiration of the speech of one who, as far as Parliament was
concerned, was but a raw lad and who nevertheless held his own on a
point of law against experienced lawyers, in statesmanship against
Grenville, and in eloquence against Burke.

[Sidenote: 1769--Unpopularity of George the Third]

Of course the petition of Middlesex was rejected; the election of
Luttrell was confirmed. On the day of the confirmation the King
prorogued Parliament in a foolish speech in which he seemed to think
that he had gained a victory. But if the King and the Ministry
believed or hoped that in expelling Wilkes from Parliament they had got
rid of Wilkes for good and all; if they believed or hoped that in thus
degrading Wilkes they would deprive him of his popularity with the
people or even diminish that popularity, they were speedily to be
undeceived and bitterly disappointed. Both King and ministers knew
their business very badly; with limitations of intelligence which would
have been disastrous to the conduct of a small shop, they came in this
instance, as in other instances, within measurable distance of wrecking
a royalty. It is probable