's
ministers, and proved themselves corrupt, it was necessary for their
lordships to step forward and oppose themselves, on the one hand, to the
justly incensed and intemperate rage of the people, and, on the other
to the criminal and malignant conduct of his majesty's ministers:
their lordships were the constitutional barrier between the extremes
of liberty and prerogative. The house was excited, but the motion was
negatived by a large majority. On the ministerial side, the Earl of
March-mont then moved, "That any resolution of the lords directly or
indirectly impeaching a judgment of the house of commons, in a matter
where their jurisdiction is competent final, and conclusive, would be a
violation of the constitutional right of the commons, tend-, ing to make
a breach between the two houses of parliament, and leading to general
confusion." In his speech, the Earl lost his temper and his discretion,
imprudently hinting that if the opposition went one step further it
would be necessary to call in the aid of Foreign assistance. He was
called to order by the Duke of Richmond, and when he attempted to
explain, he found himself unable, and Lord Mansfield was compelled
to relieve him, by declaring as a lawyer and a statesman, that their
lordships had no right to interfere in any determination of the commons.
The Earl of Egmont pursued the same course, and declared that the people
were guilty of treason in offering such petitions as they had recently
offered to his majesty. The Earl of Chatham again rose, and after
thanking Lord Egmont in an ironical strain for his lenity in allowing
the petitioners to wear their heads, he defended the petitions as
praiseworthy and constitutional, and re-asserted that the house of
lords had a right to interfere, when either an invasion of the people's
liberty was attempted, or an unconstitutional determination made. This
was in reply to the statement of Lord Mansfield, and he then praised the
abilities of that nobleman at the expense of his honour, honesty, and
patriotism. Chatham next complained of the ministerial motion, and
of the late hour--for it was midnight--at which it had been made.
He proposed an adjournment for two days. "If," he exclaimed, "the
constitution must be wounded, let it not receive its mortal stab at
this dark hour, when honest men are asleep in their beds, and when only
felons and assassins are seeking for prey." Ministers, however, seem to
have acted upon the well-know