this speech, which i’ve read a bit quicker than the last one, centers on the expulsion of the speaking member (mr wilkes) from parliament a decade or so previously, and his barring from parliament from then til recently despite his continually being returned by the electorate of his district.
with the midterm elections approaching, and with certain elements, at least, within this generally criminal administration being almost certainly willing to do whatever they can to prevent the opposition from gaining a majority, this seemed rather relevant to the present day. (i’m not choosing these readings — they’re all in a row, from “modern british eloquence.” any particular relevance to current happenings is therefore entirely fortuitous.
one qualm, which i forgot to discuss at the end: wilkes lists several reasons that could legitimately bar someone from serving in parliament — one is having been found guilty in due course of law of an abuse of the public trust, and another is being a “lunatick,” giving one a “natural incapacity.” today, of course, we see the potential for a loophole here: if rather than having him arrested for sedition, the government had declared him a “lunatick” for being seditious — who in their right mind would be? — then they could have accomplished exactly the same end. thoughts?
next week will feature Edmund Burke’s ON CONCILIATION WITH AMERICA.
