Douglas Peerage Claim.--Andrew Stuart.--Trial of Macquirk
and Balf.--Discussions concerning Wilkes Resolutions on
America.--Wilkes appears before the House of Commons.--Censure
on him passed.--His Expulsion carried.--Republican Party in
England.--Grenville’s _State of the Nation_.--Burke’s Reply.
1769.
On the 2nd of January Wilkes was chosen alderman of the ward of
Farringdon Without. Bromwich, a merchant of paper for furniture, stood
against him, but soon gave up the contest, Wilkes polling thirteen
out of fifteen hundred; and thence the latter became a magistrate of
the Metropolis, while yet a criminal of State, and a prisoner! At the
same time the outrageous abuse, for which he had been sentenced, was
continued in _North Britons_ (though no longer written by him), and in
other public papers. Even the constables of the City were, almost to a
man, devoted to Wilkes.
On the 13th, at a ballot at the East India House, the agreement with
the Government was rejected by 248 proprietors against 207.
The next day two of the rioters at Brentford, on the side of the
Court, were tried at the Old Bailey, and convicted of the murder of
George Clarke; but their counsel, urging that there was a flaw in the
indictment, judgment was stayed till the point could be argued, when
that plea was overruled, and the criminals were ordered for execution
on the 17th, the King not daring to interfere with a pardon.
The 16th, the House of Lords meeting after the adjournment, Wilkes’s
writs of error were argued before them by his counsel, Glynn and
Davenport; on the side of the Crown by the Attorney-General De Grey and
Thurloe--Dunning, the Solicitor-General, not choosing to act, as he had
been so much employed in behalf of Wilkes. Wilmot, Lord Chief Justice
of the Common Pleas, in the name of the other judges, (Lord Mansfield,
and the judges of the King’s Bench, not being present as parties,) gave
a full opinion against Wilkes, and the verdicts were confirmed without
one peer saying a syllable against them, but suffering themselves to be
directed by the judges.
About this time was heard decisively the great cause between the Houses
of Douglas and Hamilton, by appeal to the Lords,--a cause as singular
and as ambiguous as perhaps ever came before a court of judicature. The
last Duke of Douglas,[167] a kind of lunatic, had at various periods
made different wills; at first in favour of the Hamiltons, the nearest
males of his race; but latterly he had substituted as his heir the son
of his sister, who having offended him by marrying a poor, elderly
gentleman,[168] had retired to France, and there, though herself past
fifty, had been, or pretended to have been, delivered of two boys,[169]
of whom one only survived. A cloud of circumstances concurred to make
the Hamiltons suspect that both children were supposititious, and
purchased of different peasants. The Duchess of Douglas, a woman of
bold and masculine spirit, and herself a Douglas, who had artfully
procured to get married to the Duke after the death of his sister, whom
she had never seen, espoused the cause of Lady Jane’s children, and
prevailed on the Duke, in his last days, to restore the inheritance
to his rejected nephew. The widow Duchess of Hamilton, one of the
beautiful Gunnings, and of a spirit equally proud and pertinacious,
though of the most delicate frame and form and outward softness,
as obstinately defended the cause of her sons, particularly of the
youngest, who had been named the former heir; and being incited by one
Andrew Stuart, a very able young man, and one of the trustees of her
children, she, at immense expense to the Duke, her son, had pursued the
disquisition into the births of Lady Jane’s children; and, by the books
of the police at Paris, had, at the distance of near twenty years, and
by the industry of Stuart, collected such a mass of circumstantial
evidence, that it seemed to many men to prove that Lady Jane had never
been with child, nor ever resided long enough in one place to give even
an air of probability that she had lain in; to which should be added,
that Lady Jane could never fix on any consistent account of the person
in whose house, or of the house in which she had been delivered, and
in which she allowed she had not staid above three or four days. Much
proof appeared of Lady Jane’s art and hypocrisy: on the other side,
little or none that she had acted like a mother, having neglected the
younger child entirely for a year;[170] and the survivor proving to
have all probable appearance of a swarthy French peasant,[171] and
no ways resembling his pretended parents, who were fair and sandy,
like most Scots. The Duke, Lady Jane’s brother, had, till near his
death, been persuaded of the imposture; and the cause coming before
the Lords of Session in Scotland, had, after the fullest discussion,
been determined in favour of the Hamiltons. Mankind grew wonderfully
divided in their opinions, when the cause was now brought before the
English Peers. Though the cheat, if one, had its foundation, and almost
its detection, in France, the French inclined to the legitimacy of
the children; so did the generality in Scotland: and, above all, the
compassion excited in favour of infants avowed by both parents, though,
in truth, very equivocally by Lady Jane on her deathbed, carried the
current in favour of young Douglas. He was not less eagerly patronised
by the Duke and Duchess of Queensberry: the Duke was his guardian; and
the Duchess, no less celebrated formerly by Prior, Pope, and Swift,
than the Duchess of Hamilton, in the times of which I write, was
still more singular and persevering than the two other dames of the
same rank,--circumstances that contributed powerfully to attract the
attention of the public. Much perjury appeared on both sides--certain
proof on neither; the want of which decided the suit, at last, in
favour of the compassionate part of the question.
After a hearing of many and long days, with an attendance scarce
ever known there on a cause, the House of Lords reversed the decree
in favour of the Hamiltons, and restored the Douglas.[172] The Lord
Advocate Montgomery spoke for thirteen hours in three days, and with
applause. Mr. Charles Yorke was the least admired. The Duchess Douglas
thought she had retained him; but hearing he was gone over to the
other side, sent for him, and questioned him home. He could not deny
that he had engaged himself for the House of Hamilton--“Then, sir,”
said she, “_in the next world whose will you be, for we have all had
you_?” Mr. Alexander Wedderburne (for the Hamiltons, too,) spoke with
greater applause than was almost ever known. Dunning, on the same
side, and Norton for the Douglas, made no great figure. The Duke of
Bedford, Lord Sandwich, and Lord Gower,[173] were the most zealous for
the Hamiltons. Lord Mansfield, it had long been discovered, favoured
the Douglas; but the Chancellor Camden, with dignity and decency, had
concealed his opinion to the very day of the decision. The debate was
opened by the Duke of Newcastle, and very poorly. He was answered
by Lord Sandwich, who spoke for three hours with much humour, and
scandalised the bishops, having, with his usual industry, studied even
the midwifery of the case, which he retailed with very little decency.
The Chancellor then rose, and with becoming authority and infinite
applause, told the Lords that he must now declare, that he thought the
whole plea of the Hamiltons a tissue of perjury, woven by Mr. Andrew
Stuart; and that were he sitting as judge in any other court, he would
order the jury to find for Mr. Douglas; and that what that jury ought
to do on their oaths, their Lordships ought to do on their honours.
He then went through the heads of the whole case, and without notes
recapitulated even the dates of so involved a story; adding, that he
was sorry to bear hard on Mr. Stuart, but justice obliged him. This
speech, in which it was allowed he outshone Lord Mansfield, had the
most decisive effect. The latter, with still more personal severity to
Stuart, spoke till he fainted with the heat and fatigue; and, at ten at
night, the decree was reversed without a division,[174]--a sentence, I
think, conformable to equity, as the child was owned by both parents,
and the imposture not absolutely proved; yet, in my opinion, not
awarded in favour of truth--a declaration I should not be so arrogant
as to make, if many very able men were not as much persuaded as I am
of the child being supposititious. Nor was the cause terminated at
last without a duel between Andrew Stuart and Thurloe, who had poured
out torrents of abuse on his antagonist in the course of the pleadings;
but no mischief was done. This curious trial was set forth by each
party in such ample volumes, that it is unnecessary to give a larger
detail of it here; but a few concomitant and subsequent circumstances
require a place.
The Duke of Bedford, the Earls of Sandwich, Bristol, and Dunmore, and
Lord Milton, protested against the decision in favour of Mr. Douglas,
for that he was not proved to be the son of Lady Jane, and for that
they thought it had been proved that he was not so. The next morning
Mr. Andrew Stuart found on his table a bond for four hundred pounds
a-year for his life, a present from Mr. Johnstone Pulteney,[175] his
friend, in consideration of the cruel treatment he had met with. When
the news arrived at Edinburgh that the Douglas had carried his cause,
the mob rose and almost killed the President of the Session who
had been against him. They broke into Holyrood House, plundered the
apartments of the Hamiltons, and made it dangerous for their friends to
remain in the town. The sedition lasted two days, nor was put an end
to but by the guards. Mr. Andrew Stuart, some considerable time after,
printed and gave away a tract on the case, and more particularly in
his own defence against Lord Mansfield. It was a prodigy of abilities,
reasoning, and severity, yet observing a show of tenderness and decorum
that did not abate the edge of the satire.[176] Some circumstances too,
corroborating the question he supported, had abated since the trial;
and at last the principal evidence for the Douglas was convicted of
perjury in another cause in France.[177] Lord Mansfield, agreeably
to his cowardice and implacable character, answered the book only
by preventing Stuart from being sent to India in a very lucrative
employment.
Another trial intervened and divided the notice of the public--at
least, of the people. Macquirk and Balf, the persons condemned for
murder at the election at Brentford, were Irish chairmen, and had
notoriously been hired with other mob on the side of the Court
candidate. When they were pronounced guilty, the populace gave a
shout--a shocking indecency, very properly reproved by the Recorder.
Execution was decreed on the 17th. However, on the eve of their
appointed fate, the Ministers took courage and reprieved them _pro
tempore_, on these considerations--one Allen, the prosecutor, finding
himself in the midst of the adverse mob at Brentford, had been
protected and his life saved by Macquirk. Allen thence carried Macquirk
to an ale-house, and there the ungrateful villain wormed out of his
benefactor many circumstances that proved Macquirk had been engaged
in the riot, though he had not struck the deceased. The wretch was
so heated by party, that he turned informer against Macquirk, though
when condemned, Allen did intercede in his favour, but the Judge told
him he had made that intercession vain. Macquirk behaved with great
decency, only desiring three or four days to prepare for death. Balf,
though dipped in the riot, had clearly had no hand in the murder, yet
was found guilty of constructive murder, which induced the Court to
recommend him to mercy.
The glaring cruelty of putting two men to death, who had neither
committed the deed nor meditated it, made such an impression on Mr.
Boyle Walsingham[178], a seaman and man of quality, that though warm
in party, his good nature was revolted, and on the 20th he declared
in the House of Commons that he wished to see the chairmen pardoned,
and though he knew not in what manner it might be proper to apply for
mercy, he should be happy to see it extended to those unfortunate men.
Sir William Meredith, a man remarkably averse to punishments that
reached the lives of criminals, joined in the same humane sentiments.
Lord North said it would not be necessary to make a motion, for he was
persuaded his Majesty would be ready to grant his pardon the moment he
should know it was the sense of the House of Commons. This application
coming from two gentlemen of fair characters, and both in Opposition,
was very fortunate for the Court, who were embarrassed how to act, the
people being savagely inflamed against the chairmen, and instigated
by a virulent _North Briton_ to clamour for the execution: but in the
House of Commons there was not a dissenting voice against pardon;
and the criminals were accordingly respited during pleasure, the
Ministers fearing that entire pardon at once would but more enrage the
populace.[179]
In the mean time the Court of Aldermen having discovered that the
election of Wilkes into their body had been irregular by the poll
being closed on the withdrawing of Bromwich without making the proper
notification, the election was declared void. Wilkes, in strong terms
advertised his protest against the vacating his election, and exhorted
the citizens to oppose that step. The electors at Westminster also
instructed their members to support his right of election for the
county of Middlesex, and enjoined them never to cease endeavouring
to obtain redress of the illegal measures pursued against him,
and vindicating the rights of the people who had chosen him their
representative. Martin, a banker of a very fair character,[180] who
had voted against him at all the late elections, was so shocked at the
resolution of the House of Commons,--which, though having voted that
writing and publishing a libel was not within the case of privilege,
had yet gone farther than even that vote of their own, and had censured
Wilkes, who had only republished the _North Briton_, and had not been
_proved_ to have written it,--that he moved a new resolution, that
Wilkes did not come within the description of that resolution, which
seemed to make both writing and publishing necessary; and which being
very penal, ought to be interpreted in the mildest sense. This Lord
North opposed; and even George Grenville voted against Martin’s
motion, which, if just, would seem to make the House trifle in its
resolution. Much was said for and against Wilkes. Colonel Lutterel
was particularly severe on him, and both Lord Granby and Conway voted
against the motion, which towards eight o’clock was rejected by above
one hundred and sixty to seventy-one.
Conway was in one of his difficult situations. A Council had been held
during the holidays on Wilkes, in which it was determined to bring
on his affair. Rigby the next day prevailed to have that resolution
changed without acquainting Conway; and then the Bedford faction
told the King there was no acting with Conway, who always in the
House adhered to his own opinion, and would not acquiesce in what was
determined in Council. This, which was often true, was false now; but
Lord Ligonier was dying, and the Bedfords wished to procure the Blues
for Lord Waldegrave. The Duke of Grafton, however, told them that the
Blues were engaged to Conway; yet the Duke and the King too complained
to Lord Hertford of his brother’s impracticability. Conway justified
himself to the King on the falsehood of the present charge, at the same
time avowing his own delicacies. The King received his declaration but
coolly. Lord Hertford (I believe by his Majesty’s order) spoke to me
on his brother’s future behaviour on Wilkes, fearing he would ruin
himself should he oppose Wilkes’s expulsion. I told him, as was true,
that I had avoided talking to Mr. Conway on that subject, as I would
neither take upon me to advise Mr. Conway again to the prejudice of
his fortune, nor on the other hand would counsel him to counteract his
former behaviour. Indeed, I saw great confusion arising. The House of
Commons acted without justice or decency: the other party were no less
violent, and were setting up juries against the judges. The latter were
generally inculpable; and though juries ought to be still more sacred,
yet in the hands of a Middlesex jury at that time, no man’s life was
safe. Integrity could not attach itself to either party. Captain
Walsingham, Martin the banker, and Sir William Meredith, were proofs
on different sides that conscientious men condemned the excesses of
their own parties. Though the Court relaxed nothing of its animosity to
Wilkes, yet it had received too many mortifications not to be cautious
how it ventured on any farther strides of power. Still, I would not
make my court by trying to influence Mr. Conway to countenance their
plans; nor, though I began to fear the consequences of Wilkes’s
unprincipled rashness and despair, would I suffer any interested motive
to fix the balance of my opinions.
On the 25th the resolutions on America were considered in the House of
Commons. Beckford offered a petition from persons calling themselves a
majority of the Assembly of Boston, praying a repeal of the late taxes;
but that Assembly being dissolved, Lord North objected to the reception
of their petition;[181] yet, as petitioning the Parliament was the most
decent and desirable mode of compromising the heats, many wished to
accept it, and Dyson proposed words to qualify that acceptance. Lord
North, after some irresolution, yielded, and the farther consideration
of the resolutions was postponed to the next day, when they passed by
a great majority.[182] Colonel Barré, in the debate, drew ridiculous
portraits of the several Ministers.
On the 27th Wilkes was once more chosen Alderman of Farringdon Ward,
without opposition. The same day he was carried before the House
of Commons, attended by a great concourse of people, who, however,
by his order soon dispersed, or behaved with singular decency. His
committees too, who had regimented the mobs of London and Westminster,
conducted them with composure and regularity. Lord Barrington moved
that Wilkes might be confined to speak only to the two allegations of
his complaint,--the alteration of the writ, and the subornation of
witnesses. The Opposition objected to the restrictions, and combated
them till ten at night. Serjeant Glynn pleaded for Wilkes, and spoke
with a clearness, argument, decency, and propriety, that was applauded
by both sides; and though attacked by Norton and the Attorney-General,
who called him _Wilkes’s representative_,[183] he defended himself
with a modesty that conciliated much favour. The debate turned chiefly
on general warrants and libels: George Grenville defended the former,
and himself, and the Lords Egremont and Halifax:--on the latter, to
pay his court, he said that libels against Ministers were not to be
regarded, but against the King were serious. Dyson, as usual, was
shrewd, and, as usual, ill-treated by the Opposition; Colonel Barré,
the day before, having baptized him by the name of _Mungo_, a black
slave in a new farce called “The Padlock,” who is described as employed
by everybody in all jobs and servile offices. Burke ridiculed the
Ministers as he had done the day before with greater applause; and
Barré, repeating his attacks, was called to order by Rigby, whom he
had described as a jolly, eating, drinking fellow, who finding himself
now in a comfortable situation, seldom spoke. Being provoked at the
interruption, Barré rejoined surlily, “The gentleman denies being a
Minister, and calls me to order; but I have not done with him yet.
Whether Minister or not, he lies in a bed[184] to himself; I do not
envy him, nor would I have his principles to lie in his bed.” This
unpleasant attack thunderstruck Rigby, who coloured, and not choosing
to have the last sentence explained, made no reply. The House then
divided, and the restrictions were carried by 278 to 131, Grenville
and his friends being in the majority, as were Lord Granby, Sir Edward
Hawke, and Conway.[185]
Wilkes was then called in, seemed abashed, and behaved with great
respect to the House. He demanded to be admitted and to take the
oaths as a member, which after some debate was refused on his being a
prisoner. His counsel were then called in, and were informed that they
must confine themselves to the two points of his allegation; but it
being then near midnight, the House adjourned to the 31st. The next
day Conway told me, he and Lord Granby had agreed to stay away on the
expulsion: having declared against violent measures, they would not
concur in it; and disapproving Wilkes’s attacks on the Government, they
would not defend him.
Wilkes appeared again before the House on the 31st. He complained that
his character had been aspersed in the printed votes, which accused
him of blasphemy, though he had not been convicted of it; and demanded
reparation. The case was this:--some time before, when the House, at
the motion of Lord Clare, had sent for the roll of his conviction on
the _North Briton_ and “Essay on Woman,” it appeared that the clerk
had forgotten to endorse them; on which he had been ordered to endorse
them as they ought to have been; on which he wrote there the titles
of _seditious libel_ and _blasphemy_. Dyson, who adjusted the votes
for the Speaker, had (probably by design) inserted these titles in
the votes. When Martin the banker had lately moved to admit Wilkes,
and the House had refused on account of his condemnation for those
libels, they were going to renew those words; but Beckford objecting
to the word _blasphemy_, the House had acquiesced, and intituled
the piece _a profane and impious libel_. Norton now endeavoured to
prove that he had been convicted of _blasphemy_, because it being in
the charge, and he being brought in guilty of the premises, Norton
inferred that he was convicted of it; but Serjeant Glynn showed that
in all indictments charges are ridiculously exaggerated, and though a
man may be brought in guilty of a crime, half the articles of a charge
are never attempted to be proved. Sir George Saville and Sir Joseph
Mawbey stiffly maintained the same argument. Lord North, Dyson, and the
Ministerial party as obstinately supported the contrary ground, till
General Conway showed the injustice of the tenet, and that it was at
most _constructive blasphemy_; on which Sir George Saville joining him,
and the House applauding, Dyson was forced to insert other palliating
words--a great point gained to Wilkes, to have gotten rid of the actual
condemnation for blasphemy. He then proceeded on his defence, and
brought Curry, a printer, to prove the manner in which the “Essay on
Woman” had been stolen from Wilkes by the means of Carteret Webbe, who
had sent Curry to Carrington the messenger to be paid for the theft.
Curry showed and owned himself an infamous rogue; and having first
sold Wilkes, was now in his pay. Men were shocked at the treachery
used towards Wilkes, and thence he again gained ground. The two Earls
were then brought before the House. Wilkes only asked Lord Sandwich
(the projector of the plot) if he knew of Curry being bribed by the
Ministry, and being promised a place? The Earl answered, that he had
promised him all proper protection, but had nothing to do with the
disposition of public money. Lord March said, Kidgell had shown him the
fragment of the Essay on Woman, and he had advised him to complain of
it; but had never seen Carteret Webbe till within the last four days.
Webbe, now blind, sat there at the bar, and was grievously abused by
Davenport, Wilkes’s counsel. At two in the morning the House adjourned
the farther consideration till the next day.[186]
Amongst these notorious personages, notice must be taken of Sir
Fletcher Norton. He had been purchased for this business (for even
his attachment to Lord Mansfield and the Court were not sufficient to
secure his zeal, though the cause was so bad) by the place of Chief
Justice in eyre and a pension of 3000_l._ a-year. It was stipulated
that Norton should quit the law, and be chief manager in the House of
Commons: but no sooner was the bargain struck and the pension secured,
than Norton, not caring to give up 7000_l._ a-year, which he got by his
profession, pleaded that he could not _in honour_ abandon his clients.
His next _point of honour_ was trying to prove by construction that
Wilkes had been condemned of more than he had been condemned. Another
acquisition to the Court was Sir Laurence Dundas, the rich commissary,
a friend of Grenville, and now seduced from him by Rigby, another late
friend of Grenville. Dundas commanded the votes of nine members. He
demanded a peerage for himself, having acquired above eight hundred
thousand pounds in less than four years of the late war--so far fairly
that he had executed the commission on cheaper terms than anyone else
had offered. He was, besides, nobly generous; yet it would have been
gross indeed to have raised him to the peerage on no other foundation
than the money he had gained from the public. It was known too, that
Prince Ferdinand had been on the point of hanging him on part of his
contract not being furnished so soon as he had engaged it should
be.[187]
Carteret Webbe’s counsel was then heard in his defence, and to
move compassion, pleaded before his face that he was decayed both
in eyesight and understanding. Wilkes’s counsel replied. Dr.
Blackstone[188] then moved a long, obscure question, setting forth
that Wilkes’s complaint against Lord Mansfield was frivolous and
trifling; and as the Courts below had pronounced that alteration
of writs was not unusual, the charge was scandalous, as tending to
calumniate the Chief Justice, and lessen the respect of the people for
the law and the judges. He was seconded by a young Mr. Payne,[189] who
spoke for the first time with much applause, though his language was
wonderfully verbose. He was connected with Lord Mansfield, and as his
speech was interlarded with law anecdotes, the person in whose behalf
it was uttered was supposed to have assisted in the composition. Payne
was a good figure and possessed himself well, having been accustomed
to act plays in a private set; but his usual dialect being as turgid
as Othello’s when he recounts his conquest of Desdemona, he became
the jest of his companions and the surfeit of the House of Commons.
Serjeant Glynn showed the injustice of the motion, for as it was
clear and allowed that the writ had been altered, had not the prisoner
a right to plead that alteration in his own defence? Norton and the
Crown lawyers were warm on the other side; on which Barré called them
the heavy artillery of the Court; or rather, said he, they resemble
the elephants in Eastern armies, which fall back upon and put their
own troops in confusion. The Ministers maintained their point till
very late at night, though the House gave many signs of disgust at the
violence of their proceedings. At last George Grenville, with attention
to Lord Mansfield, and yet disapproving the question, wished some
middle and temperate method could be hit upon. The House loudly agreed
with him, but Lord North and Norton stuck firm, and the latter declared
he would divide the House, though he should be alone. The Ministerial
party then cried out as loudly on that side; till Conway rose, and
taking notice that a minute before everybody had roared for moderation,
and now were again for violence, proposed that, instead of harsh words,
they should correct the motion, and say, that the alteration of writs
not being unprecedented, the charge against Lord Mansfield should be
declared groundless. Grenville approved this, and even Norton, and that
amendment was accepted without a division. Thurlow then, at past one
in the morning, moved that Wilkes had not made out his charge against
Webbe, (though a letter had been produced from him to Curry and three
other printers, bidding them take care to be uniform in their evidence,
and though Curry had been subsisted at the expense of the Government,)
and that the charge was frivolous and groundless. If these last words,
he said, were disputed, the debate must be adjourned to another day.
The Opposition, weakly or fatigued, objected only to the latter words,
and offered to acquiesce in the former part of the vote, if the censure
was promised to be omitted; with which Thurlow complied, and then
carried the rest of his motion.[190]
On the 2nd, Wilkes was again heard; owned his preface to Lord
Weymouth’s letter, said he gloried in it, and only wished he had
made it stronger. The Attorney-General moved to vote that preface
a scandalous and seditious libel, tending to subvert all order and
government. Sir George Saville moved the previous question. Grenville,
and even Dr. Blackstone, opposed the Attorney’s motion, as Wilkes ought
to be tried for a libel at common law, and not by the Houses of Lords
and Commons. Dyson reminded Grenville that he himself had brought a
message from the King against Wilkes’s _North Briton_; was it a greater
violation of the privileges of the House of Commons to receive a
message from the House of Lords than from the Crown? Grey Cooper[191]
spoke well against mobs; Burke warmly against the Lords extorting
evidence, and usurping powers. He called Lord Weymouth’s letter _a
bloody scroll_, and dwelt much on the word _effectual_ in the orders
to the soldiers. Rigby asked if it would have been wise to order the
soldiers to do their duty ineffectually? At past two in the morning the
House divided; the courtiers were 239, the minority 135, Grenville and
his friends, who were not above ten, being in the latter number. The
House then agreed with the Lords and passed the censure.[192]
Soon after the division happened a singular event. Some hours before,
Humphrey Cotes[193] sent for Sir William Meredith out of the House,
and told him Mr. Allen wanted to speak with him. Sir William said he
did not know him, and went back. This Allen, who had been in the army,
had been deservedly abused in the House by Sir William for persecuting
the condemned chairmen, one of whom had saved his life. Sir William
afterwards going to the House, had been met by Allen, who demanded
satisfaction. Sir William said he did not know him; if he had injured
him he would give him satisfaction next morning, but would not occasion
a disturbance then. Captain Walsingham Boyle (who had been concerned
with Sir William in saving the chairmen) hearing of this altercation,
complained to the House of the violation of their privileges by Allen’s
taking notice of what had passed in the House. This occasioned a heat
and debate, which lasted till half an hour after four in the morning,
when Allen was ordered into custody, and to be brought to the bar the
next day with Humphrey Cotes.
Allen absconded for some hours, but surrendered himself in the morning.
He was a handsome young fellow, and had stolen a marriage with an
idiot sister of the Spanish Charles Townshend; but he had such a
savage thirst of blood, that he had been broken by a court-martial at
Belleisle, for having forged and sent challenges to six officers in
the names of others. Cotes was not called upon by the House, but Allen
was carried to their bar, where he denied the charge,--both he and
Cotes having been so cautious as not to tell Meredith that the occasion
of the challenge was words spoken in the House: yet Sir William and
Captain Walsingham had heard, for three days, that Allen was lurking
about, and intended to challenge one of them. The House being satisfied
of the charge, and with the behaviour of the two members, committed
Allen to Newgate.
The same evening, Lord Barrington moved for the expulsion of Wilkes,
for the three libels--of the _North Briton_, the Essay on Woman, and
the Preface to Lord Weymouth’s Letter. The House sat again till three
in the morning, when the expulsion was voted by 219 to 137. Grenville
spoke against it as an accumulative charge, not one of the crimes alone
being sufficient to deserve that punishment. Burke spoke admirably on
the same side. Lord Granby and Sir Edward Hawke, who had declared so
strongly against it, both voted for the expulsion. Conway kept away.
Serjeant Glynn gained great fame by the candour of his conduct on the
whole proceeding; owning, that as counsel for Wilkes, he had maintained
points which he would not assert in the House. Wilkes himself made a
very indifferent figure, showing neither parts nor quickness in his
speeches or examination of the witnesses.[194] The same day, Earl
Cornwallis[195] kissed hands as Vice-Treasurer of Ireland, to make
room for Norton to be Justice in Eyre. This worthless man, though
disposed to the Court, as I have said, and originally employed in the
prosecution of Wilkes, would not support his own principles--at least,
his own inclinations--without this immoderate bribe. The Crown, though
possessed of so much power by the disposition of honours, offices, and
pensions, was sunk to the lowest contempt, and reduced to purchase
every man whose vote or service it wanted, and thus was surrounded
by none almost but those who had insulted and forced it to buy them.
If, on the contrary, the King had tried by good and popular measures
to secure the affections of the people, he might have maintained the
balance against the parliamentary chiefs: but, having lost the hearts
of the nation, his sole resource was the prostitution of honours and
money to those who were most obnoxious to himself and the people.
Wilkes was no sooner expelled, than he again presented himself as
candidate for the county of Middlesex, and in the _North Briton_,
published a very bold address to the freeholders, in which, under the
title of _the Administration_, he severely lashed the House of Commons.
There was at this time an avowed, though very small republican party,
the chiefs of which were Mrs. Macaulay, the historian, her brother
Sawbridge, his brother-in-law, Stephenson, a rich merchant,[196]
and Thomas Hollis, a gentleman of strict honour and good fortune, a
virtuoso, and so bigoted to his principles, that, though a humane and
good man, he would scarce converse with any man who did not entirely
agree with his opinions. He had no parts, but spent large sums in
publishing prints and editions of all the heroes and works on his own
side of the question: but he was formed to adorn a pure republic, not
to shine in a depraved monarchy.[197]
On the 10th, Mr. Seymour[198] moved a question, that condemnation for
accumulated libels should not be made a precedent. Lord North proposed
to alter the word _accumulated_ into _many_, which being adopted, and
the favourers of the motion then abandoning it, it was thrown out.[199]
The same day the liverymen of London met, and drew up instructions to
their members against the proceedings of the House of Commons. Alderman
Beckford attended that meeting, and told them, he should think it his
duty to obey his constituents, even in points against his opinion; and
whereas they enjoined an attempt for triennial Parliaments, he wished
they were to be annual. He declared too that he never would accept
place or pension.
At the India House the Ministers were now successful, and prevailed
by 290 voices against 250, to obtain the Company’s agreement to pay
to the public 410,000_l._ annually, for five years, out of their
newly-acquired territories.
Allen might have had his liberty, but refusing to ask pardon of Sir
William Meredith, as the House enjoined, was continued in Newgate.
Mr. Grenville, though dipped with them in opposition, had never
forgiven Lord Rockingham and his friends for succeeding him in power,
and for repealing the Stamp Act, nor had ceased pelting them in
pamphlets. Just before the Parliament met, he had written, or assisted
in writing, a tract called _the State of the Nation_, in which they had
been bitterly treated.[200] Hoping union with him, at least, willing
to act with him in opposition, they had borne all former provocations.
They now at last replied, in a large quarto called _Observations on
the State of the Nation_. It was drawn up by Edmund Burke, and did
more honour to his talents as a writer than as a politician. The book
solidly confuted Grenville, exposed him, and exploded his pretensions
to skill in finance; but then it made all approach to him impossible,
notwithstanding Lord Temple’s endeavours to unite them. It almost as
explicitly abjured Lord Bute,--a step the party two years after tried
as injudiciously to recover, when it was too late. If the work did
honour to the author and to his party’s principles, yet it showed that
that party was composed of impracticable men; and, what was worse
for their cause, it declared inviolable attachment to the Marquis of
Rockingham, a weak, childish, and ignorant man, by no means fit for the
head of Administration. Burke had far more shining abilities than solid
conduct, and, being dazzled by his own wit and eloquence, expected that
those talents would have the same effect on others. His ambition built
airy castles, and would not attend to those parts of policy that make
no immediate show. One quotation in his book was singularly happy, and
in one line drew the portrait of Grenville,--_Vixque tenet lachrymas
quia nil lachrymabile cernit_. It was, in truth, Grenville’s character
to weep over woes that he wished to exterminate by rigour.[201]