Church Preferments.--Meeting of Parliament.--Conway’s Speech.--Lord
Chatham’s Legacy from Sir William Pynsent.--Speeches on Dismissal of
Officers.--Duel between Mr. Chaworth and Lord Byron.--Renewal of
the Question of General Warrants.
The primacy of Ireland being vacant, Mr. Grenville was desirous
of procuring that dignity for Dr. Newton, Bishop of Bristol; but
he declining it, Lord Granby solicited Grenville’s interest for
Dr. Ewer,[38] who had been his tutor, and Grenville intended to
bestow that mitre on him. In the meantime it was known that Lord
Northumberland espoused Robinson, Bishop of Kildare, and sought to
make him Archbishop. This was immediately considered as a contest
for power between the Favourite and the nominal Minister,--for that
Grenville was only _nominal_ Minister, appeared by Robinson’s obtaining
the Archbishoprick; though when Grenville found he could not obtain
it for Ewer, he had maliciously and artfully instigated the Duke of
Bedford to solicit for Bishop Carmichael,[39] who being a Scot, his
promotion would have struck mankind as the act of Lord Bute, more than
the appointment of Robinson, whom he really supported. The intrigues
of the late Primate had been so noxious and troublesome to the English
Government, that it was determined no future Archbishops of Armagh
should be Lords Justices, or have any power in the Administration. The
new Primate, a proud but superficial man, had not talents to recover
the credit enjoyed by his predecessors.[40]
January 10th,--the Parliament met. The King notified to the two Houses
the intended marriage of his youngest sister, the Princess Caroline
Matilda, with the Prince Royal of Denmark, her first cousin. Princess
Louisa, her eldest sister, was so remarkably small of her age, that,
though she lived three years after this, she never appeared but as an
unhealthy child of thirteen or fourteen years of age. Lord Townshend
and Lord Bottetort moved the address of the Lords; Lord Warkworth and
T. Pitt, of the Commons. An accidental debate happening in the latter
House, General Conway, to the surprise of everybody, and particularly
of me, who had with astonishment beheld his tranquillity, broke out
on his own dismission, and attacked George Grenville with a fire,
eloquence, and rapidity of passion and bitterness, that showed both
how much he had resented and how much he had concealed. Very warm
words passed between them; great applause was given to Conway by the
Opposition; and the Ministers felt that the vengeance they had exerted
began to lose something of its sweetness. They had infused a spirit
into Conway with which all his friends would in vain have endeavoured
to inspire him.
On the 15th, the King sent another message to both Houses, referring
to their consideration an offer made by France to pay 670,000_l._,
in three years, for our maintenance of their prisoners, instead of
1,100,000_l._, which had been settled, but with no specification of
time, by the late peace. This offer was accepted on a subsequent day.
About the same time happened the following extraordinary event. Sir
William Pynsent, a baronet of Somersetshire, died and left his whole
fortune to Mr. Pitt, no ways related, nor personally known to him.
Nor, as it appeared, was this great legacy so much the reward of
his illustrious services as of his opposition to General Warrants.
Sir William Pynsent, at his death, was aged 86, had formerly served
in Parliament, and had voted against the Treaty of Utrecht; his
principles being zealously and unalterably Whig. He was said to have
had parts and humour.[41] * * * * * * Lord North had married his next
relation[42]--had courted him, and stood fair to be his heir;[43]
till, having voted for the tax on cyder, Sir William, who had long
lived retired upon his estate, had not only quarrelled with his cousin
North, but had encouraged the mob to burn him in effigy. He then became
enamoured of Mr. Pitt; is said to have cast some inconstant glances
towards Wilkes, and, immediately before his death, had indubitably
given orders to his lawyer, to draw a new will entirely in favour of
General Conway; but it was not prepared in time. Mr. Pitt, therefore,
found himself in possession of real and personal estates worth above
forty thousand pounds, without the regret of losing a friend; without
the imputation of having flattered his benefactor, for he had never
seen him; without injuring a family, for Sir William had no very near
relation,[44] and not one that expected his fortune; and with the
satisfaction of owing such a public mark of esteem to his own virtue or
merits.
On the 18th a meeting of the Opposition was held at Sir George
Saville’s, to consult whether they should bring on, or defer for
some time longer, a renewal of the question on General Warrants. The
doubt was raised by the ill health of Mr. Pitt. James Grenville and a
nephew of Lord Chief Justice Pratt, who attended the meeting, would
not say that Mr. Pitt desired the motion should be deferred. The
company squabbled till two in the morning, and then agreed to adjourn
the measure. Sir William Meredith wrote to acquaint George Grenville
with this procrastination--a ridiculous piece of candour, and received
properly by Grenville, who made no answer. These assemblies I seldom or
never attended; they were childish imitations of Parliaments, rarely
produced any good, and only taught a party to quarrel and split into
_less_ factions. Many who cannot utter in the House of Commons can
prattle in a private room. Business can never be reduced to too few
heads. There should, in party as well as in Government, be one man who
should consult others separately, and act as he finds best from the
result of that advice, and of his own judgment: but he should let the
rest know as little as possible that they are almost all probably of
different opinions.
On the 21st, Dowdeswell proposed to reduce the sixteen thousand seamen
to eleven thousand, but without effect. On the contrary, Charles
Townshend spoke for the larger number in warm terms, and declared
he had always approved the peace. This desertion did not surprise
me: nor was it owing solely to his fickleness. He was now influenced
by Lord George Sackville, who, dissatisfied with Lord Bute for not
supporting him, had joined the Opposition: Oppositions are always great
whitewashers. But the declining state of the Opposition, by deaths and
other causes which I have mentioned, had alarmed Lord George, and he
began to look towards Grenville, who would want all manner of strength
to support himself against the Favourite.
On Jan. 23rd, the day of voting the army for the year, there happened
a very spirited debate.[45] Beckford began it, by declaring that if
any man would second him, he would oppose so large a number as 16,000
men, because we were in no danger of being attacked by surprise;
and because he apprehended there was an intention of modelling the
army, which he concluded from the dismission of General Conway. He
mentioned, too, an expression dropped by Charles Townshend, which he
said had made his ears tingle; it was that the _Colonies were not to be
emancipated_. The Colonies, said Beckford, are more free than Ireland,
for America had not been conquered: on the contrary, it was inhabited
by the conquerors. Townshend ridiculed Beckford’s alarm, affirming he
had only meant that the Colonies were not to be emancipated from their
dependence on the supremacy of this country. Beckford told him he had
expressed a single idea by a multitude of circumlocutions, and was
troubled with a _diarrhœa of words_--an expression with which Townshend
was much hurt.
Nicholson Calvert and George Onslow opened on the dismission of Conway
in very strong terms. The former said, Grenville[46] had avowed it was
for parliamentary conduct when he owned he had thought himself turned
out for a similar cause. Onslow called the Ministers profligate and
abandoned; and Lord Strange attempting to defend them, was so roughly
handled on his own tergiversations by Onslow, Sir George Saville, and
Thomas Townshend, that he who was wont to be all spirit, quickness, and
fire, was quite abashed, and showed at least the sensibility of virtue.
Thomas Townshend went farther, mentioned a list of sixteen officers,
carried into the closet for dismission by Lord Sandwich: and seeing
the latter sitting under the gallery, he turned towards him, and said
he would tell that Minister to his face in any private company, that he
was a profligate Minister. Onslow added, that they had been so cowardly
as to wait for the end of the session, and skulk behind the recess.
Rigby said the Opponents had quoted all the reigns to the last, but
had stopped short there, and had not mentioned Sir Robert Walpole, who
had said it must be a pitiful Minister that would not dare to turn out
a man that voted against him. For himself, he said he did not believe
the question of Mr. Conway’s dismission would be brought on; which Lord
John Cavendish assured him it would be.
Lord Harry Poulet[47] told Grenville that he would be ashamed to
show his face, if he could be ashamed of anything, if his uncle Lord
Cobham[48] could rise from the dead--Grenville stopped him, and said
if his Lordship had a mind to use such language, he knew where to find
him.--Others interposing to reconcile them, Grenville acknowledged he
had thrown out a challenge; but at last explained it away, and the
matter ended. Ellis indiscreetly affirmed that the army was necessary
to support the civil magistrate. Beckford replied, that at the late
riot on burning the North Briton, the magistrates of the City had
secured one of the rioters without military force.
Grenville entered into a long discussion of the Crown’s prerogative
of dismission; and confounded civil and military officers, without
making the necessary distinction, that the latter lose a profession.
He himself, he said, had not inquired formerly why he was turned out.
Should he be turned out _to-morrow_, he would not inquire, _though
if he did his duty and was approved by his country, he should think
it extraordinary_. This sentence, seemingly incoherent with, nay,
contradictory to, the rest of his speech, was, no doubt, levelled at
Lord Bute, and dictated by the uneasiness of Grenville’s situation,
then not generally known. He proceeded to say on the dismissed officers
that some might think one meritorious, some another; others might see
cause of blame. This invidious hint called up General Conway, who with
exceeding warmth and spirit made one of his most admired speeches. He
had asked, he said, for a court-martial, that, if anything had been
thought defective in his conduct, he might be questioned on it. The
refusal had proved that his dismission had flowed from no military
offence. Even in the days of Charles II. the Lords Clarendon and
Southampton had, though requested by the King to forbear, spoken
against his measures, and yet had not been dismissed.[49] The
situation of officers was grievous; called on by conscience and by
honour, they were chastised if not obedient. Another profession was
more fortunate; Bishops were made for life; and, indeed, were piously
obsequious; they might be preferred for their behaviour in Parliament,
but could not be dismissed for it. He himself had received intimations
to take care what he did--Grenville started!--yet he should not say
from what quarter; he would not reveal what was not proper; but he
had been bid to take care what he did. He had despised those menaces,
had done his duty, and had been punished. He knew the threats had not
come from the King, who had restored Sir Henry Erskine. He had made,
he said, a declaration that he was attached to no party, yet that
allegiance, it seemed, had not been thought sufficient. He concluded
with strongly exhorting his brother officers not to be made slaves--he
might as well have called on the Bishops.
This debate was doubly mortifying to the Ministers, who were at once
so rudely tasked by the Opposition, and unsupported by every man of
the Favourite’s faction--a tacit method of disavowing them; and an
encouragement to those who might be tempted to oppose them.
On the 26th Mr. Chaworth, a private gentleman of fair character, was
killed at a tavern by Lord Byron in a duel, to which the latter had
been driven by the undisguised contempt with which the former had
treated his want of honour and spirit at a club where they had just
dined together. Lord Byron was formally tried by his Peers,[50] and
escaped punishment, in consideration of the provocation he had received.
On the 29th the question of General Warrants was again renewed in the
House of Commons by Sir William Meredith,[51] more agreeably, indeed,
to principle than to prudence. I had endeavoured to divert the attempt
and had the concurrence of the Lord Chief Justice Pratt’s opinion, we
both apprehending, from the great diminution of our party since the
preceding winter, that, as we should make a much more inconsiderable
figure on a division in Parliament than we had done before on the same
question, the merits of the cause would suffer more from that defeat
than we should gain by reviving the memory of it. Though the event in
the House proved what we had foreseen, we found, however, strength
enough to support a battle till between four and five in the morning.
Sir W. Meredith, with great force and severity, exposed the conduct
of Lord Halifax, who shamefully to that hour (and indeed for some
years afterwards) defeated all prosecutions against him at Wilkes’s
suit, by standing on the privilege of his peerage. If they, said Sir
William, who issued the warrants, had put themselves on the justice
of their country, it would have alleviated their guilt; but _while
the privilege of the House of Commons was given up, the privilege of
the other House had interfered to stop justice_. He then moved that
_General Warrants were not consonant to law or to the liberty of
the subject_; and in a second question, _if against a Member_. Lord
Strafford himself, he said, had issued but one, had pleaded that it was
according to practice, and yet had recalled it. Charles II. had applied
to Parliament for leave to do it by the Licensing Act. Application
had been made in King William’s reign to renew that act, but it was
refused. Some said the illegality was decided by the law; others that
it was not. Some would say that the House of Commons was not to declare
what was law. Who could bring it to an issue? Dryden Leach and other
printers were ruined, and could not carry on the suit! Wilkes expelled,
outlawed, banished, had no longer any interest in the question: the
Secretaries of State did not desire to brine it to any issue; the
House of Commons alone could do it. Sir Edward Coke declared, that,
when courts of law would not decide on a clear question, the House of
Commons ought. Sir Alexander Gilmour added, that not one lawyer, last
year, had defended the legality of General Warrants, but had given
assurances that they would be decided in the Courts below; and yet
that decision had been postponed till Wilkes had been outlawed.
Dr. Hay replied with much and able subtlety; owned that when he was
for putting off the question last year he had meant to reject it; his
party had said that it was not proper for that House to declare on
law; he himself had said those warrants were illegal, unless great
urgency in their favour.[52] He agreed that, by the common law of
the land, those warrants were illegal: nay, he thought the question
ought to be settled by Parliament, not by a resolution of one House
only. Sir William had omitted the words _seditious_ and _treasonable_,
though adopted last year. The House might do what it pleased, but
ought it to do so? Why not make the case general to all cases? Then
this resolution, he heard, was to be followed by another on breach of
privilege; but was every injury to a member a breach of privilege? Was
the House to be an universal judicatory for offences? But the House had
already declared that it has no privilege in the case of seditious and
treasonable libels--a question of law is safe in courts of law; but
Houses of Commons, not being permanent, may vary their resolutions.
One House--both Houses cannot declare laws, though they, with the
King, may enact laws. The question had either been adjudged, or was
pending: both were true. The Court of Common Pleas had decided and
given damages; then he named the Chief Justice Pratt, taking notice
of the strong expression of _an iron rod_, used by that magistrate
on the occasion. All juries say General Warrants are illegal; but at
present the question had been hung up by the bill of exceptions, which
bills are in the nature of appeals--an argument why the House should
not, at that time, make a declaration. If there had been delay, why
was not the offender called on? He had heard that the delay arose
from the prosecutors. If anything was done wrong in the Courts below,
the House alone could redress it. He then, as a correction to the
proposed question, moved the following strange and scarce intelligible
sentence (to load the motion ridiculously, and with intention to
reject afterwards the question so amended), “That in the particular
case of libels, it is proper and necessary to fix, by a vote of this
House only, what ought to be deemed the law in respect of General
Warrants; and for that purpose, at the time when the determination of
the legality of such warrants, in the instance of a most seditious and
treasonable libel, is actually depending before the courts of law;
for this House do declare that a General Warrant for apprehending
the authors, printers, or publishers of a libel, together with their
papers, is not warranted by law, and is a high violation of the liberty
of the subject.”
It was requisite for me to state the words of this proposition and
account for them; for standing as they do on the printed votes without
a comment, what could posterity, or persons ignorant of parliamentary
craft and proceedings, think of them? Would they believe such a
proposition was seriously debated?--yet, as the votes never joke,
could they avoid believing so? The fact, as I have said, was, that the
Ministry, to load Sir William Meredith’s question with absurdity, made
use of their power, as the majority, thus to amend the question, and
forced the opponents to debate it thus hampered, or withdraw it; and
even the latter could not be done without leave of the House, that is
of the majority, who probably would not have granted that permission,
that they might give a negative to the question thus loaded, instead
of rejecting Sir W. Meredith’s plain question, which it would have
been more unpopular to do. By the strict rules of the House they could
even have obliged the debate to be pursued on the question only as
amended; but, content with the certainty of rejecting it in their
own way, they suffered the Opposition to argue on the simple state
of the case, and the debate accordingly proceeded so. Lord Middleton
asked if the Petition of Rights had not come in by declaration? and,
with regard to the charge of delay, he said the plaintiffs could not
afford to go on with the bill of exceptions, and then were accused of
protracting; and, to justify the renewal of the question, he observed
that Lord Coke says, “Many a good proposition had succeeded at last by
being pursued year after year.” Sir W. Meredith said, he had omitted
the word _seditious_, that the question might carry no reference to
Wilkes, being calculated for the general and indefinite good of all.
No epithets ought to be mixed with prosecutions, nor should a man be
liable to be prosecuted as a traitor for having written a libel. No
privilege held against treason; but the House ought not to be deprived
of its members on a false charge of treason. Conway asked if Hay had
been serious in his motion? did he mean his amendment should go out
into the world on so important a question? It would be a mockery
of Parliament. Grenville called him to order; but Conway persisted
and said it would be a shameful proceeding. Wedderburn and the
Solicitor-General again interrupted him; but he was supported by Sir
George Saville and Onslow; and the Speaker declared there was nothing
disorderly in Conway’s words. Dowdeswell said, Dr. Hay had argued on
the whole question, therefore he would; but Lord Frederick Campbell
endeavouring to fix the debate on the question as amended, Charles
Townshend tried to compose the heat that had arisen by recurring to
the subject, and said he hoped no lawyer would assert that juries were
not judges of law as well as of fact. De Grey, Solicitor-General,
said the juries had given the prosecutors exemplary and vindictive
damages, and had been animated by faction. The defendants had pressed
the prosecutors not to delay. Charles Yorke spoke for three-quarters of
an hour on the side of the Opposition; said he would retract if he had
altered his opinion; but found reasons against the warrants growing
all over the kingdom. The warrant had been so _emphatically illegal_,
that it never could be debated in a court of law. It was expedient for
Parliament and for the honour of the Crown, that Parliament should
take the lead in questions of law. The House of Commons had often
carried up resolutions to the other House. This question was connected
with the privileges of the House. Precedents made in good times were
felt in bad. The words of the warrant had been copied from an old
blundering warrant of office, and could never be taken up again. The
Crown should extinguish any jealousy of such a proceeding in future, by
not making difficulties on plain questions. Beckford said, this country
was obliged to Wilkes for the stand he had made. It had been the more
necessary when a Whig Ministry acted on Tory principles, and he quoted
the instance of Minutius, who pleaded that he had written nothing
against the Emperor and _his mother_.
Dyson said, if the House of Commons had a right of declaring law, it
had no occasion to make laws: they might declare to be law whatever
they wished should be so. Lord George Sackville asked if the seizure
of papers would come in question in the Courts below? and said, that,
had they had a mind to impeach the Secretaries of State, they must
previously have come to this declaration.
Norton entered into the defence of Lord Halifax, whose delays, he
said, had not impeded the decision of the great cause. Lord Halifax
had been guilty of a slip; and therefore, against such a prosecutor
as Wilkes, was justifiable. Lord Halifax had availed himself of his
privilege, till Wilkes was outlawed, (and so he did for years after);
the journeymen printers had applied to be bought off. Dryden Leach’s
attorney had come to him (Norton), and said he had heard it was wished
to compromise Leach’s cause; but he (Norton) had refused, but had
offered to bring it to an issue in a week; since then had never heard
of him. Till that very day they had not been able to get the bill of
exceptions sealed. Charles Yorke had said that question had never been
argued; but he (Yorke) had argued it himself. (This Yorke denied.) It
would be a quære whether Lord Halifax, as Secretary of State, was a
Justice of Peace. Had not the most respectable characters, living and
dead, been abused? That sort of libel deserved no quarter.
Colonel Barré said the Inquisition itself did not seize papers for
evidence. Opposition keeps Ministers in order, though many oppose
from faction. About twenty officers had opposed the Court last year
on the question of General Warrants! It was now said, all but one
had repented--if they had, were such officers fit to be employed? He
commended Lord Nuneham[53] and Lord Charles Spencer, who had resisted
the connections and importunities of their families: and then said
ironically, “When the two present honest Secretaries of State[54]
die, the Court may choose one of the most profligate abandoned dogs
in the kingdom to replace him.”--This was levelled at Lord Sandwich,
who was sitting under the gallery. Barré then advised the Ministers
to adopt the question without amending it--why would they do things
too well? Such a man as Sandwich would write a panegyric on Nero. If
this question was suffered to pass, it would make the King beloved and
the Ministers less hated. General Howard,[55] in answer to the attack
above, said, he remained of the same opinion as last year, and had
never paid court nor asked pardon.
Lord North defended his uncle Halifax, on whom he thought Barré had
bestowed the epithet of _little-minded_. Barré said he had applied it
to the Administration in general. He was glad to see Mr. Grenville with
all his friends about him. It had been said in a foregoing debate that
he had carried the whole Administration home in his chariot. He liked
Lord North’s panegyric on one of the Secretaries--if anybody had a mind
to make a panegyric on the other, he was welcome.
Conway again declared his surprise that they would load such a question
with so many words. Why not pass it simply, or put a negative? Was
there ever an instance of such a preface with new matter? On the Star
Chamber and other grievances each resolution stood single. Lord Halifax
might be in the right, but had caused delay. All that we have valuable
stands on resolutions.
Grenville then spoke his usual hour; and immediately after him Sir
George Saville rose to take notice of most obnoxious words that had
fallen from Dr. Hay in the beginning of the debate. I hear, said
Saville, that _the Law of Government is superior to the Law of the
Land_: such words are impeachable. Dr. Hay replied that _the Law of
Government_ meant _the Law of Necessity_. This produced great warmth
and calling to order, till at last Sir George Saville said he was glad
the gentleman did not avow those words. Hay taxing Conway with want of
temper, the latter replied, he believed those who had meant to hurt
him, had hurt themselves more. Onslow offered to produce pamphlet for
pamphlet written by the Administration: and then Hussey very ably and
for fifty minutes discoursed against the arbitrary tenets set up by
the Court and its lawyers; yet still with the candour and decency
peculiar to him. The circumstances inserted in the amendment, he said,
were not true. He doubted if ever the question could be determined in
Westminster Hall. This was the first time that ever a _probable_ cause
was pleaded in behalf of General Warrants. _New doctrines sprung up
every day in Westminster Hall._ A number of points must be determined
before that cause could be decided; as whether a Secretary of State
is a Justice of Peace; whether his messenger is a constable; whether
the reason assigned for the commitment was a probable cause, &c. Great
difficulties, too, there were in contending with the Crown, and against
its influence and its money, &c. He did not believe that the warrants
would come before the Courts below. The predecessors of these Ministers
had always compounded such prosecutions. The Justices in Ireland having
imposed illegal oaths, the House had declared them illegal, but went no
farther; excusing the Justices on the circumstances of the times: it
was in King William’s reign. Lord Palmerston,[56] a young man of sense,
and who spoke then for the first time, declared himself convinced
by Hussey’s arguments. Rigby pronounced Lord Halifax’s intrenching
himself within privilege, justifiable; for who knew what damages might
be given against him?--and so far was true; juries could impose
fines to the vastest amount; and as such fine became the property of
the prosecutor, the Crown itself could not remit it. But what latent
defects, therefore, were discovered by agitating these questions? A
Secretary of State could commit a grievous injustice, and yet could
avoid punishment, if sheltered by the privilege of his peerage. On
the other hand, for a slight imprisonment, a jury, naturally partial
to their equals, especially when oppressed, and as naturally averse
to their superiors, can give damages to the amount of the defendant’s
whole estate, without his being able to obtain redress from any quarter.
At half an hour after four in the morning the Question, as amended,
was rejected by 224 against 185, the Opposition being forced to divide
_for_ the question that had been imposed on them, or they could have
obtained a division on none at all.
A remarkable circumstance in the foregoing debate, but which would
have interrupted the thread of the narration, was that Norton told
the younger Onslow that he should be diverted, for he would treat
Yorke worse than ever he had been treated--and he kept his word, being
willing to lower Yorke, who might be his competitor for the Seals.
Yorke bore this insult with too little spirit, and thence and by his
fluctuating behaviour, and by discovering far less parts than he was
supposed to possess, daily sunk in the estimation of the House.