people and the colonies. Not satisfied with the number of
their enemies, they now proceeded to quarrel openly with the
king. In 1765 the first signs of the illness, to which George
afterwards fell a victim, appeared; and as soon as he
recovered he proposed, with wonderful firmness, that a Regency
Bill should be brought in, limiting the king's choice of a
Regent to the members of the Royal Family. The Ministers,
however, in alarm at the prospect of a new Bute Ministry,
persuaded the king that there was no hope of the Princess's
name being accepted, and that it had better be left out of the
Bill. The king unwisely consented to this unparalleled insult
on his parent, apparently through lack of consideration.
Parliament, however, insisted on inserting the Princess's name
by a large majority, and thus exposed the trick of his
Ministers. This the king never forgave. They had been for some
time obnoxious to him, and now he determined to get rid of
them. With this view he induced the Duke of Cumberland to make
overtures to Chatham [Pitt, not yet titled], offering almost
any terms." But no arrangement was practicable, and the king
was left quite at the mercy of the Ministers be detested. "He
was obliged to consent to dismiss Bute and all Bute's
following. He was obliged to promise that he would use no
underhand influence for the future. Life, in fact, became a
burden to him under George Grenville's domination, and he
determined to dismiss him, even at the cost of accepting the
Whig Houses, whom he had pledged himself never to employ
again. Pitt and Temple still proving obdurate, Cumberland
opened negotiations with the Rockingham Whigs, and the
Grenville Ministry was at an end [July, 1765]. ... The new
Ministry was composed as follows: Rockingham became First Lord
of the Treasury; Dowdeswell, Chancellor of the Exchequer;
Newcastle, Privy Seal; Northington, Lord Chancellor. ...
{931}
Their leader Rockingham was a man of sound sense, but no power
of language or government. ... He was totally free from any
suspicion of corruption. In fact there was more honesty than
talent in the Ministry altogether. ... The back-bone of the
party was removed by the refusal of Pitt to co-operate. Burke
was undoubtedly the ablest man among them, but his time was
not yet come. Such a Ministry, it was recognized even by its
own members, could not last long. However, it had come in to
effect certain necessary legislation, and it certainly so far
accomplished the end of its being. It repealed the Stamp Act
[see UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1766], which had caused
so much indignation among the Americans; and at the same time
passed a law securing the dependence of the colonies. ... The
king, however, made no secret of his hostility to his
Ministers. ... The conduct of Pitt in refusing to join them
was a decided mistake, and more. He was really at one with
them on most points. Most of their acts were in accordance
with his views. But he was determined not to join a purely
party Ministry, though he could have done so practically on
whatever terms he pleased. In 1766, however, he consented to
form a coalition, in which were included men of the most
opposite views--'King's Friends,' Rockingham Whigs, and the
few personal followers of Pitt. Rockingham refused to take any
office, and retired to the more congenial occupation of
following the hounds. The nominal Prime Minister of this
Cabinet was the Duke of Grafton, for Pitt refused the
leadership, and retired to the House of Lords as Lord Chatham.
Charles Townshend became Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Lord
North, the leader of the 'King's Friends,' was Pay-master. The
Ministry included Shelburne, Barré, Conway, Northington,
Barrington, Camden, Granby--all men of the most opposite
views. ... This second Ministry of Pitt was a mistake from the
very first. He lost all his popularity by taking a peerage.
... As a peer and Lord Privy Seal he found himself in an
uncongenial atmosphere. ... His name, too, had lost a great
deal of its power abroad. 'Pitt' had, indeed, been a word to
conjure with; but there were no associations of defeat and
humiliation connected with the name of 'Chatham.' ... There
were other difficulties, however, as well. His arrogance had
increased, and it was so much intensified by irritating gout,
that it became almost impossible to serve with him. His
disease later almost approached madness. ... The Ministry
drifted helplessly about at the mercy of each wind and wave of
opinion like a water-logged ship; and it was only the utter want
of union among the Opposition which prevented its sinking
entirely. As it was, they contrived to renew the breach with
America, which had been almost entirely healed by Rockingham's
repeal of the Stamp Act. Charles Townshend, the Chancellor of
the Exchequer, was by far the ablest man left in the Cabinet,
and he rapidly assumed the most prominent position. He had
always been in favour of taxing America. He now brought
forward a plan for raising a revenue from tea, glass, and
paper [see UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1766-1767, and
1767-1768], by way of import duty at the American ports. ...
This wild measure was followed shortly by the death of its
author, in September; and then the weakness of the Ministry
became so obvious that, as Chatham still continued incapable,
some fresh reinforcement was absolutely necessary. A coalition
was effected with the Bloomsbury Gang; and, in consequence, Lords
Gower, Weymouth, and Sandwich joined the Ministry. Lord
Northington and General Conway retired. North succeeded
Townshend at the Exchequer. Lord Hillsborough became the first
Secretary of State for the Colonies, thus raising the number
of Secretaries to three. This Ministry was probably the worst
that had governed England since the days of the Cabal; and the
short period of its existence was marked by a succession of
arbitrary and foolish acts. On every important question that
it had to deal with, it pursued a course diametrically opposed
to Chatham's views; and yet with singular irony his nominal
connection with it was not severed for some time"--that is,
not until the following year, 1768.
_B. C. Skottowe,
Our Hanoverian Kings,
pages 234-239._
ALSO IN:
_The Grenville Papers,
volumes 3-4._
_C. W. Dilke,
Papers of a Critic,
volume 2._
_E. Lodge,
Portraits,
volume 8, chapter 2._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1767-1769.
The first war with Hyder Ali, of Mysore.
See INDIA: A. D. 1767-1769.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1768-1770.
The quartering of troops in Boston and Its ill consequences.
See BOSTON: A. D. 1768; and 1770.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1768-1774.
John Wilkes and the King and Parliament again.
The Middlesex elections.
In March, 1768, Wilkes, though outlawed by the court, returned
to London from Paris and solicited a pardon from the king; but
his petition was unnoticed. Parliament being then dissolved
and writs issued for a new election, he offered himself as a
candidate to represent the City of London. "He polled 1,247
votes, but was unsuccessful. On the day following this
decision he issued an address to the freeholders of Middlesex.
The election took place at Brentford, on the 28th of March. At
the close of the poll the numbers were--Mr. Wilkes, 1,292; Mr.
Cooke, 827; Sir W. B. Proctor, 807. This was a victory which
astonished the public and terrified the ministry. The mob was
in ecstasies. The citizens of London were compelled to
illuminate their houses and to shout for 'Wilkes and liberty.'
It was the earnest desire of the ministry to pardon the man whom
they had persecuted, but the king remained inexorable. ... A
month after the election he wrote to Lord North: 'Though
relying entirely on your attachment to my person as well as in
your hatred of any lawless proceeding, yet I think it highly
expedient to apprise you that the expulsion of Mr. Wilkes
appears to be very essential, and must be effected.' What the
sovereign counselled was duly accomplished. Before his
expulsion, Wilkes was a prisoner in the King's Bench. Having
surrendered, it was determined that his outlawry was informal;
consequently it was reversed, and sentence was passed for the
offences whereof he had been convicted. He was fined £1,000,
and imprisoned for twenty-two months. On his way to prison he
was rescued by the mob; but as soon as he could escape out of
the hands of his boisterous friends he went and gave himself
into the custody of the Marshal of the King's Bench.
Parliament met on the 10th of April, and it was thought that
he would be released in order to take his seat. A dense
multitude assembled before the prison, but, balked in its
purpose of escorting the popular favourite to the House,
became furious, and commenced a riot.
{932}
Soldiers were at hand prepared for this outbreak. They fired,
wounding and slaughtering several persons; among others, they
butchered a young man whom they found in a neighbouring house,
and who was mistaken for a rioter they had pursued. At the
inquest the jury brought in a verdict of wilful murder against
the magistrate who ordered the firing, and the soldier who did
the deed. The magistrate was tried and acquitted. The soldier
was dismissed the service, but received in compensation, as a
reward for his services, a pension of one shilling a day. A
general order sent from the War Office by Lord Barrington
conveyed his Majesty's express thanks to the troops employed,
assuring them 'that every possible regard shall be shown to
them; their zeal and good behaviour on this occasion deserve
it; and in case any disagreeable circumstance should happen in
the execution of their duty, they shall have every defence and
protection that the law can authorise and this office can
give.' This approbation of what the troops had done was the
necessary supplement to a despatch from Lord Weymouth sent
before the riot, and intimating that force was to be used
without scruple. Wilkes commented on both documents. His
observations on the latter drew a complaint from Lord Weymouth
of breach of privilege. This was made an additional pretext
for his expulsion from the House of Commons. Ten days
afterwards he was re-elected, his opponent receiving five
votes only. On the following day the House resolved 'that John
Wilkes, Esquire, having been in this session of Parliament
expelled this House, was and is incapable of being elected a
member to serve in this present Parliament'; and his election
was declared void. Again the freeholders of Middlesex returned
him, and the House re-affirmed the above resolution. At
another election he was opposed by Colonel Luttrell, a Court
tool, when he polled 1,143 votes against 296 cast for
Luttrell. It was declared, however, that the latter had been
elected. Now began a struggle between the country, which had
been outraged in the persons of the Middlesex electors, and a
subservient majority in the House of Commons that did not
hesitate to become instrumental in gratifying the personal
resentment of a revengeful and obstinate king. The cry of
'Wilkes and liberty' was raised in quarters where the very
name of the popular idol had been proscribed. It was evident
that not the law only had been violated in his person, but
that the Constitution itself had sustained a deadly wound.
Wilkes was overwhelmed with substantial marks of sympathy. In
the course of a few weeks £20,000 were subscribed to pay his
debts. He could boast, too, that the courts of law had at
length done what was right between him and one of the
Secretaries of State who had signed the General Warrant, the
other having been removed by death beyond the reach of
justice. Lord Halifax was sentenced to pay £4,000 damages.
These damages, and the costs of the proceedings, were defrayed
out of the public purse. Lord North admitted that the outlay had
exceeded £100,000. Thus the nation was doubly insulted by the
ministers, who first violated the law, and then paid the costs
of the proceedings out of the national taxes. On the 17th of
April, 1770, Wilkes left the prison, to be elected in rapid
succession to the offices--then much sought after, because
held in high honour--of Alderman, Sheriff, and Lord Mayor of
London. In 1774 he was permitted to take his seat as Member
for Middlesex. After several failures, he succeeded in getting
the resolutions of his incapacity to sit in the House formally
expunged from its journals. He was elected Chamberlain of the
City in 1779, and filled that lucrative and responsible post
till his death, in 1797, at the age of seventy. Although the
latter portion of his career as Member of Parliament has
generally been considered a blank, yet it was marked by
several incidents worthy of attention. He was a consistent and
energetic opponent of the war with America."
_W. F. Rae,
John Wilkes
(Fortnightly Review, September, 1868, volume 10)._
ALSO IN:
_W. F. Rae,
Wilkes, Sheridan, Fox,
part 1._
_G. O. Trevelyan,
Early History of Charles James Fox,
chapters 5-6, and 8._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1769-1772.
The Letters of Junius.
"One of the newspapers in London at this period was the
'Public Advertiser,' printed and directed by Mr. Henry Sampson
Woodfall. His politics were those of the Opposition of the
day; and he readily received any contributions of a like
tendency from unknown correspondents. Among others was a
writer whose letters beginning at the latest in April, 1767,
continued frequent through that and the ensuing year. It was
the pleasure of this writer to assume a great variety of
signatures in his communications, as Mnemon, Atticus, and
Brutus. It does not appear, however, that these letters
(excepting only some with the signature of Lucius which were
published in the autumn of 1768) attracted the public
attention to any unusual extent, though by no means wanting in
ability, or still less in acrimony. ... Such was the state of
these publications, not much rising in interest above the
common level of many such at other times, when on the 21st of
January 1769 there came forth another letter from the same
hand with the novel signature of Junius. It did not differ
greatly from its predecessors either in superior merit or
superior moderation; it contained, on the contrary, a fierce
and indiscriminate attack on most men in high places,
including the Commander-in-Chief, Lord Granby. But, unlike its
predecessors, it roused to controversy a well-known and
respectable opponent. Sir William Draper, General in the army
and Knight of the Bath, undertook to meet and parry the blows
which it had aimed at his Noble friend. In an evil hour for
himself he sent to the Public Advertiser a letter subscribed
with his own name, and defending the character and conduct of
Lord Granby. An answer from Junius soon appeared, urging anew
his original charge, and adding some thrusts at Sir William
himself on the sale of a regiment, and on the nonpayment of
the Manilla ransom. Wincing at the blow, Sir William more than
once replied; more than once did the keen pen of Junius lay
him prostrate in the dust. The discomfiture of poor Sir
William was indeed complete. Even his most partial friends
could not deny that so far as wit and eloquence were concerned
the man in the mask had far, very far, the better in the
controversy. ... These victories over a man of rank and
station such as Draper's gave importance to the name of
Junius. Henceforth letters with that signature were eagerly
expected by the public, and carefully prepared by the author.
{933}
He did not indeed altogether cease to write under other names;
sometimes especially adopting the part of a bystander, and the
signature of Philo-Junius; but it was as Junius that his main
and most elaborate attacks were made. Nor was it long before
he swooped at far higher game than Sir William. First came a
series of most bitter pasquinades against the Duke of Grafton.
Dr. Blackstone was then assailed for the unpopular vote which
he gave in the case of Wilkes. In September was published a
false and malignant attack upon the Duke of Bedford,--an
attack, however, of which the sting is felt by his descendants
to this day. In December the acme of audacity was reached by
the celebrated letter to the King. All this while conjecture
was busy as to the secret author. Names of well-known
statesmen or well-known writers--Burke or Dunning, Boyd or
Dyer, George Sackville or Gerard Hamilton--flew from mouth to
mouth. Such guesses were for the most part made at mere
hap-hazard, and destitute of any plausible ground.
Nevertheless the stir and talk which they created added not a
little to the natural effects of the writer's wit and
eloquence. 'The most important secret of our times!' cries
Wilkes. Junius himself took care to enhance his own importance
by arrogant, nay even impious, boasts of it. In one letter of
August 1771 he goes so far as to declare that 'the Bible and
Junius will be read when the commentaries of the Jesuits are
forgotten!' Mystery, as I have said, was one ingredient to the
popularity of Junius. Another not less efficacious was
supplied by persecution. In the course of 1770 Mr. Woodfall
was indicted for publishing, and Mr. Almon with several others
for reprinting, the letter from Junius to the King. The
verdict in Woodfall's case was: Guilty of printing and
publishing only. It led to repeated discussions and to
ulterior proceedings. But in the temper of the public at that
period such measures could end only in virtual defeat to the
Government, in augmented reputation to the libeller. During
the years 1770 and 1771 the letters of Junius were continued
with little abatement of spirit. He renewed invectives against
the Duke of Grafton; he began them against Lord Mansfield, who
had presided at the trials of the printers; he plunged into
the full tide of City politics; and he engaged in a keen
controversy with the Rev. John Horne, afterwards Horne Tooke.
The whole series of letters from January 1769, when it
commences, until January 1772, when it terminates, amounts to
69, including those with the signature of Philo-Junius, those
of Sir William Draper, and those of Mr. Horne. ... Besides the
letters which Junius designed for the press, there were many
others which he wrote and sent to various persons, intending
them for those persons only. Two addressed to Lord Chatham
appear in Lord Chatham's correspondence. Three addressed to
Mr. George Grenville have until now remained in manuscript
among the papers at Wotton, or Stowe; all three were written
in the same year, 1768, and the two first signed with the same
initial C. Several others addressed to Wilkes were first made
known through the son of Mr. Woodfall. But the most important
of all, perhaps, are the private notes addressed to Mr.
Woodfall himself. Of these there are upwards of sixty, signed
in general with the letter C.; some only a few lines in
length; but many of great value towards deciding the question
of authorship. It seems that the packets containing the
letters of Junius for Mr. Woodfall or the Public Advertiser
were sometimes brought to the office-door, and thrown in, by
an unknown gentleman, probably Junius himself; more commonly
they were conveyed by a porter or other messenger hired in the
streets. When some communication from Mr. Woodfall in reply
was deemed desirable, Junius directed it to be addressed to
him under some feigned name, and to be left till called for at
the bar of some coffee-house. ... It may be doubted whether
Junius had any confidant or trusted friend. ... When
dedicating his collected letters to the English people, he
declares: 'I am the sole depository of my own secret, and it
shall perish with me.'"
_Lord Mahon (Earl Stanhope),
History of England, 1713-1783,
chapter 47 (v. 5)._
The following list of fifty-one names of persons to whom the
letters of Junius have been attributed at different times by
different writers is given in Cushing's "Initials and
Pseudonyms":
James Adair, M. P.;
Captain Allen;
Lieutenant-Colonel Isaac Barre, M. P.;
William Henry Cavendish Bentinck;
Mr. Bickerton;
Hugh M'Aulay Boyd;
Edmund Burke;
William Burke;
John Butler, Bishop of Hereford;
Lord Camden;
John Lewis De Lolme;
John Dunning, afterwards Lord Ashburton;
Samuel Dyer;
Henry Flood;
Sir Philip Francis;
George III.;
Edward Gibbon;
Richard Glover;
Henry Grattan;
William Greatrakes;
George Grenville;
James Grenville;
William Gerard Hamilton;
James Hollis;
Thomas Hollis;
Sir George Jackson;
Sir William Jones;
John Kent;
Major-General Charles Lee;
Charles Lloyd;
Thomas Lyttleton;
Laughlin Maclean;
Rev. Edmund Marshall;
Thomas Paine;
William Pitt, Earl of Chatham;
the Duke of Portland;
Thomas Pownall;
Lieutenant-Colonel Sir Robert Rich;
John Roberts;
Rev. Philip Rosenhagen;
George, Viscount Sackville;
the Earl of Shelburne;
Philip Dormer Stanhope, Earl of Chesterfield;
Richard Suett;
Earl Temple;
John Horne Tooke;
Horace Walpole;
Alexander Wedderburn, Lord Loughborough;
John Wilkes;
James Wilmot, D. D.;
Daniel Wray.
ALSO IN:
_G. W. Cooke,
History of Party,
volume 3, chapter 6._
_C. W. Dilke,
Papers of a Critic,
volume 2._
_Lord Macaulay,
Warren Hastings
(Essays, volume 5)._
_A. Bisset,
Short History of the English Parliament,
chapter 7._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1770.
Fall of the Grafton Ministry.
Beginning of the administration of Lord North.
"The incompetency of the ministry was ... becoming obvious. In
the first place it was divided within itself. The Prime
Minister, with the Chancellor and some others, were remnants
of the Chatham ministry and admirers of Chatham's policy. The
rest of the Cabinet were either men who represented Bedford's
party, or members of that class whose views are sufficiently
explained by their name, 'the King's friends.' Grafton, fonder
of hunting and the turf than of politics, had by his indolence
suffered himself to fall under the influence of the last-named
party, and unconstitutional action had been the result which
had brought discontent in England to the verge of open
outbreak. Hillsborough, under the same influence, was hurrying
along the road which led to the loss of America. On this point
the Prime Minister had found himself in a minority in his own
Cabinet.
{934}
France too, under Choiseul, in alliance with Spain, was
beginning to think of revenge for the losses of the Seven
Years' War. A crisis was evidently approaching, and the
Opposition began to close their ranks. Chatham, yielding again
to the necessities of party, made a public profession of
friendship with Temple and George Grenville; and though there
was no cordial connection, there was external alliance between
the brothers and the old Whigs under Rockingham. In the first
session of 1770 the storm broke. Notwithstanding the state of
public affairs, the chief topic of the King's speech was the
murrain among 'horned beasts,'--a speech not of a king, but,
said Junius, of 'a ruined grazier.' Chatham at once moved an
amendment when the address in answer to this speech was
proposed. He deplored the want of all European alliances, the
fruit of our desertion of our allies at the Peace of Paris; he
blamed the conduct of the ministry with regard to America,
which, he thought, needed much gentle handling, inveighed
strongly against the action of the Lower House in the case of
Wilkes, and ended by moving that that action should at once be
taken into consideration. At the sound of their old leader's
voice his followers in the Cabinet could no longer be silent.
Camden declared he had been a most unwilling party to the
persecution of Wilkes, and though retaining the Seals attacked
and voted against the ministry. In the Lower House, Granby,
one of the most popular men in England, followed the same
course. James Grenville and Dunning, the Solicitor-General,
also resigned. Chatham's motion was lost but was followed up
by Rockingham, who asked for a night to consider the state of
the nation. ... Grafton thus found himself in no state to meet
the Opposition, and in his heart still admiring Chatham, and
much disliking business, he suddenly and unexpectedly gave in
his resignation the very day fixed for Rockingham's motion.
The Opposition seemed to have everything in their own hands,
but there was no real cordiality between the two sections. ...
The King with much quickness and decision, took advantage of
this disunion. To him it was of paramount importance to retain
his friends in office, and to avoid a new Parliament elected
in the present excited state of the nation. There was only one
of the late ministry capable of assuming the position of Prime
Minister. This was Lord North, Chancellor of the Exchequer,
and to him the King immediately and successfully applied, so
that while the different sections of the Opposition were still
unable to decide on any united action they were astonished to
find the old ministry reconstituted and their opportunity
gone. The new Prime Minister ... had great capacity for
business and administration, and much sound sense; he was a
first-rate debater, and gifted with a wonderful sweetness of
temper, which enabled him to listen unmoved, or even to sleep,
during the most violent attacks upon himself, and to turn
aside the bitterest invectives with a happy joke. With his
accession to the Premiership the unstable character of the
Government ceased. Resting on the King, making himself no more
than an instrument of the King's will, and thus commanding the
support of all royal influence from whatever source derived,
North was able to bid defiance to all enemies, till the ill
effects of such a system of government, and of the King's
policy, became so evident that the clamour for a really
responsible minister grew too loud to be disregarded. Thus is
closed the great constitutional struggle of the early part of
the reign--the struggle of the King, supported by the
unrepresented masses, and the more liberal and independent of
those who were represented, against the domination of the
House of Commons. It was an attempt to break those trammels
which, under the guise of liberty, the upper classes, the
great lords and landed aristocracy, had succeeded after the
Revolution in laying on both Crown and people. In that
struggle the King had been victorious. But he did not
recognize the alliance which had enabled him to succeed. He
did not understand that the people had other objects much
beyond his own."
_J. F. Bright,
History of England,
period 3, pages 1057-1060._
ALSO IN:
_Correspondence of George III. with Lord North,
volume 1._
_W. Massey,
History of England: Reign of George III.,
chapters 10-13 (volume 1)._
_J. Adolphus,
History of England: Reign of George III.,
chapter 17 (volume 1)._
_E. Burke,
Thoughts on the Present Discontents
(Works, volume 1)._
ENGLAND: A. D. 1770-1773.
Repeal of the Townshend duties, except on tea.
The tea-ships and the Boston Tea-party.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1770,
and 1772-1773; and BOSTON: A. D. 1773.
ENGLAND: A. D. 1771.
Last contention of Parliament against the Press.
Freedom of reporting secured.
"The session of 1771 commenced with a new quarrel between the
House of Commons and the country. The standing order for the
exclusion of strangers, which had long existed (and which
still exists), was seldom enforced, except when it was thought
desirable that a question should be debated with closed doors.
It was now attempted, by means of this order, to prevent the
publication of the debates and proceedings of the House. It
had long been the practice of the newspapers, and other
periodical journals, to publish the debates of Parliament,
under various thin disguises, and with more or less fulness
and accuracy, from speeches furnished at length by the
speakers themselves, to loose and meagre notes of more or less
authenticity. One of the most attractive features of the
'Gentleman's Magazine,' a monthly publication of
respectability, which has survived to the present day, was an
article which purported to be a report of the debates in
Parliament. This report was, for nearly three years, prepared
by Dr. Johnson, who never attended the galleries himself, and
derived his information from persons who could seldom give him
more than the names of the speakers, and the side which each
of them took in the debate. The speeches were, therefore, the
composition of Johnson himself; and some of the most admired
oratory of the period was avowedly the product of his genius.
Attempts were made from time to time, both within and without
the walls of Parliament, to abolish, or at least to modify,
the standing order for the exclusion of strangers, by means of
which the license of reporting had been restricted; for there was
no order of either House specifically prohibiting the
publication of its debates. But such proposals had always been
resisted by the leaders of parties, who thought that the
privilege was one which might be evaded, but could not safely
be formally relinquished. The practice of reporting,
therefore, was tolerated on the understanding, that a decent
disguise should be observed; and that no publication of the
proceedings of Parliament should take place during the
session.
{935}
There can be little doubt, however, that the public journals
would have gone on, with the tacit connivance of the
parliamentary chiefs, until they had practically established a
right of reporting regularly the proceedings of both Houses,
had not the presumptuous folly of inferior members provoked a
conflict with the press upon this ground of privilege, and, in
the result, driven Parliament reluctantly to yield what they
would otherwise have quietly conceded. It was Colonel Onslow,
member for Guildford, who rudely agitated a question which
wiser men had been content to leave unvexed; and by his rash
meddling, precipitated the very result which he thought he
could prevent. He complained that the proceedings of the House
had been inaccurately reported; and that the newspapers had
even presumed to reflect on the public conduct of honourable
members."
_William Massey,
History of England,
volume 2, chapter 15._